Originally Posted by Rust_Lord
>>we're seeing big ships that can go toe to toe with ISDs which is insane.
>>it isnt balanced a cheaper mon cal cruiser cna kill a more expensive isd
Cant agree more; EaW is the only star wars game that I know of where the ISD is weaker than a MC. Sure in Rebellion the MC had it over the ISD is some areas but overall the ISD was still better and the ISD II was far superior. In EaW the ISD has less firepower (fires less pulses), has less HPs and has a critical flaw being the shield generator; AND its more expensive. Who cares if the ISD costs 6000, id prefer to see it be the best capital ship available and it seems many others feel the same way. One corvette renders the ISDs fighters useless; an ISD and a tartan against an MC and a corvette will always lose. Speaking of corvettes, they are not very balanced either; the corvette has 8 lasers compared to the tartans 4 and costs only 100 extra; even if the tartan is a little tougher, it will still only last 10 seconds against a cap ship rather than a corvettes 8 seconds (not being literal but you know what i mean).
I was going to post something in this thread, but this pretty much sums it up. Great post, btw.
Imperial Star Destroyers should be better. I don't care about XML, I care about out of the box balance. For gameplay reasons, I'm fine with the Mon Cals having better shielding, and even the advantage of no specific hardpoint. The ISD should however, completely eclipse the Mon Cal in arnament and hull armour. Warship vs converted liner, you do the maths. In ship-to-ship combat, it should be no contest 1-on-1.
As for the Consortium, having powerful large ships is ok, but I think these should be grossly deficient in certain areas, or in limited supply. A full fleet of ISD analogues owned by 1 guy? I know gameplay > realism (fantasy story), but that's stretching it.
Also, I think corvettes in general are too good, but that's another story.