LEC Feedback Topic - The EAW Galaxy

Cain · May 25, 2005

We have all seen that the EAW has acording to official statements 40+ planets. This is great considering that we started with only 20.

The issue of planet numbers has not been settle yet. Acording to our EAW friend and forums supporter Sluggo if we request more planets we must think that for one planet you must battle actually two battles (*Space & ground).

Yes this is true but how many players will keep ships and troops for all the planets ? Players have the tendency to ghater their fleets in massive super strike fleets. So no way you will do battle twice for every planet. We must not forget the auto-calculate option wich is a "must be" in a RTS.

It is clear for me that the gameplay argument must also be more flexible. It is clear to me that we will not have 200 planets like in Rebellion, but I consider like many of you that 80+ should be enough.

40 Planets for small galaxy setting / 60 planets for medium galaxy setting / 80+ planets for hudge galaxy setting.

What I'm sayng 80+ and not 80 ? cause Imperium Galactica II had max 80 planets so 80+ plus is a question of my EAW pride.

If youy support this feedback pls. post - Why, also explain your self - If we ask later for this it will probably be to late. I personaly give a max of two months until the planet numbers will be officialy frozen.

PLS support this topic here also :

http://forums.lucasarts.com/thread.jspa?threadID=44756&tstart=0

Thank you

Seewolf · May 25, 2005

at the moment we only know that we can get new planets trough invasion. Maybe we can get Planet trough Missions like in Repellion (Diplomacy) or trough special Events. I think to an Morale/Loyality System. If i win some Battels as Repel in an system i will get some moral Bonuses at the Planets in the near. If the Peopel see that i will lost every time against the Imperials nobody would join my Repellion. But if i win every would say, look the Repellion is strong they can guard us from the imperials.

Foshjedi2004 · May 26, 2005

So your tring to turn it into rebellion then Seewolf?? Most of the things that you just mentioned were key parts of the Game!!

Seewolf · May 26, 2005

maybe its a littel hard if you want to get all planets.

they will be about 80+ Spacebattels and min 79 Groundbattels

Foshjedi2004 · May 26, 2005

More than that there will be unlimited battles.

Cain · May 27, 2005

If we won the argument at LEC forums - Sluggo may be persuaded and ask Petroglyph for 30 more planets to make the 80+ from 50.

That topic there should never sink and we must prove them that quality and quantity are both required in a good RTS.

It may be possible that in the SW universe "size matters not ..." but here on Earth in marketing it does.

Wonder_man · May 29, 2005

I think 80 planets is a bit too much.I would go for 60+.Why?Because I would get bored.I mean,how many planets will you conquer before you start feeling tired of it?We should have 80+ if people desire but I don't think I could conquer them all before becoming bored

Cain · May 29, 2005

Nobody forces you to play 80 planets you could decide to play 40 , 60 or 80.

Probably the first SP play will be forced on 40 but after that one you will be free to take as many as you wish and I will take 80. - It's the SW galaxy after all not an oversized double solar system.

Ghostly_Substance · May 29, 2005

Some people like more and some like less and some just dont care how many there are. Well why would you get bored of the awsomeness of this game ? The more oyu conquer the more action that'll head your way since the enemy would be desparte.

Wonder_man · May 29, 2005

It depends on how good the A.I. is.If the oponent is stupid and I can raise my fleet quickly and destroy him easily than I wouldn't like to play too much.Of course,for a complete experience a human adversary is better.

Foshjedi2004 · May 29, 2005

I have to agree with you Wonder_man. Rebellion got a bit tiresome. I once managed to win it in under 350 turns. Vader and the Emperor and Coruscant were ripe as the CPU really sucked. From then onwards i played it on the Expert Setting.

Ismael · May 30, 2005

I've noticed that when you play Rebelion on medium galaxy easy settings its actually easier for the AI to be good.

I desire 80 planets in EAW cause I have more stuff to explore and enjoy in SP

Zerogravity · May 30, 2005

and i desire 80+ planets for EAW becuz of the fact the MP games i am in will last twice as long!

Ghostly_Substance · May 30, 2005

having 80+ planets will deliver my exploring needs and also would last longer then Rise of Nations which battle ends in 5-1 hr

Nice Graphics added to the planets and lots of replayability from all the options you can build. First week everybody will suck lol then start braggin like fools they they won

Foshjedi2004 · May 30, 2005

Really Ismael? I never found that. I found that on a more difficult setting in a larger galaxy the Imps always had more ships and troops compared to me. They had a Dozen Capital ships very quickly.

Cain · May 30, 2005

It maybe just be that the AI has less to think about and it gives him more focus. Loll I could consider the rebellion Ai a good Ai but it was never extensivly tested.

Zerogravity · May 30, 2005

well you have to look at how long ago that was, technology has improved alot of that kind of stuff now probably.

Foshjedi2004 · May 31, 2005

_WÃ¶LF_'s right. the Tech now is significantly greater so we can expect a much better Ai (hopefully). We should also be able to expect a much wider variation in troops and Units compared to Rebellion.

Cain · May 31, 2005

We want 80+ planets !

Loll the lead tester at BF II siad that fans wanted jedi so they gived to them We want also 80 + Planets

Foshjedi2004 · May 31, 2005

If it will work for 80+,

I want 200 planets like in Rebellion!

Ghostly_Substance · June 1, 2005

200 planets ? lol we'll get more like 130 planets if we're lucky enough. Just got to keep these topics in official forum up on top.

Joshinator · June 1, 2005

I'm all for 80+ planets!! Once u start going, and a person is familerized with the game after launch, the expereanced player will be able to handle far more. It definatly will make it more playable, and exciting for the expantionist, and the explorer alike. It would also add to the tactic's. Secret bases, secret constrction planets, secret shipyards with fleets being built. Think of all the interesting planet bonus there could be. When ppl first looked at rebellion, all those planets looked like too much. Now i could handle double that number, lol.

Ghostly_Substance · June 1, 2005

Well they might say 30 but we might have 300

Well I like how the scout fires 3-4 lasers at a time instead of 1 laser every 10 seconds like in battlegrounds. Well who knows were this path will lead us.

Cain · June 2, 2005

JediIgor
LEC EAW Forums- Total Posts: 2
Member Since: 09/00 Date Posted: May 28, 2005 03:41 PM

REPLY
EDITED BY JediIgor: May 28, 2005 03:42 PM

I'm not so sure if adding more planets will be a good move myself. It really depends on what kind of gameplay the "strategic galaxy" layer will offer. There are pretty much two choices: something rudimentary like Rise of Nations' "Conquer the World" -- attack with only one fleet per turn, move to adjacent planet.. or something seriously leaning towards Rebellion with real-time gameplay and movement of all fleets/armies at once.

If anyone here has played Rise of Nations I'm sure we can agree that in their case less is better. Because it takes so long to conquer each territory and you can only do one territory per turn and there really isn't much else to do besides hit End Turn and moving a fleet.. more planets would only mean more boredom as you conquer more and more territories. I myself didn't find the "Conquer the World" gameplay that much fun by the way (I beat it twice, but that's it, I stopped playing the game). I still play Rebellion to this day though.

Alternatively if the "strategic gameplay" resembles Rebellion more, then more planets would be a good thing. And I'm not saying "more is better because its more." Instead let me provide a counterexample:

Has anyone played the game Imperial Glory? I thought they had the trading figured out right, and assimilating neutral territories was fun too.. But each territory was huge, and there were only 51 territories for all of Europe. Now let's say half of Europe belongs to one faction, and the other half to another (this happened to me right before I won btw). All you have to do is win the first few border battles and after that you can steamroll through the enemy because the other side doesn't have enough territories to rebuild an army in time to stop the onslaught.

If you think about that in Empire at War, with too few territories there may be a flaw that once one side starts winning (be it single player or multi player) the other won't have time to rebuild because they won't be able to use the large # of planets as a buffer. Winning a few battles and then mopping up the enemy isn't fun! I want to fight down to their last man, I want to win because of my better managing abilities and tactics, not because the last 20% of the planets the enemy has is incapable of producing anything in time to stop my fleets!

You could of course say it will take a lot longer to play the game. However, before saying why that's a good thing, I will say that nothing is stopping Petroglyph from implementing a Small/Medium/Large galaxy setting. Heck, even Civ4 will have 3 options to make the gameplay short/normal/long, and I'm sure Sid Meier knows his stuff. But even if it is long, that's not bad -- it means people will play your game longer, which means they will be exposed to it longer, which means people will have more chance to spread good things about the game word-of-mouth (i.e. I sign on and I say I'm busy, people say why, I'll say I am playing Empire at War and that it's an awesome game... the other people want to try it too), which also means that by the time a sequel comes out people may still remember their good impressions of EaW which means that they'll more likely buy the sequel.

I still play Rebellion. I dabble in Rome: Total War once in a while (I'd play more if there was a campaign multiplayer like in EaW though), but all of the games with small lifespans like Cossacks II, Imperial Glory, Axis & Allies, Rise of Nations.. I don't anymore. They just don't have that "grand" scale. And a game that signifies a whole galaxy embroiled in a galactic civil war should have grand scale.

Foshjedi2004 · June 2, 2005

I have to agree with Jedi Igor on the topic. Rise of Nations got a bit boring after a certain length of time. However i think that bigger will be better. More planets will mean that the game will be longer and there will be a greater ability to do battles.

Sign In

LEC Feedback Topic - The EAW Galaxy

Recommended Posts

Cain

Seewolf

Foshjedi2004

Seewolf

Foshjedi2004

Cain

Wonder_man

Cain

Ghostly_Substance

Wonder_man

Foshjedi2004

Ismael

Zerogravity

Ghostly_Substance

Foshjedi2004

Cain

Zerogravity

Foshjedi2004

Cain

Foshjedi2004

Ghostly_Substance

Joshinator

Ghostly_Substance

Cain

Foshjedi2004

Please sign in to comment

Disclaimer

Network Policies

Footer title

Footer title

Rebellion

Game Editor

Browse

Activity