So why would the Empire want to build a Death Star?

[Teradyn_pff]

Since the tech is not going past ANH (except for a select few for the rebels), we can almost be certain that the Death Star will not be able to target anything but a planet. Why would an Imperial player want to blow up a planet anyway? If they had the resources to build a Death Star in the first place, it is almost safe to say that they could take it over conventionally. At least they certainly could if they didn't build it in the first place.

 

Is there some other benefit to having the Death Star? Does it temporarily boost your popularity in the neighboring systems ala Rebellion? Does it give an aura type bonus to grouped fleets or ground forces? And since we haven't really seen any space stations in the movies like the ones that are going to be in orbit in this game, will the Death Star be supposed to be able to at least target them since they are a relatively big, stationary target (unlike a rebel cap ship)?

 

Just some questions about the feasibility of having the Death Star in the game at all given the level of tech we are talking about. I mean, its primary purpose wasn't tactical in the first place. (although it was a massive support base, lots of fighters, some cap ships, troops, mobile bases, etc. It was more of a dominance thing. Sure you could blow up a planet, but the resources lost doing so would make it counterproductive, especially if we are talking about the kind of backlash that action would produce support-wise with the planets like in Rebellion.

 

Any thoughts?

[The Relentless]

The DS should boost yuor fleet's performance and it shuold weaken the opposition. Be realistic, Petroglyph!

 

Anyway, in EaW you do get resources from destroyed planets (Asteroid fields), but a lot less than from undestroyed planets. So even without the whole moral thing it would still be useful.

 

Using the DS would be much like USA's nuclear bomb tactic against Japan in WW2. If you wouldn't want to risk troops and you'd just want it done quickly, you could use the DS.

[Wiking_pff]

It should act like a capital ship in itself, like in Rebellion. So it would be useful even without other capital ships supporting it.

[Teradyn_pff]

It should act like a capital ship in itself, like in Rebellion. So it would be useful even without other capital ships supporting it.

 

Are you referring to the fighter capacity? Because in Rebellion, the only interaction it had with the enemy fleet was its superlaser. And the rebel fighters had an option on their controls to send a fighter squadron against it if they outnumbered the Imperial fighters. They went offscreen to do the trench run. The Death Star was a bitmap outside the playing area like the planet. There were no shots coming from the surface weapons. And any shots fired against the incomming fighters were aproximated offscreen to determine the success/failure of the trench run attack.

 

As for the asteroid field left after destroying a planet, there will not be a point to getting the reduced resources when you could have taken it over in tact with the conventional weapons you could have afforded instead of the Death Star.

 

The analogy of the WWII A-bombs doesn't work because it was alot cheaper time and resourcewise to use them instead of the island hop. And they didn't destroy an entire planet-worth (or country-worth in the analogy) of resources. The resource argument is right out as far as I am concerned with reguard to the Death Star. This will not be like Rebellion where you have it at the beginning as soon as you get the resources and take the time to build it. You will have to upgrade to it like the superweapons in Generals. The only problem is, using it is like blowing up the max limit gold mine in the middle of the map in Warcraft II or III. Why would you do that? If you can afford to loose those resources, especially after having enought to build the Death Star in the first place, you don't need the Death Star.

 

That is my main problem here. How will there be any benefit to having the Death Star worth its excessive cost and risk (due to the achilles heel)?

[AT-AP]

According to various sources, in addition to being a literal planet destroyer, the DS also acted as a "super-carrier", bringing both land and spacecraft with it when conducting conventional warfare (i.e sieges and invasions).

[Teradyn_pff]

According to various sources, in addition to being a literal planet destroyer, the DS also acted as a "super-carrier", bringing both land and spacecraft with it when conducting conventional warfare (i.e sieges and invasions).

 

Right, but we don't even know if it has any capacity like that. I don't remember seeing anything on the video of them clicking on it and firing to indicate that there was a hangar icon, troop capacity, etc.

 

That is what I am asking about, what does it provide other than the planet killing superweapon? I am speaking of the game, not canon. I know it had alot more capabilities than that in the story but I am asking about how it will be implemented in the game.

 

Maybe there hasn't been a decision yet on what exactly they would implement but check this out: http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ds/rpg.html#rpgds1

 

The size of the station and it's capacity would make it completely overwhelming in game. I think that the troops it could field should be scaled down the same way that the capacity of an ISD would. But that is just me.

[AT-AP]

Oh yeah, in the game? Fudge all that. Planet-destroying all the way, a huge waste of time for a mobile Rebel fleet. ;P

[Teradyn_pff]

But if that is true, doesn't it kind of take a big chunk out of the game for the Empire? The tech to build the Death Star is not given to start out, you have to build different upgrades leading up to it. I know these upgrades are tied to other enhancements but doesn't it make a regular galaxy game kind of lacking when the Death Star isn't useful for anything pracitally? And I know that when I played against the computer in Rebellion, it would dissapoint me that it wouldn't build a Death Star, because it was cool to be able to wipe out so many resources with one lucky fighter attack. Someone even made a mod so that the computer would build one.

 

How would a normal game of EAW progress if the Empire never builds a Death Star? And why would they want to build it in the first place? Not counting the time where they can because they have basically won anyway.

[AT-AP]

I really don't know why it's in the game, to be frank. Only good thing it will do is blow stuff up and amuse the fans, because they just HAVE to have it.

 

When I get this game I'll just stay away from building it and stick to using my resources more wisely. As far as I can tell, the DS is completely unnecessary.

 

Aside from the intimidation-factor in-universe, the Empire could have spent their money more wisely. (Even if it never put a serious dent in their budget, with logistics of city-worlds like Coruscant being more than comparable to the various DS-projects, and they don't ruin the galactic economy).

[Teradyn_pff]

Well, my point is that the Empire built the Death Star for the purpose of quelling any uprising before it began rather than dealing with it.

 

It is easier to keep people in line than to gather them up and deal with them when they get out of it, basically. Blowing up an entire planet is a huge waste of resources of one kind or another.

 

I am sure players would build it just because they could, but at that point they could have already won the game.

 

How best could we ask questions about the Death Star in the chat to narrow down some of these ambiguities?

 

Like how does the Death Star's presence in a system affect its and its neighbor's faction standing?

 

Or what range will the Ion Cannons and Turbolasers that are mounted on the Death Star be able to engage capital ships? And does the gravitational pull of the planet make the orbit of the Death Star have a minimum distance required?

 

Things like that that have to be answered in a bit more detail than a question like:

 

Can the Death Star attack capital ships?

 

See what I mean?

[AT-AP]

Oh, I see what you're getting at now! What good questions to ask Petroglyph about the DS' usefulness besides its main weapon.

 

Think you got some good ones there already, didn't think of the psychological factor being in the actual game. =O

[Swiftdraw]

You forget the lunatic factor Teradyn. Some of us think blowing stuff up in general is cool, resources be darned . Also it makes for a nice piece-o-bait. Once it's built, the rebs will want it dead for what it could potentially do, so they go after it. If you have the proper defense erected around it, you could do some serious damage to the reb cause.

 

But whatever... As long as it blows up planets and causes fear and paranoia, I'm cool with it.

[Gen.Vader]

likewise swiftie

 

they hasve thier reasons and i have faith, no more no less

 

still going to be a good game

go petro!

[Naja]

I think that there are a couple of practical benefits to an Imperial player from a Death Star. One we know, the other, a product of speculation.

 

For one, we know that certain planets will have various advantages and disadvantages, each depending on the faction. So, for example, Alderaan might give unprecedentedly cool bonuses to the Rebels if they owned it, while we know that all the Imperial player gets is a very reduced taxation rate from the Alderaanians because they hate the Empire so much. Therefore, if the Imperial player judged that Alderaan was too much of a potential benefit to the Rebels (and a negligible benefit to him), destroying it would be a strategically sound decision. The Death Star would allow for robbing the enemy of beneficial planets that you yourself cannot profit from.

 

For two, it's been confirmed that planets can rebel. This is sort of tricky, but chances are there might be some sort of population loyalty measure for planets. I'm sure that a Death Star would have some effect on that.

[Darth__Dawg]

I agree the Death Star is worthless if it can't carry fighters and ground units at the very least. Better off spending the money on more Star Destroyers. Its not a gamebreaker cause the other side can blow it up with a single fighter.

 

Hopefully they will make the Death Star a battle arena where its surface weaponry will come into play. It is designed for "large scale assults".

 

But if its just a planet destroying resource waste. Then why even bother building it.

 

P.S. Put in the ablitiy to name the damn ships and fleets. Its a small request that should be easy to do.

[Sigma]

they say the Death Star is like every other unit, it can move around and position itself on the map, so if its in scale size (hopefully) the closer it gets to ships the larger it looks untill it gets very close and you can use its surface cannons on the enemy ships and then you have an instant surface battle. Also I think that the trench run will be ingame, it would be dissapointing to only have a cutscene for it, maybe you can only send fighters in to do the trench run and it will take 3 or 4 minutes for the fighters to make it through the trench and while there in the trench you can send ties after them to try to stop them from acomplishing there goal

[Teradyn_pff]

You forget the lunatic factor Teradyn. Some of us think blowing stuff up in general is cool, resources be darned . Also it makes for a nice piece-o-bait. Once it's built, the rebs will want it dead for what it could potentially do, so they go after it. If you have the proper defense erected around it, you could do some serious damage to the reb cause.

 

But whatever... As long as it blows up planets and causes fear and paranoia, I'm cool with it.

 

Fear and paranoia in a player is good, but a half-way competent Rebel player will make the Death Star a liability for the Empire. Either the Empire has to mass defenses around the Death Star where they would be better spent elsewhere, or the Death Star will be too poorly defended offering a chance for the rebels to destroy a massive amount of spent resources in one shot. And remember, that the Empire would have had to make a huge investment to build it in the first place, resources that could have been spent on a larger force of ISDs, for example.

 

The Death Star will be a slower unit we know already for sure, it will also need alot of resources to build and even more to properly stock if it is a carrier of troops, ships, fighters and bases (as it should be). And it will even take more resources to properly defend. I can't remember if the Interdictor is going to be ingame or not, I think maybe it is, but at any rate, if it is going to be ingame then the massive fleet defending the Death Star has a real purpose, if not, then absolutely no go.

 

Also, the Death Star absolutely has to have an effect on the planets' populations in terms of loyalty if you think about it. I don't think that Petroglyph will let you blow up planets with no backfire in those terms. Which means that there may be a bigger reason not to use the Death Star for its main purpose than just the resources.

 

Rebellion went overkill on the negative reaction to the Death Star blowing up a planet. You lost support by about 1/10th on every inhabited planet in the galaxy instantly. I think that a more realistic approach is one that would increase rebel loyalty on planets that are rebel and imperial loyalty by a much smaller degree on imperial planets (the fear factor). We can only hope they get it right, but with all the modifications that we will be needing to make because of missing units, hopefully we will be able to fix this issue as well. The reaction of planets is something that I am sure would be in the XML files.

[Naja]

I can see how the Death Star would be a liability, but look at it this way: you're only going to have so many units at a particular time. Rather than waste a fleet and building a planetary occupation force to defend a non-beneficial world, why not destroy it if that same poor, backwater world also would happen to be a great world for the Rebels? I mean, if there was a world that only gave +5 credits, and gave the Rebels +100 credits, x2 faster capital ship production, and Admiral Ackbar, guess which one I'm destroying??!!

[Teradyn_pff]

I can see how the Death Star would be a liability, but look at it this way: you're only going to have so many units at a particular time. Rather than waste a fleet and building a planetary occupation force to defend a non-beneficial world, why not destroy it if that same poor, backwater world also would happen to be a great world for the Rebels? I mean, if there was a world that only gave +5 credits, and gave the Rebels +100 credits, x2 faster capital ship production, and Admiral Ackbar, guess which one I'm destroying??!!

 

As would I, but we don't know if there is a unit limit in, do we?

[Naja]

Not even saying that there would have to be a unit limit. I mean limited as in you're going to want only so many units relegated to guard duty. If you'd want to win, you'd have to put most of your fleets and armies on the front lines to win new worlds. A Death Star would help that process by taking away worthwhile worlds from your enemy that you yourself couldn't really benefit from in the first place.

[Teradyn_pff]

Not even saying that there would have to be a unit limit. I mean limited as in you're going to want only so many units relegated to guard duty. If you'd want to win, you'd have to put most of your fleets and armies on the front lines to win new worlds. A Death Star would help that process by taking away worthwhile worlds from your enemy that you yourself couldn't really benefit from in the first place.

 

True, but if the reputation issue is like in Rebellion, then you have the destruction of a planet costing you more than the rebels anyway. The only thing that made the Death Star useful in Rebellion was its capacity for troops and fighters and its superlaser that could be used on ships. It also temporarily boosted the support in an entire sector while it was there.

[Dorkthehunter]

First of all: THE GAME IS NOT THAT MUCH LIKE REBELLION!

So stop comparing them so often.

Second of all: The Imperial would build the Death Star (or the SSD, even though it is not in, for that matter) as a morale booster. If I were the Rebels I would be pretty afraid if a DS or SSD showed up on my doorstep. But, I would just focus all of my reasources on destroying that one ship. The Imperial could just have some Lancers constantly mowing my fighters down mercilessly as I desperatly try to take out the Death Star. Or they could have a cloud of Tie Fighters defending the DS. Even though the Rebels would cut through it like ribbon, it would stall them so that the Death Star could get in range. If I were the Rebels, I would focus on destroying the Star Destroyers if the DS had all the protection though.

[Swiftdraw]

Not to mention it looks really pretty when you make a planet go BOOM!!!

[Makwu]

First of all: THE GAME IS NOT THAT MUCH LIKE REBELLION!

 

This game is very much like rebellion, people need to stop getting offended by the comparrison. Both are Star Wars RTS. Both have a realtime galactic map and a combat map. Both have heros. Both have Death Stars, B-wings, Ceptors, SSD's....well they arent identical They are by no means the same game, but clearly in the exact same game class and rebellion is a game that all of us are familiar with. Why do some people feel like the two shouldn't be compared? Please name a game that makes better comparison? Honestly. I think it is perfectly acceptible to compare the two. Rebellion had good and bad things about it that heavily influenced our expectations of this game. Who here saw the announcement for this game and DIDN'T think of rebellion immediately on some level. Rebellion is not the perfect comparrison, but it is the best one.

[Nevets]

Exactly Makwu, couldn't have put it better.

 

I know the very first thing I thought of when I saw this was "Rebellion II!!!!" haha.