Realism or Balance?

[lordstorm88]

realism.

 

too bored to realise how to quote so

 

'I thought I told you to remain on the command ship! Twisted Evil

 

 

[Whining] But.. but, Vader farted! I couldn't breath! It is not fair, he has that breathing machine so he doesn't have to smell it.[/Whining]'

 

LOL

[Xenomorphine]

I would agree with Naja and Teradyn, who seem to echo my thoughts very well.

 

I do actually like what the game is, so far, but do have the same reservations as most sane individuals!

 

Take, for instance, the AT-ST. I only have a 56K connection, so am unable to see most videos (allowing us do join in the multiple player stuff is one of those things I'm supremely grateful to the designers for), but if most people are saying that a single soldier is getting hit repeatedly by what is, effectively, the 'Star Wars' version of a walking tank and not even getting knocked to the ground and injured, let alone dying from something which is routinely able to splinter trees apart, makes me think that the gameplay could be boring. I've played games like that and it just makes things... Tedious.

 

The suicidal infantry rushed of World War One became obselete for very good reason! Only the Japanese of World War Two (and the personnel of certain, nameless Arab nations today) continued to use that tactic and it didn't do them many favours, apart from stalling the inevitable. That's why vehicles were introduced to do that.

 

On the other hand, the Storm Troopers have armour, so it's easier to see why they might beused in such a way.

 

Even so, if those videos were engineered specifically to show such a visual, as opposed to unchanged unit statistics, showing how an actual game would be (unprotected infanty surviving multiple hits from heavy weaponry), then the fact that nobody from the design teams informing us of no such thing becomes conspicuous by its absence. Were the videos representative of how much damage a unit could withstand or not? We don't know, so the fears are justifiable. They also, however, lead to rumorus which can damage a game's reputation, so it's more difficult to say what the reason is for no official word being given on certain aspects of it.

 

Are the units going to take or deal out that much damage in a game? We don't know, but the only evidence that we do have points to an affirmative answer, which worries many of us. We don't have the right to demand confirmations or denials from a game developer, but these are fears which keep on being raised in discussions, time and time and again, which are not being corrected, if they are not true.

 

Engineering a video to show particular units facing off against one another is one thing. Knowing whether the units being portrayed had their statistics altered to show a specific outcome of that confrontation is another.

 

In regards to balance, it would depend on the mechanics in general. I'm so wonderfully glad that this product has decided to do away with supply lines that it may just make up for any other potential short-comings of it! That's a great thing, in my view. In real combat, commanders on the ground don't have to worry about how to go about securing such things. The generals do, who take care of strategy. In these games, we're dealing with both strategy and tactics. In a tactical battle, having to worry about escorting and path-finding for a unit can become frustrating and boring, if it is not contributing to the fight you are worrying about. It's a logistics arm which would deal with that in a real scenario and you'd only have to think about how to link up with it. That this game is taking account of that, in the same way as the 'Total War series had, is a great thing (and part of why I get so frustrated with the 'Homeworld' way of doing stuff).

 

While not realistic, in terms of how resources are a part of life, it is realistic in terms of what a battle commander would be concerned with, which is what you're part of. You're concerned with fighting, conquest and defence, not securing the logistics. Let the game take care of that. You can imagine it happening behind the scenes.

 

But when we come to the realm of who these sides confront one another, was it wise to start it before Episode 4, when the opening scrawl dictated that the Alliance, by virtue of its very nature, would not have been able to secure more than one victory?

 

Opening that can of worms leads us to the other questions about balance versus realism, so, what we inevitably see is a compromise.

 

One of the opening premises for this game was always what I termed the dragon analogy: A short-sighted dragon against a group of farmers with pitchforks. It could destroy them with ease, if only it knew where they are! The trouble is, the more that it stomps around, demanding that thevillagers tell it where their only way of getting revenge at the dragon is, the more they hide it. Some give into fear, some give into the riches the dragon offers form its treasure, but many don't, because that's their only hope.

 

But the more the farmers grow in number and the bigger and better their pitchforks get, eventually obtaining slow and delicate catapults, the louder they become, until tehy get to such a size that they might be able to stand a chance against the dragon, but the dragon knows precisely where they are.

 

The question, for this game, is just how big have they made the dragon? Have they engineered it with some injuries to make the role of the farmers more interesting? Have they allowed it to breath fire at the cost of forcing it to run slower or are they going to let it run fast again, when you buy the expansion pack?

 

Those of us who have played 'Rome: Total War' know that while the Romans are the most powerful, after a while, curiosity compels you to see what it's like on the other side. The Gauls and Britons are no match for legions of armoured troops with the best equipment, but they could be overcome with massed quantities of what they do have.

 

The key to this, as with life, is not merely massed firepower, but intelligently deployed massed firepower.

 

The ingredients for that are in this product already. The ability to withdraw, not merely because of losing a battle, but to gain an important strategic advantage (perhaps luring the opposing side to attack a planet you've already plundered, forcin gthem to take losses, only to allow you to pool those force into one big fleet and destroy their homeworld, for instance), is an important step in that direction. The question is, just how far have they taken that, in terms of logical progression?

 

Things like that allow for unbalanced sides to still be interesting. Realism is fine, if it's implemented right.

 

Nelson should have been beaten by the Spanish, but what did he do? Destroyed the enemy fleet's formations with boats which were set alight and cast adrift in that direction, then attacked.

 

The advantage the Alliance has is something termed assymetrical warfare. It's an important tactic which China and Al Qaeda (although, witht he latter, less effectively, since they have poor leadership driven more by ideology than military effectiveness) are both enthusiasts for. The Empire is geared towards annihilating an opponent which fights on its same level. The Alliance is geared towards a different way of fighting which, while it can never win, will put the Empire at a disadvantage until it gets to that stage.

 

In short, the Alliance are playing for time and, because of that, are more daring because they have to be! They have to take risks. The Empire are defensive. They lay back. They wait for the enemy to raise its head just enough before pounding through the door.

 

How do you fight an invisible enemy? You survive until it becomes arrogant and strong enough to try and face you in open battle.

 

That's what Palpatine understood. That's what his entire game was about, at Endor. He played just dumb enough for the Alliance to get cocky and allow him to close an obvious trap. His fault was only in wanting to have a big fireworks display, rather than let the Death Star and fleet attack simultaneously on multiple fronts.

 

That's what this game, ideally, should reflect. A way of forcing the Alliance player to make surgical strikes, gathering and biding resources and time, which the previews allude to.

 

The problem, here, would appear to be the designers wanting to make the Alliance player confront the Imperial one in open battle too early. To rectify that, they give them units which should have no place in being there (how would they manufacture so many tanks and mobile artillery pieces without the Empire locating and then just destroying those factories?). Perhaps the key should be to give the player two obvious routes: Play as the Empire if you're interested being strategic and in open battles or play as the Alliance if you want to be sneaky, tactical and save those pyrotechnics for later in the campaign.

 

It's a matter of philosophy. One which I don't think the game designers are going in the direction of, but who of us knows?

 

What those of us who favour realism would liek to see are a futuristic application of historical examples. Look at the Goths. They were horrendously underpowered. Then they got to a stage of having nothing to lose, defeated several garrisons of an unprepared Empire and took enough resources and equipment to virtually be a rogue Imperial army, themselves. That's how some of us appeared to hope this game to go.

 

The Alliance would have access to things like using merchant vessels for cover, then revealing the disguise to reveal a ship bristling with weapons (or a hanger bay) and opening fire when it got close enough to where it needed to be, jamming any distress calls, before hypering away.

 

Will we see that for the majority of the Alliance campaign (and 'sandbox' mode)? It's an open question. But if we do, then it would negate the logical progression of where some of our fears are leading us.

 

Things like that, the ability to capture facilities and ships (one would imagine that the Empire, more often than not, originally had to deal with many examples of 'friendly' ships roaming around and suddenly unleashing a volley of fire at valuable targets, which would lead to paranoia and perhaps the later examples of strict imposition of fear), along with things like orbital bombardment, would create a more authentic 'Star Wars' experience. The designers, on the other hand, appear to be favouring that an enhanced cinematic, alone, would be enough to convey that.

 

It's not necessarily wrong and I'm sure it'll be fun, but I'm also certain that a more realistic application of the units and strategies could have had its own, very unpredictable rewards.

 

Where the Empire and Alliance are concerned, it's all about compensation. A very David and Golliath match. If you're designing a game which is geared more towards cinematics and explosions than exploiting such things, then you're going to design things in the direction of more instant gratification than a requirement to deal heavily with stealth.

 

Still, it's early days and we shall see what we shall see.

 

This might not be a 3D version of 'Rebellion', but we can all agree that, while not absolutely perfect, it's still far in excess of what most of these games have become recently.

[Foshjedi2004]

Jesus thats a long post. My eyes started to hurt after the third paragraph

 

I agree with many of your synonyms!! The gamer shouldn't be as balanced as they are making it FFS the Empire was meant to be massive and the Alliance small to allow them to hide easier.

[Xenomorphine]

Jesus thats a long post. My eyes started to hurt after the third paragraph

 

Yeah, sorry about that...! It's one of those subjects which sinpired so many thoughts that it turned into more of a diatribe than a reply, but you got the gist of it, I hope.

 

I agree with many of your synonyms!! The gamer shouldn't be as balanced as they are making it FFS the Empire was meant to be massive and the Alliance small to allow them to hide easier.

 

Indeed and that was, as I remember it, one of the things they alluded to following the premise of, early on. It's one of those basic fuondations to help balance out sides in terms of tactics and strategy, where they're unable to in terms of units and technology.

 

Quite how much they'd followed that logical progression, however, is open to question and what will inform us most as to precisely which route they take to balancing things the most: 'Cheating' unit statistics to make the ridiculously survivable (or, atlernatively, deal outrageous amounts of damage) or staying true to the fictional world and forcing players to compromise with strategy, by means of the environment and types of missions a player would find their side most suited for?

 

It's a very thin tightrope to navigate.