This game now looks like...

[jden]

After reading all the recent Q&A, i think it's a "Star war" game ,

not a "stragety" game. The way to build is quite unreasonable .

Cause if you can't place your structure anywhere you want , lots of stragety is lost. Also few enough units .

 

In official web , troops category i see nothing but heros .

only two kinds of infantry per side, that's the most amazing thing i had

ever seen.

 

Not offensive , but what people here talking about is "Is there Death Star

in the game" kind of question. I love the movies , but i am also C&C fans.

I have searched all the news ,sceenshots , video , Q&As for 4 months

everyday, and right now ,i just feel very very disappointed .

[WhiteSkull]

The way to build is quite unreasonable .

Cause if you can't place your structure anywhere you want , lots of stragety is lost.

 

You do know there is no base building like other C&C games right? you dont build up a base durning ground combat to pump out tanks and troops.So i dont get what your meaning by your above statement.

 

Also few enough units

 

most agree with you and we will have tons more from the mod teams.

 

Also make sure you check under the armies option as there are more units listed there.

[Juggernaut1985]

Check out my mod(click the sig)

[jden]

In the Q&A , it says the building location is "fixed" , you get certain slots

to put your building. it looks pretty much like bfme1 , but it's been cut in

bfme2

And it also says that for each side there are 7-8 ground units and 10 space

units and 7-8 heros.

And in army category , they also put building in there ,so you may think

there is much of units . But the fact is "no".

even c&c1 got more unit than Empire at war.

[Ghostly_Substance]

Camapaign: Can only build certain amount of buildings in a certain slot but you cannot pump out units

 

Skirmish: Only build certain buildings of your choice (as above). Able to pump out units from your buildings.

 

Well we also have missions and i'm betting you can easily get side-tracked so you have to choose what to do when. Chose what to build on one planet and choose what to build on another. I'm not one of those picky people right now since EAW is still looking like a great game even with its "limitations" as you guys say. Pop cap shouldn't be a problem since they're in other games also.

[WhiteSkull]

Most of the buildings as i understand it is for placing basicly your factories and shipyards etc.. that make your units on the galatic map and they are not really used in battle so i dont see the pronlem.

 

(and yes BMFE2 cut the fixed spots out and i hate it we are back to microing workers again)

 

even c&c1 got more unit than Empire at war.

 

And most went unused and sevral others had such a limted role they might as well not been there more is not always better.

[jden]

i thing camapaign will be perfect . the settings is very interesting.

What i am afraid of is "playing on the internet" .

Although it's good for camapaign , it sure does no good on internet.

[WhiteSkull]

i will only be playing the MAP with max planets online so what works SP works MP.

[plokoon9619]

U can make a mod but will there be enough people to just play a 1vs1 campaign all day? and will people be able to run there servers or do you half to buy one? Basicly its gotta work for multiplayer and have enough people online to keep it popular. Warlords wont win ModDB after all theres not enough people to play online.

[WhiteSkull]

the MAP system is gona be for efriends etc.. to play togher or die hards who hook up online most people will probly stick to skirmish mode.

[Nevets]

You know what I just thought while reading this thread.

 

This game doesn't have enough strategy for a strategy game and not enough star wars for a star wars game.

[Gen.Vader]

thats mean, its christmas, cheer up!

 

i find the low numbers and fixed positions actually increase strategy! the less units you have, the morevital roles they fill, we wouldnt want just a infantry1,infantry2,and so on sort of unit structure, so the limited amount of units mean that they will have very clear and refined purposes.

 

Look at WArcraft 3 for example, each side only had about 20 units or less, so the amount of units avalible should not impact the strategy.

 

Also, the fixed positions give you a "work with what you have" mentality and makes you adapt to diffrent situations.

[CrushProject]

Reducing unit types, and confining spaces may make every move more critical yes, its perhaps easier to balance and makes for quicker games, but adding additional stratadgy by reducing unit types or confining space simply not true.

 

What im wondering about is how they are going to attempt to make multiplayer unlinear or enjoyable. That was one of the biggest claims this game had been making earlier on (that the game would focus on its unlinear gameplay), but it looks like only 1v1s are going to be unlinear or interesting to play. With no xp system, small numbers of units to choose from per side, only imperial vs rebel games, with only either space or ground to choose from, thats sounds like its going to be really difficult not to play a very small, or linear game for mulitplayer with more than 2 people. And you might not even be able to build you own buildings? Oh well at least it will be less info gamespy has to process. lol and perhaps some of the skirmish modes may be interesting, but im still skeptical for multiplayer.

 

The campaign might make this game worth it in its own right tho. This game strikes me as being a rts Civ hybrid which is very appealing to me, but like all the civs ive played: multiplayer kinda sucks and is not worth playing (imo) as well as time consuming. With the addition of modders on the schene and the ability to manipulate the ai, or adding of units, the single player experience seems like it has alot to offer in replay value. Altho mods arent always known for balance.

 

edit: and wc3 made very good use of all those units. Every unit counters another unit, and it still managed unlinear gameplay, because of the creeps, xp system, and neutral units. WC3 is still arguably the best rts on the market today, altho im still really burned out on it now-a-days.

[Teradyn_pff]

I think we need to see how we handle 44 planets where each map is like something off of StarCraft as for size. Think about the square footage of screen space you will be seeing. I want to see what the campaign mode does for our activities... that is where the real strategy will be... alot of people forget what the difference between strategy and tactical is.

[Delphi-PG]

Cause if you can't place your structure anywhere you want , lots of stragety is lost.

 

boggles the mind doesn't it. Imagine being an RTS vet developer of 10 years and having to learn to design new levels layouts to fit the system.

 

Keep in mind one thing: this game is not C&C, Warcraft, or BFME. There is going to be some learning involved. I also disagree with you on the strategy lost. If our game was designed like the games mentioned above than you would be correct, but since it isn't, expect to see multiple layers of strategy.

 

Base building in the traditional sense is so 90's.

[vasuba_pff]

Cause if you can't place your structure anywhere you want , lots of stragety is lost.

 

boggles the mind doesn't it. Imagine being an RTS vet developer of 10 years and having to learn to design new levels layouts to fit the system.

 

Keep in mind one thing: this game is not C&C, Warcraft, or BFME. There is going to be some learning involved. I also disagree with you on the strategy lost. If our game was designed like the games mentioned above than you would be correct, but since it isn't, expect to see multiple layers of strategy.

 

Base building in the traditional sense is so 90's.

 

sounds good horrible 90's anyways

 

Thanks for taking the time to even post on your holiday

[Garbageben]

Cause if you can't place your structure anywhere you want , lots of stragety is lost.

 

boggles the mind doesn't it. Imagine being an RTS vet developer of 10 years and having to learn to design new levels layouts to fit the system.

 

Keep in mind one thing: this game is not C&C, Warcraft, or BFME. There is going to be some learning involved. I also disagree with you on the strategy lost. If our game was designed like the games mentioned above than you would be correct, but since it isn't, expect to see multiple layers of strategy.

 

Base building in the traditional sense is so 90's.

Oho! Petroglyph is trying to start a new wave movement in RTS games. Nice! If successful this could be the beginning of the end for traditional basebuilding as we know it in RTS games.

[Delphi-PG]

Petroglyph is trying to start a new wave movement in RTS games.

 

 

Just trying out new game-play ideas. Can't fault us for that.

[Xyvik]

Look at WArcraft 3 for example, each side only had about 20 units or less, so the amount of units avalible should not impact the strategy.

.

 

WarCraft 3 did not have strategy. That's the brutal and unadulterated truth. WC3 was nothing but a glorified hero fest, with not enough role-playing to be an RPG and nowhere near enough strategy to qualify as an RTS.

 

The limited number of units in EaW (and the large number of heroes) is indeed a very disturbing sign. Which is why I thank heaven for mods that will have more units in them. And let's hope we can modify the base-building so that its more, shall we say, "classic."

[vasuba_pff]

Look at WArcraft 3 for example, each side only had about 20 units or less, so the amount of units avalible should not impact the strategy.

.

 

WarCraft 3 did not have strategy. That's the brutal and unadulterated truth. WC3 was nothing but a glorified hero fest, with not enough role-playing to be an RPG and nowhere near enough strategy to qualify as an RTS.

 

The limited number of units in EaW (and the large number of heroes) is indeed a very disturbing sign. Which is why I thank heaven for mods that will have more units in them. And let's hope we can modify the base-building so that its more, shall we say, "classic."

 

I think Delphi will agree with what i have to say.

 

Base Building in the traditional Sense has no purpose in this game. In Skirmish Maps where Taking out the Tank factory or whatever actually matters because thats thier only source of units. In Empire at War your dealing with a full fledged galaxy.

 

1 Factory doesnt stop the Empire or Rebels so it serves no real purpose. Your after In the Invasion a Whole planet your not fighting for a single city like you would in command and conquer or any other game. So when you click you want a Factory your in effect saying your buying industrial base for the Entire planet not a single base.

[Delphi-PG]

The limited number of units in EaW (and the large number of heroes) is indeed a very disturbing sign.

 

20 units is a lot per side. More numbers does not make a better game; actually it means less game-play and tactics because you're going to have more overlap in unit designs and powers.

 

Honestly, as an old school RTS gamer, I would rather see fewer units that employ more tactics and strategies. It just makes for better game-play in my mind.

[Xyvik]

The thing is that there is a difference between strategy and tactics. Fewer units means more tactics and less strategy, and vice-versa. Strategy is about the grand scale, tactics is about the miniscule details (generally speaking, of course).

 

The fact that there are more heroes than regular ground units per side (if I read the numbers right) means that this is looking like WC3 all over again. In TSW, the large number of regular units means that you are fighting a real war, with different specialties for different situations.

 

Ever take a look at any Armed Forces, such as the United States? In the Army alone you have scouts, you have your regular grunts, you have artillery specialists, you have medics, you have snipers, you have heavy weapons experts, and that's just the Army. Throw in the Marines and the Navy and you have so many different types of infantry to fit any particular need of any situation. You need a scout, you got one, you need a sniper, you got one, you need a specialist? NAVY Seal time. THAT is strategy.

 

On the flip side of the coin, not every single armed forces is able to field that kind of manpower. Hence why the Sith and Mandalorians have less units than the Republic in The Sith War. The Mandalorians condence their fighting into fewer forms because they have fewer people. These fewer forms mean that you don't have as much variety.

 

For case in point, let's look at Age of Empires 3. The Ottomans have one infantry type: the Janissary. This means that you don't have to go around building all types of different infantry for different situations...BUT it limits you, because that one infantry type you have cannot cover all situations, which means if you focus on just that one guy you're doomed before the game even starts. On the other side you have the British, or the Portuguese, who have several infantry types to cover several situations, such as anti-cavalry, anti-infantry, etc.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there should be less heroes and more regular troops. In WC3 the heroes dominated the game, period. That was not strategy. That was a faint imitation of tactics. EaW is supposed to be about grand galaxy-spanning strategy, which means more units is better.

 

Base building, however, is an entirely different subject that I will get to later.

[RogueCommander]

What I can't understand is how people are judging a game without even playing the demo.It really boggles my mind. But anyway you a tad wrong Delphi unless it has been changed. It won't be 20 units per side since not all units take up the same amount in the pop. cap. So Im guessing people are crying oer it because the battles might be small. Oh and Delphi can you please confirm if the Venator is in or out of the game because it really is causing a large arguement on some forums(like LEC forums)

[Xyvik]

That's 20 unit types, not 20 overall units. If it was just 20 overall units that would be horrible.

 

In short, my plea is to make less of those 20 overall types dedicated to heroes.

 

"I can only protect you...I can't fight a war for you." Those words were spoken by Qui-Gon, and those words are very true. Heroes do not fight wars. Heroes do not win wars. It is the everyday troops who do so, and they are later hailed as heroes. A military genius without his troops is nothing. Darth Vader without his Stormtroopers could not take on all the Rebels. Han Solo without the rest of the Rebels would have been nothing but a frozen popsicle on Jabba's wall.

 

In other words, emphasis should be placed on the people who actually do the fighting: the infantry, the units, the regular "jarheads" who fight and die for their cause, and in the end, are the real heroes.

[Cobra848]

There is no need for more then one or two units to serve the same function. I mean two units that look different that do the same thing.

 

I know there can be difference in speed, armor, power, and many other things. But if they serve the same function, they really are not needed.

 

 

You have to use strategy and tactics with what you have not with every type.

 

Having every type of unit for a side would make that side to easy to use, and less fun. I find it better for each side not having every unit a "real army" should have.