Diesalot Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 heh. Looking at that screenshot it looks like they ripped the Liberator cruiser off rebellion and added sum new textures and a new name to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little.B Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 At first we thought it was a Liberator. But as we see on the Tartan Cruiser Petro used existing designs as basis for the new ships. I think it's good this way because so they just fit into the Star Wars style. http://www.pexsus.com/~littleb/eaw/banner_eaw.jpgFeel the ForceIRC (QuakeNet): #empireatwar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesalot Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 so if they are going create new units, can I hope that a few non canon buildings would be in?ex-westwood means that the genius that came up with the telsa coil defence must be in there, so i ask you...WHERE IS THE TELSA LIKE STATIC DEFENCE IN EAW?!!!Thank You. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Why is called the broadside if nothing about it is broad? It reminds me of the Missle destroyers from HomeWorld. They could have called it something simple like that instead of a name that almost nothing to do with the appearence or purpose of the ship. my thoughts exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deriko Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I think the broadside is sweet. I always did like some variety in my ships. At least it is not pointy on the end like the rest of them. Just out of curiosity, why did everyone start hating the broadside all of a sudden. We've known about it for a while. If you guys don't like it because the Venater was kicked out of the game, you are criticizing it for the wrong reasons. Everyone knows you people are criticizing it just because you are bitter about the Venater. The broadside had no part in getting rid of the Venater. And if you guys are going to use the come back "why get rid of real star wars ships and put in fake ones", you people need to get a knew one. Not every single ship in the star wars universe can be included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Not every single ship in the star wars universe can be included. and real star wars ships should included rather than EU conceived crap such as the broadside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deriko Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 real star wars ships are included Fine, let's get rid of the broadside and add the Venater. It will be a battle of capital ships, what fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Jedi Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 real star wars ships are included Fine, let's get rid of the broadside and add the Venater. It will be a battle of capital ships, what fun. Think before you post please. What we mean is that there are more ships that can be used besides these(tartan, broadside, Assault frigate MKII, etc) that already exists and every fan wants to see(The highest reason we are all pissed. At least me ) The Carrack or the lancer for that matter can do the same as the Tartan yet it isn't included as an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 real star wars ships are included Fine, let's get rid of the broadside and add the Venater. It will be a battle of capital ships, what fun. Think before you post please. What we mean is that there are more ships that can be used besides these(tartan, broadside, Assault frigate MKII, etc) that already exists and every fan wants to see(The highest reason we are all pissed. At least me ) The Carrack or the lancer for that matter can do the same as the Tartan yet it isn't included as an example. took the words right out of my mouth, or should I say "typed the words right out of my keyboard"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueCommander Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I don't hate the broadside nor do I love it. Just another unit to me. Although I think it should be renamed to something like Imperial Missle Cruiser or something like that. I mean there really isn't anything broad about it unless you say the ship itself is wider than longer. Most of these posts to me look like people lashing out because they made a unit up. I really can't see what the big deal is. If Lucas already approved of it then his word>EU. At least that is how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernaut1985 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Not every single ship in the star wars universe can be included. and real star wars ships should included rather than EU conceived crap such as the broadside. Would you complain if they had put in a Carack instead of the Broadside? I'm just curious. I know the Carrack is EU but would it be more bearable? As I said I'm just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Jedi Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Not every single ship in the star wars universe can be included. and real star wars ships should included rather than EU conceived crap such as the broadside. Would you complain if they had put in a Carack instead of the Broadside? I'm just curious. I know the Carrack is EU but would it be more bearable? As I said I'm just curious. Well. That is difficult to say because the Carrack and the Broadside have diferent purposes. The broadside is Missile cruiser and the carrack an Heavly armed escort ship. The Victory MKI for example could serve as a missile ship for the empire. Don't take me wrong I've got nothing against the broadside(except the name) It is a cool ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadoken13 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 i don't mind the braodside..though it's name is retarded...what i don't like is the tartan and assault frigate mk2the tartan is a lancer/carrack ripand the assault frigate mk2 is an ugly mk1wtf???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Jedi Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Whats worse is how can it be a MKII if a MKI doesn't exist yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadoken13 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Whats worse is how can it be a MKII if a MKI doesn't exist yet. i wionder if La noticed this little fact? no mk1=no mk2hehehe can you say plot hole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirNuke Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I leave one thought on this topic... Someone has to create content for the Star Wars universe. Why not here? Does anyone have 100% proof of a book that specificly states that the broadside couldn't have existed? Maybe it was a common ship, but unimportant enough that it is never 'acknowldeged' in any books or movies? (it is, after all, a support ship) Okay, another thought. I wonder if it turns out this ship is vital for any Imperial fleet, causing many hard core Star Wars fanboys to lose games because they refuse to build it? Zing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordstorm88 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Someone has to create content for the Star Wars universe. Why not here? Does anyone have 100% proof of a book that specificly states that the broadside couldn't have existed? Maybe it was a common ship, but unimportant enough that it is never 'acknowldeged' in any books or movies? (it is, after all, a support ship) lol ok seriously, its a game. its star wars. not real history or something. now I don't mmind the broadside that much cause its new. I just like the venator much more than this. besides its ugly, it looks like it can blow up just if its crew fart all together at the same time. the tartan looks pretty good designed so I don't mind if the carrack isn't in or the lancer. Mk II looks weird, though I've come to like it a bit. anyway I still want many ships to come out with mods. I prefer many ships instead of just 10! besides its star wars. couldn't those hundreds or thousands of planets come up with more than 3-4 fighters for each side! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenomorphine Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I like the look of it, but would much rather the game allow for ships to have the ability to shoot down missiles fired from any unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little.B Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 it looks like it can blow up just if its crew fart all together at the same time Exactly. The Boradside is a very fragile ship. All other "replacements" mentioned for this ship can take a lot more damage then the Broadside can. Torpedos/Missiles are very powerfull in EaW (referring to what I saw at the Games Convention) and a Missile Cruiser with good armour could surely be called "uber". And if they would take an existing unit but give it less hitpoints? Guess what, people would complain that it has to little hitpoints for being this and that unit. I think thats why they made up the Broadside. http://www.pexsus.com/~littleb/eaw/banner_eaw.jpgFeel the ForceIRC (QuakeNet): #empireatwar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts