Demo Feedback - Okay, but not *great*

[WhiteSkull]

RPG D20 stats to start.

 

Then you must be missing the entire point because the fact is the PC market is *more* profitable, not less.

 

Good night all, I see no relevant arguments are being made anymore.

 

LOL RPG d20 in a RTS? no thank you.

 

Alot of game sells have gone down 9not profit) because people like me are sick and tired of the same game types like aoe3 bring nothing new or nothing better then aoe2 etc..

 

EAW brings new levels of play and makes it FUN.

 

And your last line should be " i got owned so goodnight all"

[lucienskywalker]

I disagree tactics to me is deciding what to build what counter to use where to send your fleets and what planets to invade, while strategy happens durning the battle it is, do i do a fient then flank, do i send a small force around to draw troops then hit etc..

 

Why you do think before a war they do tactical planing? they dont hold strategy planing its called tactical

 

jediigor you ask for more realistic stats, but how do you get real stats when the whole starwars world is FAKE its fantsy made up, its impossable to make anything REAL when none of its real to start.

 

 

 

 

na na na , the whole wargamer community is with me .

 

Strategy is ressource management , building army , building base . Than you have ARMY scale moving , ARMY scale ATTACKING , Army scale FLANKING .

 

Tactical is everything in the battle , when you flank a ship with an other one , its a tactic , when you flank an army of ship with an army of ship , its a strategie .

[The Saint]

na na na , the whole wargamer community is with me .

 

Strategy is ressource management , building army , building base . Than you have ARMY scale moving , ARMY scale ATTACKING , Army scale FLANKING .

 

Tactical is everything in the battle , when you flank a ship with an other one , its a tactic , when you flank an army of ship with an army of ship , its a strategie .

 

reinforcement is a strategi .

 

 

 

Building an army and building a base have nothing to do with strategy. People think they do but honestly not really. You want real strategy then dig deep and try to find a copy of The Operational Art of War. You can find a review for it on gamespot..that game is chalk full of strategy and no base building, no resource management, no army building. Just die in the wool command.

[lucienskywalker]

Building an army and building a base have nothing to do with strategy. People think they do but honestly not really. You want real strategy then dig deep and try to find a copy of The Operational Art of War. You can find a review for it on gamespot..that game is chalk full of strategy and no base building, no resource management, no army building. Just die in the wool command.

 

 

 

Hitler strategy is to take europe .

First move , create an army , create base .

Second move , MOVE ARMY to a point (paris)

Than Give order to take this city (paris)

THIS IS ALL STRATEGY .

You can do a strategy to flank an army .

 

Than ,

The army is in paris , HITLER NOT THERE .

The guy who command that army do tactics to take the city .

You can do a tactic to flank a squad .

When the city is took , hitler give the order to build defense , this is another strategy command .

 

 

Its always the same thing everywhere on the net beside on wargame site .

Nobody got a clue about what is the difference is bettewn tactics and strat .

 

 

 

ANALOGY TO RTW :

Roundbase is hitler

Realtime is the commander

 

Analogy to EAW :

galatic view is hitler , rts gameplay .

space battle is the commander , tactical realtime gameplay .

ground battle is the commander and hitler , wich i would call a rts gameplay .

Edited January 20, 2006 by lucienskywalker

[lucienskywalker]

Btw , read the dictionary . 

 

If you dont undertand , read my post  ;D

Edited January 20, 2006 by lucienskywalker

[Guest JediIgor]

You want to bring in Ep 3? Fine, that was two galactic powers duking it out across multiple worlds to the point where even Coruscant was indanger in the openning scenes of the movie. This was the Republic at war with a group of established industrialized worlds that were attempting to break away. You do not have that with Ep 4-6. Remember, the Rebel Alliance is a much smaller group. You wont get massed battles with thousands of troops because the rebel alliance doesnt, and wouldnt have that kind of numbers until after RotJ when the war becomes more traditional and even then on the ground the New Republic had smaller numbers.

 

Then with shields few planets in the SW universe could afford a shield network to cover the entire planet. Thats where rebellion falters. It just assumed that one shield generator instantly granted protection to the entire planet.

 

Was there a point there somewhere? Did you conveniently forget that the *Empire* controls millions of inhabited planets and thus at the very least millions of soldiers in its armies?  : Great, now go read at least half the EU and we can talk again.

 

LOL RPG d20 in a RTS? no thank you.

 

Alot of game sells have gone down 9not profit) because people like me are sick and tired of the same game types like aoe3 bring nothing new or nothing better then aoe2 etc..

 

EAW brings new levels of play and makes it FUN.

 

And your last line should be " i got owned so goodnight all"

 

You asked how SW could be more realistic.

 

This game will sell well, it has Star Wars on it. If it didn't, I would highly doubt it.

 

This is a poorly formed opinion.

 

My last line is up to me, how old are you? I will delete ad hominem posts on the spot from now on.

 

Building an army and building a base have nothing to do with strategy. People think they do but honestly not really. You want real strategy then dig deep and try to find a copy of The Operational Art of War. You can find a review for it on gamespot..that game is chalk full of strategy and no base building, no resource management, no army building. Just die in the wool command.

 

You are going to argue with the entire wargamer community? My hat's off to you  ;D.

 

Delphi seems to have gone somewhere and the two other guys aren't making any sense. Oh, well. Perhaps both of you should play some Rebellion before the full game comes out?

[WhiteSkull]

Was there a point there somewhere? Did you conveniently forget that the *Empire* controls millions of inhabited planets and thus at the very least millions of soldiers in its armies?  : Great, now go read at least half the EU and we can talk again.

 

You asked how SW could be more realistic.

 

This game will sell well, it has Star Wars on it. If it didn't, I would highly doubt it.

 

This is a poorly formed opinion.

 

My last line is up to me, how old are you? I will delete ad hominem posts on the spot from now on.

 

You are going to argue with the entire wargamer community? My hat's off to you  ;D.

 

Delphi seems to have gone somewhere and the two other guys aren't making any sense. Oh, well. Perhaps both of you should play some Rebellion before the full game comes out?

 

 

First a D20RPG system would not make a RTS better, it adds to much luck into a RTS rather then skill, i mean someone getting a roll of below 5 times in a row compared to someone getting lucky and rolling 20 3 out of 5 is pure luck and has no place in rts.

 

The entire wargamer community is not on your side, nor are gamers experts in what real strategy and tactics are.

 

I found your problem you wanted rebellion 2, well sorry but this is not it, nor was it ever said to be it.Even rebellion had 0 base building and all ground combat was simulated.

 

The only features this miss's over rebellion is are extra heros extra ships diplomacy and planet loyalty the extra ops are still there just difrent now, we have smuglers and bounty hunters.

 

Your seriously remind me of the fans who hated wow, they felt it was to easy and too difrent then standard MMO's and changed in the wrong way, they claimed it would only sell well cause of the blizzard name (same as you saying this will sell cause of starwars name) yet a year later WoW has become the biggest world wide MMO and it is still growing.

 

EAW has the same potenial as WoW because it removed all the stuff most gamers hate and made the game FUN and as such i see it being a huge hit, i am sorry the game let you down and maybe the game is not for you.

[Stellar_Magic]

Okay I'm finding myself in between JI and the rest of you guys...  JI has some good points, moving the build system was a good move but... it also makes unit building a more distant feature and thereby removes part of the strategic part of the game from its traditional location.

 

Traditional RTS's overall have a number of repetitative problems and EAW suffers from them as well.

 

1.) Units tend to have more longevity due to health points then anything else.

 

2.) Experience plays a minimal to nonexistant role even where it does exist as a game feature.

 

3.) RTS's allow to much individual control of units for true strategic thought. (You move individual tanks instead of Platoons or companies.)

 

4.) Realism is completely overulled for playability with little thought of reconciling the two.

 

5.) Unit scaling is optimized for ease of gameplay more then realism.

 

Valid Complaints about EAW.

 

1.) Tactical battles are too small scale and force players to micromanage his forces instead of actually building a grand strategy.

 

2.) The building slot system is too restrictive, there isn't enough room on planets to build a proper military base as well as construction facilities.

 

3.) The Garrison max is also too restrictive, if an enemy can deploy a fleet full of ten times the amount of ground units as are defending the defender doesn't stand a chance.

 

4.) Heroes, especially major space heroes, are overpowered (The Millenium Falcon should not be able to destroy a star base on its own!)

 

Things that are different in the Demo which JI thought may be or may not be in the actual game have been discounted.

 

Rebuttles to those that have argued against JI...

 

First a D20RPG system would not make a RTS better, it adds to much luck into a RTS rather then skill, i mean someone getting a roll of below 5 times in a row compared to someone getting lucky and rolling 20 3 out of 5 is pure luck and has no place in rts.

 

The entire wargamer community is not on your side, nor are gamers experts in what real strategy and tactics are.

 

I found your problem you wanted rebellion 2, well sorry but this is not it, nor was it ever said to be it.Even rebellion had 0 base building and all ground combat was simulated.

 

The only features this miss's over rebellion is are extra heros extra ships diplomacy and planet loyalty the extra ops are still there just difrent now, we have smuglers and bounty hunters.

 

First off... Luck is an important factor in every situation to discount it is folly.

 

Secondly, yes we wanted rebellion 2 and it amazes me that you don't realize just how much of the game is actually copied or perhaps developed parallel to those from rebellion... Planetary Build slots, Espinoage, You get the idea...

 

Planetary Loyalty is the key to the Alliance's victory in the Galactic Cvil War, the Empire had to use garrisons, and military might to ensure its continued control.  To remove Planetary Loyalty and Uprisings removes the game from the core of the GCW and the experience those star wars fans with knowledge of the era wanted.  I would have been happy if the Empire just had to fight off a battle by civilian uprisings as a random event in the campaign.

 

Hitler strategy is to take europe .

First move , create an army , create base .

Second move , MOVE ARMY to a point (paris)

Than Give order to take this city (paris)

THIS IS ALL STRATEGY .

You can do a strategy to flank an army .

 

Than ,

The army is in paris , HITLER NOT THERE .

The guy who command that army do tactics to take the city .

You can do a tactic to flank a squad .

When the city is took , hitler give the order to build defense , this is another strategy command .

 

 

Its always the same thing everywhere on the net beside on wargame site .

Nobody got a clue about what is the difference is bettewn tactics and strat .

 

News flash! Hitlers Germany didn't build any of their military equipment in france!  Okay let me explain this... what is strategy.

 

1.) Build up of a strategic infrastructure... This includes the contracting of corporations to build military equipment, the taxing of the civilian population to pay those corporations, the stockpiling of resources, researching new technologies, establishing tactical doctrine, training your military to a high level of readiness and efficiency, and formulating battle plans.

 

2.) Battle Planning... Setting up supply lines, moving combat formations, anticipate needs of the troops, adjust plans to terrain, and secure strategic objectives usually the cutting of supply lines, opening lanes of travel, or the securing of most everything seen in 1.)

 

3.) Actual Combat... Moving reinforcements to the point of greatest need, securing and building defenses, and working to keep troop moral high.

 

In truth RTS's combine 1.) and 3.) while completly ignoring 2.). Most of the combat in an RTS isn't Strategic in any means its tactical and if you want to play a real good tactical game may I suggest the Close Combat series...

 

In closing I'd like to remind everyone that getting a good review from JI is extremely difficult at best, I think the only thing I've ever heard him praise is Eville Jedi's Warlords mod.

[WhiteSkull]

 

 

First off... Luck is an important factor in every situation to discount it is folly.

 

Secondly, yes we wanted rebellion 2 and it amazes me that you don't realize just how much of the game is actually copied or perhaps developed parallel to those from rebellion... Planetary Build slots, Espinoage, You get the idea...

 

Planetary Loyalty is the key to the Alliance's victory in the Galactic Cvil War, the Empire had to use garrisons, and military might to ensure its continued control.  To remove Planetary Loyalty and Uprisings removes the game from the core of the GCW and the experience those star wars fans with knowledge of the era wanted.  I would have been happy if the Empire just had to fight off a battle by civilian uprisings as a random event in the campaign.

 

Not discount luck at all, what i am saying is a D20 is to much luck based in a RTS to work right.You could have a fleet of neb b's beat a fleet of ISD because of bad rolls for the ISD.

 

planet loyalty while was key in the REAL starwars world its not needed in a rts, i found it a joke in rebellion i take over a system then just sent in heros to max loyalty and never ever faced a rebellion on one of my planets it was just a unwanted micro need i did not care for one bit.I am glad it has been removed for EAW.

 

I have read just about every starwars book played every single starwars game fps rts and rpg's, i own all 6 movies and the cartoon series so i have plenty of knowledge of the era, and still see no reason for those features.

[Juggernaut1985]

To tell truth, Stellar and JI hit the nail head on. Don't get me wrong the new system is great but suffers from lack of complexity and realism. now all the Gameplay>realism nuts will hang me but lets think about some things. Isn't it possible that introducing more realism in fact introduces more tactics and strategy into the game.......yes. Lets take one example:

 

Custom loading of ships with fighter squadrons of your choice. We all know that ISDs carry 6 squadrons of TIEs....well what if they carried 6 Squadrons of Bombers which could be deployed by clicking a button, or even only a few at a time? Surely that would make your opponent cringe a bit or at least have to think of some strategy to counter it, would it not?

 

Lets say your opponent destroys those 6 squadrons and managed to take your ISD down to half health, wouldn't that give you reason to retreat, to fight another day?

 

I have nothing but the highest respect for Petroglyph and applaud their efforts but from my point of view and most likely many others, the game does not have the complexity in strategy we had come to expect. Even somehting as simple as the example above would be immensly satisifying and add sooo much to the game. Thats part of Star Wars.

[Sparky]

I liked they way the armies are built, its a nice change of pace.  When the first said that there would be no base building, i really didn't like the idea, but i think it worked out well.  Of course there are some aspects that i would have liked to have seen, like the ability to place turrets and such where i like.  I have played several RTS games where on some missions you started out with a prefabricated base and the places where the turrets were i thought were just stupid.  Two features that would be nice to see, is planetary upgrades, i know there are some but the ones i would like to see are ground space upgrades, the ability to add more slots for building and troops on a planet would greatly reduce the worry of the enemy landing wave upon wave at you, when you have no ability to call for reinforcements.  This upgrades wouldn't be cheap, but allow up 8 more ground spaces for troops, 10,000+ credits for the first two and the price doubles for each after upgrade after that, this way you couldn't do it to all your planets except for the important ones.  I like the ability to steal technology, but i just hope that this isn't the only way rebels acquire new units, some form of research would be nice, remember the Rebels didn't steal the Mon Cals from the imps ;D.  The minor heroes are a nice touch, just a short question, when the rebels are smuggling credits does the empire know automatically or does it take a while for them to find out or do the need a commander stationed there?

 

And just a few small pet peeves: when i started playing the demo late last night that credit symbol look a lot like a seven, but then again a lot things look like sevens at 3:30 in the morning, and i don't understand why it was added there is only one form of money so there is no real need to tell us that it takes credits.

 

Otherwise a very good game, its hard to give a lot of constructive criticism with the small amount of playable content.

 

Sparky

[lordstorm88]

can I just say something? people keep mentioning about how the game is so uncomplicated cause this way it'd make more money since its open to a wider audience. I really think that is kinda wrong.

 

both blizzard which made starcraft and warcraft(especially warcarft III was REALLY complicated) games and they sold VERY well.

Now I don't know about westwood but I remember that the first C&C was really awesome. I still used to play the version with 640x480 when the cd worked lol.  C&C was a new genre back then and was awesome game. warcraft III has tons of complexity and still sold a lot

 

now imagine a star wars brand(which sells anyway), with the developers of westwood, using the complexity of warcraft.

I say complexity cause complexity is great. makes real gamers to play a game for a long period.and the rest people will buy it anyways. I can see from my friends that they buy games that seem stupid to me. This game already has this "action" that it needs to be sold,(here anyways), so the complexity add would be great. Its the first game that would be space and land, and on a real galactic level with 43 planets that allows you to do that! that alone is a new thing. its already a test!

 

and its certainly fun. but just fun with using your brain so little gets boring quick. Its like a constant deathmatch in aoe II without building, its just killing. I don't know exactly how quick paced the game will be, but it seems that you'll have very little stuff to think about in the end, so it just ends up being who got a cleaner mouse and mousepad, and who is quicker in clicking and pointing with the mouse.

 

Besides its the complexity in my opinion that really makes a good game fun. I mean think of the star wars movies. they are SO complex really. i'm quite a fan (got like 15 pc games and all the movies) and I've spent thousands of hours with star wars, and even for me episode III was puzzling the first time I saw it. I can't help but wonder what a guy who has only seen this movie alone, or just the pre-trilogy or all the movies but only once, how confused he must have been.

 

anyways, don't worry so much about complexity and if it will need too much of a fast pace and fast thinking to compete against good players... in the worst case you just make it day-like, like rebellion... here it seems that the only point of days right now is about money coming in in the end of the day.

[WhiteSkull]

LOL EAW is not dumbed down its just difrent and focus on difrent areas something people are not used to so they wish to reject it, just like people wanted to reject wow faster lvling curve and nmo death punishment.

 

Also lordstorm if you really think wc3 is complicated you should try kohan1 it puts wc3 to shame, IMO and i do own wc3 and wcft both are so stupid its not even funny neither game is hard or complicated you mass a army you make a hero and you "rush" omg you rush to win who would have thought it was all about rushing!

 

Me and friend where in the top 20 for the first 3 months the game came out and we got bored and went back to kohan but hey what do i know i just found wc3 to be very simple and easy. one unit normal is all you ever need to make with your hero to win try that in EAW and see how far you get

[SirNuke]

I have a few things I want to throw out, particularly to people who think this game lacks depth and complexity.  Please read this entire post.

 

The demo sucks in that aspect.  It only shows off the RTS side of the game.  Actually really not even that, it just shows of the graphics engine and the modifiability of the game.  The included missions give you almost no true the opportunities to make choices.  Essentially that is what strategy is, making choices to accomplish an end goal(s).  Having modded in a different campaign, I am going to say that the galatic portion of the game is almost as every ounce 4X as any other 4X game.  You are constantly faced with huge 'grand' choices.  Take this situations, for example:

 

1. You can build a smuggler to steal credits from the Empire.

2. But to build a smuggler you must take up a build spot with a cantina.

3. The empire knows when it's credits are being stolen, so it may choose to build a bounty hunter.

4. The question becomes, will you gain enough credits from a smuggler to justify spending the credits to build one?  If it isn't, is it even worth it to build a cantina?  Would that space be better used to build a second factory, which decreases the price and build time of vehicles?

 

You also get minor 'quests', such as capture this planet and free these prisoners.  Escort them to this planet and get a credit reward.  Do you commit units to take a likely otherwise unimportant planet?  Are you confident you can take the planet in one strike, since it is likely it isn't worth it if it requires multiple strikes?

 

You are also faced with technology decisions, such as Do I research this tech to gain this unit advantage?  If I do, I will have to hold on attacking this planet.  Does that give the enemy too much of an advantage credit wise?

 

Other decisions face such as how many units do I commit at this planet?  Are the units that spawn from the buildings enough to withhold most enemy attacks?  Should I not bother with many ground units and instead make a very strong space fleet and hope to kill most of the transports before they land?

 

You rarely can travel from one planet to another.  If I take this planet, it will allow me to move  units from the back to the front quicker?  Is it worth it?  The planet is otherwise worthless.

 

Should I take this planet with a lot more units than necessary?  It may draw enemy forces to this side of the galaxy, allowing a smaller force to take planets on the other side.

 

Take note that there are 40 planets in the full campaign.

 

I would also note that the two included battles weren't very good representations of actual battles.  Had the enemy been more aggressive on Tatooine, it could have certainly caused huge casualties.  Had the Asgresso fleet had two tartins (the anti starfighter ship), it would have been very difficult to take.

 

I hope that rather than attempting to find reasons why the game is simple using the demo, everyone gives the actual game a chance.  I am hoping by the end of this weekend I will have a completely playable campaign mod avialable for everyone to try out for themselves.

[Jmaster3265]

lol, someone explain to me why banthas, and jawas are on Ryloth?  ??? :

[The Saint]

Was there a point there somewhere? Did you conveniently forget that the *Empire* controls millions of inhabited planets and thus at the very least millions of soldiers in its armies?  : Great, now go read at least half the EU and we can talk again.

 

Maybe you forgot that the game isnt set in the EU perhaps? Or maybe you forget that all the battles we see in Ep 4-6 are small scale. Again I point out the fact the rebel alliance is a small organization. So what would be the point of grand battles of thousands of troops when during this time from a rebel standpoint they dont exist..and even more when they wouldnt even dare go after the Empire in such a fashion as to be a conventional battle..try watching Ep4-6 again. Even the Battle of Hoth wasnt that big with a few hundred RA troops defending again several hundred Imperial troops.  Or maybe you forgot the game doesnt extend into the EU?

[Darthscharnhorst2]

I don't think its fair to base the scale of the conflict with what we saw in ep 4-6 since a lot of that had to do with budget and the lack of computer animation.  I have the feeling that if those movies were made today we would see land battles of epic scale. 

 

That said, I think a lot of us were hoping more for something akin to Rome Total War/rebellion but instead are seeing Age of Empires/C&C.  Of course there is nothing wrong with this approach but the apparent lack of realism and *true* strategic depth is a downer for a lot of us.   I will still buy this game and will probably enjoy the hell out of it for a month or two but unless the modders can work miracles I doubt it will reside on my hard drive as long as Rebellion, civilization and the total war series.  Like a previous poster mentioned above, what bothers me most is the apparent lack of effort in balancing realism with fun.  I think new players would have found many of the less hardcore aspects *persistant damage, diplomatic system, true research, unit experience, etc* we strategy fans clamor for enjoyable as long as it was presented in an intuitive and fun manor. 

 

Like many, my first exposure to the RTS was the original C&C and starcraft, and while those games were fun for multiplayer and quick battles against the ai the replayability grew stale over time *paper beats rock and twitchy reflex's do not count as strategy once you get out of middleschool *  However, games like the Total war series *with its great mods", Hearts of Iron, Rebellion, and civilization truly challenge the mind and it is a shame that most new developers shy away from games which require us to think because they believe they will turn off to many people.  I guess that says a lot about how they view gamers  ;D

[WhiteSkull]

i still cant belive people are talking about realism in a FAKE world, get a clue guys realism in a made up world with fake made up units is left up to the creators of said world NOT the fans who belive they know what is real and what is not.

[Dachande18]

Quick background:  I was very excited for Empire at War initially, but later developments scaled back my excitement level considerably.  It wasn't so much Petroglyph's fault either.  Let me elaborate.

 

Think back to Episode 3 where we saw thousands of soldiers on-screen and dozens if not hundreds of vehicles duking it out, all with officers and generals. It would be representing Star Wars in its true self. I am not even talking about the EU, which consistently talks about large-scale battles over the *whole* planet.

 

As for shield generators, there is no reason why it couldn't be covering the entire planet. Bombardment via turbolaser would thus be ineffective, and bombardment via atmospheric bombers would be a bad idea because of ground-based anti-air emplacements.

 

Wow Igor... I feel for you here.  All these ideas you suggest make the universe feel so real and fully of life...  And that might be part of the problem.

 

Think of it this way: how do you effectively control all these aspects of the game?  Moreover, are the current 'masses' willing to accept/ready to handle this level of complexity and strategy?  Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have hundreds and thousands of troops at my disposal... Or, for that matter, more than '20' would be a good start, but that's not my point.

 

My point is, there is an increasing tendency in the gaming world today to make things look much cooler than they really are.  To make things look as if they are a totally immersive experience, when infact they're simply a standard strafe/fire, point/click, build/attack scenario.  And, admittantly, it is difficult to go much further into the complexity when a LARGE portion of your revenue stems from a young/inattentive/unwilling to have a substantial learning curve/only familiar with 'rushing' strategies/need to have things "now-now-now" group of people.  (Did that make sense?)... Simply put, I think the problem is that the majority of people playing games nowadays are always on the prowl for something with a quick 'hit' of action... So, there's less draw for a totally immersive, contemplative game.  The main focus is getting people online, into the action, quick to the point... Not slow, intellgent contemplation.  And even if a developer wished to create the latter scenario, they'd be pushed by the producers to make something 'more accessible'...

 

Sorry if I went off on a tangent there.  However, I suppose I mourn the days when the releasing of games excited me... When 'new' games didn't always feel like old games with a new paint job.

 

Bryan

AKA: Dachande

 

PS - I was going to mention the limitations of our current technologies interface (mouse, keyboard, monitor make it difficult to effectively control large-scale situations)... But I'll save that for another time.  But, just to think about it... Wouldn't it be awesome (and far more effecient/natural) if they started coming out with new technology... Imagine a touch-screen/Nintendo DS stylus-type interface, but the size of a keyboard, and with huge amounts of customizeability and functionality.... Mmmmm... Innovation.

 

PS V2.0 - Also note, Igor, I'm not really responding to or contesting any points you've made.  In fact, I rue the fact that your suggestions, and several others I've contemplated myself, haven't been included in the game.  However, for what it's worth, I concur with most of your feelings.  I, as a gamer, want a complex, thought out, and intellegent experience.  Furthermore, I want controls that feel intuitive, believable scenarios, and thoughtful subject matter.  I'm sure EAW will satisfy a great number of these needs.  However, I hope that feedback such as ours will be read and noted for later endeavours, so that perhaps eventually it will be common knowledge that a large majority of gamers are infact mature adults, who are seeking an equally mature, complex and intellegent gameplay experience.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Dachande18

[Darthscharnhorst2]

Its not about wether a world is "fake" or not.  It is a gameplay mechanic.  C&C takes place in a relative "real world" but we suspend our notions of the reality of unit training, production, strategy etc and simply enjoy the on screen carnage.  However, some gamers prefer a relatively realistic experience within the fiction of the game world.  

 

For example, if I play a FPS like Call of Duty I realize that it is by no means a true repersentation of WWII era combat nor is it 100% historically accurate but if I fire a round at someone I presume it will produce the desired effect and that each weapon modled in the game is at least somewhat like its historical counterpart.  Likewise if I am playing a game set in the star wars universe I expect it to follow conventions of that universe.  As for as this game is concerned that means ships which take damage should stay damaged till repaired, a death star should take more than 30 days to build and a planet should not join the rebel alliance just because a ship arrives in orbit around it, etc.  But this is the preference of some, many other gamers could care less either way.  Thus the problem stems from the notion that the dev team didn't find the proper balance between a realistic repersentation of the Star Wars universe and gameplay.  Thats not to say the game is bad, I for one like it.  But it feels like more effort could have been spent on appeasing those of us who prefer a deeper experience.  

[Guest JediIgor]

This game is an all right RTS. The way it was depicted in all the previews and by LucasArts itself, it was supposed to be the best Star Wars strategy ever. Well, I find it lacking the Star Wars feeling, and certainly not better then Rebellion. I played the entire demo once, then I downloaded Bryant's mod which unlocks all the units/planets and played it again.

 

Something with the gameplay is very screwed up. I took over the entire galaxy except for 5 imperial planets within 4 days, within 7 more days I was able to build several large fleets and crush, that's right, CRUSH the Imperials. Thanks to the super-fast hyperspace speed you can take over 10 planets with just 1 troop soldier in one day. You get instant credits when that happens, so more $ for you.

 

Now that I've engaged in at least a dozen space battles, I feel confident talking about it. The 25 unit cap is weak sauce. I could understand a global population cap being the equivalent of maintenance, but during one battle? There aren't even flags in space maps, so you can't get more reinforcements over 25. Fighters count toward your population, so you end up with a *TINY* fleet. You remember Return of the Jedi with dozens of Mon calamaris and Imperial Star Destroyers? No way you'll recreate it here (although you can in Warlords mod).

 

Then there are the respawning TIEs. This must be the most ridiculous idea ever, because while the Empire gets free crap that doesn't count towards their population limit, the Rebels can field *less* units during the same space battle because their units *count* towards the population limit. Plus of course, they have to *pay* for their fighters. Ditto for the respawning stormtroopers.

 

There's almost no unit variety. The Rebels have what, 4-6 capital ships, and 4 fighters. The good news is that you're *forced* to build bombers because while in every previous SW game X-wings could wield proton torpedoes, in this one, they *can't*! They do make quick mincemeat of the TIEs though, since for some reason the Empire doesn't have TIE Interceptors or TIE Advanced (in previous games and movies).

 

With all this hyperspeed gameplay and nothing much to do besides build-up militarily, I wonder if this game will even provide that 10 minimum hours of fun.

[SirNuke]

Alright few more things.

 

1. Starships do not have unlimited tie reinforcements during the mission.  Check this code out.

 

<Starting_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>TIE_Fighter_Squadron, 2</Starting_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>
<Starting_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>TIE_Bomber_Squadron, 1</Starting_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>
<Spawned_Squadron_Delay_Seconds>5</Spawned_Squadron_Delay_Seconds>
<Reserve_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>TIE_Fighter_Squadron, 8</Reserve_Spawned_Units_Tech_0> 
<Reserve_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>TIE_Bomber_Squadron, 4</Reserve_Spawned_Units_Tech_0>

 

It spawns 2 squads of TIE Fighters, and 1 squad of Bombers.  It keeps 8 squads of Fighters and 4 squads of Bombers in reserve.  Two or so corvettes will be able to eliminate them as they spawn.  Do they replace themselves between combat?  Yes, but the Star Destroyer is almost 50% more expensive than the Mon Calamari (5900 versus 4000).  Then the Rebels have the advantage of discounts from either Mon Mothma and by controlling Mon Calamari (25% and 20% respectively).  The price difference between the two allows you to build 4 X-wings, 2 Y-Wings, and an A-wing squad with credits to spare, without any discounts.

 

2. Starbases do have unlimited respawn, but having played several 'serious' battles against high level space stations, they are way overpowered, especially when combined with ground based anti air defenses.  My guess is they will be change to have not unlimited respawn.

3. In the real campaigns, pirates control most of the systems, and are often very difficult to remove (their command centers spawns lots of units).

4. In a real campaign, it will take a while to gain enough credits from taking a planet to counter the units lost, plus money spent on building defenses.

5. You can call the extra units in during the space battle, past the current 21 limit.

6. The build times and hyperspace speeds are speed up for the demo.

7. The AI isn't aggressive and is very incomplete.  It once make the brilliant move of attacking my fleet right after I attacked a pirate one.  On the other hand, it rarely attacks regardless of how much of an advantage it has, in the galatic or space battles.

 

Don't judge the game by this demo.  I personally feel that this is the best RTS game and 4X in a long time.

[OMEGA]

Im not trying to start an argument here, but I read your post and all I saw was complete disgust and negativity with the game. I have yet to see one positive comment from you JediIgor, regarding the magnificent work of art that Petroglyph has created.

 

I would stop clamoring over Rebellion's rotting carcas, cause it's time to move on to something far more grand and innovative. This will become one of the most innovative RTS games ever concieved, and not even all your whining and negativity can prevent that from happening. >

 

P.S. Im 16.  >

[Grand Admiral Thrawn 889]

Well the best Feedback to work from is negative but not whining! if everyone keeps telling you how great it is tehn you don't know what needs repairing do they, so Negative Feedback is ok i think but not when it's whining about what an individual wants and that they want it now! that's just petty.

[Guest JediIgor]

Well the best Feedback to work from is negative but not whining! if everyone keeps telling you how great it is tehn you don't know what needs repairing do they, so Negative Feedback is ok i think but not when it's whining about what an individual wants and that they want it now! that's just petty.

 

Exactly, I don't see the need to join the hundred fanboys who have nothing better to do then uselessly suck up. Guess what, some of my issues might be relevant and could end up being game savers for all they know.. As they say, negative feedback is better then none.