Demo Feedback - Okay, but not *great*

[raydude]

Several points I'd like to make:

 

1. Time and time again Petroglyph developers have been referring to the unit groups as 'companies'. Its not some slick marketing scheme or that one of the devs thought there should be some military sounding words in the game. In my opinion, they did it to remind us that each 'unit graphic' represents groups of men rather than just 1 individual. Kohan 1 and 2 did the same thing. They use individual unit graphics to represent groups of people. Otherwise, seeing 4 people with bows and arrows and 4 people with swords (as represented in Kohan graphics) take a castle would seem utterly ridiculous.

 

Its all about symbology and what the individual graphic represents. Wargames do this all the time. A single counter usually does not represent one man. It represents a squad, company, division, or even an entire corps. I think wargamers do not suffer from this lack of imagination because the counter usually shows a graphic representation of the unit type (armor, infantry, etc) as well as a graphic indicating a unit size. (II = company, XX = division, etc). On the other hand, most non-wargamers don't like seeing a graphic of a square box (represents infantry) or a box with an oval shape in it (represents armor). They prefer to see a person with a rifle or an image of a tank. Which is what EAW does.

 

Incidentally, EAW is not the only game to use an image of 1 man to represent a group of men. Games have been doing this since Command and Conquer. Even more historical games like Rome:Total War are not representing the battles with a 1 graphic = 1 man ratio. The Battle of Cannae (in real life) had 50,000 Romans versus 40,000 Carthaginians. Rome: Total War can only put 10,000 units on the screen at any one time.

 

2. On unit caps, especially the maximum limit on forces on a given planet. Lets use a real-world example. In WW2 we know that Germany garrisoned troops in each of the countries they conquered - France, Poland, Belgium, Holland, etc. So why didn't Hitler just "control-select" all his forces and send them into France when the Allies invaded? Ignoring the fact that he thought it was a diversion, the simple fact is that he couldn't. By taking ALL the troops off of garrison duty he would be inviting resistance forces to rise up and take back their country.

In addition his logistics wouldn't have been able to keep up with that kind of deployment. All those troops have to eat, all the equipment has to be maintained, all the vehicles have to have gas. By keeping his forces dispersed he could keep them all in supply. The troops in Holland would eat food grown in Holland. The troops in Belgium would use Belgian gas. And so on.

 

Apply these "real world limitations" to EAW. Now, most people don't want to play a "supply officer" game where you have to move transports around that carry food, fuel, and spare parts. Yet, as a developer you want to get across to players that they can't simply group every unit into one big "Killer stack" and go from planet to planet. How to do you apply the "real world limitations" in the game and still keep it fun? Simple. Max unit cap. Its the easiest way to make the game approximate the real life fact that commanders in the field face: its not just who groups the most units together. Its who can keep them all fed, fueled, and full on ammo that will win the war.

 

Bottom line, for all the realism fans I can only see two options:

 

For 1. Change the unit graphics to use NATO symbology. That way there can be no doubt how large a force a single "graphic unit" represents. Check this link if you've forgotten your NATO symbology :

http://www.military.com/ResourcesSubmittedFiles/Military_Symbols_Guide.pdf

 

2. For people complaining against the max unit cap per planet, I say lets remove the unit cap and add the "logistics" into the game. YOU have to build the supply transports. YOU have to set their routes so that each fleet gets its supply of food, fuel, and ammo. YOU have to track the maintenance records and get spare parts to those units that need them. And, oh yeah, supply transports can be intercepted, so say goodbye to that Imperial frigate whose crews are dropping from hunger because you forgot to re-route transports past enemy held planets.

[Wiking_pff]

While I disagree with a lot of your statements, I agree that the replay value of the game could be very low. The sheer minimalism of available options is a bit worrying to me as well. Adding a few small things like unit ranks would increase the overall appeal of the game.

 

But, as we know, the demo is just a small portion of the game. Let's wait and see.

[Saracen]

As has been stated time and time and time again. This is an early build of the game. The polish and extra work that has gone into this game may make a whole lot of difference. The guys at Petroglyph have put in a lot of work since this build and the final release. Things can change, and usually do.

 

While I understand people's frustrations, you have to remember despite the talent and experience at Petroglyph, this is their first game as a company. If Empire at War does not make the impact they predict, they will take a look at where they went wrong, learn from it, and carry on.

 

But one thing that really annoys me, if people can't stand a game, and all they wanna do is shoot down every effort being made. Then why do you want to be part of a community. Whatever you do, don't start being negetive and ripping things apart. The next thing you'll get is a community that'll all do the same thing.

 

I've seen the C&C comunity do this and the worst thing about it now is, is that it's falling apart. If you cannot be constructive, and respect the views of other people, as well as the games the developers make for a community, then don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Juggernaut1985]

OMEGA, take caution. These people are expressing their opinions on the demo, not necessarily bashing it all to hell like you would like to think.

 

Just becuase you like everything about the Demo doesn't mean everyone else does. Take caution next time you post becuase the next flame I see will be promptly deleted.

[OMEGA]

OMEGA, take caution. These people are expressing their opinions on the demo, not necessarily bashing it all to hell like you would like to think.

 

Just because you like everything about the Demo doesn't mean everyone else does. Take caution next time you post because the next flame I see will be promptly deleted.

 

I never said I liked everything about the demo, nor did I state that it was perfect. Flaming? More like anti-flaming IMO, but I will heed your warning because I don't want to get on anyone's bad side. Plain and simple, I think that people who criticize the game do so under the circumstances that the look at the good and the bad points in order to form a more balanced opinion.

 

That's all I have to say.

[Dachande18]

Well, I DO have lots of faith in the Petroglyph team... So, here's the scenario:

 

1.  Empire at War is released... It's either innovative, fun and replayable or it's boring and predictable.  This is all depending on how they make it.  As everyone's said, the Demo is but a slice of the full game... But if one slice of a greater whole is really bland, then....

 

2.  Regardless of how 'fun' the game actually is, it will sell like mad, a La Star Wars tradition.  Thank god for consumer power.

 

3.  Then, with the 'success' of Empire at War, Petroglyph is signed on to make Empire at War 2, learning from their experience with Empire at War - as a company as a whole and concerning the game.

 

So, I think the situation's okay.

 

For now, I'd just really like to get my hands on the full game, so we can make educated and more complete comments.  Because, until then, I withhold any further judgement.

[Juggernaut1985]

OMEGA, its a simple matter of people posting what they don't like about the game. Generally what they like they won't post about becuase its not needed, the goal is to post what they don't like. Thats why you're sdeeing what you are.

[Nick2730]

but in a regular RTS you build units and structures in the same "mode" as the rest of the fighting is going on like in Galactic Battlegrounds.

 

Really, where is the rule book on that?    In my entire 10+ years of working on RTS games, no one ever told me we couldn't change the way this works. ;D

 

How do you ever expect things to change, if it is always just regular. How you build in a RTS is up to the developer, the fact that none have tried to improve upon the mechanic and keep feeding RTS fans the same old stuff is the problem.

 

You have to change, its called evolution. Without companies trying new things every RTS game will be the same just different units and theme's. New games are great because they change, without change we would experiance the same thing over and over. Like Delphi said whats the fun in that, it would be like cars never evolving or anything. technology advances because someone tried something different it is the basis for our society and our culture. Prop's to delphi and the petro team for doing something new to perhaps start a new genre or a new style of gaming. Hopfully i can join the team someday once i graduate

[Relentless]

Is JediIgor's critisism founded? Maybe. Is it conscructive? Yes. Is it flaming? No. I have no other problem with the first post except that some parts of it seem a little more hostile than necesarry. Otherwise this about the most consructive feedback I've seen this far, and it makes quite a few good points. At least its not a "yay best game ever"-post.