Darthscharnhorst2 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Well I guess that acts as a Balance to its power, but it makes very little logical sense. Unless you are forced to keep Vader and the Emperor on it at all times, I doubt the Empire would crumble from the loss of it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenomorphine Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Perhaps only in regards to the main campaign with scripted missions? The more freeform mode should not include that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teradyn_pff Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Well I guess that acts as a Balance to its power, but it makes very little logical sense. Unless you are forced to keep Vader and the Emperor on it at all times, I doubt the Empire would crumble from the loss of it alone. Well, I agree that the loss of the Death Star itself is not as particularly a significant blow to the Empire as someone would assume. They were building a bigger and better version very quickly after that loss as well as producing the 'Super Star Destroyers', new fighter types, etc. However, in this game, losing it will lose you the game. The reason I think this is a good balance is because destroying a planet does not cost you support on other planets like in Rebellion. If there was not a considerable risk for using something this powerful, then the Rebellion would never have a chance. Perhaps only in regards to the main campaign with scripted missions? The more freeform mode should not include that. I haven't been able to spend as much time as allot of other people have with the data files and modding and such, but I have not seen anything to indicate that this is not something that will be true in every game. If one of the more active modders could disprove this statement I would appreciate it. My Death Star is bigger than your Death Star!"The XML is strong with this one!"http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/teradyn.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthscharnhorst2 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Now that I am thinking about it, what would be the real purpose of building a Death Star in this game? Apparently it cannot attack ships, its fighter capacity is mute since all imp forces respawn automatically and as mentioned above there is no loyalty rating for planets. Since the Rebs can only Garrison 8 units on a planet, I don't really see the need to ever blow one up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistrider Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I have been looking through the xml files, and it appears that many campaigns require that the rebellion's final world be destroyed in order for the empire to win, this adds even more tactical sense to only allowing you one deathstar before you lose. And when he reaches Heaven,To St. Peter he will tell,"Just another soldier reporting Sir,I've served my time in Hell." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teradyn_pff Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Actually, Mistrider, that is in there to keep the game from messing up becuase you didn't own all of the planets. Every entry like that also has the control all of the planets in the galaxy as another possibility. Darthscharnhorst2, the Death Star can be used to permanently remove certain systems from the game... and as long as the abilities are tied to the worlds and not the space they occupy it would be strategically sound for the Empire to blow up a required world for Mon Cal production for one. This would prevent the Rebels from ever building Mon Cals anywhere. Now if this is no the case, I have the same question you do. My Death Star is bigger than your Death Star!"The XML is strong with this one!"http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/teradyn.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Saint Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 quoteHi, i would like to know why did you choose this time period of the Star Wars Game for the game "Empire At War" and not making an RTS game that would spend on the entire Star Wars saga... It allowed us to start before the classic trilogy and before what you know, but move into the the classics everyone loves. We want this to be a strong franchise of games that could span more eras and this felt like a great place to start. Damn..now I need to build a time machine go into the future, steal the expansion and or sequel to EaW and return to the present as a hero to the community. Now who wants to fund my time machine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmaster3265 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Beowulf, this is the second time today I have said this to a person on this forum: If this forum had an ignore list, you would be on it in a heartbeat. Didn't your mommy ever teach you that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all? I concur with you, is there a report button? Or do we just need to contact mods in e-mails. Anyways, back on topic....thanks for posting the info! http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/1135/jmaster3265signew13rd.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthscharnhorst2 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Darthscharnhorst2, the Death Star can be used to permanently remove certain systems from the game... and as long as the abilities are tied to the worlds and not the space they occupy it would be strategically sound for the Empire to blow up a required world for Mon Cal production for one. This would prevent the Rebels from ever building Mon Cals anywhere. Now if this is no the case, I have the same question you do. Now this makes sense to me. Sounds like a good slash and burn tactic if you don't think you can hold a world. With that in mind, its a shame that some buildings don't carry over after a planet changes hands ala *Rome Total War*, as that would add to the value of completely destroying a system/striping your own worlds if you feel they will be taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teradyn_pff Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 The reason they didn't do this is because imagine a Rebel taking over a system with a hypervelocity gun on it and then adding an ion cannon! Balance would be out the window, but more importantly, the interface is not designed to have more than one superweapon available at one time. My Death Star is bigger than your Death Star!"The XML is strong with this one!"http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/teradyn.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordstorm88 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 But why would a planet destroying weapons platform want to use its main weapon (which takes 24hrs to recharge in this timeframe) to take out a ship when in the film/game it has its own fleet to do so. with ships getting built on 4 hours, I believe the recharge rate would be.. 4 seconds... kinda like the hypervelocity gun... how much does it cost anyway? and I thought the luke killing death star=loss was only for the campaign... not the conquest or ... well there is no skirmish with ds lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I concur with you, is there a report button? Or do we just need to contact mods in e-mails. Anyways, back on topic....thanks for posting the info! lay off on him, I thought the same thing. That is the Empire loses the death star then they lose? That sucks (to put it in nicer terms). Destroying the deathstar should be a requirement for the Rebels to win. You know like something out of Rebellion? It could be something like: 1.Destroy the death star2.Take Corusant3. Kill Vader and Emperor Or you could just kill them off the old fashiond way by taking all of thier planets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthscharnhorst2 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 The reason they didn't do this is because imagine a Rebel taking over a system with a hypervelocity gun on it and then adding an ion cannon! Balance would be out the window, but more importantly, the interface is not designed to have more than one superweapon available at one time. I was thinking more along the lines of keeping the Barraks, senors, etc in tact. But since these buildings play a part in the land battles I guess they must be destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Plagueis Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 It has been confirmed that if you build a Death Star and lose it, you lose the game. Well thats just gay "Kool-aid is a pathway to some abilities many would consider to be... unnatural" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkthehunter Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Are they talking about single or multiplayer??? Galactic conquest or story campaign? Skirmish or conquest? Protecting the world from those who have an IQ higher than 30! Huzzah! Trust me...I'm a professional. Some other members and I are trying to be superheroes and save the forums. But we can't do it on our own. We need your help! Join us! http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5380/pffuserbar2modnp0.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teradyn_pff Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 The indication from when, and how it was stated, was that any time there is a Death Star in play, the Rebellion can win the game by destroying it. My Death Star is bigger than your Death Star!"The XML is strong with this one!"http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/teradyn.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now