Re: Space battles not as good as I expected them to be....

[raydude]

Ding ding, I don't want an RTS, I want a true "Star Wars" simulator.

 

Well, no RTS game is truly a "simulator" is it? No, I take that back. Harpoon and Close Combat were the closest that RTS games came to truly being "simulations" of combat. Because 1 second of game time = 1 second of real time. Sure you could speed it up via time compression but you could always dial it back to being a "true" representation of being in command while time was passing in "true" real-time.

 

When you start adding the capability to construct units then the RTS ceases to be a "simulator" of any kind. Unless you really think an ISD can be constructed in 10 "real time" seconds.

 

Perhaps what you are referring to is a game that gives you the truest sense of being in command? In that case I would give the award to Conquest: Frontier Wars. In that you had AI Admirals that you could assign to fleets. And you could give the AI Admirals general orders to carry out. Not only that but CFW also added the concept of logistics - that ammo and fuel was not infinite so you had to send out tankers to refuel your fleets or have them come back to base to refuel. That to me was a better test of command ability than simply maneuvering in 3D space.

[Darth Plagueis]

Thats what i liked so much about Conquest: Frontier Wars, i have a strange and perhaps misguided love for logistics especially when it comes to military history.

 

How exactly could you make a true Star Wars simulator? from where do you base the standards? im not sure if Starfleet Command was a simulator or an RTS.

 

If anyone wants a sense of being in command i would recommend Star Trek Bridge Command.

[Saracen]

A Real RTS simulator would take about a year to complete half a campaign... multiplayer would be murder... expect 4-15 day Skirmish battles and 2 days of getting to the other end of the map.. Your tanks would probably run outta fuel and break down... and most of the time, your troops will sit around doing nothing, waiting for you to make decisions that will cause the worlds media to come down on you like a tonne of bricks..

 

It'll take 3-7 days to find re-enforcements, and you'll drag on and on, hoping that the government doesn't pull you out, or leave you in alone for a couple of years. Funding and food will be low, and your troops will resort to being stuck in a bush crying his eyes out cos he's got shell shock! Yeah, you want realism in an RTS.... I highly doubt it  :

[Darth Plagueis]

Or you could just join the military and get it over with.

[raydude]

Thats what i liked so much about Conquest: Frontier Wars, i have a strange and perhaps misguided love for logistics especially when it comes to military history.

No, my young Jedi . It is not misguided. For it has been said "Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics."

[WhiteSkull]

The issue isn't with Homeworld, it's that you're stuck in 2D.  :

 

 

 

 

Sounds like your the one stuck on 3D lol.

 

HW 3D map system sucks for most gamers plain and simple or the game would have a much larger fan base and we would see that moddle used in other space games.( thats been said before)

[Sergeant Bob]

Well to add to this, isn't most space combat seen in the movies as far as capitol ships are concerned done with the ships more or less firing broadside after broadside into each other?  In ROTS and ROTJ the capitol ships are more or less at the same 'altitude' duking it out with some higher or lower than others but not significantly so.  Capitol ship combat in star wars can be compared to world war II naval battles.  You have aircraft attacking each other while they are also trying to make runs on the capitol ships.  While this is happening you have the main ships continuing to move in at each other in order to attack and bring maximum weapons to bear on a single target.  The first half can mostly be compared to most naval air battles while the second could be compared to the hunts for the German Battleships and Battlecruisers in world war II or like the battle of Surigao Strait during the Philippine Campaign in 1944.

[Mistrider]

speaking of the ship tactics used in Star Wars, I'd like to see them add an Ackbar Slash special ability. It basically sends a capital ship  or starfighter squadron directly between two opposing enemy capital ships, firing the entire time. The best part of this is that any missed shots by the enemy ships hit the OTHER enemy ship.

 

For other awesome Star Wars tactics: http://boards.theforce.net/Literature/b10003/15031990/

[WhatsHisFace]

i have 2 things that i didn't like one that the missiles went through the ships shields and 2 she shields went away way to fast especially considering the fact that Mon calamari shields are sapos to be legendary in there strength.

 

the reasons i didn't like the missiles going through the ships shields is b/c all the enemy has to do is target the shield generator. yes i know you could build tartens and corvettes but that doesn't stop the stashion and the mass amounts of bombers whith fighter escorts form getting a fiew in.

 

and the second part about the shields. i really think that at the speed that the ships shields go down makes the space battles a lot shorter then land battles when it should be vice versa in my opinion. also the stashion shields go down faster then an isds shields do.

[WhatsHisFace]

sorry for the second post but i finally got through all the posts on this page. in my oppion i think 2.5d is a much better idea then 3d b/c you don't have to worry sending your units up or down all you have to do is say attack here and they do. now if the ships would move up or down to get into a better firing position that would be great but ehh its not that important.

[SirNuke]

Hmmm, a Star Wars simulator... wouldn't that be called... a movie ?

[Teradyn_pff]

No, it wouldn't.  A movie you watch and have no control or interaction.  A simulator is an attempt to put you as close to the real thing as is technologically possible.  In the case of Star Wars this means as close to what "real" is portraid as.

 

I think we are a few years from a star wars galactic simulator, and simulators are not big money makers anyway, so .... who knows if it will ever exist, especially with Lucas Arts always being in the middle of it.

 

What we need is for someone to obtain the license from Lucas Arts but use someone else to publish the game.  Of course LA will probably never let that happen...

[Nevets]

No, it wouldn't.  A movie you watch and have no control or interaction.  A simulator is an attempt to put you as close to the real thing as is technologically possible.  In the case of Star Wars this means as close to what "real" is portraid as.

 

I think we are a few years from a star wars galactic simulator, and simulators are not big money makers anyway, so .... who knows if it will ever exist, especially with Lucas Arts always being in the middle of it.

 

What we need is for someone to obtain the license from Lucas Arts but use someone else to publish the game.  Of course LA will probably never let that happen...

 

Never happen, the best you could ever hope for is a really really good mod, which I am sure there will be one for this game. THe problem comes when what people see as realistic conflicts. Hopefully there will be one that pleases everyone.

[Teradyn_pff]

You are probably right nevets, but what I am talking about is the engine being built in such a way as to make it possible for the modders to do so.

[Guest JediIgor]

A Real RTS simulator would take about a year to complete half a campaign... multiplayer would be murder... expect 4-15 day Skirmish battles and 2 days of getting to the other end of the map.. Your tanks would probably run outta fuel and break down... and most of the time, your troops will sit around doing nothing, waiting for you to make decisions that will cause the worlds media to come down on you like a tonne of bricks..

 

It'll take 3-7 days to find re-enforcements, and you'll drag on and on, hoping that the government doesn't pull you out, or leave you in alone for a couple of years. Funding and food will be low, and your troops will resort to being stuck in a bush crying his eyes out cos he's got shell shock! Yeah, you want realism in an RTS.... I highly doubt it  :

 

Wow, did you miss the post about time compression?

 

 

 

I don't even know if it's worth my time to reply in this thread anymore, the majority here don't even know how to make a proper argument.

[Guest]

hmmm... this is just an opinion but the Warlods mod pretty much makes EAW's space battles obsolete.

 

EAW's space battles would be for the younger kids because of thier simplicity

[raydude]

hmmm... this is just an opinion but the Warlods mod pretty much makes EAW's space battles obsolete.

 

EAW's space battles would be for the younger kids because of thier simplicity

 

Well, here is a fact for you: the EAW game is complete and it is in 2.5D. No amount of whining can change that now.

 

If you know anything at all about programming you'd know that going from the current design to fully 3D requires more than a one line change of code.  And save the condesending "younger kids" remark. I'm 34 and I recognize the direction Petroglyph is taking with this game design. It is different from Homeworld on so many levels: interface, depth of galactic management, economic model, and tactical environment (adding ground combat in addition to space battles). The fact that your constantly harp on just one aspect of the design speak volumes about how narrow-mindedness misses sight of the big picture of the design.

 

The argument that having a 3D interface to realistically portray what a commander would see for a 3D battlespace has been proven moot. The current 3D battlespace of today - the domain of the air force and the navy - is STILL represented by a 2D interface. No one in their right mind would accuse the US military of being "unrealistic" simply because of their choice of interface.

 

I do agree that the main reason why the military has chosen the 2D interface is because of simplicity in depicting the battlespace. Which is good, because the last thing a military commander needs is extra neurons devoted to aligning a 3D camera in the Z-plane. I'd rather he see the big picture represented as simply as possible so he can go on the process of fighting and winning his battle.

[Guest]

Well, here is a fact for you: the EAW game is complete and it is in 2.5D. No amount of whining can change that now.

 

If you know anything at all about programming you'd know that going from the current design to fully 3D requires more than a one line change of code.  And save the condesending "younger kids" remark. I'm 34 and I recognize the direction Petroglyph is taking with this game design. It is different from Homeworld on so many levels: interface, depth of galactic management, economic model, and tactical environment (adding ground combat in addition to space battles). The fact that your constantly harp on just one aspect of the design speak volumes about how narrow-mindedness misses sight of the big picture of the design.

 

The argument that having a 3D interface to realistically portray what a commander would see for a 3D battlespace has been proven moot. The current 3D battlespace of today - the domain of the air force and the navy - is STILL represented by a 2D interface. No one in their right mind would accuse the US military of being "unrealistic" simply because of their choice of interface.

 

I do agree that the main reason why the military has chosen the 2D interface is because of simplicity in depicting the battlespace. Which is good, because the last thing a military commander needs is extra neurons devoted to aligning a 3D camera in the Z-plane. I'd rather he see the big picture represented as simply as possible so he can go on the process of fighting and winning his battle.

 

narrow mindedness? your a good exapmle of narrow mindedness.

 

It's this kind of blind obsession to EAW that makes the people only see the good aspects of EAW and has them oblivious to any flaws. And your 34?  that alone says something, at your age you should be too busy to worry about petty things such as video games. The only reason anyone above 20 would have any reason to play video games is if they're a rich snob or they are nerds that live with their mothers.

[Megajames]

narrow mindedness? your a good example of narrow mindedness.

 

It's this kind of blind obsession to EAW that makes the people only see the good aspects of EAW and has them oblivious to any flaws. And your 34?  that alone says something, at your age you should be too busy to worry about petty things such as video games. The only reason anyone above 20 would have any reason to play video games is if they're a rich snob or they are nerds that live with their mothers.

 

and that is a personal insult, and a very serve one at that, i hope you are banned for these attacks

[Guest]

whoah! this is getting ugly. the 2D battles are for simplicity. what EAW lacks in tactical value for the space battles it makes up for it with all of the galactic conquest strategical value.

[Guest]

and that is a personal insult, and a very serve one at that, i hope you are banned for these attacks

 

that's an insult? it might be but not a severe one at that. There is some truth in that though adults have better uses for time than playing video games

[Jmaster3265]

that's an insult? it might be but not a severe one at that. There is some truth in that though adults have better uses for time than playing video games

 

He still has no right to go flaming and lashing at everyone. He is breaking the rules and seesm t do it on a basis....Does he get any warnings? Anyways back on topic, remember once again this is just a demo and its your opinion on the space battles. But most people feel and disagree with you..

[Guest]

He still has no right to go flaming and lashing at everyone. He is breaking the rules and seesm t do it on a basis....Does he get any warnings? Anyways back on topic, remember once again this is just a demo and its your opinion on the space battles. But most people feel and disagree with you..

 

when I'm flamed, I flame back

[Megajames]

please, he did not flame you, can we get back to the topic

[raydude]

when I'm flamed, I flame back

 

Oh? Are you referring to my statement: "The fact that your constantly harp on just one aspect of the design speak volumes about how narrow-mindedness misses sight of the big picture of the design." ?

 

Let me clarify. I did not mean that you were narrow-minded. I merely held this obsession with 3D interfaces as an example of narrow-mindedness. Its the same narrow-mindedness that leads a reviewer to critize a game design for using sprites instead of 3D models and then totally ignores the other innovative features of the game. Kohan is the game I am referring to in this case.

 

So based on this clarification my statement can hardly be held as incontrovertible proof of a flame. On the other hand this quote:

Still, The only reason anyone above 20 would have any reason to play video games is if they're a rich snob or they are nerds that live with their mothers.

 

Can't be defended as anything BUT a flame.

 

The statement is also ignorant of one simple fact: The median age of male gamers is 36. Median, meaning the middle of a set of values, as opposed to the average. Thus, if one lines up the ages of all male gamers together, the end result is that the median is 36. That tells us that there is as many gamers above the age of 36 as there are below the age of 36. As a point of fact, I would wager than many game developers, including Relic - makers of the beloved Homeworld game - are above the age of twenty.

 

The flame statement also ignores a basic trait of intelligence, as observed by Aristotle. The famous philosopher wrote:" The higher the intelligence of a being, the greater its need for play." Man, being the top of the intelligence chain in the animal kingdom, certainly requires lots of play as a break from His normal mundane activities.

 

As for me, game playing has helped me learn a lot about the world. The real-world, as opposed to the made up one in Star Wars. History, geography, culture, new perspectives on life, and even simple things like better hand-eye coordination are all a side benefit of playing games.

 

Maybe you personally feel as you have written - that anyone above 20 should not even care about petty video games. If so, then I bid you farewell when you reach your 20th birthday and stop playing video games altogether.

 

Now, back on track - can someone who is advocating 3D interfaces tell me why we "need" them to be more "realistic" when the real-world military still uses 2D interfaces?