Chaos_pff Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 UPs.:1. it is actually a game were you can play a campaign against someone else without getting bored to death waiting,i can not even possibly overstate that ! 2. Nice skirmish multiplayer with fun teamplay. DOWNs.:1. AI is among the worst i have seen in strategy games since C&C Red Alert. --> Singleplayer fun: about 5-8 hours per campaign + 2-4 hours per galactic conquest.2. I personally would have liked a more deep going strategy game but that would have made UP 1. impossible(one has to set priorities)3. The engine is made for few units on the field (Personally i like it that way because its more tactics but its just strange to have an entire fleet against few enemies and only a few of my units are showing up) If you got substantial add-ons please go ahead. (Please no "Unit XYZ is too strong")
Dorkthehunter Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 I really think that the game lacks strategy because the maps are so small. The land maps force you to go on certain paths instead of having some open space for flanking manuvers and different strategies like that. Also, only having two factions is a bummer. I think multiplayer is a blast, but to a point. Eventually I get bored and play a different game, like Medieval Total War which takes years to finish, but has so many units and strategic elements that make it worth playing. EAW needs that element. 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
VZaknaril Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 i don't have a huge list to cover, as Chaos already did a decent job. I do want to add a couple of things. StarWars is a genre that covers a very wide range of years/ages and it brings a lot of different people together (e.g. father and son can both enjoy the game). I have seen ages ranging from people in their 40's to in their early teens. For me the downside is the very bad online interface with GameSpy. It's just subpar in every respect. MSN Zone is a better server for crying out loud! Sync error run rampant. The other thing is game balance. With each patch release huge changes are made to game balance in an effort to make it right. My thoughts are that they should have made it right to start with and not realeased the game until they did. The major changes made in the patches (and the connection problems) is a big reason why the online community has dwindled. http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m83/qalsip/zak1_demo.jpghttp://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sf/type/2/zaknaril.png
Lord_of_the_Sith Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 True. The game needs larger maps, larher galaxy and more hardpoints for ships.Only mods add this. But damn they get paid for their work.Why they don't really earn their pay!!
Mr.Crisp Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 I would have loved to see more stragey involed. Like... Like the poltical control. You could ask a system to join your cause as opposed to invading it and placing a unit on it. If they declined you could send ships in orbit and threaten them. The better the ship the better the result. If you sent a Star Destroyer instead of a Strike Cruiser you would get better results. Or you could use proganda pamplets or send food or equpiment. And also have type of respect and fear meter. If you are a ruthless dictator chances are people will hate you and cause rebellions. I would have liked it if one of two things happen: 1.) They don't submit and you can orbitail bomb them or send in ground forces. You make a new enemy. 2.) They submit and you get access to a better population or some other bonus. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a105/333Super/Maul.jpg
VZaknaril Posted September 26, 2006 Posted September 26, 2006 Thats a nice idea Mr. Crisp...sorta like cultural influence on the Civ games. I like it. It would work differently for Rebs and Emps. Empire would threaten, where Rebels would use diplomacy, etc. http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m83/qalsip/zak1_demo.jpghttp://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sf/type/2/zaknaril.png
tredavi Posted October 12, 2006 Posted October 12, 2006 I pretty much agree with most ideas but i don't mind the sort of linear maps. The fact that buildings and planetary weapons are always put in a certain spot and certain pathways are always used etc. It always bothered me in other rts like starcraft how you pretty much had to defend on all fronts and it got annoying. They computer seems to always attack where you didn't have units so even if you had a larger force you could lose buildings and such. I really like how empire uses the terran to limit you because then certain choke points are developed. Maybe its just because im just a casual RTSer but the fact i only have to worry about certain paths and enterances to attack or defend from eases the burden that was just to complex in other games. Some may say it limits strategy and replayablilty and its kidna true but it also makes sure you get it right.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now