Grand_Admiral_Thrawn

Actually, this is the perfect spot for this topic . Though it's not directly related to Star Wars. the introduction of new members to the forums still belons here. The "Outside Discussion" forum is for things like Political conversations, discussion of world events and generally anything that doesn't relate to this site. Allow me to extend a heart-felt welcome to you Darth-Griffin, and may your stay be as long and fruitful as the rest of ours .

I saw this as one of the topics on the official SW website forums. Who, in the Star Wars universe, do you think you are most like? Consider physical features, mental abilities, emotions, you state of being etc. I'm not looking for a "I want to be an Uber-Jedi Mandolorian Grand Admiral in command of an Eclypse III class Star Transmogrifier", but who you think you are most like. I'd have to say I'm very similar to General Veers. I have a flare for the military, I enjoy commanding troops (even if it is only reenacted ), I'm rather submitting to my superiors, and mostly concerned with getting things done than keeping the cost low (we can always breed more men anyhow ).

Only moderators can lock topics on the forums, even if they are your own. If there is a topic you think shold be locked, try contacting one of the moderators .

Well, I must admit I'm confused as to why they would have Degobah as one of the planets. I think the only thing you have to fight there is trench foot... As for there being only 20 planets, so what? How many planets have the C&C games had? Or any of the Total War games? Hell, none of the Star Trek games have had anywhere near 20 planets! I think we're fortunate to get that many and still have diversity in terrain. Sure, they could have millions of planets that we can play on and just say "Uh, yeah, that's Beldonna IV... yes, it looks exactly the same as Eriadu Prime, but you wanted more than 20 planet!". Come on...

As yet there haven't been any true total conversions released. Rebellion Reloaded is (hopefully ) well on it's way to our waiting hands, but other than that there have only been partial conversions, with changes in ships and characters, but nothing to the UI, sounds, or videos.

I was thinking the same thing, but I guess if you only target mines and refineries, which can easily and quickly be built back up, it's not too bad an idea.

From the looks of the screenshots I'm inlcined to believe that it may not actually be restricted to 2D space combat since it is quite obviouse that the ground combat is 3D. Some of the space screenshots also show things to be at a different angle. Of course, wheather or not we can move on the Z axis has yet to be realized. I think that all of you who are being critical of the game are doing so at too early a stage, basing your arguments on past LA games and what you have read others report on the scant detailes the public has been provided with.This is not KOTOR, it's not Jedi Knight or Jedi Outcast, and it's certainly not X-Wing Alliance. It's "Empire at War". Hell, it can't even be compared to Force Commander or Rebellion. Why? Because they're different games that focus on different features. Now, there seems to be a good deal of "This is almost a dumbed-down version of Rebellion" and "Conquering a planet with 100 guys is stupid!". Who says you conquer the planet with only 100 guys? "Oh, but the screenshot clearly shows very few men!". So? You have one battle with 100 or so guys. Who's to say there won't be more? I am confident your gaming mags didn't tell you that there will only be 20 missions in a campeign, and that you'll only fight once on each planet. So, what exactly do you consider an RTS to be other than building a base and attacking with a slightly less than realistic number of troops. I know, I know, this is where you bring in your vaunted Rome: Total War, but that's not the type of game your average gamer is looking for. Firstly because it's not an RTS. There is an RTS aspect to it (the battles), but it is still an SG thanks to all of the map work. Secondly, R:TW is too complex for the average gamer. That's why Rebellion wasn't a great success and why LucasArts hasn't made another. From what I've seen, the gound fighting will be better than what we've seen in an RTS in a long time (though the exact dynamics of the gameplay may change this). All-in-all, I think we have a good game to look forward to. We get a mix of space and ground combat that spans over twenty planets allowing us to changethe history of the Star Wars Universe as we know it. While we don't play the role of Galactic Governor, we do get to do everything we love in Rebellion, plus the much lacking ground aspect of battle (now you get to see why your Dark Trooper Regiment was beaten by those damn Sullustians!). We all needto step back and realize that you can't incorperate everything into one game, and that we are a long way off from Igor's idea of a perfect RTS (because in the end, what sort of RTS really matters if not that ?).

The game does look good, bu I'm interested in how they will have ship building in the space battles. How many ships will you be able to build? How accurate will the size ratio be? Will they incorperate Hyperspace? I guess we'll have to wait an see.

I don't argue about what's cannon! http://historicaltextarchive.com/hungary/cannon.jpg That is cannon!

Or there will be no life on Earth .

Actually, the Sun was hotter in its beginnings, not cooler, so Earth would have been a smouldering heap of rock. I think that they have hypothisized that Titan was once like Earth, or at least in some respects. This is basically the same process that has been going on on Mars, though I personally find Titan of more interest.

I grabbed the most recent copy of PC Gamer and it's highlight is of AoE III, and I must say it looks very good. The day/night won't have any effect on the game, but it is no longer a build and attack game. You have to establish an economy, for alliances with natives, establish a home city which you can evolve and add to. That home city will have a level, from 1-100, which will reflect you skill, as well as how much assitance they will be able to send you. You will also be able to recieve resources (if you're an economic rather than military leader) from your home city. If this is your type of war, it is possible to win without firing a shot. If you prefer to focus everything on military conquest, you can recieve free troops from your home city. I'll see if I can get a scan of the article for you guys for tomorow. I left it at work so I can't get it right now.

And you'd also have to deal with a second verion of Scath sitting in your room correcting your spelling . Very nice find!

The standard Multiplayer for Freelancer was terrible, but many of the mods out there bring it up to what it could have been. By far the most entertaining multiplayer experience I've had in a fligh sim. That fact that it doesn't use a joystick is, well, unimportant. Joysticks are ungainly and innaccurate. The use of the mouse was brilliant, giving the player greater control over their ship. Those are some rather paltry arguments agains the game .

Good to see you back Elvis! Well, that said, I want to move a little off topic... or is it back on topic? I've noticed that we haven't really had hot topics of late, so I'm hoping to stir the ashes a little . Back during the heated debate it was decided that the Imperial rank system was based upon that of the American Navy, save for ranks such as High Admiral, Grand Admiral, Moff and Grand Moff. I would now like to propose that this is not the case, but that it is rather based upon the British Navy. In recent months I have taken a great interest in the British navy of the 19th century, reading all literature I can get my hands on with a voratious appetite, and I have noticed some striking similarities between the 19th Century/Modern British Navy and the Imperial Navy First, the existence of both Commodore and Rear-Admiral. In the American Navy the rank of Commodore has been replaced with that of Rear-Admiral so that, in a very confusing manner, there is an upper and a lower Rear-Admiral. In the British Navy Commodore is used in two ways. One, as a rank, the lowest Flag position available to an officer. The second is not so much a rank as a position. A Captain can be temorarily appointed a Commodore to take command of a task-force that is to perform a mission that an Admiral's fleet would not be needed for. So, a Captain commands a small group of Captains during an operation. The existance of Commodore leades me to believe that the rank of Line Captain is redundant and, indeed, only presented to justify the rank insignia of a single character, Captain Khurgee. In addition to Commodore, there are also three ranks, listed as Midshipman/Ensign, Acting Sub-Lieutenant, Sub-Lieutenant, and Lieutenant. These too reflect the British rather than the American Navy. In the American Navy there is only Ensign, Junior Grade Lieutenant and Lieutenant. In the modern British Navy the rank structure is pretty much the same. Going back to the early 19th century or earlier, however, one finds that it is not at all uncommon for there to be a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Lieutenant serving aboard a ship, and that the rank of Officer/Cadet would be Ensign/Midshipman, officers that do not yet have their commission. I would also like to pose that the rank of High Admiral is pointless, even on a scale as large as the Star Wars universe is concerned. A Fleet Admiral would be the highest needed rank since there are Moffs and Grand Moffs to cover planetary and sector control. The ranks of Moff and Grand Moff also lend themselves to the British Navy. It was not uncommon for a Naval Officer to be given a sort of Governorship for Naval ports where they would be known as a Commandent with only the regional governors above them, and of course the King/Queen. The rank of Grand Admiral fits in with the British Sea Lords. To my knowledge there are only two Sea Lords in the British Navy, but with the size of the Star Wars Galaxy, eight Grand Admirals might make sense. The rank of Grand Admiral doesn't really seem to fit into the standard power structure, so I'm inclined to believe it is simply related to tactical abilities and exists out side of the Naval power structure.

Well, you're right on most of those points, but there are a few little errors and ommissions (since you may not have played them, most likely ). First, unfortunately due to a bad strategie (strange considering the main type of game they made) of producing stupid games outside of their experience, Westwood is no more, so they are no longer the fore-runner in the RTS genre. I'm not sure when they were taken over, but I think it was some time during Red Alert 2. EA is now in controle of everything wat was C&C, and while there are a good number of people who like what they've changed, there are also a good number who want their Westwood back. While I wouldn't put Battle for Middle Earth on your list, Generals is still alive and kicking. Now, in the realm of Space Sims, one game you could add is Freelancer. It isn't as in-your-face with online fans as XWA or any of the XvT games were, but with all of the modding that's going on and the graphics that still wow you, it will certainly have an even longer life. Your FPS list is a little out of date, but not by much. Yes, Call of Duty is a big game, but if you look at the servers, there are a good number of them that have no players in them. Well, that and there really aren't that many servers . If you're going for strictly single-player FPS games, yes CoD should be up there, but you don't have to play Half-Life 2 to know that it's big, and that Counter-Strike Source, which comes free with Half-Life 2, is HUGE. Over 5000 servers, with only about 200 of them sitting with 0 players. You can expect these number to increase when Day of Defeat (a WW II mod for HL2) is released. I know you said yo only listed games you own, but I though that these should be on there too (not that you should own them, but they should be listed). Of course, Half-Life 2 was sort of a given.

If you're looking for a certain track from Jedi Knight or MOTOS, it should be farely simple. You can simply insert those into any CD player and it will play the music, so they can't be to oddly formatted. You might also want to take a look at Masters of Terakasi (sp?) for the PS. I know you could also play that in a CD player, so it might have the track you're looking for.

That works for me. I can lead Canada/Britain in the defeat of America in the War of 1812 again . The only thing is, all of the AoE games (including Rise of Nations) are the same, just different names for the units. Maybe Microsith will change that. If not, Cossacks, should it be original (how about a little cannister or grape shot for a cannon rather than just round shot, or different weights for your cannon balls?), will sate my appetite. Of course, despite the fact that I hate EA, I might just hold out (for another year or so ) for Battlefield 2.

Looks interesting, though the ground unit graphics are a little on the Red Alert 2 side. But, if the game is fun, I really won't care!

Twitches as Evaders activates his SWR mind control That's right, Evaders has no control over us. Sounds interesting guys. I'll keep an eye on it .

I actually like XvT more than X-Wing Alliance. I know that graphics weren't as good (one of the things I liked better about XWA) and the laserd didn't converge, but I though it was more balanced. You could take your pick of ships, fight as whatever side you wanted, and the rewards weren't as scripted as those in XWA, as well as there being a greater variety of them. I liked the first Jedi Knight, but I agree with you on MotS. I only liked it for the multiplayer additions. KOTOR is pretty high up there in my favorite LA games and I can't wait until KOTOR II is out for PC. Sure the only changes are the story, a few new toys, and a greater variety of phisical changes, but since when has graphics come before plot and enjoyment? I for one don't care if I'm restricted to being human. I only ever played Force Commander once in the form of a multiplayer game with a friend. Before I was able to build one or two units, I was bombed to ashes by a rebel Y-wing. Very annoying .

The one thing that interested me was that they are including both space and ground combat in the game. I doubt they will try and pull this off the way Blizzard did with StarCraft (having your space ships on the same battlefield as your troops), so that may be interesting. I was under the impression that LA was giving their developers more control over the games than they were before, but I could (and probably am) wrong. Rebellion, X-Wing vs TIE Fighter and Jedi Knight all had the feel of a strictly LA input, with the developers doing as they were told. Jedi Outcast, KOTOR, and Battlefront felt totaly different from the older games. Maybe LA is just getting a little better with their games... not to the point where we don't expect them to be flops, but better .

Well, we can't really put too much into what the title says. "An Empire at War" is similar to "Rebellion", though you can play as both side in our fav. SG. I guess if you live in the UK that doesn't mean much since it was called Supremacy there. I have high-hopes for this game since LucasArts was smart and handed production over to anotehr company. If it were LucasArts alone, a single-sided game wouldn't surprise me, but even the newest company to the RTS world would know that you don't restrict such games to one faction only. Lets see if they get the appropriate technology for the era.

Remember though, there are many regions that have the same population as a few miles of that coastline packed into a smaller area. Had the same events happened in New York, what would the death toll be? Certainly there would have been some warning, and those higher up in buildings may have been safe, but I believe the number of dead would be even higher than what we are seeing now. The way in which they live and the location didn't have so much to do with it as a lack of warning. What I find strange is that events such as these happen, and people are surprised. If I'm not mistaken, that area of Asia is prone to seismic(sp?) activity, is it not? We know that Japan is prone to earth-quakes, yet every time one happens, our jaws drop. Though it may be simplifying it, that's like taking a vacation to the arctic and packing only shorts and t-shirts. Perhaps it's simply shock at the unnesessaryloss of life.

The answer to this is quite simple. If humanity, or rather, the portion of it that is comprised of western countries, were to use its money to better the lives of the poor and needy so that we can all live at the same level of good health, there would be a significan shif in powerand we would have to give up much of the comfort we live in. Let's say that the US, Great Britain and Canada (replace Canada with any other nation for the same effect) did as much as they could to increase the quality of life, in as many countries as they could, without placing their own people into the position of a possible severe decrease in quality of life. We would loose a great deal of our nationally funded services (health care etc.), there wouldn't be the excess of goods we enjoy now, which would lead to hording and panick, a chaos would ensue. I know you were'nt suggesting that the west do anything of the sort, but we do have to pick and choose our battles. AIDS is very deadly, true, but there is no cure, and at most we can extend the lives of those infected, people who will eventually die, saving hte lives of a handfull. In the case of the Tsunami, there is hope of saving lives, a great deal more lives than could potentially be saved in Africa. It all comes down to a few factors: Politics: Whether we like it or not, that area is close to the "War on Terror". It is potentially forseeable that some of the effected nations may be called upon to be staging sites for whatever the next phase is. Best to be on their good-side. Sudden: If this were 150,000 people drowning in unsafe swimming pools there wouldn't be the outcry, especially if they all died over the course of a year or so. The "Local" Effect: Because there were some Western nationals effected, it would seem cold of us not to lend aid. I don't want to sound cold myself, I think we should be helping those in Africa, as well as those in Asia (indeed, Canada has spent millions on those effected by AIDS in Africa, and millions more, $33 Million to be exact, on tsunami victims), but we can only do so much. I like the level of the quality of life I live in, and though it may be selfish, I would do much to keep it, and there are many who feel the same way. Once can't expect the west to help with every problem in the rest of the world. Now, all of that said, in situations like this, the nations most able to help should be contributing the most. Canada has contributed only $2 Million less than the US, and many of the European nations, who have better economies, even less. Would it really hurt the US to hold off on buying that cruise missile or B2 Bomber and give the money to flood relief or another cause? Why can't some of the big businesses give some of their profits to relief? There is an executive somewhere who make more money for qiping his ass in the morning than these countries will recieve in assistance. Just my two credits.