chewieusma

I think that scouting is a very beneficial action in any game. It is both a luxury for a weak regime, and a benefit for a strong regime. The idea of allowing your military to have all the info about the enemy's economy, military, and diplomatic pursuits can offer your military a better intel pool which will allow you to select the weakest yet most beneficial planets to attack.

Well I don't know about the initial AI capabilities, but I know that even in SW Rebellion that once the Rebels realized that there was a DS in production, they immediately sent a sabatoge mission, or once there was the threat of a DS attacking a system, the AI would place an extra fighter squadron on each planet, and the first attack move in any space battle involving the DA was for the trench run to finish it off. So if that is any precedence, prepare to defend your DS. Remember that it comes in very handy with a pesky planet filled with hundreds of troop battalions, shield generators, planetary batteries, hate for the Empire, and heroes of the Rebellion.

Yes Grey_Raven37, if I do not attack and I wish to just be a peaceful nation always on the defense in a reactionary war, I agree, I cannot win. That is why I like to counter attack. I think that Counter attacking offers 2 specific advantages. 1. Once I turn back the initial assault I will be able to attack their weakened force. 2. If the enemy has made an assault with all of their forces and I have been able to turn it back, the counter attack will eliminate his forces from the war, and I will knock over planet after planet with orbital control. Now the trick is being able to counter attack a position where the enemy is weaker than the forces that I have which are capable to attack. (That is the mission of my espionage/intelligence teams). Once I defeat the enemy at the point I attack, I will have taken the momentum from my enemy and gained a planet that my enemy has lost. This brings me a 2 planet advantage because my enemy has lost a planet where I have gained one.

Attacking enemy bases with turbolasers is a great orbital bombardment advantage for any ship with such a capability, but the VSD has the unique tactic, from Star Wars books I've read, to be able to actually come into the atmosphere and bombard from there. I don't know why I haven't heard of other ships doing the same thing though. Who has some more info on this, and could it be one of those unique time limited ship skills like the ISDs deploying free TIE Fighters?

Usually I can figure out the *'s, but I'm confused on this one. I think that conquering planets is great because then I gain the planet and the rebellion loses it which means I have gained a 2 planet advantage from the rebels (assuming they had it to begin with). I think that this is the best way to gain power over the enemy. I may build the Death Star just for intimidation, but I probably wouldn't use it unless there was no way my armies could take out a rebel planet. And I'll probably use it to destroy the last nasty rebel planet every game. D*** rebels.

The debate of whether a defensive strategy is better than an offensive strategy is not one that can really be won. It is more a matter of preference. If you want to use the chess analogy, I have been victim to many a defensive opening because there is strength in a strong defense even when you think your offense is going to be perfect. The art of strategy cannot be won in a debate, only on the battlefield. I presume we will see many different styles of play and which one wins or loses will certainly depend on the relative expertise of the competitors.

If we get involved in some "separation of church and state" thing here, then i think it's time to move to the bar because that really has nothing to do with the game.

Yes, I would be surrendering those advantages. But by going on the offensive you surrender the advantages of using my strategy. That is why there are strategy theories. My way will not win all the time and neither will yours. We have to be able to adjust our strategies to the enemy that we face. There is not one right answer with this and I am not trying to say that there is. I simply suggested my opening strategy. One other thing is that you can't just use one strategy. If I play Multi Player, I'm always going to be under the same user name because I like people to know who they're playing against. If I keep the same strategy all the time then I won't be able to surprise the enemy with a strong defense or counter attack. So I mix it up. If I'm playing chess, I can't follow the same moves every time I play, I have to mix it up and know that there are multiple ways to defeat my enemy. If you only use a strong center controlling game you miss out on what a closed game may offer you and what challenges that may offer your opponent. If you know your enemy, you can cater to their destruction much easier than to the destruction of an unknown foe.

Y'all realize that if you have no engines, then you have no maneuverability, and you're pretty much done for, right? If you have no engines and a force of comparable strength comes upon you, there is no, "cut and run". There is only "sit there and get my butt handed to me". Against an opponent with no maneuverability and a comparable force, I'd crush you whether or not it was Wicket or G.A. Thrawn commanding the battle. I see no point in putting up a "challenge" in which it is not possible to win. i.e. I have one Mon Cal and 3 squadrons of fighters with no shields or weapons against 4 fully equipped SSD's the Death Star and all of her fighters, 40 ISDs with all their fighters and supporting Carrack Cruisers and Dreadnaughts. The battle's over before it's begun. Let's make sure the our "challenges" are at least somewhat realistic (in the SW universe).

Please don't think that i'm an idiot. I know wind does not create gravity. I was just pointing out that wind is a type of invisible force (to our eyes anyway). And my question was really just inquiring as to the possiblility of projecting a "gravity well" to pull something out of hyperspace. And how will we get to hyperspace anyway? I know this is sci-fi, but i've also noticed that many sci-fi topics actually come to be. Just look at military weaponry and computer systems and you'll see examples of what ideas have come from movies. Now live a few dozen centuries in the future and try to explain how this will some day be possible. I'd come live another life to travel from planet to planet and engage in come interstellar war for the freedom of oppressed intelligent life. Oh YEAH!

I prefer to be my own admiral and tell each ship where to attack and how to get there. I think it would be beneficial to have the computer take over and attack the enemy efficiently through maneuver on contact such when it's shields on one side begin to fade it exposes the other side to the enemy.

I'd have to agree with Sabu because they have said that we will not be able to combine tactical and galactic maps. One another note, does anyone out there have an inkling of how you could project something that would have the same effects of gravity? Wind creates a force on Earth, I can't see that. Could it have something to do with using some sort of "black mass" in space? (totally theoretical here.)

I'd suggest a quick Alt+F4 and return to the last save point.

If any of you hidden EaW programmers want to let us know about the SSD, please feel free to offer a "for sure" answer.

Well I've heard that this will be like a modified SW: Rebellion with a bit of AoE thrown in. For Rebellion everything you could build/train had a base build time. If you put more than one "factory" on a planet, the time made to build/train would be reduced by dividing the base build time by the number of similar "factories" on that planet. I haven't seen this in an RTS for a while though and I think that it will be more realistic like having each unit have a base build time and that may be reduced with some sort of technology advancement. At each "factory" you will probably be able to build a unit at a time like AoE. I'm actually really interested to see how they have chosen to handle this what with the ground game and galactic space game.

Why couldn't you have a base right in the city? Call it a Forward Operating Base. It's very common in forced occupations to place a strong FOB inside a city in order to discourage the enemy from attacking the city or to allow a quick reaction to anything that may go wrong within the city. It may also help quell any uprising that may occur, provided it is not over run by the rebelling party.

I'll have to agree with Garbageben that this is a fair strategy if you're running away, but why not just go over the asteroid field if you're running and avoid the losses that would be incurred by travelling through an asteroid field. I figure that if I'm running away, I don't want to sustain damage because the enemy is already so much greater than the retreating fleet. I think Han Solo did a great job in the asteroid field in ESB, but remember the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field are 3,720 to 1. It's something that I would say is docrinally unsound, but it would be effective to keep the enemy guessing so he's not always sure of what is going to happen. Very ballsey too if I do say so myself.

I like to be the first one attacked. That way I force my enemy to come into my domain and try to fight me on my turf and no one knows my turf better than me. Now while I like to play this defensive game to start with that doesn't mean i'm not expanding or harassing my enemy. I'll probably throw in a lot of espionage/sabotage to start off with and send some diplomats to systems close by. Then it's all about amassing a strong defensive army and converting it into an offensive army once I feel that I've grown strong enough. After the enemy attacks, I counter attack against him at a weak location just to take some resources away. By now I've already started growing and I have a strong base from which to strike the enemy. Then it's time for the middle game.

I'm a real fan of using the SW: Combine stats and they set the sublight engine speeds of Home One and the ISDs equal but greater than the Interdictor. If you doubt my last strategy, you could run out of the gravity well of the Interdictor, though the TIEs would harass you on the way out. I'm also unsure of whether or not it is possible to escape the gravity well of the Interdictor. While it would be more sound than the previous gravity well in SW: Rebellion which no one could escape, I don't think that the maneuvering of ships will be advanced enough to force a player to remember to keep moving his gravity wells to keep enemy ships trapped.

Because of the rarity of X-Wings in this game, and the trouble that it sounds like we will have to go through in order to use them, I imagine that they are quite effective. I know that the problem with the IMPs in SW:Rebellion was that they had to deploy one squadron at a time, so that means one out of each (assuming they are equally loaded) ISD bringing us to 4 IMP squadrons and the 2 REB squadrons. I have to believe that the X-Wings and Y-Wings could take out the TIE Fighters, but that would allow the bombers through to Home One. 2 squadrons of dupes would be mildly dangerous to Home One, but coupled with the 2 ISDs they would be deadly. The TIE Fighters carry no weapons except for laser cannons, totally useless against Home One's shields. So take out the TIE Bombers and let the eyeballs fire away. So I figure that my 2 snub squadrons can take out the 2 dupe squadrons and impose a little damage (say 10 %) on the fighters. The problem is now fending off 2 ISDs with Home One. (We can disregard the TIEs that remain because they can't do any real damage against Home One unless there are ?20? squadrons going at her). The Interdictor will likely stay at a great distance to avoid destruction and loss of the apparent gravity well advantage. Let's look at the properties of the ships (from http://rules.swcombine.com/technology/ships/index.php?page=1): ISD Mk. 1 Armament: 80 Turbolasers 60 Ion Cannons 10 Tractor Beam Projectors Shields: 8000 Hull: 10000 Home One Armament: 20 Heavy Lasers 120 Turbolasers 46 Ion Cannons 15 Tractor Beam Projectors 20 Proton Torpedo Launchers Shields: 18000 Hull: 26000 Now I know these are stats from Star Wars Combine, but I think that they are applicable in this situation since we know nothing about the stats in EaW and this is a very fan-based site. As you can see, if Home One just focuses on one ISD at a time, it will reduce its shields before the ISDs can do the same to the Mon Cal. Someone also intelligently pointed out that if the ISDs are maneuvered poorly it is possible to get the Mon Cal settled so that only one ISD can fire effectively at her. After the one ISD is down, the second is not far behind. It is now the mission of the Interdictor to run away. If the enemy chooses to include the Interdictor in the battle with Home One, which will give him better odds but endanger a very useful ship, here are her stats: Armament: 80 Heavy Lasers Shields: 3500 Hull: 4500 And it is slightly slower than both the ISDs and Home One. The Heavy Lasers (primarily lasers are an anti-fighter weapon) would not hurt the shields of Home One quite dramatically as compared to the 80 Turbolasers on each ISD. I think that targeting the Interdictor would prove most effective in diminishing morale here becuase the 3500 shields would dissipate quickly compared to the 5000 for the ISDs and 18000 for Home One and result in an quick ship loss for the enemy. So fire on the Interdictor, then eliminate the ISDs. Or just figure that the Interdictor is slower and won't really be able to get away from Home One should a chase ensue (or damage Home One too badly). Destroying the ISDs first may even preserve Home One's shields indefinitely. I think there will be some hull damage to Home One (should you go after the Interdictor first), but it will be quickly repairable at a spacedock. I truly feel that the IMPStars will be completely destroyed and unable to run away once they engage because of Home One's tractor beams. Best bring a full wing of fighters and bombers as the IMPs in this situation. That would bring in some bombers to take down Home One's shields and give the IMPs a better chance, but not if Home One is carrying its full contingent of fighters as well. While it may seem hopeless in the beginning, an analysis of ship properties reveals victory for the REBs.

Teradyn, I think you make a great point. I think this is why capital ships will go after capital ships rather than going after fighters. There is too much loss there. I do think that it would be wise to include anti-fighter capital ships like the Correllian Corvette and the Lancer Class so the larger ships can focus on other large ships. Including a couple extra squadrons of fighters is also good because they will occupy the enemy fighters and protect your capital ships from the enemy fighters. If the enemy chooses to go after your capital ships with his fighters rather than attacking your fighters, then the enemy fighters will quickly go to waste as your unopposed fighters quickly take out ship after ship. It is best to use friendly fighters against enemy fighters and enemy bombers and use friendly anti-fighter capital ships to eliminate enemy fighers while using bombers and large capital ships to remove enemy capital ships from the battlefield.

First off, I'm really looking forward to this game. Now, to the important part. I think that if you really want to obliterate an enemy, removing their engines and weapons is exactly what you want to do. Any enemy that has no weapons cannot return fire, and an enemy without engines cannot maneuver. A static enemy is just what you want because you can work on one side of their sheilds or hull and still be able to change the side of your capital ship that is exposed to the enemy. As said in one of the X-Wing series books, when two capital ships go after one another there is a lot of damage to both, especially if they are of comparable strength. They really must be supplemented with bombers and fighters to weaken the enemy ship early on in the battle, plus the nagging of snub-fighters will gradually reduce the capital ships' shields (SW: Rebellion). As far as what is required to defeat a SSD, that is all situation dependent. There may be a unique situation available like in ROTJ where a single A-Wing may get through the defenses and damage the bridge so severely that the SSD just goes limp. Unfortunately, from the forum discussion with the Petroglyph fellas that is on the Empire at War homepage, it doesn't sound like the SSD will even be available. Here's to looking forward to the first person to mod in the SSD