Cobra848

If anything we don't need a demo. For an RTS demo, I think a single player demo is better. I think the demo, if it comes, will be out after the game goes gold.

2B 6 18 20 I didn't see my number 3 How does one earn credits to build forces in a skirmish match?

Numbers are not important. In some of those games some of the function are repeated, like both are good at taking out infantry, but the little things are different. They are trying to make a difference in RTS games. They are not following the trends. Also you may have notice that the PC industry revenue are falling. I beleive many people still don't have high end PCs to play all those PC games. This scaries any future PC gamers, do to the high cost. The lower system spec. support is to help the PC market. I know people who won't update, or can't update, so in the end they don't play or buy the game.

I assume you are talking about the Venator. Since you put this topic in the EaW section. The thing is that it most likey it was not a "important unit/feature" . Just an extra. May be important to SW but not for EaW.

You can't use them, it is on some FAQ I read. I assume you were talking about something else because of your response to lordstorm88 post. I think it is only bombers like Y-wings and Tie bombers can attack on land missions.

They come on carriers or by hyper space. You order them to attack a hardpoint on the enemy aircraft. I am still not sure what you are asking Ghostly_Substance.

The game is coming ou in a month. There is not much more we need to know, just what we want to know. Plus I have all the information a need about the game. I just felt that we should know something behind the game. The question is more of a, "after the game is released question," then a before question. It is an improper question for Q&A. Also you do not know what they will answer.

Thank you Delphi.

1. How much of an influence was Lucas Arts on the game? As in how much of the game did they remove and change from Petroglyph originally vision of the game. 2. Has the team have enough time to finish the game that the team set out to create? 3. How does one earn credits to build forces in a skirmish match?

The shield generator in EaW are made for the ground war for protection from long range weapons and protection from bombers The shields do not give protection from Orbit bombardment since it is not in the game. I assume all this was done for an interesting gameplay.

You do not have a conclusion due to the fact that you did not even play the game let. You only have assumation that you made on how the game will be played. You don't know if the bombers can even take the generator out. Yes, you did see DEMO videos of what happens when a generator is taken out by bombers, but those were DEMO vidoes. You don't know about any short or long-term strategic use, because you have not played the game. You should play the game and have facts before you make such accusation. You only have assumation on what it is and isn't. There is a reason why the first three letters in 'assume' are there. I try not to talk about my assumation. But it may be only way to help you understand I assume bombers and landing crafts can not enter the shields to bomb or land. Only friendly vehicles can fly through it, because they are turn off right before they exit(Like in the movies). The shields are small, for gameplay on ground battles. Also how they build the ground war with reinforcement points. If the shields were huge, the invader would have easy time getting in, but harder time with reinforcements, since landing craft can't get by the shields. It would be very different ground war. The way I see it. Shields forece the enemy to fight on the defenders terms. A defender can use all of his forces in the shield to attack the front line of the enemy. Also can force the enemy into bottlenecks. I don't know since I haven't played any of the maps or the game for that matter. Another thing is it would be your fault for not putting AA around the shields when they are outside. You just got think about it instead of just using your eyes. As for the bombardment of a planet. They chosse not to put it in game. They are trying to make a great RTS game. It is even harder to make a good Star Wars game with all the things that exsit in the SW universe. They want the game to be more about Strategy then super weapons of mass desruction. (I know there is the DS, but you can't have a SW RTS with out a DS.) I want to be defeated by an enemy that used better stratgy, then bigger weapons.

There is no need for more then one or two units to serve the same function. I mean two units that look different that do the same thing. I know there can be difference in speed, armor, power, and many other things. But if they serve the same function, they really are not needed. You have to use strategy and tactics with what you have not with every type. Having every type of unit for a side would make that side to easy to use, and less fun. I find it better for each side not having every unit a "real army" should have.

From some people'a responses, it sounds like they forget there can be both. But you can't have all or nothing kind of thing going. For multiplayer, balance is one of the most important gameplay element for making the multiplayer great. Since there are only two sides in EaW, balance becomes more important. Both ssides should have somewhat of an equal chance to win. NOW I am NOT saying both side should mirror each other, or be "cookie cutters," or what ever you want to call it. I am saying each side should be able to use their own tactics, attack plans, or what ever their side has to win. For multiplayer. It should be the one who had better tactics, use and management of their army/resorces, stratgies, and countering their enemies should become the winner. It should NOT be the one who is on the unbalance team should win. You may have notice the two above could both fall under realism in EaW. The balance one being like C&C: Dawn, and the unbalance one being like the Empire's power. Go back to my previous post on what balance can be. Also most gamers don't know the difference between what they want and what they need.

My thoughts I am all about balance. I have had games become annoying to play and not fun to play any more. Balance should almost always be considered before realism. I love realism, but for games there needs to be balance. Unbalance First off, what makes something unbalance. Obvously something that can be considered unstoppable or unable to counter it. Before I call something unbalance, I try to figure a way out to counter or not let the enemy use that tactic or move. If there is no way to stop besides telling the person not to use it, then it could be considered unbalance. Like the tank rush in Red Alert 2 or M203s in shooter games. Other Genres So many shooters put the M203 or Grenade launchers in their games and make the game less fun. For example Socom 2 & 3, also BattleField 2. They didn't need it for multiplayer, but they still put it in there. I know one could just say deal with it or you can do it too, but that is not what shooters are all about. shooters should not be about M203 fest. It is also how people use the M203, too. They use it as a primary weapon instead of a backup, window clearing, or anti light vehicle. I know this they are not RTS games but it is still about realism and balance. Mirror Balance Now I disagree with mirror balance, where each sides units are the same but look different and shoot different colors. There should always be some difference in the sides in how they fight, plan attacks, and what they use to do it with. But still being balance. Realism In an RTS like C&C and EaW need to be fun. Realism helps, but may not make the game fun. Realism is good for support of balance. In the end we all want some kind of balance. No one wants a game where one side will almost always win unless thats side has a newbie and the other side has an expert.

I think Delphi said something about having to do them, while there was small talk before the main chat.

I always like it on. You have better chances to flank your enemy and do surprise attacks. I understand how some people would like to turn it off.

We don't know how the pace of a battle is. So there may be no need for auto resolve. I just don't see the battles taken so long that you will auto resolve. Finishing your enemy is like a victory lap, it just something that needs to be done. Auto resolve is not good for a persistent game. Because all those remanding forces can cause damage to your forces. Also your enemy can retreat. So every battle might not be to the last man, but to as many as you can take out. I know I don't have to use it, but they would have to spend time on formulating each units effect. It's better just to take the time to finish your enemy off. It won't be that much of a hassle to finish them in EaW, I think. Most likey the enemy will retreat if they are losing, or maybe scatter so you don't need to finish them all off. The units will surrender, disband, and/or desert.

Weather can be a major gameplay element. In C&C Tiberian Sun, Ion storms can control how you play the map. In many multiplayer maps there were regular storms. And of you know what Ion storms an do, then you know you should not you MRLS all that much. Also infantry in groups are bad ideas to use on a Ion storm map. Now with a game like EaW, weather can have even greater effect on the game and how you play it.

That was in the chat somewhat. You can put infantry together and it becomes a company. Same thing goes for star fighters.

Well at least we won't have to worry about kepting our vets alive, only our heros. Also wonn't have to milk my enemy to get all my forces to elite status. I'll just have to wipe them out, all of them.

I think I will name mine Enterprise, James T. Kirk, Bird of Prey, and so many other relative names. J/K

Excellent, it will be filled with even more completely stupid questions than today. I can't wait! I was thinking the samething. With a fan base chat, you get more question about stuff we do not know about. Because most people there should already know a great amount about the game already.

You also might be able to use one of them to command ewoks or other kinds of creatures that that worship something made out of gold.

Sounds good to me. If someone is hiding a huge fleet you could go after enemy planets to help reduce the size of the enemy fleet. If I read that answser right.

Ships can last a long time. They can get upgrades, replacement parts. I know this is not the same thing but is an good example. I know the U.S.S. New Jersey was in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, and other conflicts. It was retired in 2000 or 2001. That like 50 years of serves. Technoledge does not advance as fast in Star Wars as it does on Earth. They have less needs for research. Also in times of peace, military research budget is cut by a lot. As long as there is no huge threating force, there is less need for greater ships. Of course they upgraded to replace older ships, but if they can serve their purpose, use them. I bet the imps started to build SD faster and more of them because of the rebels. They may explain the time in between III and IV, but the war might not start till 3-4 years before IV. I have no problems with what they decide when the game starts, or how the past units are onnected. It doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to me. I understand how and why a military force like the Empire military would use older ships.