Teradyn_pff

In Space the attack move hotkey is Ctrl-Right click I think... and this should be the same for ground. Someone correct me if I am wrong... can't test it right now.

Not sure. The T4-B tank is pretty good at taking on infantry and the Tie Mauler is an infantry's worst nightmare.

Yes, that is a good point RogueJedi. Remember what the current level of technology can handle and then look at the minimum specs.

Good grief Ghostly, go to the Mod forum and look in one of the stickies. A couple of extractors are available that let you extract the files that are compressed in the .meg files. This way you can edit individual .xml files one at a time. Sheesh, boy, don't make it so hard on yourself.

Have you extracted the .meg files into their respective pieces yet? If not, you need too.

Anyone wondered what would happen if you replace the Gallofree transport model with the one for the Acclimator? I was going to work on this but I didn't have time before work. Maybe someone has more time to mess with this, because if it is successful, we could modify the capacity, or size of the group it carries, etc to allow a massive troop drop from an Acclimator. There are some things in the files that make me think that this is possible. As it stands now, the troops are automatically assigned a transport ship with shield values, weapon hardpoints, etc. We should be able to create a new unit type, Shock Troops for example that has 25 or more troops per group and have that particular ground unit spawn a fully operational Acclimator as its transport, and have the Acclimator model be the one that comes down and drops them on the ground battles too. And another idea I just had while writing this is the possibility of modifying the Z level that the transport comes down to. If you can do that, I would think that it would be cool to have some type of (and I am just throwing an idea out there), modified scout bike mine or use the bombs that the y-wing or tie bombers drop and build in some bombardment. I am not sure how we would represent that in the reinforcement box, but as an interim solution, maybe we can create a bombardment "pod" or something that is basically the bombs or the mines in a deployed state. Have its spawnable ship be the Victory Class Star Destroyer or the Acclimator for the rebels. We would have to have a way to override the spawn location radius limit, but if we can affect the z axis and the dropship model like what would be necessary above, we could have what looks like a low level bombardment by that ship. These are just some ideas I had.

From what I have seen of the way units are defined, you should be able to add this as an ability for any unit. If you want to test this out Ghostly, you proabably want to try and see if you can give this ability to an AT-ST as that unit has pretty much the frame type you will be dealing with in your mod. I am half tempted to do this to an AT-AT though

Not really Relentless. The mods are not anywhere close to the full game and Delphi posted in the general discussion thread to that effect. They are a cool way to extend the life of the demo past the 30 min or so it was playable as is. Anyway, alot of the modders are practicing and learning what they can in preparation for modding the full game.

Well, what I did originally was just add one to the Coruscant starting forces. But there are a few published mods that let you build one or the empire build one. Check out the Mod forum for these.

Any way to speed you up?

Actually, Mistrider, that is in there to keep the game from messing up becuase you didn't own all of the planets. Every entry like that also has the control all of the planets in the galaxy as another possibility. Darthscharnhorst2, the Death Star can be used to permanently remove certain systems from the game... and as long as the abilities are tied to the worlds and not the space they occupy it would be strategically sound for the Empire to blow up a required world for Mon Cal production for one. This would prevent the Rebels from ever building Mon Cals anywhere. Now if this is no the case, I have the same question you do.

Sure those dates are right CnC King? The US release is Feb 16th.

Of course, anyone who says that your decision to do that is 'stupid' or 'makes no sense' is guilty of exactly the same thing it appeared that you were doing. Sometimes it feel better to play with what you were given by the developers because you wont have all of these weird issues coming up that the modders and those who are using those mods are dealing with. My personal opinion is that I want more than what the demo offered, the full game really, but I feel that these mods are the next best thing. I also have a couple of major mods that I want to help on after the full game is released so the preparation and practice reason also applies to me.

It is apparent that you do, but it almost got your post deleted because when I read it the marquee was all the way to the right and I thought that "I love using marquee." was the only thing you said. Please, don't use the marquee for your regular post content. It doesn't help the readability at all. In your sig is fine, but not in the body of your post.

Well, yes, but this is something that I can see developers rehashing long into the development process. The premise of this game is I think trying to do what Rebellion did, but with fun being more important than accuracy or completeness. Who knows. They may add all kinds of stuff in later installments if this one is successful enough for them to get funding for it. But for right now, it is what it is. The problem for modders is that there is not a mission success/failure construct that can be used to create the type of success or failure percentages that you are wanting.

Um, you post this: Then you post this: Are you insanely hypocritical or can we assume that you have seen the cutscenes for the game? If it is the latter, where have you seen them and can you post a link?

This is something that allot of people would like, especially modders with more than 2 factions in their selected stories. Unfortunately, the way that multiplayer communication is handled and the way that the galaxy is set up, this may prove to be impossible. This is something that I really wish Petroglyph could look into as far as whether there is anything that modders can do to enable at least 1 more multiplayer presence in the galactic mode. In my mind, I don't see this happening as the game doesn't seem to have an observer mode for skirmish that you could assign to players in the galactic mode that aren't directly involved in a battle.

Well, I agree that the loss of the Death Star itself is not as particularly a significant blow to the Empire as someone would assume. They were building a bigger and better version very quickly after that loss as well as producing the 'Super Star Destroyers', new fighter types, etc. However, in this game, losing it will lose you the game. The reason I think this is a good balance is because destroying a planet does not cost you support on other planets like in Rebellion. If there was not a considerable risk for using something this powerful, then the Rebellion would never have a chance. I haven't been able to spend as much time as allot of other people have with the data files and modding and such, but I have not seen anything to indicate that this is not something that will be true in every game. If one of the more active modders could disprove this statement I would appreciate it.

DarthCycle, don't double... er in this case, triple post. I do agree with the fleet of bombers statement. All an opponent has to do is have (Imps) Tartans or (Rebs) Corellian Corvettes and they will wipe up the map with your bombers and fighters too for that matter. There is a reason that combined arms is used in the real military.

Well, I can see that this topic is going to continue to keep flames coming and going from both sides. I also see that Superman is not interested in providing reasons why he thinks that EAW is not worth (not 'whorth') the money, is like a decapitated moose, etc. and is only interested in making inflammatory comments on a "fan" forum, so this thread will be locked. I do not think that people that don't like EAW should not post at all, but they need to post why or it is basically trolling and inciting flame wars, which we do not need here. PS Grd. Adml Thrawn 889, your response is exactly the kind that trolls look for. You not only feed the perpetual cycle, you put yourself in a bad light. Watch your directed attacks, censored or no, we know what word goes there. Your post was a flame and we don't need that here either.

The second link mentions those two movies as well. Try reading through it all and you will understand what the author's intent is. I do feel sorry for him though, because his self assigned task of rationalizing what goes on in the SW universe is made horribly difficult by how inconsisten Lucas is, not to mention the other "authors" who write SW fiction.

One thing I think all board members need to keep in mind in this or any other thread is that EAW is not and never was planned to be attempting to create a SW universal simulation. I know I and allot of other people were hoping it was, but that is just not the case. So the arguments that it isn't realistic are a bit flimsy, but we still can not have any similarity to the movies and/or stories be completely thrown out of the window... The fog of war, the entire map size really, are meant as a representation of a much larger conflict. A space station designed to protect a planet would never be as weak as even the level 5 represented one in the game, in a simulation of course. You wouldn't attack a space station like that with less than a full battlegroup, and one restricted to less than 7 ISDs or a mix of their equivalent pop worth is not something an Empire that spans millions of systems would consider a battlegroup. Therefore, what we have is a symbolic representation, where all distances, strengths, etc are simplified from what they would be in "realistic Star Wars". Once we take all of this into account, we can then discuss whether or not the way that the units, stations, and things like fog of war are represented in a way to match each other. Does the fog of war in space represent the uncertainty that would be present in a space battle that would be worthy of the full representation? Does the fog of war on the ground make sense for the attacker when they have ships in orbit with the capability of sensory overflight of the entire battlefield? Remember to consider this with the distances, foilage, numbers, etc that the battle is really representing, not the literal interpretation of what is shown in the game. Lets continue this thread discussing the pros and cons of the way that the fog of war is represented in this game with the above things in mind. For my version, I think that the fog of war in space should be infinite line-of-sight. In other words, you can see as far as you can see with nothing in the way. Remember that the speed of Hyperspace in SW is millions of times the speed of light and the Death Star was able to track something as small as the Millennium Falcon through Hyperspace. Spacial anomalies should be somewhat limiting for line-of-sight, so basically it would be like a flashlight beam emanating from all space vessels in all directions and the beam would be of course blocked by asteroid fields, nebula, etc. On the ground is a bit tricky. While the same idea could be used for line-of-sight, I think that the size of the maps in this game and the fact that they are representing an entire world conquest makes it necessary for the fog of war to be a certain radius around units to simulate the horizon (in an abstract sense). Of course the issue of orbital fleets not helping to clear the fog of war is still a problem. It would probably be very difficult to have the player with orbiting fleets to have no fog of war and the other player to have it from a game balance perspective. It is also hard to imagine orbiting fleets not assisting with static targets and defenses with orbital bombardment when this was so common in the "real SW universe". How do we justify these lacks? I am not 100% sure on this as it is hard to rationalize the same type of battle awareness to exist in the SW universe as it did in WWI or WWII. The technological differences there are just too incredibly vast. But I also want to avoid slipping too far into the simulation way of looking at this as well. The fact of the matter is that many of the battles, situations and intelligence availability in the SW movies followed a pattern that was more in line with WWI or WWII. Given this, I think that the fog of war tends to follow the representation of the SW movies which are of course the ultimate cannon. There are some contradictions within the SW movies of course, but we can't do anything about that and neither can Petroglyph. In conclusion, I think that the fog of war on the ground should be pretty much left alone, except for possibly scaling the distances that the units can see based on their height above the ground. As for space, I feel that the fog of war should be collision based instead of radius based. The problem with this is that it would probably take work in the engine to fix this, and that will not be happening before the game goes gold...

This really sounds like an argument in a day care. There are much more intelligent people that have spent allot of time working out what is who and where is what. Two sites you people should read all the way through are: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/ is mainly oriented to discuss the StarTrek vs Star Wars debate, but provides allot of information about the Empire that is relevant to this discussion. http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ a huge site that has allot of information about Star Wars in general. This one is a must read.

This is something that I have noticed as well, but I keep forgetting to mention it, thank you. Having forwarning like that would be enough for an attacker to begin the retreat before the defender can hit him. Kind of reduces the use for fog of war. Delphi, can this be corrected before the game goes gold?

Technically a decapitated moose is not lame.. lameness has to do with limbs.