Teradyn_pff

It is the details of what exactly determines what comes out, and how fast that I am interested in. I am not at home so I can't recheck the files, but the only place I could think to look for those reinforement values is in the definitions of the different buildings. Could someone check and see if there are reinforcment items like those for the starbase definitions?

Before this even gets started, I gave a warning about personal attacks, not an accusation. I also was not singling you out, as I mentioned other members of the board in the warning as well. I don't believe I asked you to apologize for anything either. As for these semantics, it seems that you have your own view of what cracking, hacking and modding mean, whether you are in the minority of opinions on those views or not. The negative reaction you have garnered by referring to the work people are doing on the demo to pass the time until the regular game is release has to do with the connotation associated with the terms you are using. Hacking is very seldom associated with a legal activity, therefore by calling the work being done hacking, your intent is perceived to be accusing the modders of illegal and/or unethical behavior. This is something that most people do no appreciate. Cracking is also a term that is generally used to refer to the illegal activity of modifying core software to circumvent security designed to protect the rights of the software manufacturer/developer. Referring to modifications done to a program that has been distributed freely as cracking doesn't really make sense to most people because of this common understanding of the term. The term modding as is generally being used on these boards is basically the insertion or changing of content in a program to add, unlock or enhance the content taking advantage of the core engine. This activity has been stated by Petroglyph to be something that they support (with certain restrictions as not modifying content or extracting it and claiming it as your own original content, a no brainer really), and there has been countless "mods" done on games for a very long time, and on their demos as well. A few mods have even been embraced by the companies that originally released the game and sold as separate versions, reference to CounterStrike and DayofDefeat are the most likely to be identified as such. Therefore, it would probably help your arguments to refer to the activity being undertaken on the files and content of the EAW demo as modding. Whether or not you choose to do this is up to you, but remember that when you use the term "cracking" and/or "hacking" you are in essence accusing or suggesting that the people creating these mods and the ones using them are performing illegal and/or unethical behavior.

Heh, Delphi, you boys got to watch out, there seem to be allot of Episode I-III rabid fans foaming at the mouth for a clone wars game instead of this one. Tis a shame, but what can you do about kids nowadays? It may be a good idea for future mod support and/or future expansions for you guys to go through all of the data files and clean up the demo, expo, testing, etc stuff and only leave in the stuff that is being used in the game. Except of course already created models and their references as those are too valuable to completely trash.

No it isn't. The ISD mark II replaced the Ion cannon with another Heavy Turbolaser battery making all four turbolasers.

If you wanted the Millennium Falcon to be visible at all and be the proper scale, the ISD would be so large that it would have a problem fitting between the middle asteroid and the two sides in the Vergesso Asteroids map to get at a defending Starbase. And at that size the starbase would have to be bigger too. The ISD would be withing firing range of the Starbase on entering the system and visa versa. In the famous words of a little dog from Taco Bell: "I think we need a bigger map."

I had invisioned that ship as being the supreme answer to the Rebel's hyperspace capable fighters. I would have much rathered the ties in an ISD not be respawned but be lost when they were gone, and having to have your tie numbers provided by one of these babies. It would allow more to be fielded at once (which is probably why it wasn't included).

As a matter of fact the Tie Avengers are already in developement in the EAW timeline! Heck they even have a prototype in the field... hmmm, I can't remember where it was stationed though

The scale is something that has been a contentious point from the very first videos. I know that the designers have had notes in their data files about correcting the scales, but their corrections may not make everything 100% true to SW. This is a tough balancing act because you don't want the fighters to be only evident as Icons because that would be like going back to the way Rebellion did it, at the same time, though, you want the Largest units in the game to be small enough to be realistic in the maps that exist. The Vergesso Asteroids is basically the only map that anyone has played (although I have played another map which I think was taken from a scenario given its unit starts), and it seems pretty small given the size of the Star Destroyers and Mon Calimari Cruisers in the game. The smallest units need to be smaller, but to keep them the same size (which is pretty small when zoomed to the max distance while still keeping the menu bar) would mean that you need to make the capital ships even larger which makes them even harder to fit on the map. I think you will see some scaling differences in the final version, but possibly not. I do know that you will have an almost 0% chance of having the Millennium Falcon be the correct scale to an ISD.

LtKage makes a good point. There are certain planets that are necessary to build certain ships. You actually have to hold these planets to build say an ISD or a Mon Cal. The rebels can prevent the Imperials from building the ISD by taking one or both of these planets. The Empire has an advantage to make up for the Death Star's cost and vulnerability, they can blow up the planet or planets that support the Mon Cal production and they can't be re-taken! One side note: If the rebels can still satisfy the Mon Cal production requirement by controlling the asteroids left above the required planet(s) then I am at a loss as to why the Imperials would bother building the Death Star at all. The Rebels can prevent the Death Star from ever being built in the first place too. There are 2 systems that have to both be controlled to be able to build the Death Star, Geonosis and Kashyyyk. The Rebels will be able to pepper those planets with raids repeatedly causing the Empire's almost guaranteed fleet presence to be wasted there, and the Rebels might even be able to take other systems that have their defenses spread thin because the bulk of the Imperial forces will be protecting Coruscant, Geonosis and Kashyyyk. I think this is a very good dynamic as the Empire will be building their superweapons, relying on superior numbers and the Rebels will be sneaking around, performing surgical strikes, stealing technology and being the way they had to be in the SW story. Many people seem to think that the Rebels were able to field fleets like they had at Endor anywhere they wanted, but that is not true. They threw everything they had at the second Death Star because they knew what would happen if it was fully completed. That was almost the Entirety of the Rebel fleet and the Imperial presence, while substantial, was no where near their total capacity. Remember when Luke said that "Vader is on that ship, I can feel him. I should not have come, I am endangering the mission."? Han said, "Relax, kid. There are allot of command ships." A command ship (The Super Star Destroyer for most people) is not a ship that you would field alone. The very term command ship indicates that it is the head of a task force. Therefore, allot (when you speak about a galaxy of about 12 million inhabited systems) of command ships represents a very considerable Imperial Armada. This is just taking what has been said in the movies (top level canon). Therefore, I think that if the game forces the Rebels to act as such, then it is a success from a galactic standpoint. I kind of feel that we may need to have a "realism mod" anyway to make the Rebel units cost more and be harder to kill. And on the other side, have the Empires units easier to kill and be less expensive. It should cause most engagements to be heavily lopsided in favor of the Empire in terms of numbers of units, but the Rebels should be able to cause disproportionate damage to the Imperial forces to make up for the lack of Sabotage ability on the Galactic map (an omission that I feel was a mistake for this game).

How exactly do we move topics?

Ah, that is good to know. Also another thing to note... the interdictor can not move while it has the abilities activated. Frost1977, that is in SW universe, not EAW.

Right. Any Imperial player that does not have a host of Tartan Patrol Craft around their Death Star at all times deserves to lose it. And it would be wise to have a full garrison, along with a hypervelocity cannon at the planet you station it at. And another thing... DON'T bring the Death Star in with a fleet to attack a planet.... Treat it like a transport, bring it after the main resistance has been wiped out. The best thing to do (assuming the Death Star can retreat) is to send your main fleet first and then drag the Death Star behind it. This way it should get there before the enemy can get reinforcements there to retaliate. Pop the planet and then leave IMMEDIATELY. Remember that as it stands now, the Rebels can see where the Death Star is on the map at all times. So they will see it coming if you send in a force with it attached first. And given its slow speed, they can probably get luke there first and this is not what you want.

Given that the renaming of a particular ship requires an interface in game, this is probably not in.

Um, for one, luke destroyed the death star because he was able to maneuver since he turned off his targetting computer. Now, Ben did help him, but without the stupid wingman, Vader could have gotten Luke anyway. As for the Emperor and Mon Mothma, I think that alot of the campaigns (possibly all in the full ver) have losing one of them as losing the battle.

Well, actually, he said that "sandpeople walk single-file to hide their numbers". But seriously, I would be more interested in seeing 3 heavy turbolasers and 1 ion cannon on the 4 weapon point on the sides of the Imperial Star Destroyer instead of 1 ion cannon.

Um, the Death Star 1 could not fire on anything but planets. Why do people keep failing to get that through their thick skulls?

This does have a limit though.

I don't think you quite have gotten the point on the hackers vs modders thing. But anyway, this is all semantics. If Petroglyph has a problem with this (which they don't so far) they can step in and say so. Otherwise, this is purely up to the individual whether or not they want to "waste their time", as you put it, on messing with the demo. You can express your opinion, but you as well as a few others on this board need to watch that you are not expressing these opinions as personal or provoking attacks. We have too much going on here to allow that to happen.

The rebels should not have any Venators. The Venators were in use by the Republic which is what became the Empire. Anyway, the Venator is actually in the demo as it's own ship. I had 1 in my Imperial fleet when I was messing with the datafiles.

LOL, Build me a model and skin it, and I will add it for you,

Not really. The rebels just need to take out a ship completely and then run. That is what they would have done anyway. You don't send in a fleet to take out the hangar of an ISD and then leave. That would allow the enemy to pull that ISD out and replace it while the one is getting repaired... I think that the current design is the best for the way the interface in EAW is handled. And remember, your fleets will not be moving as fast in the retail version.

For the purposes of gameplay, I agree. I was just noting that it is definately one of those things that isn't (and shouldn't be percieved to) trying to be SW realistic.

Well, if you have 20+ tartan cruisers, a level 5 space station and at least 1 hypervelocity cannon (Don't know if you can build more or whether more makes a difference), you should be able to keep the Death Star safe. Your tartan cruisers only mission is to kill Red Squadron. Your Space station would replentish fighters and small cruisers and your hypervelocity cannon would eat up any capital ships fairly quickly. As for the Death Star's usefulness, build it if you plan on blowing up planets, otherwise, don't. There is no diplomacy or population swaying in EAW right now.

How does Fett do against Blockade Runners and Correlian Gunships?

Well, given the relative proximity of the maps, the Star Wars era technology would make any fog of war as represented in EAW as silly. So this is an issue of a game mechanic being included for RTS play that is not SW accurate by any means.