Avaris

Well, they used Guatemala for the filming of the yavin scenes. And having been to Guatemal, I can tell you that there is both "jungle" and open areas. I'm sure the same would be true for yavin. Any planetiod will have various terrain and likely various foliage at different latitudes due to how the atosphere moves around a spinning sphere.

Well i was referring from a "code" standpoint not a "realistic" standpoint. Unless you think that the shots were "designed" to hit the tie and then missed due to its movement? I think not, based on how slowly the ties were moving.

Yeah, that would make sense. The space battle field is divided into three plains. Does this mean that the Rebs only have one ship on the heavy plain? Would have made perfect sense in my mind, to start the rebs out with a dreadnaught and the imps with a venator. Then, have the rebs move towards moncals and the imps towards the ISD. But, this is beating a dead horse at this point.

If i recall, they have a randomizer(miss calculator) in the space combat. The video of the ties attacking the mon cal show some shots hitting and most missing.

Why is this different then? Why did they release the units existence, and then photos, and then change their mind? I agree that things generally happen behind the scenes that we never know about. But this is different. Is this a sign of disorganization? Slow balancing process?

Well, i think they originally planned to have all the expected units. Based on early statements about "classic battles", based on the 50+ unused models, and based on the fact that Fosh claims to have seen the SSD in a euro mag. I think midway through production, they changed thier mind (Likely around the time they changed the release date), be if for expansion reasons or shorter development time, they decided to change the timeline/tech tree to what it is now.

Well aoe3 certainly sold just fine. Also, i gave RTS requirements. The FPS requirements for the same timeframe are much higher, in the 1.5-2.2Ghz range opposed to the 833-1.5Ghz. So I doubt the RTS market was effected by high requirements as you suggest. IF so, then FPS simply would not have sold at all, which isn't the case. I think LA has included a younger target market for this product, and have found that that market has slower computers than the normal target market. but that is clearly an uninformed guess. Exactly. How many people would build the Venator once you have the ISD? Or a Tie once you have Ceps? Sorry if that looks like what my post was saying. The unit count and system requirements are unrelated. Those are answering two different questions. Well what about the lack of anti-fighter vehicles for the imps? Will be running from the rebs in tactical to buy time to replenish your ties become a standard tactic? If the empires capital ships can barely hit fighters, then 20 rebellion fighter squads would seem invincible. But we shall have to play to see how this works out.

Good feedback, thank you. I guess I am just a bit confused about the alpha testing and beta testing. I would think (though obviously never having been a part of the process) that it would become clear that something had no place in the game, especially a unit, much earlier in the testing phase. Or is the testing phase of balance really that short and that close to the final product?

I was wondering if anybody has ever heard of an important unit/feature getting axed several weeks before gold?

This post is in respons to questions asked in another thread. I have started a new thread because it moves a bit off topic from the original. I'll try to address both of these quickly in one post. First, I was not referring to a game with "both ground and space" I was talking about "diversity of units in combat". 9 combat units (In a space combat scenario) is a low number compared to the industry standard (Which seems average around 13). Diversity is important for many reasons which I can outline if needed. Second, the system requirements are well below industry standard as well. O.R.B. - Date 11/4/02 - Min Req: 600Mhz 16mb vid Can't remember/find unit list. I think it was around 15 though. Command & Conquer Generals - Date 2/16/03 - Min Req: 800Mhz 32mb vid USA Units - 13 combat units Homeworld 2 - Date 9/16/03 - Min Req: 833Mhz 32mb vid Hiigara - 12 combat units Ground Control 2 - Date 6/3/04 - Min Req: 800Mhz 32mb vid NSA - 11 combat units War Hammer 40k - Date 9/20/04 - Min Req: 1.4Ghz 32mb vid Space Marines - 16 combat units Rome: Total War - Date 9/22/04 - Min Req: 1Ghz 64mb vid Julii - 33 combat units Earth 2160 - Date 11/25/05 - Min Req: 1.5Ghz 64mb vid USC - 13 combat units Age of Empire 3 - Date 10/13/05 - Min Req: 1.4Ghz 64mb vid Germans - 39 Combat units Starwars Empire at War - Release Date 2/16/06 - Min. Requirements 1.0Ghz, 32mb vid Imperial Space Units - 9 combat units

Good question Delphi. I actually looks at most other RTS games, even Command and Conquer games. The point of the comparrison was "tactical balance", thus "how many types of units should your army/fleet consist of". To be fair to EAW, I compared number of "fighting units". So i didn't include resource units or heros (thus exludding EAW heros also). I count 9 EAW tactical units per side in a combat senerio. I can't find any RTS or any genre that has less than 10 combat units per side since warcraft 1. But, i only looked at about 10 of them. (Command and Conquer included). I can go back and recount and share them numbers I came up with if you'd like to see them

Is anybody else amazed at how many different ways LA and PG have found to mispell Venator? If that isn't indicative of the overall problems regarding appreciation for the license, I don't know what is. There seems to be a serious disconnect, or else disinterest, in accuracy. PS: with the small number of space units (comparibly to other RTSs on the market), I don't understand why a ship wasn't added to fix a Venator imbalance issue, rather than the removal. One of the smaller MC's would have been nice.

They have every right. But why are you taking our rights from us? Don't we have the right to complain if we are not satisfied with the direction of the game? As fans, shouldn't we voice our opinions about what they choose to "lay down"? Afterall, its OUR money that will be paying for the game. You speak as though they are spending a bunch of money on the game only to give it away for free. (In which case, of course we shouldn't complain). But it is THIER money making it, but the expectation is to make the money back from us, plus a lot more. So ultimately, it is OUR money. Therefore, voicing concerns (if they are listening) leads to happier fans and thus, more "profit" for them. Eh.. i dont really feel that they "lied". That is a rather silly argument, especially about the release date (Those always change). However, I feel slightly mislead when it comes to modality, scope of the game, quality of multiplayer (gamespy), importance of fan opinion, and expectations of news/information (Q&A's, Dev Diaries), and a few other things. We live in a world of choice, I agree. Why can't I choose to complain about the direction of the game? I have not played it and there are many things I can't speak about. But, why can't I speak to the things that I do know and disagree with? I can choose not to buy it....but I am somehow being unreasonable by discussing the things I don't like? And yes, expansions are good. But there should be an expectation of a complete game upon release. There is PLENTY of content in the starwars universe to make several expansions. Limiting the scope of the game to a few short years and a few vehicles isn't needed to ensure the ability to make an expansion at a latter date. This is a discussion board. What are we supposed to do but discuss and debate? Talking about recent news is pointless? But having lengthly conversations in the "gameplay and tactics" room makes sense? We have no game, so let us talk about the things that we do have. Right now, those things are not appearing well. If the game is great, then these debates will end. But the game minimums are not at industry standards. Most major releases last year were in the 1.5-2.0 requirement. This is at 1.0 and released AFTER all the games with much higher requirements. So, this is a free ticket for design teams to cut corners and not live up to expectations? "Guys, we know its not what you wanted our expected...but please remember that no game is perfect. We'll make it up to you a few patches down the road. Oh, and please save up for the expansion pack. Its already 90% done and have all the units you are waiting for! So start getting excited!"

"You haven't played it yet" isn't really valid in this argument. Nobody has made any real complaint about unit scaling, balancing, graphics, sound, gamespeed, etc. Those are all things that have to be played to critique. However, one does not need to play the game to know the things that have been told to us.

go to "run" on the start menu. And then type in "dxdiag" and press enter. That will give you information on most aspects of your computer.