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.

Ehh...I highly doubt that Beowulf. I suspect that right now they are paying very little attenetion to us, because the combined money on these forums is less that a couple thousand. And right now they think their game is a solid product for the larger market. The little attention they are paying to us results in them thinking "These fans are foolish, don't understand the industry, and are starwar geeks who will complain about any minor unimportant detail". I fear that the issues on their end will not arise until 4 months after release. And we are left without any new patches or support because the game didn't impress the larger audience whom they feel will not be worried about the game lacking most units from the movies. But in reality, most people are starwars fans. (It is the most watched series of all time) Not to the extent as those on these forums perhaps. But worse, the "casual" starwars fan only knows starwars from the movies. And that fan will be far more turned off by the lack of movie vehicals and the addition of units that are neither from the movies or the books.

Yes. Every time a new thing (ie. gamespy, ships, timeline, mod tools, broken promises, etc) comes up, everybody says "this one thing doesn't make or break the game". And they are always right. But they have added up to the point where there is reason for concern and a need to voice oppinion.

We haven't been given any good "significant" news since "a demo in decemeber" and "no SSD, but you get the Venator!", unless you want to count the fixing of the planetary shields issue.... Isn't part of marketing keeping a steady stream of good exciting news flowing leading up to launch? Rather than.... "not the timeline we had lead you to believe" .... "gamespy isn't THAT bad if you aren't playing with more than 2 players" ..... "Oh yeah, it is mod friendly...but you won't have the tools at launch" .... "Demo in Dec? We never said that. Sorry we let you think that for 5 months" .... sigh

Umm. That was my point. If they sit down and say "We have to change stuff to make this a profitable RTS game" then they shouldn't use the license. You can make a whole new license with all new units that do everything that you want in the game. But if you decided to use a license, you should stay true to it. That is my expectation. See, I hear that a lot. "Its for everybody". My theory is that that strategy never works. I think that if a game uses a license but does not please its core fans, it will inevitably fail. I understand the need to make the game accessible to a larger market than that. But first please the fans and then make it accessible to all. I think both of those can be achieved. And please don't minimize the omissions and additions made in EAW by comparing them to Luke's underwear color. The complaint I made are valid ones, not ridiculous as you are trying to suggest. I agree. I for one do not want "every" unit. But this game fails to even meet standard expectations. If you compare the space or ground unit selection (ie. tactical selection) to that of other RTS's, you will find that it has less units than any RTS released in a very long time. Fewer than any command & conquer game, fewer than any of the galactic games such as pax imperium, and fewer than games such as homeworld. (If you go and do this comparison, to be fair to EAW, do not count any transport, resource, construction, scout or hero units). Just doing off the top of my head: EAW has 9 per side (Imp Space: ISD, VSD, Interdictor, Patrol, Broadside, Acc,, TS, TF, TB = 9). you have to go back to warcraft1 I think to find that few units per side. And with the grandness of the SW universe which now covers 6 movies, and extensive expanded universe content, that seems like it comes up short. Please don't spin. I used the word everything when clearly not "everything" was left out. Anybody reading this thread is fully aware of what was left out and what was added. Based on that knowledge, I feel that there should have been more starwars units than have made the cut, and that all the non-starwars units are completely unnecessary, even from a gameplay standpoint. LittleB, please! I am making very simply, accurate complaints and you are using creative argument techniques to dispel them. Nobody cares what Lukes underwear color is, and there are NOT 100 favorite units. You know that if we did a static poll asking "Please list your all time favorite space unit from the movies" that after several dozen people responded, there would be no more than 6-8 units named. And of those, half would not be in the game. Its that simple. EDIT: I do not think making a petition will do anything. I was making a general complaint in the most appropriat thread.

Jan, please. A-wings but no SSD? Interdictors....you and i both know that "timeline" isn't the reason for removing the venator....because their timeline is already flawed. And, as for ISD's replacing venators, I thought that was the point whole point of tech upgrades ingame. You'd start with one and slowly replace it with others. My thread was not about the accuracy of timeline. It has a broader point, so don't twist it. Avaris Out.

What is the point in making a starwars game, if you complete change everything to have everything meet the "game's needs" ? Either, accept that starwar doesn't making for good gaming, and dont make games. Or, accept that the starwars universe "as is" has plenty of content to meet any need. But please, don't make it half starwars and half something else, so that it sells as many compies as command and conquer. They told us to let the SSD/B-wings go because this game isn't in that timeline (The timeline that most fans wanted). But instead we would be getting the cool units from between the trilogies. They knew that the Venetor was the most popular and they used that to stop us from complaining about the SSD. Now, that too is gone? I've had about enough. And to say "oh, well it didn't fit" is rediculous. There is a unit in starwars for just about everything. You want missile ships, there are plenty. You don't need to make them up. They have managed to make a starwars game without including any favorite units from either trilogy. Impressive. Most impressive. And to all you "One unit doesnt make a game" sayers: How many favorite units must be excludded before it is ruined? 5? 7? This game is not for starwars fans. It is for somebody else. I'd love a LA marketing manager to tell me exactly who that somebody else is. So at least I could make sense of this all. The game doesn't seem designed for the fans. The information leak to the fans was horrbile. Dev Diary #2 1 month before release? Months to response to 10 simple questions? (Well, they never got answered but we were allowed to ask 5 new ones). Come on. Is flame ever justified? I'm not going to make anymore posts.

Jan, you may be right. I had always understood a wing to be 72, which is made of 6 squadrons of 12, each squadron having 2-3 tactical "squads"... each tactical squad having 2-3 sets of wingmen. At any rate, 5 and 3 are never used, regardless of what you may call group.

um, the point is being missed here. Neb's dont have any turbolasers. I had noticed that as well. The number of batteries (and guns per) isn't really that meaningful. The first is a bit. But neb's having turbolasers is a relatively small deviation from canon compared to others that found their way into the game. EDIT: I was wrong here, some sources do have the Neb as having Turbolasers. I had always thought them to have only lasers. My apologizies

well yes. But it appears that a ISD will have only 26 fighters. 20 ties and 6 tie bombers. (4x5 + 2x3).

Um, the title of this seems misleading. Red Squad is in the game, so it really shouldnt be a bar discussion I think. But the names of the snuffed fighters is far less important than the fact that the squadron sizes make no sense at all. As far as I know, almost all fighter squads in real life and in fiction have even number of fighters. This allows for "pairs" aka "wingmen". Two fighters working in tandem is more effective from several tactical standpoints. And most importantly, SW used 12 or 20, or 24 in every instance that I am aware of.