Xenomorphine

What's that got to do with it? I was arguing against the logic that 'counter units' are in some way an all-pervasively wonderful thing, when all they basically are is diversity for the sake of it. I'm also confused as to why energy weapons of a larger magnitude would be unable to track smaller targets. It's not as if there's any air friction to prevent the turrets moving as quickly in space. I would have thought that, regardless of written fiction, those weapons should be just as capable of tracking smaller craft as any other would be!

Well, I should hope so... The ability to use it for us 56K users was announced some time ago!

That's where tactics come in, instead of having to rely on 'counter units'. In life, the more capable ships at sea are effective against a whole range of targets. The key to get them is a combination of both saturating defences with more missiles than can be tracked and successfully intercepted and attacking from multiple different angles at the same time! There is no reason why those basics would not be just as effective with future technology.

Which is apparently the wrong size, if memory serves accurately!

Actually, it's 'owned'. The silliness of 'pwned' always looks like 'pawned' or 'porned', like it or not, which always strikes me as disturbing, because it seems like someone wants to either put you in erotic films or sell you to the highest bidder.

Wasn't the planet Vader was incinerated on, eventually turned into his own private fortress place? If so, then it could still feature if the next plans are to move forwards in time.

Engines would only move you forward. The only way a ship could ever turn is by other systems, such as jets or, in the case of these sorts of technologies, something along the lines of manipulating an anti-gravity field. But just destroying the main engines woudl do nothing, apart from disabling its capability to move in a striaght line so fast as it had done.

None of that matters, since we're discussing the fundamentals of applying the known statistics and limitations of technology into a wargame environment. Uh-uh-uh! We aren't commenting on command structures. We're commenting on technology! In a real world, I would have expected those transports to have been identified on radar or by patrols, well before they arrived on the surface. Not to mention the cruisers in orbit, which got them there! However, it was a unique situation and I haven't any idea what that world's defences were meant to have been. Indeed, although I could think of several ways to have prevented them, but then, I'm far more interested in Empier era stuff. You're forgetting about shields. If they could have done a bombing run, they would have done so. Instead, they required surface units. There's a mass of that sort of discussion which went on over at the www.theforce.net forums. Going by what has been written about them, AT-ATs tended to ended many engagements before they even got started, simply by virtue of power and size. Nobody had ever brought one down before that time. They were as much of a psychological weapon as anything else. Where were the rebels meant to head to, anyway? Space? Definitely! That's part of what the assault was meant to accomplish: Drive them into space to get caught by the Star Destroyers ("Our first catch of the day!"). The Soviets are depicted using similar herding tactics in 'The Hunt For Red October'. No reason why it wouldn't work in the future, too. It failed because they didn't expect an ion cannon to be placed there. You are forgetting, however, the several AT-STs and speeder bikes which were zooming ahead and very probably strafing the forward lines. The AT-ATs get the screen exposure, but that's all. They were walking artillery, more than anything else. (A) How do we know the entire planet's surface is woodland? (B) Why is the AT-AT bad? It seems to be perfectly capable of walking around! Don't think it's going to care about crushing a few trees out of the way. © It was probably being escorted. It's being used to ferry an extremely important prisoner around in a shell of tough armour. The AT-AT suffices and may well have been placed there as an interim measure (could have been destined for another world and was set down there temporarily, until the next barge arrives). (D) Could also have been put there as part of a training mission for that sort of environment and jsut happened to be the only unit available to transport the prisoner to another place area. (E) Note that when they know there could be trouble, they don't use the AT-AT! They use AT-STs then. They don't bring that thing over. Did they think they'd have to be facing killer koala bears? No. When they figure it out, do they have any reason to think they have RPGs? No. Do they have any reason to believe the small tactical team they have been sent to round up have access to that weaponry? No. Do they find any on them? No. They've told their vehicles to make a big show of force and patrol on a search and destroy mission profile through the immediate surrounding area. They're also going at a rate of speed which is faster than soldiers would be able to keep up with. There could also be soldiers escorting them, but ones who have been incapacitated and neutralised by the time we next see the vehicles on screen. Tell me, why would they have a reason to think that a wookie would be nearby, let alone show presence of mind to be allied to the little furry creatures and swing around on trees or even know how to operate one ofthose machines? So far as the Imperials were concerned, the various natives were launching a spontaneous attack which the rebels had nothing to do with. Except that it's not in decline, as I showed above. There is more politics involved, which will lead to some bad decisions. Look at Nazi Germany and what happened there as time went on. But Nazi Germany itself was still a formidable fighting machine. It just suffered from some time-critical strategic mistakes. The quality of Imperial troops and their equipment, I say, shows no signs of being in decline. They might have got more arrogant, but were still more than capable of annihilating their opposition. The problem, for them, was that they were not built and designed around fighting the Alliance. They were suited for a Cold War sort of opponent. But engagements, like that on Hoth, were successes. They won. They should have won at Endor, too, but it was for artistic reasons that they did not. Not anything down to the quality of their forces, which still numbered well in excess of what would have been needed to take on and finish the rest of the fleet. I've also heard that one of the biggest problems they faced was a lack of political winllingness to put heavily armoured vehicles, such as tanks, in the area, which they would have used to launch a far more effective rescue operation. None of which alters the fact that they were also an elite group of soldiers who had received inappropriate orders based on political pressure, bad intelligence and even worse conclusions from it, which is what makes it an applicable analogy.

Fine, so they managed a couple of tiny little engagements. That hardly says to me that their soldiers or equipment is better than Imperial standard or their tactics, either. Which was mainly down to poor planning on behalf of one Emperior Palpatine. He should have allowed the fleet to engage the Alliance ships at Endor. They would never have got close enough to achieve what they did and, even then, there seemed to only be the Wing Commanders left! A wing is several squadrons. They had all been wiped out, by the looks of it. If you go by EU, they had to fanwank it so that the Emperor had some sort of all-pervasive will which controlled them all and, even taking that away, the battle supposedly raged on for many hours. It was only after whole worlds began simultaneously rebelling that the Alliance had a chance and, even then, the reborn Emperor appearing swiftly made them turn back sides again. The point is, the Alliance is forced to adopt running skirmish battles and retreat from bases whenever discovered, for a very good reason: Their equipment and personnel simply are not as good. Gee, I guess Nazi Germany or Imperial Rome never managed to conquer anywhere, then, hmm?

The one thing which puts me off of HW? The logistics. I want to concentrate on combat, not sending out some little miner unit - which is defenceless! Then having to construct an entire strike package aorund it, to cover any and all eventualities of what it may just happen to encounter. EAW gives me that. Or will do, when it is available, since I don't have the sort of connection speed to let me have the demonstration of it! Would I like units to go around 3D space? Yes. But then I value the mining-less aspect far more and, while it's not a case of either/or, it's enough of a huge improvement to make me not care about the 3D thing nearly so much. I used to load up maps which had nothing but gem stones and oil derricks on two certain other games, almost purely to get around that. I'm glad that this game reflects that, as someone commanding a fleet, all of that would have been taken care of back 'home', before the ships are ever sent out.

Perhaps only in regards to the main campaign with scripted missions? The more freeform mode should not include that.

Scale should never have presented a problem. 'Homeworld' was able to get it correct and 'Supreme Commander' is going to have maps which represent huge sizes (the screen images showing little tiny marks on a properly zoomed out map are apparently not individual units, but instread represent whole groups of them). But wondering about what units are where was solved years ago on not just the first 'Total War' title, but 'War Of The Worlds', too! What did they have? Simply tabs on the lower portion of the screen which automatically select (and, with an extra click, can take you to) the unit in question. Want some way to show when a unit is in dire peril? Simple again! Just have the tab flash or go a different colour or be symbolised with an important icon! There is also the ability for mouse-over effects which could be implemented, where you need not even select the tab, but a highlight would show up on the screen and map, whenever you passed the cursor over its organised tab. Very simple. Extremely effective. Would do away completely with any problems to do with locating units on the screen at any time.

But what have the Alliance soldiers done? Why, if they were superior, did the first film's opening scrawl state that the Alliance had only just achieved its first ever major victory, even though the organisation had been going for over twenty years or so?

And there is more than enough reading material, made up over the years, to make precisely the same effort for something based on the 'Star Wars' world, for precisely the same reasons. But you forget that it's built upon real-world basics. Look at the kind of training and equipment which the US can lavish on its best Special Forces (ordinary Marines and the like would not qualify, for reasons written about below). Now give them the benefit of encasing them in body armour which can withstand kinetic rounds and nearby grenade explosions, fully enhanced and surrounding sensory input (remember how easily it looked to pick out enemies when viewing from the enhanced visual perspective of the Terminator or Predator, in their respective films?) and then raise the numbers of them to entire squads and you'll see why they should be treated as fairly special units. Those kinds of things are obvious. Applying them to the world we live in is easy. That's why it seems odd to say that a few groups of unarmoured human beings with nothing more advantageous than bravado would be able to easily take them down, if ever at all. Sure, there was Endor, but it looked to me like it was the stolen AT-ST which turned the tide of that battle. Apart from that, it would be broadly similar to our experience with the US in Somalia - which also failed largely because of a severe lack of heavy armour. Both were extremely confusing situations with bad intelligence being involved. Still, imagine what those Special Forces soldiers could have done with laser rifles and Stormtrooper armour, if it was available! By the logic above, you would be hapy to buy a game where little tiny unicorns can overpower massive, fire-breathing dragons, simply by virtue of there being no known facts to say for sure who would win. But it woudl still be a fair bet for most people to get the feeling those two foes were not being handled right, if that were ever portrayed. Heh, except that you'd be wrong! Lucas already confirmed that only 50% of those soldiers are clones and, even then, the clones are vastly superior, due to having several different genetic samples to pick and choose the best traits from, rather than a single donar, as seen in the last two films which we saw. But even if you're making a point of them in some way not being as good, biologically, that does not detract from their level of training, indoctrination in military tactics and quality of equipment they have. However, due to the above point I made, you can't even say they're worse in biological terms. We know that isn't the case, anyway, since they literally represent the elite and are not the ordinary grunts who you would normally see. There is an Imperial Army, which is made up of ordinary soldiers. Then there are the Stormtroopers, who are the Galactic Empire's version of a futuristic Waffen-SS. They're literally the best that the Empire can afford. They shouldn't be seen as being beaten easily, for the same reason as a heavily armed SEAL or SAS team wouldn't be. The Empire has a lot of them, simply because it's on a glactic scale and has those sorst of resources. That's why the opening scrawl to the first film openly states the Alliance has only jsut scored its first ever major victory! Perhaps I should rephrase: When you're working in such a heavily researched field as attempting to portray naval space combat tactics, based in a foundation of a world which its customers would be well aware of the limitations for, then it's important to retain a decent sense of realism. How many people who bought 'Battlefield 2' do you seriously believe know the difference between a T-72 and an M1, apart from how one has an American flag on it and the other won't do? By contrast, people who buy this product would actually know what's likely to happen if you put an AT-AT up against Han Solo - or at least, one would hope so! If all you want are some pretty fireworks and a few 'Star Wars' decorations, then you're the kind of person who would be better off simply getting 'Battlefront 2' - but if you're looking for a product which finally, after so many years, bothers to try and look at the hypotheticals of an X-Wing squadron agaisnt an ISD, then you've probably had your attention on this thing instead, wouldn't you say? One only cares about pyrotechnic fantasies. The other is an attempt at militarised war gaming tactics being put in practice. No, it's not a simulator, but at least something like 'TIE Fighter' showed that it's not impossible to keep things largely fun while factoring in a relatively good understanding of what would work and what wouldn't do. Is 'Battlefield 2' fun? Probably. Is it seen as ridiculously unrealistic and laughable for anyone who wants to get a decent understanding of military warfare in the modern age? Sure! The same goes for 'Battlefront 2'. But then, I think most of us here were hoping for less of a 'Battlefront'-with-some-RTS feel and much more of a 'Rebellion'-with-prettier-pictures-and-far-better-interface. I can say taht, because the majority of hopes and complaints which have been registered on these forums have gone along those lines. Therefore, that's the audience which this game should be looking to please, I would have thought. These are not the same sorts of people who games like 'Battlefield 2' primarily cater for (which isn't to say they won't like it, but they're certainly looking for something beyond tha game's known superficiality).

The counter to the Death Star is the Alliance ability to 'raid' worlds, which the Empire does not have - and they can do it from the very start! But personally, I'm more interested in the Assault Gunboat, which can not only hyperdrive, have shields, use ion cannons to disable units and even carry some cargo, whilst launching torpedoes and missiles at a target, but could also fight in an atmosphere.

Being someone who is unable to experience the demonstration version, I'd have to say that this depends on just how it's done. Georaphically or simply in terms of detecting targets? Geographically would not make sense. It would not alter gameplay, by any means! Any military force worth its salt, these days, would have satellite coverage and all the rest of it. The geography and terrain of a landscape or, most especially, a piece of open space above the atmosphere, would easily be known. If it's purely along the lines of being unable to detect targets until they fall within a certain range, however, then that's far more understandable. However, plenty of older games have the ability to let the user select which version of the above they prefer or, in some cases, turn both off entirely. I would think this is probably going to be the case for here. It would be extremely surprising if it were otherwise.

Those who have now experienced the demonstration of it should now understand how the damage stuff works. So, can soldiers stand up to several volleys of AT-ST and AT-AT fire or not, do we know?

I don't care! So what if you have good morale? That counts for nothing. The Taleban was ranting and raving about how its version of God was going to help them drive out America and look what happened. All the good spirits in the world are not going to save you from intelligently deployed mass firepower (which was the problem for the Empire, as time went on - massed firepower not being deployed intelligently). Note, also, that in the opening scrawl to the original film, it stated that the Alliance had only just won their first ever major victory against the Empire and that had been, what, twenty years? More? Since originally being declared? Heroics will get you nothing on their own, apart from an early death! The problem the Empire had in the examples we saw it losing at, was a lack of adaptation and unwillingness to let its forces show initiative. How well do you think those engagements at Endor would have gone, if a commander of the quality of Tarkin or Thrawn had been in control of the fleet and been allowed to engage the opposing forces at will? It is, if you factor in the realisation that they have no armour. If they adopt insurgency tactics or are depicted with some type of armour, then it's another matter completely. If they just stand in huge columsn, out in the open, then they would get slaughtered. Highly doubtful! The Alliance doesn't have the luxury of time, resources or numbers. They have to take what they can get. Also, many of their forces would be unreliable, due to being defectors. Would you be wiling to entrust that calibre of individual to major military operations? There's a reason why you wouldn't do and it's valid. I wouldn't know. I don't have a connection speed which would allow me to enjoy it. Therefore, I don't have it. But whoever said that popularity equates to being good? So what? 'Rome: Total War' was set a long time ago in places which are mostly far away from me, too, but at least that manages to be both entertaining and fairly realistic in the way it does stuff. Remember, this isn't a film. This is a representation of how those forces would have hypothetically confronted one another. That requires at least a reasonable level of feasability in how they would operate.

When was the last time you saw them needing to take cover and having time to realise it? So do most military forces, if it's that kind of an environment. Eh? Not trained to survive rebels? They're trained to assault entire planets, which would already have very well equipped professional militaries on them! By comparison, the Alliance is worth little. It's not even really standardised. It's just a philosophy of wanting to be free from the Imperial authority. The only ones worth a darn seemed to be the ones who defected from the Empire, with Imperial training.

Soldiers from a rag-tag band of what amounts to mercenaries, without armour, who have to make do with whatever weaponry they can find with their meagre resources, are better than fully trained, heavily armoured and well equipped professional soldiers? That's like making a game about the recent Iraqi conflict and letting the Republican Guard have ultra-powerful armour and being able to beat Apache gunships and M1 tanks in one go, to make them 'balanced' - we all know that's ridiculous adn would take away an unnecessary amount of willing suspension of disbelief.

Taking cover and crouching is a basic natural instinct of most living things. Why would it be unique to purely rebel alliance personnel (especially when considering the other side is who gets to have the expensive training regimes and academies)?

No, someone should teach the 56kers how to use a download manager like FDM . Download managers sometimes make files unable to be sued, for some reason or another. Also, some of us live in places where only a dial connection is practical, regardless of what could be afforded. My own situation is that of a boat moored in a marina and you won't find any engineeers prepared to come down and install cable in a place like this.

Well, you never know... There has been a small icon of Leia and Chewbacca for the Falcon on one picture, but there's no way of knowing if that was just for a singular mission. Perhaps she could be useful for diplomatic missions, but as that aspect is no longer in the game, there would no point in that inclusion!

The weird thing is, when it's just ordinary characters, offensive words sound stupid. But when you see a massive Star Destroyer bearing down on your tiny little ship, about to unleash a volley of its finest and find out that you've been terminated by 'ISD F**ker's Revenge', it could be both oddly cool and quite amusing.

When fighting in forests during 'Rome: Total War', it could be very frustrating, because you were forced to zoom in close to even know where the units were. An easier compromise, I would have thought, which could have been utilised on here, could have simply been to make vegetation transparent (or at least show a computerised wireframe model) when units are present.