Xenomorphine

Things like that fill me with intrigue. Unfortunately, while thankful for your interaction on these forums, that does worry me. Does this mean that obvious problems are already foreseen which there will not be enough time to fix or is it just a matter of a contingency plan, in case patches are required? I like to be constructive, but after seeing how fouled up a product like 'X3' recently was, literally demanding several patches before it's even in a workable state, it pays to be vigilant! However, I, as well as others, do appreciate your communication with us, no matter how cryptic it might be at times... Knowing (or at least hoping!) that you are spending as much time as there is on attempting to make the product as good as it can be, is a welcome assurance. I don't mind the Venator thing, personally. I don't know enough about it to lament it not being there, for one thing. I do, however, look forward to finally having a genuinely entertaining and cinematic experience with those wonderfully inspirational spaceships from my childhood years.

(1) (Since Delphi recently responded with an ambiguous, "Heh...") Why was the option for orbital bombardment taken out or will it be optional under particular circumstances? (2) If blockades could be enforced, how long would it take before a world surrenders of its own free will? (3) With the selling point of being able to change history, would it be possible for the Empire to not only prevent the Alliance from stealing the X-Wing, but eventually incorporate that craft into its own Navy? (4) Has the extended time before release been completely taken up with overhauling the maps or has there been a simultaneous effort to polish and stabilise the game engine and/or AI itself? (5) Were the final population cap levels decided on a basis of wanting to force the player to be more inventive, or were they more in the interests of preventing a massive slow-down in computer performance? Will there be an option to alter them in the game, depending on computer performance?

This is my WTF moment.

Playing Devil's Advocate, one could say that the game will be precisely that when they've got around to all of the expansion packs. The game could be what was hoped for it, with some more time spent on it and an easier free reign: Just change the technnology tree over time and substitute some abilities for others (unending TIE factories being exchanged for the ability to shoot down incoming missiles, AEGIS-style; although I do think that such craft would probably have some type of technology to process recovered materials into weapons or craft, over time). In fact, even if you wanted to jsu tconcentrate on a realistic application of military technology, an independent group of very informed people got together and upgraded 'Jane's Fleet Command' to jsut about as perfect as it could be - and they still are! It's a continuous process, but very early on they overhauled the units and capabilities with quite some ease. That's a game with two dimensional maps combined with three dimensional views. Even a cinematic option for particualr events. Not very different to this and yet that was done years ago. On that, you can literally have fleets of hundreds of warships, complete with fully defensive systems and command over just about every facet, while being able to leave much of it up to an automated process, if you really want to! The computer takes care of rules of engagement for aircraft, processing how likely particular sensor systems are to detect units or individual weapons (including how stealth is affected in completely different circumstances) and all the rest. The only thing which stops it reaching something of a perfection is the mechanical construction of the thing which causes it to crash to desktop every so often, but that, too, could be fixed if they were building it from scratch today. It even modelled individual weapon loudouts for different types of aircraft to be launched from bases or ship, plus a way to stack them for different launching times (it sorely lacked an ability to create mission strike packages, but that and other things are being added to in the team's own product). And you know what? It's fun! It's even more fun to create a mission as the Russians or Indians or even French and see if you can better the US navy with their inferior resources! There are ways to do it and it's more rewarding than you would have thought! Combine somehting like that, which teaches you that launching thirty missiles at an AEGIS cruiser will get them shot down, forcing you to time two flights, plus ship assets just right, for several volleys of missiles to sneak in at the target from different angles, with the types of missions, situations and cinematic excitement experienced in 'TIE Fighter', complete with stuff like orbital bombardment and diplomacy and that's the sort of thing which many, including myself, originally thought might be what this would offer. So, yes, it is feasable for something like a successor to 'Rebellion' to have been made and on the market, with older computer technology than what is available today. Have a look for yourself on the 'Naval Warfare Project' section: www.navalwarfare.net But is what we're being offered unworthy of our time? No, of course not! It's going to be a great experience, from what we see so far. Such a game could have been created, though. No doubt about that.

The question would be what percentage of those potential ground forces have you forced the enemy to lose in space before that began? Of course, that would be supposing that, if blockades are still available, you didn't just win the orbital combat, wait for reinforcements and then invade - but the same could be said for similar situations in 'Rome: Total War', too.

Yeah, sorry about that...! It's one of those subjects which sinpired so many thoughts that it turned into more of a diatribe than a reply, but you got the gist of it, I hope. Indeed and that was, as I remember it, one of the things they alluded to following the premise of, early on. It's one of those basic fuondations to help balance out sides in terms of tactics and strategy, where they're unable to in terms of units and technology. Quite how much they'd followed that logical progression, however, is open to question and what will inform us most as to precisely which route they take to balancing things the most: 'Cheating' unit statistics to make the ridiculously survivable (or, atlernatively, deal outrageous amounts of damage) or staying true to the fictional world and forcing players to compromise with strategy, by means of the environment and types of missions a player would find their side most suited for? It's a very thin tightrope to navigate.

"Hey, looks like nobody's buying the expansion." "What? It's everything an expansion should be! Extra missions, a few extra features and some units." "Well, apparently, there was this capital ship which we're putting in this one but was left out of the other." "So... They're boycotting us for giving them what they wanted?" "Uh, sort of, but it's not as simple as-" "Ah, that's all crap! The obvious message is that players are bored with the game, so it's time to pull the plug on it and terminate our contract with the designers." "But I don't think that was the message they intended us to-" "Of course it was! Now do it!" As you can see, the problem with messages is that they can easily be misinterpreted...

I like the look of it, but would much rather the game allow for ships to have the ability to shoot down missiles fired from any unit.

When was the Assault Gunboat meant to have been created?

As said earlier, those who have played the demonstration of it had stated that only two units would be in an AT-AT, but that it would be made with them already intact, which, considering it's a transport, does make sense.

I would agree with Naja and Teradyn, who seem to echo my thoughts very well. I do actually like what the game is, so far, but do have the same reservations as most sane individuals! Take, for instance, the AT-ST. I only have a 56K connection, so am unable to see most videos (allowing us do join in the multiple player stuff is one of those things I'm supremely grateful to the designers for), but if most people are saying that a single soldier is getting hit repeatedly by what is, effectively, the 'Star Wars' version of a walking tank and not even getting knocked to the ground and injured, let alone dying from something which is routinely able to splinter trees apart, makes me think that the gameplay could be boring. I've played games like that and it just makes things... Tedious. The suicidal infantry rushed of World War One became obselete for very good reason! Only the Japanese of World War Two (and the personnel of certain, nameless Arab nations today) continued to use that tactic and it didn't do them many favours, apart from stalling the inevitable. That's why vehicles were introduced to do that. On the other hand, the Storm Troopers have armour, so it's easier to see why they might beused in such a way. Even so, if those videos were engineered specifically to show such a visual, as opposed to unchanged unit statistics, showing how an actual game would be (unprotected infanty surviving multiple hits from heavy weaponry), then the fact that nobody from the design teams informing us of no such thing becomes conspicuous by its absence. Were the videos representative of how much damage a unit could withstand or not? We don't know, so the fears are justifiable. They also, however, lead to rumorus which can damage a game's reputation, so it's more difficult to say what the reason is for no official word being given on certain aspects of it. Are the units going to take or deal out that much damage in a game? We don't know, but the only evidence that we do have points to an affirmative answer, which worries many of us. We don't have the right to demand confirmations or denials from a game developer, but these are fears which keep on being raised in discussions, time and time and again, which are not being corrected, if they are not true. Engineering a video to show particular units facing off against one another is one thing. Knowing whether the units being portrayed had their statistics altered to show a specific outcome of that confrontation is another. In regards to balance, it would depend on the mechanics in general. I'm so wonderfully glad that this product has decided to do away with supply lines that it may just make up for any other potential short-comings of it! That's a great thing, in my view. In real combat, commanders on the ground don't have to worry about how to go about securing such things. The generals do, who take care of strategy. In these games, we're dealing with both strategy and tactics. In a tactical battle, having to worry about escorting and path-finding for a unit can become frustrating and boring, if it is not contributing to the fight you are worrying about. It's a logistics arm which would deal with that in a real scenario and you'd only have to think about how to link up with it. That this game is taking account of that, in the same way as the 'Total War series had, is a great thing (and part of why I get so frustrated with the 'Homeworld' way of doing stuff). While not realistic, in terms of how resources are a part of life, it is realistic in terms of what a battle commander would be concerned with, which is what you're part of. You're concerned with fighting, conquest and defence, not securing the logistics. Let the game take care of that. You can imagine it happening behind the scenes. But when we come to the realm of who these sides confront one another, was it wise to start it before Episode 4, when the opening scrawl dictated that the Alliance, by virtue of its very nature, would not have been able to secure more than one victory? Opening that can of worms leads us to the other questions about balance versus realism, so, what we inevitably see is a compromise. One of the opening premises for this game was always what I termed the dragon analogy: A short-sighted dragon against a group of farmers with pitchforks. It could destroy them with ease, if only it knew where they are! The trouble is, the more that it stomps around, demanding that thevillagers tell it where their only way of getting revenge at the dragon is, the more they hide it. Some give into fear, some give into the riches the dragon offers form its treasure, but many don't, because that's their only hope. But the more the farmers grow in number and the bigger and better their pitchforks get, eventually obtaining slow and delicate catapults, the louder they become, until tehy get to such a size that they might be able to stand a chance against the dragon, but the dragon knows precisely where they are. The question, for this game, is just how big have they made the dragon? Have they engineered it with some injuries to make the role of the farmers more interesting? Have they allowed it to breath fire at the cost of forcing it to run slower or are they going to let it run fast again, when you buy the expansion pack? Those of us who have played 'Rome: Total War' know that while the Romans are the most powerful, after a while, curiosity compels you to see what it's like on the other side. The Gauls and Britons are no match for legions of armoured troops with the best equipment, but they could be overcome with massed quantities of what they do have. The key to this, as with life, is not merely massed firepower, but intelligently deployed massed firepower. The ingredients for that are in this product already. The ability to withdraw, not merely because of losing a battle, but to gain an important strategic advantage (perhaps luring the opposing side to attack a planet you've already plundered, forcin gthem to take losses, only to allow you to pool those force into one big fleet and destroy their homeworld, for instance), is an important step in that direction. The question is, just how far have they taken that, in terms of logical progression? Things like that allow for unbalanced sides to still be interesting. Realism is fine, if it's implemented right. Nelson should have been beaten by the Spanish, but what did he do? Destroyed the enemy fleet's formations with boats which were set alight and cast adrift in that direction, then attacked. The advantage the Alliance has is something termed assymetrical warfare. It's an important tactic which China and Al Qaeda (although, witht he latter, less effectively, since they have poor leadership driven more by ideology than military effectiveness) are both enthusiasts for. The Empire is geared towards annihilating an opponent which fights on its same level. The Alliance is geared towards a different way of fighting which, while it can never win, will put the Empire at a disadvantage until it gets to that stage. In short, the Alliance are playing for time and, because of that, are more daring because they have to be! They have to take risks. The Empire are defensive. They lay back. They wait for the enemy to raise its head just enough before pounding through the door. How do you fight an invisible enemy? You survive until it becomes arrogant and strong enough to try and face you in open battle. That's what Palpatine understood. That's what his entire game was about, at Endor. He played just dumb enough for the Alliance to get cocky and allow him to close an obvious trap. His fault was only in wanting to have a big fireworks display, rather than let the Death Star and fleet attack simultaneously on multiple fronts. That's what this game, ideally, should reflect. A way of forcing the Alliance player to make surgical strikes, gathering and biding resources and time, which the previews allude to. The problem, here, would appear to be the designers wanting to make the Alliance player confront the Imperial one in open battle too early. To rectify that, they give them units which should have no place in being there (how would they manufacture so many tanks and mobile artillery pieces without the Empire locating and then just destroying those factories?). Perhaps the key should be to give the player two obvious routes: Play as the Empire if you're interested being strategic and in open battles or play as the Alliance if you want to be sneaky, tactical and save those pyrotechnics for later in the campaign. It's a matter of philosophy. One which I don't think the game designers are going in the direction of, but who of us knows? What those of us who favour realism would liek to see are a futuristic application of historical examples. Look at the Goths. They were horrendously underpowered. Then they got to a stage of having nothing to lose, defeated several garrisons of an unprepared Empire and took enough resources and equipment to virtually be a rogue Imperial army, themselves. That's how some of us appeared to hope this game to go. The Alliance would have access to things like using merchant vessels for cover, then revealing the disguise to reveal a ship bristling with weapons (or a hanger bay) and opening fire when it got close enough to where it needed to be, jamming any distress calls, before hypering away. Will we see that for the majority of the Alliance campaign (and 'sandbox' mode)? It's an open question. But if we do, then it would negate the logical progression of where some of our fears are leading us. Things like that, the ability to capture facilities and ships (one would imagine that the Empire, more often than not, originally had to deal with many examples of 'friendly' ships roaming around and suddenly unleashing a volley of fire at valuable targets, which would lead to paranoia and perhaps the later examples of strict imposition of fear), along with things like orbital bombardment, would create a more authentic 'Star Wars' experience. The designers, on the other hand, appear to be favouring that an enhanced cinematic, alone, would be enough to convey that. It's not necessarily wrong and I'm sure it'll be fun, but I'm also certain that a more realistic application of the units and strategies could have had its own, very unpredictable rewards. Where the Empire and Alliance are concerned, it's all about compensation. A very David and Golliath match. If you're designing a game which is geared more towards cinematics and explosions than exploiting such things, then you're going to design things in the direction of more instant gratification than a requirement to deal heavily with stealth. Still, it's early days and we shall see what we shall see. This might not be a 3D version of 'Rebellion', but we can all agree that, while not absolutely perfect, it's still far in excess of what most of these games have become recently.

That is why some of us hoped for a realistic method of having to destroy more than a single base before taking over an entire planet.

I assume this vehicles that you steal - will remain yours after the battle. Then I will have in time an Army of AT-ATs for the rebels ... he, he, he Highly doubtful, as that side would not have the properly trained personnel to make much use of them, much less the right transports. Unlimited ?! Come on ! In a defensive position I will use them as TIE factories or I will delay the outcome of a battle that i'm wining just to produce more TIEs - a lot more of them - he he he I just need to wait for the timer to start again. It is not fair for ships to spwan infinite numbers of fighters and its extremly unrealistic. It would probably only be an ability in the midst of a battle. One extra group could be created (much like air strikes) with intervals of five minutes or so. Probably however long the designers think it would take for the previous amount to get blown up, which means it would be a generated replaceable attrition rate.

That was because some radio show thought it would be funky to screw with the census results and told its listeners to put 'Jedi' as their answer, which quickly caught on, because people wanted to have a laugh. In short, it's not true, but did show a high amount of boredom with the government doing such things, probably.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp Mwah hah hah hah...

From what I remember, the AT-AT is loaded with only two units (each of nine individuals) of soldiers - no more, no less.

The Imperials should begin with quite a number of worlds! It's simply the same Republic territory with a change of name.

Dantooine was indeed the original. There had apparently been a big stroke of luck when they decided to move over to Yavin 4. Hence why Leia mentioned that place, knowing it was deserted and stuff.

Delphi, being as someone who is involved in the game's creation and witnessing the reasons for why certain decisions are taken, do you honestly feel that some of what the moderating teams are planning, might be a case of biting off more than they could chew? I wonder just how much of a reduction in performance things like heightening the population caps or planetary building slots would lead to, in terms of game mechanics or whether it is more due to attempts at making the gameplay experience more challenging ("This will force players to be more inventive," versus; "More than X number of Star Destroyers seem to make things crawl when all those TIEs go swarming around").

Hailing from the UK (living on a moored boat, making me unable to get broadband, which gives me happiness that the team have allowed 56K modems to join in on the multiple player fun) and have been watching the development of this game and forum for a long while, but now it's time to say hello!

As someone new who's been reading the message for a long time, perhaps it's ironic that I choose the very last day of the year to say anything, but hello to you all. That part depends, as I seem to recall a message which spoke of the sizes not yet being defined (thankfully, because some of them are very odd to look at). It should be pointed out, however, that even a game as old as 'War Of The Worlds' was able to get around that, in the same way that that various 'Total War' games managed to: Units can be clicked on the screen, but are primarily selected from a group of collected tabs down below, which gets around the scale problem totally. Units are scaled right and selectable. If figuring out where the smaller units might be is worrying, then why not simply produce a mouse-over effect on the tabs themselves? Whenever the pointer moves over a tabbed unit (or, more correctly speaking, a group of them), they become highlighted on both the main map and cinematic screen, allowing the user to locate them in battle without having to click or deselect any. Heck, the 'Homeworld' series had some insanely small units! With that in mind, scaling should not be an issue (unless the maps for this game are somehow even smaller than those). The problem with it was that units weren't produced in workable batches, which this game will have a very big advantage in doing.