Darthscharnhorst2

haha thanks! I had forgotten about avp2 but you are right, time will tell.

Which unfortunately killed the game for a lot of us. I haven't played EAW since the first week when I bought it except to try the beta builds of some mods. I am currently waiting on some of the more promising mods to develop but honestly I've lost almost all intrest in the game. Having picked up Galatic Civ II and playing it non-stop for three weeks and still feeling that I've only scratched the surface, I can only wish that Lucas Arts and Petro had gone more that route in regrads to the Galatic Map part of the game. Which by the way seems to be selling like crazy. Maybe somewhere down the line we will get a game with a strategic componet like Galatic Civ II, and real time space battles like EAW. Until than I'll hold my breath for the talented modders to come through with either a good overhaul of EAW or a Star Wars mod for Galatic Civ II.

For the most part I agree with your statements. Rock beats scissors is about as basic as you can get when it comes to "tactics" and most rts games ignore real military maxims like flanking, Blitzing *not the same as a tank rush* etc. I found RTW especially with the RTR mod to be the best example of real warfare on the tactical level. So what could be done through modding? Land battles: Sadly not much. If you lose the paper beats rock mentality, there is nothing buy victory through overwhelming force left. Unlike RTW, EAW's combat is squad based and is not a good representation Planetary invasions. There are no unit formations, penalties for being out maneuvered or even a command structure. In EAW you plop down on a planet what is equivalent to a platoon, face another platoon in battle and then suddenly the planet is yours. Always a battle of Endor, never like the climatic battle in episode two. The only way to fix it is to do away with ground combat by abstracting it via Galactic Civ II or Rebellion. Simply allow both sides to build "armies" and "planetary garrisons" but force them to auto resolve the land battles. Make the armies hugely expensive with stats that would work in the auto resolve algorithm so that realistic outcomes result. I know its a harsh messure, but I know I find myself dreading most of the land battles anyway since it is simply wash/rinse/repeat. Invasion Armies should cost a lot of money and take a long time to build Garrison's should be cheaper and take less time but not be loadable into space. Perhaps you could make them a *building* ? If you want to keep land battles in than I would suggest changing the scope of the conflict and creating *mixed* units. For example, instead of building tanks and soliders have the player build "heavy and light" armies. A Heavy imperial army could deploy with 3 AT-AT's 3 AT-ST's 12 storm trooper sqds and 4 speeders. Shift the focus away from "kill the base" to open combat by making the maps bigger and increasing the pop limit. Space Battles: Rework the unit stats from the ground up with Naval Combat in WWII as your model. Capital ships in general should be very hard to destroy. ISD and MON Cals' should have a tremendous amount of hit points, firepower and gun range and simply own every other cap ship. Work the rest of the stats out from that point. However they should be slow and if it is possible force the ISD or Mon Cal to get itself into a "broadside" postion on a target in order to unleash all its weaponry. This provides real world tactical planning to come into play. Suddenly they become vulnerable to hit and run tactics by the faster cruisers which can out maneuver them and they can be overwhelmed by a *large number of* bomber sqds if not supported by their own fighters or corvettes. X-wings should be the bane of tiebomber simply because they are faster and pack quad lasers not because rock beats paper. If a player is stupid enough to let a group of tie bombers get behind his X-wings than he should be rewarded with some dead x-wings. Fighters bombers and scouts should be spawned by both sides or none at all. As soon a side jumps into orbit all fighters/bombers should be deployed. I would make it so that an ISD spawns 3 fighter sqds, 2 bombers, and 1 scout. Increase the ship cap limit dramatically. Do away with the stupid bonuses the player has to research every mission and make them plantarty bonuses or researchable on the galatic map and perminant. Capital ships need to cost a lot and take a *long time* to build. If the player can crank one out fast, no strategy comes into play as they are meaningless. Once again look back at WWII naval combat for guidance. A loss of a BB or especially a carrier could be devastating for a nation. Spacemaps need to be bigger so fleets can play cat and mouse. The fog of war needs to scaled back a little to allow long range combat between ships with senors to occur. Not all ships should have sensors Space stations need to be more expensive, only spawn fighters, and take a lot longer to build. The focus on space combat should be fleet actions not starbase hunts.

Nice job Stellar_magic, I really like the changes, especially the longer build times and slower turning rates. Would it be possible to add an estimate for the number of days it takes to build a unit in the unit description in a future build? Keep up the great work.

Yes. I would knock off those stupid one time upgrades that you have to research EVERY BATTLE in favor of giving experienced troops the bonuses. This was a serious flaw in my opinion. I think the dev team did a good job with the real time combat, but really screwed over the strategy

I like the idea of non-circular LOS. Also what about LOS for the starships? I think it really needs a boost.

1. Diplomacy- If the Devs want to limit it to a mission that Mon Montha and the Emperor can conduct for simplicity's sake, I would still be overjoyed. However it needs to cost money, take some time to complete, have a reasonable chance of failure, and most importantly provide a bonus to planets the player "converts" peacefully. I think this would add a bit more depth to the Galactic map portion of the game as well as more faithful the the Star Wars Universe. Invading or orbiting/blockading planets never makes the population happy or eager to produce for you, especially if you are a "rebellion" 2. Persistant Damage- Once again this feature can certainly be simplified if the Devs want to shoot for simplicity. Ships/starbases should repair quickly on their own if in orbit around a friendly planet, those in a hostile system should have slower rate of repair. This way the player does not have to worry about devoting time to repairing ships as they will do so on their own. However, it would allow the AI or other players to follow up an unsuccessful attack on a weakend enemy and conduct "raiding" operations. Finally, force the player to pay a small cost to restock their ISDs and space stations with fighters after a battle on the summery screen. A simple "reinforce for $$$" button would do the trick. If the player chooses not to, have the garrisons repair themselves like mentioned above. 3. Unit experience- This is a no brainier and since it would require no additional player interaction makes me wonder why it was not included in EAW. Units should SLOWLY gain exp which would equate to better accuracy and a higher percent chance to evade enemy fire. No weapon bonuses etc, as that could unbalance the game. Unit exp makes the player feel more attached to his units and increases immersion into the game. 4. Killable Heroes- The player should have the option to play with Hero deaths on or off. Some hero's like Luke and the droids need to be Immortal as they serve a game play function, however, the rest should be expendable. Additionally, I'm not really sure if the problem is with respawing in general, but it truly makes no sense to have them respawn with their ships etc. Case in point, when I first played the *modified* demo I sent the Homeone and a large fleet into action. During the battle, the Homeone was severely damaged by the empires planet defense gun which sent me into a panic since I thought I would lose it forever. Had I had the option to withdraw in the demo, I would have immediately done so to save that ship. However, since I could not, I watched in horror as a group of tie bombers finished her off. Although I won the battle I immediately started to ponder how the loss of such a powerful ship would impact the rest of my campain. However when entering the strategic map I noticed a ticker counting down to Akbar's return. Instead of being happy I found myself ticked off as it completely ruined the the *feel* of the game. Even worse when Akbar made his reserection he had a shiny brand new FREE Homeone to command even though I left its bombed out shell in orbit. Hence as a player I feel no consequence from throwing my "hero" units into pitched battles. Additionally a large portion of strategy is taken away since the player does not have to weigh choices or react to the huge loss of a hero unit. While it is fun to win a game, there is no need to replay something that you can't lose. As a gamer some of my most enjoyable experiences have come from rebounding from a terrible loss, or *gasp* fighting a losing battle to the end because I have made some stupid decisions. While I understand that some hero's are needed to preform a gameplay mechanic, R-2D2 for research and Luke for the Death Star run, there is no excuse for the immortality of the others. Barring an overhall of the research mechanics, even these obstacles can easily be overcome. For example, R-2D2 does not need to be involved in planet invasions,thus he is not exposed to harm. As for Luke, let him respawn but without rouge squadron. 5. Chance of failure- I think it would be a nice game feature if there was not a 100% success rate on all agent missions. The droids shouldn't always get the blueprint you send them after, Solo shouldn't always steal credits, and if diplomacy is added a planet shouldn't be head over heals to join every time. I'm not talk a high percent of failure, more like 5%-10%, but just enough to throw some randomness and realness into the game. 6. Bases- I actually like how this works; however, I would like to be able to zoom onto the planet map when in Galactic mode in order to place my garrisons and my turrets and walls where I want them. While I understand this would be a gameplay problem for Multiplayer, many of us are buying EAW for the singleplayer experience. Therefore, why not allow the player to choose from three or four base configurations "choose from a digram" after they take control of a planet? Minor issues that could be addressed: Renaming ships in game. A Hardcore or Realistic Setting option in the option menu which would allow: 1. Slower Build times and Space Travel 2. Killable Heroes 3. Persistant Damage 4. Chance of Mission Failure 5. Cost to resupply units who freespawn other units. By making it an option setting, both casual RTS fans and those of us who prefer games with more depth are happy

I agree. I wish they would have given the Imperial capital ships the ability to launch fighters and launch bombers as a special ability button. Something akin to the way the AT-AT's drop storm troopers. Let the player choose when to launch his squadrons and how many to deploy. I find it stupid that the ISD launches 2 ties and 1 bomber than just waits to something is destoryed to launch more. I want to be able to scramble all my fighters! But than I also don't think that they should be free

Well without persistant damage this would turn into a huge exploit. However, I am all for individual retreat AND persistant damage

I think if Rebellion were re-released today with snazzy graphics,a better battle system, and a better UI it would sell like crazy. The Total War series has made the combination of Grand strategy and real time battles very marketable and appealable to the mainstream. Rebellion was just a bit before its time. EAW is more akin to a game of Risk with real time battles. However, to its credit, the galatic conquest is really more of an "add on" than the actual game. It seems like far more time was spent on the two campain games which are pretty solid. Hopefully this venture proves successful and Lucas Arts will decide to take the star wars licence in a "new" direction and develop a game that covers the entire era of the films and is more in line with Galatic Civ II, Rome Total War, Civilization, and Rebellion. I mean the first three games I listed are selling/sold very well so I am sure that a star wars game would do the same in today's market. Streamlined 4x strategy gameplay + good "flashy" battles + a clean UI + Star Wars = 1 million plus games sold. Someone email George to give the green light ;D

I second all of your points, especially this one. While I mentioned it in my "wish list" your post makes a better point of its importance. Hopefully if enough people ask for it, we could see it in an expansion.

Your concerns were very much in line with mine. EAW is at heart an RTS in the same vain as Command and Conquer. It is by no stretch of the imagination a strategy game like rebellion or even a simpler one like Rome Total War. If you think you will enjoy the battles, I wouldn't worry much and simply take the game for what it is. However, if you are expecting a Rebellion experience you will be disappointed with the lack of strategic depth and options. No diplomacy, persistant damage, hero death, or unit experience. I to miss the ability to damage ships and than follow up with an attack. I remember once in Rebellion *over 5 years ago* an alliance fleet beat me badly, killing an SSD, but I managed to damage the hyper drives of several of their ships. With great satisfaction I converged the might of the empire on their stricken fleet and had my revenge. I doubt I'll have any memorable experiences like that in EAW as ISD's take a few days to build and while they have names, there is no player attachment as they are easy to replace. Instead of building on the good of Rebellion by adding more player immersion like experience and victory lists, they chose to go the typical RTS route for mass indistinguishable units *exempting immortal heroes*. Forget about about hit and run tactics as there is no benefit to be had. Additionally, Planets are just as happy to be ruled by the empire as they are to be liberated by the Rebels. I think the mods will address some of these concerns but I doubt they will be able to turn EAW into something its not. For one, I'm pretty much ok with this as I can still enjoy some good Star Wars space battles and a quick "strategy light" experience. However, I doubt I will be playing this game a month from now *especially with galatic civilizations II coming out* unless the mods can work wonders.

I just completed my first large galatic conquest game and while it was a blast at first I did find myself growing tired or somewhat repetitive rts gameplay *thank you auto-reslove!* and longing for more options on the galatic map. Here is my list of Pros and Cons Pros: -The graphics are great and really convey the Star Wars feel. -I like the ease of use of the Galatic Map. -Ship naming works as designed and I was happy to see that ships retain their names in the galatic map as opposed to being randomly generated every battle but I wonder why their names cannot be displayed on the galatic map? -I found the AI to be pretty good on the galatic level in regards to tactics. I liked how the rebels raided my planets and their fleet picked apart some of my border guards. -Hero units appeared much more balanced then in the demo Cons: -Random events/missions are a bit wonky for my taste. For example, rebel planets converted to the Empire for no apparent reason *why no diplomacy!* and the event designed to give me credits are useless as my coffers have not run dry since very early on. -The AI makes some odd building choices with some unbalanced fleets. -It is very easy to win by simply building an *uber* fleet stacked with ISD's and AT-AT's No need to build anything else. -There is no sense of player attachment to any units because heros are immortal and the capital ships lack personality due to no experience system/no persistant damage/fast build times/no tracking of victories etc. Instead of, "OMG they just destroyed the Home One and its experienced crew which killed the blank, blank and blank"; its, whoops there goes the home one, see you again Akbar in 2 min. -While planets have unique maps, they have no personality beyond what the info screen tells you. Their populations are just as happy to be under the thumb of the Empire as they are to embrace the Republic. -You need to build the same defences everytime a planet is invaded. Why do my turrets/repair pads dissapear every battle? -The "battle upgrades" need to be purchased every battle. While this makes sense for multiplayer skirmish, its retarded for galatic conquest. I just upgraded the Bombard yesterday over Korriban, why do I need to "research" the same upgrade over Mon Calamari? -Research as the Empire is a bad joke on gameplay. For a real time strategy game I'd give EAW an 8.5 out of 10. What it does well, it does very well and while there are some gameplay issues, none of them are true game breakers However for capturing the starwars universe, I would give it a 5.0 The graphics, sound, and battles are pure starwars; however, to me the galatic conquest mode lacks character attachment, political intrigue, and full immersion into the star wars universe. Roll on the Mods ;D

Well maybe if you had an experienced unit it would last a bit longer

I had posted this idea in another thread a while back, but it might be relevant to this mod. Perhaps we could take a combined arms approach. For example, you could build a platoon of soldiers but within that platoon you would get 2 squad of stormtroopers, 1 squad of an anti-armor unit and one "heavy weapon squad" that included a machine gun type unit. This could be adapted to the company level *dreaming* as well. I also agree that the armored units should be powerful, but perhaps infantry could make up for this by having large numbers as well as more of a defense boost when in "take cover" mode.

I'm not so sure. I mean, in their eyes the asteroids and such may just be there for aesthetics.

Very cool list of features all around. I am very much looking forward to your mod. Just to toss around ideas, have you considered: 1. Expanding the line of sight for units in order take advantage of expanded weapon ranges and account for ship size. 2. Balancing the "special" abilities by adding some secondary one to current units or removing some of the wonky ones. Hunt for enimies and boost firepower come to mind. 3. I hope that you plan to keep the longer build times and higher cost as it brings some reality to the game. 4.Any plans to adress the free unit spawning buildings and units? 5. Finally, I would vote for platoon level units as squads seem to small for a "galatic" simulator. I would actually rather see company size units of stormtroopers etc, but I think most would be against it. Thanks for the effort, your modification list adds a lot of what I felt was missing in single player EAW.

I agree. I was playing a battle in an asteroid field and my Victory Class was shooting through a huge rock and hitting a rebel crusier. Very lame!

Thats exactly how I pictured it as well!

Yes but they could have allowed us to "build" a base while staying in the galatic mode. Examples: 1. Pick from a selection of prebuilt base options via diagram after conquering the planet. This would really only require more maps and the mechanic to choose the layout. Actually, they could have used the exact same map but altered defensive emplacements to the players preference. 2. Limit traditional base building to single player. *Player can zoom to tactical view to build, galatic map pauses.* 3. Allow the player to place defensive structures on a planet while in the galatic map. The player could pull up a top down "map" of the planets surface and place things like walls, buildings, gun emplacements but be limited with build points. This of course would not be in 3d and could have icons depicting structures. This could be done from the garrison screen *let us place where the garrison units would be as well* I think this option would most likely be the harderst to code but really would have revolutionized the RTS genere.

Though a lot of single player fans are not pleased becuase of the apparent lack of depth to the Galatic Map. Maybe its a case of trying to please everyone.

No Flames from me, though a lot of my issues with the game most likely would have to be resolved in an expansion not a patch. I think I am in line with the reviews coming in, EAW is one of those game that while good, could have been a whole bunch more. Hopefully some constructive criticism will help decide which way they take a future game, possible expansion or maybe even a super patch.

Good questions. I think we will probably be able to mod it in to most units to see for ourselves once the game is out.

This is why I don't understand why all units don't have the "hunt for enemies" ability. It really could be useful if you could group a mixed force, set them to hunt for enemies and than they would go off in that group/formation and patrol the map. Or if you could assign your fighters missions via the special button like "hunt for bombers" or "engage fighters"

The expansion for Hearts of Iron II will include a new "intelligence gathering" system, as well as new automation features for players who don't like to fiddle. Rome Total War's expansion added night battles, river crossings, "hording" for barbarians, scripting, and customizable AI objectives. Numerous expansions add mulitplayer to games which were single player only. If Petro is smart they will add some major new gameplay to justify the purchase since new maps, ships and time frames can and will probably be added by the talented madders. I would be happy to shell out 30 bucks for an expansion that added persistant damage, diplomacy, unit exp and a few more gameplay additions, but theres no way I could justify the purchase for a few new maps and units, especially when I will most likely be able to get something similar from a mod for free.