Darthscharnhorst2

Well rule by fear is infact an example of diplomacy. Think about the Soviet Union after WWII. Its not like most of Eastern Europe wanted to be under an iron curtain, but they saw it a better alternative to complete destruction. If diplomacy was added, just picture the Emperor or who ever is assigned the mission showing up on that planet and giving them the choice between joining or orbital bombardment. Additionally, some planets may willingly choose to join the empire even though they don't believe totally in it in order to benefit themselves or they could simply have corrupted leaders. Finally, to those who say that diplomacy would take away from combat, I beg to differ. In order to gain control of a Rebel, Empire, or Pirate controlled planet you would still have to invade. Diplomacy would only play a major role in luring neutral planets over to your side and the aftermath of conquests. If you want a star wars example, think about when Vader first appears on Bespin and is in a diplomatic meeting discussing the stations fate.

I preordered mine at Gamestop about Four months ago and expect to get it on the 17th or 18th. However, mail and shipping are still pretty messed up here in the New Orleans area so it might not be till the 20th

100% agree with these sentiments ;D

Well since there is a complete lack of realism in regards to most everything else in EAW, I fail to see the problem

I would imagine that mulitplayer would not include diplomacy or neutral garrisons and be more in the line of a "planet grab" Now that I'm thinking about it, I guess Pirates are not included in multiplayer games for the exact reason mentioned above, unless Player 2 takes control of them in the battle.

The rebel players could simply build a shield generator to shield them from the bombardment ;D A planet without one would be toast, but that would be the players fault.

Check the preview forum, I think there is one still there. Game Mags and sites will not review a demo and pass it off as a review of the final code. At the very least it was a review of a gold or preg old version that someone sent them for that very purpose.

Hotkey settings for what? Are you saying that all units have the ability to "hunt for enemy's"? Can I put groups of ties into this mode and they will therefore hunt in packs? If not, I miss your point since micromanaging my units was never an issue, the matter of the tie fighter's special ability was all I was calling into question as it appeared to be useless. Plus it is really how the AI is using them, as I would not set this ability to on unless I was rounding up transports, which I mentioned in this thread. Maybe if you could set them to "hunt for bombers" or "hunt for transports" or even "scout but avoid enemy contact" otherwise it makes an already weak unit even weaker.

Agree 100% Even an abstract form of diplomacy would be better than none at all. My ideas for a very easy and accessible approach: 1. Use the drag and drop mission mechanic that the droids and Solo use. Let the Emperor and Leia conduct these missions. 2. Make the mission take a little time and possibly money to complete 3. Give it a very small but modifiable chance at failure to spice it up and add some randomness to the game or allow bounty hunters to disrupt it by killing diplomats or chasing off the "heroes". 4. If you take a neutral planet by force there should be some form of repercussions either in the form of less generated money or not having access to the planetary bonuses. Optional: In single player Neutral planets should have their own "neutral* garrisons and resist military occupation by both the Rebellion and the Empire. Check out the wish list thread for some posters opinions on this and other "missing" features. The sad thing is that diplomacy seemed to be in the game at some point as some of the files in the demo elude to it. As it stands now the Galatic Map is simply a starwars version of Risk which while fun, lacks true gameplay depth.

Yes thats why the same magazine gave Madden for the 360 a 7.8 : I guess EA missed a payment on that one, or maybe they just pay off reviewers to rate other games low. I have my problems with EA for squashing compition and creativity but I blame the gamers who buy bad games thus reinforcing the notion that brain dead gameplay and flashy graphics are what the public craves. However for all we know BFME may do more to reinvent *or streamline* the wheel than EAW, afterall many of us are buying EAW for the Star Wars experience not the pure RTS one.

???

Theres the old saying that if something is worth doing its worth doing right

It is the first of what will sure to be many reviews. Like you I hope they got it wrong, however, I won't have enough blind faith to look past several reviews who score it in the 8's and scream that there is some kind of vast EA conspiracy. ;D Time will tell, and as always, the gamer who buys it will have the final say.

I do and apparently, the review in game informer points this AI behavior out as a weakness. While scouting the map is a good idea, I think the Ties would be better served attacking Y-wings and at least tieing up the X-wings instead of exploring the corners of the map. The AI should have priorities such as recalling all fighter support to fend off bombers when the enemy shows up. Additionaly, since there is no basebuilding the AI should concentrate all its defending units against the players force, especially when its starbase or Ground base is being attacked.

I would be curious to know this too. I think you can "attach" the camera to an individual ship or squadron but from my exp with the demo the camera will continue to circle that ships etc instead of giving you a static view. I was hoping for something akin to Rome Total war, where you could attach the camera and than pan and rotate it with mouse.

Well there is not much personal opinion involved when it comes to clunky controls, spotty AI, or poor path finding. That is pretty straight up. Additionally, I find game informer to usually be in about the center of the reviews that come out for a single game, for example, IGN usually ranks them high, PC Gamer usually ranks them lower so overall I think Game Informer is a fairly good judge. Of course that doesn't mean some people will absolutely love it or hate it. However, I wouldn't blast a review or reviewer simply because I want a game to be great. Plus an 8.3 is pretty good. As for what they reviewed, I'd be willing to wager a large some of cash that it was either the gold version or a gamma that Petro sent them for that very purpose. A game mag is not going to review a demo and pass it off as a final review. The publishers would not stand for it nor would the reader base. I've already bought my copy of EAW so it won't effect my purchase; however, I'll use this review and the ones which will be popping up next week to get a good feel of the game before I get my hands on it. As with all games the final verdict will be mine, but reviews give a nice insight into the overall product. No one says you have to agree with game reviews, but don't bash them just because it doesn't rate the game you've been waiting for a perfect 10. ;D

8.3 And things like path finding and AI could/should be addressed in future patches. As far as ratings, usually anything above an 8.0 is considered good, 9.0 and above is great. I would have been worried if it scored in the 7's but once again this is only the first review and we can all judge for ourselves next week.

It's actually the March issue and they um kinda only reviewed one PC game this issue but it does make for good PR! Plus its the first review I've seen *I work part time at a game store* so I thought it was relevent. And I doubt it was the demo version as we are actually getting the game soon but can't sell it to the release date. Plus it is in the review section of the mag.

Overall the reviewer praises the Star Wars atmosphere and replayability. However he metions that there are indications that the AI is sometimes spotty, graphical slow downs exist, "Clunky control of Armies" and there are some path finding issues. No real mention of multiplayer but it did win their PC Game of the month award. I'm sure more reviews will be coming soon as the game nears release.

Diplomacy anyone? Get the wookie homeworld to join peacfully = create wookie units ;D To bad it does not seem like this is possible >

My wish list for the Expansion as I doubt it would be included in a patch or added in a mod: 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 ;D

I couldn't agree more with this statement. Throw in a "cost" for the diplomatic mission, a timer for its completion, and a production boost to planets who "join" you willingly and the gameplay depth increases dramatically.

Well maybe something useful would um be more useful! Maybe allow them to Kamikaze a capital ship, *land* back on an ISD to repair losses, Form tight or lose formations to avoid flak. There are 3 useful options that took all of three seconds to come up with. Hunt for enemies should be an ability for all units and especially for grouped units like "defend" and "move/attack" is. It is by no means a *special* ability! Strange decision for a gameplay mechanic in my opinion.

From my experience with the Demo it seems that assigned groups in both Space and Ground battles do not match speed with each other. This makes for some pretty disorganized attacks on my part when using the grouping feature. Am I missing something or do units lack the ability to match speed when traveling in groups? I notice that "guarding" units seem to match speed so I'm hoping I am just missing a click some where.

I tend to agree. As a player the ability is also a bit useless as you cannot send ties out to hunt in groups. When playing the modded demo as the Empire I found the ability to be useless unless I was hunting transports. I think all units should have this ability as a quick key setting and the player should be able to send grouped units on this mission. Why ties have it as a specail ability is beyond me. It would make more sense as a "scout for enemy" as thats all they do since a tie squadron by itself cant stand up to anything but a transport.