Darthscharnhorst2

Ideally I think they should limit the number of "free" units that can be deployed. Just like the ISD can Spawn 6 squadrons, Heavy factories should only be able to spawn 2 or 3 units per invasion.. Barracks could spawn between 5-8 infantry units etc. This would represent a defenders ability to mobilize more forces for defence and their inherent advantage of defending but would allow for more of a balanced battle and reduce the cheapness feeling. Even better would be the ability to select what units spawn from a "supply points" system and also the ability to deploy them at our leasure "keep in saftey to avoid air stikes, element of surprize, etc" I also think that once a turret is destroyed that should be the end of it for that battle. If we can't base build the defender shouldn't be able to instantly rebuild towers either. I have not really taken a look at the files "I'm waiting to the real version to start modding" but I would hope that you could place or change the spawn limit of buildings and hopefully the build speed of turrets in game *in order to make it impossible for rebuilding to take place*.

This sounds pretty cool indeed.

Ha, I'm not really up on the lingo! But at least the meaning comes across.

This is my hope as well. I was hoping for a streamlined state of the art Rebellion 2 when I heard of EAW but I can understand Petro's desire to carve their own path. If it sells well and they make an expansion, hopefully they will include some of the missing features in order to encourage people to buy it.

To make it interesting try to explain what influenced your decision. For me, single player. I like the galactic map and space battles and have high hopes regarding modding it to suit my preferred play style. I know I will give multiplayer a spin but doubt I'll have the time to devout playing conquest online.

More on why features like renaming were not inculded and our chances of getting it

Yes, this is what I was going for. It allows the player to concentrate more on the strategy of planning attacks and less fast clicking. In any case it seems that more people who took the poll are in favor of some form of change than what we currently see in an RTS.

Exactly! Which is why a number of us are a bit disappointed since by looking at the code some aspects like Diplomacy were on the table but nixed and ship renaming was stated but never realized. However units not gaining experience and no persistant damage makes little sense as they easily could make the transition from a singleplayer oriented game to a mu litplayer one. Perhaps Lucas Arts forced a release date or the Dev's axed it in favor of "fun." Its sad because I think these little things would have gone a long way in making the "strategy" segment of the fan base happy and have encouraged repeat buyers based on Petro's name as opposed to the Star Wars Logo. I have a feeling many traditional RTS fans will do the same as they will bemoan the missing base building and not like the time it takes to complete a galatic campain in multiplayer. As it is now, I am buying this title because of Star Wars, not for Petro's slant on the gameplay. Had they included more strategic elements to the the galaxy map code, I might have followed them like I do Paradox, Creative Ensemble, etc. In essence I think they are trying to make everyone happy but in the process will alienate quite a few gamers in the process. I do however wish them luck as they have a lot of promise. I think there follow up game, if not based on Star Wars will prove if they chose the right focus.

And I think that is the crux of the issue. For those of us who buy a game primarily for the single player experience and who look at multiplayer as a nice feature but not the heart of a game there is no fair exchange. This is why I have a high regard for the Total War series and others think its rubbish. I think CIV Four *got rid of the annoying stuff but kept and even added imersive features to the single player experience* is a good example of a game that does both equally well, but of course its not an RTS! Also if you have ever played Hearts of Iron I or II it is a very deep strategy game played in real time which is also fun online. While I don't think that the gameplay found in that title could be carried over to a star wars game, it does prove that RTS and deep strategic gameplay can go hand in hand.

Well look at Rome Total War. You can play quick battles online if you want but the single player campain is where its at. All the good mods etc, focus on making the game more fun in single player, and trust me there is a huge fan base for the mods alone. Plus a game with a "galactic mode" screams single player experience. Of course the ability to play it online might be why they "dumbed" down the galactic mode in the first place. As for renaming ships in game, you might be right about the mechanics not allowing as it stacks your ISDS etc on the galactic map. However, I'm sure they could have let us cycle through the stack if things like unit exp and names were included. While it is not a game breaker, I think the missing features hurt the lasting appeal of the game. While I have a feeling I will enjoy EAW *not canceling my preorder ;D* I think it will go down as one of those "this game is good, but it would have been so much better had the devs included ...* I still play games like rebellion, Hearts of Iron, Civilization, Medieval Total War, etc because of the immersion and unique experience you feel on every play through. However C&C and the clones that followed end up in my recycle bin once the novelty wears off. Of course this means nothing in the business world nor does it make me feel I'm not going to get my "moneys" worth from EAW. However, it does say a lot about a company and its direction, which for Petro appears to be state of the art RTS geared towards multiplayer. Next time a petro title is announced, I just know not to set my aspirations to *high*

Or maybe in the Expansion. Persistant Damage + Diplomacy + Unit exp + a few more units and maps = 29.99 more from me! ;D

Thats my point though, the anti-tank units are attached to the normal ones instead of running around the battlefield alone. But like you also pointed out, the games does not represent divisions but rather squads.

True, but I think you can mod the *hit points or equivalent* of a ship so there is some hope that a sense of realism can be added in future modifications. Hearts of Iron has a good system of ship naming which generated from a list in order of appearance. However, the player also had the option to rename the ships after they were launched. In battle ships were lost faster than EAW but they did earn exp. But otherwise I agree. I don't blame the Dev's for their approach, it is at its core a run of the mill RTS *Don't flame it is! * but I certainly don't care for the lack of immersion beyond the graphics and immortal heroes. I think they could have incoperated a lot more depth and realism like diplomacy, unit experience and renaming, killable or captured heroes, no free spawing units, etc and still have achieved a game that was easy and fun to pick up but allowed experienced gamers to have fun with the deeper features, *think madden*. I think they were right to do away with a lot of the mechanics that were tedious and not fun, but I think they might have been a bit overzealous or like Madden for the 360 felt that many players wouldn't miss componets that raise the experience to the next level ??? On a side note I have fooled around with the name files and have got an ISD Scharnhorst to appear so it works. However, the naming does appear to be randomly selected. My hope is that the names are not allowed to repeat until all names on the list have been used *could generate a list of 100 names to never get a repeat* but I am not sure if it does or not. Theres always hope for an expansion that will include *new features that will immerse you in the SW galaxy*, well at least I can hope ;D

I agree 100%. This along with units not earning exp really takes away a large part of the immersion / personalization aspect of the game. While it appears you can edit the files, I think the names are drawn randomly and there has been no word if they in fact repeat before the list is completed. I doubt we will get experience for units, but Renaming ships cannot be that hard to code and the Dev's are always asking for feedback *makes you think they would add a sought after feature or two*. Sadly, the game has probably already gone gold. Maybe we can hope for a patch.

Good point. In most RTS games I usually group 1 anti-tank inf unit with 2 anti-personal ones in order to cover all bases. However my question is what is the point of having 2 units when in order for them to be effective they need to work together anyway. Since the two inf units seem to be at a big disadvantage in EAW *squashable by tanks, etc* I cannot see myself or any wise player operating them independently of each other. Of course I could be wrong and mass building anti-armor while ignoring the regular ones could be a viable strategy, especially with the powerful armored units roaming around. I see a lot of votes for keeping the current system but only one response as to why :-\

thanks! I will have to look into this when the full game comes out.

Having played the ground battle to death in the demo, I find myself wondering if the infantry units in the game could have been given more functionality by combining them instead of breaking them down into anti-armor and anti-personal roles. While I know many RTS games follow the convention that the two need to be separate in order to accomplish the paper beats rock strategic element, it forces the player to further micromanage his forces while at the same time has no base in reality. Given the devs aim of less micromanagement and focus on fun I think it might have further their aim by "revolutionizing" this gameplay aspect. I can think of a few possible alternatives: 1. Infantry units have a the missile weapons as a secondary fire option. 2. Infantry units fire off missiles as well as their blasters concurrently. Perhaps 1/4 infantry men carries a rocket launcher or they simply fire them at a much lower rate of fire. 3. Infantry units normally fire blasters but when set to "take cover" they automatically shift to rockets when targeting armored units. Rocket fire is halved *one man fires, one man loads* in order to achieve a sense of unit balance. Please post your own ideas, or feel free to bash mine ;D It would be fun to see why people voted the way the did.

For those of you who have taken a good look at the code, do you think it would be possible to implement a combined arms approach to infantry? What I mean is instead of having two different types as we do now, a single infantry unit could include both anti armor and anti personal capability. My idea would be to add a secondary missile fire for the standard infantry unit but I am not sure if the AI would employ it. Another option would be to allow the infantry to fire both weapon systems concurrently (similar to the space ships) but with the missiles coming at a much slower rate of fire. However, I am doubtful this is possible unless they can be given "hard points" Any thoughts?

I think that the infantry could benift from an icon as well. Also, it might just be me, but it appears the infantry die to quickly given their larger force composition. Also the Y-wings can really tare through an ISD like its nothing. I like the changes to the economy, but what about build times? Finally, do you plan to adjust the visibility ranges? Given the larger size of the capital ships it seems very odd when they *dissappear* just outside firing range. Other than that, I am really looking forward to this mod for the full version. Thanks for the effort!

Me too! I am hoping this can be modded once the full game comes out. Alot of us like the feeling of launching our own fighters. Even better would be the addition of 2 special ability buttons. One for Ties and one for bombers as sometimes you need all the fighters but not the bombers. The game should also deduct a small amount of credits each time you lose a squadron in battle. While I would love to be able to pack my own fighters, I don't think that will be possible to mod.

I like your approach. Makes you really feel the pain when you lose a ship. How are you approaching build times?

From what I gathered space battles can be auto resolved, has there been any word on ground battles as well?

Have you modded/plan to mod the detection radius of ships? While I like fow, the very limited line of sight seems off and kills the feel of a *futuristic space battle* Also, are the space stations limited to the Corvettes and IPV's they can spawn? I am very much looking forward to the direction of your mod *especially for the full version* Thanks for the effort!

I think you are right taking this approach, especially if you are striving for the work around to the unit xp approach you described in another thread. Does the code allow you to build structures in galactic mode which do not show up on the planet surface during a tactical battle or will it allow you to win a tactical battle if all buildings are not destroyed?

Yes I have to agree as well. While I do not agree with all of their decesions, I get the feeling that they do take into account community input which in turns builds a stronger community. Not many dev teams can make that boast anymore.