Darthscharnhorst2

I guess it depends how it is implemented. As it stands now, it is rather silly for neutral planets to join the rebellion just because a ship parks in orbit or for neutrals to be run by pirates. My hope is that with the addition of a 3rd or 4th fraction *one representing neutral planets* the rebs will have to peacefully get planets to join their cause. Also if there is a loyalty rating, a planets income/bonus could be tied to it meaning that the people there are not overly joyed when the empire crushes them and it takes time to achieve maximum productivity or planetary bonus. This is one of those features which I equate to gameplay depth but also adds to the lasting appeal, replayability, and fun of the title.

I was thinking more along the lines of keeping the Barraks, senors, etc in tact. But since these buildings play a part in the land battles I guess they must be destroyed.

I so hope this is true ;D

Ha, very good point! I really didn't care about such things 5 or 6 years ago when I booted up C&C for the first time. I wonder what the average age of the potential EAW player will be.

Now this makes sense to me. Sounds like a good slash and burn tactic if you don't think you can hold a world. With that in mind, its a shame that some buildings don't carry over after a planet changes hands ala *Rome Total War*, as that would add to the value of completely destroying a system/striping your own worlds if you feel they will be taken.

Yes but if it just picks at random you have the same chance of getting Three LibertyII's as you do three different names Of course if it doesn't duplicate until it exhausts all names there is no problem as we can add very long lists!

I was thinking more along the lines of evolving the concept of FOW as opposed to scrubbing it. Teradyn makes some excellent points, most of which I agree with. He also hits the nail on the head regarding it not being a SW universal simulation, I keep having to catch myself and try to work within the framework the devs set up. Hopefully one day we will get a game more along those lines. However, there is nor reason why a simple RTS cannot be realistic. Look at the massive amount of WWII ones on the market which model armor values true line of sight. etc. I was hoping for something more along those lines instead of a C&C approach. But at least EAW, with hard points etc, tries a little.

This concept is really fine with me, I just don't like how after a battle these number reset no matter how many squadrons the Rebs take out. Couple this with instant repair and the game just loses a certain *feel* to the battles. However, I think some improvement can also be made working within the games framework. From what I observed the ISD only sends out 3 squadrons at a time 2xties 1xbomber. I would prefer that the player get to choose what they launch or at least in what order. No point in launching bombers if the Rebs are fielding mostly x and Y wings. Of course I could be wrong with this observation, but if not, I think it would be a much better gameplay mechanic if the ISD launched fighters or bombers through a special power button rather than auto. This could at least allow the Empire to get its fighter squads out before the ISD itself is taken out.

Now that I am thinking about it, what would be the real purpose of building a Death Star in this game? Apparently it cannot attack ships, its fighter capacity is mute since all imp forces respawn automatically and as mentioned above there is no loyalty rating for planets. Since the Rebs can only Garrison 8 units on a planet, I don't really see the need to ever blow one up.

The same could be said about many Russian soldiers and quite a few Germans towards the end of WWII. Seeing how the empire draws a lot of inspiration from such totalitarian regimes I would imagine that deserting would be about as lethal as actual combat. In war, both sides soliders have EVERYTHING to lose.

Cain and the NMA are my new Heros

Yes, Battlezone tried to do both but did neither well. Some people have said the same about EAW but at least EAW does seem fun.

Well I guess that acts as a Balance to its power, but it makes very little logical sense. Unless you are forced to keep Vader and the Emperor on it at all times, I doubt the Empire would crumble from the loss of it alone.

Maybe he means its game over for the Death Star, as in you only get to build one. Not its game over for the Empire. Otherwise like others posted why even build the Death Star?

This is truly great news!

I could work with this idea if they also factored build time in as well as cost into certain hero's death like Ackbar and the Home One. Or better yet, allow the hero to return but without the ship. ex. You get Solo back to do smugler runs, but the Falcon is gone for good

I have to agree. One of my very first games was the original C&C and although the graphics have evolved a lot since there have been very few changes to the classic formula. I think my two favortie games right now, Hearts of Iron II and Rome Total War *both heavily modded,* prove that a RTS can be fun, realistic, and still appeal to a large audience. I had and to most extent still have high hopes for EAW but I get the overall feeling that while developers were willing to take some ground breaking chances, they were hesitant to jump into the deep end with games like Hearts of Iron and instead focused on "fun" instead of "rewarding" gameplay. I am sure that EAW will sell like mad, but I hope the success encourages the dev team to continue to take more chances with innovation and develop rich rewarding experiences for the player instead of adopting a "watered down" approach to strategy in order to appease "the masses".

I would hope that Bobba Fett could do this, but I doubt it since the rebels don't have an apparent answer to thwart imperial agents. Additionally, if units could fail in missions you send them on or be captured after the loss of a space/land battle and subsequently be held on that planet, hero deaths might become less of a necessity. I guess the Dev's felt this type of gameplay did not equate *fun* . Of course this could be changed for the final version or future patches/expansions.

Yes that is a very cool feature and I think I have seen other games in development employing it. Maybe in EWA2 we will get the chance to command an ISD and personally direct gun fire, or hop into Obi Wan. That would seriously evolve the concept of FOW in an rts since as the Admiral or General you would only have line of sight and satellite reports to judge from. You also have to weigh the choice of unleashing the power of your Flagship or lightsaber on the enemy with hanging back in order to have a good appraisal of the Battlefield and issue competent orders to your fleet/men. A good example of this now is playing from the "general" perspective in Rome Total War. It gives you an idea of the limitations of a commander; however this plays more into the simulation crowd rather than the RTS.

Yes, but hero's are not gods. Many hero's have died preforming heroic actions. Thats what makes many of them legends ;D If we could name ships in game *not just through text editing* I'd be happy to name my next ISD after a fallen hero. But it seems like we won't and hero's cant die so the point is probably mute :-\

I seriously hope it does not duplicate until all the names in the list have been exhausted. That would be very lame indeed.

Yes I saw this as a building but do not know its true effect. I think they can be built in space as well. It would be nice if the attacker could send spies to a planet or area of space to at least pinpoint where the buildings or defences were for bombing runs. Perhaps having all enemy units show up on radar but not knowing what their composition included would provide a good compromise. I was never for doing away with fog of war, but simply evolving the concept to fit this game. Judging from the poll, it seem quite a few people agree that it could better be applied to certain situations instead of a blanket in every battle. I would envision that certain sectors of the map would remain shrouded *asteroid fields, Nebula's, Jungles, certain atmospheric conditions, etc* but that if line of sight was not obscured than fog of war would not exist. Remember in space there is no curvature of the horizon nor are there buildings or hills to obstruct your view, this is why we can see billons of miles into space with telescopes. To me, a rebel admiral should be able to spot an ISD a few handed miles downrange if there is nothing blocking his line of sight. If you take these rules into consideration, battles in Nebula's and asteroid fields become that much more engaging because they offer a change of pace form the norm and allow you to play out unique tactical advantages. Once again, good points all around.

My dream for the expansion *if there is one* would be that they nixed the free spawn and allowed us to pack and launch the interceptors, bombers, and regular ties via a button similar to the special power one that is already in game. Hell for simplicities sake have a full load come with each ISD and give the option for the replacements to be built and autoloaded into ISD's, carriers, spacestations in orbit. Of course those of us who prefer to micromanage our force could load and launch them manually. This way everyone is happy ;D

I was thinking something along the lines of a 10-15% chance of Failure. Overall this is a very small chance of failure, but would add a bit of randomness to the game. If you want to take it a step further the percentages could increase and decrease slightly as you move further into empire territory or the Dev's could make it progressively harder to smuggle and steal tech from the same planet, forcing the rebel player to branch out instead of making the same runs. Maybe start the chance of failure off at 5% and cap it at 15%. By no means would this Nerf the rebels but it would add a bit of flavor and dare I say realism to their methods. Sure some players might scoff at a failed mission as *losing* is not fun, but succeeding every time is quite a drag as well.

As I mentioned in another thread, I think it would be a nice game feature if there was not a 100% success rate on all agent missions *please correct me if I'm wrong*. Couple this with a moderate expense for sending a smuggler on a mission *they shouldn't be doing this for free* and you get some strategic elements involved. ;D