Darthscharnhorst2

Good points Teradyn. My issues is not really with the ability of the Rebs to steal tech, but rather that it is their only ability to advance. Since EAW allows the Reb player to become a dominant force in the galaxy it does follow that they would gain access to tech teams/ship yards etc. Thus as a gameplay mechanic I would have liked the Rebs to have had a slower rate of tech advances, but with the ability to steal tech from the Empire in order to speed up said advances or add combat bonuses to their units. I think this approach would still allow for a much different feel when playing either side and reduse the argument for having immortal hero's *the droids* On a side note, I think random and faulty tech steals would add some spice to the current setup as everything the droids come back with shouldn't lead to new ships. For example, you can send the droids to steal a design on tanks but they have a small chance of returning with a different design or something completely useless. I don't like how they have a 100% success rate for every mission. Same goes with smugglers etc. Sometimes things should not go as planned!

I'm in full agreement here. Though I hold out hope for unit experience. I mean if C&C Generals can have it why not the ships in EAW where exp would really matter!

Of all the things on that list, I would be most excited about seeing diplomats in the game. To me, some form of diplomacy would add tremendous value to the stratergy portion of the game.

This is why I am torn with the idea and why I think FOW should be in the game, but only during certain times. While fog of war makes perfect sense in WWII and to some extent modern RTS, I would think that in the Star Wars universe it does not apply. Thus I would like to see fog of war in place when fighting in an asteroid field or during a snow storm but not in *normal conditions*. I think this would add flavor to the game and make battles in those places more enjoyable.

Having seen the game in action I found myself wondering what purpose does fog of war play in this title. While I like the ability to hide units in asteroid fields and think it makes sense on planets with atmospheric conditions/jungles, I fail to see the benefit and rationale behind it in every battle. While I believe that the defenders can build senors to dispell it, I'm not sure it should exist in open space and *nomal* planet conditions to begin with. As a play mechanic I think it would be a lot more enjoyable if fog of war was the exception rather than the norm. What are your thoughts/impressions?

I voted yes but with the option to turn it off and on, that way everyone is happy. The same can be said for ship and base repair. Gameplay reasons for hero death: 1: Acts as a counter to their super stats 2: Makes the player feel more attached to them and less likely to throw them around recklessly. 3: Adds realism and forces hard but enjoyable choices on the player. 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 decesions. 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.

For one I think the whole notion that the Rebels need to steal tech is a bad gameplay mechanic, especially as it forces the game into "immortal" hero unit mode since certain hero's are needed to make research advances. 1. The rebels are stealing tech that the empire doesn't use as they have completely different tech trees. I guess the empire just has a bunch of useless files sitting around for the rebels to take. This would make more sense if stealing tech allowed the rebels to upgrade their overall firepower etc, as in stealing weapon designs or if it allowed them to build the empire's ships. 2. Since whole planets are joining the rebellion, why can't they put research teams to work developing their own tech? Was this "feature" simply added to better distinguish the sides? 3. Since I mentioned hero units, 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. If Solo manages to get the Falcon blown up, the player should pay a consequence greater than a five day down time. Additionally it would be nice if some of the minor hero's could in fact perish, Akbar with the Homeone, etc. I could go on but the point is probably mute.

Whats worse if you do mange to kill them they come back to life a week later. I'm not sure if this is only for the demo but it is pretty lame to see the hero's resurrect themselves. There's only one Falcon but somehow solo buys a new one every time the original gets blown up ;D If the dev team does not want to kill people off, at least have them "captured" and thus forcing the player to "rescue" them. Otherwise its just plain silly, like the buildable Tanya from read alert.

I seriously do not understand why the need to repair ships was not included. If it has to do with simplicity, simply allow the ships to repair themselves over time while in orbit, double this speed when at a star base. This would require no extra clicking but add a ton of realism and *real* strategy. If a player "gets bored waiting for their ships to repair" they can simply build new ones or risk sending them in understrength. Better yet, allow realism settings to be turned on and off an make EVERYONE happy. As it sounds, ship repair was not instant in an older build of the game, why not allow those of us who prefer it to turn it back on?

Looking over the files, do you think it will be possible for modders to ditch the free unit spawns in favor or realism?

I bet the decision had a lot to do with AI coding. In strategy games like Hearts of Iron II there are parameters set up which require the AI to leave damaged ships in port long enough to repair in stead of seeking death. I have a feeling that the devs decided their time could be best spent elsewhere over developing this feature. I am hoping that enough people complain, clamor for its inclusion to warrent its addition in a future patch *yeah right* or expansion *bigger possibility*. The people behind Rome Total War added a lot of *game* features to their expansion, some specifically, like scripting, to aid the modding community. Heres hoping that Petro can do the same.

As a RTS in the vein of command and conquer I give it a 9 As a strategy game in the vein of Rebellion I give it a 4 As a combination of the two generes I'd say a 6 Like a week long trip to Vegas its a lot of fun at first but by day 6 the lights stop catching your attention and there is nothing left doing to hold your intrest. Of course this is based solely on the *moded* version of the demo. I have hope for the full version and the subsequent mods.

Its not about wether a world is "fake" or not. It is a gameplay mechanic. C&C takes place in a relative "real world" but we suspend our notions of the reality of unit training, production, strategy etc and simply enjoy the on screen carnage. However, some gamers prefer a relatively realistic experience within the fiction of the game world. For example, if I play a FPS like Call of Duty I realize that it is by no means a true repersentation of WWII era combat nor is it 100% historically accurate but if I fire a round at someone I presume it will produce the desired effect and that each weapon modled in the game is at least somewhat like its historical counterpart. Likewise if I am playing a game set in the star wars universe I expect it to follow conventions of that universe. As for as this game is concerned that means ships which take damage should stay damaged till repaired, a death star should take more than 30 days to build and a planet should not join the rebel alliance just because a ship arrives in orbit around it, etc. But this is the preference of some, many other gamers could care less either way. Thus the problem stems from the notion that the dev team didn't find the proper balance between a realistic repersentation of the Star Wars universe and gameplay. Thats not to say the game is bad, I for one like it. But it feels like more effort could have been spent on appeasing those of us who prefer a deeper experience.

I don't think its fair to base the scale of the conflict with what we saw in ep 4-6 since a lot of that had to do with budget and the lack of computer animation. I have the feeling that if those movies were made today we would see land battles of epic scale. That said, I think a lot of us were hoping more for something akin to Rome Total War/rebellion but instead are seeing Age of Empires/C&C. Of course there is nothing wrong with this approach but the apparent lack of realism and *true* strategic depth is a downer for a lot of us. I will still buy this game and will probably enjoy the hell out of it for a month or two but unless the modders can work miracles I doubt it will reside on my hard drive as long as Rebellion, civilization and the total war series. Like a previous poster mentioned above, what bothers me most is the apparent lack of effort in balancing realism with fun. I think new players would have found many of the less hardcore aspects *persistant damage, diplomatic system, true research, unit experience, etc* we strategy fans clamor for enjoyable as long as it was presented in an intuitive and fun manor. Like many, my first exposure to the RTS was the original C&C and starcraft, and while those games were fun for multiplayer and quick battles against the ai the replayability grew stale over time *paper beats rock and twitchy reflex's do not count as strategy once you get out of middleschool * However, games like the Total war series *with its great mods", Hearts of Iron, Rebellion, and civilization truly challenge the mind and it is a shame that most new developers shy away from games which require us to think because they believe they will turn off to many people. I guess that says a lot about how they view gamers ;D

I am ticked off at the lack of persistant damage as well. Like the super short build times in the demo, it kills the realism factor. They have said that they sped up the build times for them demo but I doubt it will take more than a few days to build an ISD in the full version. My hope is that this is easily modable for those of us who like the added realism. As for damage, I wish they would have taken the same approach that RTW war did. Players who enjoy just the combat portion can set the game to arcade mode and let the AI manage the settlements while those who prefer more can fiddle to their hearts are content. In a perfect world we would be able to select from a list of "realism" settings in Empire at War so that everyone could get what they wanted. Maybe if enough people clamor for added realism they can make it part of an expansion pack. Other than the lack of realism, I am very happy with how it turned out ;D

Running number: #004 -Repeatability: 100% 6/6 -Platform: Intel 3.0 Ghz 2Gb ram, creative Sound Card, ATI Radeon 9800pro, -Error Type: Graphics -Location: When the player slows down the game speed Language: English -Description: When the player slows down the speed of the game the framerate drops as well. This is very noticeable when the player zooms in or out on the battlemap and is less noticeable when ships are moving or explode. -Steps to reproduce: slow down the game speed and zoom in or out on the battlemap -Bug Screenshot: not possible to take a screen shot of slow down.

I am very happy to hear that the build times were sped up in the demo as that was my only real concern. Like RTW I hope the unit files are moddable for those of us who prefer longer more realistic build times like the ones in Rebellion and other stratergy games.

I have to say that I love the overall feel of the game. The graphics, the sound, the level of detail far exceed my expectations. However, like some of the above posters, I am deeply concerned about the overall speed of the game. I hope that the rate one can build ships was sped up for the demo and will be toned down quite considerably in the final product. Otherwise I think keeping track of "day" played lacks purpose as the quick build utterly destroys the strategic atmosphere. While I realize that the RTS and strategy crowds look for different features in a game, I feel that they can in fact coexist. I have noticed that the player can slow down and speed up "game time" therefore I cannot fathom the necessity for the unrealistic, dare I say game breaking, ship build times. While another poster asked for at least a five day build time I would request at least 5 months (still very short for a ship the size of a Star Destroyer. Since there is a Unit Cap, an extended bulid time would force the player to "think ahead" and make each space battle count and each defeat really hurt. If this is not possible or unwarranted, please include/add the option to use "realistic or hardcore settings" or the ability to mod it as I am sure that a signifigant percentage of the people who purchase this title desire a *deeper* strategic scope to the Galactic map. Along with many other gamers who have been awaitng this title, I was looking forward to the strategic element as much as the rts gameplay. However, with the build times in the demo I fail to see how much *real* strategy can be employed if the player can rebuild a fleet of star ships as quickly as they lose them. For a lot of us gamers who grew up on C&C and starcraft and who have moved on to games in the vein of Rome Total War and Hearts of Iron, Empire at War appeared to be the next step in the evolution and blending of the genere. I seriously hope it does not prove to be two steps forward and one step in reverse.