raydude

I would question whether they were sufficient as shown in the movies. If sufficient then the Millenium Falcon should have faced the full fury of an anti-fighter barrage. As the movie showed, it was only coming from a few places on the SD. For example, WW2 aircraft carriers had the capability to shoot down fighters with anti-aircraft guns. There were a few at various points on the ship. There wasn't sufficient anti-aircraft capability though, which is why they always traveled with destroyers and cruisers which added their firepower to the anti-aircraft barrage. Just pointing out that there is a difference between having capability and having sufficient capability.

Please do us a favor and tell us how "The Beast" ends. Actually, since it is based on the Soviet war in Afghanistan we know exactly how it ends. The Soviets, with their superior technology and firepower (aka the Empire) lose to some RPG weilding mujahadeen (aka the rebels).

Read my entire post again. They. Have. Tried. It. And. It. Was. Not. Good. Enough.

And yet, no such system exists. In a country where technological advances are highly prized, and where even the military has gone high tech and digital, information warfare has become a key part of the military, and where this is considered the "Age of Information" in regards to different military eras - yes, even in this modern age - no such system exists. You don't think the military has tried? I say to you, they've tried it, and found 3D inferior.

No, the reason the military uses a 2D interface is because you don't need fancy 3D graphics to give a commander the big picture. AND because 3D graphics present the opportunity for the user to miss something. It doesn't matter that the plane is restricted to ground level or above and the sub is restricted to surface level or below. When you fight a combined arms battle the 2D interface provides the big picture of where EVERYTHING is. Imagine a commander using the Homeworld interface to fight a combined carrier/sub/surface battle against an enemy fleet and hostile harbor. Would you want to be the commander who said "Oops. I missed those enemy subs because my 3D camera was pointed skywards" ? Imagine the same commander with a 2D interface showing all the ships, planes, subs, that were detected, on the same map. Now there's no chance that he misses something because of camera angle. He can still miss something because one of the multiple sensors on the ships/planes/subs missed something but not because his camera angle was pointing at the wrong spot.

Mistrider I agree with all of your points. However, I just wanted to clarify. There is no 3D Homeworld type of interface in "real life" military operations. They certainly work, fly, cruise, and submerge in three dimensions, like the navy, and the airforce, but all their interfaces look like 2D wargame screens.

Okay. So, lets backtrack in the timeline. Suppose the game really will come out on Feb 15th worldwide. And suppose to get to Europe it takes 3 weeks. That means the boxes have to be ready for shipping 3 weeks prior, or Jan 25th. Which means the production CDs have to be ready at least 1 week prior. This takes into account the actual pressing of CDs and the shipping to the facility where they combine CD, manual, box, and inserts. So that's Jan 18th. Which means the game should have gone gold on Jan 18th, according to this production timeline. Which was the whole point of what CnC King and myself are trying to explain. The game was already gold when the demo was released and was in the pipeline for creating CDs, boxes, packing, and shipping so that stores worldwide will get it by Feb 15th.

Its my understanding that the game is slated for simultaneous worldwide release. That, coupled with the fact that Lucasarts is probably not using Air shipping to get it to Europe, means that it will take at least a week to get to you. Then another week for trucks to deliver it to stores and a day for European labor to put it on the shelves.

I'm arguing from the standpoint of using real human history and trends that most historians see when studying real human history, and applying it to the humans in Star Wars. Star Wars IS fiction, but it is a fiction populated by humans with governments and organizations that have parallels in real human history. Saying that my arguments are wrong is like arguing that the US Civil War never happened. Your counterpoints simply add speculation and you don't even attempt to address ALL of my points. Others ignore the current technology and military strategy of today. For example: Regarding Hoth. You don't have to ONLY use satellite imagery. You could use finely tuned magnetometers to measure disturbances in the magnetic field. These disturbances would be caused by a high concentration of man-made objects. You could use X-Ray spectrometers that aren't affected by clouds at all. Ditto Gamma-Ray spectrometers. As a real world case in point: Venus is obscured by clouds 24/7. Yet we were still able to get detailed information about the planet even before putting landers on the surface. If we can do it, why can't the Empire? You also make the mistake of assuming that I mean for the Empire to deploy satellites. Just because I mentioned that our satellites have sensors doesn't mean I'm arguing for the Empire to deploy satellites. The Empire has these huge, kilometer long ships called ISDs. You'd think that somewhere in all that space they could fit every type of sensor and detector imaginable, so that the ISD itself can scan a planet. Finally, you assume everything has to work serially, one after the other, rather than in parallel - with many things happening at the same time. For example, in the real world case of the 2nd Iraq War, the US military was conducting a buildup of men and supplies AT THE SAME TIME as the satellites and recon drones were doing surveillance of Iraq. Meanwhile, AT THE SAME TIME, the generals in charge of the invasion were planning how to conduct the attack. Thus, for the invasion of Hoth, the Empire can scan AT THE SAME TIME as they are preparing for the ground assault. Meanwhile, AT THE SAME TIME, the ground commander can make plans for the assault and update them based on the most recent results of the scan when they become available. Its not, as you say, 15 minutes to deploy satellites, then 5-10 minutes to scan, then 15 minutes to deploy, then 10 minutes to attack. Real world militaries, the good ones anyway, do things in parallel to save time and attack more quickly. On the other hand, maybe you have a point. Maybe the Imperial military DOES work serially, and hence, is not really that good compared to real life.

If they want to make the release date of 2/15/2006 then it better be gold. Figure at least 5 business days of copying CDs from the gold master + combining cds, manual, other inserts into box, 5 business days ground shipping to all the retailers across the country (and the world if this is a worldwide release). It probably takes more than 5 days for packaging and shipping, so the above might be unrealistic. In that case it probably turned gold several weeks ago.

The 3D image of the Death Star II was for planning purposes, to outline the plan of attack for the ground and space force. No holographic display is shown during the actual conduct of the battle. Meanwhile, Episode IV clearly shows a tactical situation map with the Death Star and its cone of fire vs. Yavin on a 2D map. Speaking of shows, Firefly also uses a 2D sensor display to show the position of other ships. As for the use of phones, it certainly allows for more secure transmissions between commanders. In a world where the enemy (Cylons) can look like humans, I would certainly prefer to have secure phone conversations a la BSG rather than having the captain talk out loud so all the crew can hear, a la Star Trek.

I'm not the one that first brought up the navy working in 3 dimensions. The new Battlestar Galactica TV series, where war assets are depicted as being in space, represents the 3D battlespace on a 2D interface - the Draydis contact board. Asteroids are but one example of the obstacles in EAW that exist in real life. Yes, asteroids over time will coalesce into a belt on a given plane, letting one pass over or under the belt. But nebula and other gaseous obstacles do not have to do so. Hence, it could take just as long to go under or over nebula as it does to go around them. Sure, the 2D interface in EAW could be improved. But, as an educated guess, I don't think it can be improved to a 3D interface before it goes to retail.

I wonder why you say using 2 separate groups of infantry has no basis in reality? Not every soldier in the US army is issued a LAW (light antitank weapon) even if enemy armor is expected. Typically specially designated anti-tank teams, using the Dragon or Javelin weapons system, are attached to an infantry task force on an as needed basis. Some task forces in the 2nd Iraq war, for example, didn't have any anti-tank teams attached at all. I see some problems with your suggestions: 1. This just shifts the micromanagement burden somewhere else. Instead of managing two unit types, the player is held accountable for choosing the unit then waiting until "secondary fire" against armored units is needed. Say for example that I leave an infantry unit at one site on the map and micromanage a battle somewhere else. If that unit gets attacked by tanks then it will simply die because I was not there to hit the secondary fire button. 2. The problem of dividing the RTS infantry unit into X blasters and Y anti-tank shooters is that there is no way to safeguard the Y anti-tank shooters until they are needed. For example, suppose a combined intfantry/anti-tank unit lands on the Tatooine map. The Empire player can simply send the cheap and expendable stormtroopers until all Y anti-tank figures are eliminated from the unit. Then he can send in his tanks. 3. What happens when there is an odd number of figures in the unit? (as when a figure dies from casualties) Does the odd unit switch to just firing blasters? Then does he go back to being the "loader" when the number of figures is even again? This means additional CPU cycles and lines of code to cover all cases. Your ideas are good, but I think they may be better used in a game with larger scale - like an RTS that models division sized units rather than company sized - or in games that don't rely so much on "rock,papers,scissors" combat resolution.

Conversely, only an application of force can cause an object to change velocity (direction and speed). Thus, if the device supplying force (the engines) is destroyed, how is it that the ship can still change direction and speed?

Oh? Are you referring to my statement: "The fact that your constantly harp on just one aspect of the design speak volumes about how narrow-mindedness misses sight of the big picture of the design." ? Let me clarify. I did not mean that you were narrow-minded. I merely held this obsession with 3D interfaces as an example of narrow-mindedness. Its the same narrow-mindedness that leads a reviewer to critize a game design for using sprites instead of 3D models and then totally ignores the other innovative features of the game. Kohan is the game I am referring to in this case. So based on this clarification my statement can hardly be held as incontrovertible proof of a flame. On the other hand this quote: Can't be defended as anything BUT a flame. The statement is also ignorant of one simple fact: The median age of male gamers is 36. Median, meaning the middle of a set of values, as opposed to the average. Thus, if one lines up the ages of all male gamers together, the end result is that the median is 36. That tells us that there is as many gamers above the age of 36 as there are below the age of 36. As a point of fact, I would wager than many game developers, including Relic - makers of the beloved Homeworld game - are above the age of twenty. The flame statement also ignores a basic trait of intelligence, as observed by Aristotle. The famous philosopher wrote:" The higher the intelligence of a being, the greater its need for play." Man, being the top of the intelligence chain in the animal kingdom, certainly requires lots of play as a break from His normal mundane activities. As for me, game playing has helped me learn a lot about the world. The real-world, as opposed to the made up one in Star Wars. History, geography, culture, new perspectives on life, and even simple things like better hand-eye coordination are all a side benefit of playing games. Maybe you personally feel as you have written - that anyone above 20 should not even care about petty video games. If so, then I bid you farewell when you reach your 20th birthday and stop playing video games altogether. Now, back on track - can someone who is advocating 3D interfaces tell me why we "need" them to be more "realistic" when the real-world military still uses 2D interfaces?