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?

Well, here is a fact for you: the EAW game is complete and it is in 2.5D. No amount of whining can change that now. If you know anything at all about programming you'd know that going from the current design to fully 3D requires more than a one line change of code. And save the condesending "younger kids" remark. I'm 34 and I recognize the direction Petroglyph is taking with this game design. It is different from Homeworld on so many levels: interface, depth of galactic management, economic model, and tactical environment (adding ground combat in addition to space battles). 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. The argument that having a 3D interface to realistically portray what a commander would see for a 3D battlespace has been proven moot. The current 3D battlespace of today - the domain of the air force and the navy - is STILL represented by a 2D interface. No one in their right mind would accuse the US military of being "unrealistic" simply because of their choice of interface. I do agree that the main reason why the military has chosen the 2D interface is because of simplicity in depicting the battlespace. Which is good, because the last thing a military commander needs is extra neurons devoted to aligning a 3D camera in the Z-plane. I'd rather he see the big picture represented as simply as possible so he can go on the process of fighting and winning his battle.

Technically the word "countermeasures", when applied to small vehicles like fighters and bombers, refers to devices mounted on the vehicle to defeat sensor lock by an enemy fighter or incoming missle. Real world counterparts are flares, chaff, and active jamming pods. I don't believe the fighters or bombers in EAW need countermeasures since it doesn't look like missles are the primary fighter/bomber killers. What you are referring to are "counters". The Tartan, Blockade Runner, and AA units are "counters" to fighters and bombers.

No, my young Jedi . It is not misguided. For it has been said "Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics."

Well, no RTS game is truly a "simulator" is it? No, I take that back. Harpoon and Close Combat were the closest that RTS games came to truly being "simulations" of combat. Because 1 second of game time = 1 second of real time. Sure you could speed it up via time compression but you could always dial it back to being a "true" representation of being in command while time was passing in "true" real-time. When you start adding the capability to construct units then the RTS ceases to be a "simulator" of any kind. Unless you really think an ISD can be constructed in 10 "real time" seconds. Perhaps what you are referring to is a game that gives you the truest sense of being in command? In that case I would give the award to Conquest: Frontier Wars. In that you had AI Admirals that you could assign to fleets. And you could give the AI Admirals general orders to carry out. Not only that but CFW also added the concept of logistics - that ammo and fuel was not infinite so you had to send out tankers to refuel your fleets or have them come back to base to refuel. That to me was a better test of command ability than simply maneuvering in 3D space.

Actually, now with the US Army's Force 21 Battle Command, Brigade and Below system (FBCB2) it has now become sort of an RTS interface. The FBCB2 system is mounted in vehicles and provides a real-time graphic display of where friendly and enemy units are. Its also a shared information display among all the armed forces, so a JSTARS plane can detect enemy units, put it on FBCB2 and everyone in a vehicle automatically sees where the units are. FBCB2 is also interactive, so a forward artillery observer can type in some coordinates, call for artillery, adjust fire, and then "Fire for Effect" all digitally, without the use of verbal radio commands. Everything is digital and packets are sent locally through the Army's tactical version of a local internet. No more misunderstood coordinates and less instances of garbled orders or friendly fire. Note that I said less instances. You can never really eliminate some "friction" in battle.

You are confusing the interface with the battlespace represented by the interface. Even on earth, today, in the modern US navy, the interface in the CIC room is a flat 2D representation of the battlespace. Ships, planes, subs, missles, everything gets its own distinct symbol. BUT the critical thing is that the interface still shows the battlespace in 2D. It is assumed that the commander knows that subs are restricted to a certain plane, as are surface vessels and planes. He does not need graphic eye candy to show him where things are in 3D to plan his strategy. You are also misled in thinking that game design is separate from the interface. As Delphi has explained, the game of Homeworld, the ship design, gun placement, sensor display, EVERYTHING was designed around the fact that from DAY 1 they were going to go with a 3D interface. And so it is that in EAW EVERYTHING from DAY 1 was designed around their concept of having a 2.5D interface handle both the strategic (planning, building, and movement) and the tactical (battles) which result from the strategic decisions.

That only works until the players figure out that the main way to play is in the "galactic" screen to maintain situational awareness and then drop into the "tactical" screen to micromanage a battle. Then again, by forcing people to play in the "galactic" screen the emphasis moves away from feeling like you're in "Star Wars" to feeling like you're in a CIC on a ship somwhere.

My point this whole time has been that the "known statistics and limitations of technology" are made up. There is no "known specs" on a laser blaster because laser blasters are made up. Case in point: lightsabers. Up until the release of Episode 1 everyone thought they knew the specs of light sabers. They could slice through almost everything. What they DIDN'T know was that a light saber thrust into a metal door could MELT the material surrounding the light saber instead of simply cutting a small hole in the door. We are commenting on the general effectiveness of troops in a fictional world by applying known principles of warfare in the real world. Note that I mention the lack of rudimentary tactics. I was hoping you would spot the fact that they didn't even try flanking the rebel positions on the ground. Even the Tatooine map in EAW shows that you can hit the base from 2 directions and apply the basic fundamental tactic of "holding 'em by the nose and kicking them in the (censored)". Funny how you noted that radar would have detected the transports in the Episode 2 battle but neglect to mention that radar would have detected the ion cannon. No, not radar. Something better than radar. Like for example, digital surveillance imaging across the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Something our satellites do now. At 1 meter per pixel resolution. So the big bad Empire with this futuristic technology would have not spotted a big round dome with a cylindrical tube pointing up into space? Btw, someone needs to talk to the guys arguing against Fog of War and show them that "realistically" the Empire can sometimes miss an Ion Cannon on a planet. Speeder bikes? What speeder bikes? Where in the movie were there speeder bikes? I admit I may have missed them but I would watch it again if you tell me they are there. No, I don't think the AT-STs were strafing the front lines. At this point the Empire was still practicing combined arms as you can definitely see AT-STs matching speed with the AT-ATs instead of zooming ahead. The same reason we know that Tatooine's entire planet surface is sand. Lucas has this thing for creating worlds that are mostly one environment. B) you pick the right unit for the right environment C) When the real-world military packs up a large vehicle (like say a helicopter) for shipping, it disassembles it and makes it as compact as possible. When the real-world military ships the vehicle and has to off-load and transfer it to another transport it does not put it back together and take it out for a spin. D) now you're just making stuff up. But that's good, because this is fiction and you can do that E) Well that's good. Its not like they could have used it as a psychological weapon against koala bears who have never seen something that big before. Besides, if you recall (B), it either has no trouble walking around or it does. If 1)it has NO trouble walking around then why didn't they bring it into the fight? Probably because 2)it DID have trouble walking around. There is a saying in the real-world military. "You fight like you train". So if you train to work as a combined arms team then you fight like a combined arms team. ALL THE TIME. Regardless of whether the enemy is in Iraq or on Endor. So, the Imperials fought like a disorganized band of soldiers. They must train like that. Real-world tanks can definitely go faster than a foot soldier. They don't, especially in a crowded environment like woods or urban terrain because combined arms says they work better together than separately. In the real world even our troops can get pinned down. Just recently a platoon on routine patrol in Iraq got pinned down by insurgents on all sides. They hunkered down into good defensive positions and called for reinforcements. They did not simply keep going like the AT-STs did. A hypothetical scenario: You are in an AT-ST, buttoned up. All hatches are closed. A furry creature shows up on your viewport. Do you a)ignore him and concentrate on the ground attack? or b)send one of your crew to investigate? There was no indication that the viewport had anything to do with targetting the guns. There was no gun reticle on the viewport, there was no heads up display. Yet they opened the hatch to deal with a creature that could not harm the AT-ST. Why? Not to my satisfaction, as in my riposte. No. By 1944 Germany was reduced to pushing old men and kids into service. The garrison troops along the Atlantic wall were mostly made up of prisoners taken from the Eastern Front supervised by German officers. They would immediately surrender once their German supervisor died. Their fearless leader was losing confidence in his military generals and took it upon himself to direct the movements of divisions personally. Episode IV. Luke, the nephew of low-middle class farmers, has a landspeeder. It looks like it goes pretty fast and has lasted quite a while. Yet the Empire, when searching for the droids, is never shown on anything that is remotely as fast as a landspeeder. They are either walking or on those lizard things. Why is the technologically advanced Empire searching for two "droids of importance" on foot when it can cover more ground with vehicles? I agree that the force at the Battle for Mogadishu was an elite force that handled themselves superbly even against overwhelming odds and even when surrounded. I disagree that anyone would even think of comparing the pitiful Imperial troops on Endor with these guys.

I agree with Otto's sudden change of heart ;D . You Devs ARE so awesome, and I am also glad you take the time to educate us about the EAW game. It makes the wait for the release a little more bearable. And I love Homeworld and Homeworld 2 but guess what? None of my friends would play with me because the 3D interface was perceived as an annoyance. So, if it has to be 2D space combat to get some local multiplayer time with my friends then so be it.

Seriously though, all this talk about what Star Wars is based on and Star Wars canon can be blown away with just three words: The Ewoks Movie. If that's not enough then its sequel - Ewoks: Battle for Endor.