raydude

No, it is not the same effort, nor is it similar. 1000 works of fiction are still fiction. Let me illustrate why. George Lucas could come out tomorrow with a work of fiction (book, movie, cartoon, whatever) in which he reveals that all the stormtroopers for Episodes IV-VI are actually clones of Jar Jar. And there would be nothing anyone can do about it. You can't cry "But that's not realistic!" because its fiction. Cries of "But that destroys all the canon you built up" would fall on deaf ears. Or, he could just come out on a TV talk show and say "Yeah, all those books about Admiral Thrawn and the jedi kids, that's all good but they are not part of the official canon of the Star Wars universe." And *poof* there goes all that canon. The point is not whether he would actually do it. The point is that he can because its all fiction. Actually, I tend to think that he *would* do it. As in, literally destroy canon. Probably when he starts up the Star Wars TV series. Why? Because he's already proven that he can with "The Ewoks Adventure" and "Ewoks: Battle for Endor" movies. Fine. Lets apply real-world basics (basic military history, tactics and evolution) and see how the Empire has adapted to the changing ways of warfare over the years: First example of a large-scale assault: Episode 2 The clone troopers execute a classic vertical envelopment. They use fast moving aerial transports to hit hard and fast and quickly move to different areas of the battle. By doing this they keep the enemy from regrouping and organizing any kind of counterattack. Bravo! This is the closest I've seen to a realistic assault (in Star Wars) by finely trained, motivated troops with a good attack plan. Btw, I like the assault transports and how they appeared by surprise. Why? Because they can skim along the ground, reducing their visibility until they are right on top of the target. Then they pop up and pounce. The battle is quickly resolved and the clone troopers win. Note however that a Jedi is leading the attack (Yoda). Its probably Yoda that came up with the attack plan but the troopers carried it off brilliantly. Yoda? Yes Yoda. It is not unprecedented in military history for people to be both masters in one-on-one combat and masters in leading large masses of troops. Every samurai in ancient Japan was dedicated to all aspects of war, from individual battles to large scale maneuvering of armies. Ditto the great warriors of ancient times: Alexander, Ghengis Khan, Julius Caesar - all were great fighters AND great leaders. The trend continues into modern times as well: Rommel, Patton, Lt. Winters (from Band of Brothers) they ALL led from the front and thus were involved in the fighting at one point or another. 2nd example of a large scale assault: Flash forward to Empire Strikes Back. For some reason the Empire has decided to abandon vertical envelopment (or any kind of rudimentary strategy) and go straight for a frontal assault. Not only that, they advance with Imperial Walkers. These things are so tall that you can spot them from miles away, get your defenses ready, AND prepare for retreat. Not to mention you can hear them before you even see them. For all their vaunted strength the walkers still suffer at least 3 losses (that I can see from the movie). But the important point is: the Empire ALLOWS the Rebels to escape because the speed of the attack is so slow. Its like we went from the hard-hitting blitzkreig of WW2 to the slow marching pace of WW1. Real-life doesn't work like that. Real life teaches us that the pace of war has accelerated throughout history. 3rd example of a large scale assault: Return of the Jedi In the movie, as the transport touches down you see a glimpse of an AT-AT trying to make its way through the forest on Endor's moon. Who's the genius of a general that thought to put an AT-AT in a forest? What's happening to the leadership of this Imperial army? Second, and most notable failure of the Imperial troops: they have forgotten how to work as a combined arms unit. In the real world tanks and troops work together - especially in an urban environment. The tanks never go off by themselves, and the troops never go off by themselves. You can substitute "tank" to mean any armored vehicle, be it a Bradley or Stryker. Why? Because the troops can kill enemy that are using RPGs to target the tanks in their blind spots while the tanks can kill or supress enemy behind cover. So, you say that the battle for Endor turned when an AT-ST got captured. Why did it get captured in the first place? Because no Imperial troops were around the AT-ST to SHOOT at swinging wookies, that's why! The Imperial troops were getting stoned to death because they were fighting separately from the AT-STs. Who's responsible for this lack of combined arms training? Could it be the same general who put an AT-AT in a forest? So, judging from the three Imperial assaults it seems that the quality of Imperial troops, their tactics and leadership has gone DOWN over the years instead of up. Classic symptoms of an Empire in decline. We've seen it with the Roman Empire, the Chinese Empire, the Mongols, etc. As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The movies make the point that it corrupts at ALL levels of government and authority. Finally, you need to read "Black Hawk Down" and get a better picture of what happened in Somalia. The Rangers and Delta team were doing just fine when they stuck to their normal SOP: night assault. It worked to enhance their advantage of being able to fight at night AND it also happened to be the time when the drug-induced high of "khat" would turn into a drug-induced low. The consequence was that the drugged up Somalis were all wired up during the daytime but became lethargic and tired at night. So, why did they change their SOP for this one assault? Pressure from the Command Authority (AKA the White House) for results. The potential of capturing a high-value target made the risks seem acceptable. And the Americans had never fully realized the "day/night" cycle of the typical Somali who was chewing khat.

I would also pose this equality: Star Wars detection tech = World War 2 detection tech So within the SW universe, fog of war is completely realistic.

Nothing in the SW movies suggests that they have any kind of detection technology that is better than our 20th century equivalent. For all the vaunted tech of the Empire they still couldn't find the secret rebel base in Episode IV. When the Millenium Falcon was brought on board the Death Star no life signs could be read aboard. They had to bring in a detector the size of a small cabinet into the ship to scan it thoroughly. And no, it wasn't because of the Force. The Force doesn't give you cloaking ability from radar or thermal detection. After jumping through hyperspace to Alderan the Millenium Falcon's sensors don't detect the Tie Fighters till they get shot at. Which brings up another good point - you can't tell whether or not a planet is blown up while in hyperspace. In Empire Strikes Back the Empire had to send out probe droids to every planet to find the retreating Rebel forces. And even with multiple probe droids landing on Hoth only 1 managed to get a signal out. And it was a weak signal at that. The Empire couldn't track the thermal or radiation emissions from the Millenium Falcon in the asteroid field. The Millenium Falcon couldn't be detected while hiding on the side of the ISD. The Empire seems to have lost track of the entire Rebel fleet by the end of the movie. In Return of the Jedi the Rebel fleet couldn't get a reading on the shield protecting the Death Star. AND they couldn't tell there was an Imperial fleet hiding on the other side of Endor. In addition, you'd think the captured transport would have a rudimentary radar - so that Han's strike team could see how many troops were REALLY on the Endor moon. Or you can just look outside the window while flying past the landing zones to see the AT-ATs and AT-STs there. So according to the SW movies, fog of war is alive and well and oddly enough is just like the fog of war present in WW2.

I would hope the Death Star puts some kind of "intimidation" factor into nearby planets. Possibly it could make the indigenous people of a planet fight the rebels instead of helping them. The main point of the Death Star was intimidation: Grand Moff Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station. While it can (and did) destroy planets the main point of it was to use fear and intimidation as a means of governing the masses. What good is it to govern an Empire of rubble - which is what would happen if that's all the Death Star was used for?

My apologies. What I really wanted to say was that I am of the opinion to wait and see how the campaign plays out in the full retail game than rely on the demo. But, if I were to ask for realism to be implemented for repairs, I would prefer it not be a half-assed implementation but a full blown process. Thus, repairs should not be a simple matter of clicking on the "repair" icon. Do it the way the big boys do it in the real world - send the damaged ships back to base for repairs. On thinking about it, I can see the possibilities for how this plays out: Case 1, Imperial invasion of a Rebel planet. Imperials bring overwhelming force but the Rebels manage to damage all the hangers in the Imperial fleet before retreating. Now the Imperials can't use Tie Bombers in the ground offensive because all the hangers are broken. They have to send those ships back for repairs and decide whether or not to continue the ground offensive without them. Case 2, Rebel raiding force manages to damage a small Imperial fleet. However, the turbolaser batteries on the frigates are destroyed. Does the Rebel force continue raiding without that firepower? Do they risk sending the frigates back by themselves? So yeah, I can see how the full blown method of repairs adds more strategy and tactical decision making to the player. I do not see how just pushing a repair icon and deducting credits adds the same thing.

Agreed. I think we should take it a step further and make repairs dependent upon building the "spare parts" transports at a friendly system and then sending them to the fleet location. After all, logistics is 75-80% of what real commanders have to worry about, why not make game players have to worry about it as well? Actually, if you want to be really realistic, you could force ships to have to go back to "drydock" structures before they can be repaired. That's what ships have had to do in WW2. Any ships damaged in the Pacific had to limp all the way back to Peal Harbor to be repaired. Same thing with the USS Cole when she got damaged from a terrorist bomb in the Persian Gulf. She had to sail all the way back to the US for them to do repair work on her. Then you'd see the real difference in play dynamic between the Empire and Rebellion. The Rebellion conducts hit and fade attacks, damaging ships that have to be sent back to base for repairs. Obviously the Empire is not going to waste manpower guarding those damaged ships so the Rebels can pounce on them while they are limping back for repairs. My post above is mostly in jest. However, something appears odd to me. People are complaining about instant repair as if the winner is the only one who's ships are repaired. If I read the "instant repair" design right the loser's ships get instantly repaired as well. So, lets lay out the two scenarios: (with instant repair on) 1. Fleet A vs Fleet B. Fleet A takes 50% destroyed, 25% damaged. Fleet B takes 75% destroyed, 25% damaged. After battle is resolved they both go back to the galactic map and Fleet A is at 50% of original strength. Fleet B is at 25% of original strength. (with instant repair off, both sides have to pay credits to repair) 2. Fleet A vs. Fleet B. Fleet A takes 50% destroyed, 25% damaged. Fleet B takes 75% destroyed, 25% damaged Lets say the amount of credits to repair 1% of damage is X. Thus, Fleet A spends 25X to repair its fleet. Fleet B spends 25X to repair its fleet. How is this any different from case 1, other than that both sides have had to spend 25X?

Several points I'd like to make: 1. Time and time again Petroglyph developers have been referring to the unit groups as 'companies'. Its not some slick marketing scheme or that one of the devs thought there should be some military sounding words in the game. In my opinion, they did it to remind us that each 'unit graphic' represents groups of men rather than just 1 individual. Kohan 1 and 2 did the same thing. They use individual unit graphics to represent groups of people. Otherwise, seeing 4 people with bows and arrows and 4 people with swords (as represented in Kohan graphics) take a castle would seem utterly ridiculous. Its all about symbology and what the individual graphic represents. Wargames do this all the time. A single counter usually does not represent one man. It represents a squad, company, division, or even an entire corps. I think wargamers do not suffer from this lack of imagination because the counter usually shows a graphic representation of the unit type (armor, infantry, etc) as well as a graphic indicating a unit size. (II = company, XX = division, etc). On the other hand, most non-wargamers don't like seeing a graphic of a square box (represents infantry) or a box with an oval shape in it (represents armor). They prefer to see a person with a rifle or an image of a tank. Which is what EAW does. Incidentally, EAW is not the only game to use an image of 1 man to represent a group of men. Games have been doing this since Command and Conquer. Even more historical games like Rome:Total War are not representing the battles with a 1 graphic = 1 man ratio. The Battle of Cannae (in real life) had 50,000 Romans versus 40,000 Carthaginians. Rome: Total War can only put 10,000 units on the screen at any one time. 2. On unit caps, especially the maximum limit on forces on a given planet. Lets use a real-world example. In WW2 we know that Germany garrisoned troops in each of the countries they conquered - France, Poland, Belgium, Holland, etc. So why didn't Hitler just "control-select" all his forces and send them into France when the Allies invaded? Ignoring the fact that he thought it was a diversion, the simple fact is that he couldn't. By taking ALL the troops off of garrison duty he would be inviting resistance forces to rise up and take back their country. In addition his logistics wouldn't have been able to keep up with that kind of deployment. All those troops have to eat, all the equipment has to be maintained, all the vehicles have to have gas. By keeping his forces dispersed he could keep them all in supply. The troops in Holland would eat food grown in Holland. The troops in Belgium would use Belgian gas. And so on. Apply these "real world limitations" to EAW. Now, most people don't want to play a "supply officer" game where you have to move transports around that carry food, fuel, and spare parts. Yet, as a developer you want to get across to players that they can't simply group every unit into one big "Killer stack" and go from planet to planet. How to do you apply the "real world limitations" in the game and still keep it fun? Simple. Max unit cap. Its the easiest way to make the game approximate the real life fact that commanders in the field face: its not just who groups the most units together. Its who can keep them all fed, fueled, and full on ammo that will win the war. Bottom line, for all the realism fans I can only see two options: For 1. Change the unit graphics to use NATO symbology. That way there can be no doubt how large a force a single "graphic unit" represents. Check this link if you've forgotten your NATO symbology : http://www.military.com/ResourcesSubmittedFiles/Military_Symbols_Guide.pdf 2. For people complaining against the max unit cap per planet, I say lets remove the unit cap and add the "logistics" into the game. YOU have to build the supply transports. YOU have to set their routes so that each fleet gets its supply of food, fuel, and ammo. YOU have to track the maintenance records and get spare parts to those units that need them. And, oh yeah, supply transports can be intercepted, so say goodbye to that Imperial frigate whose crews are dropping from hunger because you forgot to re-route transports past enemy held planets.

Well, most people playing Battlefield 2 today would say its a good game. It still stands as an excellent counterpoint to your statement: "That's like making a game about the recent Iraqi conflict and letting the Republican Guard have ultra-powerful armour and being able to beat Apache gunships and M1 tanks in one go, to make them 'balanced' - we all know that's ridiculous adn would take away an unnecessary amount of willing suspension of disbelief." Because most people playing it find that the balancing issues in the game are not "ridiculous" and do not require "an unnecessary amound of willing suspension of disbelief."

There is a difference you are apparently not getting. Roman Empire, Roman tactics, and ancient conquests ACTUALLY HAPPENED. We have historical documents, archaeological artifacts and hard physical evidence about how Roman units behaved and were used against the forces of other empires. Thus, it is not hard to create a game which incorporates some of what the reality of fighting in Roman times would have been like. Hence, Rome Total War is fairly realistic even though we are more than 2000+ years removed from the setting of the game. Star Wars NEVER HAPPENED. It is a MADE UP Universe. Thus, you can make ANYTHING UP in terms of unit size, strength, capability, deployment, attack vs. defense ratio, you name it. How can one argue that a stormtrooper squad should be able to overpower a rebel squad when no such thing exists IN REAL LIFE? In my opinion the attack, movement, defense values of the current Star Wars units are fine. Why? Because they have no basis in reality. At all. None. Whatsoever. But lets say you argue that stormtroopers should be just like normal men except with armor. I would argue that they are not normal men. The first three movies established that they are clones. So, the closest analogy for a clone would be a videotape. Know what happens when you make a copy of a videotape? The copy is not as good. And the copy of a copy of a videotape is even worse. By the time of Episode IV you now have several generations of copies and each successive generation is getting worse. That, to me, is sufficient explanation for why the stormtroopers suck, especially when compared to the clone troopers.

Actually it would have all ended in Episode IV after the Millenium Falcon got captured and everyone was trying to escape. The stormtroopers went from being excellent shots (beginning of the movie when they killed all the rebel troops who were hiding behind cover) to missing the broad side of a barn. Still I prefer my Star Wars universe to have a high degree of unrealism and fun.

Hmmmm, you mean like, Battlefield 2? That game has T-72's and BDRMs going toe to toe with M-1 Abrams and Bradleys and yet the game is still popular. And besides, you're arguing about realism for a fictional universe set "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away".