Now, that would be a fun game to play..

 

One can always dream!

In other words, like a more strategic Battlefield 2.

Na I hate BF 2*, because of stupid overpowered air-units. No good ol' ground-battle only ...*hmmm* ... WW 1 was more funny than today wars *just a joke*

 

 

* Edited: BF 2 means BattleFIELD 2. Not BattleFRONT 2 !

Edited February 25, 200620 yr by Captain Data

WW II wins it out for me, due to the increase in and advancement of armored warfare. Which is why I liked that they stuck in all those different units in ROTS.

 

The AT-AP reminds me of asymmertically turreted tanks like the M3 Lee combined with a big main cannon like some of the Soviet designs. The AT-OT is like a halftrack and seems highly adaptable (just exchange all those seats with mortars or a gun). The AT-RT is like one of those quirky, vulnerable transports (like the SdKfz2 Kettenkrad or the universal carrier).

 

Yep, nice to see the continued WW II influence on SW. ;P

Battlefront 2 mixed with EAW Thoughts:

 

Well we have Tie Fighters, AT-AT's, Tie Maulers, AT-STs, Star Destroyer, Nebulons, Artillery vehicles, Heroes. Well everything located in Battlefront 2 is also located in EAW but EAW holds more options. It would be more worth Battlefront being in EAW then actually having BF2 since look all the options and scenerios you could pull out.

 

Well in a 2 vs 2 one player would control all the units and upgrades while the other player goes out and battles. They will take turns in controlling a unit Battlefront 2 style even in a capital ship or space station. Once the hanger is destroyed then you would have the option going into a fighter or a capital ship. When your unit dies (the one you controlled) control will then go to the second player unless he skips his turn and goes back to you. Keep in mind that my idea of Battlefront 2 style interiers of a capital ship is only the hanger and warping to the bridge or weapon defences. What about heroes? They stay their own unit but you can borrow their units that they produce.

 

Ok whats the up and down side?

Up Side:

-You can have RTS and FPS in one game and more support towards Petroglyph. Battlefront 2 can bite the dust for its rushing.

- More options to keep you interested in EAW

- Actually effecting the battle as unit and actually changing it unlike in Battlefront 2.

- More maps to play on and this point goes with the one above this.

- Able to control any sort of units except for heroes (Minor heroes you control)

- More ways of playing the game

- more strategy going into the game 

- Clans could use troopers as scouts

 

Down Side:

- Bugs

- Noobs camping

- People only playing that want to use this feature and fussing about it

- All the complaints

- glitches

- Size on disk to hold more textures and ship models changed in FPS (not that I care if the textures are upgraded but could stay the same).

- File changes and patches to fix more bugs bugs bugs.

This game linked with Battlefront 2..

 

would suck ***, think about it more.

Something I forgot to mention.

 

Battlefront 2 was goin to become EAW but the campaign thing failed. EAW using battlefront 2 physics would work out.

it's wierd that the physics in battlefront 2 are worse than in in battlefront 1

werent they developed by different companies? like KOTOR and KOTOR2?

nah, both were made by pandemic

so wait... what your gettin at is.... you play the game from the galactic point of view... but...when fighting ur one of the soldiers/squads? do you get to pick what unit/squad you want? or is that covered in the "battlefront 2" part of the mix