PDA

View Full Version : DeathStar?


Scavenger
02-03-2005, 07:43 AM
Hey, i was wondering, and asking myself, if you play as the galactic empire, theres simply no doubt you can build the DS yourself, right? after all, the game starts several years before it was even finished, so if you stop the attack from the rebels at yavin, you can still be able to use this big*** ship and blow enemy planets to BITS!

Your thoughts?


Oh and some little arguments, pls dont flame me!

i simply hate 2-D effects in a spacebattle, thats like moving spaceships on a dinnerplate :D , and totally goes against the movies, wheres the scenes with a fighter crashing against a star destroyers cockpit? or the famous scene of the super Star destroyer crashing into the Deathstar!, fighters just seem to make all the same moves, moving in circles, it just dont feels right, we need heights and depths, we need 3-D combat!

Also, im not sure about this, but i heard fighting in space and ground will go at the same time, may i ask.. how!?!

Nokill
02-03-2005, 07:56 AM
i don't think there will be one maby in a mod but not in this game by the makers :p

SirPantsAlot
02-03-2005, 08:08 AM
Dealing with depths would just complicate the game. This isn't homeworld.

Jan Gaarni
02-03-2005, 08:15 AM
While it is true that starships will move on a single plain (2D if you want to call it that :) ), fighters will move left and right, forward and backwards, and up and down.


All ships will be as 3D models though.

SirPantsAlot
02-03-2005, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Jan Gaarni
While it is true that starships will move on a single plain (2D if you want to call it that :) ), fighters will move left and right, forward and backwards, and up and down.


All ships will be as 3D models though. But in the end, it is still on a plain and not like in homeworld. Everything else is just an eye candy.

Heavyarms
02-03-2005, 08:42 AM
I thought they were putting the deathstar in there since Yavin IV is a piece of the game. I thought if they were doing it it would be a massive space station, but you can only "land" on it with fighters like X-wings and Y-wings.

SirPantsAlot
02-03-2005, 08:47 AM
There is no proof that there is a deathstar.

Heavyarms
02-03-2005, 08:56 AM
oh, wait... that was my own personal thought... my bad.

lonepadawan
02-03-2005, 09:06 AM
they mentioned "the deathstar itself" in the first preview...

OverlordAngelus
02-03-2005, 09:39 AM
Maybe the Empire can build a Death Star but it would be very risky.

If the Rebels destroy it it could have a huge impact on the galaxy. Systems could change sides etc.

Or maybe even the Rebels could win the game if they destroy it.

saberhagen
02-03-2005, 10:38 AM
Maybe the empire will lose if they destroy too many planets. After all, what's the point in conquering the galaxy if there's no galaxy left to conquer?

I seem to remember a boardgame based on the cold war/hypothetical WWIII where you could nuke countries but if you nuked too many areas it was game over.

swphreak
02-03-2005, 01:00 PM
Anyone who says Homeworld is complicated fails.

Homeworld is pretty simple, and you have more control over your starships.

I'd even settle for Armada 2's type of engine. The ships stay in a 2d plane for the most part, but you can move them vertically.

DK_Viceroy
02-03-2005, 01:53 PM
I think building the Deathstar will prety much make sure your economy would be crippled, if it had gotten to the point where you could handle it then you've already won the game and your using a Deathstar as a trap:D

Juggernaut1985
02-03-2005, 03:37 PM
Power or money?

Darth Windu
02-03-2005, 07:41 PM
Scavenger - uh...no Star Destroyer ever crashed into the Executor. You're probably thinking of ESB where two ISD's crash into each other.

FroZticles
02-03-2005, 08:40 PM
I'm pretty sure I saw a Star Destroyer crash into the Super star destroyer.

swphreak
02-03-2005, 08:58 PM
I only remember the Executor nose diving in the Death Star...

and I thought the 2 Star Destroyers in ANH barely avoided collision...

Jan Gaarni
02-03-2005, 11:11 PM
There were only 1 star destroyer shown in ANH, and the number of star destroyers involved in the ESB incident was 3.

Maybe only 2 of them actually made a connection though, but there were 3 involved none the less.


I don't know of any other collisions though.

SirPantsAlot
02-04-2005, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by DK_Viceroy
I think building the Deathstar will prety much make sure your economy would be crippled, if it had gotten to the point where you could handle it then you've already won the game and your using a Deathstar as a trap:D http://www.itsatrap.net/

saberhagen
02-04-2005, 03:15 AM
In ANH it's fairly clear from the dialogue there were 3 star destroyers trying to stop the Falcon escaping from Tattooine, but I think only 2 of them were in shot at any one time.

No star destroyers actually collided in ESB, although they came close.

In ROTJ the Executor crashed into the surface of the Death Star after it was hit by the a-wing. No other star destroyers collided with it or with each other.

Word.

stingerhs
02-04-2005, 05:44 AM
to get back on topic:
i think that the death stars should be available, but have some major restrictions. as forementioned by DK:
I think building the Deathstar will prety much make sure your economy would be crippled, if it had gotten to the point where you could handle it then you've already won the game and your using a Deathstar as a trap:D
although i'm thinking that maybe if you manage your resources very well, you could get one w/o crippling your economy. and once you have it, you could have an influencing factor on different sectors of the galaxy just by having it in a sector. lets say the influencing factor could cause econmic growth in a sector where your building ships/ground vehicles or econmic decay in others due to disruptions in trade (transports would be limited just out of fear).

also, as stated by saberhagen:
Maybe the empire will lose if they destroy too many planets. After all, what's the point in conquering the galaxy if there's no galaxy left to conquer?

I seem to remember a boardgame based on the cold war/hypothetical WWIII where you could nuke countries but if you nuked too many areas it was game over.
i'm thinking this, but along more realistic terms, such as causing econmic collapse. this would prevent you from earning money, thus allowing the rebels to use hit and run tactics until you don't have anything left to fight with.

anyways, just some "food" for thought. :D

Jan Gaarni
02-04-2005, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by saberhagen
In ANH it's fairly clear from the dialogue there were 3 star destroyers trying to stop the Falcon escaping from Tattooine, but I think only 2 of them were in shot at any one time.
Oh right, totally forgot about that scene. :)
Must see movies 100 times again I see, I'm starting to forget. :D


Originally posted by saberhagen
No star destroyers actually collided in ESB, although they came close.
If they connected, which they did, they collided.
It's not for nothing the crew was tossed around on the bridge. ;)

Scavenger
02-06-2005, 07:58 AM
Uhm, guys, it was just a little mistake, actually, i wasnt even going to mention the 2d effects, did it in a rush :p .

Discuss the deathstar rather :p

Dagobahn Eagle
03-19-2005, 10:26 AM
3D in Homeworld 2 and Homeworld, in my opinion, didn't add enough to the game to make it worthwhile. All you got was an interface that was hard to use for beginners and which confused the Hell out of me. And it didn't really add much at all other than increase the area of the map.

I replied about the Death Star in another thread on it, but I gues it can't hurt to summarize my view here: Basically, I don't like Balrog-style (if you don't know what I'm talking about, play BFME) units that blow everything to the hot place instantly. I don't want to manage a planet for a whole game, carefully building, spending, and nurturing, just to have it blown up by a super unit in a single turn. That's just not fun, in my opinion. If you want my planet, you should have to get past my Calamarian Cruisers, Nebulon Bs, asteroid field, X-Wing squadrons, and crack troops. Not just hyper space in and press a button to blow the whole thing up.

But in the end, it is still on a plain and not like in homeworld. Everything else is just an eye candy.

I believe the word you're thinking about is "plane";).

Darth Alec
03-19-2005, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle


I replied about the Death Star in another thread on it, but I gues it can't hurt to summarize my view here: Basically, I don't like Balrog-style (if you don't know what I'm talking about, play BFME) units that blow everything to the hot place instantly. I don't want to manage a planet for a whole game, carefully building, spending, and nurturing, just to have it blown up by a super unit in a single turn. That's just not fun, in my opinion. If you want my planet, you should have to get past my Calamarian Cruisers, Nebulon Bs, asteroid field, X-Wing squadrons, and crack troops. Not just hyper space in and press a button to blow the whole thing up.




I doupt that it will be like that, IMO it should have a load time so that it isnt overpowering or broken and would need Imperial support to survive.

Dragonball Fan
03-27-2005, 10:52 AM
You would think that a huge mutha like a Death Star wouldn't need Imperial Support to survive. I mean, it has more than 10,000 turbolasers, and its shield is impregnable, and it can probably hold up to 10 wings of starfighters. So, it has no problem of surviving on its own. Even if its superlaser isn't working it should be able to defeat the entire Imperial fleet (just using them as an example) single-handedly.

Darth Andrew
03-27-2005, 03:03 PM
A Death Star I think would overbalance the game. Besides being able to destroy planets, in a space skirmish, it could easily blow up half a fleet in a matter of minutes (based on the movies). Still though, it would be awsome to control one.:)