PDA

View Full Version : I need more men!


Admiral Vostok
04-23-2005, 02:12 AM
I haven't posted for quite some time, but I have been looking at new screenshots every now and then. One thing has become apparent to me from the screenshots: there just isn't enough infantry.

Everything else in this game looks absolutely fantastic. The space battles look awesome, and I feel this is mostly because they've made them look a lot like the movies.

But the ground battles do not look at all like the movies. Why? It's not because of the inclusion of non-Canon units as some of my critics may be anticipating, but rather it is the distinct lack of infantry. Looking through all the screenshots, the most infantry I can see in a single screenshot is 30... and this is counting both sides together! That is not an army, it's a squad.

Now it can't be that their aren't enough resources in the engine to handle masses of infantry, since we've seen in the screenshots that masses of fighters are common in space battles. So why is it?

At this point I'm of the belief that this is the only thing wrong with EaW; there is just not enough infantry, or at least not enough reasons to use infantry. This must be amended!

Petroglyph claims we can recreate the battles of the Star Wars Saga. To para-phrase Moff Jerjerrod: "They ask the impossible. I need more men!"

lukeiamyourdad
04-23-2005, 11:25 AM
VERY true.

I also noticed the strangely small scale of ground battles vs space battles. I HOPE that we only see a part of the ground battles.

Darth Windu
04-24-2005, 06:02 AM
I agree, although there are other problems. In addition to the lack of infantry, there is also a glaring lack of diversity in infantry (ie there seems to be only one infantry unit) and far too many vehicles, like Imperial Hover-tanks, of course in addition to the lack of the Republic and Confederacy :)

Juggernaut1985
04-24-2005, 01:39 PM
Maybe its because vehicles are more used than infantry. It suits my purpose perfectly.

lukeiamyourdad
04-24-2005, 10:06 PM
In which war have you seen less infantry then vehicles?


Windu: Well, there's the standard trooper and what looks like a rocket trooper...so yeah you're right.

swphreak
04-24-2005, 11:03 PM
If you've played Generals, you'd remember how little infantry had to do. Vehicles were used most, but the occasional rocket troop hording is deadly to tanks... anywho

It doesn't really bother me as much as everyone else. I'd rather be throwing tanks and stuff at my enemies than mere infantry. Besides, I'll most likely be playing more space battles than ground...

Admiral Vostok
04-25-2005, 02:41 AM
Maybe its because vehicles are more used than infantry.No they aren't.
If you've played Generals, you'd remember how little infantry had to do. Vehicles were used most, but the occasional rocket troop hording is deadly to tanks... anywhoExactly, and that was one of my biggest gripes about Generals. If gamemakers want to make realistic games they're going to have to realise that they need to make infantry worth taking.

In Generals there wasn't much incentive to take infantry. Sure they could garrison buildings, but when a couple of Dragon Tanks can kill everyone in the building that doesn't sound nearly as attractive. And at the relative cost of infantry to vehicles, it was always better to get more vehicles.

Infantry should be cheap, possibly deployed in squads, and far more flexible than vehicles. Gamers should have a NEED to purchase infantry, not just use them as a go between until vehicles are available.

Please fix this Petroglyph. Your space battles look flawless, but at the moment the ground battles look quite uninspiring, let alone looking nothing like the films.

jedi3112
04-25-2005, 06:20 AM
First of all in generals infantry may not have been usefull, but generals failed miserably and THAT game killed the C&C series (not an easy thing to do, but EA managed to do just that).

Second, during the battle of Hoth I haven't seen the rebels using anything other than infantry and airspeeders. I think infantry should be able to hide in the rocks (somewhat like Force Commander) I also think more diversity in infantry would do the game good and I would like to see infantry moving grouped in squads, and the rest as single units (also aircraft in gound battles as single units) in space battles aircraft should be in squads.

Also I want to know for sure if the AT-PT will be in it or not, so far I haven't seen anything official about it being either in or out. It just doesn't make sense if the AT-PT is left out and some genius decided to have a Crawler do the very same thing, while the AT-PT fits in much better. They could have the AT-PT as main anti-infantry unit for the empire and have the crawler as a quick and much lighter anti-infantry version, used for when the enemy tries to flee (but I would use a fighter for that).

Cheech Marin
04-25-2005, 08:17 AM
What's the point of having infantry in a set-piece battle in an open field? They'll just get squashed by a tank or a walker without putting a dent in it. I noticed from the pics that the infantry tend to stand in the open in large clumps, presenting a lovely target for an AT-AT or a Y-Wing. Infantry should really have an advantage over armoured vehicles in city and forest fights, just like they do in real life.

DK_Viceroy
04-25-2005, 11:23 AM
As a player who flooded the field with Infantry more times than I care to count I'm on the side of Infantry but I must point out to Vostok though that the Movies do not show enough diverse units to make a ground army the Prequels do indeed because the war was more of the storyline but in the case of the OT the focus was on individuals so the role of EU here is critical the Rebels are in obviuos need of something that can stand a chance against an AT-AT it's the elusive quality known as balance. After all AT-AT's and AT-ST's do not an army make, especially as I remember in our forum games were Assault Mechs were rarely used unless carefully supported and said player was already winning.

Alamo the EaW engine strikes me as a very capable engine and I would also like to point out that at this stage of development Petroglyph will be concentrating on gettting everything right before putting a strain test on it I predict later we shall see more epic screenshots and until a later date I think we should hold off commenting on things.

lukeiamyourdad
04-25-2005, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Cheech Marin
What's the point of having infantry in a set-piece battle in an open field?

http://www.lucasarts.com/games/swempireatwar/images/screenshots/22.jpg

These guys are NOT staying behind certain cover.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-26-2005, 08:20 AM
If you've played Generals, you'd remember how little infantry had to do. Vehicles were used most, but the occasional rocket troop hording is deadly to tanks... anywho
Respectfully, why do people keep making references to Generals specifically? This game has so little to do with Generals. Granted, they're both RTS games, but why always Generals rather than Age of Empires, Empire Earth, Starcraft (at least that's a sci-fi game:rolleyes:!), or Heroes of Might and Magic III, or WarCraft II?

It doesn't really bother me as much as everyone else. I'd rather be throwing tanks and stuff at my enemies than mere infantry.
Exactly. Which you're not supposed to be doing.

Look at all the ground battles in Star Wars. Look at the battle of the Naboo plains, the battle of Hoth, the battle of Theed, the battle of Geonosis, and the Battle of Endor. Then look at nearly every land battle in human history - which is what SW is based on, after all. Infantry is numerically superior.

As was said, a majority of vehicles totally spoils the Star Wars feel.

Besides, I'll most likely be playing more space battles than ground...
I doubt it, as capturing planets will be a large part of the game.

There are tonnes of alternatives to infantry (not that they're really needed, but it'll greatly help). Infantry played a huge role in Ground Control, and yet each side had only two types of infantry: Marines, Jaegers, Crusaders, and Templars. They could be given special weapons and equipment like Mortars, bombs, HEAT rockets, and cloaking devices, though, which made them really diverse. A single squad of marines could easily take out a squad of heavy hover dynes if you only get them positioned so that they hit the rear armour and then let loose a barrage of HEAT marine squad rockets!

If there are only going to be one or two types of infantry per side in EaW, at least please give them some special weapons or equipment!

swphreak
04-26-2005, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Respectfully, why do people keep making references to Generals specifically? This game has so little to do with Generals. Granted, they're both RTS games, but why always Generals rather than Age of Empires, Empire Earth, Starcraft (at least that's a sci-fi game:rolleyes:!), or Heroes of Might and Magic III, or WarCraft II?

Because Petrowhatever didn't make those games. They made the [older] CnC Games, and like it or not, the ground combat highly resembles Generals to me.

Exactly. Which you're not supposed to be doing.

Look at all the ground battles in Star Wars. Look at the battle of the Naboo plains, the battle of Hoth, the battle of Theed, the battle of Geonosis, and the Battle of Endor. Then look at nearly every land battle in human history - which is what SW is based on, after all. Infantry is numerically superior.

As was said, a majority of vehicles totally spoils the Star Wars feel.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where I had to play the exact same way you do.

I doubt it, as capturing planets will be a large part of the game.

We'll see ;)


And I don't see how Generals "killed" CnC. If I'm not mistaken, Generals and Zero Hour sold quite nicely, and I remember in an interview a while back that said they were planning to make another CnC.

lukeiamyourdad
04-26-2005, 10:39 AM
CnC Generals is disliked by many fans of the serie.
It's not the first time I hear CnC Generals "killed" the serie.

You don't have to play the exact same way somebody else does, it's a question of realism that infantry numbers should normally be higher then vehicle numbers. You can use vehicles only if you wish, that's you, but if the only thing on the huge battlefield are vehicles on both side, we have a problem.

Besides, it's a also a question of epicness. Seeing a few vehicles fighting would ressemble a small scale skirmish, while large numbers of different types of units is much more epic.

Anyway, the game should encourage infantry to always be useful, even after you get the AT-AT.

DK_Viceroy
04-26-2005, 04:22 PM
I'll point this out right now though it doesn't matter what they do to make Infantry useful their will be some people, *makes a sideways glance at Vostok while Muttering Air Whore* who will spam one type of unit and usually only that unit alone. I myself am a prime culprit of Spamming Infantry but then I usually mix things up occasionally.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-26-2005, 05:56 PM
Luke refuted all your arguments but the one of planets:

How can planetary capture not be a big part of the game? It is in every single 4x/RTS game I've played so far, and I don't see how EaW will be an exception: Planets will be home to your ground and orbital facilities and give you an income, meaning that once you start losing them, you start losing the advantage from having them. It's like the Islands RMS in Age of Empires II: You can focus on naval combat all you like, but in the end you have to invade the enemy islands to take their buildings out.

Darth Andrew
04-26-2005, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Look at all the ground battles in Star Wars. Look at the battle of the Naboo plains, the battle of Hoth, the battle of Theed, the battle of Geonosis, and the Battle of Endor. Then look at nearly every land battle in human history - which is what SW is based on, after all. Infantry is numerically superior.
[/B]
When I last checked, this was called Empire At War, not Republic At War. In the game, there won't be any giant battles with masses of droids and clones fighting (but that's why I hope for an expansion;) ). Episodes I-III's battles focus on mass infantry engagements, but IV-VI have more of a mix of infantry and vehicles. I don't know about you, but even if I had divisions of diverse infantry, I'd rather have a single division of walkers in the Star Wars universe.

lukeiamyourdad
04-26-2005, 08:36 PM
Of course, walkers and vehicles would be "technically" stronger then infantry but the smart player will flank or strike a vehicle in the rear or something with his more mobile infantry.
Ambushing is also easier with infantry.


But you said it yourself a mix of infantry and vehicles.
This is what the game should encourage.

Darth Windu
04-26-2005, 11:23 PM
This is exactly why there should be a smaller number of units in the game rather than the approach Petroglyph seem to be taking of "if it was in EU or the films, we'll include it". Infantry are historically the cheapest and most versitile military units. Armour (Mechanised) forces exist to SUPPORT infantry, not to replace them, and that is the way these units should be portrayed.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-27-2005, 04:52 AM
Episodes I-III's battles focus on mass infantry engagements, but IV-VI have more of a mix of infantry and vehicles.
Wrong again. In Episode I there were Trade Federation tanks, in Episode II there were gunships, missile droids, and lots of other combat droids, and in Episode III... Well, I haven't seen it yet:o .

Ep 4 didn't have a mass ground battle, but Ep 5 had one and it had tonnes of infantry. Ep 6 had the battle of Endor, which was almost all-infantry and a few walkers, speeder bikes, hang gliders, etc. scattered about.

swphreak
04-27-2005, 09:12 AM
Yet the soldiers on Hoth got their behinds handed to them by tanks. kthxbai.

Endor's Moon was a fluke because the good guys always win.

Infantry are no good when a tank can easily take them out.

Juggernaut1985
04-27-2005, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
This is exactly why there should be a smaller number of units in the game rather than the approach Petroglyph seem to be taking of "if it was in EU or the films, we'll include it". Infantry are historically the cheapest and most versitile military units. Armour (Mechanised) forces exist to SUPPORT infantry, not to replace them, and that is the way these units should be portrayed.

So you support LESS epic battles and fewer choices of strategy in favor of spamming?

This is how you said it.

BeBop
04-27-2005, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak
Yet the soldiers on Hoth got their behinds handed to them by tanks.

You really think it was tanks that stormed the inside of the base?

lukeiamyourdad
04-27-2005, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Juggernaut1985
So you support LESS epic battles and fewer choices of strategy in favor of spamming?

This is how you said it.

No, he said have fewer but more versatile units.


And Bebop is right. Infantry IS a necessity and people have to think about using them even when large walkers are available.

Remember, there was only a few AT-ST on Endor, but plenty of infantry.
There was only a few AT-AT at Hoth, but lots of infantry.

Darth Andrew
04-27-2005, 08:41 PM
Wrong again. In Episode I there were Trade Federation tanks, in Episode II there were gunships, missile droids, and lots of other combat droids, and in Episode III... Well, I haven't seen it yet .
In case you didn't notice, beside a few dozen AATs and MTTs, there were thousands of Gungan grunts, and thousands more battle droids in Episode I. Yes, in Episode II, there were (from what I could tell from the movie) hundreds of vehicles, but there were hundreds of thousands of infantry battle droids and clone troopers. All I'm saying is that the Episodes IV-VI don't have divisions upon divisions of infantry slaughtering each other, but have more of a few hundred troops supported by a dozen or so vehicles, so the infantry don't greatly outnumber the vehicles by a ton. I do agree that infantry are an important asset in battle, though.

Cheech Marin
04-27-2005, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Armour (Mechanised) forces exist to SUPPORT infantry, not to replace them, and that is the way these units should be portrayed.

You would so get owned by von Manstein, Patton and Zhukov. As modern battles (Gulf War) have shown, armour is superior to infantry in open battlefields. So, it's the other way around, infantry are meant to support armour. The job of infantry is to make sure that the flanks are secure so that the armour can't be snuck up on and destroyed. Note that I said that infantry should support armour, not be replaced by it.

BeBop
04-27-2005, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Cheech Marin
As modern battles (Gulf War) have shown, armour is superior to infantry in open battlefields.

And what about the non open battlefields. As we have already seen in some EaW screens, there are maps that look quite cluttered with trees, rocks, swamps that would hinder a vehicle's movement. I suppose vehicles could just run over them (much like the MTT's in Episode I) but infantry could take advantage of the terrain and ambush the enemy. Vehicles and all (assuming they give some infantry anti vehicle abilities) Plus, vehicles are slow. Especially the large walkers, if infantry can get behind and close to the vehicle, it will probably have trouble defending itself. Which creates a need for Infantry to support the vehicle.

swphreak
04-28-2005, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by BeBop
You really think it was tanks that stormed the inside of the base?

I wasn't talking about the Base. It seems to me like infantry was rather useless against the armored units. (http://wso.williams.edu/~rfoxwell/starwars/pics/HothTrench.jpg)

Darth Windu
04-28-2005, 05:54 AM
Cheech - hardly. Sure - Patton, Guderian etc were excellent Armour Generals, but did they achieve their successes without Infantry? No, and there is no way they could have. Regardless of whether you think Infantry supports Armour or Armour supports Infantry, the fact is that Infantry are very valuable units that are essential in any armed force.

Juggernaut - no. What i'm saying is there shouldn't be a mass of vehicles with one or two infantry units. Instead there should be a more limited number of units but make them more versitile and encourage people to make use of combined-arms tactics, rather than just swarming with vehicles.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-28-2005, 07:24 AM
Yet the soldiers on Hoth got their behinds handed to them by tanks.
You're the first person I've ever heard call AT-ATs "tanks". I've called them assault vehicles myself, and I guess you can call them AFVs (Armoured Fighting Vehicles), but tanks? That's a new one. Not necessarily wrong, but certainly new to me:).

As for "getting their butts handed to them": The fact remains that the infantry on Hoth greatly outnumbered the six AT-AT walkers and their support AT-STs. Even counting the rebel snow speeder, I believe there'd be more infantry than vehicles.

Endor's Moon was a fluke because the good guys always win.
They didn't win Hoth or the Naboo plains. And they were kicking Ewok butt and would've wiped the rebels out had it not been for that Han Solo and Chewbacca tricked the imperials into opening the bunker doors. Think about it: The doors could not be opened. They were blaster-proof and hacking-proof, and the rebels couldn't use their explosives on it. It was a no-win situation for the rebels, as they couldn't have blown up their objective even if they wiped out every imperial outside of the bunker.

Infantry are no good when a tank can easily take them out.[/quote]
Give me a rocket infantry fire team and lemme at 'em! A recruitable squad of four people carrying a portable proton torpedo launcher = teh roxxorz!!!111:D

As I said before: Maybe heavy weapons and equipment like scanners, healing units, half-dome force fields, mortars, E-Web turbo lasers, and warhead launchers could be assigned to squads the same way siege weapons like rams are in Rome: Total War? Then they can be deployed for use, put down, and picked up at the player's whim. Infantry squads could carry grenades of various sorts, too, depending on the type of squad. Then they stopped firing and threw the grenades when you allowed them to.

Sounds too complicated, but is in reality just fun. Rome: Total War could have thousands of units in a single battle and yet never was too complicated in my eyes thanks to the fluent UI and the squad system.

So you support LESS epic battles and fewer choices of strategy in favor of spamming?
Hardly.

First of all, doesn't "spamming" mean "epic" as it results in more units? Yup, it does. I consider a battle with 400 units of more or less the same type more epic than a short battle with 50 units of various types. "Epic" just means "long-lasting" or "big" (although it originally referred to a genre type).

Second of all, a higher ratio of infantry doesn't equal to a lower amount or diversity of vehicles.

Third of all, regarding strategy, you have a good deal of strategic options with multiple groups of infantry.

Kthxbai
What's that mean? "OK, thanks, bye":confused:?

lukeiamyourdad
04-28-2005, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak
I wasn't talking about the Base. It seems to me like infantry was rather useless against the armored units. (http://wso.williams.edu/~rfoxwell/starwars/pics/HothTrench.jpg)

The point is?

Nobody is denying the advantage of vehicles on an open field.
However, when fighting in an urban setting, jungle or anything with decent cover for infantry, it is known that tanks(and most "armored assault vehicles") get crushed by the much more mobile infantry.

That said, in order to keep realism as high as possible without automatically hampering gameplay, infantry MUST be made useful AT ALL TIMES.
It means, using vehicles only will get you destroyed by a player with a mixed force.

Cheech Marin
04-28-2005, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Cheech - hardly. Sure - Patton, Guderian etc were excellent Armour Generals, but did they achieve their successes without Infantry? No, and there is no way they could have. Regardless of whether you think Infantry supports Armour or Armour supports Infantry, the fact is that Infantry are very valuable units that are essential in any armed force.


Did I mention anything about how infantry should be replaced completely by vehicles? No. I simply said that infantry supports armour, not the other way around.

lukeiamyourdad
04-28-2005, 08:40 PM
I sense blood boiling :)

Keep it nice people.

DK_Viceroy
04-29-2005, 03:41 AM
I know how effecive infantry can be and if they've gone for realism and unless it's a rebels v rebels match then the Infantry will be supporting the vehicles which isn't nessacerily a bad thing.

lukeiamyourdad
04-29-2005, 09:59 AM
It makes no difference whether infantry supports armor or armor supports infantry.

The element that must remain unchanged is the amount of infantry vs the amount of armor.

stingerhs
04-29-2005, 02:37 PM
what's with you guys complaining about the lack of infantry?? i know you're basing this conclusion off of the screenshots, so i have to wonder if y'all have seen this (http://media.pc.ign.com/media/713/713904/img_2600581.html) one yet....

looks like a descent amount of infantry to me......

Dagobahn Eagle
04-29-2005, 07:13 PM
Link doesn't work.

lukeiamyourdad
04-29-2005, 08:56 PM
Try it again. It works.

Well, it's a moot thing...

I can see about ~18 infantry soldiers for 5 vehicles on the Imperial side which makes it roughly a 4/1 ratio.
The Rebels have more for the number of vehicles.

Well, it depends on your point of view but, I would say that a 4/1 ratio isn't high considering how large an AT-AT is.

stingerhs
04-30-2005, 12:25 AM
^^^^
and don't forget that an AT-AT is not just an assault craft. if i remember correctly, it can also carry a number of troops as well.

afterall, AT-AT is just an acronym for All Terrain - Armored Transport......

lukeiamyourdad
04-30-2005, 12:31 AM
But we'll never know if those AT-AT do indeed carry troopers until the game comes out ;)

Darth Windu
04-30-2005, 01:16 AM
stinger - actually the 'All Terrain Armoured Transport' name is pure assumption, as is the AT-AT designation - according to the only official source of Star Wars info, the films, they are simply called 'Walkers'. :P

Admiral Vostok
04-30-2005, 01:24 AM
I'm glad this thread has inspired some thoughtful discussion that seemed to otherwise be lacking from the forum.

stingerhs: Indeed I had seen that screenshot, and as I said there isn't more than 30 troops in the battle. Which is rediculous.

Phreak: you seem to be a little confused. I'm not saying infantry should be able to take out an AT-AT. But there should be some sort of incentive to use infantry rather than just having a game of only vehicles. Or are you suggesting that at Hoth the Rebels shouldn't have bothered manning the trenches at all?

I like to think this game is emulating the battles we see in the movies. As I said with space battles they are doing an excellent job, but the ground battles are not.

Viceroy: whilst I'll take your comment really as just your usual way of giving me crap for no particular reason, I'd like to point out that Galactic Battlegrounds did not have the infantry balance right either. Sure, for your favourite civ Confederacy the Troopers were well worth taking, you'd be foolish not to. But the Naboo infantry sucked, and the roles the fulfilled were better performed by other units, so there was no reason to take them. Even if infantry suck, they should have some sort of benefits that vehicles just cannot provide, or EaW will end up like Galactic Battlegrounds: fun to play, but nothing like the movies.

Darth Alec
04-30-2005, 03:33 AM
I belive that infantry is inferior to tanks and other vechicles since they dont have the capebility to take out other things. It is fun to storm 200 infantry over the battlefield but 10-20 AT-ST/AT-AT's would slaughter them.

stingerhs
04-30-2005, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
stinger - actually the 'All Terrain Armoured Transport' name is pure assumption, as is the AT-AT designation - according to the only official source of Star Wars info, the films, they are simply called 'Walkers'. :P :rolleyes:

well, its not exactly something the EU came up with, neither. if i remember correctly, George Lucas was the one who came up with the AT-AT and AT-ST designations.

now, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but i was just trying to show that you could use the AT-AT for loading and unloading troops in a battle.

Cheech Marin
04-30-2005, 10:24 AM
I just want infantry to use something other than Napoleonic tactics. Just look at them, the stormtroopers are standing in a BOX. The rebels are smarter, being more spaced out and staggered, but they're still out in the open.

Hermie
04-30-2005, 06:18 PM
I think the key to balance here is the cost. How many Stormtroopers can you train and equip for the same amount of money that it costs to construct an AT-AT? And I imagine that building a walker will also take considerably more time. So if Petrogylph pulls this of correctly, You should'nt be able to just go straight to building an vehicle armada without being raided to pieces by the opponents infantry, and if you just recruit normal ground troops, you will eventually be blown to pieces by the enemys tank line-up.

DK_Viceroy
04-30-2005, 06:28 PM
Vostok please point out where I took the crap out of you, you at tone point claimed to be an Air Nazi so Air Whorse is hardly derogative it's usually hillarious to be on the same team as you as everyone runs around like headless chickens trying to contain us and get the Holocrons.

lukeiamyourdad
04-30-2005, 06:57 PM
Now now now, no personal debates here.

General Nitro
04-30-2005, 07:41 PM
Wow. This reminds me of the Galactic Battlegrounds board...

Admiral Vostok
04-30-2005, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Herminator
I think the key to balance here is the cost. How many Stormtroopers can you train and equip for the same amount of money that it costs to construct an AT-AT? And I imagine that building a walker will also take considerably more time. So if Petrogylph pulls this of correctly, You should'nt be able to just go straight to building an vehicle armada without being raided to pieces by the opponents infantry, and if you just recruit normal ground troops, you will eventually be blown to pieces by the enemys tank line-up.
I totally agree with this. I think the problem with a lot of games that have too many vehicles over infantry is that they haven't got the cost and build times sorted.

Cost is the most obvious way to encourage infantry usage, but in many games there comes a point where the players have built up such a strong economy that cost is no longer an issue, so they'll resort to pumping out the more expensive vehicles. So I believe the key to infantry usage is in the build times. If it takes a really, really long time to build vehicles in comparison with infantry, I think they may get used in the right proportions.

I'd also like to see the inclusion of infantry as a necessity for some reason. While Rise of Nations sucked majorly, it did have one interesting feature, and that was that enemy cities could only be taken by infantry and not be vehicles. This meant you had to have infantry in your army just to win the game. Perhaps a similar idea could be used in EaW? Not necessarily that you can only take enemy bases with infantry, but perhaps you could either destroy the building with heavy firepower or invade it with infantry. Invading with infantry might give you control of the building, or it might actually be quicker than destroying it, or you might get a boost to your economy by capturing it (but don't get to use it).

DK_Viceroy
05-01-2005, 03:53 AM
I don't think that idea fits in with Star Wars since the Empire didn't look to keen to capture Echo Base only the personell inside it and the Rebels wouldn't capture an imperial base they'd try to make their own secluded one far away.

Build times should be balanced between forcing the player to use infantry but not long enough to make them unattractive after all every battle on land had vehicles. Perhaps though if you want to give an example of how a large army should be composed look at the Droid Armies of the Confederacy on Genosis they were excellently balanced and would have won if they had more numbers and decent air support.

Hermie
05-01-2005, 06:09 AM
I just remembered something that wrecks my theory above. In some previews there were said that if a unit survives the battle, he doesn't just disapear into thin air, but is carried on into the next battle. But vehicles have more hp than a standard infantry unit, meaning you'll have a bunch of tanks already at the beginning of the battle...

Dagobahn Eagle
05-01-2005, 08:12 AM
stinger - actually the 'All Terrain Armoured Transport' name is pure assumption, as is the AT-AT designation - according to the only official source of Star Wars info, the films, they are simply called 'Walkers'. :P
If we were to follow that reasoning, very few ships in Star Wars would have a name. I don't think rebel fighters were ever refered to as "X-Wings" or "Y-Wings" in-game, for example. All I can remember is "TIE Fighter", "Star Destroyer", "Death Star", and "Imperial shuttle".

I belive that infantry is inferior to tanks and other vechicles since they dont have the capebility to take out other things. It is fun to storm 200 infantry over the battlefield but 10-20 AT-ST/AT-AT's would slaughter them.
That's already been addressed, comrade Norseman;).

Yes, of course they'd be. But first of all, there could be a system of infantry squads being allowed to carry special weapons that could be deployed and moved, like E-Webs or some sort of rocket launcher.

Second of all, destroying vehicles isn't the only thing you have to do in the game. There's other infantry, too, right?

Third of all, infantry is fun:p.

Fourth of all, infantry is dynamic. You can flank with them, ambush with them, and so on.

I just remembered something that wrecks my theory above. In some previews there were said that if a unit survives the battle, he doesn't just disapear into thin air, but is carried on into the next battle.
Er, what did you expect? There wouldn't be much sense in a whole army just disappearing after you conquer your first planet, would there now?

I think you're thinking of this the wrong way. This isn't an Age of Empires or Galactic Battlegrounds-style game. This is more of a Rome: Total War or Stars! setup.


I'd also like to see the inclusion of infantry as a necessity for some reason. While Rise of Nations sucked majorly, it did have one interesting feature, and that was that enemy cities could only be taken by infantry and not be vehicles. This meant you had to have infantry in your army just to win the game. Perhaps a similar idea could be used in EaW? Not necessarily that you can only take enemy bases with infantry, but perhaps you could either destroy the building with heavy firepower or invade it with infantry. Invading with infantry might give you control of the building, or it might actually be quicker than destroying it, or you might get a boost to your economy by capturing it (but don't get to use it).
I strongly disagree for several reasons. The main one is that intra-building combat is just not fun. Most of the time, it's like in Force Commander, which means it's just random cross-fire that you have no control of, which is no fun.

I'd prefer it to be like in Rome: Total War: All fighting is outside, and once you kill or rout the enemy, you get the town/city you were fighting for (or planet, in EaW's case).

damnidiots
05-01-2005, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Herminator
I just remembered something that wrecks my theory above. In some previews there were said that if a unit survives the battle, he doesn't just disapear into thin air, but is carried on into the next battle. But vehicles have more hp than a standard infantry unit, meaning you'll have a bunch of tanks already at the beginning of the battle... What bothers me is that people don't understand that this isn't a classic RTS where you build your forces during battle.

When a battle starts, what you start with is all that you have. You build your forces before of battles.

To be more precise, you first have to fight in space before you can land your shuttles on the ground and start the land battle.

Hermie
05-01-2005, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Er, what did you expect? There wouldn't be much sense in a whole army just disappearing after you conquer your first planet, would there now?

I think you're thinking of this the wrong way. This isn't an Age of Empires or Galactic Battlegrounds-style game. This is more of a Rome: Total War or Stars! setup.


What bothers me is that people don't understand that this isn't a classic RTS where you build your forces during battle.

When a battle starts, what you start with is all that you have. You build your forces before of battles.

To be more precise, you first have to fight in space before you can land your shuttles on the ground and start the land battle.
I know that, and it's generally a good thing, I just fear that, in the end, you'll be left with nothing but vehicles, as they can handle more damage...

lukeiamyourdad
05-01-2005, 04:57 PM
People also concentrate more fire on them too.

In the end, vehicles might not be the only thing left.

Dagobahn Eagle
05-01-2005, 05:38 PM
I know that, and it's generally a good thing, I just fear that, in the end, you'll be left with nothing but vehicles, as they can handle more damage...
But you keep replenishing your army, right? Which means more infantry.

And if you're doing things well, your infantry should survive, too.

Darth Alec
05-02-2005, 01:42 AM
If infantry can carry E-Web blasters/rocket launchers/grenades it might work.
And if you can mass produce infantry faster and cheaper to a 5/1 ratio against AT-ST's then infantry has a bigger role.
In urban combat infantry has an advantage, same in forest/swamp, exept the AT-AT which will mow down trees but have a problem hitting anything.