PDA

View Full Version : Confirmed: Death Star CAN destroy Capitol Ships


DarthMaulUK
09-19-2005, 09:12 PM
This 10 minute (31mb) video we found has a brief chat about Empire At War to a small crowd. Showing off Hoth followed by a brief lightsabre fight between Darth Vader & Obi Wan, we jump to lightspeed into space and see the Galactic Map in action, followed by confirmation (approx 9mins 32 seconds) into the video that the Death Star can indeed, destroy ships

Trailer Section (http://www.empireatwar.net/fall2005/community/trailers/index.htm)

DMUK

Bs|NagaSadow
09-19-2005, 10:43 PM
Very nice clip...

Nevets1112
09-19-2005, 11:40 PM
Awesome, also saw Byss on the galactic map.

Naja
09-20-2005, 02:23 AM
Where did you see the Death Star destroy capital ships? I did not see this. A Rebel ship explodes, but this could have easily been caused by Imperial capital ships, TIE Fighters, etc. I saw no green superlaser.

That whole graphic glitch with a world being destroyed hasn't been removed, I see. :cry7: When the Death Star destroys a world, the "shockwave" of the blast still goes -right through- the Death Star.

Bs|NagaSadow
09-20-2005, 03:13 AM
Questions is....

How quick a recharge rate is set on it... - Is a more important question for me.

DarthMaulUK
09-20-2005, 06:56 AM
You dont see the Death Star destroy any ships, but the guy with the microphone mentions it

DMUK

popcorn2008
09-20-2005, 06:01 PM
The guy doesnt say the death star can kill capital ships, all he says is he could continue the battle and kill the capital ships or the space station, he never actually says the death star can do this.

Yeah I dont think he meant death star, i just rewatched the movie and it seems to me he means he could continue the battle and kill everything with ships, depending on his strategy. This strategy would be killing the ships, so he can land and take the planet.

It is still too sketchy to offically announce the death star can kill a capital ship in my opinion. Until someone says those exact words I wont believe it.

StealthWar42
09-20-2005, 06:59 PM
bah, popcorn you just said exactly what I came here to post.

listen to the lines again guys... it doesn't mean the death star can't, but it's definitely not a confirmation yet.

Sithmaster_821
09-20-2005, 07:48 PM
The only thing that I am hesitant about is that the game seems aimed more at the casual audience (in the beginning the guy said this was a game for people who were overwhelmed by current strategy games). BFME aimed at the casual crowd, and didn't give much thought to supposedly "too complicated" stuff like balance or depth. If this game wants to last longer than a playthrough the Galaxy mode, it has to embrace these aspects too.

EDIT: Bah, LF still has problems, no matter how snazzy the interface is. Triple post deleted.

popcorn2008
09-20-2005, 08:55 PM
Ahh three post!

StealthWar42
09-20-2005, 09:22 PM
Well, he also said that you could vary how much of the battles you want to actually control. So, theoretically, it would appeal to both sides: the casual gamer who wants a quick 15-minute cinematic battle, and the hardcore gamer who wants to win with the least amount of casualties possible.

If you are the second type, just adjust the settings so that you control all aspects of the battle. Simple enough, eh?

FroZticles
09-20-2005, 10:25 PM
I'm with Sith on this one it is looking like they are targetting casual gamers which sucks. Looks like GB will have a longer lifepspan then this game.

StealthWar42
09-20-2005, 11:13 PM
Well, I'm sure balance and depth will still be there... just not on the level of previous RTS's. RoN, AoE... they all had balance and depth at a different level, including various improvements to resource gathering AND battle techniques. It sounds like this game's just going to be more geared towards one aspect (combat) and excel at it.

R:TW, for example, has tons of "balance" and "depth" but no resource gathering. In my opinion, it's not nearly as overwhelming as games like AoE and RoN where you simultaneously have to manage resources and cities as well. Besides, AoE and RoN didn't have much to the combat systems anyway compared to other games. Given R:TW as a comparison, I'm fairly confident this game will be complex enough for the hardcore gamer but still easy to jump into for the casual gamer; the complexity just won't be spread out so much like it was in other games, it will be focused on combat and micro/macromanagement.

StealthWar42
09-20-2005, 11:20 PM
Hmm, I feel like I'm lacking in examples. Let's take AoE vs EaW.

AoE has resource gathering, a hinderance in some people's eyes, content to other people. Whatever. So in EaW you can't do this, it's not as complex... but you still get an income and you have to budget it in the same manner. In EaW, you can target certain points on the ship, and on the ground you can call for reinforcements and bomber strikes. Also on the ground, the combat is more complex because there isn't one almighty unit (i.e. the Paladin, teutonic knight... I don't know it's been so long) and there's plenty of checks and balances among units. In AoE, can you target certain points on the castle to disable its capability to fire arrows? Can you call to your home base to instantaneously send emergency reinforcements? No, but you can sure as hell overrun the enemy with tons of the same unit.

See where I'm coming from? It'll have balance, depth, complexity... I'm sure of it. Don't be so sure it's "just for casual gamers."

Jan Gaarni
09-21-2005, 03:11 AM
I am pretty sure he was talking about the Death Star.
Not able to look at the clip again right this moment, but I remember when he started to talk about finishing off the station, the Death Star had moved into position and was in firing range. He commented this, said he could decide to finish off the station or take out Alderaan because, well, it's just cooler. :D

StealthWar42
09-21-2005, 07:37 AM
Yeah, he did say something along those lines, but no absolutes about whether or not the Death Star can destroy capitop ships.

You know, an easy solution would be just to ask them in that chat... then we'll have a real answer.

Sithmaster_821
09-21-2005, 08:29 AM
Yes, R:TW did lack resource gathering, but it had a lot of other stuff from the strategic and tactical perpectives that EaW seems lacking in. The battles from EaW seem identical in setup to your typical RTS, with none of the other stuff that R:TW had to take up your time on the battlefield (ie flanking, sieging, moral, etc.). The attacking certain points on the ships relates only to certain units that won't be very common and only applies to space battles, which seem better carried out thus far than ground battles. The whole calling in a bombing raid/capital ship bombard/ion cannon thing is hardly a new concept (think god powers from AoM or general powers from C&C:G), and I can't think of a game that doesn't allow you to build reinforcements (except maybe R:TW, I can't remember if you can reinforce during battles).

All I am saying is that it reminds me of last year, when people where oggling over BFME, and I couldn't help thinking that the game looked like it had too much flash and not enough depth. We haven't been shown much outside of the single player campaign section, so I could be wrong (and I hope I am).

Naja
09-21-2005, 01:47 PM
Not enough depth???

An endless horde of Star Wars characters (including but not limited to combat characters, espionage/sabotage characters, and economy characters), 40+ planets - some reknowned, some other dreamed about in the EU like Byss - with different terrain on each one, (optionally manual) base-building and a very crisp/non-frustrating resource management side, and persistent units that - counter to practically all "mission-based" RTS's these days - stay with you battle to battle, all DONE IN REAL TIME.

Like it's been said, when they say simple, I don't think that they mean "dumbed down and stamped with the Star Wars seal of approval." They mean that tedious aspects of most RTS's have been fixed or ameliorated, and that the broad Galaxy Map level of overall macromanagement has been simplified simply so that you may concentrate most of your energy on enjoying the battles. As they've said, you can control all the macro and micro aspects with furious determination, or you can lay back with a more leisez faire approach and let your Stormies tear into those Rebel scum. ;)

Nevets1112
09-21-2005, 02:02 PM
Not enough depth???

An endless horde of Star Wars characters (including but not limited to combat characters, espionage/sabotage characters, and economy characters), 40+ planets - some reknowned, some other dreamed about in the EU like Byss - with different terrain on each one, (optionally manual) base-building and a very crisp/non-frustrating resource management side, and persistent units that - counter to practically all "mission-based" RTS's these days - stay with you battle to battle, all DONE IN REAL TIME.

Like it's been said, when they say simple, I don't think that they mean "dumbed down and stamped with the Star Wars seal of approval." They mean that tedious aspects of most RTS's have been fixed or ameliorated, and that the broad Galaxy Map level of overall macromanagement has been simplified simply so that you may concentrate most of your energy on enjoying the battles. As they've said, you can control all the macro and micro aspects with furious determination, or you can lay back with a more leisez faire approach and let your Stormies tear into those Rebel scum. ;)

/agreed

Jan Gaarni
09-21-2005, 03:14 PM
You still need to build, you still need income (though income comes in on a regular basis, constantly ticking in), move troops, ships, assign them to fleets, except, you do all this out of combat situations.

Once combat begins, either by your initiative or your opponment, you'll have to do with the forces and installations that are available to you at that location.

Having watched the video again, yes, I am alittle doubtfull that he ment you can blow up capitol ships with the Death Star. But I'm still optimistic. :)

Dark Sad Shadow
09-21-2005, 03:54 PM
interesting, i cant wait to have this game :D

general ackbar
09-21-2005, 04:13 PM
Not enough depth???

An endless horde of Star Wars characters (including but not limited to combat characters, espionage/sabotage characters, and economy characters), 40+ planets - some reknowned, some other dreamed about in the EU like Byss - with different terrain on each one, (optionally manual) base-building and a very crisp/non-frustrating resource management side, and persistent units that - counter to practically all "mission-based" RTS's these days - stay with you battle to battle, all DONE IN REAL TIME.

Like it's been said, when they say simple, I don't think that they mean "dumbed down and stamped with the Star Wars seal of approval." They mean that tedious aspects of most RTS's have been fixed or ameliorated, and that the broad Galaxy Map level of overall macromanagement has been simplified simply so that you may concentrate most of your energy on enjoying the battles. As they've said, you can control all the macro and micro aspects with furious determination, or you can lay back with a more leisez faire approach and let your Stormies tear into those Rebel scum. ;)


teh agreed.


we can manually build our own bases how we want?!?!? is this confirmed?

if so WOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

popcorn2008
09-21-2005, 09:06 PM
I hope we manually build our base! That is one of the funnest things in RTS is to build a cool base. I sure hope it isnt automatic. And I still say he didnt mean the death star shots ships. Just listen to the guy, all he meant was he could not kill the planet and kill the ships. He never said by using the death star. Until I hear "The death star can destroy ships" im not convienced.

FroZticles
09-22-2005, 08:40 AM
Not enough depth???

An endless horde of Star Wars characters (including but not limited to combat characters, espionage/sabotage characters, and economy characters), 40+ planets - some reknowned, some other dreamed about in the EU like Byss - with different terrain on each one, (optionally manual) base-building and a very crisp/non-frustrating resource management side, and persistent units that - counter to practically all "mission-based" RTS's these days - stay with you battle to battle, all DONE IN REAL TIME.

Like it's been said, when they say simple, I don't think that they mean "dumbed down and stamped with the Star Wars seal of approval." They mean that tedious aspects of most RTS's have been fixed or ameliorated, and that the broad Galaxy Map level of overall macromanagement has been simplified simply so that you may concentrate most of your energy on enjoying the battles. As they've said, you can control all the macro and micro aspects with furious determination, or you can lay back with a more leisez faire approach and let your Stormies tear into those Rebel scum.

I'm not buying that argument...

I've heard them use those lines and I have yet too see them show me how it helps the game and not hurt it. Are the battles that macro instensive that you need to micro like crazy? Is there alot of strategy involved to support the backbone of the game without having any economy involved?

The sad part of this all is the BFME will have more economic strategy then this game. I know it doesn't seen natural.

Nevets1112
09-22-2005, 11:46 AM
I'm not buying that argument...

I've heard them use those lines and I have yet too see them show me how it helps the game and not hurt it. Are the battles that macro instensive that you need to micro like crazy? Is there alot of strategy involved to support the backbone of the game without having any economy involved?

The sad part of this all is the BFME will have more economic strategy then this game. I know it doesn't seen natural.

I don't buy your argument, I don't think they have informed us to much on how the economy works at this time (other than you don't have to do boring farming or whatever) to make such a bold statement.

lukeiamyourdad
09-22-2005, 03:30 PM
The sad part of this all is the BFME will have more economic strategy then this game. I know it doesn't seen natural.

No.
Here, you have to manage trade routes and see which planet is worth conquering. Each planets gives bonuses and more income.
It's a different kind of economical management, not a lesser kind.

Naja
09-22-2005, 03:43 PM
Exactly.

One of the most intriguing macro features this game has is the presence of trade routes/hyperspace lanes. Sort of like in SW: Rebellion, you can send fleets to any particular planet, -from- any particular planet. This will take a grievous amount of time, however, while hyperspace routes will allow for instantaneous travel between two worlds. Ownership of two or more planets on the same hyperspace route will also yield hella economic (or more!) rewards.

starmark2k
09-22-2005, 03:43 PM
did anyone else think the guy in the movie was trying to hard to be funny with "batman" and "Thats our fee".

Nevets1112
09-22-2005, 04:25 PM
I'm quite interested on how trade routes will work out, as well as what are some planet bonuses other than monotary ones.

Jan Gaarni
09-22-2005, 04:45 PM
Commerce will probably increase between planets that are controlled by the same side and sharing a traderoute (also known as a hyperspace lane). It's the most obvious advantage to it.
That's an assumption though.

Factual advantage is that you will travel faster (not too sure about it being instantaniously, Naja) than if you are travelling between planets that has no hyperspace lanes. You can also not reach every planet from anywhere they have said, either because of distance, or because of planets blocking the path, I don't know.


Starmark, yeah, maybe alittle. :)
Or he didn't present the jokes well enough. ;)
Gave me a smile on my face though.

FroZticles
09-23-2005, 10:00 AM
Sounds the same too me more lumber mills gets you more resources and bonuses like -10% off building cost and you get a trickle of resource. Hmmmm

"Minimal emphasis on economy" no droids cutting trees etc so basically it is just a game where you get trickled resources and just pump stuff out capture planets whatever. What I want to know, is there enough strategy and choices in the battles to cover up for what they have not added?

Trade routes are basically just say you capture Naboo, Tatooine and Coruscant and they have trade routes to each you get better bonuses and more trickled resources then you would just having say Naboo. Its not that major.

Jan Gaarni
09-23-2005, 10:46 AM
Something for you to take up in the chat, FroZ. :)

Naja
09-23-2005, 02:48 PM
Did the Rome: Total War economy strike you as trivial, FroZ? After all, there was no truely complicated resource management: all you did was receive the trickle of funds from taxation of your cities, money from trade routes, increased trade from upgrading commerce buildings in your cities, and increased economic efficiency of any given number of your territories, provided you had an economically-inclined governor of each.

Hmmm. Sounds like...just about every feature we'll see in Empire at War!

FroZticles
09-23-2005, 08:11 PM
I did not like R:TW so hope that answers your question.

Naja
09-23-2005, 09:31 PM
Are you saying that we would have to have a direct resource harvesting aspect for the game to be strategic? Maybe yes, maybe no, but it would be like practically every other RTS that's ever been made. These Petro guys want to depart from that cliche, and depart like nothing else! They've made it clear since day one how there won't be peasant units or ore trucks, or Tiberium, or anything like that; I fail to see how eliminating this would alone result in a lack of strategic depth in a game.

lukeiamyourdad
09-23-2005, 09:39 PM
Indeed. It would be quite moronic to claim that a system of trade routes is dumbing down the econ when strategy games like the Civ serie have been using that forever.

We do not know how trade routes will work. Will there be upgrades? Will there be ways of improving trade without resorting to conquering planets all the time? We don't know for sure yet.
The only thing we know is there won't be any "cilck on worker and click on tree to harvest wood". It does not mean the economy will lack depth in anyway, or else you can easily claim the Civ serie has no economical depth.

Jmaster3265
09-23-2005, 09:55 PM
When and how did this topic get turned into a debate and big arguement?

lukeiamyourdad
09-23-2005, 09:56 PM
When it started turning into a big debate and argument. That's what happens in a forum.

Jmaster3265
09-24-2005, 12:06 AM
The reason i ask is, i go to other EaW forums and this one has the most arguements, and rudeness...etc..etc..

lukeiamyourdad
09-24-2005, 10:17 AM
Now were not rude with each other. Froz, Windu and me have known each other forever. If I bash him or Windu, it's all natural. We've been doing it forever.

And yes, there are arguments, but this forum would be dead without arguments.

Besides, a forum can be a place of debates.
Not just some childish "Oh, your idea is soo cool!" everytime somebody post something even if it doesn't make any sense.

popcorn2008
09-24-2005, 11:37 AM
When and how did this topic get turned into a debate and big arguement?
If you cant take the heat stay out of the kitchen. This is one of my favorite EaW forums because of all the debating. We can all voice our opinions and get them shattered down, or maybe some people will like them. Some people actually like debating. I wouldnt call what we do here arguing either, and it isnt too rude.

DarthMaulUK
09-24-2005, 12:07 PM
So long as posts remain constructive - thats the important thing. We all have our views and its great to be able to voice them - right or wrong!

DMUK

Sithmaster_821
09-24-2005, 09:13 PM
Honestly, taking threads off-topic into massive nonsensical arguments is what we do best.:)

That said, I recognize that R:TW has a similar economic system (though it does seem to have much more to do in between turns economically/politically, but I don't have enough facts on E@W to confirm that). My complaints are that there really seems like there is nothing to replace the void that the lack of economic fixation during battles would replace. In fact the battles looked less involved than even normal RTS's. I'm glad you may be able to build bases if you so desire, but they seem kinda pointless during combat if you build all your units and buildings in between turns. And I don't see whats so special about having EU planets and units. They were in SWGB too.

lukeiamyourdad
09-24-2005, 09:15 PM
My complaints are that there really seems like there is nothing to replace the void that the lack of economic fixation during battles would replace. In fact the battles looked less involved than even normal RTS's.

Could you elaborate on this "void" you're talking about? What exactly do you consider it to be?

Sithmaster_821
09-24-2005, 09:29 PM
OK, in normal RTS's (AoE, _Craft, C&C) there is, in varying degrees, a level economic micromanagement inherent in the game. You must tend to your workers and protect them and shift them and what not. There also is an inverse relationship between the level of economic micromanagement and military micromanagement. Thus, in games like StarCraft, they make up for a simplified economic model with the use of tactics/spells/abilities that most units can use and an increased emphasis on tactical manipulation. Games like AoK, with a more complex economic model, require simpler military micromanagement for one to remain sane. R:TW excised economy altogether so you could focus wholy on their complex military system and emphasis on tactics. DoW did the same, but to a lesser extent, but had a less involved military model.

This brings us to E@W. They have followed Creative Assembly's lead in excising all economic/base building/unit creation focus from the combat phase of the game, but in turn, have not, atleast as far as I can tell, expanded the combat involvement beyond even games like C&C or Starcraft. Thus there is correlation gap in the relationship between economic involvement and military involvement.

Naja
09-24-2005, 11:52 PM
Not necessarily true. For example, the Empire and Rebels have completely different systems of intelligence-gathering: the Rebels have a ubiquitous spy network, effectively making every Imperial movement on the Galaxy Map transparent. The Empire is pretty blind when dealing with the Rebels (the Rebels can also hide bases of theirs on Neutral planets without the Empire knowing), so they have to rely on technology like Probe Droids and TIE Scouts to compensate. Both factions, it seems, will also have access to bounty hunters, though we still don't know how they will affect the game, and to what extent.

As for combat, again, we don't know. Don't forget that in the end, the sole purpose of a game is to be fun and engaging - complexity is merely a means to an end, and if the game can truly reach the desired end without too much of that particular means, I don't think that anything is sacrified. I don't think that we should necessarily be striving for complexity, nor should we be rushing to equate complexity with quality; there are plenty of abhorrent games out there with ridiculous amounts of controls and interfaces, and the like. Less is so much more, in a lot of cases.

Simplicity or not, EaW is not a carbon copy RTS. We know for a fact that besides the standard RTS 'rock/paper/scissors' shindig with units (big units < medium units < small units < big units, etc), the game will introduce an entirely new feature: anti-units. Every unit will have one particular other unit on the enemy's side that it inherently will wipe the floor with, and just demolish. This will be indicated by bigger explosions, fancier sound effects, all that jazz, to let you know when one of your units is firing on its anti-unit.

Sithmaster_821
09-26-2005, 11:11 AM
The differences between the civs has little bearing on what I am talking about. It does make the civ selection interesting, and adds a cool dynamic to the game, but doesn't really affect the balance between economic and military complexity.

"Anti-units" are in most RTS games worth their salt, and are very much a part of the balancing of an RTS. I would be dismayed if E@W didn't have them.

Naja
09-26-2005, 10:48 PM
Also, keep in mind, are you sure you'd want economic complexity when you own 40+ worlds in a real time galaxy?

lukeiamyourdad
09-26-2005, 10:51 PM
You do realize sith never said that he wanted economical complexity?

He merely mentions that without that layer of micromanagement, something has to compensate for it. R:TW, for example, compensates economy with a complex system of strategies and tactics on the Battlefield.

Naja
09-26-2005, 10:57 PM
No, but implicit in his comment is that something needs to be complex for the game to be top-notch. Otherwise, he wouldn't have bothered citing the need for something to be compensated.

Sithmaster_821
09-27-2005, 04:23 PM
If the game plays like R:TW, then we aren't controlling the planets in "real time". There will be a real time combat mode which lasts for x amount of time, followed by a more pulled back strategic mode where you can see the whole galaxy and plot your course like in a board game, but time stands mysteriously still.

Sadly, complexity is the name of the game in RTS's, at least for now. The genre just lends itself to complexity, and this puts off new comers and really makes the genre a dead end street. I think that the genre will experience quite a bit of upheaval in the coming years, as new, more intuitive games (like the Pikmin series or the new WW2 game that is coming out whose title escapes me). However, simply going with the traditional style RTS and then hacking off pieces to make it "simpler" does not a good RTS make. The difference between the above mentioned games and this hypothetical E@W (since we do not know what exactly everything will be like at this stage) is that the truly innovative games completely rebuilt the concepts of the genre that have been in place since Sid Meier made the original Civ game (I know, its a TBS game, but where do you think RTS's came from). Speaking of dead-end genres, the TBS genre didn't innovate or diversify even as much as the current RTS market, and now its the realm of a select few middle-aged men, and hemmoraging fans daily.

Ok, I got off track there, but essentially, if a company tries to "simplify" a game by using the existing template but cutting holes in it without compensating else where, it will not be as enjoyable of a game for all levels of gamer, and it will not succeed. This is not to say that complexity reigns supreme. RoN and EE2 are two games which are needlessly complex (in my opinion, I know at least one of those sold moderately well), and that ruins the enjoyability of a game just as much (they also have, again IMO, the mile-wide-inch-deep problem), so one must strike a balance.

anton_138
09-27-2005, 05:40 PM
if i'm understanding you correctly, SithMaster, you're concern is that RTS games usually give you SOMETHING to focus on, combat or economics, so that you are never truly idle in the game, and diminishing the economical control might leave a lot of dead-time between battles. am i anywhere near your line-of-thought in that? if so, then i think Naja's comment about trying to run the infrastructure/resources while trying to control forces on 40+ planets is quite valid. one statement made in the dev's vids is that "you can control as much, or as little, as you like..." while i know this is NOT a sequal to/remake of Rebellion, there are many similarities, and in Rebellion you could control resource/basic-troop production manually to tweak and fine tune, or have your droid/assistant control it automatically to allow you more focus on defenses, assaults and hero/agent missions. Rebellion also allowed 100(min)-200(max) planets to come into play, instead of just 40+. i think one of the reasons Rebellion hasn't gotten more support is it was maybe a little overwhelming for the casual gamer or non-SW fan. personally, the complexity and intelligence of Rebellion is what will always appeal to me. there are some people who like complexity, and there are some (many more) who like "quick and to the point". someone (Jan or DMUK?) posted a "what's your favorite SW RTS game" poll some time ago, and while Rebellion had more votes at the time (including mine), i don't think more than 11 or so people bothered to voice an opinion at all. i know there are more RTS gamers in these forums, but i'm assuming Rebellion wasn't more popular because it was TOO complex, and FoCom wasn't more popular because it was too simplified (just get to the bunkers first, do you simple health/speed/attack upgrades, and you're set, right?). SWGB is a fine RTS game, but nothing new or innovative, obviously (SC+AoK=SWGB). so, to create a single "original" game that will reach the widest audience (business comes before art, right?) it has to be balanced, and i doubt we'll know for sure whether the dev's succeeded until at least the demo is released. my hope is that we will truly be able to "control as much or as little" as we like, but if the non-combat tasks in EaW(researching tech, sabotage/espionage missions, troop/fleet production/management, hero missions/recruitment) are anything like Rebellion i doubt anyone will get too bored waiting for something to happen. it can't ALL happen only in battle, because you have to have time to move people and ships and train troops, and with 40+ planets there's no guarantee that the Imps and Rebs will be bumping into each other the entire time, so i'd imagine there has to be some sort of real-time control over worlds in non-combat situations similar to Rebellion. what will we have to occupy ourselves in those quieter times? i don't know, but from what has been said by the devs it won't be chopping wood or picking berries and i'm fine with that as long as there's more to the game than simply capturing planets for a flow of resources, which is hardly different from FoCom.

lukeiamyourdad
09-27-2005, 09:01 PM
For the love of god use paragraphs man...please...

You guys all misunderstood sith.

Within the traditionnal RTS, you had to manage the economy at the same time as managing your battles.
For games like R:TW (and hopefully E@W), the economical management within the battle is replaced by a complex system of tactics and strategies. They divided both in two, leaving managing the economy on one side, managing battles on another.

This leaves a hole in terms of complexity. You no longer have the stress of keeping your economy healthy and fighting on the same map at the same time.
You're only left to manage one and the other seperately.

Managing the economy will be complex, for obvious reason. What concerns sith and I, it's the question of combat. With econ management out the window, there's nothing to fill the hole. Will complex tactics play a role? I surely hope so. If it doesn't and adopts the gameplay from traditionnal RTS, which doesn't involve flanking manoeuvers, ambush, etc. It will leave a humongous hole in the gameplay.

anton_138
09-27-2005, 10:01 PM
well, until the demo comes out or the devs release more gameplay info it's anyone's guess. i can be thick headed so it sometimes takes me a while to catch on, but i think i'm coming around. see if this is any closer...

if there's no resource management in battle, and limited abilities for tactics in battle, then battles will become routine and repetitive, much like Force Commander was. am i at least getting closer to the point? probably not.

i don't know what it will be like, but i can imagine it being like Rebellion in the sense that you build a fleet, stock it with troops and agents/heroes, and send it to attack/defend a planet... and from there you have the fleet sequences and/or ground assault, which could very easily be like Force Commander, except you have only what you brought with you, or what you have on the planet to defend with at the time... no producing troops during battle or any of that, but you can call down/in reinforcements during battle.

as far as tactics, i would like to see more ways of ambushing than hiding behind the fog-of-war, but at least even that offers some tactical potential. i don't think i've ever played an RTS where i couldn't figure out how to lure, flank, and ambush a target, but i haven't played too many RTS games to be honest so you could tell me i have no idea what i'm talking about and you'd probably be right.

i'm feeling really off-topic, though, since this thread is(was) about the DS ability to fire, but it's been confirmed that it CAN fire on capital ships, which i had expected, so what can i really say to that except... Yee-Haw!

still, i would like to know more about what can/will actually be done in combat and between batween battles, because as much as i want this to be like Rebellion, and it appears to be on the surface, it may in fact be nothing like it when it comes to gameplay and tactics.

Naja
09-27-2005, 11:47 PM
What concerns sith and I...

It's "Sith and me". You are the object in that sentence, therefore the subject is in the accusative. Ahh, National Socialism lives on in grammar... *lol*

if there's no resource management in battle, and limited abilities for tactics in battle, then battles will become routine and repetitive, much like Force Commander was

Understandable. If there's a static, "safe" Galaxy Map like the world map in R:TW, then battles will become one and the same over time. However, there's one key point to remember: the Galaxy Map is not going to stand still, or be turn based. It will be in real time. Meaning that the pressure is on to continually capitalize on your intelligence-gathering (be it bounty hunters, droids, or that innate Rebel ability), expand your resource base without becoming spread too thin, and react quickly to enemy action in your territories. This inevitably means that there will be battles that you are not prepared for; this, if anything, goes beyond what R:TW had to offer.

"Shifting," as you referred to it, but perhaps inverted: R:TW split macro strategy and combat, simplifying the former and complicating the latter. I believe that EaW does the exact opposite. While planning on the world map, you never had to break a sweat, and think "golly gee, if I don't hurry up and annex the Iberian provinces, the Carthaginians are going to start sending their fleets any minute." You still had to race for land, but the pressure was never on during each turn - you had the luxury of being able to timelessly, and meticulously, plan. You had a spy network to sort out the "fog of war," but you never had to worry about, for example, whether a Rebel territory was really hiding Senate legions in its town. You had generals and governors, but again, the generals' abilities manifested themselves in the complicated battle half, while all the governors' traits did was increase or decrease the rate of taxable income/trade/order/unrest. You never had family members that could sneak past the enemy, or that were particularly crafted to infiltrate super weapons. You could never obliterate whole regions of the world map and remove them from either side/s for the duration of the game.

We won't even know how simple or complicated EaW's battle interface will be until we play it. But even assuming that it is simple, I think that the real time element on the macro level will more than adjust for this compensatory complexity you so seek. With practically all your hard-won territory vulnerable to counter-attack, you're going to have to be meticulous and decisive on your feet. You might fight simple-interface battles, but based upon all your actions on the strategy side, you will always fight different styles of battle. Sometimes the weather will work in your favor, sometimes it won't. Sometimes you will have a massive numbers advantage, sometimes it will be dead even, sometimes you will be outnumbered with no hope of victory, and sometimes the purpose of the fight will simply be of a guerilla nature to go in with a small force, damage/destroy one particular ship or raze one particular planetary facility, and get the hell out. Add in the unique faction differences (Empire = brute force: many more planetary holdings, huge military, piss-poor intelligence, Rebs = stealth & guile: small planetary holdings and the ability to hide bases on Neutral worlds, elite forces that are all hyperdrive-equipped and designed specifically for hit-and-run, ubiquitous intelligence network), and you have *gasp!* an overwhelming series of choices to make, all manifesting into the potential myriad of different forms of battle that may or may not take place.

anton_138
09-28-2005, 12:08 AM
that last paragraph sounds pretty much like Rebellion, Naja... but that's obviously wishful thinking on my part.

Sithmaster_821
09-28-2005, 10:13 AM
Naja: Have any of those aspects been confirmed (aside from the Death Star part)? I was under the impression, from all the videos/interviews I saw that the game would play like R:TW in space. If this is true, I wonder how they'll manage simultaneous battles on different planets. The beauty of the TW games is that the turn-based element allows you to concentrate on one battle at a time, whether you are attacking or being atttacked. We'll have to wait and see.

Naja
09-28-2005, 03:52 PM
The realm time Galaxy Map has been confirmed. This will not be R:TW in space. As for multiple battles at once, this won't be an issue. "Time" will stand still on the macro level while you're in a battle on a planet or in its orbit. Think Rebellion, in this case.

Many different sorts of planetary advantages and disadvantages (depending on your faction) also figure into this, and have been confirmed. Some planets, for example, will resent your side and will give you a minimum of taxation (Alderaan to the Imperials). Other planets, like Tatooine (due to the Hutts), will instantly expose any stealth heroes that are on it. We have seen weather on pre-battle screens in some of the videos, but we don't know at this point how weather will affect ground battles. We're hoping that it will be decisive and actually influence the battles - sort of like how sandstorms could really **** you up in Emperor: Battle for Dune, except a more diverse range of weather affects. Liberating or annexing different planets can also bring you new heroes with a myriad of diverse advantages; in battle, for your economy, for espionage, etc. You can also discover new technologies if you choose to take a mission at some planet, and if you win, can circumvent an entire portion of the tech tree.

lukeiamyourdad
09-28-2005, 05:38 PM
It's "Sith and me". You are the object in that sentence, therefore the subject is in the accusative. Ahh, National Socialism lives on in grammar... *lol*

*Points to location :dozey:


You still haven't understood anything.

You keep talking about the choices and actions you'll do outside of the battle part itself.
We are focusing specifically on that part.

In R:TW, you had the possibility to win a battle using your head and certain advantages even when overwhelmed by greater numbers of equally powerful troops (careful here, if it's a 2 on 1 fight between two stormtroopers and a rebel trooper but the rebel is just as strong as 2 stormies, it isn't advantage of numbers anymore).
From that, we can understand that tactics and strategies play a very important part in the game. They are quite complex, turning it into the main focus.

In E@W, where are the tactics and strategies? As complex as R:TW? I think not, at least for now. This is a problem. During the battle portion, the one when you click on unit one and send it to kill an enemy. That part, you'll lose a great deal of complexity vs the traditional RTS.

anton_138
09-28-2005, 06:54 PM
well, LIAYD, IF EaW ended up with no more tactical strategy than Rebellion i'm sure you'd be disappointed... and i probably would be, too. in Rebellion your tactical abilites were extremely limited. you had some useful control over ship grouping and assignments in battle, but other than that it was just 2 groups in open space blasting each other. you COULD give some sort of enemy-component targeting, in the sense that you could, for example, tell a squad of X-Wings to attack a SD from above while a MonCal attacked it from below (hammer/anvil tactics). i'd expect more than that in EaW.

... and the only way to ambush your opponent was if you know where their fleet was heading and you could get there first and blockade the planet. the arriving enemy fleet could not avoid you, because fleets/units in hyperspace could not receive orders. i coujld see something like that making it into EaW.

FroZticles
09-28-2005, 06:56 PM
You do realize sith never said that he wanted economical complexity?

He merely mentions that without that layer of micromanagement, something has to compensate for it. R:TW, for example, compensates economy with a complex system of strategies and tactics on the Battlefield.

Haha you realise I said the same thing in another forum yet you never came to my rescue. Actually you were against me so I hope you not flip-flopping on us :)

lukeiamyourdad
09-28-2005, 10:25 PM
Haha you realise I said the same thing in another forum yet you never came to my rescue. Actually you were against me so I hope you not flip-flopping on us :)



That was before I was enlightened by R:TW and Ground Control :)

Naja
09-29-2005, 04:21 AM
You keep talking about the choices and actions you'll do outside of the battle part itself.
We are focusing specifically on that part.

In R:TW, you had the possibility to win a battle using your head and certain advantages even when overwhelmed by greater numbers of equally powerful troops (careful here, if it's a 2 on 1 fight between two stormtroopers and a rebel trooper but the rebel is just as strong as 2 stormies, it isn't advantage of numbers anymore).
From that, we can understand that tactics and strategies play a very important part in the game. They are quite complex, turning it into the main focus.

In E@W, where are the tactics and strategies? As complex as R:TW? I think not, at least for now. This is a problem. During the battle portion, the one when you click on unit one and send it to kill an enemy. That part, you'll lose a great deal of complexity vs the traditional RTS.


No, you lost track of what I was saying. I am talking outside the scope of complicated battle interfaces (or want of them) because I believe that EaW is the opposite of R:TW - Rome simplifies its economy/diplomacy/army movement interface and compensates by complicating its battles. Empire at War will simplify battles while complicating its strategic portion. And yes, I believe that a real time galaxy with over 40 different worlds, drastic faction differences, drastic planetary advantages and disadvantages, and the vulnerability of each of those planets to surprise attack, qualifies as complex.

I am struck with confusion at your continuing assumption that complexity equates quality in a game, or more specifically in a real time battle. Empire at War will not be a game where you flank your enemy, out-maneuver them with X while you march Y to the rescue. It's not a total slug-fest; battles will require skill, like anything else. But the stated purpose of battles is for them to be fun foremost, so that micromanaging your forces is just as equal an option as sitting on your ass and switching to the cinematic view. The main strategic element to use your mind on will not be individual battles, but the war itself on the grand scale. If something as well-known in the EaW community as these facts perturb you, then why are you posting in this forum in the first place, and not playing Rome: Total War? :)

lukeiamyourdad
09-29-2005, 09:13 AM
No, you lost track of what I was saying. I am talking outside the scope of complicated battle interfaces (or want of them) because I believe that EaW is the opposite of R:TW - Rome simplifies its economy/diplomacy/army movement interface and compensates by complicating its battles. Empire at War will simplify battles while complicating its strategic portion. And yes, I believe that a real time galaxy with over 40 different worlds, drastic faction differences, drastic planetary advantages and disadvantages, and the vulnerability of each of those planets to surprise attack, qualifies as complex.

That, you simply can't say because we haven't seen that much from the strategic portion. BUT, there is something bery important here. This game calls itself an RTS.

Also, remember that the galactic time pauses when in tactical mode.

From Gamespot preview:

GS: How do you balance the micromanagement involved in switching between land and space battles going on at the same time? Does the computer take over and handle the action for you while you're busy on the other screen? Or do you have any kind of warning system that will tell you that you need to switch to the other battle to make a decision?

JB: This problem is solved by pausing the galactic-level game while in the midst of tactical combat. For the most part, the space at a system must be controlled before a land invasion can begin, which means that space and land combat do not occur simultaneously. However, space and land do interact. Ion cannons can fire up at ships in a space battle, and bombing runs can be called in during land combat.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starwarsrts/preview_6128191.html

I am struck with confusion at your continuing assumption that complexity equates quality in a game, or more specifically in a real time battle.

There has to be something for a player to focus on, to have a challenge about, within the battle portion. I've played RTS where all you did was sit there and see the battles play out. Not very fun.


Empire at War will not be a game where you flank your enemy, out-maneuver them with X while you march Y to the rescue.

They are using the R:TW template afterall. But sure, if it isn't, it isn't.


It's not a total slug-fest; battles will require skill, like anything else. But the stated purpose of battles is for them to be fun foremost, so that micromanaging your forces is just as equal an option as sitting on your ass and switching to the cinematic view.

You do realise this is ridiculous right? A game can't require your brains and you to sit on your ass and elt it all play out at the exact same time. Normally, the one who sits on his ass is the one who loses and the one who micromanages is the one who wins.
And, unless you forgot, it's an RTS, so micromanaging your forces is a main element of the game. Or else it's a movie, not an RTS.

The main strategic element to use your mind on will not be individual battles, but the war itself on the grand scale. If something as well-known in the EaW community as these facts perturb you, then why are you posting in this forum in the first place, and not playing Rome: Total War? :)

RTS, not civ managing game. An RTS focuses on battle. Wake up. That's the biggest part of the game. That's the part that they've been showing us for some time now. Why? Because it's the biggest part of the game.
I can stand playing Civ3 with their ****ty battle system. Civ3 isn't an RTS. If any RTS had boring uninteresting battles, is it a good one?

You shouldn't question me on why I'm here. I've been among those who stood here for 3 years already and I'll be among the last to leave this place.

Also, I'd love a link on these "facts".

Jan Gaarni
09-29-2005, 09:38 AM
You can actually sit on your ass and watch the battle unfold. You're going to lose more units this way obviously, but if you have the bigger force, you will win. This has been stated by the Devs.

Against human counterparts however, is an entirly different thing. The one sitting on his ass most of the time, unless he has a greatly larger force, is going to lose the battles more often than win them. But that just goes without saying. ;)

Garbageben
09-29-2005, 01:23 PM
I hope that you can save replays of battles, even in a campaign, so you can watch them and use the cinematic camera. Just like making your own Star Wars movies. :D

Jan Gaarni
09-29-2005, 02:35 PM
Hmmm, that would be cool, but seeing you are able to activate the camera in the game itself during combat, I am somewhat doubtfull they have thought of putting this in after combat has been fought.

anton_138
09-29-2005, 02:58 PM
they could add a film room and record ability like they did with the XWA patch.

popcorn2008
09-29-2005, 05:49 PM
I would like a re-play that you can manipulate such as in C&C generals. You didnt have to watch the game by the perspective you recorded it in. You could move the camera and see all the angles you missed while playing. Now that would take some complex programming so I dont know if they would implement something like that. But it would be nice.

Admiral Sith
09-30-2005, 05:08 PM
I wonder if you'll be able to pause in single player combat.

popcorn2008
09-30-2005, 06:56 PM
I wonder if you'll be able to pause in single player combat.
I would say about every RTS allows pausing, save a few. I mean in single player you usually pause when you go to the menu. Im not real worried about pausing at the momment though lol, thats low on my priorities list.