Why don't you explain rather than complain and waste a thread?
Originally Posted by Jmaster3265
*sigh* never mind you people obviosuly don't get what i'm saying, theres a difference between graphics and details. I'm just saying afew things in SWGB has better detail (not graphics wise) then EaW. But nevermind, can someone delete this topic?
If you're talking about the fact that GB had more units and each side was more fleshed out then I still don't think that detail was really detail. As I said, "I would argue that detail is also less because the units are horribly portrayed in GB. Each side is the same except for a bonus or two and a happy little unique unit that for the most part makes little to no difference." Each unit had a mirror, almost exactly alike in Cost, HP, and ATK to the other. Strategies were almost exactly the same with every single side. This is a huge oversight in detail. Many of these units' capabilities had been known for years, but to make that unit fit the formula it had to be butchered.
GB had more units that weren't in the OT, PT, or EU (which had to fit their formula for a "balanced" side) than EAW has.
GB had naval units, massive naval units. Why in the heck are they needed other than to try to balance the gungans? Especially when a great deal of vehicles use repulsor lifts or have transports + escorts to fly over water. Only on one or two occasions will you find actually ships that sit in the water and those only happen in EU (well and PTM, but the Gungans are irrelevant...and I mean that in the nicest way...sorta).
GB had no space units other than fighters for the most part (I believe there were cheats to get a corellian corvette and an ISD, but it's been a while) which ment it lacked a HUGE and very integral detail from star wars.
GB was a star wars mutilating itself trying to fit into a medieval game. Instead of the other way around and because of that, vast amounts of detail were sheered off leaving the mess that we know of as GB.