View Single Post
Old 02-08-2006, 04:46 PM   #48
Athanasios
Forumite
 
Athanasios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Thessaloniki, Greece
Posts: 561
Yep, just check the Reality VS Gameplay poll i posted the other day...

To conclude this discussion and to preserve future lack-of-realism threads, i think i found the problem with EaW...

In many reviews, the devs say: "Empire at War is all about battles...". Well, what i see so far is that either the devs or the testers fell in the mistake that now EaW is only about battles, which makes the game freaking simplified.

As i said, the Galactic Map seems to stand only for moving forces here and there. I see this from the demo, and it's done in the final version.......only moving forces and battles, i don't like it, but it's the only game out there that has space and ground battles.

It could have more depth, more micromanagement if your want (micro...heh...), some diplomacy. It's dumbed down to only battles. And what i see, no offence taken, but against all those proposed features we get the same answer "tested and disspproved, due to confusing people"......i mean, because someone does play the game while others dont, this doesnt necesseraly means that he has the best opinion about the game, it's just another biased opinion afterall subtle to his taste.

As for the fleet of doom, in the MP will be true, as happens to all the other games. In single player campaigns, with few planets, it will still be true. In the 40 campaign probably not. Because we all talk on hypothesis, i'll just check this "tactic" (exploit is the right word) and confirm...

If the defender (generally the player losing) has no planetary defences and a good bunch of forces guarding it, he's doomed...
Athanasios is offline   you may: