lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Things that need to be fixed for this game your ideas
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 06-06-2006, 05:03 PM   #81
wedge2211
Commander, Rogue Squadron
 
wedge2211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,320
Maybe the thing to do would be to limit the rate at which units can be landed rather than the number. In my mind, reinforcement points can be rationalized away as necessary control points for supplying logistic support to all the units on the battlefield. However, perhaps that can be realized as a cooldown timer before additional transports can land. I can certainly imagine that in a combat situation, the more area one side controls, the more effectively they can bring in support. Of course, more than one unit would have to land initially for this to work.

Maybe land skirmish battles should be distanced from tactical battles as part of a Galactic Conquest game. In a GC, players might have a huge force arrayed in orbit only waiting to be deployed. But in a skirmish, reinforcement points serve a critical role of focussing combat around certain strategically important areas.


wedge2211 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-06-2006, 07:04 PM   #82
Naphtali
 
Naphtali's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 388
I think the best way to solve the landing part is to give the shuttles blasters, damage to vehicles and infantry will force you to keep a distance if to say 2 shots can knock out your at-st. that would be a good deterent


Naphtali is HARD
AS HELL
BATTLE ANYBODY I DONT CARE
WHO YOU TELL
Naphtali is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-06-2006, 09:02 PM   #83
Rust_Lord
Rookie
 
Rust_Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 171
I get what you are saying Xyvik about skirmish over GC. What your saying is true as there is almost no strategic element in 'skirmish', hence the name. Its too small scale. To get any sort of grand or strategic scale you would have to have ground battles conducted using an engine like the Total War series or something akin to that.

Wedge, not flaming you at all but when you say "land skirmish battles should be distanced from tactical battles as part of a Galactic Conquest game", land skirmish and GC are already totally different. You say "But in a skirmish, reinforcement points serve a critical role of focussing combat around certain strategically important areas." This is true they give you the opportunity to quickly reinforce your advance without having to march reinforcement all the way across the map while your front line guys hold on. The areas themselves are not otherwise important...see next paragraph for what I mean. As for cool down timers, this reminds me of Force Commander, which was an aspect of the game I utterly hated. If you look at combat drops whether it be infantry deployed by helicopters in 'Nam or clones on Geonosis they came in, dropped took off and were followed up in quick succession by other transports waiting for room. Hell, I rememebr seeing one transport drop a AT-TE and hardly even stop. Cool down timers are not the answer. Drops take too long as it is in my opinion.

What ur saying does make sense Luke... I understand what you mean. There are critical points in the game, and I am not talking about reinforce points. What about Satellite arrays that give you full map view. They are probably the most important in the game, especially if you have bombing runs. The Naboo map always results in a mad dash to get this area and hold it. The fact that it is elevated and in the centre of the map is a great place for some arty too.

I agree that we cant delploy unlimited forces at once. Lag is always going to be the limiting factor because you will always be able to deploy enough forces to cause lag before you run out of room. Luke... your right about deploying your force and then move then out of the way for the more. I was going to raise this point but thought my post was getting long winded. There is nothing wrong with doing this, you can deploy and form up elsewhere. Not every landing zone is going to be big enough for your force so its something you have to manage...but at least you can bring on your entire force. You are not going to be able to rush the enemies base because it will take time to bring down all your units and get them in order, plus it will take time for them to get to the base. Alternatively if the enemy decides to rush a landing force, that force is getting larger as time goes by and it might not in the best interest to attack immediately. This gives you the opportunity to use tactics.

Giving shuttles and transports blasters could work but why bother? Most transports werent even armed. Are you going to allow them to be shot down by AAA to even things out? If your landing forces in an unsecured landing zone you should expect to get cut to pieces. You might not necessarily get wiped out but you should not be able to deploy in such a situation unscathed.

Now the hard part; what limit do you put on the number of units you can have at once? In Skirmish the max units you can have is 9. Since you get a number of units in each company this is not actually a bad figure and manageable. In GC the maximum planetary garrison you can have is 10. Why not have a maximum force size of 10 units and anymore than this are your reserves. The planetary garrison also have unlimited reserves from any building they have so this has to be taken into account. This gives the defender a slight edge even when facing a force of equal size. This is more than fair because in reality who ever rules space would have a tremendous advantage. This idea is subject to change when we see how effective orbital bombardment is in FoC. That could completely change ground combat, but only in GC.


Yeah...edited something out...that's what I don't want...even as a joke...I'm not religious by the way so I'm in no way offended by anything, just trying to avoid any possible conflicts. -LIAYD

Last edited by lukeiamyourdad; 06-07-2006 at 02:07 AM.
Rust_Lord is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-08-2006, 07:09 PM   #84
lonepadawan
 
lonepadawan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 363
This is probably rather OT.. but at the mo are the Underworld chappies seeming more rebely than the rebels? Stealing vehicles, guerilla warfare etc, existing in small numbers on enemy planets...


"Your life does flash before your eyes before you die..... the process is called LIVING"
lonepadawan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2006, 07:46 AM   #85
The Death Star
Rookie
 
The Death Star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 64
Sorry to bring up an old topic, but I thought of something. Whenever a Death Star or SSD is in orbit around a planet, actually show it, In 3D orbiting the Planet. It would look cool.
The Death Star is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Empire At War > EaW General Discussion > Forces of Corruption > Things that need to be fixed for this game your ideas

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:47 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.