The feel of the game...

*Vagabond* · 01-25-2005, 05:35 AM

Okay, I'm still trying to get a feel for what type of game this is. I understand that it's a real-time strategy game (which I'm not fond of - I prefer turn based, fyi), but what type of game does The Empire at War most resemble?

Some of the screen shots remind me of Homeworld.

The fact that it has 20 or so planets reminds me of the great galactic conquest games, such as Master of Orion.

The fact that there are two sides that can be used during multiplay, and that it is in real-time, reminds me of the controversial Star Wars Rebellion.

It almost sounds like it's going to be similar to Star Wars Rebellion except with graphics like Homeworld, a slightly more enhanced multiplayer capability, and from the looks of it, the inclusion of fully rendered ground combat.

In terms of already existing games that can be compared to, what does everyone else think?

**Jan Gaarni** · 01-25-2005, 05:40 AM

I get the same feeling as you do, Vagabond.

Except it's less planets than Rebellion.

I'd love to have a much deeper game than Rebellion, like this one sounds like ... except more planets.

Did I mention there's not enough planets?

*hint hint to the once who are lurking the boards*

**swphreak** · 01-25-2005, 05:55 AM

And the way the Space Battle is described. It will be like Star Trek Armada, but Space is apparently flat...

**Jan Gaarni** · 01-25-2005, 05:57 AM

Or Imperium Galactica.

*Vagabond* · 01-25-2005, 06:14 AM

Imperium Galactica was an odd little game. The space combat almost felt irrelevant as I didn't feel as though I really had any control over what happened. I just had to have a bunch of STUFF, and then I would eventually win. Tactics seemed to have no effect.

Hopefully this game will be not be the same. What I'm worried about, which is the thing that concerns me with all RTS games, is how will one manage a fleet of any significant size during combat? What sucks about RTS combat, in my opinion, is that instead of being able to sit back and enjoy the fruits of your strategic labor, you have to frantically click everywhere trying in vain at times to herd your minions to act in accordance with your wishes. Turned-based strategy games, conversely, allow the players to give precise orders to every unit, and then leisurely observe the results as the round plays out.

LucasArts, if you really are reading these board, please consider an option to play the combat in a turn-based mode. Or at least have all the ships grouped into manageable fleets that behave as a single unit, which would reduce the frantic pace of RTS games.

Back to the topic though, if the space combat is 2-D, then that is one way in which the game will not be like Homeworld, and more like Imperium Galactica and the spectacular flop, Master of Orion 3. I'm curious as to how the space combat will be made fun, and not fall into the same trap that those mentioned here were unable to avoid?

Also on topic, does anyone know whether there will be research and development like other 4X games? Assuming EaW is sort of like a 4X game (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate).

**Jan Gaarni** · 01-25-2005, 08:45 AM

I was thinking more about number 2.

Number 1 I didn't like at all really, the space combat. I did like that I had such a huuuuge array of different shiphulls to choose from and I could customize them alot for different roles. The space combat was very simplistic though ..... 2D kinda thing.

*Vagabond* · 01-25-2005, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jan Gaarni
I was thinking more about number 2.

Number 1 I didn't like at all really, the space combat. I did like that I had such a huuuuge array of different shiphulls to choose from and I could customize them alot for different roles. The space combat was very simplistic though ..... 2D kinda thing.

Are you talking about Master of Orion 1 and 2? Just curious

**Jan Gaarni** · 01-25-2005, 01:19 PM

No, Imperium Galactica 2.

**swphreak** · 01-25-2005, 06:44 PM

I actually enjoy Master of Orion 3, but MOO2 had a bit better fleet battle. It was like chess. MOO3, you just build a bigger fleet with bigger guns and watch the show...

I wish they'd make MOO4 and do it right

Also, I think I may have played a demo for ImpGal. I don't think I liked it....

pssst Vaga... check your PM

*Sithxace* · 01-28-2005, 02:37 PM

its the same thing as rebellion, except the ground battles and space battles are like seperate games added to it. Yea the planets arnt enough, but hey they said they wont be done til fall, so they have plenty of time to change their mind and add a little more.

*Vagabond* · 01-31-2005, 05:06 AM

Speaking of Rebellion, the ships in the lower-right of this image look a lot like miniature Dauntless heavy cruisers, from Rebellion. What do you think?

**Jan Gaarni** · 01-31-2005, 05:15 AM

That's because it is, if I'm not totally brain dead yet.

Heavyarms · 01-31-2005, 05:16 AM

oh, vagabond, they released a piece of info on a SS in gamespy saying that squads of TIE fighters will be one unit. In the SS it looks like six fighters. That should help slow down the necessity to control massive amounts of men, and help make spectacular battles too. It will probably be the same for infantry, I imagine.

*Vagabond* · 01-31-2005, 05:48 AM

Jan Gaarni, that's interesting in one respect, that the continuity of Rebellion will be maintained - sort of. Confusing, because the Dauntless heavy cruiser was sort of the rebellion's answer to the imperial's Super Star Destroyer. It certainly looks like its stature has been greatly diminished.

Heavyarms, having units grouped into squads will certainly help the management of the game. Also, if there truly is no resource gathering, then I will greatly welcome that feature of the game

Anything that reduces unnecessary, boring, busy-work, thereby increasing "fun", is good by me.

Heavyarms · 02-01-2005, 05:50 AM

If you look at some of the SS's, always you see fighters grouped in either like four(x-wings), three(TIE bombers, TIE Scouts, Y-Wings), or seven(TIE fighters). Probably going to be something similar for infantry as well. Vehicles might have batallions, but we'll just have to wait on that, won't we?

*Vagabond* · 02-01-2005, 06:22 AM

I wonder if as the "group" gets injured, sub-units will disappear, reducing its effectivness?

Heavyarms · 02-01-2005, 07:06 AM

I'd like it to be a system in which you have units commanded by just clicking on one, but each one has its own HP, weapons, etc. This way, you get the customization as if you made each unit, but you have the ability to command them all together or split em up in a dogfight if you need to, because you don't want to pull a whole squad to do something in a firefight if all you need is one fighter for it, possibly exposing a weakness in your ranks.

Darth Windu · 02-01-2005, 05:55 PM

Heavy - yes, because if you wanted to exploit an enemy weakness in a big fleet battle you would send one weak fighter...

Shok_Tinoktin · 02-01-2005, 06:16 PM

I think if he means if you need to take out a weak force, say a scout for example, but dont want to leave your base less fortified. Then you might want to send one unit.

Heavyarms · 02-02-2005, 04:01 AM

nope. What I mean is if you have say a small squad of bombers (3) approaching from hyperspace, and you have one full squad of tie fighters and one full unit of tie interceptors. The T/Fs are currently fighting off a full unit of X-wings- death will come easy to them unless some of the T/Is help. Keeping their fighters busy, you rush three T/I's to dispatch the bombers while leaving the others to assist the T/Fs. Because if you let one of these walls collapse, basically you are inviting the enemy to give you a whole lot of pain, brotha!