lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: was there even an answer?
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Sorry, this thread is closed. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 02-08-2006, 01:01 AM   #41
Slocket
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 309
Interesting indeed...but does it work? I never notice anything in the game demo -as if it is disabled/ignored by the game EXE.

I think they were to have a maintenence cost, then it was disabled for the time being?
Slocket is offline   you may:
Old 02-08-2006, 07:36 AM   #42
Orao
Junior Member
 
Orao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 266
No tehy said that they experimented with the maintaince cost ant persistant dammage but that they abandoned idea since it ws too "confusing". For whom ? I have no idea.

Anyway if you want it to work the exe should be recompiled.



EaW: Total Realism
mod....
TR mod team status: TR Advisor, programmer, map maker, Multimedia developer

Last edited by Orao; 02-08-2006 at 08:50 AM.
Orao is offline   you may:
Old 02-08-2006, 08:45 AM   #43
Athanasios
Forumite
 
Athanasios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Thessaloniki, Greece
Posts: 561
...and recompiling an .exe file stands for hacking the game, since this is what is done in most "no-cd" cracks...

If something is not included in the game code, then it's quite difficult to implement it. You must link many libraries,xmls and meg files to make it work. On the contrary, if it is included in the game code but it's just disabled, it's a matter of seconds to enable it again.
Athanasios is offline   you may:
Old 02-08-2006, 08:51 AM   #44
Orao
Junior Member
 
Orao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 266
Yes I know. But with mod tools may be we will be able to add maintance cost/repair time ect.



EaW: Total Realism
mod....
TR mod team status: TR Advisor, programmer, map maker, Multimedia developer
Orao is offline   you may:
Old 02-08-2006, 01:19 PM   #45
Rebelknight
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 44
I wander how you can't come out with a persistant damage system that dosn't confuss people and isn't too hard to understand. There where alot of ideas thrown in that seemed easy enough for a 2 yearold to understand. Makes me wander who they tested this on...
Rebelknight is offline   you may:
Old 02-08-2006, 02:24 PM   #46
arkodeon
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orao
If it's all you wanted then I can may be send you my copies of Imperium Galactica 1 and 2. It's the concept which was implemented back in 1995.

Just for note. As I said in my PS I'll buy this game despite reparing system not being implemented.

@Akodeon

From star wars wikipedia


So making repairs on 1 mile long hull during battle is something doable in your eyes ?
Remember, this is the STAR WARS universe. They built the Death Star 2, which is (either 160 KM in DIAMETER, or 900 KM in Diameter, whichever measurement still proves the point) in 4 Years after the destruction of the first one. I do not see why they cannot repair damaged Star Destroyers within one day. Notice I said "Repair," not "Build." Repairing would be just a matter of replacing new parts with old. Also, the damage that the Star Destroyers sustain are unbelieveable, visual representations to convey destruction. If one Turbolaser battery were to be destroyed, it isn't as though the whole left side would buckle and break off.

That said, if the fleet that was sent in moderately damaged your defenses, but you defeated them, then it can stand to reason that they won't be coming back any time soon.

And I don't get why you said 'during battle.' Repair takes place after, not during.
arkodeon is offline   you may:
Old 02-08-2006, 03:24 PM   #47
Orao
Junior Member
 
Orao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 266
Of course they will be able to do it assuming that they have all spare parts and armor plates which is unlikely.

I love science-fiction but sometimes at least IMO we need just a litle bit of reallity there.



EaW: Total Realism
mod....
TR mod team status: TR Advisor, programmer, map maker, Multimedia developer
Orao is offline   you may:
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:
Old 02-08-2006, 04:48 PM   #49
arkodeon
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orao
Of course they will be able to do it assuming that they have all spare parts and armor plates which is unlikely.

I love science-fiction but sometimes at least IMO we need just a litle bit of reallity there.
We are talking about planets which PRODUCE Starships. There isn't a way to build ships without 'parts.' While that poses a little problem with the Imperial Star Destroyer, as it is only built on four planets, it is safe to assume that they use generic Turbo lasers, etc.

And remember, ALL planets are capable of produce starships.

EDIT: And this picture makes me curious.

http://outpost.cnc-hq.de/TRIALS/DonB....2.06/pic3.jpg

See the damaged Mon Calamari cruiser inside that wireframe thing? It's either being built, or I don't know what. Kinda makes you wonder.
arkodeon is offline   you may:
Old 02-08-2006, 04:54 PM   #50
Athanasios
Forumite
 
Athanasios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Thessaloniki, Greece
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkodeon
And remember, ALL planets are capable of produce starships.
Ships are in cinjuction with the tech level of the space station; tech 1 station, fighters, tech 4, big fighters.

From this aspect, you must pay 3-4000 bucks for a high-tech station and to "logically" get your missing parts in your ship.
Athanasios is offline   you may:
Old 02-09-2006, 07:54 AM   #51
jedi3112
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 500
I can see somebody sending 6 ISDs (total of 6 bomber and 12 fighter squads I believe) to a battle. After deploying the fighters and bombers the fighters go after the rebel fighters and bombers and the bombers take out as many ships as possible, MC cruisers first. The 12 fighter squads can spell certain doom for even A-wings. After a while the Empire retreats.

End results:
Rebel losses:
3 squads of A-wings to the fighters
1 squad of Y-wings to the fighters
2 MC cruisers to the bombers

Imperial losses
12 squads of fighters, to the fighters, bombers and corvette (but they're free)
6 squads of bombers (but they're free), to the fighters and corvette
No ISDs are lost, effectively the Empire has no losses after instant repair, now if the rebels also have recently lost the last of their capital ship building planets, those 2 MC cruisers can't be replaced.

Rebels don't have interdictor ships, so they can do nothing to stop this. Come to think of it, can you allow your enemy to retreat when you have interdictor ships? Can you forcefire (red alert uses control for this) on your own gravitywell? Can you still retreat when you have interdictor cruiser with your fleet? Do they still work when they're not on the field, but in the reinforcements list (as in you took them with you, but they haven't deployed in the first row)?

There are times when you want the enemy to escape, for example when defending a valuable system and the fleets are evenly matched. If they can't escape they might just win, so I'd rather let them escape if that means keeping the system.
jedi3112 is offline   you may:
Old 02-09-2006, 05:18 PM   #52
arkodeon
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedi3112
I can see somebody sending 6 ISDs (total of 6 bomber and 12 fighter squads I believe) to a battle. After deploying the fighters and bombers the fighters go after the rebel fighters and bombers and the bombers take out as many ships as possible, MC cruisers first. The 12 fighter squads can spell certain doom for even A-wings. After a while the Empire retreats.

End results:
Rebel losses:
3 squads of A-wings to the fighters
1 squad of Y-wings to the fighters
2 MC cruisers to the bombers

Imperial losses
12 squads of fighters, to the fighters, bombers and corvette (but they're free)
6 squads of bombers (but they're free), to the fighters and corvette
No ISDs are lost, effectively the Empire has no losses after instant repair, now if the rebels also have recently lost the last of their capital ship building planets, those 2 MC cruisers can't be replaced.

Rebels don't have interdictor ships, so they can do nothing to stop this. Come to think of it, can you allow your enemy to retreat when you have interdictor ships? Can you forcefire (red alert uses control for this) on your own gravitywell? Can you still retreat when you have interdictor cruiser with your fleet? Do they still work when they're not on the field, but in the reinforcements list (as in you took them with you, but they haven't deployed in the first row)?

There are times when you want the enemy to escape, for example when defending a valuable system and the fleets are evenly matched. If they can't escape they might just win, so I'd rather let them escape if that means keeping the system.
Bombers are not as effective against the Mon Cal as they are to the Star Destroyers.

Why?

No Shield generator hardpoints. Sure, they still hit the insides, but that means no other ship can until the shields are down. Granted, Six Star Destroyers against Two Mon Cals is obviously in favour for the Empire, but I'm just sayin'.

But still, Bombers are your best friends against Capital ships. <3
arkodeon is offline   you may:
Old 02-09-2006, 05:26 PM   #53
Foshjedi2004
Junior Member
 
Foshjedi2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Buckinghamshire, England
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkodeon
Bombers are not as effective against the Mon Cal as they are to the Star Destroyers.

Why?

No Shield generators. Sure, they still hit the insides, but that means no other ship can until the shields are down. Granted, Six Star Destroyers against Two Mon Cals is obviously in favour for the Empire, but I'm just sayin'.

But still, Bombers are your best friends against Capital ships. <3
The Gravity Well Ability has a problem. It isn't an ability that is automatically turned on. You have to press a button and then the Ship is stationary while the Grav Wells are active. Its a risky strategy unless you have a massive Fleet in Reserve.



My Personal Opinions are not Endorsed by Any Websites, persons or places.
Check out my Gallery
[/color]
Foshjedi2004 is offline   you may:
Old 02-09-2006, 05:50 PM   #54
Orao
Junior Member
 
Orao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 266
Interdictor cruiser has the jamming ability as its primary force. She's the support ship which will prevent torpedos and missiles from hitting yours ISD and VSD.



EaW: Total Realism
mod....
TR mod team status: TR Advisor, programmer, map maker, Multimedia developer
Orao is offline   you may:
Old 02-09-2006, 06:08 PM   #55
Ryebread
Rookie
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 36
A single correlian corvette would destroy most of those 6 tie bomber squardons before they could get in range of the Mon Cals. And I will target the engines on one or two of the ISDs first thing with my Y-Wings. If the Empire suddenly decides to retreat then the ISDs are lost. I don't see what people are whining about.
Ryebread is offline   you may:
Old 02-09-2006, 06:21 PM   #56
wedge2211
Commander, Rogue Squadron
 
wedge2211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,320
This thread illustrates a great point: there are a zillion strategies and counterstrategies to explore. One relatively minor thing like "instant" repair won't throw that off. A clever human player could really use the existing system to their advantage...be they attacking or defending.


wedge2211 is offline   you may:
Old 02-09-2006, 06:44 PM   #57
Athanasios
Forumite
 
Athanasios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Thessaloniki, Greece
Posts: 561
There are no "zillion" strategies and counterstrategies, don't exagerrate. Not even in real wars.

And of course a clever human player will exploit the existing system to his advantage, that's one reason of the whole fuss, the "doom fleet" as some people named it.

EaW looks like "attack, defend, move forces around", no more, no less.

Freaking simplified for me, as i said. Yet another good game in the market.
Athanasios is offline   you may:
Old 02-09-2006, 06:54 PM   #58
gswift
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lenexa, Kansas (suburb of Kansas City)
Posts: 264
Say 'ello to my li'll friend

I will wait to play the game before deciding how much I like it's features, however I can think of one good way to counter monster fleets. I'd love to see a large fleet come out of hyperspace over a system with moderate defenses and a planetary gun. If may quote Al Pacino from Scarface; "Say 'ello to my li'll friend". If you want to put your whole space force into one fleet, and jump from one of my planets to the next, be my guest. You're guaranteed to find a surprise on one of them, and I'll be looking down on you from the top of the multiplayer ladder. (or at least from someplace in the middle)


Gary Swift (aka gswift)
Lenexa, Kansas USA

You can try to monkey-proof your program, but you'll never monkey-proof the monkey.
gswift is offline   you may:
Old 02-09-2006, 08:00 PM   #59
Orao
Junior Member
 
Orao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 266
Quote:
A single correlian corvette would destroy most of those 6 tie bomber squardons before they could get in range of the Mon Cals. And I will target the engines on one or two of the ISDs first thing with my Y-Wings. If the Empire suddenly decides to retreat then the ISDs are lost. I don't see what people are whining about.
You got the point if you force the large fleet to retreat. However with instant repairs you will not be able to incapacitate the large fleet by just dammaging some hardpoints of bigger capital ships. Either you will have to destroy completly the ship in raids (which will force you to use larger forces) either you will not launch such kind of attack at all.



EaW: Total Realism
mod....
TR mod team status: TR Advisor, programmer, map maker, Multimedia developer
Orao is offline   you may:
Old 02-10-2006, 02:10 AM   #60
wedge2211
Commander, Rogue Squadron
 
wedge2211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athanasios
There are no "zillion" strategies and counterstrategies, don't exagerrate. Not even in real wars.
Yes there are...sure, many of them are variations on similar ideas, but there are countless possibilities.

Quote:
And of course a clever human player will exploit the existing system to his advantage, that's one reason of the whole fuss, the "doom fleet" as some people named it.
Not every successful tactic is necessarily a problem with the game engine or "cheating." If it's really a bug in the code, sure, it needs to be fixed, but if you keep getting beaten the same way over and over again, you just need to figure out a way to counterattack. The whole idea of any war game is to exploit the opponent's weaknesses!

Quote:
EaW looks like "attack, defend, move forces around", no more, no less.
Yeah...but so does StarCraft, C&C, chess, any other strategy game. "Move forces around" encapsulates a great deal of strategy, no matter how simple. The Japanese game Go has three rules and is one of the most complex strategy games in the world.

Orao: Oh, just wait for the full game, watch the community, and see if it is a problem. I highly doubt that you'll be able to escape every single engagement with only damaged hardpoints--some of your ships are going to be destroyed. That's the inherent balance for the "fleet of doom:" the ships in this game get blown up really easily compared with other RTS games. Instead of your ship taking persistent damage in the form of hardpoints, your fleet takes persistent damage in the form of lost ships. The amount of time and resources required in-game to build up a fleet large enough to be truly invulnerable would probably leave your non-production planets vulnerable to smaller-scale enemy attacks, anyways, making for a losing strategy before the "fleet of doom" actually becomes a factor. It's gone gold already....wait and see.


wedge2211 is offline   you may:
Old 02-10-2006, 02:50 AM   #61
gswift
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lenexa, Kansas (suburb of Kansas City)
Posts: 264
fleet of doom

In my last post I offered planetary guns as a counter to the fleet of doom. I'd like to offer another:

You can selectively destroy hard-points on capitol ships so that they are harmless (destroy all the guns, but let the engines and/or shields contiune to function ), but leave the ships alive to prevent reinforcement. Just destroy one ship at a time. You could destroy each new ship as it joins the battle.

Besides, while your monster fleet is taking one system at a time, my balanced fleets will be taking several.

As I said before; Please try that tactic on me. Anyone with skill will spank you ( that may exclude me ). You may beat the AI that way, maybe not, but as long as we're both playing by the same rules, I dare you to try such a simple-minded tactic on me. :-)


Gary Swift (aka gswift)
Lenexa, Kansas USA

You can try to monkey-proof your program, but you'll never monkey-proof the monkey.

Last edited by gswift; 02-10-2006 at 03:07 AM.
gswift is offline   you may:
Old 02-10-2006, 04:32 AM   #62
Orao
Junior Member
 
Orao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 266
Nope you won't because of the cap system which favors the attacking player and because teh real time glaxy map which will favor the fastest plater to click on the map with the less lagg. Once the battle starts the galaxy map goes in pause mode not letting you time to react.

One of good advantages of the galaxy map on turn based system is the time you have to think about your next move.

Allied landing in Normandy against germans was prepared for years.

But that's another story.....



EaW: Total Realism
mod....
TR mod team status: TR Advisor, programmer, map maker, Multimedia developer
Orao is offline   you may:
Old 02-10-2006, 03:27 PM   #63
wedge2211
Commander, Rogue Squadron
 
wedge2211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orao
teh real time glaxy map which will favor the fastest plater to click on the map with the less lagg.
I don't think the galactic map really contains such computationally intensive material that it would lag significantly. Besides, with build times significantly slower than in the demo, it doesn't really matter how fast you click the ISD button--they'll still be built at the same rate as if you checked back on the production planet every five minutes before ordering up the fifth Destroyer in the queue.

Quote:
Once the battle starts the galaxy map goes in pause mode not letting you time to react.
Therefore: an effective counter to your one big fleet of doom would be to launch a large number of small-scale attacks on a continual basis. While you're trying to build up a giant fleet on some planet or other, the galactic map would be pausing every thirty seconds for a mid-sized raid fleet that could swipe a poorly defended planet out from under you. While your "fleet of doom" methodically and slowly pulverizes enemy defenses one planet at a time, many of your planets will fall. Your strategy will fail for exactly the same reason why the Germans couldn't defend Normandy on D-Day: you will be single-mindedly focussed elsewhere while your enemy attacks you unexpectedly.


wedge2211 is offline   you may:
Old 02-10-2006, 05:21 PM   #64
Athanasios
Forumite
 
Athanasios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Thessaloniki, Greece
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge2211
Your strategy will fail for exactly the same reason why the Germans couldn't defend Normandy on D-Day: you will be single-mindedly focussed elsewhere while your enemy attacks you unexpectedly.
First, Germans did know the attack on Normandy, but Hitler didn't gave Romwell the required defences he asked for. Read the extensive history facts on this.

Secondly, don't mess up real war events with a game, when we can't. The raid fleets won't wipe your planets out of your control, unless you have only troops guarding it and you sitting around when the invasion takes place and not running to build up defences and such.

Whereas in real war surprisement does happen, a "smart" AI system has some limits on how it will move around. Also, the surprise attack can be prevended when you setup satellites in orbit. And ofcourse, the creation of the "doom fleet" doesn't necessarly mean that you build the ships in one corner of the galaxy, while you control a bunch of planets on the other corner; you may advance in control of planets methodically, creating a strong core system and jumping to the nearby ones.

The doom fleet has as major role to wipe out big, scattered forces of the enemy, due to its overwelming power. The cost or rebuilt will be prohibiting of the defender, as soon as invasions to the unprotected planets start happening. Having only a single small squad of bombers or Z-95 in every enemy planet's orbit, you'll get notified about new space stations constructions. Also, if a raid fleet is organised somewhere, it will be matter of second for that patrol squad to take it out (defender cannot move ground forces in orbit without initiating a space battle, unless he completely evacuates the planet). So, the doom fleet will be just sitting somewhere, waiting for any "big" fleet to attack - but with all tech 1 stations going down, there never will be such one.

And of course, when this fleet will be jumping from system to system wreacking hacov, with no bombers to stop it from his run (instant repairs), the outcome is obvious, unless the defender has 10 hands to organise adequate defence to all the top-rated systems.

As i said, the doom fleet tactic has to be tested asap the game is out, both in signle and MP gaming.
Athanasios is offline   you may:
Old 02-11-2006, 05:38 AM   #65
Orao
Junior Member
 
Orao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 266
I'm 500 % with you on this one Athanasios.



EaW: Total Realism
mod....
TR mod team status: TR Advisor, programmer, map maker, Multimedia developer
Orao is offline   you may:
Old 02-11-2006, 12:02 PM   #66
wedge2211
Commander, Rogue Squadron
 
wedge2211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athanasios
First, Germans did know the attack on Normandy, but Hitler didn't gave Romwell the required defences he asked for. Read the extensive history facts on this.
I've read primary sources. You're right, but you're distorting events. The Germans defended Normandy with units that were underequipped and of an average age much higher than the rest of the German Army. Furthermore, the Allies had bombed out many of the supply lines to Normandy--and they actually did so in such a pattern that they didn't give away the precise target of the D-Day invasion. To top it all off, the Allied Expeditionary Force ran a highly successful disinformation campaign against the German Army, including constructing a fictitious invasion army in England. The timing of the assault was a closely guarded secret. The Nazi leadership suspected an incoming attack, but they did not realize the magnitude of the impending invasion and they did not know when the assault was to occur. The net result was that because the Nazi leadership had its attention elsewhere, they didn't give credence to the available intelligence, didn't believe a successful Normandy invasion was possible, and left their forces concentrated on the Eastern Front. While they built up their forces in one region, they left another open for invasion. That was my point, that citing the D-Day invasion was actually an argument against this "fleet of doom."

Quote:
Whereas in real war surprisement does happen, a "smart" AI system has some limits on how it will move around. Also, the surprise attack can be prevended when you setup satellites in orbit. And ofcourse, the creation of the "doom fleet" doesn't necessarly mean that you build the ships in one corner of the galaxy, while you control a bunch of planets on the other corner; you may advance in control of planets methodically, creating a strong core system and jumping to the nearby ones.
I don't know what you're getting at about 'a "smart" AI system has some limits on how it will move around,' after all, those same limits will be experienced by a human player. However, that tactics you are describing now are not the "big fleet of doom." That describes building up a single large fleet that hops from planet to planet, methodically taking out defenses. One huge flet would take a long time to build up and would concentrate your forces far too closely in one (or a few) systems. The enemy could take your outlying planets with small forces, decreasing your income base and hindering your ability to build the "doome fleet."

You are now describing building up one or two core fleets, but investing in planetary defenses (troops and garrisons) and intelligence gathering (satellites) rather than just concentrating on fleet-building; and spreading your forces to effectively counter small-scale enemy attacks and take targets of opportunity. Those are exactly the tactics that I've been arguing would destroy a player using the "doom fleet" approach. While they are trying to build up a single massive fleet so powerful that it will be impervious to attack, your regional patrol and garrison fleets can harass or even capture the planets making up the enemy income base while your medium-to-large core fleets can be brought in to attack hardened targets when necessary.

At this point, as I see it, your complaint about "doom fleet" tactics reduces to complaining that if one player has more systems, more garrisons, and bigger fleets than their opponent, they are likely to win if they attack methodically and keep their assets guarded. To that, I say: well, duh! The real game is getting to that point, not what happens afterward. In a real SP or MP match, I doubt you could get to the point where you have a single massive "doom fleet" unless the game was in its late stages anyways.


wedge2211 is offline   you may:
Old 02-11-2006, 02:03 PM   #67
Rebelknight
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 44
I ll be sure to tell me uncle who was at omaha that. I am sure he will like that view of your history. Me teaching History and holding a masters in the subject can only say this. Your both right and both wrong. Some units were old men and russians, while others were vets of the russian war sent to man the beaches because they knew the invasion was coming, just not where it coming.
Rebelknight is offline   you may:
Old 02-11-2006, 04:06 PM   #68
quickymart
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 44
i dont think this is supposed to be a debate on normandy and what not but in short germans did not know where the allied forces were going to land. They had two options 1. normandy and 2 calais(i think thats the spelling) Thats all im going to say on that...

After playing the demo numerous times i still have no idea what my stategy is going to be! there are many things you can do...go after the engines first, take out the ion cannons, or take out incoming fighters...there will be a lot of testing for everyone to figure out what they like to do...yes? no?
quickymart is offline   you may:
Old 02-11-2006, 05:46 PM   #69
Athanasios
Forumite
 
Athanasios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Thessaloniki, Greece
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge2211
The net result was that because the Nazi leadership had its attention elsewhere, they didn't give credence to the available intelligence, didn't believe a successful Normandy invasion was possible, and left their forces concentrated on the Eastern Front.
To end the Normandy issue, the quoted phrase resemblances what i said about Romwell, in other words. Besides, Germans should be focusing on East Front, since those Tigers needed some petrol to move around .

Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge2211
I don't know what you're getting at about 'a "smart" AI system has some limits on how it will move around,' after all, those same limits will be experienced by a human player.
The point of the "smart" word is that AI is subtle to specific script-generated code, whereas a human's imagination has way greater limits, right? That's why there's the MP afterall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge2211
At this point, as I see it, your complaint about "doom fleet" tactics reduces to complaining that if one player has more systems, more garrisons, and bigger fleets than their opponent, they are likely to win if they attack methodically and keep their assets guarded. To that, I say: well, duh! The real game is getting to that point, not what happens afterward. In a real SP or MP match, I doubt you could get to the point where you have a single massive "doom fleet" unless the game was in its late stages anyways.
Hmm, maybe i missed something here, but one argument was that "when the attacker has the upper hand and does build the doom fleet, then the defender it's a matter of few galactic days to lose...". Instant repairs can not only give the defender some breath to get organised, but also change the odds as well. At least with much maestry on the last one. Hitting for example some SDs and the nearest tech 4 station is 3 systems away, well, some events can happen in the meanwhile, since the doom fleet wil be getting less and less powerfull.

Besides, how could you build the doom fleet without big budget aside?
Athanasios is offline   you may:
Old 02-12-2006, 02:19 AM   #70
Rebelknight
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 44
Admin, I started this thread, but can you pleae lock it? its gotten way off base.

Thanks, Rebel
Rebelknight is offline   you may:
Old 02-12-2006, 09:03 AM   #71
Jeff
Rating: Awesome
 
Jeff's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 8,434
Current Game: SWTOR
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Notable contributor LFN Staff Member 
Closed.


Follow me on Twitter
Follow StarWarsMMO.net on Twitter | Like us on Facebook
Jeff is offline   you may:
Post a new thread. Sorry, this thread is closed. 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 > Galactic Discussion > was there even an answer?

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 Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:35 PM.

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