Jump to content


Admiral Vostok

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location
    In a galaxy far, far away....
  • Interests
    Star Wars
  • Occupation
    Star Wars Purist and Scholar

Contact Information

  • Homepage

Admiral Vostok's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. You seem to miss my point, Viceroy. I'm saying it is possible to make a game where only units from the movie are used. I'll agree with Luke's Dad that the pop limit is a tad low, but the fact remains that the game LOOKS like the movies. Star Wars has a lot more units in it than LOTR did. All I'm saying is I'd like to see a game without EU, so it looks more like the movies, and BFME is proof that such a game can be both fun to play and a best seller.
  2. I realise BFME is paper-scissors-rock, but the important difference for me is that whereas previous games have paper-beats-rock-beats-scissors-beats-paper, BFME has made in paper-annihilates-rock-annihilates-scissors-annihilates-paper. For example, if you charge a cavalry squad through a basic infantry squad, the infantry will be dead in a few seconds, and the cavalry may have taken a single casualty. The infantry were annihilated. However if the cavalry charge pike/spear-wielding infantry, the tables are turned and the cavalry will be annihilated while the pikemen are relatively unharmed. Sure, as you've all pointed out BFME isn't perfectly balanced and indeed this annihilation model may not extend to everyone, but what I have found in playing the game is that unit-massing - that is, an army entirely of one unit type - is not really feasible. Get an army full of cavalry and a few squads of pikemen will annihilate you. Get an army just of infantry and cavalry will annihilate you. You need an army made up of nearly all the available units in order to be unstoppable. And whilst on the subject I'd just like to say that while BFME may not be the best balanced game ever, it is in my opinion the most fun ever. Yes, I'd even rank BFME above Galactic Battlegrounds and possibly even StarCraft, which most of you will know is quite a statement. Why, you ask? Well I am more of a movie-fan than a game-fan, and BFME has succeeded in making a game that perfectly compliments the movies. There is not a single unit in BFME that does not appear in the movies, proving my theory that there doesn't need to be any made-up or EU material to make a fun game. Every unit in game is seen in the movies, exactly the same as in the most recent Star Wars RTS design I did for my own amusement, for which the link still resides in my sig. If there was a Star Wars RTS that followed the design philosophy of BFME - that is, make the game experience exactly like the movie experience - then I would be happy. That is why I don't believe I will be a fan of EAW - I have seen my dream for Star Wars realised in LOTR form, and know it is achievable. [/RANT]
  3. Okay, the issue isn't whether the BFME balance is perfect. What I'm trying to say is that a model similar to it is a good idea. Maybe you can win by unit massing in BFME, but if a similar model to theirs is applied consistently then it could work. As for realistic unit massing, I agree with Viceroy. Massing basic infantry should be a good thing, a very good thing. This relates to the infantry thread too I suppose. Masses and masses of infantry should be extremely difficult to move. This doesn't necessarily mean they should get a horde bonus like China in C&C:G; as Viceroy will agree FU Infantry don't need anything like that to be hugely effective, provided they have a decent staying power like the Super Battle Droids in SWGB. But I don't think basic unit massing is the issue under discussion here. It is more super unit massing that is a potential issue. Few of us want to see an army of 50 AT-ATs and no infantry, or 50 Star Destroyers and no fighters.
  4. I didn't say BFME was well balanced, I just said it discourages unit massing. Elves are too hard to mass since they don't last for long, and although archers with fire arrows are powerful they can easily be taken out with cavalry. My point was that I think BFME is a game where you can't expect to win with an army made up entirely of one type of unit.
  5. I totally agree with this. I think the problem with a lot of games that have too many vehicles over infantry is that they haven't got the cost and build times sorted. Cost is the most obvious way to encourage infantry usage, but in many games there comes a point where the players have built up such a strong economy that cost is no longer an issue, so they'll resort to pumping out the more expensive vehicles. So I believe the key to infantry usage is in the build times. If it takes a really, really long time to build vehicles in comparison with infantry, I think they may get used in the right proportions. I'd also like to see the inclusion of infantry as a necessity for some reason. While Rise of Nations sucked majorly, it did have one interesting feature, and that was that enemy cities could only be taken by infantry and not be vehicles. This meant you had to have infantry in your army just to win the game. Perhaps a similar idea could be used in EaW? Not necessarily that you can only take enemy bases with infantry, but perhaps you could either destroy the building with heavy firepower or invade it with infantry. Invading with infantry might give you control of the building, or it might actually be quicker than destroying it, or you might get a boost to your economy by capturing it (but don't get to use it).
  6. How come Luke can run faster than it then? Viceroy, it's true that towards the end my armies were more diverse. But that is only because people expected my air whoring. The first five or so games we played I only built bombers and fighters, and was very successful. Against the uninitiated this is still my favourite tactic; I rarely played on TheZone but when I did my victories came about through air whoring, as most players didn't expect it. I guess it is pretty hard to truly do away with unrealistic unit massing. Sure, you can give them weaknesses against certain units, but if the enemy hasn't got those certain units in the kind of numbers you do then your massing is successful. While I'm sure the game itself doesn't have many fans I'd just like to mention The Battle For Middle Earth. I think it is a fantastic game, despite slight balance problems here and there. One thing it is excellent at is not encouraging unit massing. Sure, you can mass a crapload of Rohirrim, but if the enemy has a handful of Pikemen or something then you are toast. In BFME if something is good against a certain unit, it is VERY good against it. So massing of a single type of unit is rarely seen in BFME.
  7. I don't believe the game designers intend for their games to turn into mass-fests. Afterall, what's the point in spending the time creating the art and programming for a number of units when only one or two in the army will ever get used? Unfortunately to date there have been few games where there hasn't been a super unit that it is well worth massing. I'm sure Viceroy will pop in and point out my Naboo Bomber massing in Galactic Battlegrounds, and certainly that is a decent example. However I feel in EaW, particularly when it comes to the space battles, they've got things sorted. You could mass Star Destroyers, but if your enemy has a lot of bombers then that was a horrendously poor investment. Still no doubt a crapload of AT-ATs will fare rather well against everything. Yet again it looks as though anyone with a handful of Snowspeeders won't have much to worry about. Personally I'm against posing artificial limits on super units. They should be made economically draining so that getting a lot of them isn't necessarily wise.
  8. I'm glad this thread has inspired some thoughtful discussion that seemed to otherwise be lacking from the forum. stingerhs: Indeed I had seen that screenshot, and as I said there isn't more than 30 troops in the battle. Which is rediculous. Phreak: you seem to be a little confused. I'm not saying infantry should be able to take out an AT-AT. But there should be some sort of incentive to use infantry rather than just having a game of only vehicles. Or are you suggesting that at Hoth the Rebels shouldn't have bothered manning the trenches at all? I like to think this game is emulating the battles we see in the movies. As I said with space battles they are doing an excellent job, but the ground battles are not. Viceroy: whilst I'll take your comment really as just your usual way of giving me crap for no particular reason, I'd like to point out that Galactic Battlegrounds did not have the infantry balance right either. Sure, for your favourite civ Confederacy the Troopers were well worth taking, you'd be foolish not to. But the Naboo infantry sucked, and the roles the fulfilled were better performed by other units, so there was no reason to take them. Even if infantry suck, they should have some sort of benefits that vehicles just cannot provide, or EaW will end up like Galactic Battlegrounds: fun to play, but nothing like the movies.
  9. No they aren't. Exactly, and that was one of my biggest gripes about Generals. If gamemakers want to make realistic games they're going to have to realise that they need to make infantry worth taking. In Generals there wasn't much incentive to take infantry. Sure they could garrison buildings, but when a couple of Dragon Tanks can kill everyone in the building that doesn't sound nearly as attractive. And at the relative cost of infantry to vehicles, it was always better to get more vehicles. Infantry should be cheap, possibly deployed in squads, and far more flexible than vehicles. Gamers should have a NEED to purchase infantry, not just use them as a go between until vehicles are available. Please fix this Petroglyph. Your space battles look flawless, but at the moment the ground battles look quite uninspiring, let alone looking nothing like the films.
  10. I haven't posted for quite some time, but I have been looking at new screenshots every now and then. One thing has become apparent to me from the screenshots: there just isn't enough infantry. Everything else in this game looks absolutely fantastic. The space battles look awesome, and I feel this is mostly because they've made them look a lot like the movies. But the ground battles do not look at all like the movies. Why? It's not because of the inclusion of non-Canon units as some of my critics may be anticipating, but rather it is the distinct lack of infantry. Looking through all the screenshots, the most infantry I can see in a single screenshot is 30... and this is counting both sides together! That is not an army, it's a squad. Now it can't be that their aren't enough resources in the engine to handle masses of infantry, since we've seen in the screenshots that masses of fighters are common in space battles. So why is it? At this point I'm of the belief that this is the only thing wrong with EaW; there is just not enough infantry, or at least not enough reasons to use infantry. This must be amended! Petroglyph claims we can recreate the battles of the Star Wars Saga. To para-phrase Moff Jerjerrod: "They ask the impossible. I need more men!"
  11. I've been there the last couple of weeks and no-one has turned up. Unfortunately this week, when you say you will turn up, I will be unable to. So we'll have to make it next week.
  12. It certainly resembles the SPHA-T at first glance but it is different in several ways. While Viceroy is incorrect in saying the SPHA-T did not have legs, the legs it did have were rather different to the ones in the picture. Also the control deck was further forward and more prominent on the SPHA-T. It seems to me this unit will operate in a similar fashion to the SPHA-Ts, but would probably be much smaller (around the size of an AT-TE).
  13. That certainly was the case, though I have to ask why Interdictors weren't included as well just for reassurance. Admiral Piett: "Hold here." Naval Officer: "We're not going to attack?" Admiral Piett: "I have my orders from the Emperor himself. He has something special planned. We only need to stop them from escaping." Naval Officer: "Perhaps we should have brought along some Interdictors to aide us in that task?" Admiral Piett: "Where's the challenge in that? I'd rather just rely on the gravity from Endor. Lord Vader let me off for the whole Millennium-Falcon-hyperdrive-deactivation-fiasco, I'm sure he'll be fine with this display of incompetence too." On Topic: How would Interdictors work in game anyway? Will jumping to hyperspace even be possible?
  14. Jan, you seem not to have read my rant properly. I say again that I am not saying there should be no EU in the game. Just that the EU fits in nicely with the movies. So of course the Empire wouldn't just have Star Destroyers, they'd also have smaller cruisers (such as the Acclamator which they do have in EAW) and Star Destroyer variants (like Interdictors... although I have to ask the EU buffs why there were no Interdictors at Endor when the Rebel fleet needed to be contained...)
  15. Exactly. I didn't read the spoiler as I took a vow not to, but as I've said before it is the fact that the Jedi Council misinterpret the prophecy that makes things interesting. If they really believed the prophecy meant that Anakin would kill all but two Jedi, I somehow don't think they would have been so eager to train him.
  • Create New...