Confirmed: Death Star CAN destroy Capitol Ships

[lukeiamyourdad]

The sad part of this all is the BFME will have more economic strategy then this game. I know it doesn't seen natural.

 

No.

Here, you have to manage trade routes and see which planet is worth conquering. Each planets gives bonuses and more income.

It's a different kind of economical management, not a lesser kind.

[Naja]

Exactly.

 

One of the most intriguing macro features this game has is the presence of trade routes/hyperspace lanes. Sort of like in SW: Rebellion, you can send fleets to any particular planet, -from- any particular planet. This will take a grievous amount of time, however, while hyperspace routes will allow for instantaneous travel between two worlds. Ownership of two or more planets on the same hyperspace route will also yield hella economic (or more!) rewards.

[starmark2k]

did anyone else think the guy in the movie was trying to hard to be funny with "batman" and "Thats our fee".

[Nevets1112]

I'm quite interested on how trade routes will work out, as well as what are some planet bonuses other than monotary ones.

[Jan Gaarni]

Commerce will probably increase between planets that are controlled by the same side and sharing a traderoute (also known as a hyperspace lane). It's the most obvious advantage to it.

That's an assumption though.

 

Factual advantage is that you will travel faster (not too sure about it being instantaniously, Naja) than if you are travelling between planets that has no hyperspace lanes. You can also not reach every planet from anywhere they have said, either because of distance, or because of planets blocking the path, I don't know.

 

 

Starmark, yeah, maybe alittle.

Or he didn't present the jokes well enough.

Gave me a smile on my face though.

[FroZticles]

Sounds the same too me more lumber mills gets you more resources and bonuses like -10% off building cost and you get a trickle of resource. Hmmmm

 

"Minimal emphasis on economy" no droids cutting trees etc so basically it is just a game where you get trickled resources and just pump stuff out capture planets whatever. What I want to know, is there enough strategy and choices in the battles to cover up for what they have not added?

 

Trade routes are basically just say you capture Naboo, Tatooine and Coruscant and they have trade routes to each you get better bonuses and more trickled resources then you would just having say Naboo. Its not that major.

[Jan Gaarni]

Something for you to take up in the chat, FroZ.

[Naja]

Did the Rome: Total War economy strike you as trivial, FroZ? After all, there was no truely complicated resource management: all you did was receive the trickle of funds from taxation of your cities, money from trade routes, increased trade from upgrading commerce buildings in your cities, and increased economic efficiency of any given number of your territories, provided you had an economically-inclined governor of each.

 

Hmmm. Sounds like...just about every feature we'll see in Empire at War!

[FroZticles]

I did not like R:TW so hope that answers your question.

[Naja]

Are you saying that we would have to have a direct resource harvesting aspect for the game to be strategic? Maybe yes, maybe no, but it would be like practically every other RTS that's ever been made. These Petro guys want to depart from that cliche, and depart like nothing else! They've made it clear since day one how there won't be peasant units or ore trucks, or Tiberium, or anything like that; I fail to see how eliminating this would alone result in a lack of strategic depth in a game.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Indeed. It would be quite moronic to claim that a system of trade routes is dumbing down the econ when strategy games like the Civ serie have been using that forever.

 

We do not know how trade routes will work. Will there be upgrades? Will there be ways of improving trade without resorting to conquering planets all the time? We don't know for sure yet.

The only thing we know is there won't be any "cilck on worker and click on tree to harvest wood". It does not mean the economy will lack depth in anyway, or else you can easily claim the Civ serie has no economical depth.

[Jmaster3265]

When and how did this topic get turned into a debate and big arguement?

[lukeiamyourdad]

When it started turning into a big debate and argument. That's what happens in a forum.

[Jmaster3265]

The reason i ask is, i go to other EaW forums and this one has the most arguements, and rudeness...etc..etc..

[lukeiamyourdad]

Now were not rude with each other. Froz, Windu and me have known each other forever. If I bash him or Windu, it's all natural. We've been doing it forever.

 

And yes, there are arguments, but this forum would be dead without arguments.

 

Besides, a forum can be a place of debates.

Not just some childish "Oh, your idea is soo cool!" everytime somebody post something even if it doesn't make any sense.

[popcorn2008]

When and how did this topic get turned into a debate and big arguement?

If you cant take the heat stay out of the kitchen. This is one of my favorite EaW forums because of all the debating. We can all voice our opinions and get them shattered down, or maybe some people will like them. Some people actually like debating. I wouldnt call what we do here arguing either, and it isnt too rude.

[Guest DarthMaulUK]

So long as posts remain constructive - thats the important thing. We all have our views and its great to be able to voice them - right or wrong!

 

DMUK

[Sithmaster_821]

Honestly, taking threads off-topic into massive nonsensical arguments is what we do best.

 

That said, I recognize that R:TW has a similar economic system (though it does seem to have much more to do in between turns economically/politically, but I don't have enough facts on E@W to confirm that). My complaints are that there really seems like there is nothing to replace the void that the lack of economic fixation during battles would replace. In fact the battles looked less involved than even normal RTS's. I'm glad you may be able to build bases if you so desire, but they seem kinda pointless during combat if you build all your units and buildings in between turns. And I don't see whats so special about having EU planets and units. They were in SWGB too.

[lukeiamyourdad]

My complaints are that there really seems like there is nothing to replace the void that the lack of economic fixation during battles would replace. In fact the battles looked less involved than even normal RTS's.

 

Could you elaborate on this "void" you're talking about? What exactly do you consider it to be?

[Sithmaster_821]

OK, in normal RTS's (AoE, _Craft, C&C) there is, in varying degrees, a level economic micromanagement inherent in the game. You must tend to your workers and protect them and shift them and what not. There also is an inverse relationship between the level of economic micromanagement and military micromanagement. Thus, in games like StarCraft, they make up for a simplified economic model with the use of tactics/spells/abilities that most units can use and an increased emphasis on tactical manipulation. Games like AoK, with a more complex economic model, require simpler military micromanagement for one to remain sane. R:TW excised economy altogether so you could focus wholy on their complex military system and emphasis on tactics. DoW did the same, but to a lesser extent, but had a less involved military model.

 

This brings us to E@W. They have followed Creative Assembly's lead in excising all economic/base building/unit creation focus from the combat phase of the game, but in turn, have not, atleast as far as I can tell, expanded the combat involvement beyond even games like C&C or Starcraft. Thus there is correlation gap in the relationship between economic involvement and military involvement.

[Naja]

Not necessarily true. For example, the Empire and Rebels have completely different systems of intelligence-gathering: the Rebels have a ubiquitous spy network, effectively making every Imperial movement on the Galaxy Map transparent. The Empire is pretty blind when dealing with the Rebels (the Rebels can also hide bases of theirs on Neutral planets without the Empire knowing), so they have to rely on technology like Probe Droids and TIE Scouts to compensate. Both factions, it seems, will also have access to bounty hunters, though we still don't know how they will affect the game, and to what extent.

 

As for combat, again, we don't know. Don't forget that in the end, the sole purpose of a game is to be fun and engaging - complexity is merely a means to an end, and if the game can truly reach the desired end without too much of that particular means, I don't think that anything is sacrified. I don't think that we should necessarily be striving for complexity, nor should we be rushing to equate complexity with quality; there are plenty of abhorrent games out there with ridiculous amounts of controls and interfaces, and the like. Less is so much more, in a lot of cases.

 

Simplicity or not, EaW is not a carbon copy RTS. We know for a fact that besides the standard RTS 'rock/paper/scissors' shindig with units (big units < medium units < small units < big units, etc), the game will introduce an entirely new feature: anti-units. Every unit will have one particular other unit on the enemy's side that it inherently will wipe the floor with, and just demolish. This will be indicated by bigger explosions, fancier sound effects, all that jazz, to let you know when one of your units is firing on its anti-unit.

[Sithmaster_821]

The differences between the civs has little bearing on what I am talking about. It does make the civ selection interesting, and adds a cool dynamic to the game, but doesn't really affect the balance between economic and military complexity.

 

"Anti-units" are in most RTS games worth their salt, and are very much a part of the balancing of an RTS. I would be dismayed if E@W didn't have them.

[Naja]

Also, keep in mind, are you sure you'd want economic complexity when you own 40+ worlds in a real time galaxy?

[lukeiamyourdad]

You do realize sith never said that he wanted economical complexity?

 

He merely mentions that without that layer of micromanagement, something has to compensate for it. R:TW, for example, compensates economy with a complex system of strategies and tactics on the Battlefield.

[Naja]

No, but implicit in his comment is that something needs to be complex for the game to be top-notch. Otherwise, he wouldn't have bothered citing the need for something to be compensated.