Confirmed: Death Star CAN destroy Capitol Ships

[Sithmaster_821]

If the game plays like R:TW, then we aren't controlling the planets in "real time". There will be a real time combat mode which lasts for x amount of time, followed by a more pulled back strategic mode where you can see the whole galaxy and plot your course like in a board game, but time stands mysteriously still.

 

Sadly, complexity is the name of the game in RTS's, at least for now. The genre just lends itself to complexity, and this puts off new comers and really makes the genre a dead end street. I think that the genre will experience quite a bit of upheaval in the coming years, as new, more intuitive games (like the Pikmin series or the new WW2 game that is coming out whose title escapes me). However, simply going with the traditional style RTS and then hacking off pieces to make it "simpler" does not a good RTS make. The difference between the above mentioned games and this hypothetical E@W (since we do not know what exactly everything will be like at this stage) is that the truly innovative games completely rebuilt the concepts of the genre that have been in place since Sid Meier made the original Civ game (I know, its a TBS game, but where do you think RTS's came from). Speaking of dead-end genres, the TBS genre didn't innovate or diversify even as much as the current RTS market, and now its the realm of a select few middle-aged men, and hemmoraging fans daily.

 

Ok, I got off track there, but essentially, if a company tries to "simplify" a game by using the existing template but cutting holes in it without compensating else where, it will not be as enjoyable of a game for all levels of gamer, and it will not succeed. This is not to say that complexity reigns supreme. RoN and EE2 are two games which are needlessly complex (in my opinion, I know at least one of those sold moderately well), and that ruins the enjoyability of a game just as much (they also have, again IMO, the mile-wide-inch-deep problem), so one must strike a balance.

[anton_138]

if i'm understanding you correctly, SithMaster, you're concern is that RTS games usually give you SOMETHING to focus on, combat or economics, so that you are never truly idle in the game, and diminishing the economical control might leave a lot of dead-time between battles. am i anywhere near your line-of-thought in that? if so, then i think Naja's comment about trying to run the infrastructure/resources while trying to control forces on 40+ planets is quite valid. one statement made in the dev's vids is that "you can control as much, or as little, as you like..." while i know this is NOT a sequal to/remake of Rebellion, there are many similarities, and in Rebellion you could control resource/basic-troop production manually to tweak and fine tune, or have your droid/assistant control it automatically to allow you more focus on defenses, assaults and hero/agent missions. Rebellion also allowed 100(min)-200(max) planets to come into play, instead of just 40+. i think one of the reasons Rebellion hasn't gotten more support is it was maybe a little overwhelming for the casual gamer or non-SW fan. personally, the complexity and intelligence of Rebellion is what will always appeal to me. there are some people who like complexity, and there are some (many more) who like "quick and to the point". someone (Jan or DMUK?) posted a "what's your favorite SW RTS game" poll some time ago, and while Rebellion had more votes at the time (including mine), i don't think more than 11 or so people bothered to voice an opinion at all. i know there are more RTS gamers in these forums, but i'm assuming Rebellion wasn't more popular because it was TOO complex, and FoCom wasn't more popular because it was too simplified (just get to the bunkers first, do you simple health/speed/attack upgrades, and you're set, right?). SWGB is a fine RTS game, but nothing new or innovative, obviously (SC+AoK=SWGB). so, to create a single "original" game that will reach the widest audience (business comes before art, right?) it has to be balanced, and i doubt we'll know for sure whether the dev's succeeded until at least the demo is released. my hope is that we will truly be able to "control as much or as little" as we like, but if the non-combat tasks in EaW(researching tech, sabotage/espionage missions, troop/fleet production/management, hero missions/recruitment) are anything like Rebellion i doubt anyone will get too bored waiting for something to happen. it can't ALL happen only in battle, because you have to have time to move people and ships and train troops, and with 40+ planets there's no guarantee that the Imps and Rebs will be bumping into each other the entire time, so i'd imagine there has to be some sort of real-time control over worlds in non-combat situations similar to Rebellion. what will we have to occupy ourselves in those quieter times? i don't know, but from what has been said by the devs it won't be chopping wood or picking berries and i'm fine with that as long as there's more to the game than simply capturing planets for a flow of resources, which is hardly different from FoCom.

[lukeiamyourdad]

For the love of god use paragraphs man...please...

 

You guys all misunderstood sith.

 

Within the traditionnal RTS, you had to manage the economy at the same time as managing your battles.

For games like R:TW (and hopefully E@W), the economical management within the battle is replaced by a complex system of tactics and strategies. They divided both in two, leaving managing the economy on one side, managing battles on another.

 

This leaves a hole in terms of complexity. You no longer have the stress of keeping your economy healthy and fighting on the same map at the same time.

You're only left to manage one and the other seperately.

 

Managing the economy will be complex, for obvious reason. What concerns sith and I, it's the question of combat. With econ management out the window, there's nothing to fill the hole. Will complex tactics play a role? I surely hope so. If it doesn't and adopts the gameplay from traditionnal RTS, which doesn't involve flanking manoeuvers, ambush, etc. It will leave a humongous hole in the gameplay.

[anton_138]

well, until the demo comes out or the devs release more gameplay info it's anyone's guess. i can be thick headed so it sometimes takes me a while to catch on, but i think i'm coming around. see if this is any closer...

 

if there's no resource management in battle, and limited abilities for tactics in battle, then battles will become routine and repetitive, much like Force Commander was. am i at least getting closer to the point? probably not.

 

i don't know what it will be like, but i can imagine it being like Rebellion in the sense that you build a fleet, stock it with troops and agents/heroes, and send it to attack/defend a planet... and from there you have the fleet sequences and/or ground assault, which could very easily be like Force Commander, except you have only what you brought with you, or what you have on the planet to defend with at the time... no producing troops during battle or any of that, but you can call down/in reinforcements during battle.

 

as far as tactics, i would like to see more ways of ambushing than hiding behind the fog-of-war, but at least even that offers some tactical potential. i don't think i've ever played an RTS where i couldn't figure out how to lure, flank, and ambush a target, but i haven't played too many RTS games to be honest so you could tell me i have no idea what i'm talking about and you'd probably be right.

 

i'm feeling really off-topic, though, since this thread is(was) about the DS ability to fire, but it's been confirmed that it CAN fire on capital ships, which i had expected, so what can i really say to that except... Yee-Haw!

 

still, i would like to know more about what can/will actually be done in combat and between batween battles, because as much as i want this to be like Rebellion, and it appears to be on the surface, it may in fact be nothing like it when it comes to gameplay and tactics.

[Naja]

What concerns sith and I...

 

It's "Sith and me". You are the object in that sentence, therefore the subject is in the accusative. Ahh, National Socialism lives on in grammar... *lol*

 

if there's no resource management in battle, and limited abilities for tactics in battle, then battles will become routine and repetitive, much like Force Commander was

 

Understandable. If there's a static, "safe" Galaxy Map like the world map in R:TW, then battles will become one and the same over time. However, there's one key point to remember: the Galaxy Map is not going to stand still, or be turn based. It will be in real time. Meaning that the pressure is on to continually capitalize on your intelligence-gathering (be it bounty hunters, droids, or that innate Rebel ability), expand your resource base without becoming spread too thin, and react quickly to enemy action in your territories. This inevitably means that there will be battles that you are not prepared for; this, if anything, goes beyond what R:TW had to offer.

 

"Shifting," as you referred to it, but perhaps inverted: R:TW split macro strategy and combat, simplifying the former and complicating the latter. I believe that EaW does the exact opposite. While planning on the world map, you never had to break a sweat, and think "golly gee, if I don't hurry up and annex the Iberian provinces, the Carthaginians are going to start sending their fleets any minute." You still had to race for land, but the pressure was never on during each turn - you had the luxury of being able to timelessly, and meticulously, plan. You had a spy network to sort out the "fog of war," but you never had to worry about, for example, whether a Rebel territory was really hiding Senate legions in its town. You had generals and governors, but again, the generals' abilities manifested themselves in the complicated battle half, while all the governors' traits did was increase or decrease the rate of taxable income/trade/order/unrest. You never had family members that could sneak past the enemy, or that were particularly crafted to infiltrate super weapons. You could never obliterate whole regions of the world map and remove them from either side/s for the duration of the game.

 

We won't even know how simple or complicated EaW's battle interface will be until we play it. But even assuming that it is simple, I think that the real time element on the macro level will more than adjust for this compensatory complexity you so seek. With practically all your hard-won territory vulnerable to counter-attack, you're going to have to be meticulous and decisive on your feet. You might fight simple-interface battles, but based upon all your actions on the strategy side, you will always fight different styles of battle. Sometimes the weather will work in your favor, sometimes it won't. Sometimes you will have a massive numbers advantage, sometimes it will be dead even, sometimes you will be outnumbered with no hope of victory, and sometimes the purpose of the fight will simply be of a guerilla nature to go in with a small force, damage/destroy one particular ship or raze one particular planetary facility, and get the hell out. Add in the unique faction differences (Empire = brute force: many more planetary holdings, huge military, piss-poor intelligence, Rebs = stealth & guile: small planetary holdings and the ability to hide bases on Neutral worlds, elite forces that are all hyperdrive-equipped and designed specifically for hit-and-run, ubiquitous intelligence network), and you have *gasp!* an overwhelming series of choices to make, all manifesting into the potential myriad of different forms of battle that may or may not take place.

[anton_138]

that last paragraph sounds pretty much like Rebellion, Naja... but that's obviously wishful thinking on my part.

[Sithmaster_821]

Naja: Have any of those aspects been confirmed (aside from the Death Star part)? I was under the impression, from all the videos/interviews I saw that the game would play like R:TW in space. If this is true, I wonder how they'll manage simultaneous battles on different planets. The beauty of the TW games is that the turn-based element allows you to concentrate on one battle at a time, whether you are attacking or being atttacked. We'll have to wait and see.

[Naja]

The realm time Galaxy Map has been confirmed. This will not be R:TW in space. As for multiple battles at once, this won't be an issue. "Time" will stand still on the macro level while you're in a battle on a planet or in its orbit. Think Rebellion, in this case.

 

Many different sorts of planetary advantages and disadvantages (depending on your faction) also figure into this, and have been confirmed. Some planets, for example, will resent your side and will give you a minimum of taxation (Alderaan to the Imperials). Other planets, like Tatooine (due to the Hutts), will instantly expose any stealth heroes that are on it. We have seen weather on pre-battle screens in some of the videos, but we don't know at this point how weather will affect ground battles. We're hoping that it will be decisive and actually influence the battles - sort of like how sandstorms could really **** you up in Emperor: Battle for Dune, except a more diverse range of weather affects. Liberating or annexing different planets can also bring you new heroes with a myriad of diverse advantages; in battle, for your economy, for espionage, etc. You can also discover new technologies if you choose to take a mission at some planet, and if you win, can circumvent an entire portion of the tech tree.

[lukeiamyourdad]

It's "Sith and me". You are the object in that sentence, therefore the subject is in the accusative. Ahh, National Socialism lives on in grammar... *lol*

 

*Points to location

 

 

You still haven't understood anything.

 

You keep talking about the choices and actions you'll do outside of the battle part itself.

We are focusing specifically on that part.

 

In R:TW, you had the possibility to win a battle using your head and certain advantages even when overwhelmed by greater numbers of equally powerful troops (careful here, if it's a 2 on 1 fight between two stormtroopers and a rebel trooper but the rebel is just as strong as 2 stormies, it isn't advantage of numbers anymore).

From that, we can understand that tactics and strategies play a very important part in the game. They are quite complex, turning it into the main focus.

 

In E@W, where are the tactics and strategies? As complex as R:TW? I think not, at least for now. This is a problem. During the battle portion, the one when you click on unit one and send it to kill an enemy. That part, you'll lose a great deal of complexity vs the traditional RTS.

[anton_138]

well, LIAYD, IF EaW ended up with no more tactical strategy than Rebellion i'm sure you'd be disappointed... and i probably would be, too. in Rebellion your tactical abilites were extremely limited. you had some useful control over ship grouping and assignments in battle, but other than that it was just 2 groups in open space blasting each other. you COULD give some sort of enemy-component targeting, in the sense that you could, for example, tell a squad of X-Wings to attack a SD from above while a MonCal attacked it from below (hammer/anvil tactics). i'd expect more than that in EaW.

 

... and the only way to ambush your opponent was if you know where their fleet was heading and you could get there first and blockade the planet. the arriving enemy fleet could not avoid you, because fleets/units in hyperspace could not receive orders. i coujld see something like that making it into EaW.

[FroZticles]

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.

 

Haha you realise I said the same thing in another forum yet you never came to my rescue. Actually you were against me so I hope you not flip-flopping on us

[lukeiamyourdad]

Haha you realise I said the same thing in another forum yet you never came to my rescue. Actually you were against me so I hope you not flip-flopping on us

 

 

 

That was before I was enlightened by R:TW and Ground Control

[Naja]

 

You keep talking about the choices and actions you'll do outside of the battle part itself.

We are focusing specifically on that part.

 

In R:TW, you had the possibility to win a battle using your head and certain advantages even when overwhelmed by greater numbers of equally powerful troops (careful here, if it's a 2 on 1 fight between two stormtroopers and a rebel trooper but the rebel is just as strong as 2 stormies, it isn't advantage of numbers anymore).

From that, we can understand that tactics and strategies play a very important part in the game. They are quite complex, turning it into the main focus.

 

In E@W, where are the tactics and strategies? As complex as R:TW? I think not, at least for now. This is a problem. During the battle portion, the one when you click on unit one and send it to kill an enemy. That part, you'll lose a great deal of complexity vs the traditional RTS.

 

 

No, you lost track of what I was saying. I am talking outside the scope of complicated battle interfaces (or want of them) because I believe that EaW is the opposite of R:TW - Rome simplifies its economy/diplomacy/army movement interface and compensates by complicating its battles. Empire at War will simplify battles while complicating its strategic portion. And yes, I believe that a real time galaxy with over 40 different worlds, drastic faction differences, drastic planetary advantages and disadvantages, and the vulnerability of each of those planets to surprise attack, qualifies as complex.

 

I am struck with confusion at your continuing assumption that complexity equates quality in a game, or more specifically in a real time battle. Empire at War will not be a game where you flank your enemy, out-maneuver them with X while you march Y to the rescue. It's not a total slug-fest; battles will require skill, like anything else. But the stated purpose of battles is for them to be fun foremost, so that micromanaging your forces is just as equal an option as sitting on your ass and switching to the cinematic view. The main strategic element to use your mind on will not be individual battles, but the war itself on the grand scale. If something as well-known in the EaW community as these facts perturb you, then why are you posting in this forum in the first place, and not playing Rome: Total War?

[lukeiamyourdad]

No, you lost track of what I was saying. I am talking outside the scope of complicated battle interfaces (or want of them) because I believe that EaW is the opposite of R:TW - Rome simplifies its economy/diplomacy/army movement interface and compensates by complicating its battles. Empire at War will simplify battles while complicating its strategic portion. And yes, I believe that a real time galaxy with over 40 different worlds, drastic faction differences, drastic planetary advantages and disadvantages, and the vulnerability of each of those planets to surprise attack, qualifies as complex.

 

That, you simply can't say because we haven't seen that much from the strategic portion. BUT, there is something bery important here. This game calls itself an RTS.

 

Also, remember that the galactic time pauses when in tactical mode.

 

From Gamespot preview:

 

GS: How do you balance the micromanagement involved in switching between land and space battles going on at the same time? Does the computer take over and handle the action for you while you're busy on the other screen? Or do you have any kind of warning system that will tell you that you need to switch to the other battle to make a decision?

 

JB: This problem is solved by pausing the galactic-level game while in the midst of tactical combat. For the most part, the space at a system must be controlled before a land invasion can begin, which means that space and land combat do not occur simultaneously. However, space and land do interact. Ion cannons can fire up at ships in a space battle, and bombing runs can be called in during land combat.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starwarsrts/preview_6128191.html

 

I am struck with confusion at your continuing assumption that complexity equates quality in a game, or more specifically in a real time battle.

 

There has to be something for a player to focus on, to have a challenge about, within the battle portion. I've played RTS where all you did was sit there and see the battles play out. Not very fun.

 

 

Empire at War will not be a game where you flank your enemy, out-maneuver them with X while you march Y to the rescue.

 

They are using the R:TW template afterall. But sure, if it isn't, it isn't.

 

 

It's not a total slug-fest; battles will require skill, like anything else. But the stated purpose of battles is for them to be fun foremost, so that micromanaging your forces is just as equal an option as sitting on your ass and switching to the cinematic view.

 

You do realise this is ridiculous right? A game can't require your brains and you to sit on your ass and elt it all play out at the exact same time. Normally, the one who sits on his ass is the one who loses and the one who micromanages is the one who wins.

And, unless you forgot, it's an RTS, so micromanaging your forces is a main element of the game. Or else it's a movie, not an RTS.

 

The main strategic element to use your mind on will not be individual battles, but the war itself on the grand scale. If something as well-known in the EaW community as these facts perturb you, then why are you posting in this forum in the first place, and not playing Rome: Total War?

 

RTS, not civ managing game. An RTS focuses on battle. Wake up. That's the biggest part of the game. That's the part that they've been showing us for some time now. Why? Because it's the biggest part of the game.

I can stand playing Civ3 with their ****ty battle system. Civ3 isn't an RTS. If any RTS had boring uninteresting battles, is it a good one?

 

You shouldn't question me on why I'm here. I've been among those who stood here for 3 years already and I'll be among the last to leave this place.

 

Also, I'd love a link on these "facts".

[Jan Gaarni]

You can actually sit on your ass and watch the battle unfold. You're going to lose more units this way obviously, but if you have the bigger force, you will win. This has been stated by the Devs.

 

Against human counterparts however, is an entirly different thing. The one sitting on his ass most of the time, unless he has a greatly larger force, is going to lose the battles more often than win them. But that just goes without saying.

[Garbageben]

I hope that you can save replays of battles, even in a campaign, so you can watch them and use the cinematic camera. Just like making your own Star Wars movies.

[Jan Gaarni]

Hmmm, that would be cool, but seeing you are able to activate the camera in the game itself during combat, I am somewhat doubtfull they have thought of putting this in after combat has been fought.

[anton_138]

they could add a film room and record ability like they did with the XWA patch.

[popcorn2008]

I would like a re-play that you can manipulate such as in C&C generals. You didnt have to watch the game by the perspective you recorded it in. You could move the camera and see all the angles you missed while playing. Now that would take some complex programming so I dont know if they would implement something like that. But it would be nice.

[Admiral Sith]

I wonder if you'll be able to pause in single player combat.

[popcorn2008]

I wonder if you'll be able to pause in single player combat.

I would say about every RTS allows pausing, save a few. I mean in single player you usually pause when you go to the menu. Im not real worried about pausing at the momment though lol, thats low on my priorities list.