rwps Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 The death star and red squadron is not same tech lv death star is one higher and that tech lv cant the rebbels even advance to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthzeta Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 lol. you forgot thier was 2 death stars and the reason the second one was a critical loss was because the emperor was on it him self. no emperor means no empire. but also the death star wont be the easiest thing to take out. trust me on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Alec Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I might build it, but first I have to test vunerability. If it goes boom fast, then probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vader815 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 If you lose because it gets destroyed and reduces the income of that planet, i don't see why I can't just take the system the old fashion way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paws1111 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Probebly your best bet with the death star is to only take out planets that have bonuses helping the rebels (ie vergona asteriods (speld horibly rong) bounus only affects rebel fghters right? and others that help only rebels) another thing you could do is remove capital ships from the game! (i htink there are only 3 capital ship planets) thye would have a large atvantage how the game is playd . you could make bait for rebels let them take a planet with there main force and hide the deathstar a planet away ....after they take planet bring deathstar in (assuming most of rebel fleet is destroyd) and if in multiplayer you get some heros heros by planet trigers (dout it) you could stop heros from comeing. they way the empire could control rebels and repeaditly build if empire dint lose makes the empire control how the warfair is played it makes sence to me why the empire sould have a risk in building it besides they dont have too {edit} few things out and 1 more thing you could do you could blow up all planets that can get cantinas... no more smugler except maby han Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwps Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I don't think you can hide the death star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhuf Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I would guess that one benefit of the Death Star is strategic: you could destroy key node planets that serve as connecting hubs between multiple Rebel-supporting planets. You might be able to isolate the Rebels from the rest of the galaxy by wiping out key waypoint planets in their support network of systems. So, for istance, by destroying one rebel planet, perhaps you could deny Rebels of the resources of two or more additional planets. In the demo you had to use the asteroids as a waypoint to reach the Tatooine objective. I am not sure if it works that way in the full version. Maybe you can trade from one planet to any other planet without the need for waypoint planets. I dunno. *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Pitt Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Well, we will just assume that every important imperial officer/leader is onboard and dies. no structure left in empire+galactic upheaval resulting from loss=one screwed empire. like the second deathstar. that fleet was the last one the rebs had. they destroyed the deathstar, emporer and vader die. empire falls apart. same concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QWAD Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I don't think the empire loses when the death star explodes is a huge issue since you could always run away if the epic battle goes sour. I am guessing the retreat timer may be longer and you are very vulnarable but if you call it early enough you could escape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wedge2211 Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 "Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lew Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 It is a bad decision, and will be modded out by most Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popcorn2008 Posted January 26, 2006 Author Share Posted January 26, 2006 I don't necessarily think it is such a bad idea, it really does balance things out. I mean think about it, if Red Squadron is the only thing that can destroy the Death Star than the Empire has a huge advantage. Though, they will have be careful now knowing that if it dies, than they fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rremont Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Yes, but if the deathstar is destroyed and can't be rebuilt, then the game can continue just as well, except you know you don't have to fear the deathstar, but either side may still win; therefore, it is still balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten Bears Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 One thing we could do that they didn't do in the movies is properly protect our investment... If we know that Rogue Squadron can attack, defend against them with anti-fighter frigates and tons of Ties... I sure won't leave my Death star in a situation where it was vulnerable, it will definitely have a massive fleet safeguarding it. Another option would be to destroy the source of Rogue Squadron itself, just blow away the planets needed to produce the Squadron (if they are tied to certain systems). Show no mercy to these rebel scum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Red Squadron. Rogue Squadron wasn't formed until after the Battle of Yavin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthWar42 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 It's fine to only have one shot at controlling the Death Star. I'm fine if Red Squadron destroys it due to my tactical errors, and I won't have my Death Star anymore. However, if this causes the player to lose the campaign (as I'm understanding it?) I think that's just plain wrong. Yes, it was a huge loss of resources and manpower. Yes, some of the most prominent officers will have been lost. But it shouldn't deprive the Empire player the chance to recover and still be successful, albeit they will not be able to construct any more Death Stars. If we look just a little bit beyond the Battle of Yavin, the Empire was at it's height during the Empire Strikes Back timeline... a Death Star-less period in the OT. If the player is able to recover and manage his resources after such a colossal loss, they should have the chance to still be able to conquer the galaxy. If I play rebels, I want to be able to destroy the Death Star while also being able to conquer the rest of the galaxy conventionally. Why would it be otherwise? It's not like those Imperials are just going to give up once their space station is done. It doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athanasios Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 If I play rebels, I want to be able to destroy the Death Star while also being able to conquer the rest of the galaxy conventionally. Why would it be otherwise? It's not like those Imperials are just going to give up once their space station is done. It doesn't make sense. And that's exactly the basis where games such as JKII were based, the Empire Remnants in other words. The destruction of Death Star should have other side effects for the imp player, but not to make him lose automatically. These side=effects could be: 1. Automatic loss of 30-40% of the least defended planets, in the basis that the inhabitants were "encouraged" by this success and threw away the imp guards) 2. Great economic loss, in the way that there were built many tech centers/factories only to serve DS building. 3. Automatic turn to rebs/pirates of some minor forces (20-30%) of the total fleet, in the way that they found the chance to create their own "empire". Well, of course all the above will cause lots of trouble to the imp player, but he can struggle to survive and, if he's good enough, he will survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernaut1985 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Modding that out. Thank god for modding. After the DS was destroyed....the Empire still lived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paws1111 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 although im quite nutral on this subject (bah any way is fine ) i have a small point I think that the reson you lose is not becas they considerd that the empire died out. I think they considerd it more of disfuctional just becas a group still exsists dosint mean wehre nessesarly still at war. i kinda get this thought from the "war on terror" its not something we can win...... no mater what there will still be terroists some where. and a similer thing in ww2 the nazzi part altho not a direct cause of ww2, after words I THINK the nazi party in germany fell apart and very few remaind In both cases reguardless of who won both sides are still there ..... there are some of wars like that.... so i think when they made the empire ds make you lose its more of the fact of a disfuctunal system. They didnot strike the fear they once did (which held many systems under empire control ) once the rebels beat the 1st death star it gavve the galaxy.... a new hope ( no pun intended ) and the second was even more of a loss that even made (posibly) the empire dout themslefs .... my assumtion ( im not a huge eu peson so some 1 miht prove me rong) logicly that when star systesms saw the empire was being "defeated" in a way that many planets revolted. Becas the empire had lost what helped them manage the univers ( that would be hard to do ) Fear...... well this post is geting long so im ending it right........... NOW (sorry if you dont like my long post ) {edit} added beter punctuation still many spelling errors...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthWar42 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Yes, the Empire still lived... and most would argue that the Empire was in the most control shortly after the Death Star was destroyed. So why is it that you would lose the campaign after the DS is destroyed? Granted the Death Star shouldn't be buildable again, shouldn't imperial players still have the chance to regain their composure and tighten their grip on the galaxy once again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paws1111 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Im not saying you sould lose just that i think they lost alot of suport.... and i want to say maby more of a lack of funds but..... they did build the ds2 so that obiasly wasent a problem yet...... but that makes me wonder...... How much taxes come from courasont....... im gona figure it out....... form an eu source that its sevral thousand trillion at least! humm.....0.o haveing just an avricge income of 1000 credits a year *10%......* 3 trilion not even 1000 trilion 0.o thats alot of money..... whle i was looking through the star wars data base i found this quote about the death star "The Death Star was to be an instrument of terror, meant to cow treasonous worlds with the threat of annihilation. "it was also proof of the New Order's greatest weakness -- the belief that technology and terror were superior to the will of oppressed beings fighting for freedom. " and you do have to admit reguardless of the ds2 and size of the empire the rebels would have lost if they dint kill the first one....... meh just a thought....... {edit} i dont feeel like reposting so..... The person below hass a good point...... the lose isnt a a empie lose its the lose in kinda in a way that "campain" or chapter of the serise in other words i like his answer the best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teradyn Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 The reason the game ends after the Death Star dies is the fact that the timeline ends at the end of A New Hope. Kinda like reaching the end of the movie. It is the end of the movie but not the trilogy.... and they have already hinted at expansions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Yeah but the message "You have freed the galaxy" wouldn't make sense if the game didn't end when the Death Star is destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endurell Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 I remember way back in the day when the devs were talking about the *possibility* of adding politics into the game. This gave me a great sense of calm because I knew that if my buddy ran around blowing up dozens of planets with the Death Star that the tide of political support would shift against him. Imagine my utter dismay when they revealed that politics "didn't fit" into Empire at War. "Mwahahahaha," my friend cackled at the news, "Now you're really screwed!" The power to blow up a planet with little to no repercussions. Something my friend should never have. But then, the devs announce that the death star has a deadly weakness...if it is destroyed, then the empire loses. Suddenly my friend isn't so eager to send the death star to every rebel planet he finds, because somewhere in the far reaches of the outer rim sits a farmboy, in a slightly worn x-wing prototype; ready to seal his fate. Considering the awesome might of the Empire, the rebels will be spending most of their time in fear...running...striking where they can, but not in huge force. This is the one point where fear is turned against the Empire, and I think it's quite fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orao Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Then again what is a whole point of building the Death Star. 1. It can't fire on space ships 2. If it's destroyed you loose 3. If you use it to detroy the planet then it means less credits for you and you have lower pop cap 4. It can't selfprotect so it means that you are to have a large fleet to protect it. That fleet could be used better elsewhere 5. It takes too much of ressources just to build that piece of useless junk Dev team won it, they completly destroyed the concept and the main purpose of the DS. In the movie the DS was meant to inspire terror and respect and not to be the sitting duck waiting for some X-Wing sqd to take it out. On my part I will not build it in campaign unitl I have secured at least 99 % of all planets in the galaxy. Once I do that I'll build it just to be able to finish the campaign. P.S. Don't tell me that in Episode IV the DS wasn't abel to fire at star ships because we have never seen a rebel large star ship in the movie. Moreover watch carrefully the briefing on Yavin IV. The commander said that the DS has nothing to be afraid of large attack ships because its fire power will repel them. It means destroy the attacking ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.