Another "What I think should have been in the game" thread.

[Cosmos Jack]

I really like this game. It's the best Star Wars RTS I have played, but there are some little things I was missing that I think should have been in it or changed that weren’t.

 

Things I really think should have been different.

1. The ability to pick what units you start the battle with in Space / Land. I do see why they did this it keeps your from just flat out running over someone with all your toughest units. If you just send all your strong units then you can still do that.

 

2. A portable build/repair unit. I can't stand the pre-placed build pads and walls. It would have been nice instead to have a unit that you could build walls and turrets where you liked. Not unit producing structures, but just turrets and walls so you could fortify how you want.

 

3. In skirmish land maps the ability before the battle to lay out your base structures where you want them. Instead you're given a pre-made lay out that isn't always the best.

 

4. Maps that are more open and less constrained some maps feel too much like an obstacle course and less like a battlefield. Hoth is a good example it should have been a large flat field. With 2 or 3 spawn points on the right and left. Have the Rebs on the left and the Imps on the right. It would have made for a nice cinematic battle in game. This also goes for space maps.

 

 

These would have been nice ideas, but not necessary for the game.

5. A game that started in EpII and progressed through EpVI. As tech changed your units changed from clone wars era to original trilogy area.

 

6. It would have been interesting if there were actual star systems with more then one planet per system. Like a circular grid and you could place your ships station anywhere in the grid.

 

Hopefully there will be an EAW2 and they will up the anty on game play/complexity. For the most part I really like the game. It reminds me of allot of other RTS games all rolled up into one.

[Hound_Dawg]

1. The ability to pick what units you start the battle with in Space / Land. I do see why they did this it keeps your from just flat out running over someone with all your toughest units. If you just send all your strong units then you can still do that.

 

2. A portable build/repair unit. I can't stand the pre-placed build pads and walls. It would have been nice instead to have a unit that you could build walls and turrets where you liked. Not unit producing structures, but just turrets and walls so you could fortify how you want.

 

3. In skirmish land maps the ability before the battle to lay out your base structures where you want them. Instead you're given a pre-made lay out that isn't always the best.

 

These are just such good ideas, that I just had to respond. Especially the first one, especially for Land units. It would make the game so much more strategical.

[Cheech Marin]

I would also like to add another suggestion: The ability to retreat individual units. Lets say you have a heavily damaged frigate with only its engines remaining, or one soldier out of an entire infantry squad left alive. I think it would be more realistic if you could retreat that one crippled frigate or soldier and replace that unit with a full-strength unit. Note that land units should only be retreat-able at reinforcement points that you control.

[Cosmos Jack]

I would also like to add another suggestion: The ability to retreat individual units. Lets say you have a heavily damaged frigate with only its engines remaining, or one soldier out of an entire infantry squad left alive. I think it would be more realistic if you could retreat that one crippled frigate or soldier and replace that unit with a full-strength unit. Note that land units should only be retreat-able at reinforcement points that you control.

Though if you’re down to 1 grunt unit I would wonder why bother. I would think though if you have a ship that's about to pop and it has its engines why you can't get only it out of the battle. Then you could come in the battle destroy some ships and retreat the damaged ships one at a time. Maybe that's why you can't do that.

 

The retreat option should be a little more viable though.

[mikemil828]

I would also like to add another suggestion: The ability to retreat individual units. Lets say you have a heavily damaged frigate with only its engines remaining, or one soldier out of an entire infantry squad left alive. I think it would be more realistic if you could retreat that one crippled frigate or soldier and replace that unit with a full-strength unit. Note that land units should only be retreat-able at reinforcement points that you control.

 

Even if you could individually retreat 'A heavily damaged frigate with only its engines remaining' its unlikely that such a heavily damaged ship would actually survive long enough to make the jump into hyperspace. If retreating individually was implemented, most people would end up retreating units the moment it's shield generator gets blown, or if it's engines are being attacked, which would mean that unless you are successful in taking out it's engines, you would rarely see a frigate sized ship and up get destroyed, they would escape before that would happen. Stalemates will occur (as it's nearly impossible to damage a fleet significantly, much less destroy one), and People would moan and say "Plz Fixx" and provide handy hints on what should or shouldn't be in the game.

[Cosmos Jack]

People would moan and say "Plz Fixx" and provide handy hints on what should or shouldn't be in the game.

If you don't like what I have to say tuff.

[Cheech Marin]

That's why the game should also have persistent damage... And disable the retreat ability in Skirmish.

[mikemil828]

That's why the game should also have persistent damage...

 

Which would add a major level of micromanagement and tediousness to the game, most of a game would end up being repairing your stacks after a battle, you are running a war effort, not a repair shop.

 

Also with the advent of persistant damage, almost no one would use the capital ships anymore, as their major hardpoints would end up being blown by a suicide bomber fleet while they wait to be sent into combat, fustrating the player on the other end. Rather than spend most of their time repairing ships, Space Battles would end up being vast hordes of x-wings, y-wings, a-wings, Corvettes, Nebulon Frigates and the occasional maruader cruiser against lots and lots of acclimator ships with their contingents, tartan cruisers, and the occasional broadside. Is it really Star Wars without the Calimaris and the Imperial Star Destroyers? IMO it is not, and I doubt many others would think so either, thus people would end up moaning and saying 'Plz Fixx' and provide handy hints on what should or shouldn't be in the game.

 

Jeez you people act like Petroglyph couldn't have possibly thought any of this up.....

[Harbormaster]

A few to add to the list...

 

In MP A way to cancel your "ready" if your not ready to launch the game.

 

In MP A Co-op Mode.

 

In SP space maps set out more like Star Trek Armada 2. Where you could have the galatic conquest map. Then enter a "system" to attack that might have multiple planets ect...

[CondorFalco]

A war effort is micromanagement, tedious, repairing what units you failed to defend, and general irritation. However, you can still have a lot of fun with all of this. All that needs to be done is change the economy slightly (not by cheating I might add). And the X-Y-Z axis of A2 would come in handy, so we could have Homeworld 2 or Haegemonia type space battles. In fact, a Haegemonia map type star system arrangement would be very nice indeed .

[mikemil828]

A war effort is micromanagement, tedious, repairing what units you failed to defend, and general irritation. However, you can still have a lot of fun with all of this. All that needs to be done is change the economy slightly (not by cheating I might add). And the X-Y-Z axis of A2 would come in handy, so we could have Homeworld 2 or Haegemonia type space battles. In fact, a Haegemonia map type star system arrangement would be very nice indeed .

 

Sure a war effort can be micromanagement, however in actual wars it usually not the head commander's job to repair every unit like a highly paid handy man, only in really important stuff (I.E. If the Death Star is being built on schedule) would he truely intervene, the game just assumes the people you command try and keep their ships in good order.

 

I really wonder why people want this game to be so hardcore, it's Star Wars, how hardcore do you actually think one could actually make it without messing with the main audience? Also do you REALLY think that the 3D combat of Homeworld 2 really fits with Star Wars?

[Tom Servo]

I have to agree with mikemil, adding that kind of tedious work over a battle would not be a good idea.

[wedge2211]

Well, considering that the movies involved plenty of motion in three dimensions, then yes, the#D combat of Homeworld really fits with Star Wars. The problem is that Homeworld's 3D movement controls were awkward if you ventured outside of the horizontal 2D plane, and all the Homeworld maps were essentially 2-dimensional. That basic two-dimensionality was worse in HW2, in which you really only had to give attack orders and very few movement orders at all. The only really accessible 3D motion was controlled through setting your units' formations. The only game I've played that does 3D movement controls full justice is Nexus: The Jupiter Incident, and gauging distances in 3D is incredibly hard in that game, leaving me once again issuing primarily attack orders or "approach target" orders to get my ships to move around.

 

I think Empire at War does a great job with space combat. Ships move in all three dimensions, so from the cinematic camera or an oblique view, things looks great and the ships all perform fully well in 3D. But the gameplay is in two-dimensions, which makes a lot of sense because (1) coming up with a really good 3D motion system and really good true 3D maps is a pain in the neck and Petroglyph probably would have taken a lot of flak for failing if they attempted that, and (2) computer monitors only show two dimensions, mouses move in only two dimensinos, so it's inherently easier to control things in 2D from a player's perspective.

 

About all the micromanagement, I look at it the same way mikemil does. I'm the supreme commander, not the lieutenant JG assigned to make sure all the supplies go from point A to points B and C. I have an invisible army of subordinates who are tasked with supplying and repairing my battle fleets, preserving order on my planets, and deciding on the layout of each individual base. I don't have any problem with instant repairs, because on the galactic map time moves so quickly that ships would basically be instantly repaired, anyways.

[Commander Obi-Wan]

Despite being an Empire vs Rebels typr of game, I'd like to have the republic and CIS untis and/or heroes IMO.

[paws1111]

"so we could have Homeworld 2 or Haegemonia type space battles"

 

some one brought up agood point a whiel back that i agree wth (cant rem who said it ) that realy ading a 3rd plane type thing what would it do? many people whould stay at the level plane because itts the fastest way to the enimie base

 

 

attack from top and below dosint realy make a huge difrence becas the commander would see any units abouve it (unless u added 3d fog of war) or bellow it.

 

the only posible thing that would be a good advantige tatics wise is going over or under the enimie to get to there base without noticeing but that only works for attacking in galatic map

 

but then again there would be more room in the space maps without actuly makeing them larger which would be nice

[PRJ Master]

I really like this game. It's the best Star Wars RTS I have played, but there are some little things I was missing that I think should have been in it or changed that weren’t.

 

Things I really think should have been different.

1. The ability to pick what units you start the battle with in Space / Land. I do see why they did this it keeps your from just flat out running over someone with all your toughest units. If you just send all your strong units then you can still do that.

 

2. A portable build/repair unit. I can't stand the pre-placed build pads and walls. It would have been nice instead to have a unit that you could build walls and turrets where you liked. Not unit producing structures, but just turrets and walls so you could fortify how you want.

 

3. In skirmish land maps the ability before the battle to lay out your base structures where you want them. Instead you're given a pre-made lay out that isn't always the best.

 

4. Maps that are more open and less constrained some maps feel too much like an obstacle course and less like a battlefield. Hoth is a good example it should have been a large flat field. With 2 or 3 spawn points on the right and left. Have the Rebs on the left and the Imps on the right. It would have made for a nice cinematic battle in game. This also goes for space maps.

 

two words:

 

Force Commander.

 

 

personally, I think the ground battles are better in FC than EaW....they're both great games...

 

unfortunately, the version of FoCom that I play belongs to my bro, lol...

 

but you have some great ideas for improvement....

[arkodeon]

Even if you could individually retreat 'A heavily damaged frigate with only its engines remaining' its unlikely that such a heavily damaged ship would actually survive long enough to make the jump into hyperspace. If retreating individually was implemented, most people would end up retreating units the moment it's shield generator gets blown, or if it's engines are being attacked, which would mean that unless you are successful in taking out it's engines, you would rarely see a frigate sized ship and up get destroyed, they would escape before that would happen. Stalemates will occur (as it's nearly impossible to damage a fleet significantly, much less destroy one), and People would moan and say "Plz Fixx" and provide handy hints on what should or shouldn't be in the game.

 

Sorry, as far as I know, there are population caps in the game, so even though they might consider making this tactic, what good is it when you run out of fresh ships? You only have so much until the supply runs out. At that point, all the "retreat and run" ships will be useless.

 

 

That's why the game should also have persistent damage... And disable the retreat ability in Skirmish.

 

o_O Retreat is disabled in Skirmish...at least...in my game...

[mikemil828]

Sorry, as far as I know, there are population caps in the game, so even though they might consider making this tactic, what good is it when you run out of fresh ships? You only have so much until the supply runs out. At that point, all the "retreat and run" ships will be useless.

 

If it was possible to individually retreat a unit, you will most likely get that vehicle's pop cap back (like you would if the ship was destroyed) so you can bring in a fresh ship from your sizable reinforcements. What happens if you run out of fresh ships? You completely retreat and try again later, duh.

[sheared]

I'd like a completely revamped menu system and a better way to track resources in the game. They did not do enough usability testing with the interface or the presentation of information.

[Cheech Marin]

Persistent damage and repairing your ships doesn't have to be a "tedious" thing. A good system would be one where you simply move the fleet to a friendly planet with a large enough space station, and then wait for the repairs to be completed. I just think that it is unrealistic that a fleet is instantly repaired and ready to go to the next battle in an instant of game time on the Galactic Map, which would correspond to 30 minutes or an hour of real time.

 

*Prepares to receive the "it's Star Wars, it doesn't have to be realistic" line.*

[boc120]

it's Star Wars, it doesn't have to be realistic. haha sorry... just had too

[Tyler_Durden]

Well for me, I think the pre-placed buildings kind of take away from some of the strategy. I think that part of a strategy game, especially an RTS, is about placement of your buildings and structures so that if the enemy somehow gets inside your base, you are able to dispatch them quickly with minimal to no loss. Also I didn't like the fact that I couldn't build more turrets and mining structures. I think you should be able to build as many turrets as you think you need in order to maximize your defensive position should the enemy get the upper hand as well as mining structures to maximize your amount of money. I do see what the devs were trying to accomplish with the focus being more on combat, but it feels like less than the total package without the building and resource management.

 

Also I think units should get a veterancy bonus for having survived a battle or taking out a number of units. Also the pop cap is a setback if you have a concrete strategy in mind but cant capitalize because you brought in more infantry than you needed.