So this is a real RTS

[jediturkey]

This game seems to require a lot more strategy than your typical RTS' where everything comes down to who has the most units and bombarding the other guy (or AI). I believe it's due to the persistance nature of the game -- whereas you shouldn't always plan on your first battle winning a war, instead, you may have to come back for seconds or thirds; each battle taking out specific types of defenses to get the upper hand. Placement of defenses and obtaining key territories is crucial -- not just simply amassing as many units as possible.

 

Apologies if I seem like I'm rambling. I've been reading reviews at EB Games and some people have complaints about this game, but I think the real issue is that the game truly does force you to play strategically, not just rush this or that territory, rinse, and repeat.

 

Thoughts?

[Orao]

No such thing as persistent damage in teh game. With the present AI only good strategy is the number. The AI is rushing you and some units need to be tweaked.

[jediturkey]

Sorry. I mean to say there is a persistent gain or loss -- by the numbers. Most RTS's if you lose a battle you start all over -- everything is reset. This one, you pick up where you left off persay.

[vrb]

This game seems to require a lot more strategy than your typical RTS' where everything comes down to who has the most units and bombarding the other guy (or AI).

Thoughts?

 

 

I think this game has way LESS strategy than most RTS I've played. In space it's a race to get the best capital ships and spam them. Then take out the enemy space station (yawn)

 

On land it's a race to get mines and landing spots and then blow up your enemies base (yawn)

 

In age of empires 3 I have a much greater diversity of units with rich depth though cards and unit bonuses and all kinds of strategies I can use to win.

 

I like EAW but it's not a deep game by any means. It's FUN but doesn't have much depth to it.

[jediturkey]

Interesting point of view. I can understand. I think the persistence of battles and such makes this game more strategic than others I've played -- where usually it's follow steps a through f and repeat. I prefer the territorial domination of this to acquire resources, and the pick and choose style of gameplay. I guess it's all a matter of preference.

[DarthMuffin]

I think this game has way LESS strategy than most RTS I've played. In space it's a race to get the best capital ships and spam them. Then take out the enemy space station (yawn)

 

On land it's a race to get mines and landing spots and then blow up your enemies base (yawn)

 

In age of empires 3 I have a much greater diversity of units with rich depth though cards and unit bonuses and all kinds of strategies I can use to win.

 

I like EAW but it's not a deep game by any means. It's FUN but doesn't have much depth to it.

 

The topic of "which RTS is the most strategic" has really been beaten to death again and again. I for one found AoE3 to be incredibly inferior to other RTSs. In the end, each RTS has a different style of strategic value. In EaW, it's the mix between tactical battles and the galactic mode thing.

 

Racing to get better capital ships is also a strategic feature. So is trying to get the landing points before your enemy.

 

Basically, anything that involves you doing something to beat the bad guy can be called "strategy". Massing a single unit can also be called "strategy", since you, as the player, evaluate that this is the best way to beat your enemy.

 

Different kinds of strategy appeal to different kinds of people. I for one never liked the Age of X games.

[Cheech Marin]

Actually there's a reason why the AI rushes you. It does not use Fog of War.

[PR-0927]

I think that this game was designed brilliantly. There is plenty of strategy involved. In the Rebel Campaign, I managed to repel five Imperial-class Star Destroyers, six to eight Victory-class Star Destroyers, four Acclamator-class Assault Ships, hundreds of TIE Fighters and TIE Bombers, and several Immobilizer 418 Cruisers with a pathetic fleet of two Assault Frigate Mk. IIs, two Nebulon-B Frigates, and two squadrons of T-65 X-wings. I also attained two CR90 Corellian Corvettes and one Nebulon-B Frigate through the Space Station reinforcements (Level 4 Space Station).

 

I have to disagree with the notion that there are no tactics involved, or that the only tactic is numbers. Play the Rebel Campaign, you may love a ground mission where you use only Han Solo and Chewbacca against hundreds of Imperial units.

 

- Majin Revan

[lukeiamyourdad]

To some, strategy is building up your civilization, to others it's getting workers to mine ore and chop wood and to the rest of us, it's E@W

[Kurgan]

Has anyone played Emperor: Battle for Dune? The two games are very similar in many aspects (minus the space battles).

[Heavyarms]

There's definitely a tactical element. I'm really into space, but there's a lot of jocking for position and figuring out when to retreat and restrategize in skirmishes. It's not just a massive spamfest in skirmish. Yes, there's a flat out race to tech 5, but while that's going on you'd better get the mines and you'd better not lose the, or you can attack their station and try to win early. I was in a 3v1 and I tried that trick, almost maybe did it.

[DS_Vespidbat]

There's definitely a tactical element. I'm really into space, but there's a lot of jocking for position and figuring out when to retreat and restrategize in skirmishes. It's not just a massive spamfest in skirmish. Yes, there's a flat out race to tech 5, but while that's going on you'd better get the mines and you'd better not lose the, or you can attack their station and try to win early. I was in a 3v1 and I tried that trick, almost maybe did it.

 

i dont rush to getting the cap ships.If ur playing someone that is rushing to get to t5, then just go o t2 and make lots of acc cruisers/neb-bs,tartans/corvettes, and boba.It will work since ur enemy wont have a big defence.

[jediturkey]

The topic of "which RTS is the most strategic" has really been beaten to death again and again. I for one found AoE3 to be incredibly inferior to other RTSs. In the end, each RTS has a different style of strategic value. In EaW, it's the mix between tactical battles and the galactic mode thing.

 

Racing to get better capital ships is also a strategic feature. So is trying to get the landing points before your enemy.

 

Basically, anything that involves you doing something to beat the bad guy can be called "strategy". Massing a single unit can also be called "strategy", since you, as the player, evaluate that this is the best way to beat your enemy.

 

Different kinds of strategy appeal to different kinds of people. I for one never liked the Age of X games.

 

Very well written. Worth a full quote.

[jedi3112]

Has anyone played Emperor: Battle for Dune? The two games are very similar in many aspects (minus the space battles).

 

I played that one, indeed very similar. There's the sandstorms, infantry cover (though infantry can still be run over in this game, making the cover less usefull) and even the sandworms and natives. Though not really exactly in the same proportions as in Dune. I always preferred to play Atreides and build lots of mongooses (good vs everything and can target anything) after I finished my defense. The same goes for EAW, with other units off course. I don't know if you may lose 2 battles in a campaign, haven't tried that yet. Always unlocking as many movies as I can. Main difference is the experience that's not in EAW.

 

I always considered the Rome to be quite strategic, except I also always find the balance to be lost (main drawback is the overpowered cavalry and overpowered romans). Force Commander also had some nice strategic features, though most of them can also be found in Rome.

 

EAW is a good game, but it still has lots of room for improvements, like experience (combined with naming units it makes for a realy nice game) and I don't like the hero respawn, I think that when a hero dies you should be able to revive them, but it should be very expensive and take quite long (but not for R2 and 3PO).

[DarthMuffin]

I always considered the Rome to be quite strategic, except I also always find the balance to be lost (main drawback is the overpowered cavalry and overpowered romans). Force Commander also had some nice strategic features, though most of them can also be found in Rome.

 

EAW is a good game, but it still has lots of room for improvements, like experience (combined with naming units it makes for a realy nice game) and I don't like the hero respawn, I think that when a hero dies you should be able to revive them, but it should be very expensive and take quite long (but not for R2 and 3PO).

 

Rome is a fantastic game as far as strategy is concerned. Yes, the Romans are overpowerd. But the thing is, the campaign made you play as the romans and you eventually had to beat the crap out of almost everyone else. Let's not forget that, historically, the romans *did* have a powerful and organized military.

 

Hero revival is a great idea, in my opinion. I'm a WarCraft player, and I don't hide it. Reviving should cost money (medical expenses) *and* time (convalescence). Heroes are very powerful units, and it should be "drastic" to loose one. Just like in WC3.

[jedi3112]

Hero revival is a great idea, in my opinion. I'm a WarCraft player, and I don't hide it. Reviving should cost money (medical expenses) *and* time (convalescence). Heroes are very powerful units, and it should be "drastic" to loose one. Just like in WC3.

 

That's exactly what I was thinking, and currently in EAW you only have to wait (long) and pay the very expensive absolutely nothing fee to revive them. Though some heros require a ship (and maybe some require a unit, but I haven't gotten that far yet, only have the game for a few days). Currently you can just take your hero units, stuff in a large fleet and do some random killing. I believe there are some mods that make heros dead permantly, but that would give other problems with the game as it is. Mostly for the Rebels, I mean if you lose either

 

R2 and 3PO

Luke

 

That would give you some huge problems with the technology or the DS. This would take the fun out of the game as it is too easy to use spies and a bounty hunter to take one of these out. So that's not much of an solution unless worked on.

 

BFME also uses the system I proposed, but in that system the heros are very cost effective and don't take too long. Furthermore I think that using the naming and experience of units is a very effective way of creating your own heros or specialised troops. Such as an elite squad of stormtroopers that guard the emperor or coruscant.

 

 

I am also thinking about modding EAW, but I prefer to play the game a bit as it is first. This should give me a better view of what could be done better. And maybe Petroglyph (hopefully) has made some tools and a nice guide of what can be done and how to do it by that time. Though I suspect a few modders will have to make the guide.

[Orao]

I have to disagree with the notion that there are no tactics involved, or that the only tactic is numbers. Play the Rebel Campaign, you may love a ground mission where you use only Han Solo and Chewbacca against hundreds of Imperial units.

[/Quote]

 

I've finished two campaigns long time ago and the part on Cadrila was the only ground battle where I have to use a tactic. All other battles finished up by me rushing the reinforcement points first and then landing maximum reinforcements.

 

Just face it ppl. This game is fast paced and you have no time to think any elaboreate strategy.

 

Only strategy or tactic which works with this game is :

 

I got attack by unit A ok I'll use unit B which counter it. If you call this tactic or strategy then I suggest you to open an english dictionnary and search for the words.

[wedge2211]

From dictionary.com:

 

tactics

1. ...Maneuvers used against an enemy: Guerrilla tactics were employed during most of the war.

2. A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.

 

So, even "capture all the landing zones and drop maximum reinforcements into the battle, then invade the enemy base" fits the definition. That's your personal set of tactics. You're not complaining that there are no tactics involved in the game, you're complaining that you've found a single tactic that works in general.

 

strategy

1. a. The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war.

b. The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations.

 

That's what the entire galactic map is. Strategy is the large-scale stuff that you don't see in the individual battles (that's why the game calls them "tactical battles").

[Heavyarms]

i dont rush to getting the cap ships.If ur playing someone that is rushing to get to t5, then just go o t2 and make lots of acc cruisers/neb-bs,tartans/corvettes, and boba.It will work since ur enemy wont have a big defence.

 

That works if you are playing 1v1, but 2v2 or 3v3 usually has someone upgrading rapidly and the others fighting (or at least that is what I do) and when I hit T5 I usually have a ton of funds so I get the big cap ships and pummel my enemies.

[DarthBalls9]

get good, go fight, and win

• 
  

[akito272]

This is a good game but with short comming especialy on land...land is a rush to

reinforcement points. Space is good, becuse big ships can die easily so if you dont go to lv 5 you can still win....but this game is very C&C feel...this game with a more roman:total war aproach would be a lot better.

[†Saint_Killa†]

R:TW land battles. Hmmm.... can't imagine it. But it would be good otherwise. Space battles are good enough but not that good.

[Spiralarchitech]

I think the strategy in this game is excellent i'll explain, in most other rts games i find you use a single good strategy to beat your opponent if it fails its rare you have enough resources to change mid game.

 

In EAW i find i have to use different strategys in every battle, now i know in some reveiws of this game they said that having a paper scissor stone rts was bad as units either do no damage or max damage depending on the opposing unit.

 

But i admit the Paper scissor stones style is better as normally in other rts games i need maybe 2 or 3 units to win a game in this i find i have to use at least 4-5 different types of units and at least 1 or 2 hero's at any one time and a variety of different strategys (on the fly might i add) to beat my opponent.

 

Just my 2 cents

[wherryj]

I think this game has way LESS strategy than most RTS I've played. In space it's a race to get the best capital ships and spam them. Then take out the enemy space station (yawn)

 

On land it's a race to get mines and landing spots and then blow up your enemies base (yawn)

 

In age of empires 3 I have a much greater diversity of units with rich depth though cards and unit bonuses and all kinds of strategies I can use to win.

 

I like EAW but it's not a deep game by any means. It's FUN but doesn't have much depth to it.

 

This doesn't totally apply. I've found that it is possible to take vastly superior enemy positions (both their fleet AND a strong space station) by using tactics. It is possibly mostly due to the AI not always making good decisions, but it isn't totally a matter of numbers.

[jediturkey]

I'm finding Act of War: Direct Action much more appealing. You can get it online at EB Games for $19 and there is a expansion coming soon. The game is very strategic and requires a lot of thinking - vs. just rushing masses of units against the enemy.

 

Not bashing EAW. I love it. But once I've done an entire campaign, it feels very been there done that -- Act of War feels unique through-out the game.