POLL OF THE WEEK
18-02-05
For those who haven't played Supremacy/Rebellion, it was set just after the destruction of the first Deathstar, with the galaxy in total turmoil.
However, playing as the Empire, once you've gathered enough mining resources, you were able to build a Deathstar. Superb to have in battle, and yes, rebel fighters could launch an attack on it - it certainly spread fear across the galaxy.
But if you destroyed a planet, support for you would fall sharply. Do you think we should be able to build a Deathstar in the new RTS: Empire At War?
DMUK
I don't know if we could really fit a Death Star in the game.
I mean, as cool as it was in Rebellion, there were 200 planets in that game to reck havoc with, while Empire at War is reported to have somewhere around 10% of that (20 planets).
Also, I'm not totally sure how free we are to make history in this game, if it's as free as in Rebellion (which was very free :) ).
So:
Need more game info first
Well they mentioned attacking the deathstar itself in the initial preview. And theres a picture of it in the gameart on the Lucasarts mini-site... so who knows..
If there were atleast 35+ planet's then it could destroy planet's but if not then it could be complete dominating in space battles but weak against X-Wings. But it would be mass money to make it.......
I'm 100% sure that the DS will be in. You will probably have the posibility to build only one per Galaxy at one time.
Remouved - Edit
Here's to hoping they will make it as grand as Rebellion in size, only with better grafics and features. :D :thumbsup:
I say it depends on how it could be handled. Maybe singleplayer only?
If you do it, you need it to be built REAL slow, and it can not force itself into hyperspace like the other ships. And the primary weapon must recharge for something like 5 minutes, with a timer showed to the other players so they can see how much time until it can fire. Any capital ship that gets close should be destroyed, but you can build the first one or the second one, with the second one much larger and takes a lot longer to build.
It sounds to me like the Balrog in Battle for Middle Earth: It only stays for about a minute or so, but it flies, it can take a lot of damage, and it has a special attack which it can use freely(albeit only once), that levels everything within a pretty large radius.
So you can spend a good deal of time building a base and whoosh - every tenth minute from then on, your "command tower" and your walls - which cannot be repaired, as far as I know - along with half your base and most people inside, are dead.
Not a good idea. Middle Earth is an "everything is expendable" game where troops and units can be re-built in seconds, but it's still so dang annoying.
Top that off with the way the game only lets you build on specific spots, which, in the case of your home town, are very close together...:mad: (not a bad idea in itself, but very much so in the case of the Balrog).
My personal stance: I don't want to have nurtured a planet, its people, its army, and its defences for a whole game to have it destroyed in an instant by a battle station, nuclear bomb, or demon from Hell, or whatever else. In my opinion, there's no fun in that whatsoever, no matter how expensive the Death Star, B-29, or demon is in terms of research, production cost and time, and population/command points/upkeep/maintenance.
As for a Death Star battle (handled as an infantry and ground vehicle-free ground battle using the DS surface instead of a planet): Many of those were made for SWGB, and they all proved that such a battle is no fun for an RTS, I believe. It ruled in Galactic Conquest, but for an RTS... I don't think so.
So the only way to do it would be to make the Death Star a huge ship with a ton of hit points and weapons, or to have its destruction be automatic if you send a lot of fighters at it (as a mission outside of battle or something) and I don't want either of those ideas either.
And what would the rebels have to counter it? In Battlefront there was "Rebel Uprising", which gave you the whole planet. This, too, I'm against for the reason I provided above (see "my stance").
No offense to the Death Star supporters, but I do not like the idea.
Excuse me being so naive, but when was this "Rebellion" released?
Originally posted by Sabretooth
Excuse me being so naive, but when was this "Rebellion" released?
If you're from the UK, I believe it was called Star Wars Supremacy there.
Don't ask me why. :p
Nah maybe in campaigns in singe player just to add to the story but not in multiplayer so you can just nuke your enemy in seconds.
Originally posted by FroZticles
Nah maybe in campaigns in singe player just to add to the story but not in multiplayer so you can just nuke your enemy in seconds.
HEY! SOMEONE AGREES WITH ME!!
*Pours Fro a drink*
Originally posted by Sabretooth
Excuse me being so naive, but when was this "Rebellion" released?
1998
Dang:
Rather than relying on scripted missions and story points, the developers have decided to let the story develop dynamically. There are no missions here; players will simply fight from planet to planet in a freeform galaxy. The persistence of units and bases will give a sense of continuity to the whole affair. So while the game doesn't feature a Death Star attack on Yavin or the Rebel's fighting retreat from Hoth, those scenarios can come up as a result of how you and your opponent are playing the game.
Sounds like there'll be a Death Star to me.:(
No forced "gameplay", though. That's one of the things I liked the most about Galactic Conquest.
Nah maybe in campaigns in singe player just to add to the story but not in multiplayer so you can just nuke your enemy in seconds. Something we agree on, finally;).
Want a glass of Coca-Cola with ice, Frozt? Finish that first drink first, though.:cool:
Nah maybe in campaigns in singe player just to add to the story but not in multiplayer so you can just nuke your enemy in seconds.
Well obviously not in single battle matches. But they've hinted at being able to play multiplayer campaigns. In which case the death star should be perfectly feasable.
-It'd be hugeley expensive and take a long time to build
-would be vunerable without a planetary shield
-Capturing a planet is always better than simply destroying it.
how bout destroying it while it's being constucted, unlike the second Deathstar this one probebly woulden't have a gun until complition, and finding it isent a problem either since rebels have a spy network in the game. Think, all those wasted resources on one station and you didn't even get to try it. :confused:
-It'd be hugeley expensive and take a long time to build
-would be vunerable without a planetary shield
Even so, it'd be perfectly buildable. The Atomic bombers, V-2 cruise missiles, and Wonders in Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, are also hugely expensive, take a long time to build, and are vulnerable. Still, they get built.
-Capturing a planet is always better than simply destroying it.
Not always. If you can't for the life of you take a planet, blow it up. Once in Battlefront, by the way, I was playing as the Empire and I had two planets left to capture. I had initiative and 3 out of 4 victory points. I captured one planet and used the 4 Victory points to build the Death Star - with which I blew up the last enemy planet.
Resource-wise, it's better to capture planets, of course. But there are other reasons to conduct conquest than resources. If you have the choice between wiping out a major enemy stronghold with no casualties taken, and capturing it and taking casualties, sometimes it's better to wipe it out. Especially if you have all the resources you need.
Sorry I don't drink coke since I got highly addicted and had to stop drinking it :P
Nice point about destroying instead of capture. I'm sure the US could have just nuked Iraq instead of going in and wiping out terror strongholds but it brings up to many ethical questions. ;)
No. The Deathstar is too big.
Yeah, i think fitting a true to scale sized Deathstar into the battle would be hard considering its enourmous size.
I think it would be great to have in the game if it was balanced, ie needs planetary shields.. whenever it moves out it becomes highly vulnerable to attack ect.
Originally posted by Darth Alec
how bout destroying it while it's being constucted, unlike the second Deathstar this one probebly woulden't have a gun until complition, and finding it isent a problem either since rebels have a spy network in the game. Think, all those wasted resources on one station and you didn't even get to try it. :confused:
I'm with Darth Alec and FroZticles. Don't have it in MP. SP it would be fine with me if it took a long time to build, cost alot (cost even more to give it a planetary based shield), could be discovered and attacked while under construction (which depending on how far it was into production would determine how vulnerable it itself was, going along with Darth Alec don't give it a main gun till it's complete or at least 90% complete.) And maybe if you have some sort of super long range sensors built on the planet it is a attacking, you could launch an attack before it came into firing range. Course these are just ideas.
Would be amazing if we could build the DEATH STAR.
Screw planets yavin 4 will finally be destroyed along with the rebel scum. Ohhh and any other planet that gets in my way will be destroyed like dantooaine(I think that is how you spell it?)
To my knowledge, Dantooine were never destroyed.
Perhaps he was referring to the movie where Leia tricks the Imperials into thinking the Rebel base is on Dantooine. Just saying he'd blow it up anyway. I think.
Hmmm, perhaps you're right.
Well, I think Deathstar as in Rebellion is a good idea, it just belongs to Star Wars!
Of course, it has to be well balanced, and if there are really only 20 planets i would actually make it unable to target planets, just ships. Of course it as well has its quadrillions of turbolasers ect. ect.
And of course, a group of Rebel X-Wings can destroy it -_-