Note: LucasForums Archive Project
The content here was reconstructed by scraping the Wayback Machine in an effort to restore some of what was lost when LF went down. The LucasForums Archive Project claims no ownership over the content or assets that were archived on archive.org.

This project is meant for research purposes only.

IG-88 vs. Death Star

Page: 1 of 1
 Docter_Aap
12-27-2006, 10:21 AM
#1
I personally think it sucks. I mean the Consortium doesnt have to do anything hard. Just pay the money and blow up a 1-build-limit battle station, the surrounding fleet, and the planet below it. That's just unfair.
 Darth Anarch
12-28-2006, 1:17 PM
#2
But then again, can't the Empire just build another Death Star? And IG-88 is gone forever after he blows up the first one, correct?
 YertyL
12-28-2006, 1:49 PM
#3
No, they cannot - which btw. makes sense since else an Imp player could just say "Here comes my second DS - GG ZC player :) "
 jedi jim 1989
12-28-2006, 8:48 PM
#4
also in cannon (i no this game isnt exactly cannon) i believe that the death star nearly bankrupt the empire or something (not 100% but im sure i herd that or read it somewhere)
 Docter_Aap
12-29-2006, 5:38 AM
#5
It also destroyed Naboo. it had an expensive base and it was full of expensive units (DT III, ATATs)
 JoesGuy
01-08-2007, 11:52 PM
#6
Aw what's wrong? Baby's widdle Empire is being threatened by a single droid? This is why I enjoyed the Zann Consortium Campaign. It gives the Empire (and you Empire enthusiasts) something to really worry about. But then, you can always build another, right?

Not that I've ever used this feature, I really like IG-88. :)
 JoesGuy
01-08-2007, 11:57 PM
#7
It also destroyed Naboo. it had an expensive base and it was full of expensive units (DT III, ATATs)
Sorry for the double post, but when you say destroyed you don't mean physically "blown up" do you? If so, I believe the second Death Star only destroyed one planet and it wasn't Naboo.
Page: 1 of 1