As a big fan of Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Viet Nam, I'm interested in this game which seems to be similar to the two. I am, however, increasingly worried that this'll be just another Rogue-squadron-like forced game without much thought put into it.

For example, look at Rogue Squadron III (a good game, but totally inaccurate, forced, and frustrating). Your Y-Wing can crack open the hull of a star destroyer, but can't penetrate the armour of an AT-AT?

What I mean with 'forced' game play is a situation that has only one solution because that's the solution they used in the movies (like the tow cable, again). I have this nasty feeling that you won't be able to attack an AT-AT with torpedoes in an X-Wing, 'cause "in the movies they used tow cables and that's the way it's gotta be!" Look, if I was to make a world war II game, would I make Tiger Tanks invulnerable to bazooka grenades because "in Saving Private Ryan they used tar-soaked socks filled with explosives"? I think I can picture myself flying around in Combat Flight Simulator 3 after blowing up a factory complex with my guns... "oh, no, tanks, we've gotta land and take our socks off!:eek:!" (if you think that's ridiculous, well pretty much the same thing happens in a mission in Rogue Squadron III).

And the jet packs: How many jet packs did you see in Star Wars? I count one. But now, suddenly, everyone have them because "it was in the movies!".

Yes, tow cables may be fun, and so may throwing in a thermal detonator while hanging in the tow cable under the AT-AT. But that doesn't have to mean they have to be the only way to take out AT-ATs in the game. Why? Because of outside of Hoth, it never happened (read any canon source on the subject). Saying otherwise is like saying every German tank in World War II was blown up with sticky bombs...

Here are my main points:
Just that someone did something in a certain way in the movies, doesn't have to mean that's the only way to do it.
Vehicles, organisations, people, and so on can be used in a different context than the ones in the movie. For example, speeders can be put in maps even though there are no AT-ATs in the map. :rolleyes:

If this post seems cynical, sorry. I understand both views. I'd love to have sticky bombs in BF:1942 as they were pretty cool in Saving Private Ryan (especially since those grenades and C4 charges have a tendency of falling off the tanks). However, I wouldn't want sticky C4 charges to be the only way to take out a tank in BF: 194s. Would you?

Nah man I'll give u an amen. :D

I love Star Wars and I believe in not getting too far out of the universe. By the same token though, if you become too much of a purist, you stifle the game's potential.

As a result of that, many of the Star Wars games seem like clones of each other.

"ATTACK OF THE CLONES!" ....sorry, had to say it.

Anyway, I hadn't previously considered what you just said, mainly because I assumed the developers were taking the lion's share of their creative inpiration from the BF games rather than the old SW games. I hope my initial impression remains the correct one.

I agree. Flexibility, variability and some amount of logic would make for better game play. I'm betting on the Hoth map there may not be any X-wings at all. We all know from the films they were used as escorts but if they were available and players turned them on the assaulting AT-ATs, they should wax them in seconds. Forcing players to use the cables (which were an improvised tactic, like the sticking bombs) and having that be the only means would put a big damper on that map.

I already addressed the jet pack issue. The trouble is people love fantasy and anything which they think might give them an edge they then want. We'll have to see what counters the jetpackers. Maybe they're the reason why developers aren't allowing you to pick up dropped kits. It would suck to go up against a flying sniper, who pops up over a building long enough to shot you then lands on the roof out of reach.

We'll all see won't we.

Ok all start by saying that I do see some of your points. I can understand your concern. But to be honest I don't understand the fact that you have this concern so early. Who ever said the only way in the game to blow yup a AT AT was by useing a tow cable? I believe they said that was a way to do it. And i have seen in screen shots AT AT's blowing up while still standing so I am guessing tow cable isn't the only way. Perhaps you can bring them down with the rebel vanguard unit? And I dunno is there anything wrong with haveing to take down a AT AT by tow cable just because it's hard. Now I know thats not what your saying dagohban eagle but thats basically what some others have said. I say whats wrong with a challenge? The whole jetpack thing isn't to much of a stretch. Thats easily understandable and actually those kinds of troopers have been around already. Now I know not everyone goes to the star wars databank but I do once in awhile and there in there just look for them. Another thing about hoth. Pretty are so concerned about the whole AT AT problem and that it will be boreing. They forget that there will still be a whole big battle going on among the ground units. There will be trenches and even underground base areas like it showed in the trailer. Don't forget the levels aren't just blasting people to bits there are objectives. So don't worry your pretty little heads yet. There is still A LOT and I mean A LOT of info left to be said lets just wait and see before jumping to these types of conclusions. I don't want to sound smug to anyone I'm just saying theres still a lot to be said. But you did raise some good issues that should be taken notice of in the future disccusions.

You're all pretty right, thank you for your replies.

I think it'll be something in between, like the tanks in Battlefield 1942. They could be damaged by grenades (at least I think tanks in real life can't be destroyed by a hand grenade:p) and I think even small-arms fire, but nobody would reasonably expect to win a fight against a tank with grenades. Most often it was more of an emergency measure when you were lying in front of the tank and it was about to run over you:D.

Maybe they're the reason why developers aren't allowing you to pick up dropped kits. It would suck to go up against a flying sniper, who pops up over a building long enough to shot you then lands on the roof out of reach.
That's interesting. In Battlefield 1942 you could only drop your whole kit when picking up a new kit. For example, you couldn't be a sniper and leave your pistol for a bazooka, and then drop your knife and pick up C4 explosives. You could pick up the machine gun, but then you'd have to drop your sniper rifle.

But to be honest I don't understand the fact that you have this concern so early.
Because I wanted to make sure it wouldn't end that way. Oh, and it's better to voice concerns early, as less work is done by then, you know:p.

Anyways, I'm very relieved that people agree with me on this, and that this game won't turn out like Rogue Squadron III:).

Lets star with the Jet packs: I'm not sure were you really stand on this issue, but there are only two troops that have that, and they fit them perfectly. IMP Darktroopers had them in Dark Forces, they have them now. The Clone has one because he takes it up after Jango, just like Boba did and same with the ARC trooper from the cartoon using 2 pistols. And I heard that the devs are taking balance into account above all things (and they have experience at is since they've worked on some strategy games), so having to worry about uber troops isn't necessary. Plus one isn't able to pick up another weapon, only ammo I believe.

As for versatility, I'm sure that the only way to take down an AT-AT isn't by Snowspeeder. As someone already mentioned, you won't see things like X-wings at Hoth just like you won't see AT-ATs at Endor (most likely). The vehicles appear as pickups in a way, so anyone can use them, they are map specific, and most likely respawn. But to get back to the subject, I think having to use only snowspeeders to take down an AT-AT would make this game be more layered and away from a mindless shooter. What I mean is people are working together instead of running on there own killing spree. Here is a scenario: There are 4 snow speeders, and 8 pilots ready to jump in (one for flying, one for gunning) and go of towards the AT-ATs. If they are the only ways to stop the walkers, all fire would be consecrated on them, right? This is where all other random troops come in to fight of anyone trying to take down the Speeders. This may sound extremely hard, but the AT-ATs are limited, while my guess on the Snowspeeder's numbers, are not. This could balance out any problems that may occur.

I hope that helped in some way because I'm just rambling now

Actually, we did see an AT-AT on Endor. But that probably won't be in the game.

All the vehicles should come in limited numbers. I don't want to be the only man staying in the trenches trying to repel waves of snowtroopers because my teamates are all busy flying their snowspeeders.


As for BF1942, grenades and tanks. Well, you can destroy a tank with grenades if you have enough players around ready to throw some nades on the tank. Besides, it's not that hard to take down light tanks with grenades.

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
All the vehicles should come in limited numbers. I don't want to be the only man staying in the trenches trying to repel waves of snowtroopers because my teamates are all busy flying their snowspeeders.

I have to totally agree with you there. It would be ridiculous if everyone just hopped into vehicles, and left a couple of team-mates standing alone and unprotected. I can just imagine some players are going to hop into the nearest vehicle they find, and go on some mindless rampage regardless of the rest of the team. That's the quickest way to lose a battle.

It all comes down to balance, and team coordination.

EXCLLENT POINT STORMANATIOR good point. that is why we need you. with a clan you get co-op come to www.iefgreatnow.com) and join our fast growing clan.:D