I know "it's too early to say anything" but ill spit it out and i hope some good developer (*cough cough*) read this. Also, some good answers would be preferred, rather than a simple copyrighted grin :).

The main question, to clear things from begining it this:

Is EaW:FoC made for "hardcore" RTS players, who like Total War, Rebellion and other "complex" RTS, or is it made for RTS players, who like C&C, Starcraft, Warcraft and (take cover) SW:Empire at War games?

I guess this is very clear & straight and there's no need to have a finished game in your hands to reveal it; it's simply the prospects you set from begining.

Now, i liked that troop transports are implemented, plus other new stuff on GC mode (like some short of base-micromanagement) and new units, but what about:

1. Instant damage . In other words, your ship/unit remains damaged until repaired on GC on special structures or repair drones/ships jump into the heat of battle to repair "healable at battle" damages. Obviously, if you have your half bridge floating in space and your batteries accompanying your trail, then the ship must be repaired in a shipyard or something...

2. Diplomacy . Okey, 1st priority for me, don't know for rest...will everything be again automatically triggered, wether you call it sabotage, assasin or bribe? For instance, i bribe Vader -extreme example, ok :)- and cause a code says that "if bribe=very good, then ok", we're done? Just accept and deny? No counter-attacks, punishement, give & take negotiations etc ?????

3. Challenging AI . Need to analyse this?

4. Maps complexity . Although 40% bigger (still small to me, hope map edittor will make short work of this), will they be with more strategic meaning? For example, with choke-points, trap-good points, artillery barrage installements etc? Also, make them more alive, vivid....you know, not 2 banthas strolling around, and one rock here and there; make them state-of-art...

5. Space maps complexity . Ok, this must be listed separately, for "obvious" reasons....please, no more nebulas, no more asteroids, no more chunks, no more "my base is in this corner, his' in the other"....i know, space maps have completely different philosophy than the ground ones, but you can import new space buildings that indirectly define the space maps; ie. "space shield" turrets, that block a ship to enter, or jamming devices that confuse enemy's minimap and show non-real statistics.

6. In conjuction with above and cause i read that buildings (it was bunkers to be precise, i hope we don't play with words here...) can be garissoned, will there be strategic enhancement in tactical combat, for example height-bonus (firing from above), getting covered in trees or in rivers etc etc.

7. And, to continue with tactical battle enhancement, what could definitely boost up space tactical space battles is the ability to change the Z-level of ships; yes, this is not true-3d system, it's still based on 2.5d lanes, but it will give much more freedom to players than the current traffic-jam we're having...

8. Referring to GC micromanagement, a very cool feature is to be able to jump into your planet installements, in real-time, even if no battle is trigerred. It will give more freedom so that you can build turrets/sensor nodes on the build pads, and not running the last momenet (ie. when battle begins) to do so...

9. And last, but not least for all modders out there, will EaW:FoC be compliant with current mods? This doesnt seem unlikely to me, since FoC is based on EaW engine and (even) files. Most (if not all) mods refer to current factions and their current units so, it should be matter of a good (and painfull ofcourse......don't want even to think about it but i have to :D) merging on newest xmls, dat, tga, dds and lua files, right? At least if you dont change the format or the xml's structure. For example, i noticed that rock-scissors-paper will remain, but that's "fixable".....and it will be more easily fixed, if we can easily merge our current modifications.

I think we can get even a simple "yes or no" to all the above....

Well, everyone feel free to fill the list.

The main question, to clear things from begining it this:

Is EaW:FoC made for "hardcore" RTS players, who like Total War, Rebellion and other "complex" RTS, or is it made for RTS players, who like C&C, Starcraft, Warcraft and (take cover) SW:Empire at War games?

The expansion, while it adds new features and content, is not going to entirely redesign how the game is played. If you liked the original game, then you should be happy with the expansion.


1. Instant damage . In other words, your ship/unit remains damaged until repaired on GC on special structures or repair drones/ships jump into the heat of battle to repair "healable at battle" damages. Obviously, if you have your half bridge floating in space and your batteries accompanying your trail, then the ship must be repaired in a shipyard or something...

2. Diplomacy . Okey, 1st priority for me, don't know for rest...will everything be again automatically triggered, wether you call it sabotage, assasin or bribe? For instance, i bribe Vader -extreme example, ok :)- and cause a code says that "if bribe=very good, then ok", we're done? Just accept and deny? No counter-attacks, punishement, give & take negotiations etc ?????

I'll answer these two together. The core gameplay of EAW will not change with an expansion - that is the realm of a sequel. Delphi has already stated that there will be no diplomacy added to the game, and persistant damage will not be added either.

That being said, there are concepts in these two suggestions that may make their way into the expansion, though perhaps not as you decribe them.


3. Challenging AI . Need to analyse this?

The AI is being looked at. Obviously we will need to redesign much of it since we are adding a third faction, so it's a good time to look at the other issues as well.


4. Maps complexity . Although 40% bigger (still small to me, hope map edittor will make short work of this), will they be with more strategic meaning? For example, with choke-points, trap-good points, artillery barrage installements etc? Also, make them more alive, vivid....you know, not 2 banthas strolling around, and one rock here and there; make them state-of-art...

There are MANY new features going into map construction. It's hard to see just from a video, but the Felucia map presented there is some indication of the direction we are going. Keep in mind though that time is always an issue, and expansion teams are much smaller than a full game - we can't spend two weeks on one planet when we have to create all those new ones as well as refitting old ones.

5. Space maps complexity . Ok, this must be listed separately, for "obvious" reasons....please, no more nebulas, no more asteroids, no more chunks, no more "my base is in this corner, his' in the other"....i know, space maps have completely different philosophy than the ground ones, but you can import new space buildings that indirectly define the space maps; ie. "space shield" turrets, that block a ship to enter, or jamming devices that confuse enemy's minimap and show non-real statistics.


As with land, space tactical combat will see changes...


6. In conjuction with above and cause i read that buildings (it was bunkers to be precise, i hope we don't play with words here...) can be garissoned, will there be strategic enhancement in tactical combat, for example height-bonus (firing from above), getting covered in trees or in rivers etc etc.

See answers 4 and 5 above :)


7. And, to continue with tactical battle enhancement, what could definitely boost up space tactical space battles is the ability to change the Z-level of ships; yes, this is not true-3d system, it's still based on 2.5d lanes, but it will give much more freedom to players than the current traffic-jam we're having...

This is not going to happen, at least in an expansion. However, we will be looking at the other issues causing the traffic-jam problems.


8. Referring to GC micromanagement, a very cool feature is to be able to jump into your planet installements, in real-time, even if no battle is trigerred. It will give more freedom so that you can build turrets/sensor nodes on the build pads, and not running the last momenet (ie. when battle begins) to do so...


The base customization system has been shown in the E3 videos, and I think that fits much of what you are asking for here. Build pads will always be tactically-built - that is their purpose, at least for this game.


9. And last, but not least for all modders out there, will EaW:FoC be compliant with current mods? This doesnt seem unlikely to me, since FoC is based on EaW engine and (even) files. Most (if not all) mods refer to current factions and their current units so, it should be matter of a good (and painfull ofcourse......don't want even to think about it but i have to :D) merging on newest xmls, dat, tga, dds and lua files, right? At least if you dont change the format or the xml's structure. For example, i noticed that rock-scissors-paper will remain, but that's "fixable".....and it will be more easily fixed, if we can easily merge our current modifications.

I can't say for sure yet, but the data file formats are exactly the same. I think the coders are leaning toward a Warcraft/Starcraft code format for the expansion (that is, the expansion uses its own separate executable) so it may be that mods made for the original game will need to be run under that executable, and mods using expansion content will need the expansion executable. This hasn't been finalized yet, so ask me again in September :)

Well, instant damage and no diplomacy already cut my knees (the answer on mod-compliance was the final shot :D), but your expression about "tactical battles enhancements" seems to be hiding something.......

As for the maps, yes, i did notice plenty of decoration (maybe destructable?) in contrast to current maps. And about the base-controlling, it does offer some advantages (like putting some ATATs in front lines)....i hope we can pick our starting forces in space too.

As for the rest, since building garissons are implemented, then it will cetrainly boost gameplay, especially if town-planets are filles with many buildings.

Ill keep an eye on FoC, you never know what's going to happen in progress.

That sounds great, if you ask me. I knew there wasn't going to be any implementation of a Z-axis, and diplomacy and persistent damage were long shots at best (still would have been sweet, though). As much as I love the game I have to say that the AI could do with some serious upgrading.

Something I would really love to see is the ability to pick which ships are to be included in the initial force when attacking/defending a system. By all means the computer makes a well-rounded choice, but some times it would be nice to specialize a little. For example, if the Rebels have lots of starfighters but no capital ships it would be good to be able to go in with a bunch of Tartans first and save the big guns for later. Any chance of seeing this in the expansion pack?

Your description of diplomacy sounds similiar to the bribe option that was shown in the presentation video. Perhaps a modder, if they have access when the expansion comes out, can make diplomacy based on the bribe option.

And thank god there is no Z-axis. I don't want to be struggling with the camera all the friggin time.

Is EaW:FoC made for "hardcore" RTS players, who like Total War, Rebellion and other "complex" RTS, or is it made for RTS players, who like C&C, Starcraft, Warcraft and (take cover) SW:Empire at War games?
You think StarCraft and WarCraft aren't "hardcore" RTS? :Open2:

And Rebellion was hardly an RTS, at least not in the sense of the other games you mentioned.

You think StarCraft and WarCraft aren't "hardcore" RTS? :Open2:
Starcraft, C&C, Warcraft and similar RTS belong to the spamfest, arcadish, "old-school" RTS, and im not the only to have this opinion (http://pff.swrebellion.com/index.php?topic=3424.0). With the Rebellion i emphasize diplomacy :).

As for space battle, apart from picking your starting forces, it would be very handy to have two more options:

1) Arrange your forces on the map, like in ground, without a battle initiated.
2) Being able to enter a system from different sides.

Obviously, if you attack always on the same size, #1 feature is useless.

I agree that those would be nifty, but think of the physics. If you have ships arriving from different sides of the map they must also travel to the system from different planets on the galactic map. Forces travelling the same route through hyperspace will, by definition, arrive together.

As for arranging your forces you usually have time for this before the enemy force runs into you. And if they increase the size of the space maps you'll have even more time.

Yeah I dont get it then. Rebellion is not a RTS. WarCraft and StarCraft are. Real Time Strategy. Rebellion was a Turn based Strategy like Galactic Civs I&II or Civilations they are more likely to have diplomacy. People get confused because of Rome total war because it is a blend of Real time and turn based game play. EaW is a pure RTS all things are done in real time, IE without any turns invovled.

Rebellion wasnt turn based, it was Real Time. A much better RTS than Warcraft or Starcraft.

Yeah I dont get it then. Rebellion is not a RTS. WarCraft and StarCraft are. Real Time Strategy. Rebellion was a Turn based Strategy like Galactic Civs I&II or Civilations they are more likely to have diplomacy. People get confused because of Rome total war because it is a blend of Real time and turn based game play. EaW is a pure RTS all things are done in real time, IE without any turns invovled.
As Admiral Sith said Rebellion is a Real Time game. In fact, the game is an RTS because it is in real time and does require strategy. Although it may not be a traditional RTS it was one. And it was a heck of a great game! :)

Rebellion was turn-based...both sides just took their turns simultaneously.

I agree that those would be nifty, but think of the physics. If you have ships arriving from different sides of the map they must also travel to the system from different planets on the galactic map. Forces travelling the same route through hyperspace will, by definition, arrive together.
No, no, didn't mean this way, since this would mess everything up.

I mean before initiating a space battle, the console could give both players 1 min (for example) to arrange their lines. Obviously, you can't jump anywhere on the map cause there's high possibility that you jump on the enemy space station (it's 50%-50% after all where the station is placed) :D.

But, for example, when the battle is initiated i am given the half side of the map to jump in so, i place my broadsides on the flanks, 1-2 on the left and right corners, and the assault ships in the middle.

Currently, when a space battle is initiated all your forces jump into on pre-defined circle area.....this is what im mentioning out ;).

Starcraft, C&C, Warcraft and similar RTS belong to the spamfest, arcadish, "old-school" RTS.

That depends on which WarCraft you are referring to. WC3 doesn't deserve any title of RTS period, so shouldn't even be mentioned in that group. As for StarCraft, at one time it was more than just a rush fest, but then patch 1.08b came along, and brought with it Terran Heavy Metal, and it hasn't been the same since.

Well, I for one would like an option for much harder AI. Even on Hard in Skirmish especially it is too easy.

Rebellion wasnt turn based, it was Real Time. A much better RTS than Warcraft or Starcraft.


Ummm ok even Lucas Arts admits that Rebellion was a failure. Warcraft and Starcraft revolutionized RTS game play.

Beside what I ment was that they are classic base building RTS games versus a galactic turn based element like RTW has.

Rebellion was only a failure for the idiots at Lucasarts. It may not have had the best graphics, but the gameplay is still superior to practically any game that challenges it.

Ummm ok even Lucas Arts admits that Rebellion was a failure. Warcraft and Starcraft revolutionized RTS game play.


Not really. Well, except for the three unique civs in StarCraft, they both only used existing elements and did it better then everyone else.

As for Rebellion, it is a failure in terms of accessibility. It wasn't meant for non-hardcore gamers and as such, it failed to do well financially. It doesn't mean that it's not a good game but we have to realize that making games is not equal to charity :)

Sales do count, they indicate how popular it was. No one but hardcore Star Wars fans bought it. I dont want to start a fight or anything but the only redemining quality of Rebellion was the Star Wars tag. You use some generic factions like Galactic Conquest and that game is a total bust.

On a lighter note and back on topic.
I suppose its not possible but I would still like to see some custumization options like changing out hard points on ships maybe adding a hanger or taking one out to add more guns. Most likely a dream wish.

I was also wondering about Mercs or special units. This I think we have a chance for since Dark troopers are produced only on a particular ship, if I read the may 25 chat right. I would like to see that concept expanded on. Like recruitable troop varations, for example Clones on Komino, Wookies on Kasyakk and so on.

Maybe recruitable from the Mercenary Outfitter buildings? Yes, that would be a cool feature.

I think you should be able to choose your starting unit if your army exceeds the CP cap. This would be a nice feature, to prevent an army with too many inappropriate ships, or huge vehicles plocking trooper spaces in small CP maps.

Rebellion is superior in every way to EaW, except that it doesnt have land battles and bad battle graphics.

Not in EVERY way. One of the things that annoyed me with Rebellion was the incredible amount of micromanagement required. And things took so long to complete that by the time you were told that "the shipyards of Endor have completed their task" you'd entirely forgotten what that task was.

The perfect game, as so many have said before, would take most of the features of Rebellion (diplomacy, hero missions, etc.) and apply them to EaW. That would make for an absolutely incredible game.

It still wouldnt have been as good. Besides, not being able to keep up with the micromanagement required is a personal problem, not a gameplay problem. Its all a matter of multi-tasking(plus a skilled use of slowing/speeding up time).

See I dont think that means Rebellion. Games like the total wars series are the perfect blend of Stragetic and action. Rebellion has only the star wars tag making it so memorable. I would rather see EaW blended with Galactic Civ II not Rebellion. I would rather have an easy to use interface and less micromangement, note not limiting control but rather elimating tetious steps.

Rebellion so outdid its star wars tag, that it puts George Lucas himself to shame. Rebellion is infinatly better than both EaW and Galactic Civ II combined.

...I don't see whats the problem with the micromanagement of rebellion, i never had a problem, not in single, not in multiplayer mode, I agree some games can be as complicated and eternal as a good chees game, but all that make strategy the main point, since the anounce of EaW I always thought it would be a merge between the best of rebellion and battlefront, I like the idea of the reinforcement points a lot, and the way things are builded. I don't see whats the great deal there, u can make geonosis ur money makeing planet, abregado the heave mech factory planet, tatoin the troop makeing planet .etc, just random examples, by this i dont mean that just one planet will make troops or money, but u can have key planets to be well defended, along with the bonus planets, of course it is complicated to have well defended all ur planets, but thats one more point to reallity (again, of what we can call reallity in SW universe =P).

In my opinion it's just wits what is needed