:lol: For once I agree. It would definitely help to be able to skip that logo. Though it's not that long and call me impatient if you wish, I find it stupid not to be able to skip it. Maybe only "force" it the first time, but after, you should be allowed to just press escape and never see it again :p

It depends on what you consider a swift charge. If you plan to deploy artillary next to the drop zone, I consider that cheating, there's no skill required for that. However I want it like this, if a unit can be fired upon it is fully under your control. I have lost a tank in a brigade several times, because it took the transports 30 sec to unload them. And maybe there should be an option of making the dropships transparant. That would make it much easier to select units behind them.
Well....since it doesn't really involve altering the system in a biased way, it's not really cheating per se. It's just using the capabilities of a particular unit in a way that irritates you--and that's exactly what a good commander would try to do to you, anyways. I mean, face it, if your landing zones are under heavy artillery fire, there's really no way you'd be winning that battle anyways. I think that just placing units under AI control between the moment they leave the transport and the moment the transport lifts off again, so that the units will make for cover and return some fire, would pretty much solve the problem.

I haven't heard much of removing the landing zones and allow landing everywhere in sight. Though you shouldn't be allowed to land straight in the enemy base in that case.
A good idea...but there should also be a minimum amount of "clear space" required to plop the transport down. That's basically what the drop zones are trying to simulate, anyways...but perhaps some more freedom of where troops can be deployed would add strategic depth to the game. I think reinforcement points would still be necessary to capture to provide you with the ability to land extra units, however--like establishing supply lines.

:lol: For once I agree. It would definitely help to be able to skip that logo. Though it's not that long and call me impatient if you wish, I find it stupid not to be able to skip it. Maybe only "force" it the first time, but after, you should be allowed to just press escape and never see it again :p

Yay, we agree on something! Let's continue this trend :D

I think I counted the time it takes for the logos at 20 or so seconds. That's 1/3 of a minute. So let's say that you (like me) needed to constantly move in and out of the game over and over again, and let's say you did it once a minute. In an hour, you would have wasted 20 minutes just looking at logo screens that should be skippable (is that a word?)

One of the few good things I can say about M$ is that even they let you skip the logo screens. Seriously, if the monopolizing *expletive deleted* M$ people can let you skip logos, LucasArts should be able to as well.


To Wedge- I always thought the landing zones idea was stupid anyway, so one of my first plans for TSW is to remove them. Or at the very least, let the sides be able to "build" their own landing sites. The idea of a guidance beacon comes to mind, something that you have to build, that can be destroyed, but allows extra landing precision...I dunno.

Man there has been some action on this thread…..okay time to be brief:

I agree, get rid of the unnecessary logos. Put the Lucasarts and petro symbols on the menu screen if you have to but get rid of the logo screens.

ISDs have two shield hardpoints…not a bad idea…I modified my XMLs to improve ISDs in a few areas ad this was one. Those globes are sensor domes though, with shield generators underneath. The main shield generator is the little bump underneath the SD. I know what some tech guides say but I have seen this quote from one of the original dudes at Lucasfilm about the ISDs concepts. Ill find a link if people want to argue the point. The ROTJ scene with the Executor caused some confusion but it not necessarily untrue.

Empire having rocket troops will be fixed with FoC and with the new units should be a bit more balanced because the Rebs own the Empire on the ground at present.

Stormtrooper special attack? I thought their ability to storm was taken care of by the faster movement upgrade. I think that’s about all you will get from petro. And I agree, infantry should not get squashed so easily. If they use the spread out ability they would be diving out of the way and all sorts of acrobatic s*&t.

The time delay to land units should be drastically reduced then you don’t have to worry about making them invulnerable, etc, while they disembark.

Bigger maps and better graphics means better computers or lag. I have a pretty damn good computer at the moment and I don’t want to have to get a super computer just to run this game. It will probably need bigger maps to move the SSD around.

As for the strong opinions on Zahn, what can you say. They are subjective and this is obvious. I read snippets of his trilogy but was never really interested in reading it. Did nothing for me. I had a Trekkie friend who read the trilogy and liked them but what ‘converted’ him was not the trilogy is was playing the RPG and especially Tie fighter when I got a copy. Yeah sure Zahn came up with a good story and some new ideas but he is not the saviour who re-invented SW. Have to disagree with you about him. What Anarch said about Zahn attracting new fans coz of his books could not have been said better.

Lucas has been smoking some bad crack over recent times. If you watch some of his interviews he completely contradicts some things that he said previously. Some stuff he DEFINATELY has made up as he went along (even from the original trilogy), or ‘refined’ as you could say but hey, he is SW so if he wants to change things 180 degrees, he can do whatever he likes.

I hate virtually all EU but to say the prequel trilogy destroyed those ideas is incorrect seeing as the majority of EU stuff was post ROTJ. Lucas has not known all along the plot of the prequels and the vagueness of this period of SW history prevented him from disrupting much accepted canon. There was little canon to destroy. Personally I think he and his aides did a good job, except for episode 1 which could have been better.

Well....since it doesn't really involve altering the system in a biased way, it's not really cheating per se. It's just using the capabilities of a particular unit in a way that irritates you--and that's exactly what a good commander would try to do to you, anyways. I mean, face it, if your landing zones are under heavy artillery fire, there's really no way you'd be winning that battle anyways. I think that just placing units under AI control between the moment they leave the transport and the moment the transport lifts off again, so that the units will make for cover and return some fire, would pretty much solve the problem.

It's not an honorable way to fight. It also isn't fun to fight like that or to fight against that. Artillery doesn't fit in with SW either. So I think the artillery should be removed. Though I doubt that will ever happen. At the very least there should be an option to remove them from the game. But I must say that fighter cover would be a good counter against them. I wonder if the Imperials can finally bring air units to the land battles as well. That could balance things out, if done right.

I always considered the landing zones stupid as well. I would really like to bring units into play the way it happens during space battles.

Using the landing points to raise your max units on the planet could work, but I think it should be changed into a building that has to be garrisoned. I don't know if you remember Force Commander, but those bunkers would work nicely for that. Let me just explain what I was thinking about.

You have this building that can only be captured by infantry. I'm not sure if you should be able to destroy it as well, or only capture it, also not sure if units should be allowed to fire from inside the building. There's also the question of whether the units inside should still count to your pop cap but we can leave all that to the devs. And we'll leave the looks to the devs as well.

Anyway, as long as there's infantry inside you have a higher pop cap. Same as currently with the landing points. If the enemy wants to capture the building, they should storm it with infantry. The amount of infantry depends on the number of units inside as well the type of units. It will not be a good idea to use rocket troops, blasters are much better. Commanders with their elite guards will deal even more damage (and maybe even raise the cap a bit further). The defending side will also always have some advantages, so sending in a full stormtrooper regiment against a garrison of a full stormtrooper regiment, the defender will win. Rebels have smaller bands and as such they should use more of them. Same amount of troops vs same amount of troops on equal level and of the same type, also not counting the defender bonus. I'll hope you get the idea. I also think there should be a maximum of units inside.

Things that this could/would do

1 Provides more use for infantry, something I think the game can really use

2 If squashing of infantry remains, infantry in the building cannot be squashed though I also believe that those infantry bunker spots should prevent infantry squashing as well (like in Emperor: Battle for Dune, what is called the infantry rock)

3 If units can fire from inside the building placing rocket troops inside is by all means usefull. (I really support this)

4 If attacked, invulnerable and units can fire from inside, the ROF could be reduced by a small percentage, making storming easier.

5 If strategically placed on the map and able to fire and possibly invulnerable, capturing these could provide you with a somewhat safe landing zone, provided landing can be done everywhere. They could also be placed near the defenders base, making it a bit more difficult to destroy it.

What needs to be considered

1 If the building can't be destroyed the units inside don't have to be killed for a victory, otherwise it would be impossible to win if you ran out of infantry but still have tons of vehicles. I think that would be unfair.

2 If they can be destroyed units inside should be able to fire back, just to stand a chance.

3 If they can be destroyed, they should also provide the defender with some advantage, otherwise there would be no point for the defender to not destroy them. I was thinking about increasing the amount of troops the producing buildings 'garrison'. Also depending on the planet.

There's probably a bit more that should be considered, but tell me what you think about this.

Oh, and I want to skip the logos as well. Though I wonder if replacing them with empty files would work.

The main shield generator is the little bump underneath the SD.

Thats the Reactor Core.

It's not an honorable way to fight.
Well...it is war. Though I agree that we haven't seen any such artillery in the movies, artillery makes a lot of sense in war and there are similar things in other Star Wars sources.

"All is fair in love and war", as the saying goes. And the concept of landing zones is an excellent one, and entirely realistic. Beaches of Normandy, anyone?

"All is fair in love and war", as the saying goes. And the concept of landing zones is an excellent one, and entirely realistic. Beaches of Normandy, anyone?

We're not talking about WW2 where people are limited to ground, sea, or even air-based transports. We're talking about Star Wars, where gigantic capital ships rule from orbit. They can drop their barges anywhere they *%&$ well please. I agree, in a normal RTS the idea holds merit, but when you have a Star Destroyer sitting in orbit, the guys above aren't going to worry about "oh, we can only land our guys in two places on this planet, because of some unseen force that keeps us out." It makes no sense at all.

The idea of a guidance beacon, however, makes sense. Or restricting landing vehicles to areas where your troops can see. That makes sense as well. But limiting them to weird icons that can be lost is...well...strange. 'sides, the land troop limits are -far- too small. This is STAR WARS, not star dance-around-with-a-few-guys. While I hate the prequals, at least they had battles. Battle for Geonosis, anybody? I didn't see no pop cap there.

My idea for the guidance beacon is this: remove the landing zones completely. Barges and whatever can land wherever they want. These are atmospheric craft coming in from orbit, there's nothing that's going to stop them from dropping in. Instead, however, troops can build Guidance Beacons a certain distance away from theirs or the enemy base. These Guidance Beacons allow barges and transports to land -faster-, more coordinated attacks. These Beacons can be destroyed or upgraded, and they -slow- down enemy transports. Dunno, just my ideas

I agree. Think of them like helicopters dropping troops off. You need a clear area and that's pretty much it.

Gotta say, an awesome RTS, Act of war: High treason, best overlooked game ever, RULES.

It has mercenaries, you tell the recon chopper to Recce the place, once a few seconds has passed, the troops you've hired are brought in. As long as the place they're reccying is CLEAR, troops can be dropped anywhere.

I think a bit of idea stealing wouldn't go amiss to add to this awesome game.

P.S. Buy Act of war, ^_^.

To quote some wise person from another thread: "Gameplay > realism".

Yay, we agree on something! Let's continue this trend :D

I think I counted the time it takes for the logos at 20 or so seconds. That's 1/3 of a minute. So let's say that you (like me) needed to constantly move in and out of the game over and over again, and let's say you did it once a minute. In an hour, you would have wasted 20 minutes just looking at logo screens that should be skippable (is that a word?)

One of the few good things I can say about M$ is that even they let you skip the logo screens. Seriously, if the monopolizing *expletive deleted* M$ people can let you skip logos, LucasArts should be able to as well.


To Wedge- I always thought the landing zones idea was stupid anyway, so one of my first plans for TSW is to remove them. Or at the very least, let the sides be able to "build" their own landing sites. The idea of a guidance beacon comes to mind, something that you have to build, that can be destroyed, but allows extra landing precision...I dunno.


Theres a way to skip them, u have to modify something and its easy, dont know if i can post it here without breakeing forum rules, ill come back later to check.

To quote some wise person from another thread: "Gameplay > realism".


This is why abuse of such words can make it sound like a desperate attempt at getting one's point across.

First, you claim the landing zones as realistic, now you fall upon the "gameplay>realism" argument...

There are options available for landing troops, that are both realistic and balanced for gameplay.

But if you allow the invading player to land his troops anywhere he wants you ruin the whole point of land battles. Allow me to elaborate:

If the defender doesn't have planetary shields: The attacker can land his troops inside the defender's base. Imagine 10 AT-ATs being dropped inside your base. You're screwed. There is no way to defend against something like that. At least three of them can be deployed at a time, and no matter how fast you shoot some of them will survive. Then the defender can kiss his base goodbye. Automatic victory for the attacker.

If the defender has planetary shields: Since the attacker can land his troops anywhere he wants on the map, there is no way for the defender to fight him off. Ergo he must retreat all his troops inside the planetary shields in an attempt to defend his base. At this point the ground battle degenerates into a slugfest with the defenders mercilessly pounding away at the attacker's forces as they enter the shielded area.

My point is that with clearly defined landing zones there is a strategic element of choice. The defender, rather than retreat to his base, can deploy his forces in the direction of one or more landing zones. If he can prevent the attacker from taking them, he effectively limits the size of the attacking force. The attacker will likewise have an incentive to do something other than a simple rush at the defender's base. He can send what units he has (usually between 3 and 5) towards the base, or he can attempt to secure more landing zones so that he can bring more forces to bear.

Landing zones is a way of converting an abstract concept into something that works in a game context. Of course, in a wholly realistic setting the attacker could land troops anywhere on the map. However, if you want to lean on the realism issue, the defender could build 500 bases all over the planet rather than one little base in one very confined area. Landing zones and the resulting pop cap is an excellent way of adding tactical depth to the land battles.

Landing zones and the resulting pop cap is an excellent way of adding tactical depth to the land battles.

At the sacrafice of strategy. But anyway, you missed the point. In a Galactic Conquest mode, yes the idea of a beachhead makes sense, get the troops on the ground in one spot, far away from the enemy base. But once down there, no-holds-barred we can drop anywhere we want, as long as our troops can see it. Or did you miss that part? Which means you'd have to get your troops to the other side of the map before you could drop something in, and with the exception of speeder bikes you aren't going anywhere fast. And even in that case, let's say that certain units are excluded from the "spotter" list, kind of like how now you have to have troops take the areas. Make troops line-of-sight the indicator, but don't restrict us to landing on just a few spots on the map. It turns everything into a map of little more than decorated chokepoints.

In skirmish, however, where both sides already have bases and beachheads and usually shields, the idea has no merit whatsoever. Beef up defenses a bit to compensate (which they should be anyway)and voila...you have an awesome way of playing.

If the defender doesn't have planetary shields: The attacker can land his troops inside the defender's base. Imagine 10 AT-ATs being dropped inside your base. You're screwed. There is no way to defend against something like that. At least three of them can be deployed at a time, and no matter how fast you shoot some of them will survive. Then the defender can kiss his base goodbye. Automatic victory for the attacker.

100% wrong. He needs a clear area and obviously, the middle of a base is not a clear area.
There can be ajustments to how big a clearing somebody needs to deploy various units. Smaller for infantry and bigger for vehicles.


If the defender has planetary shields: Since the attacker can land his troops anywhere he wants on the map, there is no way for the defender to fight him off. Ergo he must retreat all his troops inside the planetary shields in an attempt to defend his base. At this point the ground battle degenerates into a slugfest with the defenders mercilessly pounding away at the attacker's forces as they enter the shielded area.

Also wrong. You assume that they'll simply turtle in and wait for the attack, but with the concept of landing zones а la E@W, that can also happen.
Again, the concept of requiring a clear zone could easily allow scouts to detect potential drop zones. Securing such drop zones would give more flexibility to the player, allowing him to make serious decisions and not constanly holding his hand through everything.


My point is that with clearly defined landing zones there is a strategic element of choice. The defender, rather than retreat to his base, can deploy his forces in the direction of one or more landing zones. If he can prevent the attacker from taking them, he effectively limits the size of the attacking force. The attacker will likewise have an incentive to do something other than a simple rush at the defender's base. He can send what units he has (usually between 3 and 5) towards the base, or he can attempt to secure more landing zones so that he can bring more forces to bear.

You can't drop everything everywhere on the map. Rivers and on water terrain shouldn't allow landing of troops.
In fact, the concept of a clear and big enough zone to land troops is already in the game. It only has a little holographic flag to show it.


Landing zones is a way of converting an abstract concept into something that works in a game context. Of course, in a wholly realistic setting the attacker could land troops anywhere on the map. However, if you want to lean on the realism issue, the defender could build 500 bases all over the planet rather than one little base in one very confined area. Landing zones and the resulting pop cap is an excellent way of adding tactical depth to the land battles.

Except that you're uing a totally idiotic example of realism to forward your point, claiming that realism does no good. An example of overuse or rather a bad use of "gameplay>realism". Gameplay should come before realism, but if a realism element can enhance gameplay, it should not be overlooked either.

((Off topic to Darth Anarch: Point One: You're wrong, the city-planet idea AND the name were both invented by Zahn, and Lucas was even not going to use them but finally buckled under pressure. Two: yeah, you're right, I forgot about west end. Third, sorry, you're wrong again, Zahn wrote his books as true Sci-Fi, something that Star Wars the movies was not. His books reached a larger audience as he had already won the Hugo award and was famous for science fiction, so he attracted, perhaps not millions, but certainly thousands of new fans because of his writing. Fourth, yes Lucas created the universe. However, once you set something in stone, I don't care who made it, it does not give you the write to go back and "fix" things. Anybody in the business knows that you go with the flow, you don't like how something turned out, too bad you're stuck with it. What does Lucas do? He screws up the movies in order to make more money. THAT automatically disqualifies him from his own works. It would be like Da Vinci suddenly saying "you know what, I don't like the way this guy came out on the cistine chapel, I'm going to go over and do it again, adding a few other things that I think were missing." He had already performed the painting, put it in stone, it was over. Same goes with the movies. Also, he did not have his master plan done. All he had was a very rough draft. In the end, you either love the prequals or you hate them, and I hate them, and I have a lot of reasons for doing so :P))

I may be wrong, but was the City-Planet not slated to be in Star Wars: A New Hope? At least, Coruscant was supposed to be in Return of the Jedi, and it was most definately a City-Planet at the time. So no, Zahn did NOT create the City-Planet. He created the name. Simple as that.

Secondly. Star Wars was never meant to be a true Sci-Fi. It's a Space Opera, meaning it does not care about all that scientific mumbo-jumbo, it is in it for the people, the development of characters, and the sake of a good story.

Thirdly. I don't get your "Set in Stone" thing. George Lucas had the vision of Star Wars from the beginning. THAT was set in stone. Those little novels were not. They were allowed to be changed simply because they conflicted with the original, GEORGE LUCAS version of Star Wars. He had at the beginning the idea of Star Wars being Anakin's story. He had the ideas of the Clone Wars, and all that. He did not forsee Heir to the Empire, and all subsequent books. Therefore, at the end of the day, if George Lucas wants to alter the course of events to suit HIS vision, then so be it. It is he who created Star Wars, it's his story. You wouldn't want someone to tell YOU what to write and what not to if you were writing a novel, would you?

Fourth Point; I don't really see why people hate the storylines of the Prequels. Albeit, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman cannot act these parts very well, the Storyline is exceptional.

100% wrong. He needs a clear area and obviously, the middle of a base is not a clear area.
There can be ajustments to how big a clearing somebody needs to deploy various units. Smaller for infantry and bigger for vehicles.

Also wrong. You assume that they'll simply turtle in and wait for the attack, but with the concept of landing zones а la E@W, that can also happen.
Again, the concept of requiring a clear zone could easily allow scouts to detect potential drop zones. Securing such drop zones would give more flexibility to the player, allowing him to make serious decisions and not constanly holding his hand through everything.

You can't drop everything everywhere on the map. Rivers and on water terrain shouldn't allow landing of troops.
In fact, the concept of a clear and big enough zone to land troops is already in the game. It only has a little holographic flag to show it.

Except that you're uing a totally idiotic example of realism to forward your point, claiming that realism does no good. An example of overuse or rather a bad use of "gameplay>realism". Gameplay should come before realism, but if a realism element can enhance gameplay, it should not be overlooked either.
Your argument is, essentially, that the attacker should be able to land troops anywhere where there's a clear area large enough to accommodate them, correct? There's an expression for that: Landing Zone. The landing zones on the map is just that: an open area large enough to land troops on.

One way of resolving the "land anywhere you want"-issue is of course to take into consideration that the defending forces would be able to see the drop-ships coming in from a long way away. Have a ping go off on the map a minute or two before the ships land, so that the defender has a chance to deploy troops to intercept. That would make things more interesting.

And on a side note: While I disagreed with you in the above posts, at no point did I lower myself to referring to your posts or arguments as "idiotic". Please extend to me the same courtesy.

Your argument is, essentially, that the attacker should be able to land troops anywhere where there's a clear area large enough to accommodate them, correct? There's an expression for that: Landing Zone. The landing zones on the map is just that: an open area large enough to land troops on. C

Which is what I said.

[QUOTE=Darth Anarch]One way of resolving the "land anywhere you want"-issue is of course to take into consideration that the defending forces would be able to see the drop-ships coming in from a long way away. Have a ping go off on the map a minute or two before the ships land, so that the defender has a chance to deploy troops to intercept. That would make things more interesting.

That is quite a good idea. It would make perfect sense actually.


And on a side note: While I disagreed with you in the above posts, at no point did I lower myself to referring to your posts or arguments as "idiotic". Please extend to me the same courtesy.

It was one argument and my comment still stands. It was a bad example and a bad attempt to simply scoff at realism to make it sound utterly stupid to even remotely accept realistic elements into the game. You took an example that nobody ever brought up, that nobody, even realism gurus, wants. It was too exagerated.
I don't think you understand the difference between calling someone stupid and something stupid.

By the way, you can call my arguments stupid or idiotic if it actually is, but I'm trying to be careful about that.

Fourth Point; I don't really see why people hate the storylines of the Prequels. Albeit, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman cannot act these parts very well, the Storyline is exceptional.

I will not be dragged into the same argument that has already faded, but I will make a comment on this. If you consider an unimaginative retread of a 4000 year old story to be exceptional, you really have no idea what a good story is. The whole "born with no father", "prophecies", and all that are found somewhere else. It's called the Bible, which is the most widely distrubuted book in the world. So instead of coming up with something good and original, Lucas steals an idea from the world's most popular book. Yeah. That's exceptional all right. Where's my rolling eyes smilie?

On to the other debate: Once again, lukeiamyourdad, we find ourselves on the same side of an argument :D. I like the idea of the landing ping. Put that in there with the ability to land anywhere, according to ship size, and you have an excellent way of doing things.

For instance, Slave I and any of the other smaller hero ships are famous for being able to land anywhere, they don't need a huge cleared area. Troop transports are a little bigger and therefore would need a little more room, but not that much. It's only the big barges that would require quite a bit of clear space. Keep that, the Guidance Beacons to hasten your own transports down, and you have a good way.

But keep in mind that with the way landing zones are now, you know where your enemy is coming from. You also know where your enemy base is. That removes the absolute -need- of scouting forces. Back in the day you had to search a map before you found your opponent, and the first person to figure out where the other was had an advantage of information. That's the way it should be. Fight to keep your forces secret, fight to know where your enemy is. That's part of warfare.

Well, in the case of bases, I mean, you can spot a big glowing shield dome from extremely far away.

Combine with the ping idea, there could be a radar detection station or something. It would allow the defender to detect incoming landing forces. Destroying it would allow landing more silently.

why don't just take the option where the troops automatically fire in defense or offense like we saw it in AotC, or like in the space battles?, maybe a change in the ships that drop troops, some kind of assault transport to help the descending troops, something to make the attaker think twice before he raids the reinforcemnt point while troops are being deployed. And the actual transports could still be used in the retreats.

well thats what i think that could help to solve the problem and help to the realism.

In general i like the way in wich troops are deployed, even if i can only deploy a couple of troops, ive never been in real trouble there, what i mean is that the pop cap is fine with me, but yes it would be nice if ur troops had some kind of deffence or offence while they are being deployed. =)

The landing zones, or as in other games build points, are critical points that the devs want players to fight over. As we all know, ownership of these are an advantage. I like some ideas put forward on here but I cant see the devs changing this. In skirmish they are not so critical because you can still bring in units you just have to march further if you dont have possession of any points. My biggest gripe about the whole landing zone thing is in galactic conquest when you invade a planet and your landing zone gives you say a pop cap of 3. Your enemy has lord knows how many resources on the planet and if they have any brains (an AI of med or above) the entire force hits you while your scrambling to take over a second landing zone to bring down more units. These 'wave attacks' are stupid. At Hoth did the Empire send in an AT-AT a time...no, if they did they would have got hammered. Landing zones should not give increases in pop cap. They should only allow deployment. Otherwise allow orbital bombarment, like in Rebellion. The size of the fleet should determine the damage inflicted on the garrison. food for thought.

I like the way it is, even if u can only deploy 2 units, you just need some wits on how to use those 2 units, and ur bombing rungs, normaly with low caps there are more build paths.

This is my point of view at least in GC, no idea of skirmish, I dont play it a lot.

Orbital bombardment will be a feature in Forces of Corruption.

Landing zones and the resulting pop cap is an excellent way of adding tactical depth to the land battles.At the sacrafice of strategy.
Uh...you're saying that tactical depth was increased at the expense of strategic depth? Since "strategy" refers to overarching goals and plans (i.e., the Galactic Map), and this is a discussion about land battles, "tactics" are the only thing that matter here and you just made a totally nonsensical comment. And for the record, Xyvik, the "born with no father" stuff is only <2000 years old. Besides, George Lucas drew on known mythical stereotypes, including those in the Bible, in creating the Star Wars saga right from the outset. He called Star Wars a "modern myth" himself. There's no surprise there. He just set out to tell a good story--and he did that for the first three movies he made, at least...

This discussion has generated some really interesting ideas. While landing zones are a bit contrived, they make plenty of sense from a gameplay perspective. They serve to bring the battle out into various points on the map, make players fight over critical terrain, and force players to take and hold points that they might otherwise neglect in favor of an all-out rush on the enemy base. I haven't often been frustrated by the reinforcement point system. However, a number of the ideas put forward in this thread seem fun to me. How about this as as alternative fusion of landing zone ideas?

Certain key points on the map should remain designated as reinforcement points, and allow players who capture them to land some number of additional units. Instead of being associated with a small circle on the map, however, the reinforcement point should control access to a landing zone comprising a whole sector of the map area, with a size in proportion to the number of units the reinforcement point allows. The landing zones for all the reinforcement points put together will cover the entire playable area of the map. Some of the landing zones might be quite extensive, allowing troops to be landed far from the beacon. Transports should be allowed to drop anywhere in a friendly landing zone where there is enough space to fit the transport. As soon as a transport is called, there will be an announcement and minimap ping made for each player in the game. After some delay (about 30 seconds, or maybe variable depending on how far the transport is from the beacon), the transport will actually land and deploy its units.

Landing zones and pop cap actually reduce the ability to employ tactics as these things limit the forces you can deploy. Tactics is not simply about having a versatile force, tactics relates to use of forces in order of battle and performing military actions. A strategy for victory may be to cripple the enemies capacity to produce starships and tactics in achieving this would involve deploying X number of Y type of ships for use in hit and fade attacks. EaW is not very strategic because it does not give the scope for it. All you can do is conquer planets outright.

I dont mind your idea Wedge, its probably a better compromise but still it involves reinforcement points. As for needing wits, I will give an eg of where the reinforcement points system is unrealistic (theres that dreaded word) and dumb. If you win a space battle and you are sitting over a planet with an overwhelming force, why should you be forced to land only small groups which can be easily overrun? Surely your not saying there isnt enough room? Its a planet! The planetary garrison does not bring on additional units in the way of reinforcements. It starts with its entire force. Invading forces have to wear down the garrison until they are defeated. If there is buildings on the planet then, as you all know, they continue to spawn units as well. Since the only way to conquer a planet is through ground invasion you are forced to get involved in a meatgrinder every time you want to attack a well garrisoned planet. There is very little room for tactics. In reality you could deploy your entire force and move to meet the enemy (or blast them a bit from orbit and move in to mop up; Rebellion got it right.) If the enemy is still superior in force then you have your work cut out for you and a real opportunity to use tactics but if you have the advantage in numbers you can make that advantage felt, without having to lose a heap of units unnecessarily in wave attacks.

If you invade a planet and your fighting someone who knows what they are doing they will move all they have to the first reinforcement point. Since it is contested you cant bring down more units and you have to defeat the entire garrison to clear the point. Try doing this with a 3 unit limit like on some planets and it gets rather annoying.

Oh and one other thing, there was a religeon before Christianity that had the idea of immaculate conception. The Christians liked the idea and 'borrowed' it. One of my friends told me as he studied theology but I cant for the life of me remember their name. I have no idea how much earlier than the Christians they existed but it wasnt 4K years.

Uh...you're saying that tactical depth was increased at the expense of strategic depth? Since "strategy" refers to overarching goals and plans (i.e., the Galactic Map), and this is a discussion about land battles, "tactics" are the only thing that matter here and you just made a totally nonsensical comment.

I'm talking about skirmish battles, not GC battles. In a skirmish battle, the tactical depth was increased at the sacrafice of the strategic gameplay. In GC mode, yes, I agree the land battles are tactical but even on a planetary battle strategy should not be sacraficed -completely- for the tactical considerations. It's not as important because we have the giant chess board, but it feels like its almost non-existant.

I beleive that we could leave GC mode as it is and not suffer needlessly, but the skirmish battles need a bit of a rewrite in my opinion.

And for the record, Xyvik, the "born with no father" stuff is only <2000 years old.

Actually, the first prophecy involving the Messiah is approximately 6000 years old, being the first prophecy in the Bible (he will bruise you in the head and he will bruise you in the heal.) The later prophecies, involving the lack of a human father and what not, were uttered in the Psalms as well as the Prophets, which are approximately 4000 years old. The Messiah being born and fulfilling those prophecies is 2000 years old, so it is the fulfillment of the prophecies that is only 2k old. The actual prophecies are much older :)

To Rust_Lord: It was the Hebrews who had the original prophecies, and the Hebrews gave way to the TRUE Christians once Jesus came to earth. Most of the doctrines taught in today's churches are actually Babylonian in origin, but the prophecies regarding the birth of Christ are genuine. And that comes from my past 8 years of studying theology :)

Being a forum veteran, I've seen enough threads including the word "religion" somewhere degenerate. I'm happy that it isn't the case, but I still prefer to take some precautions. Try to keep this on topic by dropping the discussion involving religion. If you want to further debate the subject matter, please do it via PM.

Thank you for your cooperation :)

Back on topic...

I think we're all talking about the same thing basically, only one side has big holographic circles and the other doesn't. I realize that things cannot be drastically changed, so the idea of forcing players to control key areas without holding their hands through it is impossible.
In a beautiful perfect world, critical points would be so by nature. Take the example of a hill or a chokepoint, which confers advantages, both offensively and defensively to the player. The smart player would then struggle to keep these key areas.
However, with E@W, that is not possible.
Points on both sides are very good. Rust is 100%. Why can't we land our whole force if we want? Or at least a larger number? It makes very little sense to force players to land only a fraction of their forces at any given area just because it has to be this way. I can't believe I didn't go "why?" sooner. Yes, there should be a certain population cap. There has to be one for several reasons (your game not lagging like hell for one). However, I don't really see why a general could not land more forces at this sole point once the first landing team moves out of the way.
Yes, it allows some tactical depth and prevents a rush to the enemy base. Well, it wouldn't be a rush since most of your forces have not landed thus you wouldn't risk an all out assault before they all land.

I'm not sure if what I'm saying makes sense. I think that I'm just turning around stalling. One thing is sure, it's a real debate and we're not out of the woodwork yet.

Maybe the thing to do would be to limit the rate at which units can be landed rather than the number. In my mind, reinforcement points can be rationalized away as necessary control points for supplying logistic support to all the units on the battlefield. However, perhaps that can be realized as a cooldown timer before additional transports can land. I can certainly imagine that in a combat situation, the more area one side controls, the more effectively they can bring in support. Of course, more than one unit would have to land initially for this to work.

Maybe land skirmish battles should be distanced from tactical battles as part of a Galactic Conquest game. In a GC, players might have a huge force arrayed in orbit only waiting to be deployed. But in a skirmish, reinforcement points serve a critical role of focussing combat around certain strategically important areas.

I think the best way to solve the landing part is to give the shuttles blasters, damage to vehicles and infantry will force you to keep a distance if to say 2 shots can knock out your at-st. that would be a good deterent

I get what you are saying Xyvik about skirmish over GC. What your saying is true as there is almost no strategic element in 'skirmish', hence the name. Its too small scale. To get any sort of grand or strategic scale you would have to have ground battles conducted using an engine like the Total War series or something akin to that.

Wedge, not flaming you at all but when you say "land skirmish battles should be distanced from tactical battles as part of a Galactic Conquest game", land skirmish and GC are already totally different. You say "But in a skirmish, reinforcement points serve a critical role of focussing combat around certain strategically important areas." This is true they give you the opportunity to quickly reinforce your advance without having to march reinforcement all the way across the map while your front line guys hold on. The areas themselves are not otherwise important...see next paragraph for what I mean. As for cool down timers, this reminds me of Force Commander, which was an aspect of the game I utterly hated. If you look at combat drops whether it be infantry deployed by helicopters in 'Nam or clones on Geonosis they came in, dropped took off and were followed up in quick succession by other transports waiting for room. Hell, I rememebr seeing one transport drop a AT-TE and hardly even stop. Cool down timers are not the answer. Drops take too long as it is in my opinion.

What ur saying does make sense Luke... I understand what you mean. There are critical points in the game, and I am not talking about reinforce points. What about Satellite arrays that give you full map view. They are probably the most important in the game, especially if you have bombing runs. The Naboo map always results in a mad dash to get this area and hold it. The fact that it is elevated and in the centre of the map is a great place for some arty too.

I agree that we cant delploy unlimited forces at once. Lag is always going to be the limiting factor because you will always be able to deploy enough forces to cause lag before you run out of room. Luke... your right about deploying your force and then move then out of the way for the more. I was going to raise this point but thought my post was getting long winded. There is nothing wrong with doing this, you can deploy and form up elsewhere. Not every landing zone is going to be big enough for your force so its something you have to manage...but at least you can bring on your entire force. You are not going to be able to rush the enemies base because it will take time to bring down all your units and get them in order, plus it will take time for them to get to the base. Alternatively if the enemy decides to rush a landing force, that force is getting larger as time goes by and it might not in the best interest to attack immediately. This gives you the opportunity to use tactics.

Giving shuttles and transports blasters could work but why bother? Most transports werent even armed. Are you going to allow them to be shot down by AAA to even things out? If your landing forces in an unsecured landing zone you should expect to get cut to pieces. You might not necessarily get wiped out but you should not be able to deploy in such a situation unscathed.

Now the hard part; what limit do you put on the number of units you can have at once? In Skirmish the max units you can have is 9. Since you get a number of units in each company this is not actually a bad figure and manageable. In GC the maximum planetary garrison you can have is 10. Why not have a maximum force size of 10 units and anymore than this are your reserves. The planetary garrison also have unlimited reserves from any building they have so this has to be taken into account. This gives the defender a slight edge even when facing a force of equal size. This is more than fair because in reality who ever rules space would have a tremendous advantage. This idea is subject to change when we see how effective orbital bombardment is in FoC. That could completely change ground combat, but only in GC.


Yeah...edited something out...that's what I don't want...even as a joke...I'm not religious by the way so I'm in no way offended by anything, just trying to avoid any possible conflicts. -LIAYD

This is probably rather OT.. but at the mo are the Underworld chappies seeming more rebely than the rebels? Stealing vehicles, guerilla warfare etc, existing in small numbers on enemy planets...

Sorry to bring up an old topic, but I thought of something. Whenever a Death Star or SSD is in orbit around a planet, actually show it, In 3D orbiting the Planet. It would look cool.