Hi everyone, I'm new here. I've been following FoC for a while and haven't seen any real talk about this.
I was watching the E3 Playthrough on this site, the one where orbital bombardment is shown from the POV of the Zann Consortium, and I was wondering: Is this what people thought it would be?
It seems to be like a big, unavoidable bombing run, rather than a large-scale ravaging of the planet. Maybe this is just for the Consortium, but I was imagining a fleet of ISDs would do something like what happened to Taris in KOTOR - Assuming there was no planetary shield.
Just asking for your thoughts. Thanks!
First of all, welcome to the forums!
And about the Orbital Bombardment, I thought they did it like it should/would be, if you could annihilate the ground forces on the map you would just need capital ships to capture a planet, you wouldn't need ground forces because you could just bombard the crapola out of the planet you know? :vsd:
Exactly. I would assume that anyone taking the effort to assault a planet would want to capture it for its income, special abilities etc. Destroying it completely (like with the Death Star) should, the way I play the game at least, be reserved for those times when the enemy is just too well dug in for you to be able to crush them.
First of all, welcome to the forums!
And about the Orbital Bombardment, I thought they did it like it should/would be, if you could annihilate the ground forces on the map you would just need capital ships to capture a planet, you wouldn't need ground forces because you could just bombard the crapola out of the planet you know? :vsd:
Ok, thanks! I know it makes far more sense game-wise, and it looks cool, but on the galactic map I was thinking it could be another option if you had a 'big' fleet, i.e. 2 + ISDs, or the Executor.
I suppose I was basing my hopes on the Thrawn story about Camaas (sp?), and thinking the planet-wide option would only happen late in a GC game, so as to curb the Empire's 'move fleet, decimate, repeat' scenario when playing against the computer.
I doubt the Rebels would do this, but it fits with the Empire's brute-force scenario.
I think the orbital bombardment really amounts to a large-scale ravaging. In that E3 video, the Zann consortium launches a bombardment that takes out basically the entire Imperial base, including a large numbre of garrison units. That's pretty much all you need--imagine landing some ground scouts just to act as spotters and then firing a projectile that destroys six enemy buildings at once! Any more ground forces you land will only have to contend with token resistance. When a single ground map represents a whole planet, I think orbital barrages work pretty much as I'd expect them to.
Well, from what they've shown so far, planetary shields will play a more important roll now.
I think the orbital bombardment really amounts to a large-scale ravaging. In that E3 video, the Zann consortium launches a bombardment that takes out basically the entire Imperial base, including a large numbre of garrison units. That's pretty much all you need--imagine landing some ground scouts just to act as spotters and then firing a projectile that destroys six enemy buildings at once! Any more ground forces you land will only have to contend with token resistance. When a single ground map represents a whole planet, I think orbital barrages work pretty much as I'd expect them to.
Well you are forgetting that the Bombardment probably will have some type of timer until you can use it you know ;)
so the defending planet can mobilies a counteratack before you bombard their base
Galactic conquest scenario bombardments will require the proper ships in orbit to bombard, so tech level will also play a role in how soon you can pull it off (well, for the Empire and Rebellion anyway). Keep in mind that each side has a unique style to their bombardment - the Consortium is accurate but with a smaller radius; the Empire is less accurate but does more damage over a wider area, and the Rebellion is more of an interference/non-lethal bombard. Also keep in mind that the bombardment shown in the videos for E3 was much more powerful than it will be in the final product (though it is still much more powerful than bombing runs).
Galactic conquest scenario bombardments will require the proper ships in orbit to bombard, so tech level will also play a role in how soon you can pull it off (well, for the Empire and Rebellion anyway). Keep in mind that each side has a unique style to their bombardment - the Consortium is accurate but with a smaller radius; the Empire is less accurate but does more damage over a wider area, and the Rebellion is more of an interference/non-lethal bombard. Also keep in mind that the bombardment shown in the videos for E3 was much more powerful than it will be in the final product (though it is still much more powerful than bombing runs).
Oh, that's great news. Thanks alot for answering!
I'm glad the rebellion one isn't a large-scale destruction, you seem like you've nailed it for each of the factions.
Yeah, Petroglyph kinda rocks like that. :)
Also keep in mind that the bombardment shown in the videos for E3 was much more powerful than it will be in the final product (though it is still much more powerful than bombing runs).
Why the hell would you bother showing it if it isnt accurate to what we will receive in game? Sorry Wedge, Petroglyph doesnt 'kinda rock like that'. It's a lame marketing ploy. Forget the hype, just show us what we will really get: its like advertising and promoting a sports car with V8 and then releasing it with only a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. PG is only lining itself up to receive complaints from people who don't see the information on sites like this, who see promo clips, buy the game and wonder why things are different. But what does PG care, as long as they bought the game, which will end up needing patch after patch to get it right.... no false advertising please PG.
Why the hell would you bother showing it if it isnt accurate to what we will receive in game? Sorry Wedge, Petroglyph doesnt 'kinda rock like that'. It's a lame marketing ploy. Forget the hype, just show us what we will really get: its like advertising and promoting a sports car with V8 and then releasing it with only a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. PG is only lining itself up to receive complaints from people who don't see the information on sites like this, who see promo clips, buy the game and wonder why things are different. But what does PG care, as long as they bought the game, which will end up needing patch after patch to get it right.... no false advertising please PG.
That video was nothing more than a promo and the game was in "development". The video presentation was just a small demo to show off the new faction and some of the new units. Only a fool would think that was the final product. (As a matter of fact it was mentioned several times in the video that the units and options needed tweaking)
Why the hell would you bother showing it if it isnt accurate to what we will receive in game? Sorry Wedge, Petroglyph doesnt 'kinda rock like that'.
My comment referred to the way they've made each faction's bombardment represent the faction in question.
It's a lame marketing ploy. Forget the hype, just show us what we will really get: its like advertising and promoting a sports car with V8 and then releasing it with only a 4 or 6 cylinder engine.
If you only saw a "prototype" car with a V8 when the design was still under development and then the version of the car that hit the market was a V6, you probably wouldn't complain too much. After all, your first look was only when it was a prototype, before the team had finished working on it, before the car company had shifted its goals to meet the market, etc.
Two things:
1) Forces of Corruption is still in development. There's no reason why the bombardment shown couldn't have been an early version of the code. They programmed in the bombardment but hadn't optimized or balanced it yet--they were just showing it off in its early stages.
2) They were trying to show off what a bombardment looks like. Just like they tweaked the Executor to show off what the Executor blowing up looks like. They weren't necessarily even trying to show you exactly what you are going to get. That wasn't the point!
E3 is for showing off what's in development, not what final products look like.
Why the hell would you bother showing it if it isnt accurate to what we will receive in game? Sorry Wedge, Petroglyph doesnt 'kinda rock like that'. It's a lame marketing ploy. Forget the hype, just show us what we will really get: its like advertising and promoting a sports car with V8 and then releasing it with only a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. PG is only lining itself up to receive complaints from people who don't see the information on sites like this, who see promo clips, buy the game and wonder why things are different. But what does PG care, as long as they bought the game, which will end up needing patch after patch to get it right.... no false advertising please PG.
Pretty much all software companies I've ever heard of do it this way. A demonstration video is there to show the fans what the feature in question looks like, not decimal-specific representation of exactly how it will look in the finished game.
I did not see the video to know that it was a demo video, I only read what Torpid wrote; but this only reduces my ire, it does not extinguish it. I don't like exaggerated demo vids period. Thats just my opinion. If a company has to resort to such sensationalism to get attention then its a real turn off for me. Anarch is right, a number of companies use them but I made my point above. Wedge I never saw the vid with the executor either but I saw the screen shots; and it is feasible to put such a ship in with little health to show what happens when it is destroyed....but if they made the executor so powerful that it took out mon cals with the blast of a solitary turbo-laser or something as exaggerated then that would annoy me.
As for Valter it seems you missed my point. Unless it is implicitately stated it is not actual game play then one may expect to play something akin to what is shown when they buy the game. If they clearly state in the promo vid it is not real and exaggerated then fine, they can do what they like. A demo for me is a pre-full version release that can be played and plays exactly like the full game but with limited units/levels etc. Such 'promotional vids' shouldn't be called or referred to as demos in the strictest sense but it is a common term that is too easily attached to such a vid. If the only place PG showed this vid was at E3 and they were clear that it was only under development then that is fair enough. But its not uncommon for game companies to blur what is in demos and what is in full games over time, even if they release a demo, in which they can restrict access to the best stuff.
As for the game being in development; it is always in development; other wise we wouldnt need patches.
Wedge, the example i was thinking of related to the Alfa Romeo Brera that was a concept car and developed with a V8. I was hell bent on buying one but when it was released the biggest engine you could get was a 6. I was annoyed and I wont buy one now. Sure they will still sell but unless they put that V8 in will well never know how they could have sold. From the mags I read most enthusiasts wanted the V8. Fair enough the company wanted to change the car, that is entirely up to them, but i will spend my cash on something else.
As for Valter it seems you missed my point.
Really? How did I miss your point? I was under the implication that your point was that you were annoyed that companies present their products in a way that undermines honesty. In other words you are annoyed when companies show their products to be better than they truly are. If I was mistaken then I apologize. :)
This reminds me of how people were pissed when Fable was released and it wasn't the best RPG of all time even though Peter Molineux said it.
What do you think he was supposed to say? "My game is a pretty good RPG, not the best, just pretty good, which is why you should buy it."
They're just good salesmen. It's up to the consumer to distinguish what should be taken into account in his speech. Otherwise...don't buy anything ever again...because it turns out everyone's product is the "best"...
I did not see the video to know that it was a demo video, I only read what Torpid wrote; but this only reduces my ire, it does not extinguish it. I don't like exaggerated demo vids period. Thats just my opinion. If a company has to resort to such sensationalism to get attention then its a real turn off for me. Anarch is right, a number of companies use them but I made my point above. Wedge I never saw the vid with the executor either but I saw the screen shots; and it is feasible to put such a ship in with little health to show what happens when it is destroyed....but if they made the executor so powerful that it took out mon cals with the blast of a solitary turbo-laser or something as exaggerated then that would annoy me.
I think your getting too worked up about semantics. (ie. whether a video is a promo/demo/whatever) It is not unreasonable for developers to assume that viewers will understand that anything shown at E3 is just a demonstration of the capabilities of the engine rather than a reflection of the details of the final product. Even if you are right that Petroglyph could have altered the content solely for the purpose of increasing the goshwow factor of the game, the fact that they could have altered it or other parts of the game for balance issues means that your expectation is unreasonable. Indeed, at many times during the various videos the developers mention that "we're still working on this," which more than meets your standard of "implicitately (sic) stating" that "it isn't actual gameplay." The distinction that you make between the Executor and the explosion is wholly arbitrary. Decreasing the health of the Executor so that it can be easily destroyed by Rebel cruisers is no different than "exaggerating" the power of the cruisers that they can easily destroy the Executor. They are graphically indistinct.
A demo for me is a pre-full version release that can be played and plays exactly like the full game but with limited units/levels etc. Such 'promotional vids' shouldn't be called or referred to as demos in the strictest sense but it is a common term that is too easily attached to such a vid. If the only place PG showed this vid was at E3 and they were clear that it was only under development then that is fair enough. But its not uncommon for game companies to blur what is in demos and what is in full games over time, even if they release a demo, in which they can restrict access to the best stuff.
This is really the crux of your contention. You have an additional expectation of what constitutes a "promotional" or "demo" video. Terms, which I have never seen Petroglyph use to describe the E3 video. The response on this forum demostrates that this is not a prevailing expectation or even an expectation that extends beyond yourself.
As for the game being in development; it is always in development; other wise we wouldnt need patches.
This is a bad argument, and I think you know it. There is a definite, quantifiable difference between pre-release development and post-release patching: a difference of $29.99 US.
Wedge, the example i was thinking of related to the Alfa Romeo Brera that was a concept car and developed with a V8. I was hell bent on buying one but when it was released the biggest engine you could get was a 6. I was annoyed and I wont buy one now. Sure they will still sell but unless they put that V8 in will well never know how they could have sold. From the mags I read most enthusiasts wanted the V8. Fair enough the company wanted to change the car, that is entirely up to them, but i will spend my cash on something else.
The reason why your analogy doesn't apply is because the V8 on the Alfa Romeo was a major selling point in the car's design; a reason, in and of itself that one would buy the car. The blast radius on a secondary support ability of the ground component of the tactical component of one of three factions is not. Plus, consumer reviews mean that you have no argument. If the product is altered in some fundamental way during development, then potential buyers have the opportunity to make an informed decision.
For those of you employing the Harvard study method or too lazy to read all that: what Wedge said.
Guys...Calm down...
Things have been rather calm and civil up to now thankuverymuch. -LIYAD
Such 'promotional vids' shouldn't be called or referred to as demos in the strictest sense but it is a common term that is too easily attached to such a vid.
I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that "demo" is short for "demonstration." That's really all you should expect from a demo or a demo video: a demonstration.
Excellent arguments ZagFel! I believe you just won the topic. :king1:
I believe that yall are missing a very important point here.
Three wonderful, simple letters:
X. M. L.
Using this wonderful code will allow the Rust Lords of the world to simply mod their Consortium bombardments to their E3 levels. Or request said mod on the modding forums.
If you want your grossly overpowered bombardments, you can still get them.
Well, E3 Bombardment shows us what they will be in concept.
Obviously the demos are for show and does not have to be playable, hence the tweak in HP of units and what not.
It is happy to see that Petro is working hard to balance different aspacts and fractions of the game, while keeping it close to their own theme.
Its not like they are posting grossly inaccurate screenshots and pictures on their product boxart, like throwing in a jedimaster in kimono lashing it out with some force sucking sithlord.
Valter you were dead right about my point as generally applied to games, and in this instance of what was shown on the promo, provided that a person viewing it or screenshots didnt know that it was implicitely stated as being very far from what you will receive after you shell out your cash; as I for one had not seen those disclaimers and I wasnt there but I have seen it with other games and yes I disagree with that marketing strategy. Since I hadnt seen it is was more of a gripe to Torpid for PG not to go down this path now, or ever.
Zagfel your right about semantics, my bad, people interpret and classify things differently but your off the mark about my comment regarding the executor; im not sure if you saw the vid but I only saw the screenies and I was under the impression the executor was already damaged, as can be seen in those screenies, not that it had 'reduced' health. If they used a half clapped out executor that was accurate to what it will be in game, then there is no exaggeration there.
Sure I have expectations and im pretty black and white about my views, the game being under development for example. I know that some of you take everything said as literal and for you to post that confirms this, and obviously the game has been completed but in my own opinion, and I dont care how many people agree or disagree with me, if you need alot of patches to fix game balances issues (not just bug fixes or improvements) then the developers havent really finished with the game. So this is the way most games are these days, i still dont care for it, there was a time, before everyone and everything was on the net, when you didnt need to get patches. EaW for example has been out for many months and we are still looking at 1.6.
Pretty impressive sentences Zagfel but I think your inclusion of "the tactical component" was superfluous....seriously what you say about the car differs from what Wedge said as he believed I would still buy the car with a 6 cyl because of the other refinements. True the bombardment ability is a small part of the game as compared to the engine but if an ability of a unit in a game was so totally imbalanced then I would not buy the game. Sure it might be fun to play it once or twice but playing against it would never be fun, hence why all gamers, EaW gamers no less, are very sensitive to game balance issues. If that imbalance ruined the land side of the game play then that is pretty major.
Monster has stated the best argument and the saving grace of anyone who doesnt like something about the game and that is to mod it. And I am very grateful that PG has used a system that is very easy to mod, and mod well as we can see by the quality of the mods being produced. But monster, i was actually in favour of toning down the bombardments not having them have the same effect as nuking the battlefield! :P Super-mega-death-holocaust weapons are so boring!
Sorry, your posts are kinda dense lol
Nuking the battlefield would be fun once or twice.
But yeah, gotta love Petro for giving people the right to do what they want to with a game.
Zagfel your right about semantics, my bad, people interpret and classify things differently but your off the mark about my comment regarding the executor; im not sure if you saw the vid but I only saw the screenies and I was under the impression the executor was already damaged, as can be seen in those screenies, not that it had 'reduced' health. If they used a half clapped out executor that was accurate to what it will be in game, then there is no exaggeration there.
I saw the screenshots and the video. Either way, arguments about the video still apply because they're both promotional media. Also, your confusion about the content of the screenshots proves that the final product will never meet expectations. For example, another user could have counted the number of Mon Calamari cruisers in the shot and used that to generate a (false) approximation of the Executor's power.
Pretty impressive sentences Zagfel but I think your inclusion of "the tactical component" was superfluous....seriously what you say about the car differs from what Wedge said as he believed I would still buy the car with a 6 cyl because of the other refinements.
It's not redundant. It would have been if I had written "tactical component of the ground component." Either way, that's irrelevant to the larger question of whether or not bombardment is a large enough part of the game that it would convince people to purchase it.
True the bombardment ability is a small part of the game as compared to the engine but if an ability of a unit in a game was so totally imbalanced then I would not buy the game. Sure it might be fun to play it once or twice but playing against it would never be fun, hence why all gamers, EaW gamers no less, are very sensitive to game balance issues. If that imbalance ruined the land side of the game play then that is pretty major.
This contradicts your previous argument that exaggerated promo media misleads consumers into purchasing less sensational games. It also hurts your position because it means that developer dishonesty is ultimately self-correcting: gamers won't purchase a game with sensationalized promo media because of perceptions of imbalance. I also don't understand why it warrants your earlier criticism of Torpid because, if anything, you should be pleased that a potentially unbalancing feature was corrected.
I saw the screenshots and the video. Either way, arguments about the video still apply because they're both promotional media. Also, your confusion about the content of the screenshots proves that the final product will never meet expectations. For example, another user could have counted the number of Mon Calamari cruisers in the shot and used that to generate a (false) approximation of the Executor's power.
I never saw the video and as I indicated in above posts I wouldnt have a problem with it if I saw/heard the disclaimers they gave. I am sure that they will advertise their product accurately if they are already clarrifying what they show. I wasn't confused about the screenshots, I only interpreted it from what I saw and read from others posts that the Executor was already damaged since it would take a while to destroy if at full 'health'. Whose expectations will not be met? Mine? Im going to receive the game with a fairly open mind, but there will undoubtedly be things I would change, its not going to be able to please everyone, I just didnt want any hideous imbalances. Your right about the Mon Cals and the executor but it depends on the person and what conclusions they want to draw...Those mon cals could in fact be the 10th wave of ships to have a go at the executor and if that was the case people would know it was alot tougher than what was shown. Since we dont have access to the values of ships from promos we only go on what we see, thats why the devastating barrage is hard to misinterpret.
It's not redundant. It would have been if I had written "tactical component of the ground component." Either way, that's irrelevant to the larger question of whether or not bombardment is a large enough part of the game that it would convince people to purchase it.
...Tactical component as compared to what...strategic component? Bombing runs are available in galactic conquest as well, if you consider that the strategic component but the whole tactical V strategic thing this been discussed ad nauseam in other threads and I dare not revive it for sanity's sake. We'll just have to agree to disagree me thinks. Which reminds me, not at all trying to ridicule you, im curious as to what you deem a primary support ability? ...reinforcements? The bombardment may be but one feature/ability amongst many of the game but any one feature can be imbalancing to the game overall. Likewise for the sake of one feature or unit, it can be enough to influence people to buy it or not buy it. Its hard to say which way it would go because while gamers would love a devastating weapon they also want balance and dont necessarily want to be on the receiving end of it. This raises another point which I probably should have mentioned and that was whether or not if the exaggerated barrage was race specific or not. Since it wont be in the game its academic but hypothetically if each race had such an ability then its not as bad, they can both blast each other into the stone age but its still only going to come down to who can purchase a run first. If its only available to one race/faction then its more of a concern.
This contradicts your previous argument that exaggerated promo media misleads consumers into purchasing less sensational games. It also hurts your position because it means that developer dishonesty is ultimately self-correcting: gamers won't purchase a game with sensationalized promo media because of perceptions of imbalance. I also don't understand why it warrants your earlier criticism of Torpid because, if anything, you should be pleased that a potentially unbalancing feature was corrected.
I do not see any contradiction....my gripe has always been about advertising exaggerated features to sell games and game imbalances, be it the bombardment or whatever. Just because the engine is a major part of the car its the one feature of it that *I* look at when buying a car; somone else might look for safety equipment etc. I only used the example of the car to show the *effect* on one consumers decision when there was a change between the prototype and the production product (a deflation of a feature you could say), not comparing a game to a car in any other literal sense that I believe was taken by some. I understand now that it wasnt deliberate on PGs part to create a 'wow' factor about it, since I said a number of times I didnt see the video or hear the promoters discalimers but of course I am happy to know that the end version will not be like I feared, even if it could be fixed with a patch. Last line, first paragraph of my last post= since it was not deliberate it could also be interpreted as nothing more than a plea to PG not to do what some other game companies do. I doubt they will. Seeing as PG werent guilty of product sensationalism im sure Torpid couldnt care less about what I said. The poor guy has copped alot more flak of others for various things, im sure he has pretty thick skin otherwise he wouldnt be on the forums. PG know they have a great product that doesnt need to resort to such shinanigans to sell it. I do believe that "exaggerated promo media misleads consumers into purchasing less sensational games" as you say. It just depends on how exaggerated it is. This happens with any products; as we all know its called advertising. It comes in different forms. Sometimes its not accurate and it leads people to buy stuff and be disappointed. Your a smart enough guy to realise that if you bought that convertible your not going to have three bikini clad babes hanging out of it as you cruise the beach, when you live in, say texas, and neither will 99% of guys but some will believe that by buying that car they will have more fun/get more attention/etc and that is what the advertiser wants you to think. Thats how they succeed. Unfortunately dishonesty is not always self correcting due to consumer demand because some people arent as careful as others, some just don't care and some are down-right gullible. Some dodgy people only need to burn a consumer once to get the desired return.
Anyway, I have crapped on long enough. At least it might provide some with entertainment...
Seriously guys, this was the stupidest discussion ever. Also I can't belive you would spend that much typing about this. Cool the engines people.
I agree. While I enjoy a healthy debate from time to time, I have too much time on my hands at the moment...im taking the key out of the ignition.
Seriously guys, this was the stupidest discussion ever. Also I can't belive you would spend that much typing about this. Cool the engines people.
So ignore the thread?
People debate if they want to debate. As long as there's no hostility or flaming, there is no reason to step in and stop it. If the parties decide to end the debate, then they end it.
Carry on.
I support orbital bombardment!
Me too.
By the way, orbital bombardment is going to be in addition to bombing runs, right? Not instead of?
Maybe they replace bombing runs when you have a cap ship in orbit?
For Orbital Bombardments...what actually happens?? is it just a blisster of missles from the capital ship above?
What I want to know is if they are more or less powerful than bombing runs?
The only one we've seen so far is the Zann Consortium bombardment; it consists of a two-blast attack with an electronics-scrambling EMP blast arriving just ahead of a destructive cannon blast.
From Petroglyph comments, I assume that the Rebel attack will be something like an ion barrage or a dispersed cannon barrage. The Empire, as pretty much everyone suspects, will probably be a hard-hitting, ground-pounding turbolaser assault.
Marsman, towards the beginning of this thread, Darth Torpid mentioned:
it is still much more powerful than bombing runs
What I want to know is if they are more or less powerful than bombing runs?
As PG said it depends on the civ you are. so Empire's Bombardment will probably be more powerful than the rebels etc
Indeed, PG said that Orbital Bombardment will be stronger then regular bombing runs.
As for Anarch's question, I think that bombing runs will be an early game thing, replaced by orbital bombardment if you have the capability. If you have an ISD and Tie Bombers (yeah, they go together, but anyway), you'll only be able to use the ISD's bombardment abilities.
If both were available, it would be an overpowered ability.
It's my take on it :)
That's a good point. So I'm assuming that you'll have bombing runs up until you get ISDs/Mon Calamari cruisers, which should be at Tech level 4. Or maybe you'll get it at Tech 3 (Victorys and Assault Frigates).
That's a good point. So I'm assuming that you'll have bombing runs up until you get ISDs/Mon Calamari cruisers, which should be at Tech level 4. Or maybe you'll get it at Tech 3 (Victorys and Assault Frigates).
I was thinking you could have both, why not? If you remove bombing runs, that means the rebels lose the destructive power of the y-wings, not replaced by anything similar.
I reckon you'll have both - you know you want it too. :nod:
I was thinking you could have both, why not? If you remove bombing runs, that means the rebels lose the destructive power of the y-wings, not replaced by anything similar.
I reckon you'll have both - you know you want it too. :nod:
Lol, we'll just have to wait and see :nod:
I was thinking you could have both, why not? If you remove bombing runs, that means the rebels lose the destructive power of the y-wings, not replaced by anything similar.
I reckon you'll have both - you know you want it too. :nod:
Very true; I hadn't thought of that. Let's hope for both, then. If that's the case, I imagine orbital bombardments will have a much slower recharge rate than bombing runs.
That made me think of something else: Does anyone think there should be different recharge times (on orbital bombardments) for the different factions, seeing as how the bombardments work in different ways? I'd say that the Rebel OB, doing no actual damage, should become available again more quickly than the other two kinds.
Very true; I hadn't thought of that. Let's hope for both, then. If that's the case, I imagine orbital bombardments will have a much slower recharge rate than bombing runs.
That made me think of something else: Does anyone think there should be different recharge times (on orbital bombardments) for the different factions, seeing as how the bombardments work in different ways? I'd say that the Rebel OB, doing no actual damage, should become available again more quickly than the other two kinds.
True but we might end up getting another overpowered ion weapon for the rebels. (though since I play rebels most of the time I don't really mind lol)
Very true; I hadn't thought of that. Let's hope for both, then. If that's the case, I imagine orbital bombardments will have a much slower recharge rate than bombing runs.
That made me think of something else: Does anyone think there should be different recharge times (on orbital bombardments) for the different factions, seeing as how the bombardments work in different ways? I'd say that the Rebel OB, doing no actual damage, should become available again more quickly than the other two kinds.
That would be good - slower times for a powerful effect. I can imagine that the orbital bombadments will be close to a one-off in any land tactical battle, like in a semi-long GC land battle you might use 2-3 bombing runs but just get 1 OB.
The different recharge times is also a good point: I don't think the Imperials should be able to devastate bases with the same regularity as an Ion Blast. Although, if they have a massive fleet the time will probably decrease a la bombing runs.
This also brings up another question (slightly Off-Topic): what will the bombers for the Consortium be? Skiprays?
Yes, I think it'll be Skiprays. Wasn't there a screenshot somewhere recently of Skiprays flying over a ground battle?
Yes, I think it'll be Skiprays. Wasn't there a screenshot somewhere recently of Skiprays flying over a ground battle?
I think there was one in Cain's set over at Petro Fan Forums. I'm pretty sure that's the case then, cool.
I think this Orbital Bombardment thing has just about been fleshed out as much as it can without seeing anything new - which I doubt we will since FoC comes out so soon.
All this talk has got me excited that things haven't been rushed in to appease the fans without adding anything to the gameplay; that every addition will add depth - especially necessary for ground combat as that is the most procedural aspect of EaW IMO.
Maybe the recharge time doesn't just differ from OB and BR but each faction's OB has a separate recharge time.
Yes, that's what I said in post #43, above. Since each faction gets a different effect, they ought to have different recharge times.
Ah, I hadn't noticed. YOu truly must be a skilled tactian Anarch, especcially seeing some of your other posts.