I just wanted to mention I liked Shadowhal's earlier suggestion about having an additional planet 'exploration' option for discovering all the phase lanes from that planet. Hmmm, maybe it could instead find additional, hard to plot phase lanes.

This game was the biggest disappointment in my life I think.

If you count the land combat. The space combat was immensely entertaining. Land combat killed it The campaign was pretty unique, as far as its structure, and I really had fun with space battles. But I'd auto-resolve all land battles, didn't matter how stupid the auto resolve AI was (usually it'd make me lose 5x what I would've lost on manual), I still did it

Really? Shouldn't that be something more substantial, like I dunno, your first Marriage?   

this variation of the suggestion wasn't my idea though. nevermind though, would be cool to have sth like this.

Space combat captured the star wars feel , but ground combat did suck...

Space combat was indeed entertaining. Ground combat sucked, travelling between planets sucked, construction time sucked. It was SO arcade, so on "surface". Nothing deep in that game. The RTS community did love the game, but I'm not part of it hehe.

I was hoping for a Rebellion 2 and did not read a lot on it before buying it. I was just too excited to think before act



PS: never got married

I agree. But look at the movies, the only good land battles were Geonosis and Hoth (Don't count Endor, Ewoks shouldn't have pwned the empire). There was a space battle in every movie though. I don't get how they could've made it better :/

ewoks pwned the empire because the empire underestimated them...

oh, and because the epic forces of comic relief outweigh plot continuity.

You changed your name again?

That is soo pre-madonna schemiffer

pff, let us speak of this on the other thread.

Fine

Because it's the new generation of LucasArts. Adios the incredible games like the X-Wing serie, Dark Force serie (including Jedi Knight), Rebellion. Now let's make games quickly and without deepness. Ok ok, enough whining on the SW subject

Thought I would throw this up for scrutiny...

I think one aspect of the solution for fleet micro managing is to have fleets divided into strike groups that will coordinate with the other strike groups of the fleet. Sort of like combining units in The Battle For Middle Earth, but combining say flaks w/ carriers or cruisers w/ destroyers. Where how you've decided to form your fleet outlines the AIs actions... a micro managing aspect without frantic clicking.

Also for in-well flanking maneuvers to be useful, perhaps have multiple firing angles on a ship hurt its shield mitigation. This would force more ordered formations too I think. I think it would be a lot more FUN to watch my fleet maintain order according to my parameters than watching it disentigrate into chaos like they do now. (I don't really know how shield mitigation works atm though so if my assumptions are wrong sorry =/)

Thoughts please?

would be kewl to have front, back, left and right shields and have the ships trying to work with it. I read that they do not intend to have ship components damage (like no more batteries, no more engines, etc...) so I doubt they will change the shield system.

way back a few months ago (and well before I joined the beta) I proposed something like this - essentially an adaptation of star trek armandas fairly cool dmg model. but realistically, this would only make any sense for capital ships, because except for early game, everthing is destroyed so quickly that damage models of that level of detail would just go too much into micro management and would not be all that useful for large parts of the game.

it is really something for a game of a lesser scale I think.

You are totally right Shadowhal.  We didn't want to force players to micro 100's of individual ships, when they could be commanding entire fleets, planets, and solar systems.

No worries Craig, I've long discarded any thought of having extra lag inducing hit boxes. That was just a tangent to my original request anyways.

Craig, do you think the balance between RTS and 4x will be much closer when the final features will be in (on release), or will it stay approximatly the same as now, taking into consideration that the poll is highly favoring 4x?

Yes dthif1980, the balance will be much closer when the final features are in. We will remain true to RT4X philosophy we envisioned from the beginning.  As an example, diplomacy is going to feel much  more meaningful and immersive.  There are also exciting new tactical functions that hands-on players will enjoy, so everyone has something to look forward to

*Creates a custom 59 day Calendar so he can cross out day by day*

Craig: Thanks a lot for the update. I will hold down to my copy until the release I guess

Voted for 4X. But I'm a hardcore micronaut and I live for very long, slow moving methodical sophisticated simulations with surgical attack precision involving multiple platforms complimented with a supremely robust diplomatic and highly dynamic subterfuge systems topped off with a rather complex and refined tech tree and advanced economic model sporting a deft touch of randomness and galactic scale uncertainty with multitudes of variables.

4X. There's too many RTS games already and hardly any good 4X games produced.

I wants 4x