Star Wars Battlefront

Well, if you didn't, you'd be very sunk if you lost all your fleets.

Did you just

Not really. If you're good enough at combat, you can repel the enemies as they come after you. Then THEY lose all their fleets and you last long enough to rebound. Though, if you were that good at fighting, I'd imagine you wouldn't lose all your fleets in the first place.

The ground fights really weren't enough Storm the Castle.

I love offense/defense levels.

I've always thought a mix of Battlefront's gameplay and Empire At War's Galactic Conquest would be the perfect Star Wars game.

Stuff like making vehicles available by either bringing them with you to the assault or producing them on the planet, constructing buildings that could change the course of battle, using fleets in orbit to gain the advantage, the ability to send raids that slip past blockades with specific objectives that go beyond "wipe out the other team" (but will have fewer reinforcements)...

edited 22nd Jun '15 10:31:53 PM by KnownUnknown

Yeah, that does sound pretty creative.

Personally if they do a sequel to the upcoming game I'd like the space battles to be straight-up fighter combat, not the "blow up vital systems" thing that they were in 2.

NVM

edited 23rd Jun '15 9:53:58 AM by Stratostygo3

Do any of you have a decent PC gaming rig? If so, you might be lucky enough to get into an early Alpha test for Battlefront! You'll need to use and create an EA Origin account though, but at this point Origin's bugginess is just largely over-rated fanboy whining.

If you're interested, here's the link: Battlefront Alpha Test

No Death Star map. The way they word this makes me think there will be the usual Battlefield style map packs early next year so waiting for the Game of the Year edition in a year is probably a smart bet.

edited 29th Jun '15 7:55:51 AM by LordofLore

Eh, the Death Star wasn't really a favorite map of mine in BF 2 so it's not that much of a loss.

Agreed. The Death Star was basically just an infantry-only map, and not a very remarkable one at that.

Now, if they could do a starfighter-only Death Star trench run map, now THAT might be interesting...

Apparently being able to drive the AT-AT on Hoth to places other than the shield reactor in the last games doesn't count for working.

edited 29th Jun '15 8:07:24 AM by LordofLore

It kind of isn't. They could barely go anywhere but straight forward and were essentially just moving turrets. There's no difference between what we saw in the demo and the original Hoth maps.

They were buffed a bit, actually. Not enough that I necessarily buy the game breaker line, but enough to be noticeable.

edited 29th Jun '15 8:50:10 AM by KnownUnknown

Not game breaking if you have good fighter pilots or very determined rocket snipers on the other side. Implement the same weakpoint system BF 2 used, and maybe nerf the armor enough that shooting out the legs is a viable option (How the Empire managed to armor those legs enough to force the tie cable trick in the first place is unknown to me) and they can be a serious cannon with enough weaknesses to NOT be almost invincible.

Super-reinforced joints.

EU lore said that the Snowspeeders were very lightly armed and only ever intended as patrol craft, so they didn't have enough firepower to damage the walkers. Starfighters, especially those with torpedoes, had better luck.

AT-A Ts are designed to be able to withstand almost any ground based attack, the assumption being that AT-S Ts and infantry will keep infantry away from them (we see what happens with they fail to do so and Luke gets near one) while the Navy protects them from aerial threats. Armor that heavy on something that's a cross between an assault transport and a direct fire artillery piece does make sense. And they still make decent speed on even ground, which Echo Base didn't have due to the recent snow storm.

Yeah, one moment in the X Wing books has four X Wings against four AT A Ts and the AT A Ts are taken out easy.

So X wings have better firepower than stationary artillery turrets. Which are ostensibly linked to a power grid.

edited 29th Jun '15 7:18:38 PM by blkwhtrbbt

Point being that rebalancing the things to be vulnerable to X-Wing fire and giving the defenders X-Wings as well as speeders would be more than adequate to balance out taking AT-A Ts off the rails. But we know they probably won't do that soon. Maybe later on, if someone makes the argument to them when they're in a receptive mood.

Don't you remember the movies? Those stationary turrets were always there to make noise and achieve nothing else! So it makes perfect sense.

edited 30th Jun '15 12:45:31 PM by VutherA

That's what I have a problem with.

Artillery doing less damage than starfighters.

Those were just anti-infantry turrets and stuff to deal with light vehicles, though.

And they couldn't chew threw knee joints. Even if they couldn't destroy the walkers, at least they should have been capaple of paralyzing them. And of course rocket based missiles simply don't exist.

On a related note, the Wookieepedia article on "Artillery" in the universe is basically just "It exists in the universe, this is how it works."

They'd slow down troops from running around in the open as quickly.

edited 30th Jun '15 12:57:49 PM by VutherA