StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Gents;

I came across this video on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVe_eX57pCE

That is Homeworld with the "Warlord" mod.

Has anyone compared this to "Empire At War"? Which is better in terms of Star Destroyer action (note in the film the heavy turrets turn and fire) and the launching of TIEs?

Also, if someone has Homeworld and the Warlord mod, and would be interested in contributing (by filming a couple scenes) to the "Ultimate Star Wars vs Star Trek" movie, please PM me.

Empire at War, compared to Warlords, sucks in terms in action, but theres no getting aside the fact running Warlords can bring most systems to their knees with just a few large ships.

The warlord mod is awsome, and really does blow Empires at War out of the water for massive scale and visual effects. As for gameplay I think it might be a little to much, not a lot of balance, and it is really hard to control. Empire at war is a fun game and I recomend it, but if you have Homeworld 2, I would defineatly get the warlord mod if you have a good system cause the first time you watch one of the super star destoryer fire a sheet of turbo lasers, you will be stunned.

As it turns out the mod is acutally going through some opitmizations, the current build only has like 16 ships, all MUCH better looking than they used to, and generally runs much better. Of course it lacks things like resuorcing, research, etc. Fighters still take too long to dock though

Empire At War just doesn't have the same feel to it, it feels like a crummy RTS with some star wars eye candy. Now I grant you that they work subsystems better, and you can actually play Empire at War (whereas you really can only admire Warlords eye candy). But I found it more fun to marvel at Warlords than I did playing Empire At War.

If you're looking for cinematics, I'd go warlords (though for Tie launching, you might need to get the 'in development' version thats lying around somewhere on their site, or one of the older versions, but those don't look nearly as good).

Empire at War is a crime against Star Wars. the entire ground combat component is complete crap, and the space combat looks like amateur hour compared to the Warlords mod. It really says something about the quality of the game where you can look to it if you're ever wondering what a photo-realistic Allegiance SSD would look like.

I'm running Warlords .45 still, and the graphics still make me want to get on my knees and weep for all other mods. And, the best thing is, every single ship seems to have had recieved the same amount of love.

SSDs look as good as TIEs and Mon Cals, while keeping to the right scale.

The battles also look brilliant, but taking good screenshots mid-combat is... tricky at best.

Admittedly, my key to victory is jumping in about 30 ISD-II and setting them all to agressive tactics, which may explain my frame-rate loss. Best I think I've seen is a VenStar (in the Clone Wars .91 version) open up at 3 seperate capital ships, while it's PD keeps blazing away at incoming missiles.

I play Warlods 0.45, and Clone Wars (0.80, I believe), and it kicks EAW where it hurts. The fighters look great, and the cap-ships aren't too bad either. I haven't been able to download the later warlords mods, though. I might have to go do that.

I can run WL without slowdown - even with a few of the heavy hitters in there...

Have any of you actually played warlords against another person?

InnocentBystander wrote:Have any of you actually played warlords against another person?

.....no.....LOL!

Yeah on a LAN with 3 other players. Our top of the range, as they where then, AMD64 3gig machines with insanely expensive gfx cards and gig of memory each, died on their asses, though 6 Star Dreadnaught sized ships all layting into each other will do that.

My friend and I spent about half of a semester trying to make Warlords into a game that 's fun to play. It's so close to being fun, but isn't quite there. Our primary complaint is that the game is that the ships are not balanced dollar for dollar. As in, 25,000 credits worth of X-Wings is worth orders of magnitude more than 25,000 credits worth of Star Destroyers.

The problem stems from the creator's love of the wanked-out RPG stats and refuses to use anything else as a resource for ship development. There were some earlier threads on this here that I can't find at the moment.

Another downside is that the 'new version' has been in development forever, which makes me sad.


If you just want to do some machinama action, though, it's great. [/i]

EaW is an RTS with the 'rock paper scissors' artificialness all over. Which explains why an AT-AT has zero way to kill little people with guns, while running them over is FAR faster than shooting at em for some reason. Space combat there is simple and pretty opaque, because there's little complexity.
Ooh, look. My ISD has 8 guns.

Warlords is more complex, and prettier, but not fun because it's too... obtuse. It's clearly a devoted fan creation for devoted fans... not people actually trying to have fun. Do I really need 5 different types of X-Wings, and 30 rebel fighters? What is the difference between an ISD1 and ISD2 anyway? Who the hell cares what the hell a K-Wing Mk1 and Mk2 is?

It also doesn't help that EaW ground combat is about as balanced as the federal budget. Why does a single Y-Wing strike level a fourth of the map utterly, yet not harm my soldiers?

Nephtys wrote:Warlords is more complex, and prettier, but not fun because it's too... obtuse. It's clearly a devoted fan creation for devoted fans... not people actually trying to have fun. Do I really need 5 different types of X-Wings, and 30 rebel fighters? What is the difference between an ISD1 and ISD2 anyway? Who the hell cares what the hell a K-Wing Mk1 and Mk2 is?

ISD1 and 2 would actually be a worthwhile bit to add in, simply because the 1 is so heavily forward-turreted, and the 2 is all side arcs. Unlike 90% of frivolous detail, it's a bit which could be exploited tactically.

Nephtys wrote:EaW is an RTS with the 'rock paper scissors' artificialness all over. Which explains why an AT-AT has zero way to kill little people with guns, while running them over is FAR faster than shooting at em for some reason.

God, I hate that so much. What the flying fuck is the point of playing with AT-ATs if you can't re-create the Battle of Hoth?

Uraniun235 wrote:

Nephtys wrote:EaW is an RTS with the 'rock paper scissors' artificialness all over. Which explains why an AT-AT has zero way to kill little people with guns, while running them over is FAR faster than shooting at em for some reason.

God, I hate that so much. What the flying fuck is the point of playing with AT-ATs if you can't re-create the Battle of Hoth?

Well, Colonel Veers can use his 'Maximum Firepower' move which practical shoots out laser nukes.

It's also rather annoying when Rebel speeders are the ultimate force in the galaxy. Considering there's only ONE (really crappy) unit that can counter them, and they can take down any unit without counter-fire, except crappy AT-AT returns..

Oh, and don't forget how utterly unstoppable Y-Wings are if they get through to your ISD. Or how unkillable the Millenium Falcon is. Or how Mon Mothma is an unstoppable berserker on the ground, and Han Solo has all the powers of a Hamas suicide bomber.

EnsGabe wrote:My friend and I spent about half of a semester trying to make Warlords into a game that 's fun to play. It's so close to being fun, but isn't quite there. Our primary complaint is that the game is that the ships are not balanced dollar for dollar. As in, 25,000 credits worth of X-Wings is worth orders of magnitude more than 25,000 credits worth of Star Destroyers.

The problem stems from the creator's love of the wanked-out RPG stats and refuses to use anything else as a resource for ship development. There were some earlier threads on this here that I can't find at the moment.

Another downside is that the 'new version' has been in development forever, which makes me sad.


If you just want to do some machinama action, though, it's great. [/i]

That's how I felt too. As a basis for a different game, Warlords is great. But as the actual game, it's unpolished and unplayable, except to goof around and beat the shit outta stuff kinda at random.

I would, for one, prefer more sides with fewer ships each. Like, for the Republic, give me a handful of late era Clone War style ships with Venators at the end an a buncha cool fighters. Mayhaps Jedi fighters as well. Especially if they can land on an enemy ship and capture it. Imperials don't need all the ships in the world, seriously, just give a good variety based on movie flavor and fill in the gaps with EU materials nicely. Rebels, then New Republic, Dark Empire and such can all be made the same. But there's no reason to have the amazing bloat they have, especially since they are either unwilling or unable to balance them according to usability.

That seems like it'd keep the different factions feeling fresh and unique without having to cut someone's favorite part of Star Wars out. It would just make the game make more sense. I really love Homeworld but this just seems wonky. Once they do eventually pump out a newer version I'd love to play it multi though.

Then all we need is someone to add in a few Trek ships, just to make Poe's vs. video making even easier.