SE5 release is only 3 weeks away!

[Puke]

Caduceus said:
I think it is possible that I get dumber every year, so that might play in my favor.

in my case, i'm pretty sure that its a documentable fact.

[AAshbery76]

I'm wondering if the ground combat plays as terrible as it looks.Maybe the ground stuff was a waste of development time.

[RonGianti]

http://www.strategyfirst.com/en/games/SpaceEmpiresV/

Says

Release date: Winter 2006

Oh poo.

[Puke]

i have to admit, the ground combat does look pretty bad. im sure its nice being able to have different troop types, and fighters, and possibly orbital bombardment all playing a factor.

But I think that I would have much prefered it in a non-interactive axis-and-alies style interface. much like se4, where you line up the us-vs-them and the various assest plunk away at each other.

even if facilities were going to come into play -- for defense, destruction, and capturing -- they could have been represented iconically on a summary page, instead of out of scale and in mid 90's 3D.

[Ragnarok-X]

Puke said:
i have to admit, the ground combat does look pretty bad. im sure its nice being able to have different troop types, and fighters, and possibly orbital bombardment all playing a factor.

I second this. I would have been *FINE*, to say the least, if a model like in MoO2 or MoO3 would have used. Some nifty visuals, maybe some large-scale tactical decisions, but thats about it. It looks really ugly. Hopefully it has some kind of auto-resolve lol.

[Suicide Junkie]

Say what?
SE5 is a Turn Based Strategy game.

Tactical combat of any sort is like cheating unless you're playing hotseat against humans


As for SE:V - feature creep can be a nasty thing. Just how long are games going to last if every battle, on the ground or above it, is fought on a tactical map? At least it'll be an option.The same amount of time as they do now?
Tactical combat is for those who can't stand the heat of playing the pros online. It is pretty much cheating against the AIs.

Only in hotseat multiplayer is it fair to use, and then, yeah, it will take forever.
Just play simulataneous turn games instead, and all will be well in the world until Eorg stomps you with 5000 fighters.

[thorfrog]

Puke said:
i have to admit, the ground combat does look pretty bad. im sure its nice being able to have different troop types, and fighters, and possibly orbital bombardment all playing a factor.

But I think that I would have much prefered it in a non-interactive axis-and-alies style interface. much like se4, where you line up the us-vs-them and the various assest plunk away at each other.

even if facilities were going to come into play -- for defense, destruction, and capturing -- they could have been represented iconically on a summary page, instead of out of scale and in mid 90's 3D.

I agree as well. Ground combat is not what I was expecting for this game.

[Fyron]

I'd much rather have a complex ground combat engine to run by the host at turn processing than the craptacular SE4 ground combat system...

Graphics aren't what brings us to these games anyways, right? I'd rather have mid-90s graphics than force everyone to spend $800 US to be able to play the game.

[Puke]

the only things wrong with the SE4 GC system, is where the mechanics dont operate as you would expect.

Iron out the mechanics behind the combat (hell, even make them visible in a log or something) and you dont need 3d graphics. have range, firepower, combat modifiers, and other factors all ground out into some mathamatical function, throw some minor randomization in, and you're done.

The only tactics I would want to assign to individual units are Firing Priority, and either Front-Line, Main-Force, or Rear-Support.

Ground combat can be very detailed without being graphically demanding. It could still be caried out with an interface similar to the SE4 interface. Sometimes less is more.

[Suicide Junkie]

You can just look at the results in your log...
Nobody is forcing you to watch the replays.