Star Wars: Empire at War

By Rob Fahey Published 31 January, 2006

Been in the wars.

Star Wars games seem almost uniquely immune to the standard suspicions most gamers have about movie-licensed stuff. You can probably suggest a few reasons for that - the degree of sarcasm in your tone inversely proportional to the number of Star Wars toys you currently own - but although there are plenty of apologists for some of the more rubbish facets of George Lucas' creations (step forward, Ellie!), the fact remains that Star Wars has a far better track record than most franchises when it comes to making decent videogames.

What hasn't been created, however, is a truly standout Star Wars strategy game. There have been some noble attempts at putting you in command of the war in the galaxy far, far away, and some less noble attempts to boot, but nobody has really nailed it yet - which is why I was so interested to take an early look at Star Wars: Empire At War, which promises to bring the galaxy spanning conflict between the Empire and the Rebels to life in a manner far more ambitious than anything attempted so far.

Mint Imperials

Set a few years before the events of Episode IV, and thus bridging the gap between the two trilogies to some extent, Empire At War sees you taking control of either the Imperial or the Rebel forces and waging war across the galaxy, with both space battles and skirmishes on the surface of various famous planets from the movies and various tie-in properties modelled. That's the first thing that jumps out and grabs you as really interesting - the fact that you'll spend time commanding Star Destroyers, X-Wings and TIE Fighters as well as sending troops and AT-AT walkers around on the ground.

'Star Wars: Empire at War' Screenshot darth

That in itself is an interesting move, and one which looks set to give the game much more variety than other such titles have boasted. Early impressions of both forms of combat are solid, too. Ground combat is the more familiar of the two, and all of the staple units of the Star Wars universe are present and correct - but the whole affair is spiced up by the addition of famous "hero" units, such as Darth Vader on the Imperial side, who can seriously affect the outcome of any battle and whose unique individual powers warrant careful marshalling by the player. It's too early to say how well balanced or otherwise the sides are, but there are no glaring flaws from this point of view - and the Imperial side, in particular, is an absolute blast to play. Crushing Rebel scum has always been more fun than running around with poncy Jedi types, after all.

The space battles, however, are definitely quite different from what's come before. An almost entirely different battle system has been created for these, as you'd expect, and although it's no Homeworld, it's both deep and well conceived. The essence of Star Wars battles has been captured well, with squadrons of one- or two-man fighters swooping around at great speed while lumbering capital ships make their ponderous turns and sweeps and unleash merry hell at each other. Those capital ships are tough to take out, and simply rushing them with loads of fighters is almost pointless - you'll need to target individual hard-points on the ships to cripple them, and focus on punching through their fighter escorts to get near in the first place. This is arguably the finest mode in the game, and even as a cynic regarding recent additions to the Star Wars pantheon, I have to admit to being pretty excited to see how it evolves as the game progresses.

The Galaxy In Your Eyes

Tying both of those game modes together is the other great thing about Empire At War - namely the decision to create a Total War style campaign, where rather than simply being led by the hand from battle to battle, you actually define the sweep of the war across the galaxy by your own actions. Interestingly, Petroglyph has opted to create standard single-player campaigns for both the Imperial and Rebel sides as well, but for most players I suspect that the real meat of the game is to be found in the full-size campaign.

'Star Wars: Empire at War' Screenshot formation

This can be played on a variety of maps, starting from different scenarios with different levels of difficulty, but the concepts remain the same - you need to strategise your unit deployments in order to conquer the galaxy, choosing where to engage, where to hold the line and where to retreat, and all the while trying to build up your armies, your technology base (an interesting point is that the Rebels largely seem to be able to advance their technology only by spying on the Empire) and your territory.

In this mode, much like in Total War, it's not just whether you win battles that counts, it's how you win them. If you win a narrow victory at the loss of many units, you've probably just wrecked your chances for victory in that sector, because the enemy may counter-attack and hit your significantly weakened forces. You don't get to manufacture units on the battlefield in this mode - instead, you'll build and deploy units between battles, and as a result there's no resource management as such in battles (in fact, the only place in the game you find any element of resource management is in the skirmish mode, and even then it's massively simplified).

Arguably the best thing about this galactic conquest mode, however, is the fact that it will work in multiplayer - and players will be able to save games midway and resume them, which means that you could duke it out with a friend for control of the galaxy over the course of several gaming sessions, rather than having to complete the whole thing in one sitting.

Many Bothans Died To Bring Us This Information

'Star Wars: Empire at War' Screenshot disco

The game has been developed by a new studio, Las Vegas-based Petroglyph, but although the name is new, the team is not - it has risen from the ashes of Las Vegas' most famous development firm, Westwood, which was absorbed into EA Los Angeles some time ago. As such, the team has experience aplenty in the RTS field, and they're no slouches in the graphical department either. The game isn't necessarily the best RTS we've ever seen, but it does throw around plenty of units on screen and has some great cinematic camera angles, as well as a level of attention to detail on the various units which Star Wars fanatics will no doubt appreciate.

Early impressions suggest that Empire At War could be the game to finally add a brilliant RTS title to the Star Wars trophy cabinet. It's slickly presented and feels extremely solid to play - belying the team's vast experience at Westwood - and the combination of both the space battle mode and the depth of the galactic conquest mode are fascinating prospects for fans of strategy games and fans of George Lucas' check shirts alike. We'll bring you an in-depth review closer to release; for now, this is definitely one to add to your watchlist. If you have a watchlist, obviously. If not, you could probably just write it on a piece of rice paper and eat it, or something. If only the Bothans had thought of that, eh?

Picture of Rob.

About Rob Fahey

Read more articles from Rob by visiting the Rob Fahey archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (41) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • jack_klugman #1 6 years ago

    Are those TIE fighters with wheels? Travesty!

  • Shinji #2 6 years ago

    I should add that I haven't seen the demo, so I don't know what it's based on. We've seen beta code, which did have some clipping problems, but my assumption is that this will be fixed in the final game since it's pretty blatant. We'll obviously be writing the review off final code, so we'll let you know at that time.

  • symmetry #3 6 years ago

    I never got off the first level of the demo, thought it was absolutely awful. Maybe I missed something...
    Edited by 1 at 31/01/06 @ 14:51

  • jack_klugman #4 6 years ago

    Well, the other levels apparently. And wasn't it a single level demo anyway?! Hah!

  • UncleLou #5 6 years ago

    I thought the demo was great. Lots of SW atmosphere, HUGE galaxy map to conquer (instead of a silly scripted campaign), and the land battle was a lot of fun. Not too easy, and you had to use your resources sensibly to win.

    Capturing AT-ATs with Chewie FTW! ;)

  • Gurgeh #6 6 years ago

    This will be better... way better

    http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http ://www.computerandvideogames.com/interviews/interviews_story .php?id=132861

  • pauleyc #7 6 years ago

    Gurgeh, better - probably. Different - most likely. Not Star Wars - definitely.

    Different strokes...

  • Flabio #8 6 years ago

    There's been tracked Tie Tanks in one of the Expanded Universe comics at some point.

  • kalel #9 6 years ago

    What is going on with the scale on that first screenie?

  • smoison #10 6 years ago

    This looks like it will be quite good. I really enjoyed the Demo, and can't wait to play multiplqyer this with my Bro (He is EVIL and has conquered many Civilisations (Civ 4))

    It looks promising and I hope it is released complete.
    (If a patch is made less then 2 weeks after release, then THEY FAILED)

  • Ryuken #11 6 years ago

    Looks nice, plays nice but I never got a true 3D feeling (in the demo maps). This really feels like a 2D rts. Unit shots always hit, lasers can go through rocks, no friendly fire/collateral damage, are there even height levels that give you an advantage? Really so retro actually. So, a great decision from them to provide another kind of campaign/skirmish style to make it at least a bit different then.
    Edited by 1 at 31/01/06 @ 16:06

  • Psi #12 6 years ago

    i h8 those cutnshut lucasarts vehicles... i mean i wouldn't want a mazda mx5 spaceship now would i?

  • McGeeza #13 6 years ago

    Definitely try the demo before you buy this. Completely agree with the fighters looking cack (awful clipping, turning on a sixpence with jerky animations, bunching up). Not saying it doesn't work as an RTS mind, just don't expect to be commanding X Wing Vs Tie Fighter-like space battles...

  • Gurgeh #14 6 years ago

    "Gurgeh, better - probably. Different - most likely. Not Star Wars - definitely.

    Different strokes... "

    What about this then...

    http://www.pl anetannihilation.com/swta/

    Plus side: free, TA style with Star Wars units
    Minus side: no single player AI, some models need work with the new 3d engine

  • Daryoon #15 6 years ago

    Does it let you play out the battle of hoth (or a blatent copy of it) for the 43,658th time? And is there another grand war effort on "backwater" planet Tatooine again?

    I miss the X-wing era ;_;
    Why can't we have a SW-Elite hybrid?

  • urban #16 6 years ago

    it actually looks and plays like the first decent star wars game :D

  • smoison #17 6 years ago

    If you miss the X-wing, you need to get yourself a Gamecube and get the Rogue Leader games. They are the best arcade starwars games around.

    (2 Player Coop and deathmach is great)

  • McGeeza #18 6 years ago

    Agreed. Rogue Leader is still unmatched graphically, in my opinion. Shame about the dodgy controls though (no roll on the right analog stick...what were they thinking...)

  • Stickman #19 6 years ago

    I love Star Wars and have been praying for what seems like decades for the game. Unfortunately, having played the demo, I don't think this is it. The ground battles hark back to the early 90's, and the space battles are all on one plane, so any tactical manouvering is out. I did like the Galactic Map effort and the way they've cut resource farming from the battles, but it just seemed like pretty standard. boring fare.

    Jack of all trades, (jedi) master of none.
    Edited by 1 at 01/02/06 @ 10:44

  • newt #20 6 years ago

    "What hasn't been created, however, is a truly standout Star Wars strategy game. There have been some noble attempts at putting you in command of the war in the galaxy far, far away, and some less noble attempts to boot, but nobody has really nailed it yet"

    Rebellion / Supremacy was great. The space combat looked horrible, the controls were confusing at first but once you got used to it, a well-crafted, unique game emerged. Also, Force Commander was definitely brave in its concept, though many players were again disgusted by the graphics & interface.

    Empire At War seems.. retro, as someone here said. In a bad way.

  • Daryoon #21 6 years ago

    Star Wars Supremacy was shite. I mean, it was a game where the Rebellion could build fucking huge battle cruisers and face the Empire head-on, surely defeating the whole idea!

  • Dynamize #22 6 years ago

    I found you could get fun out of Supremacy/Rebellion, but it was a pretty flawed game. Your Mon Calamari cruiser is a match for my ISDII class Star Destroyer? Get out. Resource management far too obtuse, blah blah. A case of "if it didn't have the trappings of Star Wars, I'd be livid at the quality" I think.
    The last screeny up there brings back memories of the crap, swirly fighter graphics in the space battles of Supremacy (not to mention the bloody annoying 'engine' sound), which gives me pause.
    Like Supremacy though, if I get to build and command Star Destroyers that'll probably put my criticism brainpart to sleep for a bit. Unless it's too frantic, and more C&C than Total War.
    Edited by 1 at 01/02/06 @ 19:01

  • heflys #23 6 years ago

    Rebellion sucked, and FC didn't even deserve to be labeled a SW game.

    In terms of this game being retro, I have no idea as to what you guys are referring to. For one, I don't recall "retro" games possessing as many unit counters (they usually focused on the more powerful units) having detailed user interfaces, possessing good graphics, having continous campaigns, having excellent sounds, utilizing weather effects, etc.

    EAW, however, possesses an interface that organizes units into specific categories when you select groups of individual units. Comes equipped with a continious campaign where everything affects the greater war. Comes with a skirmish mode, story driven campaign, and allows one to play the conquest mode in multiplayer.

    It is tactical, particularly when it comes to selecting necessary forces, countering units with specific units, using special abilites, targeting hardpoints, and generally outsmarting ones opponent on the BF. There are also weather effects which impact weapon performance and visiblity. In terms of the space combat playing on one plane, who cares? It's not like it's any less fun or tactical, besides I can't think of any real good reason why they would need entire 3d, perhaps someone would name some reasons?

    Sounds effects are lovely, particularly the voice-overs. You'll hear things like "I've been hit!!", "Stay on target", "Turbo-lasers destroyed!", etc.

    (Takes deep breath) As you can see, I am very excited over this game, and am looking forward to playing it. I'm shocked more of you aren't.

  • heflys #24 6 years ago

    Also, in regards to those who posted it, units miss consistently, fighters don't stay on the plane as capital ships, and capital ships move around each other. So, technically speaking, the space battles aren't 2d.

  • UncleLou #25 6 years ago

    I agree with you, heflys. There is a confusion here between "retro" and "different style of RTS".

  • Stickman #26 6 years ago

    I'm not saying its 'retro', I'm saying its just dated. If this didn't have the SW name on it, it would barely register on anyone's radar.

    "In terms of the space combat playing on one plane, who cares? It's not like it's any less fun or tactical, besides I can't think of any real good reason why they would need entire 3d, perhaps someone would name some reasons?"

    Um...I care. Of course its less tactical. Ever played Homeworld? There's a damn good reason! Its the difference between a game of draughts and a game of that thing where there's 3 draught boards stacked on top of each other and you can move vertically. Much more tactical and much more to think about.

    No offence, I think its great that you're excited about this game, and it does look average at least, but the stuff you seem so excited about has been done a thousand times before.

  • UncleLou #27 6 years ago

    I'm not saying its 'retro', I'm saying its just dated. If this didn't have the SW name on it, it would barely register on anyone's radar.

    I simply can't agree with this, I don't think it's dated at all. Like I said, it's a different style than, say, Rome, or Rise of Nations.

    There's still a huge demand for these "dated" games. Age of Empires 3 was said to be dated, too (with which I can't agree as well), and it has been the best-selling PC game for months in the US and Germany, for example. Now I am not saying this is any indication if it's good or not, just that it could very well register on peoples' radars even without the SW license. :)

    I think it's a bit like saying more arcadey racers are now dated because we have great sims like GT Legends.

  • Furbs #28 6 years ago

    Why does everyone overlook Star Wars: Battlefront? Its Age of Empires! With AT-ATs! And X-Wings! And Gungan killing! Would could possibly be better!

  • Stickman #29 6 years ago

    That's where our opinions differ Lou! I thought AoE3 was shit too!

    "I think it's a bit like saying more arcadey racers are now dated because we have great sims like GT Legends."

    Not really because they're two different types of game. More to the point would be saying that releasing a game like Outrun now would look dated next to Burnout or something of that ilk.

    Like you say though, the sales of AoE3 proves there is still a large market for these types of RTS, so its another 'horses for courses' argument I suppose.

  • Ryuken #30 6 years ago

    "Also, in regards to those who posted it, units miss consistently, fighters don't stay on the plane as capital ships, and capital ships move around each other. So, technically speaking, the space battles aren't 2d. "

    Sorry, I was talking about the ground battles. As for the space battles being different than the usual 2D mechanics; anyone remember Star Trek Armada? Old wine in new bags doesn't have to be bad, it's probably the combination of all those elements that will convince me to buy it but I don't see a revolution in this game.

  • Stickman #31 6 years ago

    It's called a rebellion Ryuken, not a revolution. Tsk!

  • Troutio #32 6 years ago

    "It's slickly presented and feels extremely solid to play - belying the team's vast experience at Westwood"

    This word, "belying" - to quote the great Indigo Montoya - "I do not think it means what you think it means."

    Good preview though...

  • heflys #33 6 years ago

    "Um...I care. Of course its less tactical. Ever played Homeworld? There's a damn good reason! Its the difference between a game of draughts and a game of that thing where there's 3 draught boards stacked on top of each other and you can move vertically. Much more tactical and much more to think about. "

    Perhaps you'll reveal to me how it's more tactical, rather than how asthetically appealling it is. Moving vertically means nothing when ships can easily swivle around, and have multiple guns on each side.

    "No offence, I think its great that you're excited about this game, and it does look average at least, but the stuff you seem so excited about has been done a thousand times before. "

    Done before perhaps, but better? This is the first RTS I've seen that divides units into different groups when you select multiple units. The first SW games to incorporate Space/Land Battles in a manageable 3d environment. It's the first "generic" rts that I've seen utilize weather effects.

  • Stickman #34 6 years ago

    "Perhaps you'll reveal to me how it's more tactical, rather than how asthetically appealling it is."

    Are you serious? If you can't see that working on more than one plane is inherently more tactical in itself, then I doubt I'll be able to reveal anything to you.

    "Moving vertically means nothing when ships can easily swivle around, and have multiple guns on each side."

    That's kind of the point. Ships don't have guns all over them. If you can rotate your Mon Cal cruiser 90 degrees and pour a broadside into a Star Destroyer by flying over the top of it, while it can't bring a gun to bear on you, then moving vertically means something.

    "Done before perhaps, but better?"

    Yes.

  • heflys #35 6 years ago

    "That's kind of the point. Ships don't have guns all over them. If you can rotate your Mon Cal cruiser 90 degrees and pour a broadside into a Star Destroyer by flying over the top of it, while it can't bring a gun to bear on you, then moving vertically means something."

    This is space, so ships seemingly don't have much difficulty in realigning themselves in order to prepare for enemy attacks, particularly in HW. Also, most fleets in HW are composed of multiple ships and strike craft. Managing such complex maneuvers can be difficult and time consuming. I fount that counters, which EAW also utilizes, having more resources, and numbers, played more of a factor than trying to initiate a complex maneuver in HW, particularly when realizing that by the time it was finished, the enemy would have just used the more easy route and made a beeline for your mother ship.

    You say that the mechanics have been done better, but I beg to differ in certain instances. For one, as I've stated, this the first RTS that organizes units into specific categories when you drag and select a large group of units. This one, of a select few, of traditional RTS that I've seen where weather effects play a factor. One of the few that allows a player to zoom out at a great distance to get an overall view of the entire battle. One of the few "traditional" RTS' that comes with a continous campaign in RT. Allows one to play the conquest mode in MP, possesses a unique MP mode where each team controls one base, rather than multiple bases across the map, and hints at being the first successful SW rts.
    Edited by 1 at 02/02/06 @ 22:01

  • Stickman #36 6 years ago

    I'm not going to bother arguing anymore, seems a fruitless exercise!

    If you want to be exited about weather effects, zooming out and a continuous campaign, and the odd obsession you have with the grouping thing, then crack on me old chum!

  • heflys #37 6 years ago

    Just relating how I felt HW was more asthetical in some regards, although the ability to hide out in certain parts of the system were unique, thus forcing the player to use probes. I just felt that lacking a complete 3d environment didn't make a game less fun.

    Also, I was referencing to the unit grouping aspect because you said it did nothing innovative, which the unique interface grouping thingy contradicts.

    Take no offense good sir, just presenting my opinion.

  • Stickman #38 6 years ago

    None taken, and certainly none intended on my part either!

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

  • UncleLou #39 6 years ago

    At least I guess we can all agree that it's a bloody shame that there probably will never be a Homeworld 3. :(

    /is a HW fanboy

  • Spanker #40 6 years ago

    Is Jar Jar Binks in this? As a special ability he should make everyone cringe to the ground when he speaks (including 'friendlies'). If I can send in Darth vadar to slice his ears off then put me down for two copies.

  • mingster #41 6 years ago

    This or Galactic Civilizations 2 what would you buy?