sw:eaw is the cliffnote vrsion of sins

Do this! We can tell you only looked at the score because reviewers actually talk about what is good in the game and what they didn't like. In doing this you would have read about all the complaints you have in the game(such as they talk about long games in every review). Sorry you made a bad decision but you simply cannot be compensated for your ignorance, from the game developers at least you could try your luck with ebay.

Excellent plan. This game would make a great gift.



While many games of Sins can drag on for 3+ hrs, with the correct settings you can achieve faster gameplay. I have seen games that have only lasted 20 minutes. On average, most of my games take around two hours on the faster gameplay settings, but I am by no means a skilled player. The recent patch added a lot of customization as far as gameplay speed, so you could play around with those settings. I can understand why some people don't like games that could potentially take four hours to play, but I've found that the better I get at the game, the less time the matches take to resolve. I would recommend trying some of the smaller map sizes, particularly in the case of 1 star maps. There are a couple of good 1v1 maps with only 7-10 planets. The fighting starts VERY quickly so you might enjoy that more. The large map "Grindstone" (25 Planets) is great for team games. It's frequently used for clan matches. I would reccomend watching some replays of skilled players and watching just how aggressive this game can be. This game is supposed to be about 4X gaming, empire building and all that...but it can be a pew pew hundreds of ships fighting game if you want it to be.




Yah, the animations can be pretty underwhelming at times, but some of them are actually pretty good. The battles may not be as flashy as you'd like, but I prefer actual performance. When you think about how much the Sins engine is rendering at once you have to be impressed. Massive star systems with battles taking place on multiple planets. Epic.



I don't get that impression at all. In fact I get the complete opposite. Random games with tons of hype, practically unlimited budgets, and rapid fanbases generally get the good scores. When a niche game like this gets such scores, its for a reason. It's a solid product.

That's kind of what 4x implies....

I don't know WTF you were expecting with some kind of in depth tactical game, hardcore micromanagement tactics were deliberately removed in order to curb down on the ham fisted action pace of other more RTS game like Company of Heroes.

The game looks pretty good actually... the difference between "High" ship detail and "Highest" ship detail - is LEAPS AND BOUNDS! No joke, turn it up, and the ships look much, much better - at any resolution you set it to, at that!

Keep in mind also, that the scale of battle in SoaSE can be immense... I've been in battles with over 500 ships - easily (and my computer is 4 years old and ran those battles well, and it looked pretty sweet while doing it!)... if each of those had little rotating turrets independently targeting everything, you'd need a beast of a machine just to play the game on a medium scale. The epic scale is the replacement for epic graphics in SoaSE.

Also, you can move your fleets in 3D, there's a Z Axis button you can use to do so (hold it down on a move order, and adjust the axis by moving forwards or backwards with the mouse, then click when ready to move). Although sadly, the Z Axis has little effect in this game... it mostly just allows you to move a little faster by going over things instead of arround them (the pitch rates in this game > the yaw rates, and acceleration doesn't seem affected by intertia when changing pitch and moving forward for some reason).

Also, as for the stand off fleets? Sure. It can be that way - if you let it. Instead of massing one fleet, try splitting your force into 2 or more sub-fleets... Rush a smaller fleet of heavy cruisers backed up by something like a Kortul Devastator THROUGH the enemy formation, and have it turn around and shoot them from behind - now your enemy has two forces it has to choose between - and it's formation will break all to hell and it's fire will become widely spread and much more ineffective - while you solidly roast atleast half of their force between your supporting fleet and your assault fleet.

Or you could (infinitely) chain way points for aforementioned cruisers to move through so that if your enemy wants to shoot at them with all those little missile frigates they probably have, they will have to attempt to chase you (with their god awful yaw rates), which slashes their effectiveness of fire (I'm not certain LRM's can even fire on the move for that matter!). If they say to hell with it and chase your support section? Run it away, let your cruisers chew into their butts. Etc, etc, etc... The tactics are what you make of it, Joeygates. Do not blame the game for your lack of command, just - get - better!

As for the AI running off? Yeah that sucked. The latest patch (just released) should be fixing that a fair amount however. Infact, the latest patch - if you read the notes - is fixing a lot of the problems with the game! Give it a shot now, with 1.03, see if you like it better. Also, you can adjust the game speed (on the fly, no less!) if you are becoming impatient with the pacing.

The tutorials are great - if you read the manual first. Imagine that... you might need to read the "Training Manual"... As for the campaign mode to familiarize yourself? You mean you really want your hand held for a while as you are told exactly what to do? As I said, the tutorials explain all the basic techniques, and run you through them. Couple it with reading the manual and you should understand how to get started. Also... there is, an easy mode... if you cant quite grasp the concepts, that would allow you "familiarization time".

If you are truly, truly disappointed with Sins of a Solar Empire - try contacting Stardock, and asking for a refund. Most decent companies will go ahead and do it if you press them on it... and if they refuse, mention the Better Business Bureau, and they will probably change their tune(works 90% of the time, no joke).

The micromanagement is still there, you just have the option to surrender it to an inferior AI Play high end Vasari if you think the micromanagement is gone

I never tire of saying this: Would you like some cheese with your whine?

I had such hopes for SW:EAW. Then I found out it was simply a badly-designed game that always played out the same damn way, over and over, with little actual strategy or even tactics (since the 'maps' you fought in were so damn tiny).



You should, because that got old in 2002.

What issues are you having with the patch Joeygates?

Sometimes you buy games that are awesome, but you can't get into it. It happens, don't cry about it, what are you like twelve?

Like every star wars based strategy game ever made.

LA make great lightsaber hack n slash games but they've proved time and time again that strategy games are best left to the likes of Blizzard/Westwood/Stardock.

Haven't read the above responses so sorry if I'm repeating, but... dude, didn't you read any of the online game reviews?

Long slow games, graphics that a wide variety of computers are able to run, and no single player campaign have been widely reported in probably every single review. I would rather have a single player campaign but knew full well when I put down the cash I wouldn't be getting one. Tutorials could be better but I learned just fine playing the first few games against easy AI.

Well, to be constructive, my feeling is its better than the vast majority of games out there, so maybe if you play a little more you'll warm up to it, but then again, clearly this sort of game isn't for everyone. I only play a couple times a week because they are really long, but I have a lot of fun when I do.

I'm still chuckling about the claim that game reviewers give smaller company games higher ratings.

One look at the top games on game rankings should dispel that myth.

Look on the bright side, I bought the Collector's Edition and ended up being out $50. See? It could be worse. I was expecting a game with the depth and strategy of a 4X title, and got this instead.

While I think the OP's argument is pretty dumb (hard to complain about a game when you've done zero research before purchasing), but I can't let this comment go. I like Sins a lot, but the manual and tutorial, singly or together, are just terrible. This seems to be a Stsrdock tradition, since the same is true for GalCiv2--great games, customer support and postrelease development ummatched in the industry, but woefully inadequate documentation. The manual/tutorial (and I am one of those rare inveterate manual readers--as with most games, I read the Sins manual and then played the tutorials before even attempting a game) fails to touch many aspect of the game, and what is discussed is often inadequatedly explained; it points out features, but fails to give information on what they do or how they releate to the overall game. This is, in part, a fault of the basic manner in which the tuorial was created--a tutorial set up in the context of a game generally can do a better job of instruction than the mere catalogue of features that we were given. That is one reason I am strongly in the pro-campaign camp--one element of a good campaign would have been introducing the player to the concepts of the game. Unlike the OP, though, I was well aware that there was no campaign before I purchased.

Read reviews, not scores. Every review from these group of people that "banded" together to support a small developer made many a mention about the game's length and lack of a campaign.

Don't assume a game will be your dream game just because you want it to be.

It amuses me that people are arguing with this guy. Assuming for the moment he isn't just a troll, taste is subjective. He doesn't like the game - so what? How does that affect anyone else? His hilarious grandstanding 'WOW IN PUBLIC I DON'T LIKE IT I WILL TOTALLY SELL IT SEE HOW MUCH I HATE IT' stuff is great comedy to post on the official forums, and I congratulate him for stirring up so much noise.

I think Army of Poo sucks too. Anyone care? No? Of course not. Nor should you.

I can agree with the comments re documentation, tutorial and ingame text, however.

I agree with Pnakotus. It's one thing to come out whining that you lost a game and how that makes it a bad game, but it's an altogether different thing to flame anyone who sais anything negative of the game or that they simply don't enjoy it.

My qualm is, why should I care that he doesn't like the game? Good for him.....

One of the problems is that you trusted Best Buy, in all my time going there and getting game's Best Buy's has ALWAYS hyped a game up so they can SELL IT.

For me, I always check the game's website before buying the game (except when it comes to established series, like Command and Conquar and Call of Duty) sometimes you'll discover that this game doesn't have the same aspects as other games have.

The campaign not being in the game has been known almost since the game's inseption, many know about it as the developers had already stated there wasn't going to be a campaign. However, just because it doesn't have one doesn't mean the game isn't fun.

Also, Joeygates, sorry to be rude but there IS a reason why a manual (whether it be a book or PDF) are included, a manual is a set of instructions that either helps guide you or explains the game to you. It is not there just to be thrown away, the addage: RTFM, does come to mind in many cases when I've spotted threads on this board.

However, give the game some time, it will grow on you after awhile.

Also, the reason turrets don't move in this game is to elimanant one thing that needs to be processed - and yes, turret movements can and do cause processing problems sometimes. HW 1 and HW 2, along with Cataclysm, along with Nexus.

There are other reasons why some of the more 'cooler' eye-candy was removed from this game, but one of the main is due to processing.

Hey Joeygates im sorry you don't like the game, if you still want to sell it check your private messages.

All the trolls can bite it.

$40 bucks for some skirmishes and no story/campaign. Pretty damn sad that the DEVS couldn't hire on a couple of low-end (seems that's all other companies do) sci-fi short story writers and throw out 12-20 missions per group for some depth. Guess all it takes to make a successful game is outdated graphics, game reviews by 16 year olds with either an IQ of 70 or off their Vitamin-R, and trolls that bandwagon against anyone critical of mediocrity.

I'll go play some Metal Fatigue or Star Trek Armada II.

Um. The Z-axis movement is actually fully fledged - meaning that range is calculated in all three axes. Your criticism would apply more fairly to Sword of the Stars (an excellent game, IMO, mind you). I can understand where you're coming from since to play SoaSE against the AI you never need to use vertical movement and it might as well not be there, but still, it is not some cheesy imitation 3D movement and if you're a real 3D-space-war fanatic you can use it multiplayer. Whether there are enough unit types to make that really worthwhile is something I can't judge.

I don't think anyone is likely to dispute that the Homeworld series set a new standard for 3D tactical space combat... but it is worth noting that same guys who designed it later designed Sword of the Stars which cut the vertical options back a lot. They gave their reasons on the game forums. I won't recap them, just comment that I think they apply at least as strongly to SoaSE, which nonetheless included 3D movement, even if you'll never want to use it if you play vs the AI.

lol vitamin r... i dont think a campaign would of made much of a difference anyways, at least not for me. completely bored of the game that not even mods keep me entertained anymore. feeling like ur out of 40 bucks? same here.. 1.03 didnt change much. back to company of heroes.