Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations

just bought empire at war, it is sweet. a bit simplistic on easy but i like the multi layered stategy game (galactic strategy, fleet battles and planetary battles)

(http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/3234/xwing4uq.jpg)

(http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/2321/wearevictorious8mm.jpg)

(http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1405/victory8sz.jpg)

(http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/4270/destroyers2lx.jpg)


as you can see the graphics are good and you need only 250 mb ram minimum so the requirements are low

looks sweet, what are the system requirements for this though?
cos im very interested in getting it but fear for the health of my comp :blink:  

requirements are:

windows 2000/xp

intel pent III/AMD athlon 1.0 ghz

256 mb ram

32 mb graphics card

teh only requirements are stated on teh case. but i think those are the minimum

the requirments are low and the engine is much more powerful than a2s. Indeed I am going to be modding it myself in the not too distant future. I am going to be working on a trek mod for it. As the mod isn't mine I can't give out too many details but it is centered around the dominion war and will have the feds/klings/roms on one side and the Dominion/cardies/breen on the other with the galaxy being replaced with the alpha quadrent.

LOOOL! Look at this crappy asteroids...they look as monotonous as them from Armada 2. FleetOps looks still better. Viva Activision...they donīt seem to learn anything...  

of cause and yacuzzas asteroids beat the lot of them. When companys make stratagy games they focus on making the game, all the graphical stuff they kinda rush on. With mods and stuff there is a lot more focus on graphics as they don't have the very complicated task of making an engine from scratch. Game engines are so complicated that they are reused iover and over with minor edits, take armada 2 for example. It used a slightly modified a1 engine which was made from the "Battlezone" engine which is even older! Back to point anyways, stratagy games graphics are usually poor to moderate when the game in released and then modders spend ages on high poly moddels and detailed textures to produce quality graphics.

i'm so getting empires at war! WOW!

i'd buy it a drink but i'm speechless.  B)  

hmnm how much?

My only real question is why are the ships devoid of windows?

i really really hate star wars so who cares!

Perhaps everyone who doesn't hate Star Wars? ;)

You're not the center of the universe (suprised?). :D

PS: Don't take me serious...

I like both trek and wars, while I prefere trek starwars is better than most stuff these days. Though even the FO forum doesn't diserve this thread to turn into a trek vs starwars debate.

true, for that reason i won't post here anymore, and white, yes the universe revolves around me! :D  

i just ordered it yesterday. got it for around $40 us. should have it in a week or so.

I've been thinking about it, but I'm too used to playing strategy games with a 2D playing field (like Warcraft, Age of Mythology, etc) so being able to control depth is an interesting, but difficult feature.

IMO, Star Wars seems more consistant with its canon than Star Trek, but both are great. I like the idea of one-man dogfights like what they used to do in the Battle of Britain.

well then be suprised cause the game is nothing like that and the strategy is not really that good

to tell the truth its an ok game but i dunno it just doesnt have nice enough visuals and the fighter battles arent great either

its like there are no small battles every game is like 20 wings of fighters

which is

5 - xwings per squad
3 - ywings
5 awings

7 ties
3 tie bombers

so it is alittle too much plus the bombers arent all that great unless u have a million A wings to protect them

Xwings are ok but they arent all that

the only unit i really like is the ISSD thats ****** kool

i havent got to use the deathstar yet
 

i love the deathstar. i wiped out half the rebel planets with it. Captured the other half

it's a really well rounded game IMHO. (and there was a bit of rebalancing done)

i did a galactic conquest and got the death star the other day i didnt bother with ground troops i just sent in the deathstar and blew everything that wasnt mine up

personally the way the tech advances annoys me it should be done better but meh its a decent game

im through both campaigns.. thing is... its too short.. i cant really describe it.. it jus feels like u rushing through the story.. (needed a week for both, duh) and when u finished wit it, it feels like "uh... thats it?"..
i mean.. the combat in space is fun, but the ground combat is kinda annoying, since i played force commander pretty often in the past and i jus cant (and dont wanna) see it anymore..
so i ended at the point wher i jus play this game from time to time for some skirmish space battles. but thats it..
the game's okay but i wouldnt give it more then 85% overall..

the game is fairly decent i rather enjoy playing it. the DS is kool but once you get it you pretty much won the game. no real space battles can handle taking it down. other wise i like it. the gameplay for the ground battles is a touch unique but also reminds me of dawn of war a bit. i'd like to see what mods are going to kick out as soon as the SDK is ready to go. a trek vs wars mod would be kool. but then again i don't want to spark a debate. one more thing to add, can we get an update on the FO progress? release date aside i would like to see some new screenies or something.  

well i have played the game now for while and i find the replay of the game a i bit lacking. The space battles are col to watch in teh cinema view but i those bttles lacking in tactic. i mean if your ship is blown op you can send other in. it's just having the largest fleet. Also ground battles re a bit boring if you are playing with the rebels, you only need tose shielded tanks and snowspeeders. And for the empire... well any shace ship fleet can asily destroy anything (except that patroll scaft) and the ground battles are always easiliwon after using AT AT in groundfoorces