Ok, what do you want:
Three campaigns with 58 planets each: Map isn't as cluttered Easier to manage Normal sized planets Less lag
One campaign with 167 planets: Map is cluttered More of a strategic aspect Planets are smaller More lag
Xj owns all TIEs
8th November 2006
Can you do both eg. three 58-planet campaigns and the 167-planet campaign? Otherwise, i vote for 3 camps.
I prefer one large campaign to conquer the galaxy to my will and the Empire. There are already smaller campaigns in the game. You may create 3 smaller campaigns later.
I could do both but I would have to make two entries of each planet, so unless someone wants to do that I won't, we only have two people so my time is better spent elsewhere.
why 2 entries if the same planet can be found in the 167 planets map and one of the other 3?
Because I would have to scale the planets down for the 167 planet campaign, and if the planets were little on the 58 planet campaign everything would look really far apart.
Ah now its clearer. I can suggest this. In the 58 planets maps take mostly the core and middle range planets so that it wouldn't show far apart.What you think?
JoJ mod leader
2nd July 2006
167 planets is complete foolishness. You'll lag even high end pcs. On a 2.2 duo core you would push it
What about reducing the number to 120?
I didn't make it!
Don't push yourselve gorneh, not even 2 gigs a ram could handle that much, thats about ho much I have.