Rebellion was a disappointment when it was released. It was supposed to be an asymmetric conflict, but the games plays the same for both sides. There are some differences, but only in details. Coruscant and the Deathstar vs the mobile HQ of the rebels. A couple of units have different abilities. The strategic part is the same for both. The allegiance of planets was always visible to both sides, planets could be conquered or acquired by diplomacy, the outer rim had to be explored.
Cool article. I remember playing this game with my cousin and we poured countless hours in to not even bothering to read the manual until we were destined to build the Death Star. Heck an original manual for this game would be a good find eh. Of course he studied the manual and figured out how to build the Death Star during those times I wasn't at his house so he could gloat about it. (He had the PC you see)
It was a great introduction in to Grand Strategy, probably the introduction for us to suspend disbelief and immerse ourselves in the Star Wars universe.
This was at a time when buying a 48pk of pepsi and getting wired so we could watch the original triology twice in a sitting was in. That was in once right?
Great game, definitely not asymmetric but the mix of ships and characters was good. Still play it now although I can't stomach the 3D battles anymore. I was more disappointed in Empire at War which just seemed to miss something.
I only played Star Wars: Rebellion 18 years after the fact. I sunk a few hours into the game, and soon became bored with the apparent need for constant, multitudinous espionage missions. The game had some good ideas for its time, but that time has long passed.