View Full Version : The role of Air units - reloaded
08-07-2003, 11:56 PM
Well I posted a similar post to this many moons ago, but now that I've come to writing out my civ designs I thought I'd bring it back into open debate.
I think that Air in SWGB1 was severely underpowered. It was impossible to really capture the fantastic fighter battles that Star Wars is famous for. Although many things could not shoot at Air units, anybody facing a powerful Air civ only needed to build many anti-air mobiles/turrets and have the upper hand. Air units were just too weak, and too easily countered.
As such, I propose the following changes to the way Air units work:
:atat: 1) Air units strafe their targets. This has been done in many games, and I really can't see any disadvantages to it. It might mostly be eye candy, but the fact that the Aircraft are constantly moving also makes them harder to hit, which is addressed further down...
:atat: 2) All ranged units can attack air. However, troopers are rather bad at it, (about as good as they are vs Mechs). Mechs shooting at air will have a certain minimum range (although it won't be too large) - if the air unit is right above them they can't angle their guns enough. However their are some Mechs (designated Anti-Aircraft) that don't have this range limitation, and who also recieve a bonus to attacking air. Turrets start as standard turrets (which can shoot ground and air) but they will need to research an Anti-Aircraft upgrade before being worthwhile at it.
:atat: 3) To encompass the fact that fast-moving obstacles are harder to hit, and to counter the fact that more things can kill air now, every unit in the game has a "Dodge" property i addition to their Armour, HP, Speed, etc. In particular Aircraft (which are always on the move) and Jedi (who are lightly armoured but can avoid incoming blows) will have fairly high Dodge values, as well as units like a melee Wookiee trooper, lightly armoured speeder-type mechs, etc. The Jedi Starfighter will have one of the highest Dodge values in the game. The Dodge value reduces the chance that an incoming shot will hit you - in effect it is a further modifier to being able to hit an object. Note that not all Aircraft have good Dodge values - most Transports will have negligible if any Dodge values.
Hopefully such changes will restore Aircraft's rightful place in SWGB2. I have thought about this a lot, so please if you don't think it can work, let's work together on a workable solution rather than just saying "no", because quite frankly a repeat of Air's appalling capabilities in SWGB2 will be rather sad.
08-08-2003, 02:54 AM
Actually I like your ideas, can't think of any one of them that wouldn't work.
08-08-2003, 03:02 AM
2. Absolutely not - this throws realism and gameplay out the window
3. I really dont see the point - other games, such as 'Star Trek: Armada' and the C&C series just make it so that weapons have different impacts on different classes of units. Just change the value of the weapons that Aircraft and Jedi could dodge
My idea for aircraft in SWGB2 goes as such-
1. All aircraft built at airbase and remain there, except for transports.
2. Aircraft strafe targets
3. Aircraft have a certain range
4. Bombers do far more damage than in SWGB
5. Transports land to offload cargo - and are then vulnerable to ground fire
6. Fighters 'dogfight'
08-08-2003, 01:32 PM
1. If someone goes against this I will personally deal with him.
2. I'm with Windu on this one.
3. Not a bad idea...we should get rid of the homing missiles too.
I agree that SWGB1's aircrafts weren't so great and got destroyed so easily, but this is a ground RTS and aircraft have mainly a support role meaning that concetrating totally on aircrafts could be a big downside.
08-09-2003, 01:13 PM
I agree about the missiles. In all of the movies where starfighters are attacking large targets, they always get fired at by large laser emplacements, not missile sites.
08-11-2003, 01:07 PM
The only ground unit in the star wars unit that really fired only missiles was the hailfire droid and that concentrated on ground targets and was turned into a wuss AA mobile if they're gonna keep aa moblies they'd need to change em into some sort of anti mech unit that can target air. I agree with the admiral here about ranged units being able to fire at air since in ep 1 that AAT fired at an air target and it wouldn't be much for troopers just to stick their blaster rifles in the air and fire. Their wern't very many effective laser emplacement s against fighters because they were too small and too fast they occasionally got lucky so that's why the empire usually had loads of fighters in their ships to shoot down rebel fighters and the proof for this in case any one will try to claim it's EU in ep 4 the death stars turbolasers couldn't hit the fighters. If ground units are going to be firing at air units you should make them not super acurate but hitting air targets in maybe 2 out of 5 shots and i totally agree with transprts landing and being more vulnarable to ground fire but i realistically think that aa mobiles should be mostly scrapped because in most if not all the films fighters ruled the sky unopposed unless by another air force. Though propably the reason why they didn't have fighters strafing is because the ships notably the TIE Fighter were not built for atmospheric combat they were specialised for space combat so any atmospheric manoevouers done would propably have ripped them apart. Fighters in SWGB 1 were quite useful and still are because they are not that expensive and if deployed correctly could be devastating. Bombers though they should make bombing runs and maybe an area bombing feature for formations over 5 bombers were they carpet bomb an army or base they shouldn't stay still when they bomb that isn't remotley realistic how many people could picture a wi bing or Scimtar assault bomber staying in one place dropping it's bombs at the mercy of laser emplacement and fighters i think they maybe should be given a token weapon not to make them completly helpless
08-11-2003, 01:54 PM
Punctuation could make this easier to read...
08-11-2003, 02:27 PM
I liked the way air units were in CnC Gens. Which is sorta being described by Darth Windu. Those transports landed to offload cargo, and certain tanks, soldiers, ect took up more space than the other. Like I'm sure an ATAT would take up more than one spot.
And I don't like the fighters stay at air base... unless it can be more than 4 air units. That was really annoying. maybe if it can hold a squadron of fighters, I'd be happy... and maybe more than 2 or 3 fighters per civ.... after all, the rebs have the A, Y, K, B, E, V, X Wing and probably more I didn't mention. Imps have TIE fighter, interceptor, defender, phantom, the droid one, and others... you get the idea.
08-12-2003, 10:21 AM
Maybe there should be different types and sizes of air transport. eg a small one that could only carry 5 troopers, then a bigger one which could carry a couple of mechs or heavy weapons, or 10 troopers, then you'd have to have a huge one for transporting assault mechs, and naturally bigger ones would cost more. The number of units a transport could carry could be related to the number of population slots a unit took up, if that idea is used in the game.
08-12-2003, 10:58 AM
Okay, maybe Troopers can't shoot Air. Although they are able to in the movies, they didn't have much success, so I guess they might as well not shoot Air. But most Mechs should be able to, and I stand by my comment on how turrets should work.
The landing to offload transported units is a good idea. Saberhagen, I also agree that transports with differing capacities should exist. I can't remember where, but I think I outlined my idea for transports before. Here it is again, as it relates to Air:
:atat: 1) Transports can be either carry Troopers (this includes Jedi and other Trooper-sized units), or carry Mechs, or carry both. For example, the Republic Gunship can carry only Troopers, while the Republic Dropship can carry only Mechs, and the Rebel Medium Transport can carry both.
:atat: 2) Each transport has a different capacity. This capacity is not representative of how many units the transport can carry, but how much population worth of units it can carry. For example, the Confederacy can carry Troopers and Mechs, and has capacity of 20, so it can carry 20 standard Battle Droids (1 pop each) or 10 Super Battle Droids (2 pop each) or 4 Dwarf Spider Droids (5 pop each) or 2 Homing Spider Droids (10 pop each), or a combination such as one Homing, one Dwarf, two Supers and one standard BD (10+5+2+2+1=20). Note I'm just using arbitrary population values - I don't want to start a debate on what the population cost of a Homing Spider Droid should be!
:atat: 3) Air transports need to land to unload their cargo, during which time they can be attacked by any unit with the ability to attack ground units. Sea transports need to beach to unload their cargo, during which time they can be attacked by melee units.
:atat: 4) Transports can only transport other transports if the latter are empty. For example, a Republic Dropship can transport an AT-TE only if the AT-TE is not already transporting Clone Troopers. Although not entirely realistic, this avoids unnecessary confusion which I know I had when transporting Assault Mechs in SWGB1.
08-12-2003, 12:51 PM
In response to Vostok's points-
4. Depends on how you define capacity. For example, can a dropships only carry one AT-TE because of the weight, or because of its size? If it is simple a size issue, theoretically a dropship could carry a fully-loaded AT-TE. If it is a weight issue, then a dropship can only carry an unloaded AT-TE.
Also, i think that for most civ's, there should only be one transport, the exception being the Republic. This would be to simplify gameplay somewhat and frankly, i dont see the point of having 3 different types of air transports for each civ.
08-12-2003, 01:22 PM
Sorry About The Punctuation I've Fixed ALL My Posts On ALL Threads Sorry
08-12-2003, 01:45 PM
I think the AT-TE should be able to be transported with a full load of troopers. If it was a weight issue, then how did the AT-TEs in the movie get transported down? I think they were full.
08-14-2003, 12:51 AM
Phreak, a couple of points I maybe wasn't clear about:
First, the fact that Transports can't carry loaded transports has nothing to do with Realism at all. In fact it is unrealistic. Therefore it has nothing to do with weight, or things like that. I just thought it would be less confusing and easier to understand if they didn't. Also it might make some things overpowered. Not sure though, this one is open for debate.
Second, I'm not suggesting each civ have all three transports. In fact I don't think any will have three. Most will have one, which can carry both Troopers and Mechs. The Republic is the obvious exception, with one to carry Troopers and one to carry Mechs. One civ may have one that can only carry Troopers, and one that can carry both. It's really another way to add both realism and uniqueness to civs.
08-15-2003, 01:59 PM
I think it should be possible. If a Transport has 10 slots(1 trooper=1 slot) it should be able to carry a loaded AT-TE(AT-TE takes five slots so the AT-TE is able to carry 5 troopers within itself). When the transport unloads its cargo, he only unloads the AT-TE. The troopers are then protected inside the AT-TE and the time the transport is on the ground(the unload time get down-unload-go back up) is lower thus making it less vulnerable.
08-16-2003, 02:56 AM
Okay, that's fair enough. I'll change number 4:
:atat: 4) Transports can only transport other transports if the total units being transported does not exceed the capacity. For example a Republic Dropship (Capacity 10) can carry an AT-TE (Population 6, Capacity 10) if the AT-TE is only carrying 4 Clone Troopers (6 for the AT-TE + 4 Clone Troopers = 10), but the same dropship could not carry a fully loaded AT-TE (6 for the AT-TE + 10 Clone Troopers > 10).
Note the reason I've made the AT-TE cost 6 population is so a Dropship can not carry two 5-pop AT-TEs. I think the SPHA-T should cost 12 pop, so it can't be transported at all. AT-ATs will also have a high pop, as I don't think they should be transportable.
08-16-2003, 09:34 AM
Then how did Veers get his AT-ATs to Hoth?
I think the answer is that there must be a transport capable of taking AT-ATs but that it wouldn't normally be used in a tactical situation because it would be too big/unmanoeuvrable/vulnerable to ground fire. If one appears in the game it should be very expensive, very slow and very weak.
Edit: After all, Veers must have had a good reason for not landing closer to Echo Base.
08-16-2003, 01:29 PM
Okay, this is starting to get really complicated. My idea supports Vostoks edited idea by default, since i already have the whole 'different pop slots' thingy going, ill find out how many each transport could carry if they were in another transport. If you know what i mean...
08-17-2003, 09:46 PM
saberhagen: The only instance where it would be worthehile transporting an AT-AT would be the transit from Star Destroyer in orbit to the planet surface. As there is nothing like this in SWGB, I don't think such a transport should be included. Think of the Trade Federation Landing Craft in The Phantom Menace.
As a side note, in my plan units like Speederbikes count as Troops rather than Mechs. This enables them to be transported in Trooper transports.
08-18-2003, 02:02 AM
1. Troopers cannot attack air for aforementioned reasons. Period.
2. Windu, this is not C&C redux. I prefer too allow my air units to be urestricted in movement. Gameplay>Realism
3. No to the dodge factor.
4. Constantly moving/strafing air units are good as long as its kept simple but realistic. And landing air transports should remain unassailable to ground forces. Once again, Gameplay triumphs over Realism
5. Differents civs transports should have different carrying capacities, and some civs could feasibly have more than one transport. Transportation based on pop space and not on unit count is also a good idea, but transports will need more carrying capacity than what you guys are alloting them.
6. Vostok-your pop counts are enormously high. If you wanted a medium scale game the maximum pop count of a unit should be 5, with most unis in the 1-3 range. Even WC3, which is as small scale as they get, doesn't have a 12 pop unit.
08-18-2003, 07:39 AM
1. Okay, no to Troopers shooting air. But most Mechs should be able to. I think the strength of air attacks should be increased, but the cost for Air should also be increased. They cost a lot of resources, but not much population, allowing you to have large squadrons but not be able to pump them out to devestating effect.
2. I agree no to the returning to hangar thing. It is totally un-Star-Warsy.
3. With fewer homing missiles we won't need a dodge ability, so I don't mind - as long as we have less homing missiles.
4. Explain how that makes better gameplay, Sith. Making landers vulnerable while dropping off troops will make for a bit more thinking and strategy - instead of just doing a pummel drop in someone's base, you might actually have to think about where the best place to land is. Things can be both realistic and fun, you know.
5. Fine. Though if it makes a difference, I should add that because the Republic's transports are fast and have a decent attack, they have a far smaller carrying capacity than the rest of the civs' transports.
6. My pop limits are only here to illustrate points. Obviously pop limit needs to be properly balanced into the game, which is something I can't do. I'm giving them arbitrary values for the purposes of illustrating arguments, that's all.
08-18-2003, 05:03 PM
1. Perhaps not all mechs. It would be rediculous for a MTT to shoot air units.
2. It makes aircraft too hard to hit and when hangar is destroyed no more aircraft available...
5. Those were just examples.
08-19-2003, 12:48 AM
1. In my mind, the only mechs that should be able to hit air units are AT-AT's. The others are too short and too ground oriented to be able to hit air units flying at a normal height. Not to mention the fact that non-AA units hitting air would severely weaken air's standing, and i thought we wanted
4. It makes better gameplay for the same reason that disallowing troopers from attacking air is good gameplay. Making air transports vurnable rolls the ball too heavily in the corner of a defender, especially on space maps. In fact, the reason air cruisers where added was because defenders were too strong on space maps to begin with.
08-19-2003, 08:51 AM
2. This helps gameplay and realism. Aircraft have to return to their hanger to refuel and reload, and also means that the player will have to protect their airbase more. It is also unrealistic and bad for gameplay to have aircraft keep manouvering above your base without landing or stopping at all. Furthermore, it helps with the speed and fluidity of the game by having less units on the screen at certain times.
4. Landed transports should definately be vulnerable to ground fire, it makes the game far more realistic and makes the player consider other things, like air support and not dropping off units in the middle of an enemy army.
5. With my idea, i have the following pop slots-
Trooper = 1/2
Other Infantry, Scouts = 1
Light Mechs, Fighters, Frigates = 2
Medium Mechs, Bombers, Destroyer, Cruiser = 3
Heavy Mechs, Air Transport = 4
Very Heavy Mechs, Aircraft Carrier = 5
with most transports being able to carry about 12 pop slots.
08-19-2003, 09:28 AM
maybe some civ's ships have to return to airbase like Tie fighters and interceptor's and Trade federation's fighters as well because of their fuel source but they could be made ultra fast and maoeverable but cheaper while ship's like x-wing would EVENTUALLY have to return but woudln't be as manoevarable. I completly agree with transports landing but they should be given a token weapon maybe an Anti-Persoanl weapon that kills troopers quick and maybe have fully loaded transports going slow until they land and offload their cargo and then they speed up a bit. Really though i think we should try and decide wheather this is gonna have space battles before we get too much into details about air units so we can at least agree more on their roles.
08-19-2003, 10:53 AM
1. Here's what I think: Anti-Air should be an ability that a few units in the game have. These units will not necessarily be like the Anti-Air Mobiles of SWGB1, but will be incorporated into Mechs who can shoot Ground units as well. Most civs will need to rely on Air units themselves to counter enemy Air (just like in the movies), but those civs with weak Air have Anti-Air abled units on the ground to balance things out. Here's a few of my ideas for weak air civs:
:atat: Galactic Empire: The AT-AT, as Sith mentioned, is the only Imperial Mech that should have AA. However, the Empire has the best of the weak Air civs, so the fact that this unit isn't available until late won't effect them too badly. TIE Fighters will be able to be pumped out quickly and cheaply, and will cost less population than strong Air civ's Air units.
:atat:Trade Federation: The AAT seems quite a decent AA unit - not only did it shoot down an N-1 coming out of the Naboo hangar (which proves it has the aiming capabilities) but the two guns on either side could be angled up to be very successful Anti-Air guns. Droid Starfighters can also be mass produced like TIE Fighters, and will be one of the fastest Air units in the game, so the Trade Federation seems okay when it comes to Air defence.
:atat: Confederacy: The Homing Spider Droid - not only is it tall, but that laser dish on the top of it's head can swivel about in any direction - and it is "homing"... but more importantly the Hailfire Droid, which is the best Anti-Air unit in the game. Although it did shoot an AT-TE or two in the movies, I think it should remain purely Anti-Air - not only is it unique in that regard but it is just good at it. This evens out because the Geonosian Fighters are rubbish.
:atat: Gungans: Though definitely not as rubbish as the Gungans on Aiwhas. I'm tempted to do away with Gungan air altogether, it just seems wierd, and it won't weaken them too badly considering how strong they are at Sea (so water maps won't be bad for them). However, they need some sort of Anti-Air unit, and I've mentioned before that I think the best thing for them would be a Catapult-like device that hurls a boomah up in the air where it explodes in a shower of plasma - much like a flak cannon. Because it has an area effect, I think this is adequate protection for the Gungans.
But having written that out, I can't help feeling Troopers should be allowed to shoot Air. They won't be good at it, but in large numbers they may be able to overcome it. I offer this instead of making all mechs shoot air. Yes Sith, it will make Air more vulnerable, but that is what I want to do, to counteract the necessary improvements to attack and HP the Air units should get.
2. It makes for bad gameplay, because we don't have much control over our Air units, and it doesn't effect realism, because in Star Wars (not the real world, Windu) ships don't have to fly back to the hangar in the middle of a battle to refuel. It was fine for C7C Generals, but is not very Star Warsy at all.
4. Transports are not used in the movies to drop enemy units into the middle of an enemy controlled area. Therefore, it should not be encouraged in the game. Transports enable your units to be moved quickly, or to bypass obstacles like cliffs or rivers. You will need to actually think about the best place to land, rather than doing a pummel drop on a command centre. It improves gameplay by discouraging unrealistic tactics.
08-19-2003, 10:15 PM
1. Good ideas for AA (kinda skeptical on the Homing Spider Droid). The Gungan idea sounds strangely familiar:p
2. Nothing new to add but my usual Gameplay>Realism
4. Unless it takes like 5 minutes to land a transport, I dont see how this disuades pummel drops. The idea of the pummel drop is that you land where there is no army and are very few defensive structures, but tons of juicy economic targets. And what it does do is severely weakens the attacker's hand on water and space maps, especially seeing that, atleast in this game, the attackers hand was in a perilously weak position as is. This idea doesn't add more thought in the dropoff point of raiders or amries, but it does impede on people trying to move their armies from here to there without much trouble.
08-20-2003, 05:57 AM
Viceroy - we decided the question of space battles quite a while ago and didnt go for it
Vostok - not sure about the Homing Spider Droid. The way i see it, the Hailfire droid should be the main Confed SA weapons platform, and should have a good anti-mech attack as well.
With the hanger idea, these are the benefits-
1. Increaed Realism - all fighters in the movies and EU have to refuel, and take off from hangers
2. Better Gameplay
- forces the player to protect the hanger
- makes hanger placement a strategic decision
- allows all aircraft to be stronger becuase of limitations in range and duration in the air without unbalancing them
08-20-2003, 10:28 AM
Yeah, I was thinking about the Homing Spider Droid today, and decided it's shot was too slow to get air. So it's just the Hailfire Droid. And I think I'll keep the Hailfire as a pure Anti-Air - giving it mech-destroying capabilties like the movie makes the Homing Spider Droid redundant, since it is really supposed to be the Confederacy's main anti-mech unit. People need a reason to take both the Homing Spider Droid and the Hailfire Droid to war, and if the Hailfire does both jobs the Homing Spider Droid won't turn up very often.
Sith - you didn't comment on my decision to allow Troopers to shoot Air but not Mechs (except for those Mechs with AA capability). You probably are still against it, but let me reiterate that if we want to increase Air's attack and armour (to bring it more in-line with the movies) then we have to allow more units to be able to shoot them, even if they aren't great at doing so.
Windu - the hangar idea is not very Star Warsy. Especially if you want your precious gunship plans to become a reality. I don't see how a realistic gunship could even be attempted with the hangar idea. Star Wars Aircraft need to be totally free - they hover, they dogfight, they do lots of things without having to worry about fuel. It's silly to add this in when it just goes against the movies.
08-20-2003, 12:59 PM
I LIKE your dodge idea.
08-20-2003, 02:02 PM
Windu-I don't think you realise how small those maps are gonna be. If small fighters like X-Wings, A-Wings, B-Wings and Y-Wings can have enough fuel to jump to hyperspace to the Death Star and then engaging the enemy without the need to refuel, I think they are capable to fly around on such a small map.
08-21-2003, 09:04 AM
Good example, Luke's Dad. Perhaps Windu believes that Lando's line should have been:
"Don't worry, my friend's down there. He put enough fuel in the Falcon... or this'll be the shortest offensive of all time!"
08-22-2003, 12:19 PM
Well with the hanger idea ive chaged my mind about that anyway...ive come up with a new and better idea!
The new one goes as such-
1. Aircraft are built at Hanger and use repuslorlifts when stopped over your base
2. They do not stay at the Hanger
3. They are limited by range
4. Fuel Depots (probably the resource center) placed at various points of the map would increase the range of your aircraft
This allows for better gameplay, in that aircraft can be more powerful without unbalancing, it offers more startegic options, and doesnt confine your aircraft to base. With range, on the mini-map you would see a coloured circle indicating the range of your aircraft. Overall, the way i see it, this is the best compramise between gameplay and realism.
PS: i just added the B-wing to the Rebel Air Force.
08-22-2003, 01:14 PM
Still windu whay should they be limited by range?This doesn't make any sense. People will see that in the movie, small fighters can go very far distances without refueling(or letting the rebel fighters hypering ahead of the cruisers was a huge mistake).
Lando: Everybody ready for the attack?
Wedge: Uh, no. I'm kinda out of fuel here...and so is my whole sqaudron...hmmm...were kinda stranded here.
08-23-2003, 12:28 AM
Yeah Windu, I don't see how limited range is realistic at all. Luke managed to go from Hoth to Dagobah to Bespin without the need for refuelling. If your going to add in the need for refuelling you might as well add in bathroom breaks for Troopers!
08-23-2003, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
Yeah Windu, I don't see how limited range is realistic at all. Luke managed to go from Hoth to Dagobah to Bespin without the need for refuelling. If your going to add in the need for refuelling you might as well add in bathroom breaks for Troopers!
LOL! That would be so funny!
Imagine all the guys on Hoth or Endor taking batroom breaks! LoL!!!!!!!!!
I'm so tired.
08-23-2003, 03:13 AM
Range is important because, as i said, it limits the power of Air, and hence each individual aircraft can be more powerful. It also allows for more strategy, especially for the air-powerful civs.
I would also like to point out that EU supports this (and isnt contradicted by the movies...EEU right?) and makes the game more realistic by, for example, giving the X-wing a greater radius of action than the Droid Starfighter.
08-23-2003, 05:38 AM
While it isn't strictly contradicted by the movies, the need for fuel just doesn't feel right in Star Wars. I gave the example of Luke flying from Hoth to Dagobah to Bespin before. Also the Millennium Falcon (and sure, fuel would be less of an issue for it) manages to fly from the Hoth System to the Anoat System to the Bespin System without entering Hyperspace - a voyage which took many months - and when they got to Bespin Han didn't even mention fuel to Lando, he only said he needed repairs. Scale the need for fuel down to an X-Wing and fuel simply becomes a non-issue in a single battle.
In fact the only time I can think of fuel being important was in The Phantom Menace, when Qui-Gon says the Royal Starship needs "somewhere to refuel and repair". However in this case he was referring to the needs of the hyperdrive, which Ric Olie had just reported was leaking. So as the hyperdrive is not used in games, this is irrelevant.
Think of it this way, Windu: quite often I make an attack with Air, then once I've achieved an objective or decided to abort I return to base where my workers repair my damaged Aircraft. Realistically this is when any refuelling would take place, but apart from that fuel is just a non-issue. Making it an important part of aerial combat is too big a weakness to be compensated by enhanced stats, and as such I am firmly against it.
One last semi-related thing: Sith, I'm interested in how you feel about my allowing Troopers to shoot air but not Mechs (except for Mechs with AA capabilities). I think this makes the Air units just weak enough to warrant the kind of improved stats I'm talking about.
08-23-2003, 08:46 AM
Vostok - precisely how did you figure that this voyage took 'many months'? Besides, with the whole fuel issue, im using the 'stats' from the X-wing series of books.
Also, as you said, refuelling was an issue in TPM, and just before the X-wings take off in ANH, they are being fueled. Apart from realism, fueling makes for altered gameplay and, as i said, allows aircraft to be more powerful withough unbalancing the game. An example would really be that, if you dont keep an eye on Rebel ground stations, the Rebel Air Force will pound you into the ground with their X-wings, A-wings, Y-wings, B-wings and T-47's.
08-23-2003, 09:34 AM
Just thought i'd chuck in my 5 cents worth here....
Its been a fascinating read btw....
I agree that air is underplayed & underutilsed. I think this is because as well all know that all you need is a half dozen adv anti air turrets & they are gonners....
So I think all the fighters & bommers should have more points so as they are not so easily destroyed.
Also, from memory 10 naboo maxed out bommers can take out an anti air turret in 1 or 2 hits. So even with 6 turrets you can only take out 2 or 3 if you are lucky before they are all killed. Perhaps making anti air turrets more expensive to build would be good.
There is enough in the game that takes out air as it is - no more please & I think the dodge idea is great & realistic.
08-23-2003, 04:43 PM
Hey Kimba it's nice to have you around other threads!
Back on topic-
Of course they had to put fuel in the X-Wings and Y-Wings when on Yavin to ensure that they had enough. Besides when they went to the Death Star(distance Yavin 4-Death Star longer then the length of any maps) they didn't stop anywhere to refuel.
It is not realistic at all and frankly makes no sense in a Star Wars game.
08-24-2003, 02:55 AM
and how, exactly, do you know how large the maps in SWGB2 will be?
besides people, gameplay > realism, and my idea has both.
08-24-2003, 12:57 PM
It doesn't add realism at all.
Do you there'll ever be an RTS with a map as large as the distance between sullust and Endor? A distance they have to go through hyperspace to get from point A to point B?
08-24-2003, 07:06 PM
maybe I could answer the question about fuel?
Almost ALL ships used reactor's to solve their needs the dew notable exceptions are the Tie Fighter and Tie Interceptor the rest of the TIE series were either designed for a one time use or long range use I.E the TIE Defender and i don't need to really explain why the Tie fighter and interceptor needed fuel do i?
well i'll do it anyway Twin Ionised Engines are powered by forceing radiactive gas under large amounts of pressure out of a small hole which creates large amounts of speed but needs to refeul every 30 minutes unless like the TIE defender you have an onboard reactor.
the droid starfighter used slid Fuel Pellets to power their needs i'm not to sure how that would work since i haven't got the issue with details of the droid starfighter yet.
08-25-2003, 12:44 AM
Exactly how far is it from Sullest to Endor?
Again luke, gameplay>realism.
08-25-2003, 01:25 PM
Jesus Windu! When people have to hyper from Sullust to Endor it means it's pretty f*****' far!
There's a difference when gameplay is more important but this is just ridiculous. Oh hey let's get back to GB1, when Nova was the called the "currency of the galaxy". It was there for gameplay but it smacked realism so hard we had to remove it!
08-26-2003, 10:16 AM
I'd just like to point out that we don't really know what the ground scale in SWGB is meant to be, so it's difficult to compare the maps to the distances travelled in the films. The limitations of representing things on computer displays means that RTS games still haven't escaped from some of the table top wargaming conventions like ground scale and figure scale/ratios, which are not always consistent with each other. For example, range and line of sight of a trooper compared to the height of a trooper is ridiculously small, but to make it properly realistic and in proportion, either the range would go off the screen, or the troopers would have to be so tiny that you couldn't see what they were. Either would probably make the game unplayable so the designers have to compromise.
This also affects the number of units. It should be assumed that when you see a trooper on screen, it really represents a number of troopers. In table top gaming this ratio is usually specified, but in computer RTS games the issue tends to be brushed under the carpet. When you think about it, the size of the armies in SWGB is pitifully small if they are represented 1:1 by what you see on the screen, but having really huge armies would probably be impractical. This could also explain why units have hitpoints which go down gradually as they get shot at, whereas in the films, most troopers die with one shot.
Anyway, the point of all this, is that it's not easy to compare directly the distances in the games and the distances in the films, although as the action in a game of SWGB all takes place in a part of one planet, it can reasonably be assumed that the size of a map is less than the distance between any two planets.
I'm sure LA could come up with some explanation for refuelling if they thought it would improve gameplay. eg. engines have to work harder when in the atmosphere/gravitational field of a planet than in space.
08-28-2003, 06:21 AM
Windu: This is how we know the Falcon's journey took a while:
:atat: The distance between star systems is huge, and if you could travel it in less than a few months there would be no point in having a hyperdrive.
:atat: While the Falcon is in transit, Luke is training with Yoda. Considering Luke's skill with a lightsaber in the battle with Vader, it seems unlikely Luke was training for anything less than a couple of months.
As for you comment about refuelling at Yavin, that is a valid point. However, did you see anyone leave the Death Star run to return for fuel? No! This is the basic problem we have. We aren't saying fighters don't need fuel, we are saying they'll have enough to last the length of the battle. Also for realism purposes, it seems obvious that when an Aircraft is repaired by a Worker, they are also being refuelled.
You argue that your idea will increase gamelay. I don't see how. Either the maximum range element will limit the aircraft so much that they become unusable (who would use a unit that is so dependent on other factors when they could use many others that are not?) or the maximum range is big enough that there is no point including it because Aircraft operate just like they do now anyway. You say it weakens Air to allow for strengthening overall. I think it will weaken air far too much for any other strengths to be worthwhile.
08-28-2003, 01:23 PM
I'm Not Sure HOW Far It IS but with a class one military hyper drive it's 3 days and 2 hours But Somehow for a distance that is twice that of the sullust endor run which in itself is twice the naboo tatooine run. If any one wants a map of the star wars universe put up i'll try dig one up if i can there's really no way i can scan an A1 size map on the internet. I'm not debating whether official is cannon all i'm saying that it's official not what some crack pot author who's having a block comes up with I stick with official EU and cannon stuff the only EU i really beleive is the stuff in that factfile because there are laws against people saying that something is foocial and avertising it as such if it is not. I Myself would have stuck with cannon until that fact file came out and since it's official I take most of the things in there as true especially since it's called a FACT file not OPINION file
08-28-2003, 01:31 PM
Thena again though maybe trips could take longer because of obstacles like planets and asteroid fields and also they would have to get across the Correlian Trade Spine And The Rimma Trade Routes both HEAVILY patrolled by the empire. I could also imagine that there would be heavy patrols because the Direct Route passed close to hoth about Genosis to Tatooine Distance from the Direct route so they'd have to detour round that while avoiding the Senez Juvex sectors while not straying too close to Nklon which would leave a narrow gap to get through without having to go coreward first. Especially since that going any further coreward would see them straying close to the Fondor Shipyards as well as having to avoid the Sluis Van shipyards near Sullust which would both be HEAVILY guarded by the empire. Only Tie Fighhters And Droid Starfighters needed to refuel the rest carried ONBOARD reactors and only really needed to stop to resupply and refresh the pilot.
08-30-2003, 12:12 AM
Viceroy: The Falcon didn't enter hyperspace to travel the distance - it was broken, remember? - so the hyperspace travel times don't mean much.
As for the official/canon thing: you still seem a little confused. Don't take this as an insult, I'm only trying to help you understand. It's fine that you enjoy EU, I don't have a problem with that. But you must understand that ALL EU is official. Stories about Star Wars that are not official are called FAN FICTION, or fanfic for short. Those fact files you refer to tell facts about EU, not necessarily facts about canon. I hope this helps.
09-06-2003, 08:25 AM
I Put those times on as a ROUGH guide so we may be able to work out how long it tokk the Falcon by the way had a Class 2 Hyperdrive i'm not sure what speeds that would do. I have stated my classification for all things star wars elsewhere and will hold true to that if you don't mind. There is no sign anywhere saying that you can;t refer to official sources.
09-06-2003, 09:26 AM
Please will you all stop going on about "facts". There are absolutely no facts in anything Star Wars because it's all fiction. It's not even science fiction in the true sense of the term. All the scientific basis for the technology in Star Wars is vague, implausible and even contradictory. I think a lot of the pseudo scientific terms in the films were just thrown in because they sounded cool and created the right atmosphere, without much thought as to what they actually meant.
09-06-2003, 11:16 AM
Viceroy, where are you getting the "facts" that the Falcon has a Class 2 hyperdrive? I've got the Behind the Magic CD-Rom, which says it has Class 0.5. I take this to be more correct, since it fits with Han's comment "She'll make point 5 past light speed." I guess this just goes to prove my point that even "Official" things can be contradictory - Behind the Magic is also "Official".
09-06-2003, 11:51 AM
1) I heard one of you mention fuel I'm not sure if it should added why not just keep 10 fighters/ships in a hanger and they will repair/refuel/reload rockets.
2) I think bombers need to be gone no offence but a rocket upgrade on fighters would be great. Considering they are not needed in the clone war the fighters only received ground fire from troops mostly troops. And they had some laser mount thing on a cliff firing at them while driving passed if u remember.
3) Arguing about the engines of ships is that important considering u don't travel from 1 planet to another to attack your opponent.
4) Air should be alot more effective and should not stop in battle keep those engines going. But make them alot more expensive.
09-06-2003, 11:52 AM
I beleive you are mistaken Vostok . 5 means it's cruising speed it means the speed it is going at not the hyperdive it has
09-07-2003, 06:12 PM
Yes very plausible Viceroy, a non-hyperspace speed that goes faster then light speed. WTF? How can you maneuver that thing in a battle going faster then light speed?
(light speed being impossible since if you went that fast you would turn into pure energy).
09-09-2003, 01:13 AM
Yeah Viceroy, what Luke's Dad said.
But the point that you seem to have missed is that two sources (mine and yours), both of which are "Official", have contradicting information. This goes to prove that what is "Official" is not necessarily "correct". As such it is inadmissible in arguments concerning the workings of the Star Wars Universe.
09-09-2003, 07:39 PM
WHEN did i say that it would have went PAST light speed all i said was it's crusing spped in hyperspace. Please Clarify BEFORE you Diatrabe
vBulletin®, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.