PDA

View Full Version : SWGB 2: Less civs, more variety


HaruGlory89
08-19-2003, 10:41 PM
It's just my idea, but I feel that having less civs adds more variety to the game. Other factions can be added, like in Emperor: battle for Dune.

Admiral Vostok
08-20-2003, 09:59 AM
I agree to an extent, though I think it should be "No more civs, more variety". Adding in all these other rediculously insignificant civilisations is going to force the game to be unbalanced, repetitive, and not fun. Keeping the same amount of civs but diversifying them will be much better.

lukeiamyourdad
08-20-2003, 02:43 PM
It's gonna turn into AoM if we have less civs and make different factions for each of them.

swphreak
08-20-2003, 03:01 PM
1 more new civ (vong) and then work on them :p

Lord Siraious
08-21-2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak
1 more new civ (vong) and then work on them :p

NO, NO, NO, Talk about an unbalanced civ that would be, Now I like the NJO series but the Vong should never be put into a game!

DarthMuffin
08-31-2003, 01:12 PM
Hey guys, all we need is 4 civs :

Empire
Rebels
Republic
Confeds

LucasArts should try to make their games more original *cough* rip-off *cough*

What we really need is diversity; we want each civ to be completly unique (don't give me the AoE's crap like a unique unit and a couple of upgrades).

LucasArts should also try to make their own engines (KotOR = BioWare's Aurora engine, JKII and JA = Quake, SWGB = AoK)
The only original game I can think of is YODA STORIES (but I'm not completly sure of its integrety)

The product is not always bad (JA and KotOR both look promising), but it would definitly help if LA was more creative...

lukeiamyourdad
08-31-2003, 02:39 PM
Hmmm... well I dunno about the engine thing...you know Force Commander had an original engine(correct me if I'm wrong) and look at the results...although the best way for LA to go for SWGB2/SWRTS is their own engine or a HEAVILY(and I mean HEAVILY) modified existing engine. A bit like Raven did for JK:JO and JK:JA.

DarthMuffin
09-02-2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Hmmm... well I dunno about the engine thing...you know Force Commander had an original engine(correct me if I'm wrong) and look at the results...although the best way for LA to go for SWGB2/SWRTS is their own engine or a HEAVILY(and I mean HEAVILY) modified existing engine. A bit like Raven did for JK:JO and JK:JA.

Is the quake engine really heavily modified?

And Force Commander was freakin' good :D

lukeiamyourdad
09-03-2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Darth54
1-Is the quake engine really heavily modified?

2-And Force Commander was freakin' good :D

1) My point is that when you play RTCW, MOH or JK:JO, you don't feel like you're playing Q3.

2) No comment...

legameboy
09-03-2003, 10:16 PM
I think Warcraft 3 was excellent with their civs, it should be that (or more) uniquye in SWGB2. :D

HaruGlory89
09-05-2003, 01:04 AM
Hey guys, all we need is 4 civs :

Empire
Rebels
Republic
Confeds

exactly what I thought.



2-And Force Commander was freakin' good

Umm....

DarthMuffin
09-05-2003, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by legameboy
I think Warcraft 3 was excellent with their civs, it should be that (or more) uniquye in SWGB2. :D

YES!!! At last!!! Someone who's actually intelligent!

(I'm a WC3 lover, in a forum full of WC3 haters)

Originally posted by HaruGlory89
exactly what I thought.

Everybody here is obsessed by more civs... Many civs doesn't really make a good game, what we really need are completly different civs.

Take RoN for example; they used the same "unique units and techs for specific civs" crap. I got RoN from a friend, and I only played a couple of times; I feel like playing AoK with new civs and better graphics.

DK_Viceroy
09-05-2003, 07:40 PM
We Need a mental Doctor stat some NUTCASE thinks FORCE COMMANDER0 was anything but crap Get0 Off0 this forum anyone who thinks Force Commander was good is mad insane not right in the membrane ah here's the docotr he'll check if your sane.

Doctor : Do You Think Force Commander is Good?

Nutcase : It's Freakin Good

Doctor : MyDiagnosis is that he is clinically Insane send him off to the asylum

another_trooper
09-05-2003, 10:10 PM
Yes, more variety!
Im no obsessed player, but I really dont care what civ I take when I play with friends cuz its all the same for me.
I know theres a couple of almost meaningless upgrades that each civ has and one unique unit, but thats just not enough.:(

lukeiamyourdad
09-06-2003, 12:26 AM
Hmmm...

On the case of SWGB, unlike most RTS, you have a ton of facts, vehicles, units available. It would be a shame to kill off all the good stuff we have. The materials to make a civ in a SW games is limitless since most of the stuff you can put in all come from movies, books etc.

You make up some units along the way to fill in the gaps.

NO ONE has ever proposed a non-completely-unique civ ever.

Sithmaster_821
09-06-2003, 12:27 AM
Ok,

1. Look around. I haven't found a single person who hasn't said that there should be less civs and unique unit sets and characteristics (windu doesnt count). There are also some nice templates out by various forumers that try to accomplish just that (my next installment is typed but not uploaded...)

2. This isn't a forum of complete WC3 hating forumers. I just post so much, it seems that way (or I used to).

3. AoK graphics>RoN graphics

4. There is nothing wrong per se bout making the game more like AoM:D

lukeiamyourdad
09-06-2003, 12:37 AM
1. exactly

2. Only Sith here is a WC3 hater

3. not sure

4. yes there's a lot of wrongs...

nice to have you back sith. It's been awhile.

Sithmaster_821
09-06-2003, 01:03 AM
Its the brief hiatus that occurs when vacation meets summer school work..

Darth Windu
09-06-2003, 07:25 AM
I pretty much agree with Vostok's stance here in that it should be "same number of civs, more variety", those civs being-
1. Confederacy
2. Empire
3. Republic
4. Hutts
5. Rebels
6. Naboo
7. Federation
8. Wookiees
9. Yuuzhan Vong (secret civ)

anfor those who have read my latest idea for SWGB2 would know that the civs i have listed are far, far more unique than in SWGB.

saberhagen
09-06-2003, 09:40 AM
Surely there's far more material for civs and units in real history than in all of the Star Wars stuff? It's just more difficult to get at and more subjective, and game designers generally prefer to deal in cliches that their audience can identify with. Sorry, I've just been playing a demo of No Man's Land and it's affecting my brain...

Admiral Vostok
09-06-2003, 12:06 PM
Well the fact is that when you look at real civs from history, the all were pretty similar - I mean we are all human, and while our military organisations have differed we still send humans into battle. So for modelling historical civs, a generic unit set with a couple of unique units is entirely adequate.

Star Wars is totally different, however. There civs are far more different to each other than anything in Earth's history has been.

And I'd just like to go on record saying I loved WC3 as well. Though not as much as SWGB, of course.

DarthMuffin
09-06-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
I pretty much agree with Vostok's stance here in that it should be "same number of civs, more variety", those civs being-
1. Confederacy
2. Empire
3. Republic
4. Hutts
5. Rebels
6. Naboo
7. Federation
8. Wookiees
9. Yuuzhan Vong (secret civ)

anfor those who have read my latest idea for SWGB2 would know that the civs i have listed are far, far more unique than in SWGB.

I don't quite understand your point with that "secret civ". Why would the designers include a secret civ? There's no point at it.

Yes, many civ can be great. But there is no way they could make 9 civ completly unique (well, they could, but it would take too much time). IMO, 4 is a good number, 6 would be awesome.

The unique unit and tech stuff is rather pointless, IMO. If I have like *really* nothing to do and play SWGB, I usually don't care about which civ I'm choosing; they're not different!!!

That being said, SWGB was a really great game, but taking the AoK engine was a big (a HUGE actually) mistake. When SWGB 2 comes out (IF it ever comes out), I'll be sure to pick it up, because I'm a real SW fan. However, I think they should try to build up their engine this time. AoM *could* do fine, but is far from perfect for a SW game.

Is Sith the only WC3 hater? I remember having some (a lot) of opposition when it came out...

swphreak
09-06-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
1. Confederacy
2. Empire
3. Republic
4. Rebels
5. Naboo - don't really care if they're in or not
1. Federation
6. Wookiees - don't really care if they're in or not
7. Yuuzhan Vong (secret bonus civ)
8. Hutts (bonus civ)


There's my list...

Get rid of some of the useless civs and combine civs, and we're set. I've never played as the wookiees except when I'm really bored.

2-And Force Commander was freakin' good

I thought it was good too. I liked how the AT-ATs were freakin huge...

I want scale in SWGB2, no troopers being 1/3 the size of Assault Mechs.

Sithmaster_821
09-06-2003, 03:34 PM
Darth54, back then I had quite a few people who agreed with me on Blizzard games. But they've all either left, or don't post about it any more.

I agree with you about the diffuculty of making 9 completely unique civs. I think the number should be in the 6-7 range.

Darth Windu
09-07-2003, 02:16 AM
Darth54 - the Yuuzhan Vong would be a bonus civs that could only be played in multi-player games, and would only become available after the player had completed every single-player campaign ion the hardest difficulty setting.

With the number of civs, really it would be only 8 since the Vong wouldnt count, and anyone who believes you cant make 8 unique civs obviously hasnt seen my SWGB2 idea.

lukeiamyourdad
09-07-2003, 05:45 PM
Windu- Hmmm...that's not what you had a few months ago...lol:D

Sith- *cough*cough*simwiz*cough*cough*

Darth54- Difficult? Of course. The hardest part is balance but that can be done with a few patches:D no seriously AoK had like 10 patches.

No doubt about it, using a non modified AoK engine was the biggest mistake. It felt like a very good AoK mod for a lot of people.

Personnally, I think 9 civs + one messed up unbalanced secret civ(just to make people play the campaign eh) is doable. However I'm starting to consider removing the Hutts from full civ to messed up civ...

Darth Windu
09-08-2003, 12:15 AM
luke - since the last time i emailed out copies of my idea, it has changed very, very extensively

Admiral Vostok
09-09-2003, 01:22 AM
Well I think eight civs is doable. The biggest task would be graphics - creating eight different sets of graphics would take a while - but since much of the art is already designed (straight from movies, etc) it might not be as tough as you think. In terms of programming and balancing I don't think it would be any harder than it was to do Age of Mythology.

DarthMuffin
09-12-2003, 11:30 PM
AoM is pretty nice :)

I played it again, and it just pwnz RoN...

I guess it wouldn't be a bad idea to base SWGB2 on AoM's engine, but they should work on their lasers; GBs lasers are a pain to look at.

I still don't agree with the "9 civs + 1 messed up unbalanced secret civ" stuff. I'd personaly go for 6 - I'd take Windu's list and take out the hutts (big, fat, ugly things? who would want to play as them?) and the something Vong civ.

swfreak - it was pretty nice also to make legions of At-Ats walk on rebel troopers :)


Gah! So many interesting topics here! It's getting even more interestinig than the off-topics!

lukeiamyourdad
09-12-2003, 11:50 PM
It's a bad idea to base SWGB2 on AoM. Most features wouldn't make sense.

By Hutts we meant Hutt Cartel not the Hutts themselves(LOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL). It means that their "army" would be composed of Gammorean guards, weequay, bounties and mercs.

If you wanna go for 6 that's fine less civs to balance.

Sithmaster_821
09-13-2003, 12:40 AM
I played it again, and it just pwnz RoN...
Wow, we actually agree on something (RoN is another game on my hit list)

Sith- *cough*cough*simwiz*cough*cough*
He vows to return when SWGB2 is announced...

Windu, wouldn't making the civ playable online defeat the purpose of the secret civ (that it would be just-for-fun, balanced but not too much to ruin the pleasure). If it were to be online, then it would have to be up to the same standards of the normal civs, taking out many of the avenues for uniqueness.

Darth Windu
09-13-2003, 06:37 AM
Sith - well, no. A player would only be able to use the Vong online once they had unlocked it, and only if all other players agreed to their use.

It would also allow newb's to get some online experience without being beaten in the first 5 minutes (if that) and would also allow gamers to challenge themselves by playing against the Vong.

HaruGlory89
09-13-2003, 01:31 PM
Vuuzhan Vong could be a toybox civ, one that isn't available, but can be used in SP missions and editor.

another_trooper
09-13-2003, 05:18 PM
8 or 9 civs can be unique, but let us not forget this (especially for those who are saying how it can be done)

Lucasarts is making the game, not you.
Looking at the history of their productions, I prefer to keep my hopes low then be surprised than having high hopes and being disappointed.

lukeiamyourdad
09-13-2003, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by another_trooper
Looking at the history of their productions, I prefer to keep my hopes low then be surprised than having high hopes and being disappointed.

Well were all doing this for fun we all know we won't be making the game(if we did it would be so good:D ). Nevertheless, if people keep their hopes high, LA will be forced to make something good so we won't be deceived and throw out our copy of SWGB2 cursing at them...

Sithmaster_821
09-13-2003, 08:13 PM
Windu, which of the two of us plays online actively? Which of the two of us would understand better what is good for the competitive online atmosphere and what is bad? Believe me when I say that secret just-for-fun civs would not work online. I definitely agree with haruglory on this one.

DarthMuffin
09-13-2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
It's a bad idea to base SWGB2 on AoM. Most features wouldn't make sense.

By Hutts we meant Hutt Cartel not the Hutts themselves(LOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL). It means that their "army" would be composed of Gammorean guards, weequay, bounties and mercs.

If you wanna go for 6 that's fine less civs to balance.

Star Wars God powers! I want to see this!

*Son of Osiris on a Jedi?*

about the hutts - damn, I wanted to see a hutt jedi :rolleyes:

Darth Windu
09-14-2003, 02:42 AM
Sith - as i said before, the Vong would be playable online on the condition that all players agreed to allow it. If one player out of 8 said no, then the Vong would be banned for that game.

luke - i agree with you there

Darth - no-one ever suggested a Hutt Jedi

Admiral Vostok
09-14-2003, 07:31 AM
I'm also against allowing the secret civ to be played on-line. I think I may have been of a different opinion in the past, but I've changed my mind now. The sad fact of the matter is that most people playing on the net are playing to win, not necessarily just to have fun. It could be entirely possible for an unscrupulous net player (not a rarity by any stretch) to deceive other players into allowing the secret civ. I can also foresee a sort of enmity between those players who want to use the secret civ and those who will not allow it. There will be cries of "You just aren't good enough to beat them" or "You just aren't good enough to play a proper civ" between the two factions, and no good can come of a Zone divided against itself.

So in conclusion no to on-line secret civs.

lukeiamyourdad
09-14-2003, 01:58 PM
I play D2 online a lot and it's one big nightmare but fun.
There's tons of a-holes and lil'B!tch out there who can't agree on a single thing.
It's thoroughly impossible to have an online only secret civ.

If they're overpowered(since it's a secret civ) no one will allow them and if it's underpowered no one will play them.

Sithmaster_821
09-14-2003, 04:10 PM
Sadly enough, Vostok, you're correct. The online community is all about winning and very every man for himself. Its quite dissappointing, but its true.

DarthMuffin
09-14-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Darth - no-one ever suggested a Hutt Jedi

But it would be nice :)

ZLaZ
09-20-2003, 03:14 AM
I just want to make a note of something.
If you'll look at most RTS games, none of the races are truly unique.
WC3 for example, has little uniqueness to it, there's always a melee unit, always a ranged unit, and always a Barracks.
There's only one game that I know that has truly unique Civs, and that is StarCraft, everything is unique in that.

Admiral Vostok
09-20-2003, 03:20 AM
That is true, though we're not suggesting mutually-exclusive civs. They will have several things in common, though not as much as they have in common in SWGB1.

ZLaZ
09-20-2003, 02:27 PM
That makes sense, as long as many things have different functions.

another_trooper
09-20-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by ZLaZ
I just want to make a note of something.
If you'll look at most RTS games, none of the races are truly unique.
WC3 for example, has little uniqueness to it, there's always a melee unit, always a ranged unit, and always a Barracks.
There's only one game that I know that has truly unique Civs, and that is StarCraft, everything is unique in that.

Footie/rifle
grunt/headhunter
archer/huntress
ghoul/crypt fiend

As for Starcraft

Marine/Firebat
Zergling/Hydralisk
Zealot/Dragoon

Its the same, but its the balance which makes it unique

DarthMuffin
09-20-2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by another_trooper
Footie/rifle
grunt/headhunter
archer/huntress
ghoul/crypt fiend

As for Starcraft

Marine/Firebat
Zergling/Hydralisk
Zealot/Dragoon

Its the same, but its the balance which makes it unique

You should listen to him, he knows what he's talking about :)

(and I agree with him too)