View Full Version : weapon trade/treaties

General Nitro
12-06-2003, 11:06 PM
i think in swgb u should be able to sell, buy, and trade weapons. i think it would create a more realistic sense or war. i aslo thing treaties would be cool. i think the best treaty would be one in which instead of having to resign one can sign and join his conquerer providing them with resources, weapons, and such in exchange for a victory. also other things like non-agression pacts, temporary alliance, spilting a conquered player's area, treaties limiting one's weapons or pop limit, and so forth. what do yall think about weapon trade and treaties?

12-06-2003, 11:38 PM

That's very interesting indeed. It would be fun to use diplomacy. But as for weapons, I don't think that very possible. Each civ has different weapons, units, etc.
You can't really sell something like berserker's swords to say the Trade fed.

But for diplomacy, that's very interesting indeed. The thing is however, that this is an RTS, not Civ3. Perhaps a certain system where there's more then two civs on the map at once and you start out as neutral with each other and end up challenging whoever comes in your way. That would be an interesting game mode which relies a bit more on your diplomatic skills then brute strength.

It won't work for Multiplayer though...

General Nitro
12-06-2003, 11:44 PM
i guess i should have said units. not the beserkers sword, the whole beserker. like 20 bersekers for 10 destroyer droids and 3 cannons. that kinda trade.

12-07-2003, 12:45 AM
Oh...hmmmm...then I don't really see the point...
perhaps you could litterally trade units. Such as giving up control of a Droideka for three repeaters and such.

12-07-2003, 01:21 AM
Nah that idea kinda throws the way the game is played off a bit.

What I think should be added is allies can let his other allies control his units and when someone d/c's his allies get to use his units and buildings (but not resources).

Darth Windu
12-07-2003, 02:52 AM
A resounding NO for the weapon idea. Each civ has their own unique units and weapons, and to enable players to mingle units i feel would take a lot away from the game.

Diplomacy, on the other hand, is a good idea. I would like to be able to create cease-fires and alliances while playing the game. Incorporating my 'cities' idea from RoN into this, instead of defeating someone and getting their resources, i would like this-
(note: cities are like in RoN, including the Capital City)

if you capture a players capital city, and hold it, as soon as you have solidified your control over that city, all units, buildings and resources of that player are transfered to the player that took the capital city, with the other player being removed from the game.

12-07-2003, 06:56 AM

Admiral Vostok
12-07-2003, 07:23 AM
Frozted: you forgot the "F" at the start of your post above.

Others: I don't see how this diplomacy could work. Let's say the other guy is nailing you. You call for a ceasefire. Is he going to agree when he could finish you off in another minute?

The only way it could work is like an AoM God Power: you only get maybe one Ceasefire, one Weapons Limitation and one Divide Conquered. These Diplomacy options would be in addition to the normal diplomacy like we currently have in SWGB.

Ceasefire: No combat can occur for a period of time.

Weapons Limitation: Select an enemy unit. The enemy cannot build anymore of the selected unit for a period of time.

Divide Conquered: Select an area. All buildings belonging to a conquered player in the area change to being owned by you.

Those are my ideas, but on the whole I'm not keen on this concept.

12-07-2003, 07:56 AM
No I have to save the flames for special occasions (like your template) :P

12-07-2003, 12:06 PM
I love Diplomacy (with a capital D) but I don't think diplomacy (with a small d) has any place in RTS games. Face it, there isn't time for any negotiations, or if you had a ceasefire/diplomacy phase it would just slow down the game and make it boring. Also people could misuse it just to stop the game whenever they want and it could get very annoying.

Trading weapons/units might be realistic, but it defeats the object of having unique civs.

12-08-2003, 11:47 AM
I agree with saberhagen on diplomacy, and the whole trade idea brings up many problems. It could work with a generic unit set, but with a unique unit set, you get to the problem of different buildings that can be built, and who can/cannot repair or build other players buildings, etc. The same problems apply to Windu's RoN idea (actually more so) and Frosted's ally idea.

12-09-2003, 04:52 AM
Well thats because my idea was based on balanced civs and not ones that can overpower what would you rather losing an ally in battle or control over a civs units I would rather a ally.

Darth Windu
12-09-2003, 06:43 AM
Frozted - how is that lame? The whole point is that there is a prize for defeating your enemies, and it will hopefully lead to more intense battles around capital cities.

12-10-2003, 08:35 PM
There is a prize for defeating oyur enemies, its called winning.

Admiral Vostok
12-10-2003, 09:59 PM
Exactly. Surely battles won't get any more intense if there is a "capital city" instead of just the guys primary base.

12-10-2003, 11:20 PM
Eh, the concept of trading weaponry is a bit too complicated I think.

Darth Windu
12-11-2003, 02:13 AM
Vostok - i disagree. Think about it.
1. You have a large primary base and a smaller secondary base. Your primary base is being attacked by a huge force and may be over-run, so many people would simply pull back to their secondary base.
2. You have a Capital city and secondary cities. If you lose your Capital, you're out of the game. Your Capital city comes under heavy attack. Are you going to pull back to your other cities? No, so you have to stay and fight.

Sith - true, but what im talking about is in team games, players will be more aggressive becuase, along with defeating an opponent, you also get their remaining units and buildings. Furthermore, their allies will be more willing to defend the base of their ally, again leading to more intense battles and less turtling.

12-11-2003, 10:43 AM
I think the capital city thing could seriously unbalance the game and make it less fun to play. If your capital city is so important and losing it will instantly put you out of the game, it will lead to more turtling not less, because no-one will want to risk losing their capital.

I think what we have at the moment works pretty well. In many cases if your opponent has the power to destroy your defences and eject you from your main base, you're likely to lose anyway and pulling back won't always help you much. Losing buildings and territory already has a major impact on your economy and military. When you knock out an enemy you can take over their territory and get access to their remaining resource deposits. You can also steal their nerfs/banthas. I think they've got the balance right with this and making it more extreme wouldn't make the game better.

I think the view that capturing the capital means an instant end to the war is pretty unrealistic. In real life, losing a capital doesn't necessarily lose you the war. Not all capital cities have any strategic value, and even when they do, states can sometimes survive losing them. For example, Prussia survived the Seven Years War despite the Austrians and Russians getting hold of Berlin more than once. And it's reckoned by many historians that even if the Germans could have captured Moscow in 1941 it wouldn't have done them much good. Going back to Star Wars, taking control of Theed didn't give the TF total control of Naboo and they were still defeated.

12-11-2003, 11:24 AM
We ain't trying to take over cities Darth we are trying to deploy and destroy armies. This is based on the frontline of battle and not what happens to the cities its protecting maybe in the campaigns you could set up something like this but in general battle I don't think it can work (or even if its nessercery). TF only took over Naboo to make sure the queen got the current chancellor out of power so the emperor could take over thats all it was about. Palpy couldn't give a rats if the droid army were wiped out after the queen forced a vote of no confidence. Thats all it was.

Maybe you could have a unit that can steal resources by sneaking into a space port or something but the only reward for winning is the fact that you won.

Admiral Vostok
12-11-2003, 09:35 PM
I agree with all the arguments against Darth Windu's cities above, but would like to add my favourite argument in that it is just not Star Warsy. In five Star Wars films only one has involved a city and as saberhagen said the loss of Theed didn't completely incapacitate the Naboo.

12-11-2003, 09:44 PM
Windu: in team games, there is more than enough incentive to kill an enemy or protect an ally. The loss of one player, on either side, greatly shifts the balance of the game, no matter how weak they are. It means one less enemy to bombard you with units, or one more ally to pester your enemies.

12-12-2003, 05:56 PM
Hey, Nitro dude- just lettin' ya know I sent you a PM. The PM system on this forum is *weird* you can't see you have one unless you go to that CP thing. Anyway, so check your PMs. :P

12-12-2003, 07:15 PM
You can change that.
There's an option that everytime you log into the forum a pop-up appears and tells you that you just got a new PM. I think it's in the User Option or something.