PDA

View Full Version : Conquer the Galaxy - SWGB2


Darth Windu
01-14-2004, 01:26 AM
Hi everyone. After having received Rise of Nations for xmas, i have found a lot of good things about the game - which in itself is excellent.

One of the features which i think would be very useful for a Star Wars RTS is the 'Conquer the World' feature, which would obviously be transformed into 'Conquer the Galaxy'. My question is though, what would be the homeworlds for some of the civs?

In my template, i have the-
- Confederacy of Independant Systems (Seperatists)
- Galactic Empire
- Galactic Republic
- Hutt Cartel
- Rebel Alliance
- Naboo Coalition
- Trade Federation
- Wookiees

Now, for some it's easy. The Wookiee homeworld is Kashyyk (or similar), the Coalition's homeworld is Naboo, the Hutt hoemworld is Tatooine.

The question i would like some help with is what would be the homeworlds for the-
- Empire?
- Republic?
- Confederacy?
- Trade Federation?

Although Coruscant would be a good choice for the first two, who actually gets it? Any help here would be appreciated.

Admiral Vostok
01-14-2004, 02:30 AM
Well they'd have to both have Coruscant. Since the Republic becomes the Empire you can't really give them separate planets and make it sensible. But if it absolutely must be done, perhaps Kamino for the Republic.

So:

Confederacy: Geonosis
Empire: Coruscant
Republic: Coruscant or Kamino
Hutt Cartel: Nal Hutta or Tatooine
Rebel Alliance: Yavin 4
Naboo: Naboo
Trade Federation: Neimoidia
Wookiees: Kashyyyk

swphreak
01-14-2004, 02:50 PM
Confederacy of Independant Systems (Seperatists) - Geonosis
Galactic Empire - Coruscant (Imperial City) or Byss
Galactic Republic - Coruscant or Kamino
Hutt Cartel - Nal Hutta or Nar Shadda ;)
Rebel Alliance - Yavin 4 or Hoth
Naboo Coalition - Naboo
Trade Federation - Neimoidia
Wookiees - Kashyyyk

Also, I kinda didn't like how RoN's map and gameplay for Conquer the world. If they did it for SWGB2, it should be something different. Maybe even have space battles upon entering systems and stuff....

Also, depending on the timeline, list may vary.

JEDI_MASTA
01-14-2004, 07:22 PM
SWGB2 has to have space battles... thats why GB lacks some SW feel...


However, conquering planets should work somewhat like settlements in AoM... though not for pop, but allow you to build planetary defences and such, and to actually take the planet, ground battles must be fought... maybe a multilayered map
(IE. Click on a planet, view the ground map ect)


I think they need to have some of the Old republic factions like the mandalorians and the sith... after the sucess of KotOR

Darth Windu
01-15-2004, 01:44 AM
Vostok - i know that, but the Republic and Empire cant both be in the same place at the same time now can they?

Also, there is a question as to whether the Republic should have Kamino - after all, it is outside the Republic.

With Geonosis, not sure that's a good idea either. After all, all it was was a manufacturing planet, which was taken by the Republic in the first battle of the Clone War.

Phreak - what is it that you didn't like about RoN's 'Conquer the World'?

Maybe, when invading a system where an enemy Fleet/Army was present, you would land with fewer units/resources than normal to simulate space-battle losses.

Masta - no way. The problem is that SWGB is all about the ground battles, and the only things i see in a game combining both Ground and Space battles are really high system requirements and problems.
I would like to see a Star Wars space RTS as well, but not a combined one.

I also think that it's unnecessary to add civs just because another game had them.

swphreak
01-15-2004, 10:14 AM
I want more interaction with the CtG. In RoN, it was like a risk board, I didn't really like that.

Admiral Vostok
01-15-2004, 09:51 PM
Well I don't really like this idea anyway.

1. It's copied from RoN.

2. It makes no sense for civs like the Naboo and the Hutt Cartel to conquer the galaxy.

3. You have the problem that both the Empire and the Republic have Coruscant as their homeworld.

Darth Windu
01-16-2004, 01:36 AM
Vostok - just because it's from RoN doesnt make it bad. I agree about Republic/Empire but what does it matter if the Gungans or Hutt's conquer the Galaxy?
In RoN it doesnt make sense for the Inca to conquer the world either, but it's there because it's fun.

Pheak - could you be a bit more specific? I am interested in how you would have the Conquer the Galaxy mode as opposed to the RoN version.

swphreak
01-16-2004, 01:53 PM
I'd rather have space battles for that type of campaign.

In fact, I'd rather SWGB2 was a Space RTS. Star Wars is behind in the Space Battles department.

Besides, once you destroy the space defenses, the planet is yours.

And I want my damn Star Destroyers.

lukeiamyourdad
01-17-2004, 01:56 AM
Star Wars isn't behind on the Space Department. Tie Fighter, X-Wing, X-Wing Alliance, Rogue Squadron, Rogue Leader. All great space games.

swphreak
01-17-2004, 02:47 AM
My bad, I guess I shoulda said Space RTS Department.

Darth Windu
01-17-2004, 06:25 AM
Phreak - we've been over this more times than i can count. Everyone wants a space RTS, but SWGB2 is all about GROUND BATTLES.

Besides, did you fail to notice how the Imperials made a ground assault on Hoth, how the Trade Federation made a ground assault on Naboo, or how the Republic made a ground assault on Geonosis?

BTW, if you want Star Destroyers, go buy 'Star Trek Armada 2' and then download the 'Star Wars Fleet Command' mod for that game - it turns it into Star Wars and is really quite good.

swphreak
01-17-2004, 05:02 PM
I am quite aware of the Fleet Commander mod, I tried to play with a friend of mine the other day, but we could never connect. Keep on getting mismatching game errors... it really sucked. I wanted to build some Super Star Destroyers and kick his ass

Admiral Vostok
01-18-2004, 11:21 PM
You misunderstood me, Windu. My problem isn't that it is copied from RON, my problem is that it is copied from RON.

saberhagen
01-19-2004, 02:20 PM
I'm sure you've all seen by now that Battlefront will have a conquer the galaxy mode with no space combat. If they can do it for FPS there's no reason why it can't be done in RTS.

Also, Battlefront will only allow Rebels vs Empire or Republic vs Confederacy, which neatly solves the Coruscant question.

Darth Windu
01-20-2004, 07:36 AM
Vostok - so? Almost everything from SWGB was copied from AoK but you dont seem to mind. What you must understand, my young padawan, is that there have been so many RTS games released that it doesnt so much matter what the ideas are in the game, but how those ideas are connected in the game.
So RoN was the first mainstream RTS with a TBS section built into it. All we do now is buildon that to make it better, and i feel that having a CtG mode in SWGB2 would be better than not having it.

Admiral Vostok
02-02-2004, 03:56 PM
While I don't have a problem with SWGB's similarity to AoK, most reviewers did which brought the game down in their eyes. Obviously we need a sequel that is strong enough to stand on it's on merits, not copy what's worked for others.

lukeiamyourdad
02-02-2004, 07:53 PM
A lot of people buy their games according to reviews. If the review sucks, people will be less incline to buy it.

Darth Windu
02-03-2004, 01:32 AM
'Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast' was effectively a mod of 'Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force' and yet it got rave reviews.

saberhagen
02-03-2004, 11:12 AM
And the reviews I've read say that Jedi Academy is basically the same as Jedi Outcast, but they still like it.

Sithmaster_821
02-03-2004, 08:40 PM
You can ge away with borrowing things in FPS's, where originality is hard ot come by, but in an RTS, originality is highly rated, and if you, as a game developer do not add something unique to your game, it will be scalded by the reviewers. Many reviewers led SWGB slide with a copy because it was a good game at heart, and they did add sufficient new stuf, but don't expect to be so lucky next time.

lukeiamyourdad
02-03-2004, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
'Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast' was effectively a mod of 'Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force' and yet it got rave reviews.

That's like saying every shooter is a mod of another because they all use guns...

Darth Windu
02-04-2004, 02:07 AM
Luke - actually im not exadurating. If you open up the JK2 'assets0.pk3' and open up some of the files contained within it, you can clearly see that JK2 is a mod of 'Elite Force'. Some of the examples are that it lists Kyle as 'Munro' and that the 'Elite Force' weapons names are in the file listing the JK2 weapons.

Sith - true, but then as long as the game is true to Star Wars and plays well, it doesnt need to be inovative. SWGB was pretty much true to Star Wars but it just didnt play well, and didnt realistically re-create the type of combat we saw in Star Wars, and that was why it failed.

lukeiamyourdad
02-04-2004, 02:29 AM
Well that doesn't quite matter. JK:JO is obviously very different from ST:EF. I've never seen a klingon with a lightsaber...

And that's the problem. SWGB was way too similar to AoK which is why it totally was bashed by the critics(well most of them).

Oh I forgot to mention, JA sucks, JO forever!

saberhagen
02-04-2004, 10:44 AM
SWGB didn't fail. People are still playing it and it's over 2 years old. Lots of hardcore RTS gamers reckon it's better balanced and more fun than anything which has come out since.

lukeiamyourdad
02-04-2004, 07:57 PM
Well it is better balanced and more fun then anything that has come out ever since:D

Darth Windu
02-05-2004, 02:24 AM
Well, i dont know about anyone else, but after getting Rise of Nations, i havent touched SWGB for at least a couple of months - it's just too...stiff in terms of gameplay and rather flawed, especially compared to the newer generation of RTS'.

saberhagen
02-05-2004, 05:55 PM
What are the flaws in SWGB?

I played the demo of RoN and it didn't appeal to me. I would have said it was far more "stiff" than SWGB. I found it very slow and tedious. It seems to be designed to make rushing virtually impossible, unless I missed something.

lukeiamyourdad
02-05-2004, 08:01 PM
RoN seems to much like a more fast-paced Civ3. PLay civ3 and you'll know that RoN is rip-off of civ3.

Darth Windu
02-06-2004, 09:51 AM
Saber - the flaws in SWGB are that
- It was based on an outdated engine
- The combat is 'stiff', it is played like Medevil combat rather than WW2
- Units were too generic
- Civ bonus' werent good enough
- Not enough variation in unit stats
and so on. Then we can go through the various defeciences of Airpower and the Air Cruiser.

As for RoN, as i said, the combat flows a lot better. There is a greater number of units and unit combinations, as well as the ability to field huge infantry armies, along with some units that can fire on the move. Personally, i find it to be the best RTS i have ever played.

lukeiamyourdad
02-06-2004, 11:59 PM
And RoN isn't based on an outdated engine? All the other RTS are completely 3D but RoN isn't. If that's not outdated, I don't know what is.

The units in RoN are also generic. Most of them at least.

SWGB doesn't have medieval combat. Formations, yes,heavy weapons, yes, but not combat.

RoN by far did not impress me. It's certainly NOT the best RTS out there. Even AoM(which already is a deception IMO) is a whole lot better. AoM's fast pace actually made more sense then RoN.

Like I said, it's only a fast paced rip-off of the Civilization serie.

Darth Windu
02-07-2004, 06:04 AM
Luke - no, RoN isnt complately 3D, but then the engine does come out with excellent graphics and has to deal with things like the CTW campaign. Do i think it's outdated? No.

As for SWGB, it is medevil combat with modern weapons, thats all - and what makes it so blocky and stiff.

lukeiamyourdad
02-07-2004, 08:15 PM
You may think what you want, RoN's engine is outdated.

I guess you don't really know what medieval combat is. Of course, in AoK we had gigantic AT-ATs mowing down formations of pikemen, AT-TE's slaughtering enemy knights and Storm Troopers shooting down some Cavalry Archers.

I'm sure the same tactics are used because of course in medieval times there were dragons who flew around spewing fire on armies...

The simple change of tactics and strategy changes the style completely.

Darth Windu
02-08-2004, 02:13 AM
Luke - you dont understand, im not talking about the units that are medevil, but the style of combat. The problem with SWGB is that it is based on an engine where almost all combat units are melee, and massed infantry formations were the rule.
However, in SW, mechs play crucial roles in combat, as do aircraft. You might also want to take a look at some medevil films - ranged infantry stodd back and engaged the enemy at range, while the mell units charged in and attack the other melee units - certainly NOT the same as SW.

lukeiamyourdad
02-08-2004, 03:22 AM
And where do we actually see huge formations of melee infantry in SWGB? There's a few units of course that are melee of course but what else? I've never seen a huge charge of mounties going to fight other mounties.

Like I said, change the units, change the tactics and it's a lot different. Which is why, playing AoK(medieval) and playing SWGB(SW) is very different and the combat certainly is NOT medieval way.

T10
02-08-2004, 09:18 PM
Ok, RoN adapted 'Conquer the Galaxy' idea. Good.
RoN style gameplay. Bad.

And no, I don't really think that just having a city as a planet is good. And no. Rebel soldiers don't just fall over and die because they wlaked past a red line on the map. Like the idea, not the gameplay.

Darth Windu
02-09-2004, 01:52 AM
T10 - i never intended to use RoN's gameplay. With the 'national borders' that you refer to, i would use that, but slightly altered.

I like the idea of borders because then, you cant just build anywhere on the map, you have to literally expand the area you control in order to build further out. HOWEVER i HATE (with a passion) the whole 'attrition' deal. It is one of the things about RoN that irritates me, and i would most certainly not include that in any SW RTS.

BTW, what do you mean by 'having a city as a planet'?


luke - you missed the point, all SWGB infantry are simply edited melee infantry from AoK, one of the reasons it doesnt play well.

lukeiamyourdad
02-09-2004, 02:03 AM
uh... no it's the edited ranged infantry of AoK...

Darth Windu
02-09-2004, 12:03 PM
Regardless, the engine that SWGB is based on has melee units as the main infantry, with no aircraft. SWGB on the other hand has ranged infantry and well as mechs as the main units, with aircraft coming into the mix. It just doesnt mesh right.

T10
02-09-2004, 03:25 PM
Well, basically, instead of a rectangleish shape, the overall map is circular, like the Star Wars galaxy. Instead of countires that are linked, there are seperate systems. In these systems, there is an amount of space in which a fleet may be positioned. Oh, this is complicated. Let me start from the beginnging.

There is a circular map, with a starry backdrop. However, the foreground is filled by an immense galaxy. In this galaxy, there are planets. You start with one planet, and a small amount of territory around it. You also get a small fleet, which acts as a mobile command centre, carrying troops and construction materials. You capture planets by moving your fleet into their space, if they are unclaimed, you will gain it automatically. If not, you fight a ground battle if there is no fleet present, or a space and ground battle if there are enemy re-enforcements in the vicinity.

Ach! I'll tell more later.

lukeiamyourdad
02-09-2004, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Regardless, the engine that SWGB is based on has melee units as the main infantry, with no aircraft. SWGB on the other hand has ranged infantry and well as mechs as the main units, with aircraft coming into the mix. It just doesnt mesh right.

And your point is? It doesn't "mesh" right? Poor argument.
AoK's engine was at the very least modified enough to incorporate these new features which couldn't have been done better considering the engine and it's already very good.

Sithmaster_821
02-10-2004, 12:46 AM
Windu, complaining about SWGB with the 4 people on this Earth who adore it isn't the smartest idea.

I played the demo of RoN and it didn't appeal to me. I would have said it was far more "stiff" than SWGB. I found it very slow and tedious. It seems to be designed to make rushing virtually impossible, unless I missed something.
Ditto. Too many restrictions and requirements to do the simplest things. Also, the gameplay controls relied too heavily on artificial elements. Instead of having the game balanced so that having more than one unit wasnt beneficial like most games, they slapped a price hike on making multiple units. instead of designing the game so that you build many units, theyh just made each unit count as three. So your massive battles are really just skirmishes in disguise. Instead of having counters that naturally beat units or have slight mulitpliers, they just slaughter units completely beyond realism. A knight would never have killed 10 longbowmen singlehandedly. Instead of making it militiristically unwise to have a roaming attack force or an unsuppported forward base, they disallowed one and punished the other. The list goes on, and all these make for long drawn out games where you're stuck thinking, I could have won this an hour ago, if the computer couldn't just switch units instantly and massacre me with their much cheaper troops. Or the fact that I have to slowly move with my armies. Most other games like AoM employ a combination of natural and artificial barriers, so the player is more free to improvise and strategize, and games don't forever to accomplish what could have been done in a matter of minutes.

Darth Windu
02-10-2004, 08:24 AM
Sith - i never claimed that RoN was perfect, but there are a LOT of good features in it which could be used in a SWGB sequel.

Sithmaster_821
02-11-2004, 01:27 AM
Most of the "good features" were just copied from Ao_ or Civ_. The stuff they added wasn't that great.

Admiral Vostok
02-11-2004, 04:16 AM
Now I haven't played RoN but I have played many other RTS games that have been released since SWGB, and I just keep going back to SWGB. It really isn't as bad as you're making it out to be, Windu. The whole thing meshed perfectly fine for me.

Darth Windu
02-11-2004, 08:23 AM
Maybe not for you, but it is to me. I suppose the main reason i've stopped playing it, besides the poor gameplay, is the fact that the units are represented very poorly in that their abilities in the game vs films are wrong, and so it doesnt have a proper star wars feel to it.

Admiral Vostok
02-15-2004, 10:27 PM
Poor gameplay? :eyeraise: :confused:

If you think the game is so rubbish why do you still post on these forums?

Darth Windu
02-16-2004, 12:34 AM
Because i think that the idea of a Star Wars themed ground-based RTS has a lot of merit, and that if done properly (ie from the beginning, not using someone else's engine) it could be a fantastic game, and that is something that i want to see.

FroZticles
03-01-2004, 12:42 AM
Put your trade federation on Lok it was a droid testing facility and was used to transport droids off. Neimondia or however u spell it is just the home world of its leadership. And since Lok was so close to Naboo it was a nice drop off point for droids to be shipped to the Blockade and then shipped down into the swamps of Naboo. And well after the Republic's fall droids still exist in this desert world deativated and malfuntioning some even still working and attacking travellors.

Darth Windu
03-01-2004, 10:49 AM
FroZ - the whole point of a homeworld is that it is the POLITICAL center of a particular civ, not a military base.

Sithmaster_821
03-02-2004, 12:11 AM
Bad gameplay? Bad gameplay? What game have you been playing? That's this game's greatest attribute. Sure, a may not be original or have good graphics (sounds a lot like RoN, doesn't it?), but it has a great game design and well thoughtout gameplay and balance (ok, there goes the RoN similarities). But then again, you have shown again and again that you have no concept or appreciation for balance and gameplay. As for the second point, Gameplay>Realism.

FroZticles
03-03-2004, 10:22 AM
Political..........

People ain't interested in that they want the military aspect of Star WARS not the political why do you think the Viceroys home planet wasn't mentioned in any of the films

pbguy1211
03-03-2004, 03:31 PM
You know, when SWGB2 comes out... god willing, Windu will STILL find something to bitch about and 3 hours after it's released and Windu loses to the comp on easy, he'll be posting new threads about what SWGB3 should entail! :p You just can't please some people.

Darth Windu
03-04-2004, 01:06 AM
FroZ - i'm afraid you've missed the point. I'm not saying that SWGB2 will be all politics. All im saying is that a HOMEWORLD is a POLITICAL center and not a MILITARY one. Take the USA for example. Washington DC is the capital of the USA because it is it's political center. Now do you understand?

PBguy - and once again, left with nothing intelligent or useful to say, pbguy resorts to insults. How sad...

Sithmaster_821
03-04-2004, 01:23 AM
Actually, Windu, I think that the insults have much truth behind them. You are displeased with this game for some un-substantiated reasons, and it seems that, unless the new RTS followed your plans verbatim (which will never happen, especially if LA wants to maintain credability and good sales), you will be displeased with that game, and will go on imagining your fantasy one.

Darth Windu
03-04-2004, 06:17 AM
Sith - i have explained what i think SWGB's flaws are before, and dont see the need to do so again.

As for SWGB2, i really dont care if LA doesnt use any of my idea's, all i want is for the game to be fun and acturately reflect the battles of the Star Wars universe.

FroZticles
03-04-2004, 09:10 PM
Yes Windu but I don't remember hearing about battles taking place in washington dc. It doesn'y matter windus next template will be based on his next game of the month like the 3 templates before this one.

Darth Windu
03-04-2004, 11:26 PM
Froz - are you joking? If you're an american, you should be ashamed of yourself. Why is it that you think the Brit's attacked and sacked DC during (i think) the war of 1812?

Why do you think that WW2 ET ended when Berlin was taken?

Why do you think that France fell after Paris was taken?

BTW with your other comments, what 'game of the month' are you talking about, and what '3 templates before this one'?

lukeiamyourdad
03-05-2004, 03:36 AM
:lol: Looks like old Froz is back :lol:

Actually, Windu, France did not totally fall. Paris may have been taken but the Resistance still was alive because their leaders and its core were across the Manche, in England. Good old General De Gaulle.

Darth Windu
03-05-2004, 07:49 AM
Yes, France did totally fall. There was resistance in all of the conquered western nations, but that doesnt change the fact that the Germans controlled those nations.

FroZticles
03-05-2004, 10:45 AM
No windu im not a war junky like yourself and dont spend countless hours watching we were soldiers or black hawk down. Windu you are like a pop up full of garbage and never goes away

Lets just hope any Lucas representation sees these flames and totally ignores his ideas :cool:

Darth Windu
03-05-2004, 01:31 PM
lol, actually i've only seen each of those films once each - and both have numerous errors in them, but that's for another time.

The point is Froz, that DC was attacked because it was the center of US political power, and so your attempted point is moot. The whole reason that capitals are attacked is to knock that nation out, hence the capital system in my idea for SWGB2.

lukeiamyourdad
03-05-2004, 03:11 PM
Ok, gonna take a Star wars example, putting EU aside.

Theed was taken, was the war over? No.

Yavin 4 was taken, did the Rebels surrender? No.

So in Theory, the Rebels' homeworld can be conquered but they'll simply jump to another planet and that's it, there's no way to actually beat them.

Your CtG would work is all the factions were actual "nations" but a resistance movement isn't one. Therefore, the Rebels do not have a "political center" like anyone else but military bases.

Admiral Vostok
03-05-2004, 03:34 PM
And the Republic taking control of Geonosis didn't immediately stop the Confederacy either.

Darth Windu
03-06-2004, 12:54 AM
Luke - actually Naboo did fall. "We are in complete control of the planet now" and "Viceroy, we have captured the Queen" - "ah, victory!"

Yeah, that doesnt sound like the TF winning does it? The fact is, regardless of whether leaders escape or not, the planet/city will still be held by the invading force. Besides luke, how else do you propose knocking out civs?

With the Rebels, they kept moving from base to base, and so really their capital was Home 1 - although of course for CtG we cant have that.

Vostok - of course, because Geonosis was a MILITARY center, not a POLITICAL center!

lukeiamyourdad
03-06-2004, 01:30 AM
Kill the leader. The Empire fell after the Emperor died. The Trade Federation was defeated after the leaders were captured.

Sithmaster_821
03-06-2004, 02:58 AM
Ummm.........Windu, as an American, I'd like to point out that we continued fighting both in the Revolution (when Philly was taken) and the war of 1812 (when DC was taken) and ended up winning one and tying the other. Capitals don't mean much. Its mostly symbolic more than anythnig.

Darth Windu
03-06-2004, 08:39 AM
luke - you do remember that the TF still exists under Gunray's control at the end of ep2 right?

sith - i am aware of that. But as you love to expouse, gameplay > realism. There needs to be a way to knock civ's out of CtG, capturing their capital seems to be the best way to do it.

FroZticles
03-06-2004, 11:15 AM
Well I think i speak for most when i say this capital idea sucks. Once your last unit falls then its over.

Sithmaster_821
03-06-2004, 09:50 PM
Windu, there are many ways to knock out an enemy, not just capturing a capital. And, if you are going to make a statement and then back it up with history, then make sure there's adequete support in history.

lukeiamyourdad
03-06-2004, 09:57 PM
Nute Gunray was still at the head of the Trade Federation because Sidious manipulated the Supreme Court. He would have been thrown to jail if not so. Sidious still needed him for the Separatist movement.

During the Spanish civil war, the Republican still fought after Madrid was taken by Franco's forces. In the end, they lost but they still fought after the fall of the spanish capital.

Japan surrendered after the two nukes were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not because Tokyo had fallen.

Darth Windu
03-07-2004, 03:11 AM
luke - in the Spanish civil war, the Republican's were being propped up by numerous international forces.

Also, in WW2, Tokyo never fell. The Japanese Emporer surrended because of the threat of more US nuclear raids.

With the TF, where in the films does it say that? The whole supreme court thingy in Ep2 seems to me to be an indication of the impotence of the Republic, which of course led to the seperatists and the Clone War.

lukeiamyourdad
03-07-2004, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
1-luke - in the Spanish civil war, the Republican's were being propped up by numerous international forces.

2-Also, in WW2, Tokyo never fell. The Japanese Emporer surrended because of the threat of more US nuclear raids.

3-With the TF, where in the films does it say that? The whole supreme court thingy in Ep2 seems to me to be an indication of the impotence of the Republic, which of course led to the seperatists and the Clone War.

1-Your point is?

2-Thus capturing the capital isn't the only way to defeat an opponent. Thank you for helping my point.

3-Nowhere. This is an assumption. Nute Gunray was obviously guilty, even the worst tribunals in the world would have condemned him. However, I believe he stayed free because of Sidious who probably persuade a few juges to let him free.

Darth Windu
03-07-2004, 06:41 AM
1. That their resources and much of their forces were being supplied from outside Spain, hence holding the capital was unnecessary.

2. Tokyo had, however, been destroyed by the time of the nuclear attacks.

3. Obviously this tribunal didnt condem him.


In terms of CtG, am i to assume then that rather then defeating a civ by taking the capital system, you would rather have to take every system that that civ has in their possetion?

saberhagen
03-07-2004, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
In terms of CtG, am i to assume then that rather then defeating a civ by taking the capital system, you would rather have to take every system that that civ has in their possetion?

Why not? In RM you have to wipe out every last unit and building unless your opponent resigns. The way I see it, CTG will basically be RM but on a grand strategic scale. As FFA will be inherently "unrealistic" in terms of the combinations of civs it allows (which I don't have a problem with as it's the same as RM) why not just have each player start on a random planet?

lukeiamyourdad
03-07-2004, 02:09 PM
Windu-

1-So? What does it have to do with your "political" center? The political center was taken.

2-It had been bombed, yes, but not been destroyed or taken. Taken that into consideration, Berlin was wiped out of the map...

3-???

saberhagen

That's actually a good idea. It's original, and since you don't start on the same planet everytime you play a particular civ, its got more replayability. But then the purists won't be happy...

Admiral Vostok
03-08-2004, 02:29 AM
Well being Lord of the Purists you may or may not have noticed the attitude I'm taking towards this:

The Republic can fight the Empire.

Ergo

Things ain't entirely realistic.

I think in gameplay terms it would be wise to have a random starting planet. I say this because I've just recently gotten hold of RoN, on which Windu's idea is entirely based. The problem with Conquer the World is that it suffers from the same problem that the game Risk upon which it is based did: if you are a certain country, the geographic location you start in can have advantages and disadvantages. For example some nations start bordering each other, while others are off by themselves so they can take a few territories without having to fight anyone. With random starting locations this could be fixed, though.

Sure it would be weird if you're playing the Gungans and you start on Tatooine, but it's all for fun, so I don't think anyone is going to care too much.

Oh and Windu, Geonosis IS a political center. Perhaps you've forgotten that the Dooku's treaty was signed there? If Geonosis isn't a political center, I don't know what is.

Darth Windu
03-08-2004, 07:48 AM
Good idea people. I will now change it so that in the free-for-all mode, players start on random planets, perferably as far away from each other as possible.

Admiral Vostok
03-08-2004, 02:27 PM
Someone by the name of oback in the "SWGB2: Should it mix ground and space battles" thread suggested that the civs start from "motherships" - though to make it more StarWarsy I'd suggest calling them flagships. This would be ships like the Executor for the Imperials, Home One for the Rebels, and ships like a Droid Control Ship for the Federation/Separatists and a Republic Assault Ship for the Republic. Perhaps that's a good analogy to take? Though on second thoughts it really wouldn't make sense that you can't move around...

saberhagen
03-08-2004, 06:20 PM
I think the problems with using spaceships as bases is that it would either make space combat necessary or make the lack of it look more glaring.

Admiral Vostok
03-09-2004, 02:30 AM
Yes, quite right.

General Nitro
03-12-2004, 12:16 AM
i think capturing should be more of a pride thing. like if u capture a capitol, u get some upgrade. i mean, if u sacked a city, u would get pretty pumped up over it. however, u dont need a capitol to fight. so capturing it shouldnt end the fight, but it should help the capturers.