View Full Version : What should the Imperial homeworld be in SWGB2?

Darth Windu
02-29-2004, 02:42 AM
Hi everyone. As the second part of my two polls, the other for the Republic, i'd like ot know what you think the Imperial homeworld should be in SWGB2 when the Republic is present as well.

Please remember that if the Republic has Coruscant, the Empire cant have it as well.

02-29-2004, 06:00 PM
How about no?

02-29-2004, 08:19 PM
Unless this is in the Later New Republic area, Bastion won't work. The Imperials didn't settle down there til later.

There's Byss, but that is after Death Star 2, but before Rebels took Coruscant.

You're making this more complicated than needed. The Republic is the Empire....

General Nitro
02-29-2004, 10:29 PM
the should both have Coruscant. the republic should get a lighter looking Coruscant like in the majority of episode 2. the empire should get a darker version of the planet like in the celebration scene at the end of rofj or where count dooku goes to see palpatine at the of episode 2.

03-01-2004, 12:23 AM
Well the Empire has no ONE planet that they call there own they have many Naboo, Tatooine, Dantooine, Dathomir, Coruscant (even though it wasn't mentioned much) ect.

So the empire has a system of planets so they have no homeworld. Unless you call the death star a planet.

Darth Windu
03-01-2004, 02:44 AM
Why do you all seem to fail to understand such a basic idea.


In the Imperial campaigns, their homeworld will be Coruscant, just as the Republic will have Coruscant as their capital in their campaigns.

This poll is to see what the Imperial capital should be when BOTH the Empire and Republic are present.

03-01-2004, 03:35 AM
LOL... dude who cares? First of all why do they need to be different?
Second, why do they need this so called homeworld for a campaign? The Republic campaigns take part while chasing Sev Rance anyway.

Darth Windu
03-01-2004, 10:43 AM
Huh? Pbguy - you do realise im talking about SWGB2 and not SWGB right?

Why do they need to be different? Thats probably the dumbest question i've been asked for quite a while. Think of it in terms of a game where you can play as two different sides, Czarist Russia and Communist Russia. If you were to play a game in which you capture the enemy capital in order to win, how on earth could both have Moscow as their capital?

03-01-2004, 02:07 PM
The East and the West side!

03-01-2004, 11:55 PM
Well, Windu, typically, if a game maker has both Czarist and Commie Russia, they don't appear as two separate entities in a campaign. Just a helpful hint.

03-02-2004, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Thats probably the dumbest question i've been asked for quite a while.

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black... You DO realize you're the novelty act of the forum correct?

Darth Windu
03-02-2004, 09:33 AM
Sith - i have already explained this. THEY WONT BOTH APPEAR IN CAMPAIGNS!!!
The time they WILL both appear is when a player chooses to have a CtG mode with ALL civ's present. The only objective there is to conquer the galaxy, as opposed to story-based campaigns.

Pbguy - and that somehow makes your statement more intelligent?

03-02-2004, 02:14 PM
OMG, if they happened during different times, why do they need to be different? It's the generally the same organization.
And if you want a legit answer to your lame ass question, the Imperials home planet wouldn't be a planet it would be a moon... wait a minute, that's no moon...

03-02-2004, 10:55 PM
Windu, unless I misunderstood, your CtG thing would be a single-player "adventure" of sorts, kinda like a connected string of single player games games on a campaign (key word) to rule the galaxy. It isn't multiplayer, it isn't free-match (where you pick your opponents, etc.), the scenerios are connected, and it isn't player created. Thats a campaign.

Darth Windu
03-03-2004, 09:16 AM
Sith - yes, you misunderstood.

The way i see it, there will be 2 single-player modes in addition to multi-player (which is essential)

1. Campaigns - these will be a series of story-based missions for all 8 normal civs. Campaigns of one civ will NOT occur at the same time as those of another civ.

2. CtG - i see three modes here
- Civil War - in this mode, there are the Wookiees, Rebel Alliance, Empire and Hutt Cartel. You can play as any of them, but the Wookiees and Rebels and allied, as are the Empire and Hutt's.

- Clone War - in this mode, there is the Republic, Naboo, Confederacy, Federation. Again, you can play as any, but the Republic and Naboo are allied, as are the Confederacy and Federation.

- Free-for-all - this is when all civ's are present and the only objective is to conquer the galaxy, and all other player civs.

Is that any clearer?

03-03-2004, 10:13 AM
Windu explain your plan better do civs start on different planets in a free for all mode? Cause you have led most of us hanging with only half an idea here....

03-03-2004, 04:13 PM
OK, I get your point, it's not campaign.

Then if it's not campaign why do you want them to have a homeworld? If you're trying to do the capital thing a la Rise of Nations, then just use capitals, let the player name the city, and everything's settled.

In my opinion, homeworld are out of place in that particular game mode.

03-03-2004, 09:40 PM
I still don't understand why there must be a free-for-all mode...

And technically Windu, your RoN copycat idea is a campaign, just separate from the other ones. Thats like saying that the "battles of the conqeurors" in AoC wasn't a campaign because there wasn't any linked scenerios. Question: does RoN have a campaign? Yes, the CtW is their campaign, and in your little world, its just a variation of the campaigns. I have no idea why you are having so many different campaigns, cause, as I said before, people prefer MP, SP RM, and the editorover the campaign. The campaign has become now a cool thing to do for a couple of weeks before really starting the game.

03-03-2004, 09:54 PM
The Imperial Homeworld should be Courscant. It is where the emperor's palace is located.

Darth Windu
03-04-2004, 01:00 AM
FroZ - yes they do, their HOMEWORLD

Compa - because the way to defeat your opponents is to capture their homeworld. Similar to RoN's capital idea, excapt that in the actual battle-bits, you have to completely destroy your opponent rather than just capture a particular city.

Sith - becuase it gives players more options = more fun.
Also, no, it is not a campaign. According to the dictionary i have right in front of me, a campaign is: "a number of connected military operations in a war which are aimed at some special purpose" - therefore, the FFA mode is NOT a campaign.

With regards to what you listed as what you THINK people prefer, they would all be in the game anyway, so why do you such a big problem?

03-04-2004, 01:32 AM
Windu, your cheesy CtG is a perfect fit to the definition. Is it not a series of connected military operations aimed at a special purpose (conquering the galaxy)?

BHG, the creators of your idea, also agree with me, calling their CtW a campaign multiple times on their website.

Finally, they're what I know people prefer, from what RTS players have said, and from what the big Three Companies have said and done. I have such a big problem because the concept is superfluous junk that will force other, more important things, like graphics and civ variety, into a lesser state. And, of course, there's the whole originality issue....

Darth Windu
03-04-2004, 06:08 AM
Sith - oh please, spare me. What is original today in RTS'? Ranged infantry, melee infantry, ranged vehicles, aircraft etc are they original? The only thing that matters is HOW you put it together - not the individual components, but how those components fit together is what makes a game good or bad.

As for the campaign, is it a definition for CtG? No. The whole point of CtG and RoN's CtW is that there are almost limitless decisions you can make - the different senario's arent inter-related. The only reason BHG calls it a campaign is to cover the fact that they didnt bother putting real campaign's into their game.

The only problem you have with this idea is that you dont understand it, and hence attack it. Perhaps if you opened up your mind a bit more, you would see that the CtG mode offers infinately more re-play value and fun when held up in comparison with other games like SWGB.

Admiral Vostok
03-05-2004, 02:41 PM
Just because things are similar between some RTS games doesn't give you license to entirely steal an idea from an RTS.

And Windu, what you are describing is a campaign. It fits your definition perfectly, as Sith pointed out. What's the big problem with calling it a campaign?

The way I understand your idea - and mind I haven't played RON - is that all eight or however many civs you want start on a point on the galaxy map, then chose which regions to fight in, gaining more of the galaxy under your control. I think the reason you don't want to call it a campaign is because the battles won't be scenarios, they'll be essentially RMs where you fight a single opponent depending on who currently controls the region of space you've decided to invade. Is this correct? So there are no little missions or cinematics, just like normal single player mode but with a greater purpose. That is still a campaign by your dictionary definition, but not by the understood meaning it has in terms of RTS games. A campaign in RTS terms is a series of linked scenarios. This CTG game mode is a series of linked RMs.

Oh, and I voted for the Death Star, but I don't think it should be mobile. It stays in one place, but is still called the Death Star. This way the Empire doesn't get a rediculously unfair advantage of being able to move their homeworld.

03-05-2004, 03:15 PM
And destroy other people's homeworld without fighting...

Darth Windu
03-06-2004, 12:59 AM
Vostok - so, with my use of ranged infantry in my template, does that mean i'm stealing that idea?

With the Death Star, the CtG campaign would be TB with conbat being RTS just as in RoN. For the Empire to move their homeworld, they wouldnt be able to do it instantly, but over a few turns.

luke - the Death Star would be a political center, not a weapon - so dont worry.

03-06-2004, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
luke - the Death Star would be a political center, not a weapon - so dont worry.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why don't we just call it the Fun Star? Instead of metal it can be made of mirrors! And it'll be like a giant disco in space! This one was good Windu... you always seem to amuse me in one way or another...

03-06-2004, 01:28 AM
Yes indeed! :lol:

Darth Windu
03-06-2004, 08:45 AM
once again we see the famous pbguy wit - half of it anyway...

The Death Star, for CtG would be, as i said, a political center and not a weapon. The reason for this is that it would be far too powerful as a weapon, and really, the only places of power for the Empire we ever saw in the films were the 1st and 2nd Death Star's.

Admiral Vostok
03-06-2004, 02:32 PM
No, you're not stealing ranged infantry, because every RTS has ranged infantry. The same with resource management, constructing buildings, and anything else that is a fundamental part of what makes an RTS. You are stealing Conquer the Galaxy, because only one RTS has it, and you're even using almost exactly the same name for it.

If you can't tell the difference you're worse than I thought.

03-06-2004, 03:02 PM
He can't be worse than I've thought... because I already think nothing of him. :p

Seriously 'du you need a hobby or a girlfriend.

03-06-2004, 09:43 PM
Windu, there exists a fine line between building off an idea and blatantly stealing one. This is the basis for originality. How much of the same words in the same order is considered plagerism and not coincidence? You have crossed this line by far. Even SWGB was more subtle in its transformation. Your idea even has the smae name as BHG's, only with world exchanged for galaxy. Thats like as if SWGB was called the Age of Jedi.

Also, the fun star should have a big smilely face where the laser is, so that nearby worlds can be sure that its not a weapon too.

Darth Windu
03-07-2004, 03:28 AM
vostok - so you think that the second RTS to be created was stwealing all of it's ideas from the first? If that is the way you'd prefer to have it, there would be very little in the way of interesting RTS'. The whole point of evolution and revolution is that you build on the good ideas, and remove the bad ideas from whatever has come before the thing that you are creating.

How, therefore, can you accuse me of 'stealing' anything? As i said, was SWGB stealing the idea of ranged infantry? or melle infantry? or armoured units?

As for Conquer the Galaxy, it is called that becuase the whole point of the exercise is to...Conquer the Galaxy.

03-07-2004, 03:54 AM
Arguing with you is useless. Ripping-off the Conquer the Galaxy from RoN's Conquer the World isn't building from a good idea.

Building from a good idea would be taking a certain concept and developing it further, something that you obviously aren't doing your CtG idea. It's the EXACT same thing as CtW.

If LA tried to do that they get their ass sued.

03-07-2004, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Arguing with you is useless.

You're only realizing this NOW?! :D

Darth Windu
03-07-2004, 06:36 AM
luke - i dont see how you came to that conlcusion. If it was possible to use companies in the video game industry who used ideas similar to yours, there would be an endless number of lawsuits.

As for CtW/CtG i suggest you actually play RoN before coming to conclusions.

Finally, in regards to arguing with me, if you think you are right and i am wrong, then convince me of that.

03-07-2004, 09:38 AM
I really don't see the problem here. Clones of successful formulas are almost as old as computer gaming itself. Developers are always "stealing" ideas from each other. I'd suggest that there isn't really much originality in games these days, but that's not necessarily a problem. A game doesn't have to be original in order to be good. For example, there's at least one level in MOHAA where the gameplay is exactly the same as Space Invaders!

The real question is: is the idea that Windu has taken from RoN any good? I've only played the demo of RoN, so I don't know exactly what CTW is like, but from what's been said here, I don't see anything that would cause a problem. After all, this is something extra on top of RM and scenarios/campaigns. It wouldn't detract from anything that's already there, and the effort of implementing it would probably be very small compared to the rest of the game.

03-07-2004, 02:06 PM
Yes but if someone made another Mythology based RTS, including 3 civs, the norse, the egyptians and the greeks, with sub-civs being minor gods and called the game Time of Mythology, Ensemble has a hell of a good reason to sue them.

That's ripping-off.

03-07-2004, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Finally, in regards to arguing with me, if you think you are right and i am wrong, then convince me of that.

Because you don't neccessarily see other people's points of view or listen to them. Hence making argueing with you a lost cause. No one wants to debate or argue with someone who isn't being receptive to the ideas and opinions of the other people involved. That's not really a debate or an arguement. The only thing that leads to is the person who's voice is not being heard is getting annoyed/pissed.

That's not neccessarily a statement about this conversation, but most of yours. I haven't followed this one close enough to care, and I generally shrug off everything you have to say because of my previously stated reasons of not wanting to debate or argue with you! :p

03-07-2004, 11:30 PM
Well it all comes down to this if Windu ever had an original thought I think his head would explode how many times have we listened to his templates all ripping one game or another.

Red Alert 2
War Craft 3
and many more that ive prolly forgotten and now RoN has just been added to that list jeez if your gonna steal ideas at least try to disguise it......

Admiral Vostok
03-08-2004, 02:44 AM
I seem to remember there was this one time where Windu changed one of his ideas because everyone opposed it... or maybe I am remembering wrong...

Anyway, as you may have already read in one of the other threads, I now have a copy of RoN, so Windu can no longer use the excuse that no-one has played it.

so you think that the second RTS to be created was stwealing all of it's ideas from the first?Well back in those days, yes, it was very much like stealing. However the second RTS ever made wasn't exactly the same as the first - it took ideas in different directions and played very differently, more differently than RTSs today play.

And before you think I'm making that up I have done a bit of reading in the past on this, here's the article:

Now please tell us at least one thing (apart from changing things to Star Wars civs and locations) that differentiates the gameplay of Conquer the World to the gaameplay of Conquer the Galaxy.

Darth Windu
03-08-2004, 07:56 AM
luke - but your example doesnt apply. I'm not trying to make a game with 18 earth civs with 8 (i think) tech levels, generic unit sets etc etc. The only similarity to RoN in terms of CtW/G is the concept of an e-risk board.

vostok - actually i've done that a few times. I changed my mind about merging the TF/Confederacy, merging the Nabo/Gungans (temporarily) and have only just changed my mind and accepted a suggestion from saber about CtG free-for-all.

As for the differences between CtW and CtG there are quite a few. Obviously, there are the differences in number of civs, unit sets, buildings, art etc. Also, while the concept of 'national borders' would stay, there would be no 'attrition' applied to enemy forces in your territory or vice-versa. You will also note that in CtW, regardless of the region you are fighting in, if you take the capital city, you win that region (or empire if it is the capital region). In CtG however, while you can still take cities, you actually build Command Center's that can be destroyed, with you winning that region only once you have destroyed all of your opponents forces.
For cities, they would be on the map (like Theed if you are fighting on Naboo) and would give economic and territorial bonus' to the player who owns them, but they are unbuildable and not necessary to win.

Can't really think of anything else right now, but i'll edit this post if i do.

Admiral Vostok
03-08-2004, 02:40 PM
Ah that's right, you changed your mind about the Confederacy/Federation merger. I knew there was something. Did you really change your mind about the Naboo merger? Why oh why did you change it back? That hardly counts as a mind change. And yes, with taking on saber's suggestion about random homeworlds, that makes twice you've changed your mind, though it was only once when I last posted.

As I said in the other post I think attrition is one of the better feature of RoN, though I can see how it doesn't necessarily relate to Star Wars, so i can be gotten rid of. But if you get rid of attrition, what's the point of keeping national borders? They don't really work for Star Wars either. I quite like your cities idea now that I understand it... so you can't build cities, they are just already on the map waiting for you to capture them? That could work...

However you have really described how your SWGB2 is different from RoN, not how the Conquer the Galaxy game mode is different to the Conquer the World game mode. These are still pretty much the same if I'm not mistaken...

03-08-2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Yes but if someone made another Mythology based RTS, including 3 civs, the norse, the egyptians and the greeks, with sub-civs being minor gods and called the game Time of Mythology, Ensemble has a hell of a good reason to sue them.

That's ripping-off.

They would have a good reason to sue if it was called "Time of Mythology" because that is very close to their trademark "Age of Mythology".

However, none of the other things you mentioned are likely to count as infringement of copyrights or trademarks. The Norse, Greeks and Egyptians were real civilisations in real history. Nobody owns the rights to history.

Similarly, I don't believe that game concepts count as "original works" for the purposes of copyright law. "A mythology based strategy game involving Greek gods" is a pretty good description of Populus II, but I don't see Bullfrog (if they still exist...) sueing Ensemble. There are very many games which are "rip offs" of other games, but this very rarely leads to court cases.

03-08-2004, 08:32 PM
I guess you're right. Nevertheless, we shouldn't rip-off another game.

Darth Windu
03-08-2004, 11:59 PM
vostok - well, with cities, i would love to keep them on the map so that when you fight, you can actually capture cities like Theed, Mos Espa etc. However, i also think that unlike RoN, where you build a civilisation, we are fighting a war in this game, so it would seem odd to me to have the civ's building cities all over the place.

As for attrition, i just dont like it. The reason i left national borders in though is in terms of building structures. In SWGB and a few other RTS' you can build anywhere on the map, and i think that when you are building turrets inside someone else's base or resource collection area, that is bad for gameplay and realism. Hence, i would keep national borders to stop that going on, and also to define which resources you can tap and which you can't.

Other than that, i really can't say how my CtG is different from CtW, although really, how is CtW different from 'Risk'?

PS: the reason i changed my mind about not merging the Royal Naboo and Gungans was because when i had them seperate, i have 100% navy, 0% air force, 100% infantry and 50% mechs for the Gungans, and 0% navy, 100% air force, 100% infantry and 50% mechs for the Royal Naboo - apart from that, it also made sense to me realistically that they would fight together after Ep1.

Admiral Vostok
03-09-2004, 03:17 AM
I agree completely about the cities.

While I think attrition is a great part of the game, it doesn't really have much significance in Star Wars, so it's best to leave it out. I see your point about the forward building, though. Perhaps all we need is a better name than "National Borders" so it is more Star Warsy. Again though it doesn't really fit in Star Wars that well, there better ways we could effectively decrease forward building.

And no, CtW isn't different to Risk (or is that game called Diplomacy... or is one a rip-off of the other?) but the thing about copyright law is that it isn't necessarily binding when the concept is transported to a new medium (pc games). Since you're keeping it in the same medium instead of ripping off a board game, their are problems.

And we don't need to get into the Naboo thing here as well as elsewhere.

03-09-2004, 11:57 AM
I disagree totally about forward bases and I know why you dislike them you haven't ever played online long enough to learn about now great fwds are it unlocks so many possibilties in the game. Why do you think nearly all the RTS have them cause its great for gameplay. Hey if your enemy is stupid enough to let you steal there resources near there land they deserve it. This national border thing will just cause problems the defensive team will win they have a homefield advantage and it is not good youll have top outnumber them to much and if too power players come head to head I bet the defensive player wins but with forwards any can win you the game if its destroying thw forward and moving on to there main base or getting destroyed by quick replenishing units flowing into you base.

03-09-2004, 02:52 PM
If he's never played online he has no reason to even continue this discussion. And he can officially quit pretending like he knows what he's talking about in terms of what's best for a new game.

Darth Windu
03-09-2004, 11:35 PM
Vostok - with national borders, i only meant keeping the concept rather than the name, obviously that would have to be changed

froz - you wouldnt be saying that if you had actually played RoN

pb - ah, so my opinion only counts if i have done things that you approve of? Oh please, spare me.

03-10-2004, 12:14 AM
No Windu, your opinion only counts when you know what you're talking about. This is not the case. MP is everything in terms of reputation. If the MP game is unbalanced or pointless (lets go sit in our bases and play Simcity!), then the game sinks into obscurity (RoN's MP sucked, there are 100 people online, even we beat them, and the game doesn't have the legs to sell well, even with all the acclaim lathered on it for being sold in an RTS off year). The one thing that drives me crazy here is trying to have a discussion about the dynamics of a game with someone who has yet to beat the learning campaign.

Saberhagen, pbguy, behind you 100%.

Darth Windu
03-10-2004, 05:42 AM
Two of those statements, sith, show just how ignorant you are.

1. "lets go sit in our bases and play Simcity!" - well done sith, we see now that you are bagging an idea that you dont even understand...

2. "someone who has yet to beat the learning campaign." - and when left with nothing that you can critisise about my idea, you attack me. Having completed all campaigns on the hardest difficulty, i think i know what i'm talking about when it comes to SWGB.

03-10-2004, 08:49 AM
rofl sith I couldn't have said it better myself!!!!

And yes Windu you must like us critising otherwise you wouldn't have posted your 3rd template up for us to attack. I can't believe you steal an idea from another game call it your own make up these pathetic changes and try to defend against what all of the members that you created it. Ohh yea here comes the part where you say I have taken some ideas from RoN blah blah blah I have added this into it blah blah blah there are many differences blah blah blah.

The dayI leave this forum is the day windu creates an original template looks like ill be here a while.......

03-10-2004, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Having completed all campaigns on the hardest difficulty, i think i know what i'm talking about when it comes to SWGB.

But we all know that the computer AI sucks the **** out of a dead man's ***. Have you ever beaten a real person who has the power of independent thought? You're conspicuous by your absence from the forum ladder. You're always going on about how single player is supposedly better than multi-player, but you seem to be the only person on any SWGB forum who thinks that. I'm sure any competent RMer could beat all the campaigns, but people who have only played the campaigns would get nowhere in RM.

03-10-2004, 09:23 PM
News flash Windu:

The campaigns don't mean diddly crap when it comes to the more subtle aspects of a game. Sure you get the same units, etc., but things like balance, relative strengths, potential strategies, you don't have anything to base it on. The campaigns are not an accurate depiction of the state of a game, proven by the fact that Blizzard had (even I will admit) good campaigns. Even single player RM is a better depiction of the game, because in everything but the intelligence of your opponent, it represents the conditions of a MP game (and the fact that the hardest comp level cheats).

As for the SimCity comment, it wasn't a dismissal of your ideas. It was a dismissal of BHG ideas, which you want to implement in SWGB2. And I dismissed them because I have played RoN (single-player RM, I don't trust Gamespy enough to try it out online), and thats what it amounts to, Sim City with little disputes at the borders.

Darth Windu
03-11-2004, 12:23 AM
saber - i have never said that single-player is more important or better than multi-player. I personally don't play online for a numbers of reasons, so i generally play against computer AI.
Now, im sure im not the only person who does this, and so single-player games need to be catered for. Having said that, multi-player keeps a game alive on the net, so that needs to be catered for as well.

03-11-2004, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
I personally don't play online for a numbers of reasons

I guess the main one is rushing? :-)

See, playing the comp takes out so many variables. Against the Comp you never eat a pummel drop. You don't a strike rush, and you dont get an air rush. You also don't get the jedi rush. It's too predictable. Big F'n Deal you beat the campaigns. Newslfash, they aren't that hard. Especially if you've played them forever, lose and use cheats to see the map and know what to expect.

Darth Windu
03-11-2004, 12:47 AM
Actually the main reasons are that a lot of my time is taken up by Uni, and when i do get the time to play games, i prefer newer ones like RoN, Star Trek Elite Force 2 and Jedi Academy.

As for rushing, i dont have anything against it, i use it myself quite often in RoN.

03-11-2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
As for rushing, i dont have anything against it, i use it myself quite often in RoN.

Can you tell me how to do it? I couldn't work it out at all, but then I've only played the demo a couple of times.

03-11-2004, 11:21 PM
I think that it has something to do with getting the first military up way before your opponent, a building a military at the expense of your econ to catch them with their pants down. Of course, RoN being the game it is, rushing will never let you win, or even establish a beachhead right near his town to continue with the assualts. At the best, it brings his econ down to your level, and, if you keep sending waves of troops in, due to the distances you have to travel, the enemy will win. You are much better off raiding and pushing.

Admiral Vostok
03-11-2004, 11:49 PM
The more I play RoN the more I think of it as a beginner's RTS. You don't have to worry about resources running out, workers automatically find work to do, and it tells you what you need to do at every step - "build scholars!" "build caravans!" "build more towns!"

Still I'm enjoying it so far, but I think unlike other RTS where you can have different strategies to win (rushing, turtling, etc) there is only one way to win RoN.

And I think the multiplayer would probably suck.

03-12-2004, 12:09 AM
best thing vs a turtle? (in SWGB anyway...)


03-12-2004, 06:10 AM
Yep thats why it was not a successful game I heard rmers switching to RoN mastering it in a week........

Darth Windu
03-12-2004, 07:09 AM
saber - well generally i rush in the 'Conquer the World' campaign. All you do is select all of your military units as soon as you start and send them to the other side of the map (which is where you enemy's capital will be)

vostok - yeah, the 'build more x' can get tedious, but i like the fact that you can choose to have citizens auto collect resources (assuming you have the buildings), or build, or do nothing, because it allows the player to concentrate more on the fighting aspect of the game.

03-12-2004, 09:32 AM
I think the stupid and illogical behaviour of workers in SWGB is all part of the challenge. Take that away and gets too easy and boring.

Darth Windu
03-12-2004, 10:34 AM
But the whole point of an RTS is fighting, not managing workers.

03-12-2004, 11:55 AM
Actually RTS is stratergy in setting up your base and your military force you can't have one without the other or you will not be successful. I would be pissed if the workers just found themselves work wheres the fun in that. SWGB was good you had to travel back and forth from your military and your workers.

03-12-2004, 03:12 PM
The point of an RTS is everything SWGB has! Economy AND army! The beginning is so key. You just don't want to micro-manage!

Darth Windu
03-13-2004, 12:34 AM
In RoN you DO have to micro-manage to get your base set up, but you DONT have to worry about telling every single annoying little worker what do to. Having workers automatically find work takes a lot of the annoyance of micro out of the game.

I should also point out that you can turn this feature off, and they will only collect resources if you have built the appropriate buildings.

03-13-2004, 01:23 PM
Windu, one, there is no such thing as rushing in a campaign. If you can beat the scenerio with your starting units, then it is tooo easy. Two, the worker auto-thing was the most annoying thing in RoN. It is so easy to lose track of your villagers, and end up with huge amounts of one resource and very little of another. Your builders wander off to go mining, and villagers you gather next to your tc to farm, end up disappearing into the forests if you go micor a battle. One of RoN's many ideas that looked good on paper but ended up being poorly executed.

General Nitro
03-13-2004, 07:56 PM
that option can be disabled in RoN. it meets the needs of both preferences:atat:

Darth Windu
03-14-2004, 03:59 AM
sith - as Nitro said, it can be disabled. Besides, you can control how long a citizen will wait before they go off and do their own thing. In addition, if you want them to collect a certain resource, then tell them too - it's not that hard.

03-14-2004, 04:13 PM
dude ....

this is not star wars galaxies

Admiral Vostok
03-14-2004, 07:36 PM
I agree that an RTS needs to concern itself with both economy and military. There are some games (I'm not sure what the three-letter-acronym is that describes them) where before the game starts you choose all your military units, then the game is just fighting with no base building or econ. These in my opinion are not RTS games.

03-14-2004, 08:05 PM
Those would be RTT's Real Time Tactical games.

Darth Windu
03-15-2004, 06:03 AM
Vostok - i never said that you dont need to focus on your economy. What i'm saying is that if you want to focus on economy and/or building, then go buy SimCity. The whole point of an RTS is COMBAT. Hence, the amount of time a player spends on combat should be more than what they have to spend on creating a base and econony, although they shouldnt be neglected.

03-15-2004, 06:31 AM
Then you just want an RTT game, and not an RTS game. Part of an RTS is to build the economy! I like it, keep it as is.

03-15-2004, 08:21 AM
Windu it sounds like you want to build this huge army and cut corners building your economy sorry to say but cutting corners is not strategic.

03-15-2004, 04:11 PM

this is gowing way off topic :p

03-15-2004, 04:32 PM
do you really care?

03-15-2004, 11:55 PM
If you think that this is off-topic, you haven't seen many of our threads from old times (alien jedi, anyone?)

03-16-2004, 01:00 AM
Yes that was...weird...me and Vader started talking about...things...
Too bad it was closed.

Hell, we can spam all we want actually, there hasn't been a mod over here for a looooooonnnnngggg time. Besides, there isn't enough of us to turn this into The Swamp or Aresen.

I'm not encouraging spam...no...

Darth Windu
03-16-2004, 10:32 AM
pbguy - i would suggest you read posts before responding to them, but then old habbits die hard...

sith - you HAD to bring up alien jedi didnt you?

03-16-2004, 06:45 PM
Old hobbits die hard too (I dunno what a habbit is, but its probably similar;) )

03-16-2004, 07:31 PM
Windu you putz, it fits with what you said. you clearly want an easier game where you don't need to scrutinize workers. Don't f'n attack me for something you've said, rephrased differently. You clearly don't want to manage workers.

Darth Windu
03-17-2004, 07:33 AM
pbguy - again, read a post before you respond to it. I have already said that base-building and creating an economy would be essential, the only difference being that MORE (not ALL) time would be spent on combat.

03-17-2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by pbguy1211
do you really care?

no but i am used to Swfan.nl where you get banned if you post something thats not on topic.

General Nitro
03-18-2004, 12:15 AM
things are not so strict around these parts:deathstar

03-18-2004, 12:41 AM
Especially when no mods are around :D

03-18-2004, 02:02 AM
The mods are almost never around.