PDA

View Full Version : Should there be Naval Units in SWGB2?


Darth Windu
04-07-2004, 10:57 AM
The title says it all. Basically, the situation is that we have seen no military naval units, and about 3 civilian water units in the 5 films so far.

Naval combat also seems to be a waste of time for the Republic, Empire, Confederacy and Rebellion due to the fact that their assaults need to be flexible and everything essential is on the ground - so why have a Navy?

FroZticles
04-07-2004, 02:21 PM
Isn't this already a topic?

General Nitro
04-08-2004, 12:37 AM
"save the navy!"

Admiral Vostok
04-08-2004, 12:56 AM
Yes this is already a topic, though mine doesn't have a poll.

I voted No, but if we see even one military water vessel in Episode III then I might change my mind.

lukeiamyourdad
04-08-2004, 03:16 AM
I voted no because it's not really a significant part of Star Wars. Yet.

saberhagen
04-08-2004, 07:23 PM
I can't decide. From a Star Wars point of view, naval combat makes no sense at all (unless SWGB2 includes the aquatic cat people from ROTJ comic ;) ) but from an RTS point of view navies add an extra dimension and the game would be less interesting without them. But what if Ziff Kalasco has a boat? That could really tip the balance...

Admiral Vostok
04-09-2004, 12:11 AM
Indeed it could tip the balance... :D

FroZticles
04-09-2004, 08:24 AM
Ziff Kalasco is nothing more than a rookiee fight Vyeska Zayek could mop the floor with him. :D

MasterN64
04-09-2004, 12:02 PM
Naval Combat is a part of war, but now i'm not so sure if i really want it in SWGB II. Unless they change the system a bit, i guess it really isn't worth it, even if there are naval battles in Ep. III. Most civs suck in combat and its just a waste of resources to build a shipyard unless you need a water transport. For now, i guess i vote no, but i hope they at least change the system of the naval combat (such as making more civs havin stronger ships)

Ships can be a lot of use as well. If you control the seas, It will definately make it easier for you to get to them, and harder for them to get to you. Course, if you have a civ that has weak ships, it will be a tad harder. But if you think that ships are waste of time, its your funeral. 'Nuf said.

DarthMuffin
04-09-2004, 02:14 PM
I agree with the general feeling. No naval units in the movies, no naval units in the game.

And Star Wars was originally all about space combat (prequel is more Jedi-oriented, but whatever). There's no place for naval stuff in the SW universe.

MasterN64
04-09-2004, 04:57 PM
I hate purists......


Anyway, extend the movies a little!!! Besides, if water seperates two enemies, and air isn't the way due to a lot of AA turrets, water is the only way to go.

This is a STRATEGY game. NAVAL COMBAT is part of strategy. Everything that is in war is part of STRATEGY. Get used to it!!!

Admiral Vostok
04-09-2004, 05:36 PM
So... which side are you on Mastern? You say no to naval combat, then Darth agrees, then you say naval combat is a necessity!

And why exactly do you hate purists?

FroZticles
04-09-2004, 05:44 PM
Mastern your baseing your thoughts on SWGB, we want a new engine or a nice superior current engine. With the way Lucasarts is booming with there games and bringing out 1st ever additons with the new MMORPS Battlefront. It is only getting better.

DarthMuffin
04-10-2004, 01:37 AM
@ mastern64 :


If we were all real purists, we wouldn't be here. We would be in front a a huge flat screen TV looking at the classic movies.

But naval combat just doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, it's a strat game, but it's also a SW game. If we include naval stuff, we take the game away from the SW universe.

FroZticles
04-10-2004, 03:42 AM
With the sudden departure of boats your all forgetting one major down fall the lose of a resource fish!!!!!

Darth Windu
04-10-2004, 07:41 AM
That assumes that food will be a resource in SWGB2...

In my template, i only have Metal and Credits.

FroZticles
04-10-2004, 11:22 AM
Thats because you don't play online you want the fastest way to get your army finished and complete the campaigns. Others like a strategic game.

Darth Windu
04-10-2004, 12:46 PM
How, exactly, is removing food and re-vamping the resource system going to change that?

lukeiamyourdad
04-10-2004, 08:09 PM
Less ressources, less economical micro, less strategy.

So basically, when you feed your troopers, you feed them with metal and credits...interesting(except for the Separatist which kinda makes sense:D)

DarthMuffin
04-10-2004, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Less ressources, less economical micro, less strategy.


You could also say : Less ressources, less economical crap, more micro of the units :)

lukeiamyourdad
04-10-2004, 11:53 PM
In early games, economical micro means everything. Reducing it will turn it into...well a simple, like a good old forummer who hasn't been here in a long time, clickfest.

Just pumping out units and attacking the enemy without caring about anything else...yes...so strategic...

Poggle
04-11-2004, 12:37 AM
Its gotta be a balance we all need the space naval battles but we also want the groud battles and saber fights it a comprimise!

FroZticles
04-11-2004, 01:32 AM
How are you gonna fill out your maps Windu just have a bunch of metal desposits everywhere. Troops do eat and they also need carbon for there armor.

You don't have tech levels either so your template is a click fest hardly any stratergy involved.

Darth Windu
04-11-2004, 03:25 AM
luke - in the C&C series, there's only one resource and it's not a click-fest. Plus, you have to remember that you can only harvest resources within your borders, and at a rate defined by your amount of Economic Research (ie if you dont invest in Economic Research, you wont gather resources very fast). In addition, all resources are finite (Nova - which is delivered as Credits, and Metal) so in the end game players will need to have constructed and defended a few Spaceports to keep their economy going.

Jabba - actually we dont want Space battles in this game

FroZ - there will be Metal and Nova deposits, the Nova delivered as Credits. When you contruct a unit, it will require a certain amount of Credits and/or Metal. With Infantry, you do realise that the Credit cost translates into the purchasing of equipment and food for them right?
Also, no, i dont have tech levels because they are an abomination, slowing down gameplay and hurting realism.

FroZticles
04-11-2004, 07:46 AM
Your just cutting corners tech levels are the best way to go about it. 2 resoucres is far to easy people will be bored since the games will end so fast.

Darth Windu
04-11-2004, 01:24 PM
FroZ - tech levels hurt gameplay and are unrealistic - they are relics of the past. In terms of Resources, you obviously havent played the C&C series, i've actually had long, intense games which are more fun than SWGB because your miners only collect one resource, and do that automatically, so the player can concentrate of war.

FroZticles
04-11-2004, 03:53 PM
I'm well aware of C&C gameplay I own quite a few titles myself. You want to know why there online community lasts a month cause of the gameplay you praise so much.

DarthMuffin
04-11-2004, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
In early games, economical micro means everything. Reducing it will turn it into...well a simple, like a good old forummer who hasn't been here in a long time, clickfest.

Just pumping out units and attacking the enemy without caring about anything else...yes...so strategic...

Oh please, WC3 puts emphasis on unit micro, not on economical. IF you know how to play, it's much more strategy than AoE and SWGB.

...or lets say it's a different type of strategy, to stay politically correct

Admiral Vostok
04-11-2004, 10:33 PM
Exactly, more resources doesn't mean more strategy. It means more economy, but not more strategy. In fact I'm revamping my template and reducing it down to one collectable resource, because I think having only Credits suits Star Wars better.

Let's not forget there are other "kinds" of resources. My new idea has Credits (collectable from deposits on the map and through other means) as well as Power (which operates like the C&C Games) and Population (which operates like the Age titles).

Darth Windu
04-12-2004, 02:21 AM
Thats quite true. I have, in addition to collectable resources, population which must be researched (Civic) and then increased by the building of Barracks, Airbases etc and also Power which you have to have or your base simply wont function.

lukeiamyourdad
04-12-2004, 02:58 AM
Having more ressources pushes you to concentrate on looking for them and controlling the ressources. When you have 3-4 ressources, each one of them has a certain importance and each one of them has a degree of rareness on the map.

You're going to have to actually think about securing some Metal deposits while keeping the flow of credits constant and keep your food storehouses full.

When you have only one(this excluding power cores and population which are not ressources). It narrows down to leaving a few units around some location where the particular ressource is, leaving it there, not really caring about it since there's another one just around the corner.

Windu- If I recall, your vaunted RoN has a lot of ressources...interesting...
And claiming that tech levels hurt realism while keeping Nova is like...well saying black is better then white and then buy white stuff...

Darth54- I see you are correct. It is a different type of strategy. But then I've been playing a lot of CivIII...

FroZticles
04-12-2004, 06:04 AM
darth-WC3 is not an RTS its a RPS so stop comparing it with SWGB. SWGB is ten times the game WC3 ever will be and I know WC3 and TFT I played the campaigns and I want my money back.
IMO it isnt a click fest its a hero fest you hero rush your enemy send a few troops along for the ride very boring.

Vostok- Just killed your template.

Windu- Your template is a mixture of games so obvious, I find it very hard to find any direction of gameplay

Three or more resources slow down gameplay this is good because it keeps you interested in the game longer than just a credit grind....

Darth Windu
04-12-2004, 10:07 AM
luke - no, having 3-4 resources forces players to concentrate on building cities, not armies.
As for RoN, it does indeed have many resources, but i prefer the system Vostok and I have come up with to the RoN system.
With Nova, as i said it still exists, but it is basically just a physical manifestation of Credits - the name can be changed.

Getting back to the point, with resources, we have to ask one simple question. WHY AM I PLAYING THIS GAME?

Are we playing to build up big bases, concentrating on finding x-amount of different resources and have to constantly check what tech level we are at while producing small forces for skirmishes

OR

Are we playing to produce huge armies, and to fight our enemies in epic battles, while the base more-or-less takes care of itself, although the initial setting-up of the base requires a lot of attention?

saberhagen
04-12-2004, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Are we playing to build up big bases, concentrating on finding x-amount of different resources and have to constantly check what tech level we are at while producing small forces for skirmishes

OR

Are we playing to produce huge armies, and to fight our enemies in epic battles, while the base more-or-less takes care of itself, although the initial setting-up of the base requires a lot of attention?

Both. In SWGB (at least in team games, 1v1 is different) we build big bases and find and control the different resources but only so we can build big armies and fight epic battles. Having a good economy is not the whole point of the game, it's just a means to an end. If you can build a big army without the resource management it just gets too easy and boring. If you don't have significant resource management in the game you can just build as many of whatever type of unit you want, and where's the strategy in that?

lukeiamyourdad
04-12-2004, 03:28 PM
No one could have said it better saber.


EDIT: OOps I have mistaken saber for Froz. Sorry man

Darth Windu
04-12-2004, 03:57 PM
saber - you missed the point i was trying to make. What im asking what do we want the focus of SWGB2 to be on? Do we want to micro-manage our base/economy etc or do we want a bit more automation of those features so the player can concentrate more on battles and how those battles are played out? Personally, i would gladly reduce economic micro-management for more battle-time, because really that is the whole reason people buy RTS' - to fight. Otherwise, people can go out and buy SimCity.

Darth Windu
04-12-2004, 04:00 PM
saber - you missed the point i was trying to make. What im asking what do we want the focus of SWGB2 to be on? Do we want to micro-manage our base/economy etc or do we want a bit more automation of those features so the player can concentrate more on battles and how those battles are played out? Personally, i would gladly reduce economic micro-management for more battle-time, because really that is the whole reason people buy RTS' - to fight. Otherwise, people can go out and buy SimCity.

As for strategy, i made up for the reduction of economic-micro by adding the different research features, the concept of borders, and also the different pop-slot system (ie 8 Stormtroopers or 1 AT-AT).
This allows players to concentrate more on HOW they will fight the battle. As example is using the AT-AT. It is very powerful and well-armoured, but completely defenceless from the rear. Therefore, Imperial players will need to make sure their AT-AT's have escorts to protect them from flanking attacks.

DarthMuffin
04-12-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by FroZticles
darth-WC3 is not an RTS its a RPS so stop comparing it with SWGB.


About time someone realizes that! I've been saying this for ages...

Originally posted by FroZticles
SWGB is ten times the game WC3 ever will be and I know WC3 and TFT I played the campaigns and I want my money back.
IMO it isnt a click fest its a hero fest you hero rush your enemy send a few troops along for the ride very boring.

You played through the campaigns? Congrats man! You've officially played 5 % of WC3!

And heroes *have* to be important. You said yourself it was an RPS

(and just to keep the subject on-topic)

I'd say go for 2 resources. Keep the credits as the main one, but add another one used to make more specific stuff, such as advanced mechs and the like.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
Personally, i would gladly reduce economic micro-management for more battle-time, because really that is the whole reason people buy RTS' - to fight. Otherwise, people can go out and buy SimCity.

I agree 100%

FroZticles
04-12-2004, 04:50 PM
darth- I played it online for 3 months while having a break from SWGB and got bored of the constant heroes and spells.

Windu- upping your pop slots and an extra research or 2 is no replacement for 3 missing resources you haven't reduced economic micro managment you killed it altogether

DarthMuffin
04-12-2004, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by FroZticles
darth- I played it online for 3 months while having a break from SWGB and got bored of the constant heroes and spells.


Well, what's the point of playing WC3 if you don't like heroes? :confused:

Windu : I just noticed what you said about borders. I don't like it. Borders are fine for games such as RoN (in which you actually build cities), but in a future SW RTS, I doubt it would work correctly.

I agree for the pop. stuff though (8 storms = 1 atat, ect.)

lukeiamyourdad
04-12-2004, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Personally, i would gladly reduce economic micro-management for more battle-time, because really that is the whole reason people buy RTS' - to fight. Otherwise, people can go out and buy SimCity.


No, you missed it. You can have both.
Now you're comparing a strategy game with an RTS. Although they both have the word strategy in, they are two different genre.
By the way, where in SimCity do we see wars and huge battles? Nowhere.

Darth Windu
04-13-2004, 01:40 AM
luke - what i'm saying is that the focus of the game should be on battle - because that's why people buy the freakin' game!

There will have to be economic micro-management when you first set up your base. You will have to ask 'where do i want this structure, how many credits do i want in this research, how many workers do i want collecting resources' etc. That is unavaoidable, and a good thing. But once you have that done, you shouldn't need to constantly be checking to see if your workers are idle, if you've run out of resources etc causing you to take your mind of battle.

lukeiamyourdad
04-13-2004, 01:56 AM
You do realize that's how war is right?

War ain't only about the Military, from the beginning to the end.

FroZticles
04-13-2004, 04:01 AM
Windu with one resource its impossible to run out of resources so you will be in battle 99% of the time games will last 20 mins tops I assure you.

Darth Windu
04-13-2004, 06:03 AM
luke - no, it isn't. In Ep5, we don't see General Reikan saying 'we have to get those workers over the ridge to collect metal' or 'gee, where should i put these barracks'? War is about fighting, not building an economy. As i said, we shouldnt delete it, but it shouldnt require micro-management in the end game.

Also, with war being only about the miliatry, it depends on who we are playing as here. Are we playing as a Political leader or a Military commander? If it's political, the economy is very important, if it is Military, then battle is more important.

FroZ - how on earth did you come to the conclusion that having one resource means there will be a lot of that resource floating around?

FroZticles
04-13-2004, 08:19 AM
Windu you never think of gameplay you just want as much fighting and action as you can get if that means destroying the playability of games.

Darth Windu
04-13-2004, 10:35 AM
FroZ - yes, i do want a lot of action and fighting, but how exactly am i "destroying playability of games" and "never think of "?

DarthMuffin
04-13-2004, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
War is about fighting, not building an economy.

There's no war if you don't have a good economy. You gotta pay and feed those soldiers, after all.

And I think one resource like in Generals is bad. I'd say two, plus housing/food (wheter you want to make it like AoE or SC/WC)

Perhaps we should create a new topic... the title doesn't represent what we're talking about :)

Admiral Vostok
04-13-2004, 03:41 PM
Yeah, but we already have another naval combat topic. This is now the official resources topic.

Now, much has been said since my last post. Once upon a time I would certainly be in the three-to-four-resources camp, but I think I'm now in the one-or-two-resources camp.

It has been said that having more resources keeps the game more interesting, whereas only one resource leads to boredom. I disagree completely. Age of Mythology has three resources, four if you count Favor (which you should), but I now find that game boring as Hell (if indeed Hell is boring). C&C Generals on the other hand I love, and it only has one resource. I don't find it boring at all.Three or more resources slow down gameplay this is good because it keeps you interested in the game longer than just a credit grind....Slowing down gameplay does not keep you interested, it makes you bored. C&C Generals is filled with action which makes it interesting, while the gameplay of Age of Mythology is slowed down so that it becomes boring.

On the other hand SWGB has four resources and I don't get bored with that either. My point is more resources does not equal more fun.

When it gets down to it, three or four resources don't require any more strategy to use than one resource. You really just mine all the resources you can get your hands on, and late in the game you've got enough to exchange for what you need. The difference is that with one resource you don't need to do the exchanging part.

FroZticles
04-13-2004, 04:46 PM
Vostok maybe if you played games longer than a week you would have a different thought. AoM is about gods not SW. C&C generals is very boring they couldn't even get multiplayer balanced thats how great it is.

Admiral Vostok
04-13-2004, 05:56 PM
Must there be an insult in every post you make Froz?

My point was that many resources don't make a better game, but they don't make a worse game either.

The reason I like the single resource for my latest SWGB2 design is because it seems more Star Warsy. But I am open to suggestion. Let's review possible resources:

FOOD: I think this should really be the first to go. Food is represented by population - population represents both a place for the trooper to sleep and the rations they get each day.

CARBON: This works okay I think, though it is a bit of a stretch.

NOVA: Nova in it's existing form sucks. It is really too un-Star-Warsy.

ORE: The look of it (purple) sucks, but if it was a resource like Metal I think it could work.

GAS: One of the few resources we know they do mine in the Star Wars Galaxy. But how would it work? Would you have to build airborne facilities or just facilities that suck it down or have airborne workers...?

SPICE: Another resource we know they mine in the Star Wars Galaxy. If they mine it on the moons of Naboo, I don't really think it is too contraband, and perhaps suggestions in EU of it as such are incorrect, as much EU is. But the fact is Spice isn't found everywhere.

PLASMA: The Naboo plasma is a minable resource, but it is pssibly unique to Naboo, which means we can't stick it on every planet.

CREDITS: A while ago in a thread similar to this we determined Credits to be a better resource than Nova. In my original design I called it Wealth. Basically to recap what would happen is there might be a Wealth Resource, which would appear different on every map like Carbon does at the moment. So when on Naboo it might appear as Plasma, when on Kessel it might be Spice and when on Tattooine it could even be Water. Mining this resource instantly gives you Wealth/Credits. I like this one a lot.


So I think for a multiple resource model the best candidates for true Star Warsy-ness are Credits, Metal and Gas.

Maybe I'll change my single resource system into this...

lukeiamyourdad
04-13-2004, 09:52 PM
I'm also bored of AoM, but not because of its multi-ressources system. Well kinda...

It depends on whether we want tthe game to have a very fast pace, fast pace, medium pace, slow pace or turn-based.

Single ressources work easily in very fast paced games(name any C&C game), two ressources work well in fast paced games, 3-4 work well in medium paced games and more work for the slower paced games.

AoM faced the problem of trying to be a very fast paced game while having many ressources. Bad idea and problem.


Windu: Yes Windu. You who use so many real-life examples must surely know that a country with a good economy can get more supplies to their soldiers. Guess how did the Americans beat the Germans in WWII. They didn't have better weapons or better soldiers. They had endless amounts of supplies for them and their allies.
Thus, economy is a VERY important part of war.

Admiral Vostok
04-13-2004, 10:26 PM
I didn't say AoM was boring because of it's multi-resource system, I was saying multi-resource games aren't necessarily more interesting because AoM has a multi-resource system and it happens to be boring.

Darth Windu
04-14-2004, 02:35 AM
luke - i'm aware of that, but again, are we playing as a political or military leader?

vostok - the last time i suggested the Gas idea, you were one of thos eopposed to it...

DarthMuffin
04-14-2004, 01:22 PM
What? Some people are bored with AoM and Generals? Then come and join us in WC3! We've got anything you like, including skirmish, scenarios and automated tourneys!



I have to agree with Vostok on this one. The only resources should be credit, metal and gas. Personally, since I like 2 resources, I'd say keep the credit as the general resource, and add the metal for more advanced stuff. Of course I'd keep the food/housing system of Bliz./AoE.

Admiral Vostok
04-14-2004, 02:26 PM
Windu - I seem to remember I was the first one to suggest Gas as a resource. If you dig up the old thread on which this was first discussed you'll see that to be the case.

Darth - I thought about just the two resources, but the way my Credit resource works would make it a bit strange: every resource gives you Credits except for Metal, which for some reason you process yourself while all other resources just give you money. However if you have two resources in addition to Credits it seems a bit better. At least that's my feeling, which probably makes no sense to everyone else...

lukeiamyourdad
04-15-2004, 12:49 AM
OK, I'l step down from the huge multi-ressource throne I was sitting on.

I see that two ressources aren't my big fun, being a Civ3 fan, but I think that I can like a two ressources game. 3 like Vostok said makes more even more sense then only two. Credits, Gas and Metal should be ok + population.
Food could be removed and included in population.

Credits and Metal only can also work.

FroZticles
04-15-2004, 03:42 AM
Funny how people are manipulated just to please others.....


The resources should be carbon,ore,credits,metal

Darth Windu
04-15-2004, 10:35 AM
FroZ - why?
Carbon - unrealistic and unwanted
Ore - what exactly is Star Wars Ore?
Metal - obvious and realistic
Credits - currency of the Republic

So of the four you listed, only two make sence, which happen to be the two that my template uses :)

Everyone - with Gas, the last time i suggested we should have Tibanna Gas as a resource, i was shot down. The concept was to build the collectors we see in Ep5 at the Command Center, which automatically find and mine gas deposits in the air. As no-one liked that, exactly how would we use it?

DarthMuffin
04-15-2004, 01:22 PM
Vostok : I actually like your idea. Harvesting stuff would give you credits. That makes sense to me.

and no, I'm not being manipulated :) and we don't want the crappy 4 resources system from SWGB/AoE.

Admiral Vostok
04-15-2004, 01:33 PM
Luke - glad you agree that more resources don't make fun or strategy. Look at RoN: Food, Metal, Wood, Oil, and about twenty unique resources. Fun? Not particularly. Strategic? Not in the slightest. There are many elements that make a game fun or strategic, and having several resources isn't necessarily one of these elements.

Froz - please explain the difference between Ore and Metal.

And it's not called manipulation, it's called changing your mind. You know, something you criticised Windu for never doing? You should try it yourself sometime.

Windu - yes, now I remember. I didn't like your model because no resources should be found automatically, that's just too easy. Pump out the collectors and don't think about Gas for the rest of the game... even single resource games have more econ micromanagement than that...

I have just fully integrated Gas into my design, and as you will see it is a resource quite unlike any resource in existing RTS games so far. I think people will like it.

FroZticles
04-15-2004, 04:43 PM
Ore- in SW is used on nearly all structures to keep them solid.

Metal- Is a weaker form than ore and used on heavy weapons,droids and mechs.

Carbon- used on troop armor, weapons, droids, light mechs and some structures.

Darth- I wasn't even referring to you...

Admiral Vostok
04-15-2004, 05:26 PM
Oh okay. Might need a better name than Ore though, because in reality Ore is Metal.

lukeiamyourdad
04-15-2004, 09:19 PM
Instead of having Aerial Gas, why not have gas like in StarCraft?

It wouldn't be Tibanna Gas but it'll be gas.

Carbon is realistic. How come is it not?

Admiral Vostok
04-15-2004, 09:58 PM
But aerial gas is Star Warsy while gas like in StarCraft is not. Plus StarCraft has done it already.

Check out my new design and see what I've done with resources, the link is in my sig.

Darth Windu
04-16-2004, 02:55 AM
FroZ -
but what sort of Ore? I mean, in the real world, you get Uranium Ore, Iron Ore, Alumina Ore etc. What im asking is, what is this thing we are digging up? Incidently, i dont think i've come accross a single reference to it in EU

with Carbon, that really doesnt make sense either. Why cut down trees to make armour? I mean really, this is set in the future, and we have better methods now, besides this can be covered by Credits

FroZticles
04-16-2004, 04:38 AM
Well metal can be covered by credits as well but you still have them. I'm not having it taken from trees it is coming from rock deposits. Even if I wanted wood in my template I could it is made into structures also.

Corintium Intrusive Ore
Vintrium Extrusive Ore
Robindun Siliclastic Ore
Keschel Extrusive Ore
Unknown Sedimentary Ore
Malab Siliclastic Ore
Frasium Carbonate Ore
Chromite Carbonate Ore
Ostrine Carbonate Ore
Ilimium Extrusive Ore
Crism Siliclastic Ore
So all that I broke down into plain ORE!!!!!

Admiral Vostok
04-16-2004, 05:05 PM
While those are all Ore, they are also all Metal. So the analogy of having both Ore and Metal to mine is a bit weak.

the_holy_knight
04-16-2004, 05:12 PM
There shudn't be any ships unless we see naval combat in episode 3 which is unlikely. Just use admiral vostok's plan and the game will be the best ever!!!!
Fear the ewok!!!:ewok:

Admiral Vostok
04-16-2004, 05:29 PM
:D

Welcome, holy knight. Another Star Wars Purist? Ah, my legion grows ever larger...

General Nitro
04-16-2004, 10:13 PM
keep the navy! just for flavor.

lukeiamyourdad
04-17-2004, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by the_holy_knight
Just use admiral vostok's plan and the game will be the best ever!!!!

Ass-kisser;)

Welcome:D

FroZticles
04-17-2004, 03:51 AM
Just another spirit I can crush :D

joesdomain
04-23-2004, 07:29 AM
No naval units in a Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds 2 or next Star Wars Strategy Game. Just make the aircraft more powerful vs. ground units. Make certain ground units able to move through shallow waters. The troops will have to garrison inside large mechs or aircraft like AT-ST or AT-AT or Imperial Lander, etc.

MasterN64
04-23-2004, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Darth54
@ mastern64 :

Yes, it's a strat game, but it's also a SW game. If we include naval stuff, we take the game away from the SW universe.

No no no. Taking away stuff from the SW universe would be taking away jedi or clone troopers. Naval combat adds to the SW universe.

Darth Windu
04-23-2004, 01:58 PM
Actually Mastern, it does take away from the SW universe because we have never seen Naval combat, intergalactic naval combat doesnt make sense, and we have seen a total of three naval units in 5 films.

MasterN64
04-23-2004, 04:51 PM
How does it take away from the SW univrese? Just cause we didn't see it the movies doesn't mean we can't have it in a game. There is a lot in this game that isn't in the movies. Such as...

Confederacy/gungan/Republic fighters.
Naval Combat
Some Mechs
Most Bombers
etc.

Course without all this the game would be small and well, dull. AND think of all the other SW games that have EU stuff in 'em.
(Just to let ya know, KOTOR is 100% EU and it was one of the best-selling games that year.)

lukeiamyourdad
04-24-2004, 03:02 AM
There's a huge difference between KotOR and SWGB2. First off, KotOR can be totally EU since it's 4000 yrs before the rise of the Empire. Second, we are making a game centered around the movies so the movies should come first. Have we seen naval combat in Star Wars(The Clone Wars cartoon is not cannon and anyway there's not enough in there to make naval combat important)? No.

Finally, is naval combat necessary? No. We can do just fine without it.

MasterN64
04-24-2004, 02:49 PM
If there is no naval combat, i don't see the point of even having water. Therefore, all the maps in SWGB II will be land maps. Doesn't seem so bad does it? But, of course, some planets are centered on water, such as Naboo. And if your civilization is living around water, you would think that they would develop some kind naval units. In the first SWGB I think LA thought just to make it even, and that naval combat is a part of war, strategy, and a little star wars, they put naval for all. Did they make it even for all? No. Thats where the strategy part comes in. You use your strongest units against what they are good at killing (Not much strategy in there, but in this game, there are more techniques) Naval combat is not before or aftr the movies. Its filling in the gaps of the movies that you didn't see beforehand. And who knows? There may be naval combat in Ep III.

Admiral Vostok
04-24-2004, 04:38 PM
Mastern, obviously you've never played WarCraft III or C&C:Generals. Neither have naval combat but they still have plenty of water.

Until naval combat is in the movies, it should not be in a game.

The reason naval combat was in SWGB1 is because it was just a professional mod for AoC, which had naval combat in it. But despite the inclusion of naval combat in SWGB, it isn't really used all that often. When combined with the fact we just have no evidence naval combat even exists, it means there should be no naval combat in a Star Wars RTS.





And EU sucks. :cool:

Darth Windu
04-25-2004, 05:30 AM
And if your civilization is living around water, you would think that they would develop some kind naval units.

That's all good and well, but in my template the civ's are-
- Confederacy
- Empire
- Rebellion
- Republic

all of which are large galactic powers, so why would any of them need or want naval units when you have more capable air and ground units?

MasterN64
04-25-2004, 10:38 PM
Well, if thre was water where someone was fighting, and the enemy didn't have a navy, it be kinda obvious how you would do some things. (Cruisers would pwn) It would give a great advantage. (Turrrets can't reach if the cruisers are firing at the turrets themselves =P) this brings back a memory of mine...

Some guy was the Galactic Empire and I was Gungans (Not as bad as some guys think). We were playing a RM. He thought navy sucked and all that. I made 4 hvy cruisers and i took down so many forts it was extrememly funny!! I pwned him.

You don't need hvy cruisers, regualar cruisers still pach a punch. However, I do agree that frigates and all that are just a form of protection for cruisers. And I guess they can take out a shipyard if ya had enough destroyers.

General Nitro
04-25-2004, 10:43 PM
navy is good.

Admiral Vostok
04-26-2004, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by mastern64
Well, if thre was water where someone was fighting, and the enemy didn't have a navy, it be kinda obvious how you would do some things.Yes it would be obvious. Send in your Air Force and sink their ships. If fighters can take out a Death Star, I'm sure they can handle a boat.

lukeiamyourdad
04-26-2004, 04:57 AM
mastern- You're still thinking in SWGB1 terms. Try to think SWGB2.

MasterN64
04-26-2004, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
Yes it would be obvious. Send in your Air Force and sink their ships. If fighters can take out a Death Star, I'm sure they can handle a boat.

Yes but anti-air boats would be annoying for fighters wouldn't they?

We need to add to SWGB2 and not take away stuff that was in the first and make a new game outta it. We need EP. III stuff in it, and we need to carry over all the stuff that was in the first.

Admiral Vostok
04-26-2004, 05:37 PM
Yes but anti-air boats would be annoying for fighters wouldn't they?
No moreso than the defense guns on the Death Star.

As for taking things away from SWGB, think of this: WarCraft II had naval combat, StarCraft and WarCraft III did not. Red Alert 2 had naval combat, C&C:Generals did not. There is a pattern, and if the two biggest RTS makers in the industry feel naval combat isn't a good enough element to include, why should LucasArts feel differently?

Compa_Mighty
04-26-2004, 07:35 PM
No water units. Star Wars is so aquatic warfare-less that the Imperial Starfleet is called Imperial Navy, implying there's almost nothing they do on water.


Why would they?, they have fighters.

MasterN64
04-27-2004, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
No moreso than the defense guns on the Death Star.

As for taking things away from SWGB, think of this: WarCraft II had naval combat, StarCraft and WarCraft III did not. Red Alert 2 had naval combat, C&C:Generals did not. There is a pattern, and if the two biggest RTS makers in the industry feel naval combat isn't a good enough element to include, why should LucasArts feel differently?

Yes, but that nuisance wasn't as bad. At least the fighters in the movies could make manuvers.

Why should LucasArts be the same as everyone else?

Admiral Vostok
04-28-2004, 11:29 AM
They shouldn't be the same as everyone else. Ensemble, what I would call the third biggest RTS company, has always included naval combat and probably always will. What LucasArts games should be the same as is the LucasFilm movies. As such naval combat should not exist.

lukeiamyourdad
04-28-2004, 06:25 PM
ES is different. Their Age serie requires them to add naval combat. It is necessary for the realism.

Here, it isn't so.

FroZticles
04-28-2004, 10:04 PM
Naval combat does exist in the SW universe. It will reduce maps I quite like water maps like seperate islands and water combat. I can live without it but it might be nice more is better than less IMO.

lukeiamyourdad
04-28-2004, 11:27 PM
The think is we don't have a lot of material to build on. We only see a few ships in the whole SW universe. Besides, naval combat will have to be handled in an odd way for a sci-fi game.

Admiral Vostok
04-29-2004, 07:57 PM
Why do you say naval combat does exist in Star Wars, Froz?

FroZticles
04-30-2004, 04:56 AM
Naval combat does exist maybe not so much in the movies but it is in the storyline. SW games, cartoons and EU all have naval combat. SW does not stop at the movies, all EU goes through Lucas Licensing and is approved by his company so I accept it into the SW universe.

Vostok just admit with every passing game they make Purists are a dying race. :cool:

Darth Windu
04-30-2004, 11:09 AM
Actually Froz, Vostok is right. Ships are being increasingly ignored by RTS creators because they are so very limited in their uses. In addition to this, there are no combat naval vessels seen in SW, with about 3 total ships in the saga. I also dont recall ever coming across a combat naval ship in any of the books i've read, which is about 30.

You also have to realise that naval combat is unrealistic in the SW universe due to the nature of their weapons, such as the heavy use of aircraft/spacecraft. All naval units do is restrict mobility, and by their nature would have to be large, crew-intensive and expensive, so why would you want to build a navy, especially considering the civ's we will be playing as do planet-hopping campaigns?

Admiral Vostok
04-30-2004, 05:22 PM
The fact that you are not counted amongst the number of loyal Purists hardly means we're a dying race.

Expanding on what Windu said, it is not only the weakness that using dedicated naval units imposes that makes their use in Star Wars unlikely, but the fact that water-based combat can be performed by units we know of already. Here's some examples off the top of my head:

:atat: We know Droids are water-proof since we've seen R2-D2 fall into the Dagobah swamp. Therefore, Battle Droids could quite feasibly walk underwater, much like the cursed Pirates in Pirates of the Caribbean. This could also extend to Droid Starfighters.

:atat: The speed at which the MTTs could move through swamp indicates to me that hover mechanisms can still work on water. As such, all hover vehicles could feasibly fight on a large body of water.

MasterN64
04-30-2004, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
The fact that you are not counted amongst the number of loyal Purists hardly means we're a dying race.

Expanding on what Windu said, it is not only the weakness that using dedicated naval units imposes that makes their use in Star Wars unlikely, but the fact that water-based combat can be performed by units we know of already. Here's some examples off the top of my head:

:atat: We know Droids are water-proof since we've seen R2-D2 fall into the Dagobah swamp. Therefore, Battle Droids could quite feasibly walk underwater, much like the cursed Pirates in Pirates of the Caribbean. This could also extend to Droid Starfighters.

:atat: The speed at which the MTTs could move through swamp indicates to me that hover mechanisms can still work on water. As such, all hover vehicles could feasibly fight on a large body of water.

However that is not in the movies. besides, how do you7 know that the hover systems work the same as they do on land? Also, how do you know blaster fire is the same under water?

FroZticles
05-01-2004, 01:37 AM
I already stated we did not see much naval combat in the movies.

Battle droids can fight underwater they ride these half stap/swoop bike things.

We also know that droids investigated the gungan swamps cause of the rumors. Also states more underwater combat.

saberhagen
05-02-2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
Therefore, Battle Droids could quite feasibly walk underwater, much like the cursed Pirates in Pirates of the Caribbean. This could also extend to Droid Starfighters.

Would they have to shout "Arrrrrrr!" in a fake Devon accent?

joesdomain
05-03-2004, 01:09 AM
Just rid of naval vessels and just transport troops via air transports like Imperial Lander, Imperial Lamdba-class Shuttles, Rebel Medium Transport, etc.

joesdomain
05-03-2004, 01:11 AM
Just use bombers and fighters for air protection and to take out ground troopers, mechs, etc. Lamdba class shuttles are actually armed with some weapons and shields.

Admiral Vostok
05-09-2004, 07:06 PM
However that is not in the movies.No, and neither is any water combat at all. I'm working with what I've got.besides, how do you7 know that the hover systems work the same as they do on land?As I said, I assumed they do since the MTTs could rumble through the swamps so easily.Also, how do you know blaster fire is the same under water?I don't see why it wouldn't, really.

Admiral Vostok
05-09-2004, 07:07 PM
However that is not in the movies.No, and neither is any water combat at all. I'm working with what I've got.besides, how do you7 know that the hover systems work the same as they do on land?As I said, I assumed they do since the MTTs could rumble through the swamps so easily.Also, how do you know blaster fire is the same under water?I don't see why it wouldn't, really.
Would they have to shout "Arrrrrrr!" in a fake Devon accent?Most certainly. "Arrrrrr! Roger, roger."