View Full Version : Admiral Vostok's revised SWRTS design
04-15-2004, 09:05 PM
I have made many changes, and am eager to hear what everyone thinks. Some stuff is the same as the old design, but most is different, so you'll probably have to read through the whole lot to get all the little changes.
The biggest changes are:
:atat: Reduced the number of civs to five
:atat: Made the resource system more Star Warsy and unique
:atat: Added Heroes
:atat: Removed Jedi from all civs except Republic
:atat: Removed naval combat
:atat: Added special attacks which are like C&CG General Powers and AoM God Powers.
The address is http://vostok.150m.com/New/index.html or you can use the link in my sig.
04-16-2004, 01:45 AM
Well, i havent read it yet (brigning it up) but i already have one gripe. When i suggested that the Republic should be the only civ to get Jedi, everyone else including you said it was a really bad idea, and now it's in your template!
04-16-2004, 02:24 AM
Well I can change my mind, can't I? My reason for doing so is this: when you suggested it I didn't like it because I knew one of the things that sold the game to non-Star Wars fans was the fact you can use Jedi. But I realised that reducing Jedi to a single civ still allows you to use Jedi, as long as you play as the Republic. In fact technically I've made it so you can use Jedi no matter what civ you use because I've got Jedi Heroes.
So in conclusion, when you suggested it I saw it as reducing the Jedi which would not sell as well. But Jedi are still present, and I've made every civ has at least one Jedi unit, so it can work and I was mistaken. I apologise.
04-16-2004, 05:00 AM
Of course you can change your mind, i just find it odd that all of my idea's that everyone on the board objected to are now popular...
My template is similar in terms of Jedi, except that you can only build Padawan's, who then advance to Knight's by destroying enemy units. Also, the only civ in my template not to have a Jedi is the Confederacy, but then they have Grievous.
BTW looking at your template, i noticed that in explaining the cost of units, you still have 'food' and 'carbon' listed as resources.
04-16-2004, 12:36 PM
Wow, I'm impressed...
Removing Jedi for all but the Republic is a really good idea (I was afraid to bring it though) and reducing the civ number to 5 is superb. I'll read the complete design later, but so far it looks good :)
Edit : Ok, I started to read it, and it's really good. I like the way you gave the abilities to the heroes. Looks good so far...
04-16-2004, 04:25 PM
BTW looking at your template, i noticed that in explaining the cost of units, you still have 'food' and 'carbon' listed as resources.I did? Whoops, whereabouts is that exactly?
04-16-2004, 04:51 PM
I could have sworn that I once suggested that only the Republic should have jedi and that everyone said it was a bad idea. Maybe it's happened to all of us at various times, who knows?
04-16-2004, 11:44 PM
I don't like it, but since every civ gets a Jedi unit, I'll overlook it.
I've started reading last night but didn't have time to post. I'm only at the Overview part. So far so good!
04-17-2004, 02:45 AM
I hate it, vostok you want 95% realism and 5% gameplay it isnt gonna work.
04-17-2004, 12:24 PM
I didnt read it, and probably wont (no offense Vostok, I probably would never have read my own), but I didn't like the addition of powers and the like. Originality is key. I also have a personal objection to heros (only in AoM do they have a point because they are specificallly designed to counter something). I think it would be better if all the other civs could only build 2-3 jedi, and the reps could build as many as they wanted, but theirs would be weaker.
04-17-2004, 07:42 PM
I'm done reading it :)
And I like it :D
(but it looks like I'm the only one...)
04-18-2004, 03:40 AM
Froz: did you read it? If so please elaborate on bits that have no gameplay.
Sith: Well I hate putting artificial limits on units like Jedi, it is just messy when it can be worked out properly. My reason for heroes is quite simple: characters are central to Star Wars, so therefore a Star Wars game should include characters. Star Wars is more than just cool infantry and vehicles battling it out, and so should a Star Wars game be. But please take the time to have a proper read of it Sith, I'd be very interested in what you have to say.
04-18-2004, 10:06 AM
K I'll try to find the issues which annoy me the most
1. Heroes have no place getting shot down on the battlefield
2.Your template seems to change very time you play a new game...
3. What weapons require gas to build? Stealth resource does not support gameplay, gas is only used in poisons, medical packs, and some aircraft but most run on power in the SW universe.
4. In the metal description, you didn't say it makes weapons, unless you plan to make your weapons out of credits and gas?
5. Every civ should have a shield generator of some kind.
6. You were against rocket troops a few onths ago now every civ have one. Generals has really gotten to you.
7.Civs only build 1 building of power supply and thats all they have to do all game?
1. The hero abilities have really chessy names there nothing more than a 1 liner from the movie....
2. Why does Obi-Wan shut down power, Jedi are far beyond that ability
3. Do not like the dropship I have yet to see one construct a building.
4. Why do the prefabs stack on top? Is there a point besides "room saving"
5. The republic aircraft is not strong but carries there best unit.....
6. The beacon seems to much like C&C, The US had the same thing in generals....
1. The Star Destroyer special attack if our as pure as you say that could wipe out an entire base in minutes.
2. Worker seems over the top
3. For a huge Empire they seem really empty compared to a civ like the Republic
1. Do not like the name People of Naboo at all
2. Your idea with these is very obvious to see you slapped 2 civs together
3. Giving them a militia straight off is a bad idea it will be used to kill workers in the 1st minute of starting when they have no way to counter it.
4. What is the royal defender? a turrent? a garrison?
5. Smugglers just ride off and mysteriously find credits from where?
6. Bothans can transform why not just let them turn into a stormtrooper and spy like that instead of stealth? Zam Wessel was a bothan.
1. Why isn't the battle droid with the Trade Fed factory?
2. Shouldnt military heroes be non-jedi?
04-18-2004, 10:41 AM
FroZ- just thought i'd point out that Zam Wessel is NOT a Bothan
04-18-2004, 01:39 PM
Sorry I didn't check it up just took a wild guess, in one of the shots she kinda looks like one. Windu how long do you spend at starwars.com databank?
04-18-2004, 02:00 PM
Okay, thanks for the detailed feedback Froz, here goes...
1. This is a realism issue, which you thought I had too much of. It is much more fun for gameplay to include heroes, plus because the characters are so important in the movie any Purist will agree they deserve a place in a game.
2. This is true, and while the new games I play influence my thinking I don't believe they are exact copies, though I will admit some elements to the design are more obvious copies. Though still this point has nothing to do with realism...
3. I believe Tibanna gas is used in the manufacture of laser weaponry. Again though you're pointing out a problem with my not having enough realism.
4. No I didn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't. I merely stated the main thing it was used for (vehicles). Again related to you wanting more realism...
5. This point is evidence you didn't read the whole thing.
6. Not just Generals, everyone else on the forum. Before you were here we had a big debate about this, and everyone thought my idea of anti-air sucked. Well I came to realise it did. You'll note though that my anti-air infantry are far more diverse than Generals.
7. Nope, you read wrong.
1. That's the point, they are supposed to be lines from the movies. They serve as much better names than anything else.
2. This is a reference to A New Hope where he shuts down the tractor beam. Looking at Obi-Wan in both AotC and ANH, it seems he's best at infiltration missions, so I wanted his power to reflect that.
3. Well we didn't see any buildings constructed on the battlefield did we? It's an extrapolation of course, but I thought it would look especially characterful for the Republic to have all their stuff dropped in.
4. Making them unique and more Coruscant-like.
5. That's right.
6. Yes it's true, but it works so well for the Republic.
1. Again this is an issue with you not thinking there is enough realism. Obviously for reasons of gameplay we can't have it do that. And since we never actually see a Star Destroyer bombard, it isn't a question of Purism.
2. I guess you mean the Builder. It's not much different from the dozers in Generals actually.
3. Well what can I say, that's all the units we see in the movies, plus some.
1. Well think of a better one for me then.
2. It was meant to be. Glad it worked as I wanted.
3. Actually the Kaadu Rider they get at the start has no attack, but is upgraded to have one later in the game.
4. Yes, a turret.
5. I think this is a point for the Rebels, but anyway they fly off the map, obviously to a different planet or something.
6. Again a point for the Rebels. Bothans can't transform, Zam Wessel was a Clawdite.
1. Because all Battle Droids are made by the Techno Union, not the Trade Federation.
2. They are. General Grievous is not a Jedi, he's a droid who has slain many Jedi and collected their lightsabers. And before you cry about Purism, it has been confirmed Grievous is a major character in Episode III.
So it seems while you think I've got 95% realism, it seems like many of your points were asking for more. And while you think I've only got 5% gameplay, a few of the issues you have are because I chose gameplay over realism. You are most confusing, Froz.
04-18-2004, 10:31 PM
Windu how long do you spend at starwars.com databank?
That was classic.
04-19-2004, 02:28 AM
I know enough about EU to know that Wessel isn't/wasn't a Bothan.
Getting back to Vostok's idea, having read most of it, my main concerns are-
1. Shoddy power names - come on Vostok, like FroZ said, one-liners just sound terrible
2. I really dont like the concept of gas. Apart from it being irrelevant, you say that to show it normally would clutter up the screen - well what do you think the collectors are going to do?
3. Advancing - WHY oh why did you put tech levels in? This is probably THE worst thing about your template.
4. On the overview page is where Carbon and Food make their apprearence under 'cost'
5. Why did you have to put turning in? One of the worst, if not THE worst, feature of AoE and AoK hurts gameplay and is completely unrealistic
6. Political and Military heroes are unnecessary, this isnt 'Star Wars: Generals'
7. Aircraft shouldn't hover in mid-air. This is not only unrealistic, but it also means that all aircraft can never be hit by ground fire
8. Cargo Skiff's and Slaves? Sure this isnt the Hutt Cartel? Seriously though, this doesnt feel like the Empire that everyone knows and loves
9. Specialist Stormtroopers aren't necessary, Stormies just get changed
10. Mounted Stormtrooper? Can't see how this will work, since the Empire is mech-heavy and these were only used because AT-AT's and AT-ST's would sink into the sand
Otherwise, i dont have complaints, and i must say i LOVE your unique building ;)
11. Like FroZ, i dont like your dropship concept, it seems a bit forced to me
12. Same with 'beacons' - they didnt use them and shouldn't need them
13. So the ONLY Republic defensive building is a garissoned Command Center? Must say, one of your worst ideas
14. Don't like the negotiations hall, it's just more pop slots that are taken up by non-combat units
15. Well, i dont think they should be in as a playable civ, so i really dont have much to say
16. I've already said that i dont like the concept of building trenches - and i still dont
17. I hate the concept of closing the X and B-wing's wings. It worked in RS2&3, but here it just means more annoying micro
18. I really cant see the Seperatists using Geonosians weapons rather than their own, but still...
19. Again, one of your worst ideas in the template, the concept of different buildings to produce the seperate entities units. It is abysmal and, while good for realism, is shocking for gameplay
04-19-2004, 03:41 AM
1. I agree with windu about the buildings with confed issue. I was shocked to see the hailfire droid in the same building as a worker.
2. Greivous is a non-humanoid droid, and the list goes on. He may not be a Jedi, but to hunt them like he does, he is definately attuned to the force one way or another. I aready knew he was making a debut, in Episode 3 otherwise I would have said something when it sent into Windu's template.
3. Naboo does not fit in with these titan civs.
04-20-2004, 04:20 AM
On Windu's points:
1. One liners are cool, because they're from the movies! What are you people on about? If you can suggest better names I'm ready to hear them.
2. Yeah the collectors will clutter it up, but if there's a gas cloud that isn't being mined you don't want it getting in the way of a battle. If it's already being mined this isn't an issue. I like it because we haven't seen anything like it in an RTS game, it's a - shock! - original idea.
3. Tech Levels help to limit the rate at which you can gain access to the most powerful units. Most games have them, even your beloved RoN - in case you hasn't noticed the researching at the Library is thinly disguised tech levels.
4. Thanks, shall fix it.
5. Turning is an important part of the Sith. Every single Sith Lord we've seen on screen tries to do it (except Maul, but he doesn't have much dialogue). Darth Vader tries to turn Luke at Cloud City, the Emperor tries to turn Luke in the Death Star Throne Room, and Dooku tries to turn Obi-Wan while he's held prisoner. So I don't see what's so unrealistic about it.
6. I wanted them in so I can include Han, Leia, Padme, and all the other important people who aren't as powerful as Jedi.
7. Yeah I might change that. I just don't like them returning to a base all the time, it doesn't seem very Star Warsy.
8. Well the Cargo Skiffs won't look the same, but they will be skiffs that carry cargo... so why call them something else? And slavery was legal under the Empire, so it seems appropriate. Feels like the Empire I know and love.
9. That's true but I wanted more units for the Empire, so it seemed logical.
10. Well I wanted to include every unit from the movies, why leave anything out?
11. How is the dropship, a unit we actually see in the movies, more forced than anything else would be? Having Dexter's waitress droid as the Republic worker in SWGB, now that was forced. If the dropship drops in heavy vehicles, it makes sense it would also drop in heavy equipment, which could include supplies and be extrapolated to buildings.
12. I think it suits them.
13. It's not a Command Centre, it's a Forward Command Centre, which operates kind of like a bunker.
14. Well we all know how you feel about non-combat units. They need a trader like everyone else.
16. Why the hell not? They've got them in the movies. And they aren't foxholes like your idea, they're proper trenched.
17. Not really. I think it would be quite useful. You're being attacked on the other side of the screen, you select your X-Wings and hit the S-Foils hotkey, zoom them to the conflict, hit the S-Foils hotkey, and there you have it. Very useful, and very realistic.
18. Geonosian weapons are their own.
19. No it isn't. Don't assume all units are buildable as soon as the building is built, that's why I've got Tech Levels. Also I'll have limitations like you need a second type of building before you can build something (like Mounted Troopers needing the Animal Nursery). It's a nice little something different for the Separatists, rather than have everyone with boring generic buildings.
04-22-2004, 11:10 AM
1. Yeah, but as a power name they sound really, really, really bad
2. Yes, it is original, but i dont think it'll work. Gas in the ground would be a better idea
3. They do indeed, but there are better ways to do it. In my template, a player has to invest in Military Research which will then give out access to new units and technologies at a rate defined by the amount of resources being channelled into this research. It has the same effect of denying units like the AT-AT early on, but gets rid of unrealistic and micro-heavy tech levels
5. Indeed, but the majority of the turning we will be seeing is on standard battlefield units, not other heroes. That is one of the reasons i gave Vader the ability to drain enemy units to boost his own health rather than the ability to turn units
6. They still can be included, i actually have a really good idea for a Republic campaign mission that involves Padme. The only difference is that you can't build heroes
8. Where in the films does tghe Empire have slavery? This is why i have the AT-CV, and also using the Imperial Shuttle for resources would be far better than a Skiff. It is more realistic
9. But still doesnt make sense...
10. Because they don't belong there. Actually, what you could do is make an art change, so that on Desert worlds, the AT-PT changes to the Dewback Trooper
11. That is the reason i used the AT-CV, it just seems better to me. Also, you have to realise that the Dropship probably couldnt carry buildings, they would be too heavy and/or too big
12. I disagree. Where were the beacons on Geonosis? All you do is have the 're-inforcement' ability ready and then specify where they will be dropped off - simple
13. So as i said, the ONLY republic defensive structure has to be garissoned to work? Talk about unbalanced...
14. Why? The trader is an unnecessary unit that simply wastes pop slots
16. Because they are too micro-intensive, i prefer my idea much more
17. Okay then, make it automatic. Otherwise, players simply wont use it or will be disadvantaged by it
18. So why are the Confederacy using them for base defence?
19. That's not my complaint. I dont like this concept because it forces players to search through 3 or 4 different buildings to produce, for example, different mechs. It is too complicated. Why do you think there are generally one mech building, one infantry building etc in other RTS'?
04-22-2004, 01:37 PM
1. I couldn't disagree more. They are far better than any other name.
2. Gas in the ground is not Star Warsy. I'm going for a game that feels like Star Wars, not StarCraft.
3. So you're saying my Classification approach, which requires a total of two uprades, is more micro than your Military research, which requires several more? Your world's logic does not represent our own.
5. Never the less, turning is still an ability, more so than Vader sucking health from others.
6. Well I wanted to include them in multiplayer, which is what keeps a game alive. This is the best way to do so.
8. C-3PO makes a comment that if captured they'll be sent to work in the spice mines of Kessel. Since it would hardly be normal for a protocol droid and an astromech droid to become miners, I assume this is said because the Empire turns those the capture into slaves. The EU quite naturally supports this. You may notice I have a Construction Droid for building and the Cargo Skiff for gathering, all the Slave really does is mine. However I do agree the Imperial Shuttle is better than a Cargo Skiff, so I'll make the necessary changes there. But the Slave is staying, because we need a Miner.
9. Makes sense to me. For example, on Endor there were Stormtroopers and Scout Troopers fighting side by side. So it is perfectly normal.
10. You must be joking. There is no way the AT-PT and a Dewback-riding Stormtrooper would be anything alike stats wise. The Mounted Stormtrooper is a unit from the movies, so it's going in the game.
11. Hardly. If it can carry an AT-TE, which is the size of a building, I don't see why an actual building would be a stretch. They would of course be specially transportable buildings, made light-weight and perhaps even folding up to transport. An AT-CV like unit is more suitable for the Empire I think.
12. No, you misunderstand. The reinforcements aren't dropped at the Beacon, the Beacon just gives you access to the Reinforcement ability, which you can use anywhere.
13. Well perhaps I'll change it so it has an attack, and is garrison-able.
14. Traders aren't unnecessary. They are necessary for trade.
16. Well your idea is not only unrealistic, it is far more micro-intensive than mine. Taking ideas from a game that are suitable is one thing, but taking an unsuitable idea from a game is something else entirely.
17. It shouldn't be automatic, because in my plan if Air units fly over enemy ground units while in transit they get a few shots off at them. You wouldn't be able to do this with closed s-foils. However if a unit is attacked while in flight mode, they'll automatically open s-foils to engage the enemy.
18. Why shouldn't they?
19. Well it worked for WarCraft III, I don't see why it couldn't here. It adds a lot of character, adds more uniqueness and adds reality.
EDIT: I've now made the following changes:
- Fixed the references to Food and Carbon in the Overview.
- Given the Republic Forward Command Center an attack.
- Changed the Imperial Resource Collector to the Imperial Shuttle.
Also, I've given a new ability to Imperial buildings to make the Empire more interesting. Read about it under Imperial Defensive Buildings (http://vostok.150m.com/New/GalacticEmpire.html#DefensiveBuildings).
04-22-2004, 09:52 PM
I disagree. Keep the Republic forward command center the way it was. StarCraft's Terran bunker anyone?
It was by far the best defensive structure in the game it wasn't unbalanced at all.
04-23-2004, 12:25 AM
Well I actually had the Terran bunker in mind when thinking of it, as well as the Chinese bunker from Generals. However both those civs also have a second defensive building too. So I just added a missile attack to the Forward Command Centre.
Speaking of Republic rockets, what do people think of my way of upgrading Clone Troopers to carry missile packs based on Jango's as their anti-air trooper?
04-23-2004, 02:35 AM
Well, personally, it sounds weird. I always pictured Jango's jetpack as some kind of unique weapon or at least a special commando weapon.
Forward Command Center- Doesn't that kill it's purpose of being a bunker? Bunkers require people to be inside. That's what it should be. Perhaps change it so that all other civ's turrets need to be manned before being used.
04-23-2004, 03:30 AM
2. The point im trying to make here is that it's unpractical. It is original, and well done for coming up with it, but it will interfere with seeing your units.
3. Yes, because in my system the player sets a percentage of their credits to invest in that research, and so they dont have to go back to that building to actually get the upgrades and new units. Basically, it's like you are giving credits to weapons scientists who then come up with new and improved gear. As you can see, it is more realistic and better for gameplay to old tech levels
6. But by putting them in multi-player you destroy the concept of the game. Ask yourself why people will be fighting in multi-player. Will it be to produce heroes like Luke, Padme, Vader etc or will it be to see huge armies collide in battle? There are a million and one game out there centered on heroes, this one should concentrate on large battles
8. We all know C-3PO's habit of over-exadurating, and besides, it could be that only droids are used as slaves
9. The scout-troopers are still in the game on the speeder bikes. The Snowtroopers and Sandtroopers are just Stormies in different gear
10. It was an idea - i didnt say it was a GOOD idea.
11. But did you see HOW it carried the AT-TE? It is specifically designed to carry battlefield units into battle, not doing building drops
14. They are unnecessary. With my template, you build a Spaceport and so neutral cargo ships come in, land at your spaceport and are taxed, eat food etc which gains you credits. WOW that didnt need a useless pop-wasting unit
16. Hardly, instead of having to build itty-bitty bits of trenches at a time, my Rebels simply deploy into their own trenches with the click of a button, whereas your have to build the trench (tedious) then garisson it
17. Which brings us back to the fact that it doesnt belong in the game...
18. Why would they? The Confed's would use blasters, not Geonosian weapons
19. It adds a lot of confusion, heaps more micr-management and people not playing as the confed's
Also, with the Clone Trooper getting an AA upgrade, i don't like it. It makes their infantry far too powerful, and it also unrealistic (Jango wasnt holding an Assault Rifle when he was wearing his jetpack...)
04-23-2004, 03:32 AM
Sorry. I won't post every comment I make in a single post since I read it progressively.
Just finished Empire, Rebels and Naboo/Gungans.
I'm fine with most of it. Although...
1. Why give everyone a missile trooper? It's ok for some of them but overall it kind of feels forced.
2. The AT-AT can carry mechs?! I don't think an AT-ST will fit properly inside an AT-AT. It may be large but not THAT large.
3. Instead of an unrealistic flame attack, why don't you give the mounties pikes?
4. No comment:D
5. The swamp gives the defender too much of an advantaged. Maybe a defense bonus but not stealth.
6. Same thing for the Sacred Place. Its ability is ok, depending on the number of units affected by the stealth field. However, remove its population capacity. I know it's there for realism, but it's a roacher's heaven.
04-23-2004, 09:00 AM
I agree with all of luke said except, the person on the mount controls the weapon they are equipped with so its not unrealistic.
Your template vostok use to be decent, so many things are going wrong the more you change it I think you should start all over.
04-24-2004, 03:30 PM
2. Well I think the fact it is invisible unless a detector is nearby will help solve that, and if resource gatherers are near it (making it visible) it won't matter because most likely the battle will be centering on the gatherers. I don't intend them to be huge clouds covering the battlefield, so I think they should be okay. Keep in mind to that space taken up by gas would be taken up by a different resource anyway.
3. Yes, that is slightly more realistic, but is more micro so I prefer the simple tech level approach, like most games do.
6. There are plenty of other games giving you huge battles too. Star Wars is mostly about the characters, not the battles, so the characters should at least play a part.
8. True, but why give the Empire a droid like everyone else when we can give them slaves? Don't forget Chewbacca was a slave once.
9. But on forest maps, these Specialist Stormtroopers will appear as Scout Troopers. It's not like the Empire has too many units as is.
11. The only military building of the Republic we've seen is the Froward Command Centre, although we haven't seen much of it. Now do you think that was constructed on the battlefield or dropped in via dropship? Since we haven't seen any other buildings, there's no way of knowing whether the dropship is designed to carry them as well.
14. No, you're right, it didn't. It also didn't require any thinking at all. Of course you're going to build it if you get credits for free. The Trader makes you think "would I rather have the pop slot or some credits coming in?" Is there any way to disrupt your trade routes? Let's put a bit of strategy in your RTS, Windu.
16. My idea is no more tedious than building a wall then garrisoning it. Sure a little more thinking required than yours, but at least mine is realistic and won't end up looking messy with Troopers in foxholes all over the place. And mine is original.
17. I thought we were making a Star Wars game here? If so, it certainly does belong.
18. But everyone else used blasters too. Giving the Separatists a Sonic Weaponry defence, which they would have access to because the Geonosians are part of the Confederacy, makes them a bit more unique than all the other blaster-using civs.
19. No it doesn't. It didn't in WarCraft III and it won't here.
1. Well the fact it feels forced is why I didn't put them in originally, but everyone hated my Troopers-shooting-Air idea so much I relented. Giving the Clone Troopers the rocket packs was meant to make it feel less forced.
2. According to EU, AT-ATs can carry AT-STs.
3. I don't think a flame attack is too unrealistic. Sure we didn't see it used, but if you think about what the mounted Stormtrooper looked like, he had a big bulky back pack, with a long gun-like weapon. It could quite concievably be a flamer. If it was just a pike it doesn't explain the huge pack.
5. Yeah you're right. Making them stealth doesn't really suit them either, now I think about it. Just a defense bonus then.
6. Okay, maybe I'll just make it so the civilian units can use it as a garrison too, like with the Houses, but no military units can garrison.
At which point did you think it was decent? Before I did my revise, or before I tweaked it after the revise?
04-25-2004, 04:40 AM
6. 'Obi-Wan', 'Jedi Power Battles', 'JK2', 'JK3', 'Dark Forces', 'Republic Commando', 'Clone Wars', 'Rouge Squadron', 'Rogue Leader', 'Rebel Strike' etc There are been so very many character based games that there is no need to turn an RTS into one as well. You forget, Vostok, that the whole point of an RTS is the control of large armies, not individuals. If you want to control single people, go any play the games i have listed above. Where though, do you go to play with huge armies? SWGB and 'Force Commander' - wow, great choices there.
Generals are good for RTS', but only for the single-player game, and they should not be battle or war-winning weapons by themselves. We want this RTS to re-create battles from the Clone Wars and Galactic Civil War, not to re-hash character-based games on a different level.
8. Really? Please tell me exactly where, in the films, it states that Chewbacca was a slave.
16. Why the hell would you build a wall and then put people in it???
To be blunt, i have to agree with FroZ that your idea has actually gotten worse. There are some good concepts, but your main weaknesses are simply taking from other games (like the Republic defensive building) and trying to turn an RTS into a character-based game.
I would strongly suggest just scraping this and coming up with something new because, really, this is not up to your usual standard.
On a side note, i hearby remove you from your position as 'Lord of the Purists'. Claiming that Chewbacca was a slave, and that AT-ST's fit inside AT-AT's is going too far. :)
04-25-2004, 05:00 AM
The fact that Chewbacca was a slave makes sense, an AT-AT carrying an AT-ST does not.
I would suggest you(Windu) not to blame VOstok for taking concepts from other games. You were the first to be flame because of that.
In responses to Windu's comments(I know they're not directed to me but I had to add something):
6. Where do we see uber heroes in Vostok's templates? But then what, where do we see in the movies, heroes NOT taking part in huge battles?
Like always, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You claim you want to recreate the battles from the Clone and Galactic Civil Wars but you don't want the heroes to be in?
Does General Kenobi ring a bell? And what about Commander Skywalker? Or General Calrissian? But then what there's also General Solo, Grievious, Windu...
Those are movie characters who participated in several battles of both wars.
8. Tell me where in the films it states that Chewbacca isn't a slave? ;)
16. Why the hell did they dig those trenches in ESB?!
6. Maybe just remove its stealth capabilities. Even with only civilians, it's a roacher's heaven. Either its stealth or its population.
04-25-2004, 03:25 PM
Well, Luke's Dad did all my rebuttal for me. Thanks.
I might just add a bit more though:
6. My game is not "character-based". It merely includes characters. You don't play the game for the characters: their powers don't turn the tide of war at all, unlike WarCraft 3. You play the game for the large battles, as you said, but in order to properly recreate such battles characters must be included.
8. While it doesn't explicitely state Chewbacca is a slave, the fact he was is, unlike other EU, written by George Lucas. George Lucas wrote the background to Han and Chewie's relationship, which included Han rescuing Chewie from slavery. So my Purity is still intact.
16. I didn't say they build a wall, I said it's like building a wall. Trenches are long and straight, like walls. What you have is foxholes, not trenches. We saw no fowholes in Star Wars, but we did see trenches.
However, you are correct that I have taken too much from other games this time around. It came about because I've recently been added to the staff of Star Wars: Imperial Assault, the Star Wars mod for Generals. So my thinking has been influenced a lot by that and I guess it was too hard to escape the Generals mind set. I shall attempt to redo the design once more.
With respect to my Purism, I guess an AT-ST wouldn't fit inside an AT-AT. I actually don't know where I got that idea from, it actually isn't from EU... so thank you for pointing out the error of my ways. I'll just take my crown back now...
Luke's Dad: Perhaps I could make it so that once all Government Centres are destroyed, the Sacred Place loses it's stealth and can no longer garrison units.
04-25-2004, 04:22 PM
My main gripe with your template is that you seem to be taking a lot of concepts from other games, as have i, but you seem to be taking really bad ideas, like giving the Republic only one defence building.
In addition, a lot of the units in your concept seem forced to me. Imperial slaves, Specialist Stormtroopers, Tauntaun's with Flame Throwers (Roast Tauntaun anyone?), Imperial Dewback Troopers etc. You dont have to add things from the films if they dont make sense, like the Dewback Trooper.
Also, with your Heroes, my point stands. This game is about the big battles, not the few people who are the focus of the films. This game should be driven by the desire for huge, epic battles between Clones and Droids, not seeing Obi-Wan and Dooku fight.
Finally, with Chewbacca, if you could give me a link to where Lucas says Chewy is a slave, i'd appreciate it, until then it's just EU.
As i said before, stop trying to force every unit from the films into the game, and you also need to realise that Original concepts dont necessarily mean good concepts, and that diversity (ie Confed's geonosians cannons) is not necessarily a good thing.
04-25-2004, 05:20 PM
Why can't we have both the Epic Battles between Clones and Droids (and presumably normal humans too for the Empire and Republic) and the fights between characters? I've designed my heroes is ways so that they will contribute to the big battle feeling as a whole: if you focus on your heroes you will lose, but if you put a hero in amongst you huge army, you'll do well.
I've explained why Slaves and Specialist Stormtroopers aren't forced. Your right about the Tauntaun with a flamer, I forgot about that, I shall change it. And perhaps I should think of a better role for the Dewback, because you're right in that it isn't a very combat-oriented unit.
So I guess it's back to the drawing board. But there are two things definitely staying:
1. My resource system. I like it, very original, very Star Warsy. The gas could be a bit weird, but I'm confident it could work just as well as any other resource I could put in there.
2. My Hero system. I may change some of the powers as I see fit, but on the whole a Star Wars game needs characters, it doesn't matter that it is an RTS.
04-26-2004, 04:30 AM
The problem i have with Heroes and epic battles, is that in the battles, you are controlling a lot of units and are really controlling groups instead of the individual units, whereas with Heroes, they need a lot of micromanagement, so i just cant see them going together well.
Of course, i have Officer's in my template, but their bonus' are automatic (no micro required!) so they doesnt make any difference. I also have heroes, but they only appear in single-player and scenario's, but again, their powers are automatic. I probably wouldnt have as much of a problem with your heroes but for the number you have. I really think that three unique heroes per side is excessive.
As for the points you raised-
1. It is very original, and is somewhat starwarsy, i just dont think that it's practical
2. I know that, which is why i havea few Heroes and officers in my template, i just think you've gone overboard with the concept
04-26-2004, 04:47 PM
Well I wanted to avoid micro-management for heroes as much as possible, because I agree with you on that aspect. As such, my Heroes have pretty straight-forward abilities, which require a minimum of micro. If I was to actually build this I'd use shortcuts like F1 selects Jedi Hero, F2 selects Military Hero and F3 selects Political Hero.
The only hero who does require some micro is the Jedi Hero. This is because I intend him to be used as more of an individual, not part of the army.
Now that I think about it though, I suppose I could reduce micro even more. I'll do a review of the micro required for heroes when I redo the design. I might change it so heroes have a single generic power and a single unique power. The generic power will probably be an aura that operates continuously but the unique power might be something different. Or perhaps you could set an option like in WarCraft III where the hero will perform abilities automatically? This might work best because special abilities work automatically in AoM as well.
04-28-2004, 09:10 PM
It starting to get a RPS feel......
Any more microing for heroes and it will be one. And calling them heroes just adds to the micro i ment characters/units :D
04-29-2004, 06:44 AM
There is no way this is anything like an RPS. I suggest you learn what an RPS is.
05-09-2004, 06:41 PM
Well, I've altered things only very slightly, but I think it improves things a lot.
1. I removed a power each from the Military and Political Heroes. Now they only have a generic power, which is operates constantly in an aura (so needs no micro at all) and a unique power which is activatable.
The Jedi and Sith keep their powers the same, because they should be used like characters in an RPS, although they are not like RPS characters in their power or operation.
:atat: Description of Heroes (http://vostok.150m.com/New/UnitClasses.html#Heroes)
2. I got rid of the "Special Attacks" because they were obvious rip-offs of the Generals superweapons. However, I wanted something that matched the superweapons and Generals Powers from C&C:G and the God Powers from AoM. So I came up with a new idea: Advanced Tactics.
Basically with Advanced Tactics you can make your faction focus on a particular strength while neglecting other areas. There are both advantages and disadvantages to using Advanced Tactics, so they balance out. Check them out and let me know what you think. I should mention I am not wed to what actually happens with the Advanced Tactics; if you have a better idea then I'm willing to hear it.
:atat: Overview of Advanced Tactics (http://vostok.150m.com/New/Overview.html#AdvancedTactics)
:atat: Galactic Empire Advanced Tactics (http://vostok.150m.com/New/GalacticEmpire.html#AdvancedTactics)
:atat: Galactic Republic Advanced Tactics (http://vostok.150m.com/New/GalacticRepublic.html#AdvancedTactics)
:atat: People of Naboo Advanced Tactics (http://vostok.150m.com/New/Naboo.html#AdvancedTactics)
:atat: Rebel Alliance Advanced Tactics (http://vostok.150m.com/New/RebelAlliance.html#AdvancedTactics)
:atat: Separatist Movement Advanced Tactics (http://vostok.150m.com/New/SeparatistMovement.html#AdvancedTactics)
3. I've expanded on Windu's idea and introduced my own minor civilisations that can be used in multiplayer games.
:atat: Overview of Minor Civilisations (http://vostok.150m.com/New/Overview.html#NeutralTowns)
:atat: Full Descriptions of Minor Civilisations (http://vostok.150m.com/New/MinorFactions.html)
05-09-2004, 07:44 PM
I don't really like the advanced tactics. They seem really forced into the template.
Especially the Rebel ones but the Naboo ones are also crazily unbalanced. You seem to have two civs relying only on stealth. I know it's realistic but balance should always be a factor.
Most of them are also unnecessary. There's not even a point in using them really. Keeping it the regular way seems more logical.
We all know that a combine force of mechs, infantry and aircrafts should always prevail yet here, you're almost forced to choose between certain classes.
05-10-2004, 01:11 PM
Remember you don't have to chose an Advanced Tactic.
As I said they're really there as an answer to Generals Powers and God Powers. I'm open to suggestion as to how to implement them better, but if you really think there is no hope for them I'll give them up.
05-11-2004, 01:11 AM
Your still walking through the Generals backwater. Its like the factions of Zero Hour where you choose a type of General and they are advanced one way and weak in others. You have just modified it.
Even if I kind of liked the idea they are not good tactics. I hope you realise giving Rebel and Naboo troops stealth is a pain in the a***. You got cheap stealth troops hiding all over the map.
Oh and with all those things where is the balance....
Still kept those chessy one liners I see.
05-11-2004, 11:02 AM
Okay fine, I'll get rid of the Advanced Tactics. Perhaps I'll do a bit of thinking as to what unique techs each faction gets.
And of course I'm keeping the one-liners. They are by far the most interesting and characterful way to describe a power.
vBulletin®, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.