PDA

View Full Version : Unit Massing


lukeiamyourdad
06-21-2004, 10:13 PM
After our game today, I thought about this.

Everyone massed units. We threw masses of units against each other. I thought this was very unstar warsy when it comes to the particular civs we were playing. I mean, come on, none of the civs(except for saber's confed) would mass so many units(especially my desperate 200 rebel troopers).

So, should SWGB2 discourage massing units?

Sithmaster_821
06-21-2004, 11:55 PM
No.

Large amounts of units in the game give it an epic feel. I think that the typical army size range in SWGB was good enough to make the game seem epic without being overwhelming (ie, no 500 unit games). Maybe a little smaller for grphical and balance reasons, but I dont want Galactic Battlecraft.

lukeiamyourdad
06-22-2004, 12:55 AM
But is it truly star warsy to have 50 Naboo bombers and 50 Naboo Fighters thrown into the melee?

FroZticles
06-22-2004, 01:54 AM
Luke you should be asking yourself why you let them get 50 fighters and 50 bombers.

You should have recroded so I could comment more.....

saberhagen
06-22-2004, 07:52 AM
SWGB is really small scale compared to Cossacks. That game does my head in. I can't cope with that many units!

FroZticles
06-22-2004, 08:40 AM
I'll take mass units to small army micro wars anyday.

Plus the game is what you make it if you don't like mass units rush them.

pbguy1211
06-22-2004, 12:13 PM
"You should have recroded so I could comment more....."

Oh I recorded baby!!! :p

Game In A Zip (http://www.monmouth.com/~gangrel/swgbgame-Jun-20-04.zip)

Master Zila = Me

lukeiamyourdad
06-22-2004, 01:08 PM
This is a general question not completely related to the game last sunday.

Admiral Vostok
06-22-2004, 02:17 PM
I agree, although I am the Naboo player in question, that swarms of Naboo fighters just do not correlate with the Star Wars universe. As for the Rebels I don't see them being much of a problem, as we saw at Hoth they can have masses of troops and Endor showed us swarms of air units also work for the Rebels.

Perhaps the solution is that the Naboo don't really work as a playable civ if the game is meant to be epic in scope. The four galactic powers (Empire, Rebels, Republic, Confederacy) work fine with massed units though.

Certainly if the scale was reduce to make Naboo numbers realistic, the numbers of these four would be unrealistic.

FroZticles
06-23-2004, 01:49 AM
I stopped watching after I saw the mass A-wings come out.......
Obviously you know they are overpowered otherwise you would have not apologised :P

pbguy1211
06-23-2004, 02:24 AM
i appologized because I thought I was going to be able to swoop in and basically kill all of saber's workers with them. but i met some resistence in luke'sdads fighters. thankfully i was in t4 with full upgrades and he wasnt. so i knew i had him there.

I love to mass a wings with mounties. 1 unit on it's own isn't great, unless it's jedi. but a wings kill all troops and workers. whereas the mounties get all the mechs, heavy weapons, power cores and CC's. Easily my favorite combo in the game. And since they're so cheap it's easy to mass produce them.

Darth Windu
06-23-2004, 03:02 AM
In terms of SWGB2 i don't see how the Naboo would be a problem. Remember that they were able to put up an entire squadron from a single hanger very quickly, and with the onset of the Clone Wars they would gear up for war anyhow.

FroZticles
06-23-2004, 09:16 AM
Windu Naboo are no match for the Imperials, Rebels, Republic or Droids and its quite obvious that 15 fighters and a hand full of soldiers are no match for armies of 10,000 or more.

A-wings are cheap your right so cheap infact that it takes 10 of them to wipe out 150 workers in 30 seconds. If you had of used strike mechs you would not have apologised about killing all his workers. Obviously you know they are overpowered....

A Jedi on there own can't fight an air cruiser so they are not that great and cost a hell of alot.

General Nitro
06-23-2004, 10:51 AM
i hate air cruisers. they're so cheap. like a mini-deathstar. if it werent included in SWGB2, i wouldn't miss it.

Admiral Vostok
06-23-2004, 11:07 AM
Air Cruisers are easy to deal with though.

Froz, it sounds like you've got some pent-up aggression towards A-Wings.

Windu, I agree the Naboo would probably build a greater military presence after the Battle of Naboo, yet they still would not be on the scale of the armies we saw in the Battle of Geonosis.

pbguy1211
06-23-2004, 01:25 PM
froz you can say the same thing about the elite geonosians.
boy somebody has been raped by a wings before...
besides, without upgrades, they have an attack power of 2 with 15 HP. Buy a couple of fighters and stop crying. :)
If someone let's me get to t4, and buy all the upgrades for them, that's their fault. not mine. attack sooner or more often so i dont have the resources.

saberhagen
06-23-2004, 01:46 PM
Yeah, stop whining Froz. :)

pbguy never relies on a-wings to win the game, they're usually just the coup de grace. It's his mounty floods that do the damage and there's nothing "cheap" about that. In that game I was dead long before the a-wings turned up. I screwed up really badly early on and lost my cc in T2. If I'd played better I wouldn't have got to the point where a-wings could do that much damage, or where I couldn't recover from it.

pbguy1211
06-23-2004, 03:51 PM
exactly. at t4, a worker raid shouldnt hurt you that badly. it's just a way to make the holonet a little cheaper. they're very effective vs troops too.

and saber, if you look back at our game (which i did this morning) you'll notice our troops passed each other (in t2) and didnt see each other due to a little path of trees blocking them! otherwise the game could have gone differently.

also, you sent your troops at my carbon guys the wrong way! the wall of prefabs wasn't done! and if you'd have come all the way to the left you'd have seen i was 2 short of a full wall and you might have done some serious damage! :p

Darth Windu
06-23-2004, 11:17 PM
Vostok - while that is true, the simple fact that the Naboo could put up that many fighters under occupation was quite a feat. One could also assume that there were many other hangers under guard at the time, and you then factor in the Gungan Army. Although i agree that they would never be as powerful as the CIS, Republic, Empire or Rebels, i think in this case the game would gain more from their inclusion that it would from their exclusion.

As part of what was said regarding their weakness, that is why in my 'Conquer the Galaxy' Clone Wars campaign, the Naboo are a non-playable civ, and just reside on Naboo. The player can only choose the Republic or Confederacy until all campaigns are completed on the hardest difficulty setting, then they can play as the Naboo.

FroZticles
06-24-2004, 02:25 AM
I'm not whining about A-wings its just that alot of noobs build them and take the game. That game I just saw with you 4 was not that great I thought saber and pbguy were low inters not rookiees.....

saberhagen
06-24-2004, 06:11 AM
I know, I really sucked. :(

The previous week's game was better. I at least managed a real trooper rush, although I still lost!

pbguy1211
06-24-2004, 10:38 AM
Froz, if you would ever like to play me 1v1, I can show you why on the zone I fall into the "inter +" category. low rook my ass.

Admiral Vostok
06-24-2004, 06:21 PM
Pay no attention to Froz. He claims he's a great player but for some reason he isn't keen on demonstrating it in a game. He claims it would be unfair of him to play any of us, yet as a result of his posts on this forum he doesn't exactly strike me as the type of person who cares about his opponent's feelings. I won't believe he's anything more than a rook until he proves it. Even posting a recording of one of his games would be enough, but something tells me he won't even be willing to do that.

General Nitro
06-24-2004, 09:31 PM
froz is a n00b...hehe. just kidding froz, but vostok does make a good point.

FroZticles
06-25-2004, 02:46 AM
vostok- I never said I was a great player but thanx for the compliment. I would post up my records if I could get my old computer working that I played swgb on with all my good records on it. But after it died I just bought a new one and started playing SWG. I was going to post a couple up of me fighting drunk but I can't so you'll have to wait. If you have this forum match at a reasonable time I would be willing to play but 4pm is like 2am here (off the top of my head)

pbguy- Self proclaimed inter+ I have never seen you in a inter+ game or even heard of you and if you were as great as you make your self out to be I'm sure I would have. If we have a 1v1 I hope you don't use your 20 min t2 rush on me that looked brutal. :rolleyes:

saber- Nice someone can admit they did not play that great in that game but I guess vostok and pbguy have to bigger egos to admit it. You rock for that.

pbguy1211
06-25-2004, 10:59 AM
A: i know he didnt play his best game. that was obvious.

B: since I'm an insomniac, time of day generally isn't an issue. set a date and time. :)

saberhagen
06-25-2004, 11:52 AM
Vostok? Ego? When has he ever claimed to be a great player?

And pbguy is definitely a better player than me. Inter at least, although maybe past his best through lack of practice.

I can say that Froz is at least inter as I've seen him on the zone when he was in JMC, although I've never played with him (those games were too scary!).

Isn't it weird that everyone's stopped arguing about SWGB2 and started arguing about who's better at SWGB1? ;)

pbguy1211
06-25-2004, 12:19 PM
hehe... i was at my best in this game before my old hard drive died. then i didnt even bother playing on the zone because i'd lag games.... about awhile later i got my new and improved HD. and now i can BARELY find and RM game anywhere... sad times. :(
.... waits for b4me to come out... counts the seconds...

General Nitro
06-25-2004, 03:26 PM
finding an rm on zone is nearly imposible. even in the RM room. its filled with scenarios like "save naboo". now really, who would want to save naboo....:deathstar

Admiral Vostok
06-25-2004, 04:43 PM
Froz, I fail to see how my ego is too big. The reason I'm not admitting I didn't play great in that game is because I pretty much played to the best of my abilities!

And perhaps if you'd told us your timezone when we were doing the signup process, you could have been accomodated. Tell us now and we'll see if we can change the times around to suit.

pbguy1211
06-25-2004, 06:26 PM
Vostok would be even better if he'd use his war center for trooper upgrades! ;)
He'll have like 20 heavy troopers with no armor or laser upgrades! :D

Admiral Vostok
06-25-2004, 07:14 PM
I upgraded lasers didn't I? Ah well, who needs troopers when you've got a cloud of fighters...




Okay, you still need troopers with a cloud of fighters, I'm just making excuses...

FroZticles
06-26-2004, 12:43 AM
I played a low inter game yesterday did pretty good except I got confused and mixed WC3 and SWGB hotkeys up so thats the only problem.....

AEST is my time zone... Australian Eastern Standard Time

I left for about 6 months came back and all the same scenarios are still around even the scenario players stopped making maps. RM is not bad if you come on at the right times but at around 4pm my time its a ghost town.

Admiral Vostok
06-26-2004, 11:59 AM
Oh, I didn't know you were Australian!

Well it might be difficult to fit you in but I hope we can arrange things, because when I go back to Brisbane at the end of the year I still want to play!

I guess I should ask how late you'd be willing to stay up... or how early in the morning...

Sithmaster_821
06-29-2004, 09:10 PM
Froz, I dont know when you started playing this game, but back when I played, I saw pbguy in inter+ games a lot (I guess it helps being in the same time zone:D)

pbguy1211
06-29-2004, 10:18 PM
geez, these days i'll go into any rm that isnt rookies due to there being so few rm games out there.

Admiral Vostok
06-30-2004, 06:30 PM
Getting back to the topic of the thread, perhaps one way to reduce massing of units that are not usually massed is to take the way Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War is going. Basically tanks are quite uber in the game - I read somewhere that the toughest tank in the game could survive for ten minutes with 100 of the most basic infantry units shooting at it (note there are anti-tank weapons for infantry though). The way they avoided making the game just turn into tank wars is that they have two separate population caps - one for infantry and one for support. Support includes tanks and walkers and other support stuff.

If the same analogy was used for the next Star Wars RTS, support would include Mechs and Aircraft, and possibly specialist units like Jedi, Droidekas, Bounty Hunters, possibly even mounted Troopers. This would focus the game more on masses of infantry, with the support playing a secondary (but still major) role.

pbguy1211
06-30-2004, 09:31 PM
i played in a 2v2 game the other day. me and some dude who'd never played on the zone before against the rack somebody and some other guy. the other guy was my wing and i worked him enough in t2, not noticing the rack was building a fort and a shield outside my base before it was too late. so after pleading for my teammate to come outside of his walls and help, yes i said walls, he did. though i did get flushed out of my main base due to a double team. i was able to hold off rack and the other dude on rack's team wasn't that big of a threat, though he was still there and i hadnt been able to do much to him. eventually i had a few masters go and convert a lot of rack's base in the middle. we took down a big part of it. then i had to go back and work on the other guy. i pushed him back and reclaimed the area of my base he was building on. at this point i realized rack was going for my teammate now. so i sent MD's and repeaters into his base for defenses. when i looked up and saw a pile of red (my teammate) in the middle of the map. i swear to go he had near 100 repeaters there going around his base to sneak up on rack from behind. i started laughing seeing so many stupid gungans throwing those little balls. after we held off rack's army, rack quit. i then went in and finished off his teammate and that was it.
but seeing so many damned repeater gungans in an actual game was just too damned funny!

Darth Windu
06-30-2004, 11:24 PM
Vostok - but that is the whole point of multiple pop caps. For example, in my template a Stormtrooper takes up one pop slot, whereas an AT-AT takes up 8. Therefore, you have to balance numbers against quality.

lukeiamyourdad
06-30-2004, 11:31 PM
pbguy-Yeah it's funny to see those gungans repeaters. Fully upgraded they're actually good!

Windu- Not really. People will still be able to mass AT-ATs. Ever played StarCraft? Oh yeah, no you didn't. Anyway, the game has multiple pop slot for different units yet people still massed Battlecruisers(compare it to an AT-AT).

Darth Windu
07-01-2004, 12:00 AM
Ah, but that is where tactics come into play. While AT-AT's are very powerful, they are slow and have no weapons to protect their rear's, and so if you can get some units in behind an AT-AT they can rip it to pieces with impunity. As a Rebel player, you could also send Airspeeders to take the AT-AT's down or B-wings to disable them and destroy them at your liesure.

lukeiamyourdad
07-01-2004, 10:16 AM
Windu, seriously, this is about unit massing not if we can kill them or not. Realistically, did you ever see 50 AT-AT fighting on a battlefield? Though possible, we never saw that and still, they would have sent more AT-Ats down on Hoth.

I'm talking about a way to get rid of mech and aircraft massing because it detracts from realism.

Admiral Vostok
07-01-2004, 03:56 PM
Yeah Windu, if the game doesn't explicitely rule out the possibility of doing something, then people will do it. So while, according to you, massed AT-ATs might not be the best tactic, people will still do it.

Having a seperate Support Population is, in my opinion, a great way to get around unrealistic unit combos in the game.

lukeiamyourdad
07-01-2004, 07:31 PM
I agree. We'll have to see how it works out in Warhammer before knowing if it truly works.

However, I don't want to turn mechs and vehicles into super-uber units like in Warhammer and mech should still be numerous enough on the battlefield for it to be realistic.

Darth Windu
07-01-2004, 11:20 PM
Vostok, luke - but i think massed units are a GOOD thing. Star Wars is all about epic battles, particually in Ep2, and this should be reflected in the game. Also, so what is we didnt see 50 AT-AT's on Hoth, just because you didnt see them doesnt mean they werent there, and also its a moot point anyway considering that we know the Empire could have that many in any one place.

With the unit pop slot thing, again, how is this any different to the system i am using? Large vehicles take up more slots than less powerful units. WOW! How innovative of them, its been done before.

lukeiamyourdad
07-01-2004, 11:36 PM
No. When it's too much it's too much. Look at how the Rebels can simply mass their units. We really won't see the Rebels take an enemy head on with hundreds of troopers. We know their general tactics are more hit-and-fade strikes. Massing units like we do now detracts from realism.

As for 50 AT-AT, I dunno, doesn't look epic anymore, seriously not. Just looks like a huge bunch of waling masses shooting lasers at other walking masses.

Admiral Vostok
07-02-2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Vostok, luke - but i think massed units are a GOOD thing. Star Wars is all about epic battles, particually in Ep2, and this should be reflected in the game.But 50 Mechs does not make for an epic battle, hundreds of infantry do. The Battle of Geonosis is the most epic battle we've seen, but there was still at most 10 AT-TEs, 5 SPHA-Ts and 15 Gunships. It was the hundreds of Clone Troopers that made the battle feel "epic".Also, so what is we didnt see 50 AT-AT's on Hoth, just because you didnt see them doesnt mean they werent there, and also its a moot point anyway considering that we know the Empire could have that many in any one place.How do we know they could? The Executor is the only Super Star Destroyer in the fleet, and it could only muster 5 AT-ATs. This to me says the Empire would never have more than maybe 10 AT-ATs in a single conflict.With the unit pop slot thing, again, how is this any different to the system i am using? Large vehicles take up more slots than less powerful units. WOW! How innovative of them, its been done before. Let me procide an example to explain:
Your system (the same as StarCraft/AoM/most decent RTS)
You have a total population of 100. Stormtroopers cost 1 population. AT-ATs cost 10 population. 10 AT-ATs are more powerful than 100 Stormtroopers, so people will buy 10 AT-ATs.

Dawn of War's system
You have an infantry population of 70 and a support population of 30. Stormtroopers and AT-ATs cost the same as above. The most AT-ATs you can have in an army is 3, supporting 70 Stormtroopers. Far more realistic.

saberhagen
07-02-2004, 01:55 PM
AAAAaaaarrggghhh!!!!

We're sinking back into our old ways aren't we?

Why did we only see 5 AT-ATs at Hoth? Probably because of the limits of time, money and above all technology - it just wouldn't have been feasible to put in any more.

There's also the fact that a film is first and foremost entertainment. ESB is not a documentary. Those 5 AT-ATs we saw were enough to get the point across. It would have been pretty boring and pointless to show us extended scenes of 50 AT-ATs doing lots of stuff.

Ultimately, a film is a representation of something. It doesn't necessarily show us every detail of everything, but that doesn't mean we should assume that nothing which appears in or is mentioned in the film cannot be deemed to "exist" (for want of a better word).

Damn, I've just earned the right to be cast out of the purists. ;) I think the point I'm trying ot make is the old one about having to take certain liberties with the films in order to make a decent game, in the same way that films take liberties in order to make an entertaining film.

And Vostok, please show me the dictionary that defines "epic" as "pertaining to a battle wich involves large numbers of infantry but relatively few vehicles".

FroZticles
07-02-2004, 08:09 PM
I see where both sides are coming from. I agree with Vostok on some fronts and Saber in others. Personally I would like to see a horde of vehicles. Being a strong believer in both the movies and EU I don't think I've ever heard of 50 AT-AT exist let alone fight in a battle all on once.

saber- When he uses the word epic in that context he means it will not be an epic battle thats lasts for more than 2 seconds because you just got your whole army blown away by those 50 AT-AT.

Vostok- This Damn of War system sounds good but I do not like limiting people, I think making extrememly slow build times can work. Also make them very expensive which is what I plan to do in my template. I hate pop limits altogether it limits the "epicness" you can have in a battle.

Darth Windu
07-02-2004, 11:30 PM
Vostok-
1. Epic means large, not lots of infantry. Aside from that, as i said, in my system there would likely be lots of infantry because they are so versatile and can hide from mechs in forests. As for AT-AT's, if you dont have any support units for them, Rebel Rocket Troopers could sit behind them and attack unimpeded.

2. Please show me the spot in ESB where it is said that the Executor only carries 5 AT-AT's? Lets look at this logically, that ship is massive, and could easily hold 50 of the things, if not more.

3. THE SYSTEM ISNT ANY DIFFERENT! All it does is split up mech and infantry pop slots, which is purely cosmetic. 100 Stormtroopers may be less powerful than 10 AT-AT's, but they are a lot cheaper, more versatile and can easily defend themselves whereas AT-AT's are incredibly expensive and need other units to cover their flanks and rear.

lukeiamyourdad
07-03-2004, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu

3. THE SYSTEM ISNT ANY DIFFERENT! All it does is split up mech and infantry pop slots, which is purely cosmetic. 100 Stormtroopers may be less powerful than 10 AT-AT's, but they are a lot cheaper, more versatile and can easily defend themselves whereas AT-AT's are incredibly expensive and need other units to cover their flanks and rear.

No. Having a seperate pop system means less total mechs. Let's say that you have a max total of 30 mech pop. An AT-AT would then cost about 4-6 pop which means about 5 or 6 AT-ATs whereas with a total of 200 pop, with AT-ATs costing 8 pop each, you can have a grand total of 25 AT-ATs.

Note that your flanking ideas are NOT fit for an RTS with ressource gatherings and a little bit of micro. It would have to be incredibly slow paced.
A game that does well flanking and other terrain changes is Ground Control 2 and although it has a few RTS elements, there is absolutely no econ management. For you to totally focus on flanking bonuses etc. you'll need to totally forget econ.

FroZticles
07-03-2004, 12:21 AM
Luke its basically the same sytem they just took 5 more mins to have unit classes capped instead of just units in general cap.

Darth Windu
07-03-2004, 09:52 AM
luke - all you do then is make the AT-AT worth more pop slots and you have the same effect. As i said, the system isnt any different.

As for flanking, i think you have the wrong idea. My AT-AT's are slow, heavily armoured and armed. However, due to their speed it takes a while for them to turn around, and they only have a small forward arc over which they can fire their weapons. Therefore, they cannot engage targets either behind or to the side of them unless they turn around, which take a while, as i said. Ergo, you must have escorts for them.

Admiral Vostok
07-04-2004, 11:04 AM
1. Epic means large, not lots of infantry. Aside from that, as i said, in my system there would likely be lots of infantry because they are so versatile and can hide from mechs in forests.Epic means large numbers, and hundreds of troopers is more than 50 AT-ATs. More importantly, I'm not talking about what is likely. I'm talking about what is possible. In SWGB, it is likely that a decent player will utilise Troopers. But it is also possible for a player to mass a particular type of unit and not use infantry at all. I take myself as an example, with my massed Naboo Fighters and Bombers. Game makers have every intention that players will play the game realistically, but the fact is if an unrealistic mode of play gives you an edge, people will do it. As another example, let's take the use of prefab shelters as cheap walls - unrealistic but an excellent tactic, used widely because the game makers didn't specifically prohibit it.2. Please show me the spot in ESB where it is said that the Executor only carries 5 AT-AT's? Lets look at this logically, that ship is massive, and could easily hold 50 of the things, if not more.Please show me the spot in ESB where it said the Executor carries more than 5 AT-ATs. Let's look at this logically, if General Veers is on the Executor, and Vader tells him to prepare his men, and Veers just saw Vader kill Ozzel, do you think Veers is going to say "Well Vader's pretty pissed off right now, but I still think I'll only take a tenth of the total forces at my disposal for no particular reason."3. THE SYSTEM ISNT ANY DIFFERENT! All it does is split up mech and infantry pop slots, which is purely cosmetic.No, let me explain again. By the old method of things, you can have an unrealistic army composed entirely of Mechs. It might not be that great in battle, but you are still allowed to build it. And as I said before, if people possibly can build it they will. By the new method, it is not possible to have an army composed entirely of Mechs.

Let me use SWGB as an example. When was the last time you saw a Trade Federation player use lots and lots of Battle Droids? The Trade Federation in the movies had hundreds of Battle Droids, but they suck so much in SWGB there are better things you can spend your cash on, like Strike Mechs and Droidekas. With this new system, a Trade Federation player would have to take at least some amount of Battle Droids to battle, improving the realism a lot.

saberhagen
07-04-2004, 02:03 PM
This is really a balancing issue. If the balancing is right then you can subtly persuade people to use the "realistic" combinations. I don't think it's a good idea to tie people's hands and force them to use a particular combination of units. They'll just get bored and stop playing.

Darth Windu
07-05-2004, 05:10 AM
I agree with Saber, this is a balancing issue.

Also, Vostok, you should be ashamed of yourself. First of all, there is NOTHING in the film to say there were only 5 AT-AT's on Executor. As i said before, look at the ship, it is so massive it could easily take more than 5. As for why Veers wouldnt take more than that, we dont know he didnt (coz we dont see them doesnt mean they arent there), and also more AT-AT's would have meant more time for the Rebels to get away, plus they knew that their walkers were invulnerable to Rebel blasters, they just didnt know about the speeder tow-cables.

Admiral Vostok
07-05-2004, 10:53 AM
On topic:
Well maybe set limits aren't the best way to do things, but I still maintain separate limits is the way to go. You'd build separate prefab-shelter-like things for infantry and support, and the shelters that provide support population would be more expensive. This way, it could be possible to build mass mechs, but economically not the best idea. This would create more freedom, but strongly encourage realistic play at the same time.

Off topic:
The primary weapon of the Empire is fear. That's why they built the Death Star. Do they really need to blow up entire planets? No, but the fact they have the power to inspires fear, which is even more powerful. It doesn't matter that five AT-ATs would get the job done, ten AT-ATs is way more fear-inspiring, let alone fifty. If the Executor had more AT-ATs, it probably would have used them.

On a more personal note Windu, I fail to see how I should be ashamed when my Purism binds me to what we see in the movies, whereas your "Purism" doesn't. If I'm Lord of the Purists, you truly are the Dark Lord as your title says, as you seem to practice a more perverted and seductive study of Purism.

FroZticles
07-05-2004, 10:51 PM
Windu a Dark Lord ROFL...

Darth Windu
07-06-2004, 11:02 PM
Vstok-
On-topic: that is a terrible idea. Not only does it add another un-needed building, it also increases micfromanagement, which is un-needed and un-wanted.

Off-topic: correct. That is why AT-AT's have such long legs and little weapons arc - they are primarily assault guns that are meant to be seen far away but be invincible, as we saw when Luke said that the blasters werent having any effect on them. Ergo, you are making completely unwarrented assumptions about the Executor and AT-AT's that are not backed up by the films. As i was saying before-

- due to the size of the Executor, it could probably hold hundreds of AT-AT's
- just because we saw 5 doesnt mean there werent other AT-AT's at other points
- the main object of the assault was to destroy the Shield Generator, nothing more, and as the Rebels were aware of the Imperial Fleet, it needed to be fast
- the AT-AT's were thought to be invincible, and in the end were only brought down by the tow cables on the Speeder's

All of that is the complete reverse of what you have been saying. Generally, i dont know how many AT-AT's the Executor could hold, and neither do you, so stop coming out with false facts to try to make yourself look like a bigshot.

FroZticles
07-07-2004, 06:19 AM
I went over my cousins's house who is an absolute Star Wars fanatic and collects issues of Star Wars fact file. I was looking through his 1,000's of facts and came across The EXECUTOR. So I read it because we were on topic about it and it said.....

Eight kilometers long, with the standard crew of this class was 279,144 personnel (officers ect) 144 tie fighters, other combat and support craft 200, a force of All terrain armoured transports and scout walkers. 38,000 storm troopers. 250,000 tonnes of material in addition to six years worth of consumables and supplies for 300,000 crew members.

So it didn't really help but since I consider EU as much as Star Wars as the movies are I would say there are more. As for hundreds I think thats going a bit over board considering the size and other weapons and ships it carries.

Windu your the worst "purist" ever, considering you trashed all my points when I defended myself with EU yet you back your stuff up with EU all the time.

Darth Windu
07-07-2004, 09:13 AM
I doubt there would be hundered of AT-AT's - but the point is we don't know.

As for purism, i actually own around 30 SW books and am currently reading 'Tales from the Empire'. Nontheless, EU is meerly a 'back-up' for the films at best, and as we have seen actually contradicts the films on numerous occasions, such as the Death Star design and the fate of Boba Fett. Backing up point with EU is fine, but just because something is EU doesnt make it right nor does it make it 'official' - only the films are that.

Admiral Vostok
07-07-2004, 06:18 PM
Okay Windu, maybe there were more AT-ATs on the Executor... why would they only use five? Since Hoth was the largest land battle of the Civil War, it seems strange that the Empire would waste money on building lots of AT-ATs when they don't use them.

But I'm willing to concede I may be wrong on this point. But the more important issue isn't how many numbers they could possibly bring to bear, but how many they actually do.

Let's look at the Battle of Geonosis, the most massive ground battle in the entire Star Wars saga. In that battle there were at least 100,000 Clone Troopers, assuming the Republic only deployed half their force... there could easily have been the whole 200,000 there. But there were only at most 20 AT-TEs and a half a dozen SPHA-Ts. Now I'm not asking for those kind of ratios, that would be silly, but there should be some sort of method to restrict non-infantry units.

I concede to your point about the annoyance of the extra building and extra micro. So how about this new idea: Workers and Infantry do not count towards the population limit, only support units do.

Before you become outraged at such a proposition, remember that all of the Command and Conquer titles have never had a population limit. While there is a cap built in to the game, players rarely if ever reach it. C&C Games keep a limit on the number of buildings (through power) rather than the number of units. Perhaps, since a Star Wars title would probably also have power as a feature, the same basic analogy could be used, except that population is needed to build support units.

Well I'd best prepare myself for the inevitable barrage of outraged cries with this idea...

Darth Windu
07-08-2004, 12:03 AM
Vostok - with, with the AT-AT's i think the more interesting question is how did the Empire get them on Hoth? The Lander in Ep4 and the Lambda shuttles are too small, and Star Destroyers probably couldnt enter the atmosphere...

Getting back on topic, its not only workers but the extra buildings that would be a problem. I also fail to see how exlcuding workers from the pop cap would be helpful. All this would mean is that once a player hits the pop cap, they build hords of workers to attack first, drawing enemy fire while their combat units move in.
Actually, thinking about this, i have an idea. We could make infantry a bit less powerful and, keeping the pop slots (ie stormy worth 1, AT-AT worth 8) make them like the 'angry mob' from 'Generals' - that would pretty much keep balance while providing swarms of infantry - just a thought.

saberhagen
07-08-2004, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
Let's look at the Battle of Geonosis, the most massive ground battle in the entire Star Wars saga. In that battle there were at least 100,000 Clone Troopers, assuming the Republic only deployed half their force... there could easily have been the whole 200,000 there.

But I don't think we actually saw 100,000 clone troopers in the shots of Geonosis. The point I made before is that films can't and shouldn't show everything.

Igor_Cavkov
07-08-2004, 08:53 AM
Massing is not good... why?
ehrmm Air Cruisers :rolleyes:

Admiral Vostok
07-08-2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Igor_Cavkov
Massing is not good... why?Because massed AT-ATs are not what we see in the movies.

Windu, I'm not sure you entirely understood me. Both Workers AND Infantry would be excluded from the pop cap. This would get rid of the problem of extra buildings, because the prefab shelters you build are only necessary for support units, not infantry. So forget my two-pop-limit idea, instead we just have one pop limit, but workers and infantry do not count towards it.

And the simple way to avoid a horde of angry workers is to not give them an attack, which is how I think things should be.

Igor_Cavkov
07-08-2004, 07:36 PM
Ehrmmm if you guys complain that the game is not like in the movie.. and that its to many ATAT's in battle what the hell are u talking about no game is like the movies?? and who said this fits in the story line and therefore it doesnt have to be as the movies!?? :S its a strategic game.. the only thing u can complain are the campains couse they follow the SW time line .. but i cant remember 30ATATs there?? so STOP talking ****! no one said the game must be as in the movies?? :S
the game is fine.. if u dont like the games pop limit then creat a scenario for multi playing.. and make it like in the movies so everyone are happy!!! //Cav

FroZticles
07-09-2004, 12:07 AM
They are talking about what they would like to see in the next Star Wars RTS. Read before you type all this crap. The game is fine but it could be better.....

Darth Windu
07-09-2004, 12:33 AM
Vostok - i still dont see how exlucing infantry from the pocap would be helpful. think that what is really needed is for infantry to be more useful, and so people will use them more. Besides, in my template, that would give the Rebels a big advantage because they dont use mechs.

Admiral Vostok
07-10-2004, 09:54 AM
They might not have Mechs but they do have the largest variety of Air, which would also count towards the pop cap.

Infantry can be made to be useful, but the fact they don't cost any population will make them even more attractive to take. No matter how good infantry are, there will still be those players who want to horde Mechs and Air. This method still allows those players to do so, but hording infantry is a much better idea.

Puzzlebox
07-28-2004, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
I agree, although I am the Naboo player in question, that swarms of Naboo fighters just do not correlate with the Star Wars universe. As for the Rebels I don't see them being much of a problem, as we saw at Hoth they can have masses of troops and Endor showed us swarms of air units also work for the Rebels.

Perhaps the solution is that the Naboo don't really work as a playable civ if the game is meant to be epic in scope. The four galactic powers (Empire, Rebels, Republic, Confederacy) work fine with massed units though.

Certainly if the scale was reduce to make Naboo numbers realistic, the numbers of these four would be unrealistic.


I wonder how good they :worship: bioware, putting Kotor material in would be nice. As to the numbers the movies themselves were not realistic. There would be billions of soldiers and thousands of star ships, obviously it's good it wasn't realistic but to get to the nixing of naboo and gungans I completely agree. They should be accessible in the editor and playable through the edior or some other set of options, but not meant to compare to the massive factions.

Hey lukei, you ever try three ;)
:kisses2:

Edit
Simple solution for the problem guys, let the host pick if there is a cap on mechs or other such minutia and perhaps what the cap is in the pre-game menu screen, Tada no worries in making a major screw up and you can say hey, we have plenty of options to enrich gameplay blah blah blah.

General Nitro
08-10-2004, 12:32 PM
Unit Massing = Bad

Nairb Notneb
08-10-2004, 06:10 PM
Sometimes it is fun to mass aircruisers and rain down on somebodies parde so to speak!!!

General Nitro
08-10-2004, 07:26 PM
A prime example of why Unit Massing = Bad.

Admiral Vostok
08-10-2004, 09:30 PM
All this talk of massing air cruisers... has anyone ever done it? I just can't see it working at all... way too many resources spent for virtually no return. The only way massed Air Cruisers would beat an opponent is if they're completely incompetent, in which case you could have beat them with massed Troopers anyway.

lukeiamyourdad
08-11-2004, 12:02 AM
Massing Air cruisers is useless. They'll get owned by fighters.

FroZticles
08-11-2004, 01:07 AM
I haven't seen much air cruiser massing but I think it sucks when your pushing forward and you run into a fort and he is shooting at your army pulling back behind the fort and his army. *Repeat*

DK_Viceroy
08-12-2004, 06:27 AM
Some unit massing is as purists would put it cannononical with the movies, like Troopers and the confederacy.

Admiral Vostok
08-12-2004, 09:37 AM
Well I'd call it Canonical rather than cannononical, but yes some massing is needed.

The obvious unit-massing from the movies:
Clone Troopers
Battle Droids
Droid Starfighters
Stormtroopers
TIE Fighters
Gungan Militiagung
Ewoks ;)