PDA

View Full Version : A new thought for swgb2


pbguy1211
08-09-2004, 01:21 PM
I don't read the civ templates and all that other crap for my own reasons which i don't want to get into at the moment... however in playing a game this morning 1 thing came to me crytal clear that a version 2 NEEDS. And that is, the ability to build BRIDGES!
I was in a swamp map vs the comp and it may as well have been an ugly precipice. The ability to build small bridges at either t2 or t3 would be a nice thing.

DK_Viceroy
08-09-2004, 01:27 PM
either that or at least make transports more useful by being able to carry more mechs or someat.Nobodies really tackled any practical ideas for that event yet have they? expect Pbguy just now with buildable bridges.

General Nitro
08-09-2004, 01:27 PM
I was thinking that exact same thing the other day. I agree 100%. Bridges are a must. Why would a civ bother to fly to other land masses when they can just build a bridge? Also, the bridges should be over the water like an arch so that boats can pass by. Great idea pbguy.

Admiral Vostok
08-09-2004, 02:10 PM
I like this idea too, and I wonder why no-one has included bridge-building in other RTS games... or maybe they have but the games are so obscure I don't know them.

At any rate, bridges would be an excellent addition, especially if naval units are not going to be included (remember our poll earlier in the year indicated naval units aren't really essential).

General Nitro
08-09-2004, 03:05 PM
No navy would make the Mon CAlimari sad:( . And now for a reason that makes sense. Although naval units aren't seen in the films, it is likely that the factions would have them if the oppurtunity to use them ever showed up.

lukeiamyourdad
08-09-2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
I like this idea too, and I wonder why no-one has included bridge-building in other RTS games... or maybe they have but the games are so obscure I don't know them.

Sudden Strike had them if you can consider that an RTS.

Excellent idea, makes for great strategies and tactics. It'll make the real-life strategy of blowing up enemy bridge to slow them down doable.

Puzzlebox
08-09-2004, 04:32 PM
Bad idea I think, I had them in mine before; there is probably a good reason why they don't implement them as well, probably more trouble than its worth.

pbguy1211
08-09-2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Puzzlebox
Bad idea I think, I had them in mine before; there is probably a good reason why they don't implement them as well, probably more trouble than its worth.

Right... because there's no use for a bridge in war.
There are trucks that carry bridges on them for current day ground war that can hold the weight of very large tanks for crossing.

Admiral Vostok
08-09-2004, 06:10 PM
I'd prefer to see them as buildings rather than built on the back of trucks. For example, you get some workers to build it on one side of the crossing, then when it's finished you get to "close the bridge", so it reaches the other side and you can send units across straight away.

there is probably a good reason why they don't implement them as wellYet I use this same argument against your pilot idea and you won't have a bar of it :rolleyes:

General Nitro
08-09-2004, 06:48 PM
I think you should be able to build bridges they Vostok described. I also think that you should also be able to build from only one side. The workers build a piece, step on the completed peice, and then make another peice. They do this until the bridge is complete.

Nairb Notneb
08-09-2004, 07:04 PM
I had this thought a long time ago. Of course it could also be another scenerio like defend the monument, but in this case, "hold the bridge". There could by "types" of bridges to. The standard bridge (low tech level) medium, heavy and shielded bridges. Maybe even a draw bridge that can be locked like the gate keeping your oponents from using your bridge. Something like this would be nice when on a randome map and there is a nerf on a small isolated island that you can't get inside a transport. Build a bridge across it and then from there to the other side again and it solves two problems, you don't have to build a nursery for one nerf plus you get a second access to another island. Just a quick thought.

FroZticles
08-10-2004, 02:23 AM
Buildable bridges......

Maps have different tactics and if you can't cover your shallows or enter your enemies base because they have uber defense on there entry points doesn't mean you need bridges. Better luck next time :p

Darth Windu
08-10-2004, 06:49 AM
Well actually, in my template, bridges arent necessary. For shallow water, units simply wade through, and for medium to deep water, units do the RoN auto-transport. This eliminates the need for otherwise useless units and solves the problem of water crossing without having to resort to air transports.

Puzzlebox
08-10-2004, 08:53 AM
Same, what original ideas do you have though? I have some resources streaming in mine but you can't count that as from Cossacks, its sorta an eventual discovery situation.

Admiral Vostok
08-10-2004, 11:53 AM
Puzzlebox - Your streaming resource idea sounds a lot like that in C&C:Generals.

Windu - I'd just like to state once again how much I hate the RoN style of transporting. Dumbest idea ever.

DK_Viceroy
08-10-2004, 12:52 PM
define streaming resources.

I steered well clear of RoN and bought Empires Dawn Of The Modern world instead because while empires does have a good deal of generic buildings but the only generic units are workers and even they have different names and buildings

Nairb Notneb
08-10-2004, 03:36 PM
To keep on the subject: I would like to have a lot of movie civs. The one thing that makes a game great is the number of times that you can play it. Why can you play a game a multiple number of times? Because each game is unique. SWGBG2 needs to have a lot of customization to it for the players. It already does, but the more I, as a player, can change the settings of a game, the more I can control, the more I want to play it. The more unique scenarios that I can create the better. I need options, with a multitude of unique units that differ from each other. Toy box units are fun, but I also want buildings that can generate those units in a game too. I want to be able to play as the Tuscan Raiders and attack some Jawas or a homesteader, that would be cool. I want to be a Trandalosian civ attacking wookies. Or what about an ewok civ in a multiplayer battle of Endor? It would be nice to be able to generate new ewoks in a fight. If there is a unit, there should be a way to generate new ones during game play.

DK_Viceroy
08-10-2004, 03:43 PM
* Decieds to be suspiciuosly Absent while Vostok And Co Bring Out Their Big Flamer Guns*

Admiral Vostok
08-10-2004, 04:35 PM
I agree essentially with what Nairb is saying, which why I put minor civs in my RTS design. Though to include civs like Ewoks and Trandoshans with the same amount of playability, variety and balance as civs like the Empire and Rebellion is of course out of the question.

Though I feel I should point out that although Nairb started his post with "To keep on the subject" it is in fact quite off topic... :confused: Let's try to stay with the bridge topic, shall we?

Nairb Notneb
08-10-2004, 06:59 PM
By that I take it you did not hear the tone of sarcasm in the opening of my post. My apologies. There are time when I "feel" bridges add a new dimension of play to the game, but also if you can't build a bridge then that too also adds another dimension as well (to really get back to the subject of the post). If there were to be bridges, could there be an option at the beginning to turn them on/off? Or are they to minor of a detail?

Admiral Vostok
08-10-2004, 10:36 PM
No options to turn things off! This is just silly - you can't please everyone by having every single feature in the game able to be turned off. Either live with it or play another game. The only thing you should be able to turn off are cheats.

As for your sarcasm... no, strangely enough I can't "hear the tone" of your typing. Sarcasm is best followed by this smiley: :rolleyes:

Nairb Notneb
08-10-2004, 11:10 PM
I agree with you on either keeping them on or off all of the time, it was a passing thought I had while typing. It sort of leaked out (I need to check that hole in head again). What about a bridge that would go up a mountain top? I guess there could be two different types of bridges, a spanning bridge (to cross water, etc.) and a climbing bridge (over mountains, etc.). Again this just came to me. What are your thoughts? It would eliminate the need for sea and air transports, but they would need defended because they could be destroyed.

Admiral Vostok
08-11-2004, 12:20 AM
You mean a bridge across cliffs? Not a bad idea, though it could be difficult to implement. The reason I say this is that a future Star Wars RTS would no doubt use a 3D Engine, and 3D Engines don't have the platform-like levels of terrain that SWGB has, their mountains are far smoother, more continuous, and as such building bridges between them could get weird.

I think keeping it just for water crossing would be best.

lukeiamyourdad
08-11-2004, 12:59 AM
Note that bridges would not remove the usefulness of Air/Sea transports. I see bridges used for getting rather large number of units across rivers and such while transport are for flanking and taking small commandoes behind enemy lines. Or perhaps transport can be used when the enemy "land" is too far for a bridge to be used.

FroZticles
08-11-2004, 02:04 AM
Bridges could add alot of frustration, you have covered all your entry points ohhh wait a second my workers are getting wiped out thanks to a bridge at the back of my base. Also does not make much sense since they have transports in the first place.

Darth Windu
08-11-2004, 05:43 AM
Vostok - yes, bit RoN also has sea combat which mine does not. The Auto-Transport option solves the problem of water crossing without superflous units or structures like bridges, while at the same time keeping the flow of gameplay going and making water-crossing units suitable vulnerable as they would be weak and unable to fire.

DK_Viceroy
08-11-2004, 11:23 AM
There would of course have to be two different style of bridges.

Heavy duty for things like AT-AT's

and normal for most other things.

lukeiamyourdad
08-11-2004, 11:51 AM
Nah just one type of bridge. Two is too much.

Besides, bridges reduce the ridiculous loading/unloading of transport when you want to cross a river 15 meters wide.

Froz: Enemy transports sneaking to the back causes the same effect.

Admiral Vostok
08-11-2004, 01:42 PM
Froz: like Luke's Dad said, this is not a bad thing. It discourages turtling without making it a completely unviable tactic like RoN and AoM have.

Viceroy: only one type of bridge I think. I don't really see the point of having different types of bridges for different types of things.

Windu: It's true that building a shipyard just to get a transport when your design has no naval component is superfluous. But the rediculous ease with which you can cross water would then make the game rediculous. The "problem" of crossing water certainly isn't a problem anymore, it's a no-brainer. For example, I believe in RoN you can't use transports until you have built a shipyard; what sort of limitation is in your design? At any rate, I think it would be better to take the approach that other games without naval combat have taken and only allow transportation through the air and not have any naval transportation.

FroZticles
08-12-2004, 03:41 AM
It depends on the maps whats the point in adding bridges if you only need them for one or two maps......

Darth Windu
08-12-2004, 04:45 AM
Vostok - water transports would become available at the start of the game, or possibly as a result of military research. I stand by my claim, however, that bridges or bridge-vehicles are superflous and will hurt gameplay.

DK_Viceroy
08-12-2004, 07:25 AM
I'd forgotten what this forum was like


a predictable game of Verbal Ping-Pong.


Regardless if there is no naval then there has to be bridges Air transports won't be abe to hold enough to avoid major micro management, therefore we need some srt of bridge or maybe you could build a repulsorlift barge from a mech factory analuge that could carry large amount of forces over gaps. either way we're gonna have to come up with a near micro management free way opf transporting large forces in as less time as possible.

Admiral Vostok
08-12-2004, 10:32 AM
Viceroy: as long as that micro-management-free method is not that of RoNs, which is totally dumb, I'd be happy.

Windu: available at the start of the game!? That's just rediculous. At least have it eventually become available through research. If you have it automatically available at the start what's the point of even having water on a map?

Nairb Notneb
08-12-2004, 12:53 PM
There is also lava that can be crossed too in a select few maps. Naval vessels can't go there whether they are available or not. I think that having one type of bridge is all that is needed later in the game for moving large number of troops. That will be when you need it anyway, for your larger armies to cross, not a rush or scouts but for large amounts of units. That makes trans ports effective early, but don't give them immediately. Maybe the bridge doesn't even come until T4?

Admiral Vostok
08-12-2004, 03:02 PM
Nairb makes an excellent point. There are things like lava and (should asteroid maps be included) space that can be crossed by bridges but not by naval units. Bridges would be very handy on these maps.

Darth Windu
08-13-2004, 12:54 AM
Vostok - i did say i was considering making it part of research. Apart from that, units crossing medium/deep water would be unable to fire, weak and slow, plus there is a delay is becoming a transport and then reverting. As for lava and whatnot, if an AT-AT cant survive walking through it, what makes you think a brigde could be built over it? In that instance, air transports would be needed. Aside from that, lava would not be very commen so it wouldnt present a big problem.

FroZticles
08-13-2004, 03:57 AM
I f your not adding naval into the game then whats the point of adding deep water.....

DK_Viceroy
08-13-2004, 10:39 AM
If you were in space wouldn't that mean people would have to have different art sets for organic units since i've yet to meet the human who can breath in deep space.

Admiral Vostok
08-14-2004, 09:31 PM
Viceroy, they didn't have different art in SWGB. Besides, Empire Strikes Back shows us that people are fine when on an asteroid with no atmosphere, as long as they wear a flimsy breathing mask ;)

Windu, I still think it would be better if they didn't have the instant transport thing at all. Bridges are a much more novel concept, which is both better for realism and gameplay.

Darth Windu
08-15-2004, 04:01 AM
Vostok - it isnt instant, there is a delay is becoing a transport and then reverting to their original form.

Admiral Vostok
08-15-2004, 10:08 AM
Whatever. They still shouldn't have it.

Froz complained before that allowing bridges would be too hard to defend against. I don't think it will, since it takes a fair amount of time to build a bridge, if you're keeping watch on your shores you'll avert it in time.

However, having water transports without a navy cartainly would be too hard to defend against. It will allow you to attack from any angle, without a navy to stop you (or for that matter protect you).

DK_Viceroy
08-15-2004, 04:32 PM
I think i'll avoid this conversation since there's no intelligent conversation in this thread and for the most part it's useless since neither of you will concede the other the point in a million years.

General Nitro
08-15-2004, 10:03 PM
Bridges = Good

Darth Windu
08-16-2004, 12:41 AM
Vostok - not true. For example, if you are playing on an island map, and you see an enemy invasion force headed your way by sea, you just send your units down to the beach and/or set up fighter/bomber patrols, which will slaughter the enemy sea forces. This form of transporting will only be a problem to the weak or the stupid.

DK_Viceroy
08-16-2004, 08:32 AM
Despite my earlier prounouncement I am compelled to point out that everybody finds new ways to use units contstantly.

Ever heard of a two pronged assault you send empty watr transports to one beach and full transports to another beach the empty ones get destroyed the full ones unload and wipe your base of the map.

Bridges are good and are nessacery unless you plan to put naval in since some people on island maps could easily just turtle and then after a while obliterate you with a huge force.

Darth Windu
08-16-2004, 09:05 AM
Viceroy - you've missed the point. What i am saying is that units become transports, then when they hit land they revert back to the original units. You are not buying or building anything else, so what you are saying is utterly impossible as an 'empty transport' would never exist.

FroZticles
08-16-2004, 12:36 PM
Vostok- plz point out where I said it would be to hard to defend against I'm dying to know.....

DK_Viceroy
08-16-2004, 01:56 PM
ok then windu explain how an infantry would become a ytransport and i don't see AT-AT's wading underwater do you? the only units i see as being able to go overwater are those that have repulsorlifts or in lamens term don't touch the ground.like the AAT.

Admiral Vostok
08-16-2004, 03:15 PM
Froz:Originally posted by FroZticles
Bridges could add alot of frustration, you have covered all your entry points ohhh wait a second my workers are getting wiped out thanks to a bridge at the back of my base. Also does not make much sense since they have transports in the first place. Windu: Viceroy's point is still valid. Let's say on one front you get 10 AT-ATs on the water in their magical transports. On the other front you get 10 Stormtroopers in their magical transports. The enemy sees ten transports heading for his shore, and not knowing they only contain a single Stormtrooper, sends all his army to stop them. Meanwhile the ten AT-ATs land on another shore.

But the main reason I hate the magical transport idea is that it is just too unsophisticated. It dumbs-down water-based maps to a rediculous level on no-brain "tactics". I want a Real Time Strategy game, not a Baby's First Battles like RoN.

lukeiamyourdad
08-16-2004, 05:09 PM
True. This "transforming into transports" idea comes from pure lazyness.
At the least, bridges reduce micro but not to this point.

Darth Windu
08-17-2004, 06:57 AM
Viceroy - you've still missed the point. Please read carefully because i dont feel like expalining this for a third time. ALL LAND UNITS TURN INTO TRANSPORTS WHEN THEY ENTER MEDIUM/DEEP WATER, THEN REVERT BACK TO NORMAL UNITS WHEN THEY REACH LAND

Vostok - you never answered how bridges make sense with lava, but i would also be interested to know why you would want a bridge that would be useless on a lot of maps, such as islands maps with large distances between the islands. This would force people to use air transports, forcing the game to turn into an air-fest for lack of a better word. Finally, how long would these bridges be?

Luke - as i have already expalined, bridges are too micro-intensive, force a 'stop-start' gameplay style and are useless in a lot of areas.

swphreak
08-17-2004, 10:22 AM
I hate how the units transform into Transports [in RoN]. That makes things too easy.

General Nitro
08-17-2004, 01:58 PM
If an air transport is shot down the units should "jump" or parachute out. If they are in a sea transport and are shot, they should try either drown, float, or swim to shore. Of course this is a bit more complicated than it should have to be. I just dont like losing pummels in air transports:p

DK_Viceroy
08-17-2004, 02:28 PM
Look windu this isn't Transformers Galactic Battlegrounds this is STar Wars Galactic Battlegrounds 2 we're talking about Star Wars units DON'T transform under any circumstances the farthest they do in that respect is locking and unlocking s-foils. Having units transfrom into transports is not realistic and not star warsy case closed now and forever. DON'T BRING THAT NONSENSICAL TRIPE UP AGAIN.

Admiral Vostok
08-17-2004, 02:50 PM
Windu, no-one likes the RoN transport style. Surely that says something to you. In fact, I challenge you to find any review of RoN where the magical transports idea is listed as a good feature. It just sucks.

As for bridges being micro-intensive, they are no more so than building any other building. If micro-intensive to you means "more micro than magical transforming transports" then I want a lot of micro in the game. The simplicity of RoN transports is an insult to any decent RTS gamer.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about lava crossings. The bridge goes over the lava and doesn't touch it. Isn't that obvious?

For larger bodies of water, yes, you will have to use air transports. So what? It's far more Star-Warsy than water transports anyway.

Just for fun, here's my all-time list of crappest RTS ideas:
1. WarCraft III's Upkeep.
2. Rise of Nations water transportation.
3. War of the Ring - the entire game.

DK_Viceroy
08-17-2004, 02:57 PM
The only reason you mentioned war of the ring is because mentioned it in the forum game. The campaigns are good but that's about it.

FroZticles
08-17-2004, 03:22 PM
Water transports are more Star Warsy than using bridge tactics to win a battle...

General Nitro
08-17-2004, 04:17 PM
What is the basis of that assumption?

Admiral Vostok
08-17-2004, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by FroZticles
Water transports are more Star Warsy than using bridge tactics to win a battle... Well neither are really "Star-Warsy", but since one would involve completely made-up units while the other wouldn't, I'd say bridge crossings are the better choice.

lukeiamyourdad
08-17-2004, 11:17 PM
I don't understand why some call this a "bridge tactic"? I don't think people realize that it's only for the crossing of large number of forces from one secure location to another.

You'll probably never see bridge flanking "tactics" since it's not really viable and a pretty hard thing to accomplish. If your enemy is on a seperate island, you'll have to transport units by air in to secure the location you want to build your bridge. Then, when bridge is done, large numbers of troops can cross.

FroZticles
08-18-2004, 07:22 AM
Well I don't care if there made up units I have not seen a bridge being used in Star Wars yet. Water transport gungans anyone? So Vostok you should be backing the transports instead of the bridges which are more impure to the films.

Darth Windu
08-18-2004, 07:23 AM
Vostok -
- no-one liked me merging the Federation and Confederacy
- no-one liked me giving Jedi to only the Republic
both are now part of your template, and others have come to agree with me on both issues.

As i said before, water transports are far better for gameplay and do away with useless micro.

Viceroy - Gameplay > Realism :D

FroZticles
08-18-2004, 07:27 AM
I didn't have any objection to the merge of TF and Confed. Jedi only to Republic is ok but your motives are only for realism.

lukeiamyourdad
08-18-2004, 03:31 PM
Windu, I seriously wouldn't brag on those two issues. There was a LOT of stuff we disagreed on and still do.

Admiral Vostok
08-18-2004, 04:26 PM
Useless micro? Micro is not useless. If it is, why don't you just start the game by pressing a big green GO button and the AI plays the game completely for you?

Froz - The only water transport we've seen is a bongo, which can carry three guys. So not only is it not a military transport, but it belongs to the Gungans who aren't in either mine or Windu's design. As for bridges, we're not talking about them necessarily as the way to attack, just as a way to cross water. Certainly from that point of view there were several bridges throughout Theed that the Trade Federation used, as well as bridges between buildings on Coruscant and Bespin that could support any army.

I just don't think we need water transports. My design hasn't had them for a while. Realistically I think water transports should only be included if naval combat is also included - no game that I know of has water transports without naval combat.

lukeiamyourdad
08-19-2004, 12:39 AM
I suppose the bridges are the response to the possibility of no naval combat. People have to realise that without two ways to cross water, island can easily be turned into invincible fortresses, surrounding it with AA defenses, not to mention a nice wing of fighter to help. How are we supposed to beat them without any way of making large amounts of troops cross?

Darth Windu
08-19-2004, 04:56 AM
luke - i should also point that a lot of people didnt like me merging the Royal Naboo and Gungans but again, others have followed my lead.

Just one thing i would like to ask those opposing my auto-transport ability, have any of you played RoN?

FroZticles
08-19-2004, 05:47 AM
Vostok those "because we have not seen them in the films so they should not be in the game" is definately not an argument that shows any meaning to me. Anyways since your basing everything off the movies there would not be water in your map line up. Naboo only has shallows and swamps unless you want them fighting in the ocean.

Admiral Vostok
08-19-2004, 12:01 PM
Froz, don't turn the argument around. I said that in a direct response to this statement from you:So Vostok you should be backing the transports instead of the bridges which are more impure to the films.You claim it is more impure to have bridges than transports, I was showing how you were wrong. You really need to keep track of your own arguments, that's twice now I've had to quote you for the sole purpose of reminding you what you'd already said.

As for your water argument, perhaps you forget about Kamino.

Windu, I thought you knew I had played RoN. I'm sure I've mentioned it several times while opposing your love for it.

FroZticles
08-19-2004, 01:06 PM
You argument about how the Trade Federation used bridges in battle is really a sad arugment. Your just grabbing at straws and trying to throw anything out there. You said so yourself that both ideas were not very Star Warsy.

Kamino its impossible to use bridges, there is no land to support because all the land is underwater. All the land close to the surface is taken already by the platforms. Another weak attempt to support your argument.

If they have air WHY do they want bridges. All that technology and you water to be crossed with a basic bridge. Air can do the job of a water transport and a bridge and then some.....

DK_Viceroy
08-19-2004, 01:25 PM
What an INTERESTINg animal the purist is they contradict their own views with such rapidity and regularity it's some times too fast too keep up. they fight amongst themselves over such tiny things like dogs over a bone. and some in particular don't even what this to be a star wars game. I wouldn't be suprised if they put in a teleportation array in their semi generic unworkable pilfered idea frankenstein of a plan.he'll of course be putting in a heavy tank analuogue unit for the rebels and incredible air unit for the rebels giving everyone jedi and the republic sith and last but not least make the confederacy a major naval power.

Bridges would propably be most useful in briding short gaps and used for rapid brining ujp of forces. thier should propably be two types an unarmed early bridge with not much hitpoints for early game island hopping, and an expensive armed and sheilded armoured bridge for late games where lines of communication are important. The idea of island fortressess need to be addressed perhaps with some sort of Ion bomb or cannon to disable defnces for a short time.

Windu I don't support the idea of Gungans OR Naboo in the game except as toybox units, many others support them as minor civs which they should remain. everyone else is happy with four civs and a handful of minor. The trade federation joined the confederacy anyway so that is cannon with the truth with both the films and the acompninaing literature so that is cannon and as such will not get arguments from me.

forsticles haven't you thought about the actual platfroms themselves. if they can make platfroms like that then surely they can make a slab of material to bridge the two.

Bridging short distances often does not require any central support just one at each end and in the star wars universe they could obviuosly have the know how to strech them considerably further. of course they wouldn't have bridges from a city on the equator to one at their north pole.

Air transports need to be re-evaluated before we can argue about if they're going to be useful but from what I've heard from other people's comments about the air transport costing 7 pop it won't be feasible to attack an enemy. I'll read that semi generic behemoth when i have the time to be bored pantless.

Admiral Vostok
08-19-2004, 04:32 PM
Froz (and Viceroy, since you're going on about Purists being contradicting) please read my posts again. Froz, you're completely changing the argument again and turning around what I'm saying. I'm saying neither are StarWarsy, but bridges make for better gameplay and are not as unStarWarsy as water transports.

There needs to be at least two ways to cross water. One is obviously by air. A game with no naval units should not have any water-faring units at all, thus why I think bridges to be the best solution.

I think there should certainly only be one type of bridge so bridging does not become the preferred tactic - air transportation should be used as a preferrence, with bridge building as a backup. Bridges should take a long time to build so enemies can stop you in the process.



Finally, as an off topic rant, I just want to address Viceroy's claim that the Federation joined the Confederacy: this is not canonical at all. In the films, Gunray says he's not signing the treaty until Senator Amidala has been assassinated. Since she's still alive and there were no Trade Federation units in the Battle of Geonosis, it's fair to assume the Federation has still not signed the treaty. This is why I always refer to them as "Separatists"; the Federation is definitely part of the Separatists but not definitely part of the Confederacy.

FroZticles
08-20-2004, 04:12 AM
ROFL no Trade Fed units at the Battle of Geonosis

Battle Droid, Droideka.......

Count Dooku also said that the Trade Federation pledged there support. The Trade Federation also had no where else to turn.

The whole bridge thing is really stupid it probably won't even be in more than three maps which is really just a waste. Air is more than enough ways to cross water since it would be alot more stealthy and faster.

lukeiamyourdad
08-20-2004, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by FroZticles

The whole bridge thing is really stupid it probably won't even be in more than three maps which is really just a waste. Air is more than enough ways to cross water since it would be alot more stealthy and faster.

But a lot more micro and not as effective FOR LARGEAMOUNTS OF UNITS.

FroZticles
08-20-2004, 10:00 AM
You could fit 20 units per transports I don't see how that is not effective. If you selecting your units and clicking on a transport large macro theres something wrong....

DK_Viceroy
08-20-2004, 12:26 PM
Back to this topic again would it hold 20 troopers or twenty at-at's

We want less micro and bridges offer that. I however think they should be in more of a support role like you secure a bridgehead and you build a bridge to allow a stedy flow of troops.

this wouldn't nessacerily be on three maps since a bridge could be used to allow transfer of forces from one part of your territory to another without any micro.

it would also add a tactical elements where your dfending your bridges since if their destroyed it'll take a lot longer for you to get reinforcements to where their needed.

Vostok you are one of the FEW purists i actually trust the rest i don't trust as far as i could throw them. I wasn't reffering to you i was referring to others especially the idiots saying that bridges are un-star warsy and also pointing out that without naval bridges have to be in unless they want something star treky like a teleporter. The star wars universe does have something that is vaguely similar.

Those are jump gates in which almost instantaneuos travel is possible however the technology to build them has long since been lost and only a precious few are still operational in some remote corner of the galaxy and those were for space vessles.

Admiral Vostok
08-20-2004, 02:45 PM
We want less micro and bridges offer that. I however think they should be in more of a support role like you secure a bridgehead and you build a bridge to allow a stedy flow of troops.Definitely. They wouldn't really be very useful for attacking a heavily defended bank of an enemy base.Vostok you are one of the FEW purists i actually trust the rest i don't trust as far as i could throw them. I wasn't reffering to you i was referring to others especially the idiots saying that bridges are un-star warsy and also pointing out that without naval bridges have to be in unless they want something star treky like a teleporter. The star wars universe does have something that is vaguely similar.Oh okay. I know who you're referring to now. ;)

ROFL no Trade Fed units at the Battle of Geonosis
Battle Droid, Droideka.......I said the Battle of Geonosis, not the Arena Battle. If you knew the films you'd know that there were no Droidekas in the battle with the Clones. The Battle Droids that were in that battle did not belong to the Trade Federation, they were a slightly redder colour than the Federation Droids. And there were certainly no AATs, MTTs or STAPs in the Battle of Geonosis. Gunray has "pledged his support", but that doesn't mean he's an official part of the Confederacy, he's just an ally.

FroZticles
08-21-2004, 04:08 AM
There were droidekas in the Battle at Geonosis when they did a overview of them flying to the clone frontline there were droidekas there. I'll watch it again and try to pin point where they were.

Admiral Vostok
08-21-2004, 10:10 AM
A couple get crushed by the fuel cells falling off the Techno Union Rockets, but there are none in the battle itself. Keep in mind that as a Star Wars Scholar, few have questioned my knowledge of the movies and got away with it.

DK_Viceroy
08-21-2004, 10:38 AM
I question you all the time and i'm still alive i don't even have a few bruises so that's pretty much empty.

The trade federation may have originally not intended to sign until they had padme but do you think just because they didn't sign up but had thier fleet thier and quite a lot of equipment and tried to get padme a republic senator killed. Yup I think the republic would pretty much try to destroy them so the Trade fedration would have been forced to join up to take advantage of strength through numbers.

Admiral Vostok
08-21-2004, 10:46 AM
Sure you question me all the time, but not on my knowledge of the movies.

Sure, it's possible that after the Battle of Geonosis, Gunray caved in and signed the treaty. What I'm saying is the films don't necessarily support this; and most certainly even at the end of the film the Federation is still not a part of the Confederacy.

Keep in mind they are still allied to the Confederacy though, so will benefit from their protection anyway. The Confederate army was protecting the Trade Federation's escape during the Battle of Geonosis.

DK_Viceroy
08-22-2004, 07:02 AM
They would have had to throw their lot in with the confederacy anyway after geonosis the republic would have had no mercy on them.

Admiral Vostok
08-24-2004, 12:50 PM
But they could still remain allies rather than a proper part of the Confederacy. It's possible they would join but not certain.

FroZticles
08-27-2004, 12:49 AM
Theres nothing supporting they did not join. So its hard to make an assumption on nothing.

Darth Windu
08-27-2004, 01:19 AM
Actually, in this case Vostok is correct. At the end of Ep2, the TF was working with the Confederacy, but were not part of it. Generally though the point is moot, as soon as the war started the TF and Confederacy would have joined force, so them being a member of the Confederacy is irrelevant.

FroZticles
08-27-2004, 08:47 AM
You have no evidence that they were not apart of the Confederacy.

Darth Windu
08-27-2004, 09:47 AM
Actually I do. During the scenes on Geonosis in AotC, Gunray says that they will sign the treaty once the Naboo senator (padme) is dead. Since Padme did not die, we can gather that the TF did not sign the treaty.

swphreak
08-27-2004, 10:55 AM
We'll just wait and see who's correct when Ep3 comes along.

Admiral Vostok
08-27-2004, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by FroZticles
Theres nothing supporting they did not join. So its hard to make an assumption on nothing. There is plenty to support them not joining. I've listed it, and Windu just reiterated it for you. You'll find that in fact there is nothing to support them joining.Originally posted by Darth Windu
Actually, in this case Vostok is correct.I'm always correct when it comes to the movies. :D

DK_Viceroy
08-27-2004, 12:44 PM
Ask an inteliigent question get a Brainless answer from usually smart people.

Admiral Vostok
08-27-2004, 01:20 PM
If that comment is directed at me, I invite all those who don't agree with me to list empirical evidence from the movies in support of your argument.

FroZticles
08-28-2004, 12:32 AM
Vostok just because you watch the movies one to many times does not make you some Star Wars god in your outlook. Trade Federation joined them theres more evidence that they did or will join them. They have no where else to turn, they gave there army at the Confederacy's disposal.

Darth Windu
08-28-2004, 02:17 AM
FroZ - i agree that the TF would have joined the Confederacy after Geonosis. BUT the fact remains that by the end of AotC, they hadn't.

Admiral Vostok
08-28-2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by FroZticles
Vostok just because you watch the movies one to many times does not make you some Star Wars god in your outlook.But it does make me pretty close. ;) Trade Federation joined them theres more evidence that they did or will join them.No there isn't more evidence. If there is, why hasn't anyone presented it?They have no where else to turn, they gave there army at the Confederacy's disposal. [/B]As I said earlier, that isn't necessarily true. The Trade Federation is by far the most powerful of the Commerce Guilds. They don't need protecting. They would remain in the alliance as long as possible, since the Trade Federation would much rather fight alongside the Confederacy than sign away their freedom and be bound to whatever the Dooku decrees.

This is a silly argument, but a fun one. :)

lukeiamyourdad
08-28-2004, 08:14 PM
I'll just say that logically, I would join the Confed if I was Nute Gunray...After the Battle of geonosis of course.

FroZticles
08-28-2004, 09:13 PM
Well since Palpy has the clones at his command why does he need the Separatists?

Nute Gunray is in way over his head and cannot get himself out. Joining the Confederacy would be the final blow to him before palpy finishes what he started. Lets just say I don't think Gunray will make it to the end of RoTS.

Admiral Vostok
08-28-2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
I'll just say that logically, I would join the Confed if I was Nute Gunray...After the Battle of geonosis of course. I wouldn't, and here's why:
I control the largest army in the galaxy outside the Confederacy and the Republic.
The Confederacy would love me to join them so they can use my army.
The one thing I want most in the galaxy is for Senator Amidala to be dead, since she humiliated me ten years ago.
Count Dooku has promised to have her assassinated if I will join the Confederacy.

So why would I join the Confederacy, when in holding out I will make Dooku more likely to assassinate Amidala and fulfill my desires?

Darth Windu
08-29-2004, 01:19 AM
Vostok - while that may be correct, I look at it in that your allies have just gone to war with an extremely powerful army that has engulfed the entire Galaxy, so you must choose to support one or the other. In this case, clearly the TF would support the Confederacy. Joining them is another matter, but support can easily be assumed.

lukeiamyourdad
08-29-2004, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok

So why would I join the Confederacy, when in holding out I will make Dooku more likely to assassinate Amidala and fulfill my desires?

Because I'm already in the middle of a War. You either stay neutral, or join it. It's too late for Gunray to stay neutral. If the republic wins, he's dead. He'll be branded as a traitor against the Republic because of his dealings with the Confederacy.

So you either join up and try to save your skin, or stay there doing nothing. Supporting is not enough. They'll get targeted sooner or later.

swphreak
08-29-2004, 02:41 AM
Nute Gunrary would probably be charged with conspiracy, and like luke said, be branded a traitor. Might as well throw in his lot with the Confed and increase their strength. Of course, we can have no way of understanding how niemodian might think... well... I guess we can... whatever is more profitable is good for him. In that case, it would probbaly be more profitable to remain neutral and continue trading and charging high prices in war zones and increase profits, but then again, Niemodians are not quick to risk their assets in tricky situations...

Complicated this is.

lukeiamyourdad
08-29-2004, 09:53 AM
What's the point to keep trading under those kinds of circumstances? Trades routes aren't safe, sooner or later, the Republic will have to strike them to stop the flow of weapons made by the Federation and sold to the Confederacy.

Admiral Vostok
08-29-2004, 11:58 AM
Don't misunderstand me. The Trade Federation is definitely not "neutral". They are definitely allies to the Confederacy. But that is very different from being part of the Confederacy treaty.

As much as I hate to "do a Windu" and use a real world example, I feel I must to point out the difference. Currently, the USA and Australia are allies, much like the Confederacy and Federation. When the USA goes to war, Australia comes along and supports their forces. However, Australia is not a part of the USA. Becoming part of the USA would mean becoming dependent upon the USA and not being able to govern itself. So you can see how, even in a time of war, the Trade Federation would still be reluctant to properly join the Confederacy rather than just remain allies, especially when Dooku still has an outstanding commitment to assassinate Amidala.

swphreak
08-29-2004, 01:20 PM
The Republic doesn't have unlimited resources. They're fighting against combined forces. They may not have the resources to go after the Trade Federation, and who said they'd transport weapons? Maybe they'll get a hold of the Bacta sales and charge extremely high prices in war zones? (Stark Hyperspace War anyone? :p ) Those Federation ships aren't completely defenseless (although they have design flaws).

lukeiamyourdad
08-29-2004, 04:35 PM
I suppose our definitions of the Confederacy are different then.

DK_Viceroy
08-29-2004, 06:28 PM
The Intergalatctic Banking clan and it's ilk would have had the same thinking but they joined anyway your forgeting what dooku promised them a new galactic order where once the war was won they'd be free to expand their buisnesses as much as the could possibly want. The trade federation would jump at this chance.

Admiral Vostok
08-30-2004, 07:30 AM
Well although that idea comes from EU I'll work with it rather than just throw it out. The difference in that example with the IGBC is that it was Dooku giving the IGBC the ultimatum: "Join the Confederacy and you can expand your business after the War." In the case of the Trade Federation, it was Gunray who was giving the ultimatum to Dooku: "Kill Amidala and we'll join the Confederacy."

So for the IGBC, joining the Confederacy was the means to the ends. For the Federation, joining the Confederacy was the ends and not the means.

Don't overlook the fact that the Trade Federation army is probably the most valuable of all the Commerce Guilds, and as such Dooku will highly prize their joining the Confederacy. The Trade Federation will naturally use this to their advantage; they'd probably join the Confederacy anyway, but why not use Dooku's desires (the aquisition of the Federation Army) to fulfill their own desires (the assassination of Amidala)?

Note that I'm not saying the Federation never will join the Confederacy. By the start of Episode III, I'm pretty sure they would have joined despite Amidala being still alive. But I believe that to consider the Trade Federation as a part of the Confederacy for the majority of the Clone Wars is incorrect. For much of the war, they were probably just allies rather than signatory to the Treaty. I think this is pointed at by the number of official sources that speak of the Republic's enemy as being the "Separatists" rather than the "Confederacy", for the title of Separatists certainly includes the Trade Federation while the title of Confederacy does not.

DK_Viceroy
08-30-2004, 12:35 PM
Actually i think that's more along the lines of the republic Not Recognising the Treaty and regarding them as rebels Or Seperatists.

Nemodians like Money, The make more money by expanding their buisness, ergo the Trade Federation would also be attracted by that offer while i agree they would try to exploit dooku about amidala but not be too attached to the idea. especially since You deny EU you cannot be 100% certain about the structure of the Trade Federation Leadership and the Existance of the Trade Fedreation Directorate. knowing about that also explains how the republic had a shipyard company with them with the likes of Rothana and Kuat

Admiral Vostok
08-30-2004, 01:33 PM
Look, my point is we don't know whether or not the Trade Federation will join the Confederacy, but going on the fact that Gunray said he won't sign the treaty until Amidala is dead would make it more likely they don't sign the treaty rather than the alternative.

That's all I'm saying.

FroZticles
08-30-2004, 04:14 PM
Nute Gunray is nothing but a pawn for Palpatine's plan. I don't think it would make much difference if he signed or not since the Trade Federation army is still being used by the Separatists. I really don't think Lucas thought that deep in the subject probably thought it sounded good on sceen for Gunray to want Amidala dead so badly.

joesdomain
08-30-2004, 08:30 PM
What SWGB 2 needs to have is include both trilogies in the game? They also need to include all the troopers, locations, vehicles, starships, and other organizations seen and even just mentioned in the 6 films.