PDA

View Full Version : Things that need to be fixed for this game your ideas


Naphtali
05-17-2006, 09:45 PM
The first thing that needs to be fixed is the overall AI, the computer only attacked when it had an overweliming force, not using logic as to what planet had the weakest defense or had the greatest strategic advantage economically, militarily, disrupting trade routes, as well as the unique planet advantages.
Also in land battle more options per unit like the troopers, I dont know how many times a pod walker trample my entire unit, so more options like spread formation along with take cover would nice.
Heroes
Also the emperor I know they dont want to over power the emperor but his lighting should also take some power from the vehicles as well as other heroes instead of just canceling it altogether. Vader and the emperor along with luke, kenobi and yoda should have a universal force push for vehicles.
All the force heroes should have an ability that can affect another hero as well. Like The emperors lighting should do damage, give Vadar his force choke, or dark rage where he inflicts more damage and becomes faster for ex.

Space battles, I feel their should be a few more formations, maybe you want frigates and anti bomber craft in front protecting your larger ships , or you want the fighters and frigates protecting your bombers as you proceed to the spacestation.
Also here again more more special abilities are needed in my opinion, if i have an IMP SD it should have more than just increased hit points, it should have beam weaponry, as a special weapon or missle barage for a few seconds of photon torpedos, or concussion missles instead of just plain more hit points.

Overall increasing special abilities wont make the game unbalanced if done correctly with good counter points.
I would love to get your thoughts

Its been a long time since ive been here, hope to hear from you

Dark Sad Shadow
05-17-2006, 09:59 PM
graphics, just a little more defined graphics :P (im running it with Nvidia Gforce 6600, 128 AGP)

about the AI, you are right, a little more challenge.

Space battles, we need more units on it, BUT then the lag could do his part here :(

more units!!! new units

thon77
05-18-2006, 01:32 AM
i'd like to see Imperial Star Destroyers have 2 shield hardpoints, there's two of those "ball" shield generators on top of the bridge anyway. as it stands it's too easy to take down their shields, a few y-wing squadrons can do it in one flyby. especially compared to mon cals that can recharge from nothing to full in anything but the fiercest attacks. you have to micromanage bombers like a madman to de-claw them

also it'd be nice if the empire had any rocket using unit on land, at least force rebels to buy stutter shields

Darth Anarch
05-18-2006, 05:31 AM
Better AI would be nice, although when I play I notice that it does indeed target the least defended planet. It doesn't seem to care much about strategic importance, which is a shame.

Yes, it is annoying when your infantry gets squashed by vehicles, but those are the breaks. You just have to micromanage a little more.

Vader has an anti-vehicle power. I don't know about the Emperor's Force Lightning, but at Obi-Wan does excellent damage with his lightsaber against vehicles anyway. I don't think they need any specific anti-vehicle power; what's the fun in having all the heroes be carbon copies of each other?

From the looks of it the Empire will get rocket troops in the Forces of Corruption expansion. DarkTroopers (the level 2 or 3 version) seemed to be firing rockets from shoulder-mounted pods.

Naphtali
05-18-2006, 09:10 PM
Better AI would be nice, although when I play I notice that it does indeed target the least defended planet. It doesn't seem to care much about strategic importance, which is a shame.

Yes, it is annoying when your infantry gets squashed by vehicles, but those are the breaks. You just have to micromanage a little more.

Vader has an anti-vehicle power. I don't know about the Emperor's Force Lightning, but at Obi-Wan does excellent damage with his lightsaber against vehicles anyway. I don't think they need any specific anti-vehicle power; what's the fun in having all the heroes be carbon copies of each other?

From the looks of it the Empire will get rocket troops in the Forces of Corruption expansion. DarkTroopers (the level 2 or 3 version) seemed to be firing rockets from shoulder-mounted pods.

All i would asked is that lightning damages vehicles as well as heroes.
I understand the balance aspect when it comes to infantry, but diversification of formation would be nice when theres action elsewhere and i cant micromanage.
Lastly

Naphtali
05-18-2006, 09:11 PM
Better AI would be nice, although when I play I notice that it does indeed target the least defended planet. It doesn't seem to care much about strategic importance, which is a shame.

Yes, it is annoying when your infantry gets squashed by vehicles, but those are the breaks. You just have to micromanage a little more.

Vader has an anti-vehicle power. I don't know about the Emperor's Force Lightning, but at Obi-Wan does excellent damage with his lightsaber against vehicles anyway. I don't think they need any specific anti-vehicle power; what's the fun in having all the heroes be carbon copies of each other?

From the looks of it the Empire will get rocket troops in the Forces of Corruption expansion. DarkTroopers (the level 2 or 3 version) seemed to be firing rockets from shoulder-mounted pods.

All i would asked is that lightning damages vehicles as well as heroes.
I understand the balance aspect when it comes to infantry, but diversification of formation would be nice when theres action elsewhere and i cant micromanage.

aggie_john
05-18-2006, 10:36 PM
I know this sounds odd perhaps but I would like to see a few things.

One customability of ships and units.
Ships: I think that realistically they could allow us to either upgrade ship componants ie MKI turbo lasers-> MkII turbo lasers or what ever star wars names they have for them.
Units: color schemes, like the specific markings we see on the clones in ep III. I know that stormtroopers were all white but, then again if you like the all white look, keep it, by all means. Also they might allow us to choice weapons for units either generally like all stormtroopers use this particular weapon or a selected battalion would carry a particular weapon and these could range from light rapid fire stuf to slower more powerful stuff thus changingthe role of specific battalions.

two, would be that if one could not be done, could they add varation of troops. Perhaps these troops could be hero specific. IE when Vader is on a planet instead of stormtroopers being produced at the barracks it instead produces elite 501st Stormtroopers, which could either have improved stats or some cool new ability like for example the 501st could have a "storm" ability where they rush a target running and rapid fire. Just an example.

More cinamatic fight senes. The Vader-Obiwon fight is excellent. Why stop at them. Luke-Palpatine, Obiwon-Palpatine, Vader-Yoda. Han-Vader, Han can dodge and shot Vader deflects and swings. Bobo Fett-Obiwon rematch(since he is Jango's clone).

XkaOnslaught
05-18-2006, 10:49 PM
then we would be turning it into another Galactic Civilizations =/
i think having modding capabilities for our own ships is to complicated for this kind of game... but if there really is a want for customizations... let it be only for heros perhaps.

Admiral Z
05-18-2006, 10:55 PM
Torpid has mentioned that anything beyond the base of the main game is not within the scope of the expansion. But perhaps for a sequel.

aggie_john
05-19-2006, 12:52 AM
Oh ok well I hope they include more cinamatic fights and perhaps minor hero units/companies like the 501th and Rogue Squadron.

wedge2211
05-19-2006, 01:16 AM
Your idea for a new stormtrooper special attack is a good one. I'd like to see them live up to their name.

saalkin
05-19-2006, 09:25 PM
I want the heros to be tech leveled in GC MP. Just like it is in single player. I hate the fact you start with home one and pett at tech level 1.

thon77
05-19-2006, 09:59 PM
ships and troops should still take orders once the countdown to a battle begins. to be able to amass a fleet for a counter attack

The Death Star
05-20-2006, 05:54 AM
New Stormtrooper Special: Wilhelm Scream.

wedge2211
05-20-2006, 10:07 AM
YES

zac naloen
05-20-2006, 01:03 PM
i'd like to see Imperial Star Destroyers have 2 shield hardpoints, there's two of those "ball" shield generators on top of the bridge anyway. as it stands it's too easy to take down their shields, a few y-wing squadrons can do it in one flyby. especially compared to mon cals that can recharge from nothing to full in anything but the fiercest attacks. you have to micromanage bombers like a madman to de-claw them

also it'd be nice if the empire had any rocket using unit on land, at least force rebels to buy stutter shields



Just think i should point out that the Domes on top of the Stardestroyer aren't the shield generators, they are Sensor Domes. The shield generator(s) may be in a similar location, but the Domes aren't it. This misconception was fixed in the most recent Technical books.

Cheech Marin
05-20-2006, 01:28 PM
Oh boy, here we go again.... Why don't we just compromise and say they have both shield generators and sensors equipment in those domes? That way both sides will be happy. Hell, I'm perfectly willing to go as far as saying that those are only the shield generators for the bridge tower, not the entire ship.

thon77
05-20-2006, 01:53 PM
never heard that before, oh well

thought of something else though. there should be a way to setup what your initial fleet will be in battle.

zac naloen
05-20-2006, 03:18 PM
Oh boy, here we go again.... Why don't we just compromise and say they have both shield generators and sensors equipment in those domes? That way both sides will be happy. Hell, I'm perfectly willing to go as far as saying that those are only the shield generators for the bridge tower, not the entire ship.


I didn't say there weren't in the tower, just that the domes aren't them.

Its perfectly acceptable to me that the shield generators are located in the tower somewhere, it is a pretty large space after all. Plus its pretty damned stupid to have you shield projectors OUTSIDE the ship they are protected its just screaming "target me" Having them protected by the hull as well as their own shield makes way more sense.

But those domes are Sensor Domes, its how they were designated in the original designs and in the latest tech books.

Cheech Marin
05-21-2006, 10:35 AM
Don't these same tech books also say that one shot from an Acclamator Cruiser's turbolasers is rated at 200 gigatons? Do they have any idea just how much energy that really is? Just to put things into perspective, the largest atomic bomb ever detonated (the Russian Tsar Bomba)was "merely" 50 megatons.

Darth Anarch
05-21-2006, 02:12 PM
Maybe it's just me, but those "my techbook can pee farther than your techbook"-debates seem rather pointless. Petroglyph will make the best game they know how, and if they have to ignore someting in a techbook in order to maintain gameplay that's what they'll do. And rightly so, I might add.

zac naloen
05-21-2006, 04:52 PM
Don't these same tech books also say that one shot from an Acclamator Cruiser's turbolasers is rated at 200 gigatons? Do they have any idea just how much energy that really is? Just to put things into perspective, the largest atomic bomb ever detonated (the Russian Tsar Bomba)was "merely" 50 megatons.

I don't quite understand how that discredits what im saying

Anyway the book is written by a physicist, i think he realises how much energy that is.

I don't think you realise the power levels that have been demonstrated in the movies, which is where they derive their figures from. A stardestroyer VAPOURISED an asteroid. That requires in excess of 200 gigatons. Unless you can somehow prove otherwise, which people have tried to do for years, and failed those figures stand.


Maybe it's just me, but those "my techbook can pee farther than your techbook"-debates seem rather pointless. Petroglyph will make the best game they know how, and if they have to ignore someting in a techbook in order to maintain gameplay that's what they'll do. And rightly so, I might add.

I never said they shouldn't. The game doesn't specify where the Shield generator is beyond being in that tower. I was just correcting a common misconception on the part of Thon 77. :)

TronusNavigon
05-22-2006, 10:54 AM
I don't know if this has already been said, but something that REALLY REALLY needs to be fixed:

When landing your troops upon invasion, your opponent can send in a raid and pretty much kill all your troops while they are landing... but the troops just stand there and WON'T FIGHT BACK, until they're all landed.

That's HORSESH*T! How many multiplayer games have you been ganked because of this?

MAKE THE UNITS FIRE IF UNDER THREAT IMMEDIATELY UPON LANDING... IF THEY CAN BE KILLED, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO RETALIATE.

This, to me, has broken so many potentially great matches that it really needs to be touched upon. I thought the new patch would handle this, but no... troops are still fodder.

Future Guy
05-22-2006, 05:06 PM
The AI DEFINITELY needs to be fixed. It has the 'mass & rush' mentality which really makes it boring.

The graphics need to have an overhaul. Fans could make better models than those we have in this game at the moment.

The maps need to be MUCH bigger than they currently. I read that they will increase by like 40%, whoopty-doo. They need to increase by like 200% or more, especially considering the size of the ships (especially with the Executor and Eclipse coming in, a 40% increase won't make a big difference with those ships).

TronusNavigon
05-22-2006, 06:08 PM
Totally agree Future Guy...

Those Space Maps are INSANELY clausterphobic. Scouts? Who needs that crap?

"Gee... I wonder where my opponent is?"
(clicks in middle of the map... 1 second later)
"Well golly gee, he's right friggin here in front of me! Same as the last battle... and the one before that... and... oh look, he's trying to run away and hide his three Corvettes...
(1 second later)
"Oops... looks like he's already on the edge of the map... hey, so am I... oh man, can't... turn... both Star Destroyers... oh.... wait... ah f**k it..."

(Auto-Resolve)

YOU HAVE BEEN DEFEATED!

"WHAT THE FU@!*@$! ARggghg!"

[ sound familiar? ]

thon77
05-22-2006, 08:21 PM
i have to agree, it's ridiculous. the ships start firing before i even get a chance to select any of them on some maps. before the camera even pans to the default position from the hyper in cinematic.

Cheech Marin
05-22-2006, 10:45 PM
I don't quite understand how that discredits what im saying

Anyway the book is written by a physicist, i think he realises how much energy that is.

I don't think you realise the power levels that have been demonstrated in the movies, which is where they derive their figures from. A stardestroyer VAPOURISED an asteroid. That requires in excess of 200 gigatons. Unless you can somehow prove otherwise, which people have tried to do for years, and failed those figures stand.




This wouldn't happen to be the same "physicist" who believes that lightsabers cast a shadow simply because of an error made by the filmmakers? (I am referring to Dr. Curtis Saxton, the guy who made the Star Wars Technical Commentaries) It's true, at one point you can see Vader's lightsaber casting a shadow during the famous duel in Return of the Jedi. This obviously has to be a special effects error. This also shows you that the movies are not necessarily the final authority on every matter. Things still have to make sense in the Star Wars universe.

This 200 gigaton business would also mean that ships would depend on superheavy energy shields for defense, and once those were gone, the vessel is finished, no matter how much conventional armor you could pile onto that ship. Sure, those numbers might have been "derived" from the movies, but they still make no sense.

Jan Gaarni
05-23-2006, 11:08 AM
This wouldn't happen to be the same "physicist" who believes that lightsabers cast a shadow simply because of an error made by the filmmakers?
Yes, that's the same guy.

Xyvik
05-25-2006, 01:18 PM
then we would be turning it into another Galactic Civilizations =/
i think having modding capabilities for our own ships is to complicated for this kind of game... but if there really is a want for customizations... let it be only for heros perhaps.

And that would be a bad thing...how? GalCiv is an awesome game on every level, and any attempt to be more like it would only make FoC even better.

Onto the debate regarding technical details...

Timothy Zahn, author of the most popular Star Wars novels and arguably the man responsible for Star Wars surviving this long, has several degrees in the science of physics. Therefore, anything he put in his novels was backed by hard science, and always has been (the only exception being the ysalamari, which were a concession to both fantasy and science). Also therefore, I would trust whatever he wrote to be just as accurate, if not more so, than some paper-pusher technical writer.

Therefore, in the end, whatever Zahn writes is truth, anything to the contrary is lies. Including Ep3, which blasphemes Kashyyyk and is therefore apochryphal.

lukeiamyourdad
05-25-2006, 02:06 PM
Therefore, in the end, whatever Zahn writes is truth, anything to the contrary is lies. Including Ep3, which blasphemes Kashyyyk and is therefore apochryphal.

I hope it's sarcasm. I seriously do.

Darth Anarch
05-26-2006, 04:56 AM
I hope it's sarcasm. I seriously do.
Me too. That was more than just a little scary.

thon77
05-26-2006, 08:05 AM
Timothy Zahn, author of the most popular Star Wars novels and arguably the man responsible for Star Wars surviving this long

:giggle1:

Darth Anarch
05-26-2006, 01:15 PM
The operative word there is "arguably". :giggle1:

conmanguyler
05-27-2006, 07:05 AM
yes, i also think that the pop. space cap shld be atlered, to make the battles huge!, ive seen the trailer and there are many ships on the battle field which is great!, but are you going to include this in the final version?

- Edit - and also what are those red spiraling weapon things that come out of the pirate ships? are they some sort of powreful weapon that can take down hardpoints with ease? - like the proton beam?

If you know how to edit double-posts, you know how to delete them. -LIAYD

WarlokLord
05-27-2006, 04:29 PM
I don't know if this has already been said, but something that REALLY REALLY needs to be fixed:

When landing your troops upon invasion, your opponent can send in a raid and pretty much kill all your troops while they are landing... but the troops just stand there and WON'T FIGHT BACK, until they're all landed.

That's HORSESH*T! How many multiplayer games have you been ganked because of this?

MAKE THE UNITS FIRE IF UNDER THREAT IMMEDIATELY UPON LANDING... IF THEY CAN BE KILLED, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO RETALIATE.

This, to me, has broken so many potentially great matches that it really needs to be touched upon. I thought the new patch would handle this, but no... troops are still fodder.

Thats the point - if you play well enough to flood the enemy dropzone with troops, you can make further landings absurdly costly. When I`m the defender, I damn well WANT that capability.

In return I fully accept that the computer player can do the same to me at my dropzone.

WarlokLord
05-27-2006, 04:40 PM
"Fans could make better models..."

Yea, and how many polygons would they use?

*3000* per stormtrooper?

I`ve seen professionals post their "low-poly" models to the Interlag and I have news for them... they aren`t low-poly. One of these very models clocked in at 15,000 faces! I used to tinker with Imagine 2.0 and Lightwave, and my mentor showed me what low poly really means. Try making a tank out of 200 triangles.

My point is the current array of models look very good. You want DOOM 3 calibre characters? Then send me the money for the computer system I`ll need to display them.

When you are making realtime A.I., physics, lighting, and other calculations concerning the activities of hundreds of sandbox entities, you can`t make each entity a Pixar masterpiece.

Darth Alec
05-27-2006, 04:45 PM
:wstupid:

But anyway...
Bigger cap limits and map sizes right from the beginning, and more use for the fighter.

lukeiamyourdad
05-28-2006, 04:28 PM
:lol: @ WarlokLord

You're quite right my friend. Often, people forget that this is an RTS and this genre is notorious for being very ressource hungry. Granted, when computers will be able to handle anything thrown at them, they'll certainly look much better, but for now, let's deal with what we have :)

(By the way, nobody is supposed to spend most of their time staring at the model. You know, that leads to your army getting destroyed ;) )

Dreng
05-30-2006, 01:28 PM
The AI should be fixed its specially annoying when you land your forces and get wtfpawnt by a bunch of rebel art tanks and stuff the AI should stay and defend their base also i dont like that reinforcement spots thing...in some planets you just can land 2 units when you start and its impossible to take more spots and defend the original one with 2 units pop cap should be raised to and for space would be nice to choice what units will appear first just like in the ground battles....

Xyvik
05-30-2006, 06:07 PM
I hope it's sarcasm. I seriously do.

Not in the least. The prequal trilogy did nothing but destroy longly-held EU ideas left and right. And for what? Cheap thrills, "kiddy" movies, and more style-over-substance crap than any other recent movie memories.

The number of inconsisties between the prequals and the originals numbers in the hundreds, despite Lucas' promises that everything would make 'sense'.

As for Zahn keeping Star Wars alive, lets look at a little history.

Star Wars: A New Hope (unnumbered at the time) is released to movie theaters in 1977. Star Wars fever hits the public, Empire Strikes Back is released in 1980, and then ROTJ is released in '83. For the next five or so years, Star Wars is still extremely popular, action figures sell left and right, toys, posters...the works. Then it begins to dissipate. By '90 most stores have stopped carrying anything Star Wars and most people only retain fond memories of the movies.

1992. Heir to the Empire is released. Star Wars mania grips the people once again, and the almost dead Star Wars franchise is brought back to life with a tremendous roar that has not yet stopped. The books of Timothy Zahn attracted millions of additional fans, fans who could never really get into the movies but now found some excellent books they could sink their teeth in. By the time Episode 1 rolls around, Star Wars has more fans than it would have had at the time, and that prevents the movie from being the flop it well and truly deserved to be.

Then the originals are butchered for the digital revisions (Han shot first, anybody?) only proving that Lucas has lost all sense he ever had when he made the originals, and he is out only to make the millions he now has. Who helped him get those millions? Zahn.

So in the end, the prequals are apocryphal. The originals are not. And since Zahn was instrumental in keeping the saga alive where Lucas failed, his works are canon as well. Or can anybody forget that Zahn invented Coruscant, and the Noghri, Dreadnaughts, AT-PTs, Talon Karrde, Corellian Action VI transports, Mara Jade, Grand Admiral Thrawn, the Chiss, Interdictor Cruisers...the list goes on and on.

Darth Anarch
05-31-2006, 07:52 AM
As much as I love Timothy Zahn's Star Wars books (he is by far the best writer to work in the Star Wars universe) I have to tell you that you're wrong on a number of things.

First, Zahn did not "invent" Coruscant. He merely put a name to it that Lucas decided to keep.

Second, he didn't "invent" the Dreadnaught, the Interdictor or the Corellian Action VI transport. These were invented by West End Games, who at the time held the license to manufacture the Star Wars roleplaying game. As Zahn himself stated in (I believe) the foreword to the "Dark Empire" graphic novel, WEG sent him crates and crates of source material which he then incorporated into his books.

Third, Zahn's books did not attract millions of new fans that had not seen or enjoyed the movies. Pretty much everyone who bought the books were already fans of the movies; face it, if someone has know that the Star Wars movies have been around for 20 years but still hasn't bothered to watch them, they sure aren't going to spend money on Star Wars books. Reading a book is a lot more effort than seeing a movie.

Fourth, George Lucas created the Star Wars universe. By default, anything he says is canon, whether you agree with it or not. You may prefer others' interpretation of things, but Lucas is still The Man.

And finally, it makes absolutely no sense to say that "prequal trilogy did nothing but destroy longly-held EU ideas left and right". Lucas always knew precisely which events had led up to the fall of the Republic and the corruption of Anakin Skywalker. Just because a bunch of writers had made assumptions about the Star Wars universe that in the end turned out to be in conflict with Lucas' master plot doesn't mean that the prequels "ruined" the EU. What Lucas says goes; everyone else don't know what they're talking about. It really is that simple.

Admiral Sith
05-31-2006, 08:02 AM
(By the way, nobody is supposed to spend most of their time staring at the model. You know, that leads to your army getting destroyed )

Exactly right. I spent every battle in my second GC after getting the game in cinematic mode :) Obviously got slaughtered. It was still cool though.

wedge2211
05-31-2006, 10:41 AM
Also, the Original Trilogy was re-released on video a couple times in the mid-90s. That sparked a great deal of interest.

jedi3112
05-31-2006, 12:17 PM
Well, back to what needs fixing.

I think that infantry should no longer get squashed by vehicles. It ruins the purpose of both infantry and anti-infantry. The only exception to this rule should be the AT-AT, wich should also crush vehicles under it's heavy feet. This wouldn't be annoying and wouldn't ruin the purpose of infantry and anti-infantry because the AT-AT is so slow. The AT-AT should furthermore be able to step on the small defense and on the little walls.

Another thing that has been mentioned before is the unloading of troops. Currently troops can be fired upon while they are still unloading and you can't select them to do anything about it. I see 3 ways to fix this.

The first one is to make every unit invulnerable untill it actually can be used.

The second way is to allow each unit to fire back while they are still unloading.

The third way is to create a small area around the landing zone. Weaponsfire cannot go into that area and it cannot go out of that area either. Units that are in the area can only fire at other units that are in that area but not at units outside the area, and vice versa. This would also preven people from stationing their artillery on the edge to make any landing impossible.

I prefer the first option, but I also feel that the stationing of artillery next to the landing zone should be fixed. However I would do this by removing the landingzone alltogether and allow for troops to be landed anywhere in sight of other troops (and you will still start out with a single unit so you have and area for reinforcements). I still think artillery should be kicked out of the game, but I don't see that happening.

The skirmish and Galactic Conquest modes can use some fixing as well. I am currently unable to play Empire vs Empire games. So that needs fixing.

Aside from what needs fixing, there are also some things that have to be changed because of the expansion. For one, the maps will have to be a lot bigger to fit the new units in. The SSD doesn't fit into the current EAW maps. The pop cap will also have to be increased because of the SSD. And you will want to send escort in as well. For the rebels, they will need the additional units to destroy the SSD and the escort the Imperial player send in.

Xyvik
05-31-2006, 01:32 PM
Well, back to what needs fixing.

The first one is to make every unit invulnerable untill it actually can be used.

The skirmish and Galactic Conquest modes can use some fixing as well. I am currently unable to play Empire vs Empire games. So that needs fixing.


Those are two things that I was going to mention myself, and I even tried to put them in my other post as an edit but my browser crashed =/

I would hope the first thing would also apply to Space, because ships get barraged while they are coming in from hyperspace and by the time you can use them, their shields are gone and they are almost dead. Watching the movies, all units came in from hyperspace almost instantly, not this 4 or 5 seconds crap of getting beat up before you can do anything about it.

((Off topic to Darth Anarch: Point One: You're wrong, the city-planet idea AND the name were both invented by Zahn, and Lucas was even not going to use them but finally buckled under pressure. Two: yeah, you're right, I forgot about west end. Third, sorry, you're wrong again, Zahn wrote his books as true Sci-Fi, something that Star Wars the movies was not. His books reached a larger audience as he had already won the Hugo award and was famous for science fiction, so he attracted, perhaps not millions, but certainly thousands of new fans because of his writing. Fourth, yes Lucas created the universe. However, once you set something in stone, I don't care who made it, it does not give you the write to go back and "fix" things. Anybody in the business knows that you go with the flow, you don't like how something turned out, too bad you're stuck with it. What does Lucas do? He screws up the movies in order to make more money. THAT automatically disqualifies him from his own works. It would be like Da Vinci suddenly saying "you know what, I don't like the way this guy came out on the cistine chapel, I'm going to go over and do it again, adding a few other things that I think were missing." He had already performed the painting, put it in stone, it was over. Same goes with the movies. Also, he did not have his master plan done. All he had was a very rough draft. In the end, you either love the prequals or you hate them, and I hate them, and I have a lot of reasons for doing so :P))

lukeiamyourdad
05-31-2006, 07:59 PM
((Off topic to Darth Anarch: Point One: You're wrong, the city-planet idea AND the name were both invented by Zahn, and Lucas was even not going to use them but finally buckled under pressure.

You're right. The name Coruscant was Zahn's creation. The city-planet, not so sure though. Actually, the description of Coruscant in Zahn's Thrawn trilogy does not match the one we see in the prequels.
Originally, in Return of the Jedi, a capital planet of the Empire was supposed to appear instead of the Death Star II. Whether or not it was a city-planet, I don't know, but it could be. I'd have to verify this.

Third, sorry, you're wrong again, Zahn wrote his books as true Sci-Fi, something that Star Wars the movies was not. His books reached a larger audience as he had already won the Hugo award and was famous for science fiction, so he attracted, perhaps not millions, but certainly thousands of new fans because of his writing.

Which makes a marginal difference compared to the already existing millions of movie fans. No one is saying that Zahn is not a good writer, but claiming that EU made Star Wars survive...I highly doubt that assumption to be even remotely true.
Saying that Star Wars was not real "sci-fi" is a fact, but it being different and more "mythological" made it more popular and accessible to the general population. It was not a story only geeks could enjoy, everyone found something in Star Wars.

Fourth, yes Lucas created the universe. However, once you set something in stone, I don't care who made it, it does not give you the write to go back and "fix" things. Anybody in the business knows that you go with the flow, you don't like how something turned out, too bad you're stuck with it. What does Lucas do? He screws up the movies in order to make more money. THAT automatically disqualifies him from his own works.

You realize that when you own something, you can change whatever you want right? Biggest fact here: the only ones who actually knew about EU were the diehard EU geeks. Truth is, you matter very little on the grand scheme of Star Wars, whatever you claim. Nearly nobody knew about the EU events leading to ANH and when the prequels came out, only a handful of people have whined because of that.

It would be like Da Vinci suddenly saying "you know what, I don't like the way this guy came out on the cistine chapel, I'm going to go over and do it again, adding a few other things that I think were missing." He had already performed the painting, put it in stone, it was over. Same goes with the movies. Also, he did not have his master plan done. All he had was a very rough draft. In the end, you either love the prequals or you hate them, and I hate them, and I have a lot of reasons for doing so :P))

Except that Da Vinci never had anything to do with the Sistine Chapel. It is mainly related to Michelangelo but others have worked on it.
By the way, the owners of the chapel, the Vatican, did censor the paintings. Turns out the owners are allowed to do what they want with what they own. Weird huh?

wedge2211
06-01-2006, 12:36 AM
The first one is to make every unit invulnerable untill it actually can be used.

The second way is to allow each unit to fire back while they are still unloading.

The third way is to create a small area around the landing zone. Weaponsfire cannot go into that area and it cannot go out of that area either.
I think that proposals one and three are a bit too contrived...and making the landing units invulnerable would reduce the effectiveness of a swift charge on the defender's part, elimenating a tactic from their use. But I do think that allowing troops to fire as they land is a fine idea. In fact, if units come under fire as they are landing, I think they should not only fire back but move to cover if at all possible--think of how a commando unit leaping off a helicopter would act.

Xyvik: are you sure about hypering in ships in space? I've done that and seen the ships start firing before they have even finished materializing. Seems like the problem is nonexistent in orbit. In fact, I find that hypering in a corvette makes for a nice surprise when it comes out of nowhere and its initial salvoes cut down fighters that were previously safe from laser cannons.

Xyvik
06-01-2006, 03:55 AM
You're right. The name Coruscant was Zahn's creation. The city-planet, not so sure though. Actually, the description of Coruscant in Zahn's Thrawn trilogy does not match the one we see in the prequels.
Originally, in Return of the Jedi, a capital planet of the Empire was supposed to appear instead of the Death Star II. Whether or not it was a city-planet, I don't know, but it could be. I'd have to verify this.

Which makes a marginal difference compared to the already existing millions of movie fans. No one is saying that Zahn is not a good writer, but claiming that EU made Star Wars survive...I highly doubt that assumption to be even remotely true.
Saying that Star Wars was not real "sci-fi" is a fact, but it being different and more "mythological" made it more popular and accessible to the general population. It was not a story only geeks could enjoy, everyone found something in Star Wars.

You realize that when you own something, you can change whatever you want right? Biggest fact here: the only ones who actually knew about EU were the diehard EU geeks. Truth is, you matter very little on the grand scheme of Star Wars, whatever you claim. Nearly nobody knew about the EU events leading to ANH and when the prequels came out, only a handful of people have whined because of that.

Except that Da Vinci never had anything to do with the Sistine Chapel. It is mainly related to Michelangelo but others have worked on it.
By the way, the owners of the chapel, the Vatican, did censor the paintings. Turns out the owners are allowed to do what they want with what they own. Weird huh?


Yeah yeah, I know, I get too mad at all the stuff sometimes. My apologies if I offended anybody...I'm a die-hard purist sometimes :)

As for the hyperspace...I'm not sure, I think they can fight back the instant they come in, but it always seems that either the ships are more vulnerable or something, because my Acclamators always have no shields left after hyping them into a battle scene, and by the time I can give them movement orders they are almost dead (and this is with very little fire actually being directed against them). Maybe it's just me.

jedi3112
06-01-2006, 05:05 AM
I think that proposals one and three are a bit too contrived...and making the landing units invulnerable would reduce the effectiveness of a swift charge on the defender's part, elimenating a tactic from their use. But I do think that allowing troops to fire as they land is a fine idea. In fact, if units come under fire as they are landing, I think they should not only fire back but move to cover if at all possible--think of how a commando unit leaping off a helicopter would act.

It depends on what you consider a swift charge. If you plan to deploy artillary next to the drop zone, I consider that cheating, there's no skill required for that. However I want it like this, if a unit can be fired upon it is fully under your control. I have lost a tank in a brigade several times, because it took the transports 30 sec to unload them. And maybe there should be an option of making the dropships transparant. That would make it much easier to select units behind them.

Off course a real Imperial landing would consist of fighter support to keep the landing zone clear.

I haven't heard much of removing the landing zones and allow landing everywhere in sight. Though you shouldn't be allowed to land straight in the enemy base in that case.

Xyvik
06-01-2006, 01:51 PM
I sincerely hope the devs are reading this!

In addition to side vs side (empire fighting empire etc.) it would be in the best interests of everybody if there was some way, a shortcut modifier or whatever, to skip past all the logos. Honestly, Petro, yours was awesome because we could skip it, but apparently Lucasarts has too much of an ego and we're forced to sit through at least 10 seconds of worthless logos about stuff we already know. We already know it's Star Wars Empire at War and that it is rated teen for fantasy violence. We already know that it's made by lucasarts.

As a map tester, I am constantly moving in and out of the game, and that 10 wasted seconds adds up a lot over time. I wasted over 15 minutes out of an hour one time (I actually timed it) because of that. Please, Petro and Lucasarts, do something about this!

lukeiamyourdad
06-01-2006, 04:08 PM
:lol: For once I agree. It would definitely help to be able to skip that logo. Though it's not that long and call me impatient if you wish, I find it stupid not to be able to skip it. Maybe only "force" it the first time, but after, you should be allowed to just press escape and never see it again :p

wedge2211
06-01-2006, 11:00 PM
It depends on what you consider a swift charge. If you plan to deploy artillary next to the drop zone, I consider that cheating, there's no skill required for that. However I want it like this, if a unit can be fired upon it is fully under your control. I have lost a tank in a brigade several times, because it took the transports 30 sec to unload them. And maybe there should be an option of making the dropships transparant. That would make it much easier to select units behind them.
Well....since it doesn't really involve altering the system in a biased way, it's not really cheating per se. It's just using the capabilities of a particular unit in a way that irritates you--and that's exactly what a good commander would try to do to you, anyways. I mean, face it, if your landing zones are under heavy artillery fire, there's really no way you'd be winning that battle anyways. I think that just placing units under AI control between the moment they leave the transport and the moment the transport lifts off again, so that the units will make for cover and return some fire, would pretty much solve the problem.

I haven't heard much of removing the landing zones and allow landing everywhere in sight. Though you shouldn't be allowed to land straight in the enemy base in that case.
A good idea...but there should also be a minimum amount of "clear space" required to plop the transport down. That's basically what the drop zones are trying to simulate, anyways...but perhaps some more freedom of where troops can be deployed would add strategic depth to the game. I think reinforcement points would still be necessary to capture to provide you with the ability to land extra units, however--like establishing supply lines.

Xyvik
06-02-2006, 12:41 AM
:lol: For once I agree. It would definitely help to be able to skip that logo. Though it's not that long and call me impatient if you wish, I find it stupid not to be able to skip it. Maybe only "force" it the first time, but after, you should be allowed to just press escape and never see it again :p

Yay, we agree on something! Let's continue this trend :D

I think I counted the time it takes for the logos at 20 or so seconds. That's 1/3 of a minute. So let's say that you (like me) needed to constantly move in and out of the game over and over again, and let's say you did it once a minute. In an hour, you would have wasted 20 minutes just looking at logo screens that should be skippable (is that a word?)

One of the few good things I can say about M$ is that even they let you skip the logo screens. Seriously, if the monopolizing *expletive deleted* M$ people can let you skip logos, LucasArts should be able to as well.


To Wedge- I always thought the landing zones idea was stupid anyway, so one of my first plans for TSW is to remove them. Or at the very least, let the sides be able to "build" their own landing sites. The idea of a guidance beacon comes to mind, something that you have to build, that can be destroyed, but allows extra landing precision...I dunno.

Rust_Lord
06-02-2006, 02:28 AM
Man there has been some action on this thread…..okay time to be brief:

I agree, get rid of the unnecessary logos. Put the Lucasarts and petro symbols on the menu screen if you have to but get rid of the logo screens.

ISDs have two shield hardpoints…not a bad idea…I modified my XMLs to improve ISDs in a few areas ad this was one. Those globes are sensor domes though, with shield generators underneath. The main shield generator is the little bump underneath the SD. I know what some tech guides say but I have seen this quote from one of the original dudes at Lucasfilm about the ISDs concepts. Ill find a link if people want to argue the point. The ROTJ scene with the Executor caused some confusion but it not necessarily untrue.

Empire having rocket troops will be fixed with FoC and with the new units should be a bit more balanced because the Rebs own the Empire on the ground at present.

Stormtrooper special attack? I thought their ability to storm was taken care of by the faster movement upgrade. I think that’s about all you will get from petro. And I agree, infantry should not get squashed so easily. If they use the spread out ability they would be diving out of the way and all sorts of acrobatic s*&t.

The time delay to land units should be drastically reduced then you don’t have to worry about making them invulnerable, etc, while they disembark.

Bigger maps and better graphics means better computers or lag. I have a pretty damn good computer at the moment and I don’t want to have to get a super computer just to run this game. It will probably need bigger maps to move the SSD around.

As for the strong opinions on Zahn, what can you say. They are subjective and this is obvious. I read snippets of his trilogy but was never really interested in reading it. Did nothing for me. I had a Trekkie friend who read the trilogy and liked them but what ‘converted’ him was not the trilogy is was playing the RPG and especially Tie fighter when I got a copy. Yeah sure Zahn came up with a good story and some new ideas but he is not the saviour who re-invented SW. Have to disagree with you about him. What Anarch said about Zahn attracting new fans coz of his books could not have been said better.

Lucas has been smoking some bad crack over recent times. If you watch some of his interviews he completely contradicts some things that he said previously. Some stuff he DEFINATELY has made up as he went along (even from the original trilogy), or ‘refined’ as you could say but hey, he is SW so if he wants to change things 180 degrees, he can do whatever he likes.

I hate virtually all EU but to say the prequel trilogy destroyed those ideas is incorrect seeing as the majority of EU stuff was post ROTJ. Lucas has not known all along the plot of the prequels and the vagueness of this period of SW history prevented him from disrupting much accepted canon. There was little canon to destroy. Personally I think he and his aides did a good job, except for episode 1 which could have been better.

jedi3112
06-02-2006, 10:44 AM
Well....since it doesn't really involve altering the system in a biased way, it's not really cheating per se. It's just using the capabilities of a particular unit in a way that irritates you--and that's exactly what a good commander would try to do to you, anyways. I mean, face it, if your landing zones are under heavy artillery fire, there's really no way you'd be winning that battle anyways. I think that just placing units under AI control between the moment they leave the transport and the moment the transport lifts off again, so that the units will make for cover and return some fire, would pretty much solve the problem.

It's not an honorable way to fight. It also isn't fun to fight like that or to fight against that. Artillery doesn't fit in with SW either. So I think the artillery should be removed. Though I doubt that will ever happen. At the very least there should be an option to remove them from the game. But I must say that fighter cover would be a good counter against them. I wonder if the Imperials can finally bring air units to the land battles as well. That could balance things out, if done right.

I always considered the landing zones stupid as well. I would really like to bring units into play the way it happens during space battles.

Using the landing points to raise your max units on the planet could work, but I think it should be changed into a building that has to be garrisoned. I don't know if you remember Force Commander, but those bunkers would work nicely for that. Let me just explain what I was thinking about.

You have this building that can only be captured by infantry. I'm not sure if you should be able to destroy it as well, or only capture it, also not sure if units should be allowed to fire from inside the building. There's also the question of whether the units inside should still count to your pop cap but we can leave all that to the devs. And we'll leave the looks to the devs as well.

Anyway, as long as there's infantry inside you have a higher pop cap. Same as currently with the landing points. If the enemy wants to capture the building, they should storm it with infantry. The amount of infantry depends on the number of units inside as well the type of units. It will not be a good idea to use rocket troops, blasters are much better. Commanders with their elite guards will deal even more damage (and maybe even raise the cap a bit further). The defending side will also always have some advantages, so sending in a full stormtrooper regiment against a garrison of a full stormtrooper regiment, the defender will win. Rebels have smaller bands and as such they should use more of them. Same amount of troops vs same amount of troops on equal level and of the same type, also not counting the defender bonus. I'll hope you get the idea. I also think there should be a maximum of units inside.

Things that this could/would do

1 Provides more use for infantry, something I think the game can really use

2 If squashing of infantry remains, infantry in the building cannot be squashed though I also believe that those infantry bunker spots should prevent infantry squashing as well (like in Emperor: Battle for Dune, what is called the infantry rock)

3 If units can fire from inside the building placing rocket troops inside is by all means usefull. (I really support this)

4 If attacked, invulnerable and units can fire from inside, the ROF could be reduced by a small percentage, making storming easier.

5 If strategically placed on the map and able to fire and possibly invulnerable, capturing these could provide you with a somewhat safe landing zone, provided landing can be done everywhere. They could also be placed near the defenders base, making it a bit more difficult to destroy it.

What needs to be considered

1 If the building can't be destroyed the units inside don't have to be killed for a victory, otherwise it would be impossible to win if you ran out of infantry but still have tons of vehicles. I think that would be unfair.

2 If they can be destroyed units inside should be able to fire back, just to stand a chance.

3 If they can be destroyed, they should also provide the defender with some advantage, otherwise there would be no point for the defender to not destroy them. I was thinking about increasing the amount of troops the producing buildings 'garrison'. Also depending on the planet.

There's probably a bit more that should be considered, but tell me what you think about this.

Oh, and I want to skip the logos as well. Though I wonder if replacing them with empty files would work.

Admiral Sith
06-02-2006, 11:43 AM
The main shield generator is the little bump underneath the SD.

Thats the Reactor Core.

wedge2211
06-02-2006, 03:51 PM
It's not an honorable way to fight.
Well...it is war. Though I agree that we haven't seen any such artillery in the movies, artillery makes a lot of sense in war and there are similar things in other Star Wars sources.

Darth Anarch
06-02-2006, 06:22 PM
"All is fair in love and war", as the saying goes. And the concept of landing zones is an excellent one, and entirely realistic. Beaches of Normandy, anyone?

Xyvik
06-03-2006, 01:41 AM
"All is fair in love and war", as the saying goes. And the concept of landing zones is an excellent one, and entirely realistic. Beaches of Normandy, anyone?

We're not talking about WW2 where people are limited to ground, sea, or even air-based transports. We're talking about Star Wars, where gigantic capital ships rule from orbit. They can drop their barges anywhere they *%&$ well please. I agree, in a normal RTS the idea holds merit, but when you have a Star Destroyer sitting in orbit, the guys above aren't going to worry about "oh, we can only land our guys in two places on this planet, because of some unseen force that keeps us out." It makes no sense at all.

The idea of a guidance beacon, however, makes sense. Or restricting landing vehicles to areas where your troops can see. That makes sense as well. But limiting them to weird icons that can be lost is...well...strange. 'sides, the land troop limits are -far- too small. This is STAR WARS, not star dance-around-with-a-few-guys. While I hate the prequals, at least they had battles. Battle for Geonosis, anybody? I didn't see no pop cap there.

My idea for the guidance beacon is this: remove the landing zones completely. Barges and whatever can land wherever they want. These are atmospheric craft coming in from orbit, there's nothing that's going to stop them from dropping in. Instead, however, troops can build Guidance Beacons a certain distance away from theirs or the enemy base. These Guidance Beacons allow barges and transports to land -faster-, more coordinated attacks. These Beacons can be destroyed or upgraded, and they -slow- down enemy transports. Dunno, just my ideas

lukeiamyourdad
06-03-2006, 03:40 AM
I agree. Think of them like helicopters dropping troops off. You need a clear area and that's pretty much it.

Theenglishguru
06-03-2006, 05:43 AM
Gotta say, an awesome RTS, Act of war: High treason, best overlooked game ever, RULES.

It has mercenaries, you tell the recon chopper to Recce the place, once a few seconds has passed, the troops you've hired are brought in. As long as the place they're reccying is CLEAR, troops can be dropped anywhere.

I think a bit of idea stealing wouldn't go amiss to add to this awesome game.

P.S. Buy Act of war, ^_^.

Darth Anarch
06-03-2006, 09:33 AM
To quote some wise person from another thread: "Gameplay > realism".

Yadiel
06-03-2006, 10:10 AM
Yay, we agree on something! Let's continue this trend :D

I think I counted the time it takes for the logos at 20 or so seconds. That's 1/3 of a minute. So let's say that you (like me) needed to constantly move in and out of the game over and over again, and let's say you did it once a minute. In an hour, you would have wasted 20 minutes just looking at logo screens that should be skippable (is that a word?)

One of the few good things I can say about M$ is that even they let you skip the logo screens. Seriously, if the monopolizing *expletive deleted* M$ people can let you skip logos, LucasArts should be able to as well.


To Wedge- I always thought the landing zones idea was stupid anyway, so one of my first plans for TSW is to remove them. Or at the very least, let the sides be able to "build" their own landing sites. The idea of a guidance beacon comes to mind, something that you have to build, that can be destroyed, but allows extra landing precision...I dunno.


Theres a way to skip them, u have to modify something and its easy, dont know if i can post it here without breakeing forum rules, ill come back later to check.

lukeiamyourdad
06-03-2006, 12:46 PM
To quote some wise person from another thread: "Gameplay > realism".


This is why abuse of such words can make it sound like a desperate attempt at getting one's point across.

First, you claim the landing zones as realistic, now you fall upon the "gameplay>realism" argument...

There are options available for landing troops, that are both realistic and balanced for gameplay.

Darth Anarch
06-03-2006, 07:02 PM
But if you allow the invading player to land his troops anywhere he wants you ruin the whole point of land battles. Allow me to elaborate:

If the defender doesn't have planetary shields: The attacker can land his troops inside the defender's base. Imagine 10 AT-ATs being dropped inside your base. You're screwed. There is no way to defend against something like that. At least three of them can be deployed at a time, and no matter how fast you shoot some of them will survive. Then the defender can kiss his base goodbye. Automatic victory for the attacker.

If the defender has planetary shields: Since the attacker can land his troops anywhere he wants on the map, there is no way for the defender to fight him off. Ergo he must retreat all his troops inside the planetary shields in an attempt to defend his base. At this point the ground battle degenerates into a slugfest with the defenders mercilessly pounding away at the attacker's forces as they enter the shielded area.

My point is that with clearly defined landing zones there is a strategic element of choice. The defender, rather than retreat to his base, can deploy his forces in the direction of one or more landing zones. If he can prevent the attacker from taking them, he effectively limits the size of the attacking force. The attacker will likewise have an incentive to do something other than a simple rush at the defender's base. He can send what units he has (usually between 3 and 5) towards the base, or he can attempt to secure more landing zones so that he can bring more forces to bear.

Landing zones is a way of converting an abstract concept into something that works in a game context. Of course, in a wholly realistic setting the attacker could land troops anywhere on the map. However, if you want to lean on the realism issue, the defender could build 500 bases all over the planet rather than one little base in one very confined area. Landing zones and the resulting pop cap is an excellent way of adding tactical depth to the land battles.

Xyvik
06-04-2006, 12:42 AM
Landing zones and the resulting pop cap is an excellent way of adding tactical depth to the land battles.

At the sacrafice of strategy. But anyway, you missed the point. In a Galactic Conquest mode, yes the idea of a beachhead makes sense, get the troops on the ground in one spot, far away from the enemy base. But once down there, no-holds-barred we can drop anywhere we want, as long as our troops can see it. Or did you miss that part? Which means you'd have to get your troops to the other side of the map before you could drop something in, and with the exception of speeder bikes you aren't going anywhere fast. And even in that case, let's say that certain units are excluded from the "spotter" list, kind of like how now you have to have troops take the areas. Make troops line-of-sight the indicator, but don't restrict us to landing on just a few spots on the map. It turns everything into a map of little more than decorated chokepoints.

In skirmish, however, where both sides already have bases and beachheads and usually shields, the idea has no merit whatsoever. Beef up defenses a bit to compensate (which they should be anyway)and voila...you have an awesome way of playing.

lukeiamyourdad
06-04-2006, 01:32 AM
If the defender doesn't have planetary shields: The attacker can land his troops inside the defender's base. Imagine 10 AT-ATs being dropped inside your base. You're screwed. There is no way to defend against something like that. At least three of them can be deployed at a time, and no matter how fast you shoot some of them will survive. Then the defender can kiss his base goodbye. Automatic victory for the attacker.

100% wrong. He needs a clear area and obviously, the middle of a base is not a clear area.
There can be ajustments to how big a clearing somebody needs to deploy various units. Smaller for infantry and bigger for vehicles.


If the defender has planetary shields: Since the attacker can land his troops anywhere he wants on the map, there is no way for the defender to fight him off. Ergo he must retreat all his troops inside the planetary shields in an attempt to defend his base. At this point the ground battle degenerates into a slugfest with the defenders mercilessly pounding away at the attacker's forces as they enter the shielded area.

Also wrong. You assume that they'll simply turtle in and wait for the attack, but with the concept of landing zones à la E@W, that can also happen.
Again, the concept of requiring a clear zone could easily allow scouts to detect potential drop zones. Securing such drop zones would give more flexibility to the player, allowing him to make serious decisions and not constanly holding his hand through everything.


My point is that with clearly defined landing zones there is a strategic element of choice. The defender, rather than retreat to his base, can deploy his forces in the direction of one or more landing zones. If he can prevent the attacker from taking them, he effectively limits the size of the attacking force. The attacker will likewise have an incentive to do something other than a simple rush at the defender's base. He can send what units he has (usually between 3 and 5) towards the base, or he can attempt to secure more landing zones so that he can bring more forces to bear.

You can't drop everything everywhere on the map. Rivers and on water terrain shouldn't allow landing of troops.
In fact, the concept of a clear and big enough zone to land troops is already in the game. It only has a little holographic flag to show it.


Landing zones is a way of converting an abstract concept into something that works in a game context. Of course, in a wholly realistic setting the attacker could land troops anywhere on the map. However, if you want to lean on the realism issue, the defender could build 500 bases all over the planet rather than one little base in one very confined area. Landing zones and the resulting pop cap is an excellent way of adding tactical depth to the land battles.

Except that you're uing a totally idiotic example of realism to forward your point, claiming that realism does no good. An example of overuse or rather a bad use of "gameplay>realism". Gameplay should come before realism, but if a realism element can enhance gameplay, it should not be overlooked either.

arkodeon
06-04-2006, 08:09 AM
((Off topic to Darth Anarch: Point One: You're wrong, the city-planet idea AND the name were both invented by Zahn, and Lucas was even not going to use them but finally buckled under pressure. Two: yeah, you're right, I forgot about west end. Third, sorry, you're wrong again, Zahn wrote his books as true Sci-Fi, something that Star Wars the movies was not. His books reached a larger audience as he had already won the Hugo award and was famous for science fiction, so he attracted, perhaps not millions, but certainly thousands of new fans because of his writing. Fourth, yes Lucas created the universe. However, once you set something in stone, I don't care who made it, it does not give you the write to go back and "fix" things. Anybody in the business knows that you go with the flow, you don't like how something turned out, too bad you're stuck with it. What does Lucas do? He screws up the movies in order to make more money. THAT automatically disqualifies him from his own works. It would be like Da Vinci suddenly saying "you know what, I don't like the way this guy came out on the cistine chapel, I'm going to go over and do it again, adding a few other things that I think were missing." He had already performed the painting, put it in stone, it was over. Same goes with the movies. Also, he did not have his master plan done. All he had was a very rough draft. In the end, you either love the prequals or you hate them, and I hate them, and I have a lot of reasons for doing so :P))

I may be wrong, but was the City-Planet not slated to be in Star Wars: A New Hope? At least, Coruscant was supposed to be in Return of the Jedi, and it was most definately a City-Planet at the time. So no, Zahn did NOT create the City-Planet. He created the name. Simple as that.

Secondly. Star Wars was never meant to be a true Sci-Fi. It's a Space Opera, meaning it does not care about all that scientific mumbo-jumbo, it is in it for the people, the development of characters, and the sake of a good story.

Thirdly. I don't get your "Set in Stone" thing. George Lucas had the vision of Star Wars from the beginning. THAT was set in stone. Those little novels were not. They were allowed to be changed simply because they conflicted with the original, GEORGE LUCAS version of Star Wars. He had at the beginning the idea of Star Wars being Anakin's story. He had the ideas of the Clone Wars, and all that. He did not forsee Heir to the Empire, and all subsequent books. Therefore, at the end of the day, if George Lucas wants to alter the course of events to suit HIS vision, then so be it. It is he who created Star Wars, it's his story. You wouldn't want someone to tell YOU what to write and what not to if you were writing a novel, would you?

Fourth Point; I don't really see why people hate the storylines of the Prequels. Albeit, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman cannot act these parts very well, the Storyline is exceptional.

Darth Anarch
06-04-2006, 09:59 AM
100% wrong. He needs a clear area and obviously, the middle of a base is not a clear area.
There can be ajustments to how big a clearing somebody needs to deploy various units. Smaller for infantry and bigger for vehicles.

Also wrong. You assume that they'll simply turtle in and wait for the attack, but with the concept of landing zones à la E@W, that can also happen.
Again, the concept of requiring a clear zone could easily allow scouts to detect potential drop zones. Securing such drop zones would give more flexibility to the player, allowing him to make serious decisions and not constanly holding his hand through everything.

You can't drop everything everywhere on the map. Rivers and on water terrain shouldn't allow landing of troops.
In fact, the concept of a clear and big enough zone to land troops is already in the game. It only has a little holographic flag to show it.

Except that you're uing a totally idiotic example of realism to forward your point, claiming that realism does no good. An example of overuse or rather a bad use of "gameplay>realism". Gameplay should come before realism, but if a realism element can enhance gameplay, it should not be overlooked either.
Your argument is, essentially, that the attacker should be able to land troops anywhere where there's a clear area large enough to accommodate them, correct? There's an expression for that: Landing Zone. The landing zones on the map is just that: an open area large enough to land troops on.

One way of resolving the "land anywhere you want"-issue is of course to take into consideration that the defending forces would be able to see the drop-ships coming in from a long way away. Have a ping go off on the map a minute or two before the ships land, so that the defender has a chance to deploy troops to intercept. That would make things more interesting.

And on a side note: While I disagreed with you in the above posts, at no point did I lower myself to referring to your posts or arguments as "idiotic". Please extend to me the same courtesy.

lukeiamyourdad
06-04-2006, 12:28 PM
Your argument is, essentially, that the attacker should be able to land troops anywhere where there's a clear area large enough to accommodate them, correct? There's an expression for that: Landing Zone. The landing zones on the map is just that: an open area large enough to land troops on. C

Which is what I said.

[QUOTE=Darth Anarch]One way of resolving the "land anywhere you want"-issue is of course to take into consideration that the defending forces would be able to see the drop-ships coming in from a long way away. Have a ping go off on the map a minute or two before the ships land, so that the defender has a chance to deploy troops to intercept. That would make things more interesting.

That is quite a good idea. It would make perfect sense actually.


And on a side note: While I disagreed with you in the above posts, at no point did I lower myself to referring to your posts or arguments as "idiotic". Please extend to me the same courtesy.

It was one argument and my comment still stands. It was a bad example and a bad attempt to simply scoff at realism to make it sound utterly stupid to even remotely accept realistic elements into the game. You took an example that nobody ever brought up, that nobody, even realism gurus, wants. It was too exagerated.
I don't think you understand the difference between calling someone stupid and something stupid.

By the way, you can call my arguments stupid or idiotic if it actually is, but I'm trying to be careful about that.

Xyvik
06-04-2006, 03:10 PM
Fourth Point; I don't really see why people hate the storylines of the Prequels. Albeit, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman cannot act these parts very well, the Storyline is exceptional.

I will not be dragged into the same argument that has already faded, but I will make a comment on this. If you consider an unimaginative retread of a 4000 year old story to be exceptional, you really have no idea what a good story is. The whole "born with no father", "prophecies", and all that are found somewhere else. It's called the Bible, which is the most widely distrubuted book in the world. So instead of coming up with something good and original, Lucas steals an idea from the world's most popular book. Yeah. That's exceptional all right. Where's my rolling eyes smilie?

On to the other debate: Once again, lukeiamyourdad, we find ourselves on the same side of an argument :D. I like the idea of the landing ping. Put that in there with the ability to land anywhere, according to ship size, and you have an excellent way of doing things.

For instance, Slave I and any of the other smaller hero ships are famous for being able to land anywhere, they don't need a huge cleared area. Troop transports are a little bigger and therefore would need a little more room, but not that much. It's only the big barges that would require quite a bit of clear space. Keep that, the Guidance Beacons to hasten your own transports down, and you have a good way.

But keep in mind that with the way landing zones are now, you know where your enemy is coming from. You also know where your enemy base is. That removes the absolute -need- of scouting forces. Back in the day you had to search a map before you found your opponent, and the first person to figure out where the other was had an advantage of information. That's the way it should be. Fight to keep your forces secret, fight to know where your enemy is. That's part of warfare.

lukeiamyourdad
06-04-2006, 06:05 PM
Well, in the case of bases, I mean, you can spot a big glowing shield dome from extremely far away.

Combine with the ping idea, there could be a radar detection station or something. It would allow the defender to detect incoming landing forces. Destroying it would allow landing more silently.

Yadiel
06-04-2006, 08:46 PM
why don't just take the option where the troops automatically fire in defense or offense like we saw it in AotC, or like in the space battles?, maybe a change in the ships that drop troops, some kind of assault transport to help the descending troops, something to make the attaker think twice before he raids the reinforcemnt point while troops are being deployed. And the actual transports could still be used in the retreats.

well thats what i think that could help to solve the problem and help to the realism.

In general i like the way in wich troops are deployed, even if i can only deploy a couple of troops, ive never been in real trouble there, what i mean is that the pop cap is fine with me, but yes it would be nice if ur troops had some kind of deffence or offence while they are being deployed. =)

Rust_Lord
06-05-2006, 01:32 AM
The landing zones, or as in other games build points, are critical points that the devs want players to fight over. As we all know, ownership of these are an advantage. I like some ideas put forward on here but I cant see the devs changing this. In skirmish they are not so critical because you can still bring in units you just have to march further if you dont have possession of any points. My biggest gripe about the whole landing zone thing is in galactic conquest when you invade a planet and your landing zone gives you say a pop cap of 3. Your enemy has lord knows how many resources on the planet and if they have any brains (an AI of med or above) the entire force hits you while your scrambling to take over a second landing zone to bring down more units. These 'wave attacks' are stupid. At Hoth did the Empire send in an AT-AT a time...no, if they did they would have got hammered. Landing zones should not give increases in pop cap. They should only allow deployment. Otherwise allow orbital bombarment, like in Rebellion. The size of the fleet should determine the damage inflicted on the garrison. food for thought.

Yadiel
06-05-2006, 10:48 AM
I like the way it is, even if u can only deploy 2 units, you just need some wits on how to use those 2 units, and ur bombing rungs, normaly with low caps there are more build paths.

This is my point of view at least in GC, no idea of skirmish, I dont play it a lot.

Darth Anarch
06-05-2006, 03:35 PM
Orbital bombardment will be a feature in Forces of Corruption.

wedge2211
06-05-2006, 08:38 PM
Landing zones and the resulting pop cap is an excellent way of adding tactical depth to the land battles.At the sacrafice of strategy.
Uh...you're saying that tactical depth was increased at the expense of strategic depth? Since "strategy" refers to overarching goals and plans (i.e., the Galactic Map), and this is a discussion about land battles, "tactics" are the only thing that matter here and you just made a totally nonsensical comment. And for the record, Xyvik, the "born with no father" stuff is only <2000 years old. Besides, George Lucas drew on known mythical stereotypes, including those in the Bible, in creating the Star Wars saga right from the outset. He called Star Wars a "modern myth" himself. There's no surprise there. He just set out to tell a good story--and he did that for the first three movies he made, at least...

This discussion has generated some really interesting ideas. While landing zones are a bit contrived, they make plenty of sense from a gameplay perspective. They serve to bring the battle out into various points on the map, make players fight over critical terrain, and force players to take and hold points that they might otherwise neglect in favor of an all-out rush on the enemy base. I haven't often been frustrated by the reinforcement point system. However, a number of the ideas put forward in this thread seem fun to me. How about this as as alternative fusion of landing zone ideas?

Certain key points on the map should remain designated as reinforcement points, and allow players who capture them to land some number of additional units. Instead of being associated with a small circle on the map, however, the reinforcement point should control access to a landing zone comprising a whole sector of the map area, with a size in proportion to the number of units the reinforcement point allows. The landing zones for all the reinforcement points put together will cover the entire playable area of the map. Some of the landing zones might be quite extensive, allowing troops to be landed far from the beacon. Transports should be allowed to drop anywhere in a friendly landing zone where there is enough space to fit the transport. As soon as a transport is called, there will be an announcement and minimap ping made for each player in the game. After some delay (about 30 seconds, or maybe variable depending on how far the transport is from the beacon), the transport will actually land and deploy its units.

Rust_Lord
06-05-2006, 11:15 PM
Landing zones and pop cap actually reduce the ability to employ tactics as these things limit the forces you can deploy. Tactics is not simply about having a versatile force, tactics relates to use of forces in order of battle and performing military actions. A strategy for victory may be to cripple the enemies capacity to produce starships and tactics in achieving this would involve deploying X number of Y type of ships for use in hit and fade attacks. EaW is not very strategic because it does not give the scope for it. All you can do is conquer planets outright.

I dont mind your idea Wedge, its probably a better compromise but still it involves reinforcement points. As for needing wits, I will give an eg of where the reinforcement points system is unrealistic (theres that dreaded word) and dumb. If you win a space battle and you are sitting over a planet with an overwhelming force, why should you be forced to land only small groups which can be easily overrun? Surely your not saying there isnt enough room? Its a planet! The planetary garrison does not bring on additional units in the way of reinforcements. It starts with its entire force. Invading forces have to wear down the garrison until they are defeated. If there is buildings on the planet then, as you all know, they continue to spawn units as well. Since the only way to conquer a planet is through ground invasion you are forced to get involved in a meatgrinder every time you want to attack a well garrisoned planet. There is very little room for tactics. In reality you could deploy your entire force and move to meet the enemy (or blast them a bit from orbit and move in to mop up; Rebellion got it right.) If the enemy is still superior in force then you have your work cut out for you and a real opportunity to use tactics but if you have the advantage in numbers you can make that advantage felt, without having to lose a heap of units unnecessarily in wave attacks.

If you invade a planet and your fighting someone who knows what they are doing they will move all they have to the first reinforcement point. Since it is contested you cant bring down more units and you have to defeat the entire garrison to clear the point. Try doing this with a 3 unit limit like on some planets and it gets rather annoying.

Oh and one other thing, there was a religeon before Christianity that had the idea of immaculate conception. The Christians liked the idea and 'borrowed' it. One of my friends told me as he studied theology but I cant for the life of me remember their name. I have no idea how much earlier than the Christians they existed but it wasnt 4K years.

Xyvik
06-06-2006, 12:58 AM
Uh...you're saying that tactical depth was increased at the expense of strategic depth? Since "strategy" refers to overarching goals and plans (i.e., the Galactic Map), and this is a discussion about land battles, "tactics" are the only thing that matter here and you just made a totally nonsensical comment.

I'm talking about skirmish battles, not GC battles. In a skirmish battle, the tactical depth was increased at the sacrafice of the strategic gameplay. In GC mode, yes, I agree the land battles are tactical but even on a planetary battle strategy should not be sacraficed -completely- for the tactical considerations. It's not as important because we have the giant chess board, but it feels like its almost non-existant.

I beleive that we could leave GC mode as it is and not suffer needlessly, but the skirmish battles need a bit of a rewrite in my opinion.

And for the record, Xyvik, the "born with no father" stuff is only <2000 years old.

Actually, the first prophecy involving the Messiah is approximately 6000 years old, being the first prophecy in the Bible (he will bruise you in the head and he will bruise you in the heal.) The later prophecies, involving the lack of a human father and what not, were uttered in the Psalms as well as the Prophets, which are approximately 4000 years old. The Messiah being born and fulfilling those prophecies is 2000 years old, so it is the fulfillment of the prophecies that is only 2k old. The actual prophecies are much older :)

To Rust_Lord: It was the Hebrews who had the original prophecies, and the Hebrews gave way to the TRUE Christians once Jesus came to earth. Most of the doctrines taught in today's churches are actually Babylonian in origin, but the prophecies regarding the birth of Christ are genuine. And that comes from my past 8 years of studying theology :)

lukeiamyourdad
06-06-2006, 02:23 AM
Being a forum veteran, I've seen enough threads including the word "religion" somewhere degenerate. I'm happy that it isn't the case, but I still prefer to take some precautions. Try to keep this on topic by dropping the discussion involving religion. If you want to further debate the subject matter, please do it via PM.

Thank you for your cooperation :)

Back on topic...

I think we're all talking about the same thing basically, only one side has big holographic circles and the other doesn't. I realize that things cannot be drastically changed, so the idea of forcing players to control key areas without holding their hands through it is impossible.
In a beautiful perfect world, critical points would be so by nature. Take the example of a hill or a chokepoint, which confers advantages, both offensively and defensively to the player. The smart player would then struggle to keep these key areas.
However, with E@W, that is not possible.
Points on both sides are very good. Rust is 100%. Why can't we land our whole force if we want? Or at least a larger number? It makes very little sense to force players to land only a fraction of their forces at any given area just because it has to be this way. I can't believe I didn't go "why?" sooner. Yes, there should be a certain population cap. There has to be one for several reasons (your game not lagging like hell for one). However, I don't really see why a general could not land more forces at this sole point once the first landing team moves out of the way.
Yes, it allows some tactical depth and prevents a rush to the enemy base. Well, it wouldn't be a rush since most of your forces have not landed thus you wouldn't risk an all out assault before they all land.

I'm not sure if what I'm saying makes sense. I think that I'm just turning around stalling. One thing is sure, it's a real debate and we're not out of the woodwork yet.

wedge2211
06-06-2006, 05:03 PM
Maybe the thing to do would be to limit the rate at which units can be landed rather than the number. In my mind, reinforcement points can be rationalized away as necessary control points for supplying logistic support to all the units on the battlefield. However, perhaps that can be realized as a cooldown timer before additional transports can land. I can certainly imagine that in a combat situation, the more area one side controls, the more effectively they can bring in support. Of course, more than one unit would have to land initially for this to work.

Maybe land skirmish battles should be distanced from tactical battles as part of a Galactic Conquest game. In a GC, players might have a huge force arrayed in orbit only waiting to be deployed. But in a skirmish, reinforcement points serve a critical role of focussing combat around certain strategically important areas.

Naphtali
06-06-2006, 07:04 PM
I think the best way to solve the landing part is to give the shuttles blasters, damage to vehicles and infantry will force you to keep a distance if to say 2 shots can knock out your at-st. that would be a good deterent

Rust_Lord
06-06-2006, 09:02 PM
I get what you are saying Xyvik about skirmish over GC. What your saying is true as there is almost no strategic element in 'skirmish', hence the name. Its too small scale. To get any sort of grand or strategic scale you would have to have ground battles conducted using an engine like the Total War series or something akin to that.

Wedge, not flaming you at all but when you say "land skirmish battles should be distanced from tactical battles as part of a Galactic Conquest game", land skirmish and GC are already totally different. You say "But in a skirmish, reinforcement points serve a critical role of focussing combat around certain strategically important areas." This is true they give you the opportunity to quickly reinforce your advance without having to march reinforcement all the way across the map while your front line guys hold on. The areas themselves are not otherwise important...see next paragraph for what I mean. As for cool down timers, this reminds me of Force Commander, which was an aspect of the game I utterly hated. If you look at combat drops whether it be infantry deployed by helicopters in 'Nam or clones on Geonosis they came in, dropped took off and were followed up in quick succession by other transports waiting for room. Hell, I rememebr seeing one transport drop a AT-TE and hardly even stop. Cool down timers are not the answer. Drops take too long as it is in my opinion.

What ur saying does make sense Luke... I understand what you mean. There are critical points in the game, and I am not talking about reinforce points. What about Satellite arrays that give you full map view. They are probably the most important in the game, especially if you have bombing runs. The Naboo map always results in a mad dash to get this area and hold it. The fact that it is elevated and in the centre of the map is a great place for some arty too.

I agree that we cant delploy unlimited forces at once. Lag is always going to be the limiting factor because you will always be able to deploy enough forces to cause lag before you run out of room. Luke... your right about deploying your force and then move then out of the way for the more. I was going to raise this point but thought my post was getting long winded. There is nothing wrong with doing this, you can deploy and form up elsewhere. Not every landing zone is going to be big enough for your force so its something you have to manage...but at least you can bring on your entire force. You are not going to be able to rush the enemies base because it will take time to bring down all your units and get them in order, plus it will take time for them to get to the base. Alternatively if the enemy decides to rush a landing force, that force is getting larger as time goes by and it might not in the best interest to attack immediately. This gives you the opportunity to use tactics.

Giving shuttles and transports blasters could work but why bother? Most transports werent even armed. Are you going to allow them to be shot down by AAA to even things out? If your landing forces in an unsecured landing zone you should expect to get cut to pieces. You might not necessarily get wiped out but you should not be able to deploy in such a situation unscathed.

Now the hard part; what limit do you put on the number of units you can have at once? In Skirmish the max units you can have is 9. Since you get a number of units in each company this is not actually a bad figure and manageable. In GC the maximum planetary garrison you can have is 10. Why not have a maximum force size of 10 units and anymore than this are your reserves. The planetary garrison also have unlimited reserves from any building they have so this has to be taken into account. This gives the defender a slight edge even when facing a force of equal size. This is more than fair because in reality who ever rules space would have a tremendous advantage. This idea is subject to change when we see how effective orbital bombardment is in FoC. That could completely change ground combat, but only in GC.


Yeah...edited something out...that's what I don't want...even as a joke...I'm not religious by the way so I'm in no way offended by anything, just trying to avoid any possible conflicts. -LIAYD

lonepadawan
06-08-2006, 07:09 PM
This is probably rather OT.. but at the mo are the Underworld chappies seeming more rebely than the rebels? Stealing vehicles, guerilla warfare etc, existing in small numbers on enemy planets...

The Death Star
06-11-2006, 07:46 AM
Sorry to bring up an old topic, but I thought of something. Whenever a Death Star or SSD is in orbit around a planet, actually show it, In 3D orbiting the Planet. It would look cool.