PDA

View Full Version : Galactic Battlegrounds. Should it have been produced by the makes of Total Annilation


Excaliber
09-02-2001, 11:57 PM
Total Annihilation. It is the greatest game in the world. Star Wars GB could be the greatest but it would be for sure if Lucas Arts had resurrected the crew of Cavedog the company that made TA.
That would have been the coolest ever.

Booya2020
09-03-2001, 12:53 AM
Well first of all the makers of GB wanted to get out of 3-D. Second of all the way that TA plays out isn't as faithful to the SW universe. And third of all the units look so much better in 2D. 3D wouldn't do them justice.

Darth Maul Jr.
09-03-2001, 12:53 AM
You have to be insane!!! The Total Anihilation game engine sucks! It's worse than the Warcraft II engine and that's old old. It a totally top down perspective, not even the isometric halfway top down perspective like Warcraft II and Starcraft. You cant see good unit detail with a perspective like that! Just compare Age of Empire II: Age of Kings with Total Anihilation Kingdoms... They did exactly the right thing by using the AOK engine, however the engine for Age of Mythology looks like they finally gonna be able to make 200 units with a 3d engine and look good. But that engine wont be polished off til next year, so Lucasarts has the best RTS platform engine in the buisness right now and they should take advantage of it before 2d RTS game become obsolete next year. I forgot Total Anihilation still existed:o

Link Antilles
09-03-2001, 01:06 AM
TA was good for its time, but that times gone.

NO!



:r2d2:

Lord JayVizIon
09-03-2001, 01:19 AM
in regards to your question, the answer is no.

if you notice, AoK is really something. not only is the gameplay outstanding, but the rendered artistic detail for the units, environments, and as well as buildings made me speechless when i first played it. they want detail to be incorporated into this game b/c let's face it, the universe of star wars is pretty detailed. i don't think they went wrong, rather they made the rite choice with the ensemble engine. if you could only see the two screenshots that i'm looking at rite now in SW Gamer, they would put you in awe, too...

Darth Maul Jr.
09-03-2001, 02:57 AM
Could you please post the 2 screenshots? If somebody complains about compyright laws just tell em you posted the wrong .gif/.bmp by accident!:D

Lord JayVizIon
09-03-2001, 04:26 AM
actually, the two pics are of screenshots we've already seen, such as this one:

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/gs/news/010501/swgb_screen004.jpg


however, the shots i saw were not blurred or distorted such as the ones found on websites. these pics had exceptional clarity, as if they were taken with a digital camera rite in the E3 convention, and they look great.....

Paladin
09-03-2001, 10:48 AM
The TA engine SUCKS!:mad:

Clefo
09-03-2001, 05:28 PM
I wouldn't say it sucked. I liked TA and TAK... It was just the way the engine was made, I mean you could just crank out units with no end and so Multiplayer games would consist of sending units into the middle and getting killed....

But if there is one thing from TA and TAK they should integrate its the Darian Crusades type thingy,

But I think AOK is a better engine all around...

Tie Guy
09-03-2001, 09:25 PM
Well, i wouldn't want the TA engine, its really too old IMO adn the graphics and all weren't exactly the greatest, which is important in a SW game, since alot people play it because of the units it has.

I really think that the RA2 engine would be the best choice. This is for a vast multitude of reasons but the main one is that the whole villagers and resource and gameply is much better suited toward the ancient/medeval times. RA2 has a more futuristic/modern setting, and the units and buildings and such fit in with that. An example is the thing with ranged units. Almost everything is ranged in RA2, and the same with GB. AOK only had archers and cannoneer type units. So RA2 just fits in better as a whole with the Star Wars universe IMO, but oh well, the AOK engine is good too, just not the best IMO.

Kavam1
09-03-2001, 10:00 PM
If you did a major engine revamp like SC got it would be so much better you get realist flight (banks, curves, bombing runs, etc) but I would say it would probably be better if Chris Taylor (who made TA) or his company Gas Powered Games (they have a lot of ex-Cavedog employees which is now closed) would just make a new engine. But a engine revamp would just need to have a free-floating camera program (3rd party teams for TA have already made these) (TA units already require 3D models to be used to make units), a revamped graphics engine (I guess thatís what it would be called) and TAK has one of those but only set to a fantasy style
But the speed LucasArts needed GB to be devolved they needed to revamp an up-to-date engine so they made the best chose plus Chris Taylor is very busy making another game right now so it would never have happened.

Excaliber
09-03-2001, 10:03 PM
Sorry guys but i have never seen AOK. Can someone please tell me where i could download a demo?

I still think the graphics would be better TA style instead of all cartooney like they are but i cant say nothin' about the engine

Kuma
09-04-2001, 01:46 AM
The AoK engine is solid. I think LucasArts have chosen well.

Lord JayVizIon
09-04-2001, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by Excaliber
Sorry guys but i have never seen AOK. Can someone please tell me where i could download a demo?

I still think the graphics would be better TA style instead of all cartooney like they are but i cant say nothin' about the engine

go to www.microsoft.com/games/age2/

Admiral Odin
09-04-2001, 09:09 AM
The other reason is AoK engine is a proven one, that many people enjoy. TA seems to have mixed resusts.

Darth_Rommel
09-04-2001, 01:53 PM
I've never played TA, so AOK is the best engine for me...

Droideka
09-04-2001, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Darth_Rommel
I've never played TA, so AOK is the best engine for me...
it is an older RTS that is an ok game except for the limited amount of units

Excaliber
09-04-2001, 05:28 PM
Where can i get the AOK demo?

darthfergie
09-04-2001, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Excaliber
Total Annihilation. It is the greatest game in the world. Star Wars GB could be the greatest but it would be for sure if Lucas Arts had resurrected the crew of Cavedog the company that made TA.
That would have been the coolest ever.

NO!!!!!
Not even. I might have liked in the RA2 engine or AoK engine and that's about it.

Admiral Odin
09-06-2001, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Excaliber
Where can i get the AOK demo?

Look above, Lord JayVizIon posted a link.

HanSolo
10-05-2001, 02:46 AM
Just incase anyone would be interested (Excaliber for instance), there is a TC in development for Total Annihilation.

Star Wars TA uses the TA engine, but will replace all of the units, maps and missions with SW. It is still in BETA development, but the lower-level units for the Imperials and Rebels are playable.

Please come and check it out...

SOLO

jigga
10-05-2001, 03:49 AM
I think the AOK engine is fine but I would have loved to see them use the starcraft engine. I think that it would look more furturistic then the Aok engine makes the game look. For those who play starcraft and are familar with the starcraft editor just imagine what you could do with all those extra units they are putting in the game. The Starcraft editor is the best I have seen.

Lord JayVizIon
10-05-2001, 06:11 AM
you have a point jigga. i just got ra2 today so i've seen that, aok, and sc's engine altogether. although i still think the aok engine rocks for swgb, there could have been some additions from sc that would make swgb even better. first of all, terran vulcans can set mines in sc. lurkers as well as hydralisk are able to burrow as well.

all i'm saying is that it would have been interesting to see if LEC had made use of underground tactics to add to the strategy of rts gaming such as starcraft. ra2 and aok didn't make use of underground tactics.

Cadarn
10-06-2001, 06:18 PM
Wow that's one of the top mods for a game I've played. The Total Annihilation engine still is theone of the best out there.

It actually feels like Star Wars, although the sounds are somewhat "familiar" ;).

The dog fighting Wings and Ties really rock.

Necro
10-06-2001, 07:36 PM
in my opinion, the starcraft engine would have been best :|

Influenza
10-06-2001, 07:54 PM
I really feel sorry for all of you that think the Total Annihilation engine is "horrible." I'm going to give you a list of reasons why the TA engine is better than either the SC OR AoK engines:

[list=1]
The real big one is true-3d units. No sprite animation here, boys and girls. All units in TA are rendered in real-time according to the *exact* angle and pitch that they exist at in the game. None of this we're-too-cheap-to-make-more-than-8-unit-angles bull**** that everyone seems to love. Yeah yeah, we all know graphics don't mean everything, but you really can't appreciate how much better units look in 3d than when sprite-based until you've seen it, as I have.
A true physics model. Ballistic-type weapons use effects of gravity (different on every world), firing angle, and shot velocity to calculate flight time and distance. I'm not aware of any other engine that supports physics on the level that the TA engine does. While it's true that the majority of SW weapons are laser-based and therefore not affected majorly by gravity, things like proton bombs and torpedos would greatly benefit from being rendered with TA's engine.
Sophisticated animation scripts. Because TA's units are 3d-modeled, making complex animations is much easier than using sprite-models. You will never find a sprite-based unit more beautifully animated than TA's Krogoth unit. Or, hell, the Beezlebub, a third-party unit which is perhaps the single-most-impressive achievement I've ever seen in third-party development for *any* game.
Ease of development and modification. The TA engine is very easy to learn and modify to do close to anything. Check out the SWTA conversion. We're (yes, I'm part of the team) doing things no one thought possible with the TA engine: restricting unit firing arcs; rechargeable shields; overheating E-webs which fire at a fast rate for a given time, then must "cool-down" before being used again; and a shield generator which acts true to its nature, stopping all fire within a certain radius, both friendly and hostile. And this is all fairly basic stuff. There are developers who have made things like teleportation systems, units with destroyable parts, transports which allow their cargo to fire while in transit, and map features that add strategy to the game with destroyable bridges, exploding barrels, meteor storms, and earthquakes. All this from a game that originally featured only turret-ed tanks and mechs with lasers.

AND all this came from third-party developers who did it for fun. With LA's budget and staff, who knows what could have been developed? Probably something on the order of [shameless plug]Star Wars: Total Annihilation (http://tauniverse.com/swta)[/shameless plug] :D.
Aircraft which actually move and dogfight. I'm sorry, but aircraft that hover a la SC and BG are just crap. That is so incredibly pathetic (strangely, they only occur in engines that are fairly unsophisticated, too). BG would be *FAR* better if we actually saw real dogfights between starfighters. SW:TA will have this, as does the original TA game. The difference it makes is HUGE. If you think that having two aircraft hover in midair and fire at each other like SC and BG is "cooler" than actual movement and dogfighting, then I'm sorry, but you're WAY past help.
Expandability. It's insanely easy to make add-on units, structures, and even races for TA. LucasArts COULD have and SHOULD have taken this fact and run with it. Cavedog used to release new units on a weekly basis, as well as maps, AI's, and missions. All from a small startup company releasing its first game. With LA's team and resources, they could have REDEFINED what "supporting" a game means. Too bad .
[/list=1]

That's part of my general "why TA is cool" list. Now on to some of your comments and showing why they're just plain wrong.
TA was good for its time, but that times gone.Nonsense. TA's engine, as I've just partly-shown, is still lightyears beyond the vast majority of today's games. Everyone just assumes that Good Graphics+Good Gameply=Good Engine. That is NOT the case. SC had fair graphics and good gameplay, yet its engine was a joke.
RA2 has a more futuristic/modern setting, and the units and buildings and such fit in with that. An example is the thing with ranged units. Almost everything is ranged in RA2, and the same with GBOk. Guess what? EVERY unit in TA has a ranged weapon. Not that melee weapons aren't possible or anything. Like I said before, Just About Anything is possible with the TA engine. And again, TA's engine is superior to RA2's. If you want an example, take aircraft that can actually shoot down other aircraft.
The other reason is AoK engine is a proven one, that many people enjoy. TA seems to have mixed resusts.It seems so few people know what an engine actually is. No one enjoys playing the AoK engine. They enjoy playing AoK. If you enjoy an engine, it means you really like if statements, while loops, file input/output, physics calculations (unless it's the AoK/SC engine), etc etc. An engine is what interprets game files under a certain set of game rules and runs/displays the game itself. Good gameplay can exist without a good engine. Just look at Windows Solitaire.
The TA engine SUCKS!Wow. I am utterly speechless from your incredible depth, observation, and persuasiveness. Pat yourself on the back. Your ignorance has served you well.
they want detail to be incorporated into this game b/c let's face it, the universe of star wars is pretty detailedIn context, I have to take that to mean that you think the TA engine is incapable of detail. In which you're completely wrong. The TA engine will display anything you want in terms of map and feature visuals. The SWTA conversion has Hoth, Tatooine, and Dantooine tilesets to make maps with. And a number have fans are developing tilesets for Bespin and Endor.

And if you're referring to unit and not map detail, then rest assured that a *good* modeler and texture-er can create anything imagineable in the TA engine. Cavedog's units weren't the greatest imaginable, although the Krogoth unit comes close. HANSOLO, lead developer of SWTA, is just brilliant when it comes to modeling/texturing/scripting/gameplay in general. His/our models are waaaay more detailed and better-looking than GB's. It's almost funny, that three college students can produce higher-quality material than an entire team of paid professionals. Oh wait, that IS funny.
...all the units look so much better in 2D. 3D wouldn't do them justice.Oh, whatever. That's like saying that a picture of my 1967 Ford Mustang does more justice to the car than seeing it in person.
The Total Anihilation game engine sucks! It's worse than the Warcraft II engine and that's old old. It a totally top down perspective, not even the isometric halfway top down perspective like Warcraft II and Starcraft. You cant see good unit detail with a perspective like that!It's almost pointless to respond to your first comment. Hopefully you'll read and comprehend everything I've said thus far. As for perspective...WCII *was* top-down, so I don't know what you're smoking. Yes it had a *very very very slight* angle to it, but so does TA, if you look closely. Go to www.tauniverse.com and ask "does TA have a top-down perspective" and you'll get 3000+ people saying "NO!"
(TA) is an older RTS that is an ok game except for the limited amount of unitsLimited amount of units?!? Are you insane?!? Original TA shipped with 150 units, and the Core Contingency expansion pack added 75 more. 225 units. By my calculations, that's more than RA2 and SC combined. And that's because TA doesn't need 500 animations per unit. Just one script and one 3d model.
Total Annihilation. It is the greatest game in the world. Star Wars GB could be the greatest but it would be for sure if Lucas Arts had resurrected the crew of Cavedog the company that made TA.
That would have been the coolest everThat's exactly correct :D.

If my abundance of facts and direct examples have overwhelmed you, it's ok. Admittance is the first step towards the cure. But be sure to actually play Total Annihilation and really learn its engine before you start blindly bashing it next time.

Tie Guy
10-06-2001, 08:43 PM
With all the facts you gave you make it sound like TA is the best game ever, and it makes me wonder if you've every played. Of course you have, but with everything you've been saying....

Two things really get at me that i find impossible to miss while playing the game

1. Its not fun

2. it doesn't look good

BUT.....if i hadn't played this game i would think that it was some kind of super awesome game that won't be beaten for years and years to come. But i just can't believe that when i play, and those are the only facts that i need.

EndSub
10-06-2001, 08:46 PM
thats alot of good points......but I still don't think TA is the right engine.....

ok TA was WAY ahead of its time, and was one of the greatest RTS's ever....but it still proberly isn't the right engine to do SW:GB......

1) The view.....it IS a top down view.....and don't give me any bull**** about it having a slight angle.....because that angle ain't big enough to give us a good perspective.......

2) The landscapes.....there bland.....

as always, don't flame me, prove me wrong....lets see a screenie of a nice detailed map, or something giving us a nice perspective of an AT-AT.....

Note: Just a question, my C++ skills are pretty much limited to cin>> and cout<< so I don't know.......but my VB skills are "ok" and in my experiance sprite based animation is hell easier than 3D animation........

Influenza
10-06-2001, 09:21 PM
The TA engine will display anything you want in terms of map and feature visuals.Read that. It's true. If you can render it in Photoshop, Terragen, PaintShopPro, or any other pixel-based graphics program, TA can and will display it. Hands down, no questions asked. So as long as LA created some nice looking tilesets, they would work with TA. Check out www.tamec.org for some examples of outstanding TA tilesets made by 3rd party developers.

Also, did you play the Core Contingency add-on? While the original TA tilesets were fairly bland, the maps in CC were absolutely stunning. Especially the Crystal and Lusch tilesets. I don't have any screen shots, but if you really want one, I suppose I have no coice.


And re: pixel vs. 3d animation. There's no contest here. To do pixel animation, you have to physically DRAW EVERY FRAME OF ANIMATION. That's in inordinate amount of animation frames if the units are going to look half decent. But with 3d-based animation, all the animation calls are script-based. Here's an example from TA's "COB" scripting system:
aimprimary(heading, pitch){
turn turret to z-axis <heading> speed <50>;
turn barrel to y-axis <pitch> speed <10>;
wait-for-turn turret about z-axis;
wait-for-turn barrel about y-axis;
}That function right there tells the unit to turn its turret to face its target, then elevate the barrel in order to provide a proper firing solution. That's it. Instead of making a series of frames to show the turret turning (which they don't even DO in BG, IIRC), which is MUCH more work (just ask any computer graphics artist).

I'd respond to Tie Guy's post, but I'm leaving right now for a football game. #1 vs #2 high school football teams in the country. GO LONG BEACH POLY!!!

Tie Guy
10-06-2001, 09:32 PM
there's nothing to respond to in my post. Its simply my opinion, and can't be proven right or wrong, so don't waste your time. However, i think that it is an opinion that many of the people on this board share, i just wanted to state it outright.

EndSub
10-06-2001, 10:35 PM
yeah rotaion is a b**ch in DirectDraw.......but I still don't think Microsoft did us any favours by taking it out of the DX8 SDK (VB only here.....don' know about c++ ;) )

and there are ways of doing rotation with DD....they all envolve quite abit 'ol code though.....so I won't post it ;) ...but my point is that if SW:GB was just top-down then the artist would only have to draw one sprite........


luckely I ain't the artist so all I have to do is go.....


DrawSprite(Height as single, Width as Single)

for frame = 0 to NumFrames
X = numframes * width
Y = numframes * height
ddsbackbuffer.bltfast(X,Y,width,height....


wait a sec this isn't a programming board :D

Tie Guy
10-06-2001, 10:48 PM
well, VB isn't really made for avanced programming stuff like that, thats why its so hard to do. I know some VB and am learning alot more in another VB class i'm taking this year. Its best off to use either C++ or a "homemade" code for doing games and the like.

Maul403
10-06-2001, 10:55 PM
%%*^%##%*% NO!!!!!!!!! AOE2 ENGINE KICKS @$$!!!!

EndSub
10-07-2001, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Tie Guy
well, VB isn't really made for avanced programming stuff like that, thats why its so hard to do.

Not true. making games in VB is alot EASIER than C++ (made This (http://www.geocities.com/endsub95/SW.zip) in about 15 minutes..), but using graphics C++ kicks its ass speed wise (thats why alot of people opt to make there graphics DLL in C++)

but with the release of the DX SDK for VB its catching up ;)

But VB is not for making games (I just do alittle of that for fun :) )
Its for making applications. now lets get back on subject......

TA engine vs AOK engine :D

jigga
10-07-2001, 01:27 AM
The thing is you could make points why and why not this game should have been made with any of these, starcraft,AOK and TA because they all have features that are appealing and disapointing. Its what game you prefer. I would have liked to see this game made with the starcraft engine personally, but I have played Redalert 2 and AOK and they both have some great features and some that really suck, I am just glad to see this game made. I never played Force C and I have been waiting a long time for a RTS based on starwars.

HanSolo
10-07-2001, 04:43 AM
Ok in response, here are some screenshots of the TA engine in action.

http://www.tauniverse.com/swta/ubb/atst.jpg

That shows the perspective; it is not entirely top down. What must be taken into account however is the fact that TA's maps are entirely 3d, so slopes and multi-level hills are common-place, altering the perspective of the unit.
Note: I realise the ATSTs look a bit blurry, but that is where we are developing custom textures, and they are not shaded as yet. There's an example of TAs willingness to display anything you draw...

As far as landscapes - touche, that's a common mis-conception. The original tilesets distributed with the game weren't the best looking, but some amazing stuff has been contributed by the community since.

Here are a couple of images that show one of the TA:K tilesets, which has been backwardly converted to the TA engine. This is just an example of how good things can look in this 4-year old engine:

http://www.tauniverse.com/swta/ubb/zhon4.jpg and http://www.tauniverse.com/swta/ubb/zhon5.jpg

I think that it is also worth noting that the TA engine is capable of displaying high resolutions. Because the game uses 3d models, and not sprites, the res support is large.

SOLO

Luke Skywalker
10-07-2001, 12:19 PM
VB is a horrible language, thats why windows is so crappy and every other OS is better because there all based on UNIX kernels.

Tie Guy
10-07-2001, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Luke Skywalker
VB is a horrible language, thats why windows is so crappy and every other OS is better because there all based on UNIX kernels.

Hey, Vb is a great language. It is easier to use, and is very usefull in making applications for businesses and things, just as EndSub said. Just because it doesn't make advanced games very well doesn't mean its crap, and just because windows has VB doesn't means its crap.

Luke Skywalker
10-07-2001, 12:35 PM
I didn't mean to imply that just because windows uses VB means its crap, Windows is infact crap but thats not just because of VB, theres alot of other factors. Sorry bout the confusion, and I was talking about VB implemented in OS's it just doesnt work well.

Booya2020
10-07-2001, 05:57 PM
There are 2 total conversions for stacraft into star wars:
http://www.wizard.net/~rcpcacmc/
http://swv.camsys.org

the one at camsys.org is set entirely in space

Admiral Odin
10-07-2001, 06:42 PM
those TA screens have proven to me that it would be terrible for GB. I would hate to look at a battle that way.

Luke Skywalker
10-07-2001, 10:25 PM
TA is a great game in all and the graphics are great but it just wouldnt fit with GB:(

jigga
10-07-2001, 11:30 PM
Those screen shots were terrible its hard to make out the units the evironments are boring I dont think using that engine based on those screens would be wise.

jigga
10-07-2001, 11:40 PM
Booya2020 are there any finished conversions of starwars or any other type out there

EndSub
10-07-2001, 11:53 PM
Don't bash vb, or I'll put a cap in your ass :P :D

and just out of pure curiosity what OS do you use?

Influenza
10-08-2001, 12:58 AM
Those screen shots were terrible its hard to make out the units the evironments are boring I dont think using that engine based on those screens would be wise.Well, either you're blind, running at 99999X99999 resolution (yes, this is a joke), or arguing for the sake for arguing. I just forwarded those URL's to about 40 people on my AIM buddy list, and not a single person expressed the complaints you did. Tell me...which units are hard to make out? Which environment is boring? If it's the first one with the AT-ST's, that's a Cavedog environment, not to mention a VERY OLD picture of the 'ST. And if you meant the other pictures...well, I can't imagine anyone saying those are "boring" with a straight face. I have yet to see a more detailed environment in either RA2 or SC (can't say yes or no to AoK, haven't played much of it), which tend to have environments based on repeating flats, cliffs, more cliffs, even more cliffs, and some repeating rocks, buildings, and trees for good measure. The only game I've seen which produces better-looking terrain than the TA engine is Earth:2150.

Time for me to go on the offensive. Why does everyone think the AoK engine is perfect for GB? I've heard a lot about the iso-view, and I see your point about that. But what else? Do you really like aircraft that hover in midair indefinitely, making Star Wars-esque dogfights impossible? How about infantry and tanks that can't fire while moving? Isn't that pretty lame? The buildings look very nice, but don't the pixelized units look, well, like they could've been done better? And how about scale? Doesn't SW-accuracy matter in a game like this?

EndSub
10-08-2001, 01:55 AM
AoE enviroment is one of the best enviroment for RTS's (alot more "exciting" than that....)

The units arn't pixalated.....I'll try and dig up some screenies for you.......

Yeah the aircraft hovering isn't the greatest.....but I have gotten over it.....

yeah the moving\firing units are pretty cool.....

Still don't think the TA engine is best for the game though......

:)

Fes2001
10-10-2001, 12:18 PM
:x-wing:
SWTA 0wns, 100%
This game will suck, due to the 3d Engine type, and the blatent lack of SW detail
I am one of the SWTA fans making maps, having already made Hoth.
1. TA will run on a minimum of 100/166mhz and 16mbs
2. You can have up to 10 players in multiplayer
3. It is very easy to add 3rd Party Units
4. SWTA looks better than GB already :P
5. also there is Star Wars Total Annihilation: War In Space (http://www.planetannihilation.com/are) still in alpha stages, but It has the Captial Ships of Star Wars in there
6. Some people want the Starcrap engine used, I say, what have you been smoking?! SC sucks, the game is a joke

Duncan
10-10-2001, 01:14 PM
I think I'm going to have to agree with all the posts that say AOK is not the "best" engine that LA could've used. I think the SC engine would have been good but they would have had to jack up the resolution a bit. SC is stuck at 640x480. The TA or RA2 engines would have been better choices. Given the fact that LA was trying to get away from 3D in their RTS then I guess they could go with RA2. RA2 is nice as it supports lighting effects, deformable terrain (actually this is in TS but RA2 uses the same engine), aircraft that actually look like they are flying, units that still fire while they move (is it really true that the SWBG units can't fire while moving?). On the other hand, TA would have been nice due it the various features (see previous long post on TA). Either way TA or RA2/TS would have been better.

rshc
10-10-2001, 01:16 PM
I don't wish to be mean or whatever, but I've just logged onto the TA sites to find out if their "dead", but to my surprise their still running and I know what the AoK engine is like, I haven't play BG yet, but I wasn't that interested in it (the screenshots didn't look great) the reasons are as follows:

I remember Age of Empire's engine DIDN'T look that good and the isometric view is annoying, whenever possible in any RTS I would go top down unless I'm showing off the GFX (as I had a geforce card when my mate didn't). Now if I remmeber correctly units occupied exactly the same amount of space in AoE, what about star destroyers? Will they feature in BG? If not there's no way I'm going to buy it, but if they do will they hover about in midair? There can be no collisions from other craft with the stardestroyer (I know TA doesn't support this but it looks a lot worse on 2d games :-)) which will make it look terrible if I am correct, and I also think I'll be right in saying that'll be 1 weapon assigned to the star destroyer. And the same goes with other CAPTIAL ships.

Now the TA engine IS more advanced than the AoE engine by far, so stop thinking cos AoE was made after TA that it's better (talking about the engine). TA uses 3d & a 2d landscape, I admit a 3d landscape is better and is what TA is lacking, but I can't believe the cr*p I'm reading here. Good RTS engines? Well warzone 2100 & earth 2150 & the moon project & ground control have full 3d engines and the only one that looks a lot better than TA's units is ground control. All 2d top down (or iso-view, but it's the same thing really :-p) games have worse engines than TA, why? what about hills? (2d games use gfx to make it look like there's hills while TA actually uses depth of the landscape in the game). TA also allows units to have multiple weapons too.

I'm not saying TA is the best engine made for RTS but I'm trying to get across the msg that TA IS still fun & that BG sounds like it'll be terrible, it sounds like a cash in attempt :-). The pro of the AoE engine is that it can support more units than TA (or so I've heard). TA also keeps crashing on my machine :-(.

Yes the SWTA is right, MOVING dogfights sound a lot more fun than floating ships which never land. Moving carriers sound fun (I have they put a landing pad on the capital ships of SWTA if possible) and floating ships sound boring. Don't get me wrong I like AoE due to it's medival feel & mass carnage, & starcraft is extremely good due to it's gameplay & balancing. But I really don't like it when people put up agruements that are just PLAIN WRONG!! (no quotes cos I'm lazy, but I've read the other SWTA guy's message and it makes more sense than what anyone else's message I've read)

Ban me for all I care I'm not going to post on this forum again I think :-) I know I'm flaming =] but at least I have some comments that are correct and don't make TA sound like it's out of date cos of it's "engine" when ur comparing it to an engine which is a generation behind! what total bull*!&@

unflame:
Thanks for reading this far

Hockey_Beast
10-10-2001, 02:11 PM
I wouldnt be able to play it cause my comp is slow as it is :(

Influenza
10-10-2001, 04:12 PM
First, thanks to the people that actually read what I had to say Re: TA engine, especially to those of you who realize the difference between an engine and a game. And for those who DO realize the merits of the TA engine, go download SWTA. You won't regret it :D.

Hockey: the TA engine isn't true-3d, so you'd be able to play it fine. I used to play TA on a P133 with 32 MB RAM :eek:. Of course, I've since moved on to bigger and better things...*cough*Athlon 1.3 GHz 256 MB DDR RAM Radeon 64 MB DDR*cough*:cool:

Influenza
10-10-2001, 09:39 PM
Funny how as soon as some real arguments are offered all the "TA ***XOR" people who have nothing concrete to say just disappear. Man, and I thought I was going to get a good laugh out of people's responses to my queries :(.

EndSub
10-10-2001, 10:04 PM
I have already shown you told you the reasons why TA engine would not be good for SW:GB.......I don't need to reapeat myself......

Influenza
10-10-2001, 10:08 PM
Yes, you did. I actually meant to commend you for that, but forgot to while writing the post. My apologies.

Locust99
10-14-2001, 05:45 AM
Look, it is simple, TA engine would have been the best to use.

But they did not.

So..... go buy Total Annihilation - £5 from shop and download swta

Neuralize
10-20-2001, 11:50 AM
What the hell are you guys talking about?
TA would be the best engine. First thing, alot of you people have to agree about how lame the lasers look the the BG demo. Its like they are throwing light sticks at each other. In TA they actually look like lasers. Another thing.. why dont the tie bombers bomb do a bombing run in AOK? Because the engine sucks, They just sit there like an ass and fire. In TA you can pretty much have any kind of unit behavoir because each unit has its own scripting and such, in the SWTA mod for TA the TIE BOMBERS do bombing runs which is very cool to see. When the Units in the BGs demo rotate its just sprites shifting very unrealistic. WHen somethign turns with the TA engine it actually TURNS. One thing that I really thought was crap was the AT-ST firing in the BG demo. It looked so freakin retarded. When I played the BG I could tell right from the get-go that it was using the AOK engine, BG is basicaly a Total Conversion of AOK to StarWars. As for until detal in TA it just depends on how well the unit modeler is at making units. Ta uses 3d models for units making everthing really smooth and nice. The terrain in TA is hands down alot better then RA2, AOK, or anything else. Mainly because you dont see blockly slops just smooth terrian. And in TA the unit limits are alot more then in BGs making bigger and more intense battles. The only reason I would say the the AOK engine is better then the TA one is because with the AOK you can have more then just 2 sides, but then again.. in the starwars universe there are technically only 2 real sides. Imperial and Rebel. Hey im not saying that BG is going to suck. I'm just pointing out that its not the best engine to be used. If SWTA sucks I'll go out and buy BG if it doesnt I wont. As of now Im like'n SWTA better, and thats only in the beta version.

Fes2001
10-29-2001, 12:51 PM
thank you, SWTA is the best, I'll show you a quote from the SWTA forums

Influenza
Hah. Well, give us a professional team of game developers, pay us each $100k US/year, and we'll have it dones reaaaal quick .

DarkTrooper
10-29-2001, 12:54 PM
anyway it is stupid that the bombers just sit their like dead duck dropping bombs even i ESB when they went into the asteriod feild the TIE bombers did bomb runs

DinoDoc
10-29-2001, 02:21 PM
The only problem with the TA engine, and I've not seen this addressed in either TA or TA:K, is its horrible ability to render people. They end up looking like a collection of rectangular prisims, IMO. Now this really doesn't take away from the efforts of the SWTA team and once the mod is finished I'll reinstall my copy of TA to play it but lets not kid ourselves and start to think that it would make a decent retail game especially since several years after its release melee units are now where in sight.

Dvlos
10-29-2001, 03:07 PM
Let's look at the facts. Rebellion and Force Commander REEKED. LucasArts is looking to fix up their rep. and start selling the kind of games that turned people like me into hard-core gamers. Games like Xwing and Jedi Knight really brought lots of people towards PC gaming.

Now, lets look at SWGB. They wanted to make a good RTS? Ok let's stress the number one, most infinitely importing thing about RTS's, gameplay. I still like Starcraft, even though the gfx are absurd, because the gameplay is fantastic, fast, and exciting. Runner up in my book would be AOK. It allowed you to amass large armies, the interface was simple, nice unit formations, simple to grasp, tons of ways to play and win (or lose).

I am sure Lucasarts looked at TA, RA2, and these other engines, and look at which RTS series had the largest fan base, and the longest history of followers. I believe that is why they chose Ensemble's Engine. Personally the graphics arent the greatest, its not 3d, but I am forever hooked on this gameplay. That battles are good, and are fun to watch. I am sure when the full game releases and we can all play at 1280x1024 the gfx wont look so bad and if the trailer is any indication it looks like they revamped some the effects like explosions and the shield effect from the generators.

DinoDoc
10-29-2001, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Influenza
I really feel sorry for all of you that think the Total Annihilation engine is "horrible." I'm going to give you a list of reasons why the TA engine is better than either the SC OR AoK engines:

To my knowlege, there is no SC engine. SC was made using the WCII engine.

Ease of development and modification. The TA engine is very easy to learn and modify to do close to anything.

Let's say that I want a jedi that stays faithful to the movies and also doesn't look like a robot. Could TA accomodate my wish? :biggs:

jediaoe
10-29-2001, 03:27 PM
this game and aok kicked some serious ass so don't ***** about who made it because ensemble rocks.

Toothless-OMO
10-29-2001, 10:49 PM
OK, I jump in here.

To start I must say I have not read every post in this thread and I am not about to. So if someone has mentioned this already forgive me and discard this post.

Here goes.

The question was never should GB be based on the TA engine, but what if the crew from CaveDog did the game. I dear say if they did they would not dig up the old TA engine, but design it fresh.

I personally think TA blows SC out of the water but the is me and you are you. Let me just say control 12 units at a time, gag, gag, gag!

OK, I know I am drifting now, so I stop.

Toothless-OMO

crazy_dog
10-30-2001, 02:45 AM
More people have played AoK than TA.

TA might be a great game, but more people have AoK.:p

Influenza
10-30-2001, 03:45 PM
Wow, I really thought this subject had died.
The question was never should GB be based on the TA engine, but what if the crew from CaveDog did the gameYou're right, but somewhere someone brought up that "TA SUCKS!", and I just could not let that slide ;).

More people have played AoK than TA.Point being? Is LucasArts selling this game as Age of Kings: Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds? No, they aren't. The game is being sold on its own merits (or lack thereof ;)). If it were being sold as an addon/mod, then Yes, it would be important to use a widely-distributed game.

Hell, FAR more people have played Tetris than AoK. Should GBG have been designed with the Tetris engine?

To my knowlege, there is no SC engine. SC was made using the WCII engine.IIRC, StarCraft was made with a modified WCII engine, updated to allow control over more units, a wider array of spells and spell types, and different damage/armoring types.

Let's say that I want a jedi that stays faithful to the movies and also doesn't look like a robot. Could TA accomodate my wish? Absolutely. Have you played SWTA? The Stormtroopers and other infantry look very good, both to myself and everyone who has commented on them. As for Jedi, why not? It could certainly be scripted. I'll have you know, that if/when SWTA debuts a Darth Vader character, it will not take more than one slice of his lightsaber to kill a Rebel Trooper. How is that faithful to the movies?

Booya2020
10-30-2001, 04:09 PM
Please delete this thread. All it is is a flame war. All I see are people saying Starcraft suck, AOK sucks, TA sucks blah blah blah. I just hope that someone besides me realizes that they are all good games and each have their own merits. In my opinion, Neither three games are any better than the last. If all people want to do is to flame GB go to TA, SC or whatever forum and do it there. I am sick of this.

DinoDoc
10-30-2001, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Influenza
Absolutely. Have you played SWTA?

Not as of yet. I've been following the mods progress for about a year off and on but I've been waiting for it to get closer to being complete before I install it.

As for Jedi, why not? It could certainly be scripted. I'll have you know, that if/when SWTA debuts a Darth Vader character, it will not take more than one slice of his lightsaber to kill a Rebel Trooper. How is that faithful to the movies?

It would impress me to no end if you could do that, esp. in light of the difficulty in scripting melee units. BTW, has there been any progress on mission scripting? IIRC, you guys were planning on adding a campaign to go with the mod a while ago. Was that idea dropped?

Influenza
10-30-2001, 11:19 PM
The missions are on the backburner, for now. We're aiming at releasing most/all of the units first, then going back and developing missions.

And you'd (probably) be surprised how far along TA scripting has come the last year. It really isn't that big a deal to make melee troops which only "fire" in certain directions... especially for HANSOLO, our project lead :D.

EndSub
10-31-2001, 12:15 AM
bah, I thought this thread died.......

See: Top-Down View

See: Bland LandScapes

The End....

Influenza
10-31-2001, 02:11 AM
See: Star Wars: Total Annihilation TC, which proves that a top-down view is an excellent one for an RTS.

See: fact that TA engine can display anything you want.

The End...

EndSub
10-31-2001, 04:04 AM
I wasn't arguing that BIV wasn't a great view for RTS's (TA was an AWSOME game) I was arguing that it isn't the best view for a SW game because of the lack of detail you get......

Show me one TA landscape that is almost as detailed as the ones in AoE and I will fold right now........

Influenza
10-31-2001, 06:51 PM
You called down the thunder...now, reap the whirlwind.

(I spent a while taking and resizing these pictures, so please do me the courtesy of looking at all of them objectively and honestly)

[Edit: click on a link, then once the 404 stops displaying, delete the "http://" in the front of the link. That should display the pics right. Sorry about the inconvenience]

SWTA Interface (storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swta/layout.jpg): a little fuzzy and downsized to make the file size acceptable. The general SWTA layout, with unit commands and build menus on the left, under the radar minimap. Actually takes up a much smaller area of the screen, leaving more room for the important part: the battlefield.
Airspeeder (http://storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swta/airspeeder.jpg), Hallucigenia I (http://storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swta/SHOT0003.jpg), Hallucigenia II (http://storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swta/SHOT0004.jpg): pictures of the Hallucigenia tileset, a third-party tileset developed for Total Annihilation. Not exactly 100% Star-Warsy, but if you can play on something as radical as this, terrain like Endor and Hoth should be a piece of cake to design.
Landspeeder (http://storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swta/landspeeder.jpg): a landspeeder scout hovering over open water. Notice the bubbles from the speeder's repulsors. Taken on the Total Annihilation: Kingdoms "Veruna" tileset, which was ported back to TA. That just shows you the power of the engine, when it can display a tileset designed for a more modern and powerful engine.
A-Wings on patrol (http://storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swta/awings.jpg): a group of A-Wings flying over another Veruna map. Yep, flying, not hovering like in SWGB.
Veruna Landscape (http://storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swta/veruna1.jpg), Veruna Coastline (http://storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swta/veruna2.jpg), Imperial Base (http://storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swta/veruna4.jpg): all detailed shots of the Veruna landscape. The last is a small Imperial outpost, defended by ranks of Stormtroopers, a few TIE Interceptors (and one TIE Scout, just finished), a company of TIE Crawlers, and a few Speeder Bikes. I had to resize that picture to make it all fit.
Another Landscape (http://storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swta/green1.jpg), Second Shot (http://storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swta/green2.jpg): shots of C_A_P's (a very famous and influential TA map designer) "Evergreen" tileset. The "gasbags" in the second shot actually sway with the wind in-game. C_A_P is also working on converting all of TA's trees to animated ones, thus livening up the battlefield in a way never seen before. It's supposed to be absolutely stunning.
Interceptor Escort (http://storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swta/int-bomber.jpg): a squad of TIE Interceptors escort TIE Bombers on a bombing run. If the Int's look a little strange, it's because the model for the Int got a little crossed with the TIE Advanced. We've fixed it, but are releasing the fix with the next pack.
Gunboat Assault Group (http://storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swta/tie-gunboat.jpg): a handful of TIE Fighters lead the way for some Assault Gunboats.

That's what I managed to make this afternoon. Many of the terrain-only pictures are resized to be smaller, but I tried not to do that with the unit-pics so you could get a sense of scale. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

PhantomMenace
10-31-2001, 08:25 PM
Why would anyone want this game to be made by the guys who made Total Annihilation? First off, as stated before, the top down perspective sucks..and the units were cheesy.. I heard you could like download new units off the internet and have like 600 units or something but that was becaues the units were a top-down, jigsaw puzzle of pixels...with so little time and graphics put into their units sure you could whip up a couple thousand and put em on the internet and they'd probably download faster than standard text! Why do people constantly trash the graphics on this game....it uses the Age of Kings engine...that engine was built for detail. Detail...look at those sith lords..look at the r2d2's...as small as they are you can almost make out every little curve and notch on em. Lucasarts used the best 2d engine out there right now, and most of those 3d games are going back to "fixed perspective, 3/4 view" anyways. I had a friend who had allt he liltte Total annihilation games including kingdoms and i felt like i was watching an old Sega Genesis strategy game...in fact, i have honestly seen top down strategy games on the friggin Playstation that looked better than TA!!!

Influenza
10-31-2001, 09:22 PM
Christ, I hate ignorance. Here I go again...

Why would anyone want this game to be made by the guys who made Total Annihilation?Total Annihilation was light-years ahead of its time. So many of the features I've already listed have yet to be supported by any other RTS. The RTS genre really was pushed ahead by TA's debut. If you disagree, check out Gamespot, PCGamer, or any number of game sites and read their reviews of Total Annihilation and TA: The Core Contingency. The author of this thread most likely felt that if the TA team had made GB, they could have made similar leaps in the genre that they did back in 1997.

I heard you could like download new units off the internet and have like 600 units or something but that was becaues the units were a top-down, jigsaw puzzle of pixels...with so little time and graphics put into their units sure you could whip up a couple thousand and put em on the internet and they'd probably download faster than standard text!Your total ignorance to the process of TA unit creation and Cavedog's skill at it is obvious. The birds'-eye-view has nothing to do with being able to release "thousands" of units. Every unit in TA is fully modeled, on top, bottom, and sides, even in places that don't show up in-game. Here's a quick picture of one of Cavedog's original units, the Goliath Heavy Battle Tank:http://www.tauniverse.com/visual-ta/Graphics/Thumb_Golly.gif That's an original unit, completely unaltered. So don't say that Cavedog put "so little time" into making their units. You obviously haven't played the game.

...in fact, i have honestly seen top down strategy games on the friggin Playstation that looked better than TA!!!Like what? I find that incredibly hard to believe. Impossible to believe, in fact. Did you look at the screenshots I posted? Or are you going on memory, which is obviously biased against TA?

Detail...Yes, let's talk about detail. Look here (http://www.unituniverse.com/tads/common/content/pics/eyecandy/fullsize/taakshot1.jpg) . This is a Total Conversion for SWTA called "Dark Suns." Look at the background. Look at the small spaceships...similar, yet distinct. Sure looks a whole hell of a lot better than the cartoons of SWGB.

And no, the AoK engine was not built for detail. It was built to be an engine that every user can run games on. Thus the limited colors, resolution, and game speed. The TA engine, on the other hand, was built to display vast armies clashing in detailed environments, all completely modifiable. The TA engine is superior to the AoK engine by a long shot. Anything the AoK engine can do, the TA engine can do better. Give me one example of something the AoK engine does better than the TA engine. I dare you. You seem to know so much about TA.

StarWarz_Dude
10-31-2001, 10:05 PM
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: How could u talk about TA like that, man pull the AoE cd out of ur arse and actully look at total annihilation, STUNNING for its age, i cant believe you, im Fricken speachless

Bobio
10-31-2001, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by StarWarz_Dude
STUNNING for its age, i cant believe you

Exactly, for its age. TA has been out for what, 3,4 years already. The engine is definately dated :eek:

Influenza
10-31-2001, 11:25 PM
The TA engine is superior to the AoK engine by a long shot. Anything the AoK engine can do, the TA engine can do better. Give me one example of something the AoK engine does better than the TA engine. I dare you.

EndSub
11-01-2001, 12:23 AM
Well a gotta say.....those screenies ARE impressive.....well the landscapes are anyway.....the units still look quite bland (but that could be the jpg talking....) and I still think that top-down view cripples is abit.......

I am going to download your mod sometime tonight.....to give it a fair trial......screenshots never tell the whole story........telling me some good maps to download would also be apreciated.....

Influenza
11-01-2001, 01:20 AM
Woohoo! Let's see, good maps. Try going to theTotal Annihilation Map Evaluation Center (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~tamec/Maps/TA/output/Best.htm)'s "Best of TA" section. Any of those maps are absolutely awesome. The ones I used in the above examples are 2 for 1, Hallucigenia, Haunts Of Ancient Peace, Veruna At War V4, and Two Worlds V2. All of them can be found at that link. But you need to remember: in order to use these maps with SWTA, you must rename them to have a .swx extension, not .hpi or .ufo.

As for Cavedog maps...they might not be the best-looking, but Red Triangle, Acid Foursome, and Painted Desert are some classics.

And I hope you know how to play TA :).

And if you're really longing for instructions, strategies, or a unit guide, check out the Official SWTA Manual (http://storm.prohosting.com/polygrad/swtareadme.doc), compiled by yours truly :D.

I hope you enjoy.

Wettis
11-01-2001, 08:25 AM
Ok, here's the opinion of another TA fan... The AoK engine isn't the best for a SW game because it doesn't support units moving and firing at the same time and flying units just float. Still, the landscapes will be pretty good looking and the units will be extremely detailed. The downside is that you can only see units from a few directions and that they won't look as sharp as 3d units. Aoks unit size limitations talks against it too.

The TA engine isn't perfect for a SW game either, since it's for years old. Units in TA really doesn't look that good, but they're pretty nice. The best thing about the TA engine is all it's features, AoK doesn't even come close to it. The maps are nice too, since they're really bitmaps with a heightmap which makes huge, fast playing maps possible. Overall, the TA engine works pretty well for SW games, but it needs updating.

My personal pick for an engine would probably be the ground control engine. The units and environments are beatiful and the free camera works really well. The only downside is the limited number of units allowed.

crazy_dog
11-01-2001, 09:03 AM
My opinion exactly.

PhantomMenace
11-01-2001, 12:25 PM
WHat do you mean unit limitation...in the AOK engine you can build 200 troops exactly..in starcraft you could build 200 units but some units counted as 2 and some as 8 so you wouldnt really have 200 acutal units..in the AOK engine you do. I looked at the screens for the TA conversion thingy and it sucked. I am not the type of person to arbitrarily trash something but i know those units look funny. AS far as size, AOK has been the only RTS i could think of so far that even made an attempt at gettin the scale reasonable. THere may be better engines for Star Wars than the AOK engine, but it aint the TA engine!

Influenza
11-01-2001, 01:26 PM
200 units is a limitation. Total Annihilation has no limit on units, provided you add TOTALA.INI to your directory, containing the line unitmax=5000;

That'll give you a unitmax of 5000 units :D.

But I think Wettis was referring to the actual size of the units. I.E. unit scale. With the 3/4 isometric view, you can't have units too large, or else they'll block out units behind them. That's one flaw of the iso-view, and a reason why LA had to screw up the scaling and make everything so cartoony (IMHO). And don't tell me that the scale in SWGB is "reasonable". Troops are too large, "mechs" are too small. Try looking at those SWTA screens again with an open mind...you'll see that the scale there is correct.

I'm interested in what you think, EndSub. Keep me posted :).

Wettis
11-01-2001, 05:29 PM
That's exactly what I meant and probably why I wrote "Aoks unit size limitations" in the first place too :)

Eets
11-01-2001, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Influenza
Total Annihilation has no limit on units, provided you add TOTALA.INI to your directory, containing the line unitmax=5000;

Hmm, you think there might be a way to do something similar in GB?

Wettis
11-01-2001, 06:12 PM
We're getting away from the real issues here! The only facts needed here are that units can't move and fire in the AoK engine, and that flying units just hover above the ground, no dogfighting.

Admiral Odin
11-01-2001, 07:03 PM
Many RTS games lack dog fighting, it really isn't an issue.

Also small units can hurt people's eyes. Some like larger units. LA took the middle ground. They also greatly improved the scale of units.

Influenza
11-01-2001, 11:23 PM
Many RTS games lack dog fighting, it really isn't an issue.But this is Star Wars. This game shouldn't fall under the "many RTS" category. I mean, honestly, who doesn't think that dogfights were the coolest parts of the movies? Not necessarily the best or most influential parts...but in terms of sheer coolness, I bet fully 95% of all Star Wars fans would agree that the spacecraft-battle scenes were the most fun to watch.

That's why it's a big deal.

Oh...and what are you talking about when you say LA 'greatly improved the scale of the units'? I honestly don't know what that refers to...a little help? :)

And Eets'chula - I sincerely doubt it. Loading TOTALA.INI, if it is present, is part of the Total Annihilation engine, not something that is generally supported by every game. Raising unit caps is something that SWGB's engine would have to be specifically programmed for. Chances are that if it isn't in AoK, it can't be done in SWGB.

Duncan
11-02-2001, 06:14 AM
You know I honestly don't really think that it's a problem that LA is using the AOK engine, even though there are other and arguably better engines. What gets me miffed is that LA has the audacity to actually put a glorified mod for the AOK engine on the market and try and charge $50 bucks for it. It's not like they took the AOK engine and made it do stuff that no one ever though was possible. SWGB is still just a bunch of different civs with roughly similar tech trees battling it out in glorious 256 colors. And please don't reply and tell me about the flying units or the power cell thingys or shields. Yes, I know about those things but none of those really count as pushing the envelope on the AOK engine.

If I ran SWBG and didn't feel like I was playing AOK (every single menu has the exact same buttons with different graphics) it would be different. Why not bring the game up to 16bit color. How about civs that have radically different tech tree. They are all from different planets so the likelyhood of them all having tech trees so similar is slim. I could go on, but I won't cause it's late and I want to go to bed.

All I'm saying is that I'm okay with them using the AOK engine, but if they are going to charge me $50 for it, they should at least bring the game up to today's level of expectations for new games. Otherwise charge me $20-30 for the glorified mod and I'll be happy.

Good night!

Locust99
11-02-2001, 02:28 PM
i still think the community making their own engine and SW game would be best.... hey.... now i remember...... i already have plans for that when me engine is finished

DinoDoc
11-02-2001, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Influenza
But this is Star Wars. This game shouldn't fall under the "many RTS" category. I mean, honestly, who doesn't think that dogfights were the coolest parts of the movies? Not necessarily the best or most influential parts...but in terms of sheer coolness, I bet fully 95% of all Star Wars fans would agree that the spacecraft-battle scenes were the most fun to watch.

Might I recommend X-Wing Alliance if you dogfighting should be an important part of the game? :naboo:

Influenza
11-02-2001, 04:52 PM
No, because I've played Alliance. Great game. My point still stands, though. Honestly, how many of you would complain if the aircraft in SWGB engaged in dogfighting?

Wettis
11-02-2001, 05:19 PM
Without dogfighting and movefire units SWGB will be a downgraded version of AoK, for full retail price.

Why downgraded then? Because SWGB units mostly rely on guns, not melee weapons which is what the AoK engine was made for. SWGB battles will mostly be soldiers tanks and aircraft standing still firing at eachother until they're all dead.

PhantomMenace
11-02-2001, 05:27 PM
Somebody, a real smart guy, made a post a long time ago that should have killed the old, "they should move while they fire" gripe! The same way they made formations so your guys wouldnt bounce around the map like ping pong balls like they do in starcraft, they decided that air shouldnt move while they are firing for the simple fact of CONTROL. In red alert your planes go aaaall the way back to the air port and wait for you to send them on a strike, then they go flying off and strafe and such, but then the situation could have changed by the time they got there. THe enemy coulda have closed up that vulnerability by quickly movin in air defense and your opportunity has gone to crap! Think about it, if your air was dogfighting around and strafing and you needed to have it stop and do somethign else do you realize how big of a pain in the a** it would be to try to click on that thing to select it..or even worse if there was a bunch of em and they were all dodging in different directions!!! I think we should give the guys at lucasarts the benefit of having a brain, and on the same tolkien ignore some of the people on this message board who think they do got one!!!

Fes2001
11-02-2001, 06:48 PM
actually the Troopers are so small, the barely need features. Yet the Rebel Troopers, and the Stormies, look bloodly nice in SWTA

Influenza
11-02-2001, 07:28 PM
PhantomMenace: I do agree with your points about RA and RA2. Having airplanes stationed at airfields does make the game more realistic for a war on Earth, but isn't practical. And it wouldn't fit in the Star Wars universe either, where spacecraft can land and take off at will. But in the TA engine (which is what we're talking about, of course), aircraft can land and take off anywhere on land. They can be repaired in the field, instead of retreating to base to do so.

As for unit control....that's why you have Control Groups :p

I'd like to see that post on why it's ok that units don't fire when they move. Since I think it's utter crap. I guess you'll never know how great the idea of units that can maneuver and fire at the same time is until you play a game that really supports it (::coughs:: TOTAL ANNIHILATION). RA/RA2 does support this, but the ranges on unit weapons are so small, and their velocities so great, that it doesn't really matter.

PhantomMenace
11-02-2001, 07:44 PM
If there is no advantage to making a ship land why bother puttin the code hours into it? If the ships do have the ability to land then that would mean that they would HAVE to be attackable by ground troops and thus loose the only advantage they have over ground troops. If you want em to land just for it looking cool, as a programmer i'd tell you to deal with it. Also, so you got your ships making passes. THey do make passes in red alert. Ok, they start off zooming in to attack a undefended mech factory, now as they go blazing past it...a couple feet away they run into an anti-air turrent that would not have reached them had they stayed over there, but noooo...they making those "Top Gun" supersonic passes, so they drop a couple hits on the mech factory then fly to their deaths into the jaws of a anti-air turret. And as your high flying, fast movin, straffin fighters go burning down to the ground the guys controlin the anti-air turrets can be heard yellin, "BWAAAAHAHAHAHAH!!!". If there's no need for it why add it. ANd since total anihilaton has such crappy top down perspective, makin units land is a snap. Probably just addin some code to reduce the scalin to make it look smaller and smaller, and thus givin the illusion of landing.

Influenza
11-02-2001, 10:25 PM
If there is no advantage to making a ship land why bother puttin the code hours into it? If the ships do have the ability to land then that would mean that they would HAVE to be attackable by ground troops and thus loose the only advantage they have over ground troops.*Sigh* You fail to see my points. Or, you fail to accept them as a package, instead treating them as if they were completely separate statements. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and re-outline everything I said.

Dogfighting is fun. And it adds a lot of realism to the game. Your example of strafing aircraft that get shot down might work if there's no AA in the area. But what if there's a tower right next to your target, or if your target itself (heaven forbid) is the AA tower itself! What mentally-able fighter pilot would kick in his repulsors and hover in front of the tower? And because I know you're going to reply with "just attack where there aren't towers, or destroy the towers with ground"...sending in air raids to take out air defense prior to a big attack is commonplace in the SW universe. Just read the books.

But aircraft which dogfight look dumb unless they can land. Otherwise they zoom zoom zoom, dodge dodge dodge, then STOP! That's no good. So we let them land. But...oh no! Ground forces can shoot at them now. Well...isn't that the way it should be? Why can't a Stormtrooper pull out his laser rifle and take a couple of potshots at a passing Y-Wing? Don't complain that this would make the game "unbalanced"...no one said that every shot would hit, or that they would do insane amounts of damage. It would only make the game realistic.

ANd since total anihilaton has such crappy top down perspective, makin units land is a snap. Probably just addin some code to reduce the scalin to make it look smaller and smaller, and thus givin the illusion of landing.I'm not even going to start with this one. It's blatantly ignorant. Yep. Ignorant. I bet you haven't even played TA. Therefore, my comments will never have any affect on you. So just leave this debate to the people who have experience with what they're talking about, ok? Thanks.

Wilhuf
11-02-2001, 11:45 PM
I cast my vote for Zuxxez's (http://www.zuxxez.de/) Reality Pump Engine, featured in Earth 2150, The Moon Project, WWIII Black Gold, and a few other forthcoming 3d RTS titles.

Render and collision engine is fully 3d. Not locked to overhead view. Full-blown rotatable 3d. Units are customizable. Unit behavior can be scripted by the gamer real-time. Cycling of day to night, dynamic weather effects such as fog, snow and rain. Real-time deformable terrain (craters, engineer a defensive berm or trench), subterranean combat through tunnel digging. Very good graphics. Sample screens here (http://luke2840.tripod.com/no/screen.htm) and here (http://earth2150.narod.ru/gallery2150.htm). Plenty of dogfights with air units too. Reality Pump is probably one of the best 3d RTS engines available.

I would have voted for Ground Control's engine, but the unit count limit might get in the way. Still, if GB didn't require collection of resources such as 'carbon, food, and nova,' Ground Control would have been an oustanding engine.

Silenthunter
11-02-2001, 11:54 PM
That would be pretty cool, as i have
earth 2150. But the only prob is units. In Earth there are only tanks and mechs.

Wilhuf
11-03-2001, 12:16 AM
The Moon Project and WWIII Black Gold fully support airborne units as well as naval units (surface and submarine).

Although note that neither Moon Project nor Earth 2150 have infantry type units. I dont know wether the newer games that use Reality Pump have infantry. The WWIII Black Gold demo didn't have infantry either, could be a limitation of the engine...

Silenthunter
11-03-2001, 12:22 AM
Although note that neither Moon Project nor Earth 2150 have infantry type units
Thats what i meant.

Influenza
11-03-2001, 03:22 AM
If you can do mechs, you can do infantry. There is no fundamental difference (as far as a game engine is concerned) between mechs and troops. All it takes is some nice scripting, and bam, you've turned a robot into a human. That's exactly what Star Wars: Total Annihilation did, and it looks great.

Locust99
11-03-2001, 09:03 AM
OgRe engine should be used... and hey it is on something

flu.... you promoting us wel..

people here just play SWTA and you will understand

Luke Skywalker
11-03-2001, 09:26 AM
I stilll cant believe this thread is still going.... Its like the energizer bunny it keeps going and going and going.

DinoDoc
11-03-2001, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Influenza
Honestly, how many of you would complain if the aircraft in SWGB engaged in dogfighting?

Personally, I would not complain if the aircraft in SWGB engaged in dogfighting. The point is that the dogfighting feature appears way to few of the popular RTS engines that at this point in time I don't consider it worth complaining about the features absence especially in light of LA ineptness in building thier own engines.

Honestly though, I think the Homeworld engine would have been a better choice than either the AOK or TA engines, esp. in light of how poorly it preformed in TA: K.

crazy_dog
11-03-2001, 03:06 PM
Hey, man, once I had a YR air battle, a 3-way battle, in fact, between Yuri's UFOs, and and 2 other players (including me's) Siege Choppers which can attack other air units. They where all in the same place. No dogfights isn't really a RTS issue.

EFIT: Me pointing out something already said.:rolleyes:

Influenza
11-03-2001, 03:29 PM
Here, I'll cut a deal with anyone here who thinks that dogfighting is pointless in an RTS. PM me your address (or a nearby postal box, if you don't trust me [which I couldn't blame you for]), and I will burn you a copy of Total Annihilation and SWTA for you to play. All you have to do is play the game, build some A-Wings, and go cruisin' around hunting TIE's. Then you come back and tell me how much fun it is.

Ok? Is that a deal?

Wettis
11-03-2001, 07:39 PM
The point is that the dogfighting feature appears way to few of the popular RTS engines that at this point in time I don't consider it worth complaining about the features absence especially in light of LA ineptness in building thier own engines.

Ground Control. That engine has it all, though since it isn't resource based it might not fit...

The TA engine surely would work better than the AoK, I've just played the demo, and it wasn't exactly enjoyable. Sure, the infantry and most other units (except the flying THINGS) looks quite good when they're standig still. When the animations start it just doesn't appeal to me anyomore. The AT-ST's stood out of the crowd with the absolutely worst animations in the game. Those mounted units that shot fire looked kinda cool until the fire first showed up. It needs to be redone. Badly.

Positive things with the demo include Darth Vader (he's always cool) and infantry in general. They look pretty good at least. The AoK mission scripting system will surely add alot to the game too. Overall, I think that single player will save this game and make it enjoyable for a while. Multiplayer however really seems like a step backwards from AoK though, since there isn't really any melee unit in SW and there aren't any new features to make up for it.

Do yourself a favor, when you've completed SW:GB singleplayer, go play SWTA instead and never look back.

Influenza
11-05-2001, 03:03 AM
Still waiting to hear from EndSub....:confused:

Influenza
11-06-2001, 05:25 PM
Personally, I would not complain if the aircraft in SWGB engaged in dogfighting. The point is that the dogfighting feature appears way to few of the popular RTS engines that at this point in time I don't consider it worth complaining about the features absence especially in light of LA ineptness in building thier own engines. I'll say it again. This is Star Wars. LucasArts owes it to the movies and fans to make this an outstanding game, far beyond all competition. If they really cared about making this a fantastic game, one that would be remembered for a long time for a reason other than having the words "Star Wars" in its title, they would have packed all the Star-Wars-esque features into the game they could have. But LA again seems content to make a good game, not a great game. Hell, as long as SW junkies keep shelling out the $$$ for every game they produce, why should they take the time and effor to make a great game?

I don't know about you guys, but I'm tired of "good" Star Wars games. I can count on one hand the number of great SW games: Tie Fighter (with addon), Super Return of the Jedi (SNES), Dark Forces, and Rebellion (ok, just kidding on Rebellion ;)).

Take into consideration LucasArts' other great games: Full Throttle, Zombies Ate My Neighbors, Grim Fandango, and Day of the Tentacle. Isn't it sad, that LA can create more great games out of original material than they can with Star Wars material?

Just something to think about.

DinoDoc
11-06-2001, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Influenza
But LA again seems content to make a good game, not a great game.

I'll be happy if they can make a good game. *cough*Force Commander*cough*

Hell, as long as SW junkies keep shelling out the $$$ for every game they produce, why should they take the time and effor to make a great game?

At this point I'll be satisfied if they make an apology on the scale of what Westwood did for Tiberian Sun.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm tired of "good" Star Wars games. I can count on one hand the number of great SW games: Tie Fighter (with addon),

I count these as more the work of Totally Games than LA. Just like I refuse to give Havas Interactive credit for any of Blizzard's games.

Darth_Rommel
11-06-2001, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Influenza
I don't know about you guys, but I'm tired of "good" Star Wars games. I can count on one hand the number of great SW games: Tie Fighter (with addon), Super Return of the Jedi (SNES), Dark Forces, and Rebellion (ok, just kidding on Rebellion ;)).


Flu, you forgot Dark Forces 2... now THAT is a good game...

Influenza
11-06-2001, 10:53 PM
Whoops....heh, heh...:eek:

mariners2001
11-06-2001, 11:34 PM
Influenza,

If you have noticed, this is a GALACTIC BATTLEGROUND forum, not an ANTI-galactic battleground forum. Your mod sounds cool and maybe we'll check it out, but 99% of the people here are here to talk about Galactic Battlegrounds. If you want to promote your mod, fine, but don't knock GB.

BTW- Will your Jedi have force powers, that'd be cool

Clefo
11-07-2001, 08:11 AM
SWTA is fun, however the AI kinda sucks. They sent in their Commadner/Consturction vehicle UNDEFENDED into my base full of E-Webs and powerful stuff..

Influenza
11-07-2001, 04:14 PM
Heh, that tends to happen some times when the AI routines crap out... In general, the AI can hold its own if the right settings are used (1k/1k starting resoures). And if you give it 10 minutes to build up its base, you'll be in for a nice surprise :).

LordQuiGonJinn
11-07-2001, 06:02 PM
I've never palyed TA before Flu but you convinced me to try it, I ordered TA and am Downloading now your Mod, the screenshots look pretty cool

Wettis
11-26-2001, 05:04 PM
So what did you people think of SWTA, and how does it compare to SWGB?

Darth_Nixon42
11-26-2001, 06:05 PM
Wow, this thread will never end....

Influenza, i admire a person with such creative ability to actually make a mod. I for one have never played your mod, and never will because of my location :rolleyes:

Any way, regardless of how good your is. TA was rubbish compared to AOK. And now the AOK engine is at an end. It is unlikely that we will ever see it again.

So lets not bring the glory of a antique engine down, let it have it last dance in peace.

Btw, The Ground control engine would have been great

Frogspit
11-26-2001, 06:08 PM
I think engine choice is all matter of PC market.
AoK engine run on slow PCs and limitations helps to skin it faster than a complex 3D engine.
It allow more time do add modifications, work on gameplay balance and hit the market faster.

I think that almost all engines would have result differently and so could multiply StarWars Games.
Comparison would be a matter of personal preferences.

If we talk number of units on screen,
Cossak is blasting. Unit moves and options are also better than AoK from my viewpoint. Yeah Cossak got bad points also :(

If we talk 3D nice looking,
last Dune 3D engine would have been also a good choice, but would have request more powerfull PCs.

What about using Myth II engine?
This would have result in limited units but interesting close up on missions.

Now let me Dream about an ultimate version...
using a Black&White engine adapted for battlefield...
Would be Awesome no?
Yep forgot about Creatures, jut think enhanced units, buildings etc. Why not terraforming.
ex. An ATAT that walk in snow, hit and fall grabbing a full bench of snow....

Sounds good no?

Darth_Nixon42
11-26-2001, 06:15 PM
Good Point Frogspit,

they chose the engine that could run on all systems. And while it would be nice to have a ground control engine. It would require the user to buy a good pc.

Black and white eh?... hrm not bad. I hated the game, but the graphics would have adapted to an rts nicely..

Influenza
11-26-2001, 07:57 PM
Wow, I gave up on this thread a long time ago. The reason? No one seems to read what I say. It's like I'm talking, but everything I say just gets ignored.

Darth_Nixon: TA is twice the game AoK is, and its engine is three times as powerful as AoK's.

Also, what do you mean by "location"? I see you live in Australia, but what does that have to do with anything? In fact, one of your game magazines, PC Powerplay, included the SWTA Starter and Fighter packs in their most recent issue. Try finding it at a news-stand...it's on their CD.

And you can buy TA for $7 US, which includes the original game and its two expansion packs. Go here (http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categories/products/product.asp?pf_id=154344&mscssid=R0KK7DU9WPHQ8H1MSSSNBBENRUPH92RD&ref=1&PromoCode=&site=&siteID=) if you're interested, which I doubt, considering your tone of voice.

Frogspit, and Nixon: I ran Total Annihilation on a P133 with 32 MB of RAM. That's lower than AoK's minimum requirements.

BountyHunter
11-26-2001, 10:26 PM
I played TA a while ago and enjoyed it very much but that was then this is now. (I hear there are still places you can play online)

I think the Dark Reign 2 engine would have been great as far as 3D goes. The problem you run into with any StarWars game are the diverse amount of and size of mechs, buildings, troops etc. Otherwise At-Ats would be no bigger than a trooper. Everyone would need at least 20" flat screen monitors and 64mb video cards as the maps would be HUGE and the amount of troops on a field at any given time would be monstrous. Then you start to get into all the different camera angels/views, line of sight.

You would have to 86 alot of crap out of the game to make a smooth running 3D Star Wars RTS.

I'm sure all of this has been said but I'm new to these boards and dont have time to read everything...sorry If I repeated.

crd_polaris
11-27-2001, 01:06 PM
Not to sound rude, but you are making judgements about the AOK engine and graphics before you have even tried the game.

I own TA and I hate the resourses, the graphics are tacky, and the engine has never beat me on any senario. The gameplay is kind of boring because there isn't much depth to the game like there is in AOK. SW: Galactic Battlegrounds would have been a cheap ripoff if Cavedog would have made the game. Ensemble studios has the top of the line RTS graphics, and AI systems.

TA has a third class AI. Even Blizzard Entertainment and Westwood have second class AIs. AOK has the best damn AI you will ever find. If you don't believe me try playing two computers on a random map, with 200 pop on the hardest AI. The comp still beats on that level and I've had the game for a year and a half.

As for the graphics... The graphics are great. They aren't cartoony. The ACTUAL game looks a lot smoother in person then from a screen-shot. Force Commander was 3D, but the graphics sucked in my opinion. SWGB is just right.

Influenza
11-27-2001, 07:14 PM
I have SWGB. The graphics are cartoony. I'm sorry, but I can't take half the animations in SWGB seriously. Have YOU played the game? If so, how can you call Darth Vader's (and all the Jedi/Sith's) attack not-cartoony? He flings himself up in the air, does a little dance, and then lands again. WTF is that?

Not to mention the horribly animated AT-ST. They may call it a "chicken walker", but that doesn't mean it has to walk like a chicken! I really want to cry every time I see the AT-ST walking. The AT-AT looks great; why couldn't the same be done for its little cousin?

You call AoK's AI the best in the genre? I'll call your bluff. I've never been beat by this AI, even on Hardest. It's simple, really... just hole up and wait for it to run out of resouces. Granted, it takes a while, but it isn't too hard to do. And on a similar note, 3rd party designers can design their own AI's for TA. Try playing against a Bloodthirsty AI...I guarantee, it WILL kick your ass. BAI is definitely the hardest AI I have ever played for ANY RTS.

And what do you mean by "boring gameplay"? TA is far faster-paced than AoK, by several degrees. You will never see a serious attack in AoK until Tech3, whereas in TA the action is nonstop from the beginning. Trust me, I've played both games for a while, both against the AI and online. SWGB is rather slow...wait 'till you've got a mass of aircraft, assault mechs, and mech destroyers, and you're set. Of course, that takes around an hour or so, and all the while you're just sitting there really, building defenses and harvesting resources.

By contrast, TA attacks can happen from the get-go. We use this same style in SWTA, and it's much more enjoyable (and that's an honest opinion, all biases set aside). The potential for tactical maneuvers and strategic genius is still there (probably more so, because of the ability to fire-while-moving), but the fast pace makes things much more fun. It's hard to explain...it's one of those things that you just know, yet can't put into words.

Just try SWTA. Please. You can't argue with me until you do. And not against the AI, against a player, like me. If you're actually willing enough to give it a try, PM me and I'll work things out. This goes to everyone here...if you're a true Star Wars fan, I think you owe it to yourself to try SWTA out.

Clefo
11-27-2001, 07:21 PM
I really don't give a **** about Animations or engines or "When the Action Starts".. My main thing is: Is it fun

SWTA and GB are both very fun games to play.. But my verdict goes to GB because I find that it has more depth than TA and that its more addicting to me..

Don't get me wrong TA is a great game and SWTA makes it better.. I just find GB more fun...

safire
11-27-2001, 07:41 PM
I think that TA was a great game for it's time. It's problem was that the ARM and CORE were too similar. I have never played SWTA, but it looks cool. Yes, it's not as "in depth" as SWGB, but it doesn't have lucasarts developing it either. I loved the absolute carnage that was produced from TA battles, with heaps of dead units littering the map. This made for some interesting shifts b/c your rear units had to go around the dead front units, not just over them. And then your workers could come and collect the carbon from the dead units...that was an excellent idea on cavedog's behalf. The air - sorry, but the aok, aoe, starcraft, dark reign, earth 2150, dune, c&c, c&c red alert, etc engines have nothing on the way that cavedog did the air. Your air units actually flew and landed and flew and turned around and did another strafing or bombing run (w/ the exception of my fav unit the brawler, they were VTOL airplanes). It looked realistic and the air was air, not just units that hovered really high off the ground.

Sure, when it boils down to it the enjoyment of the game is the major factor and we all enjoy swgb. I just wished that they incorporated some of the better aspects of TA - firing on the run or in midflight, the carnage left behind after a raging battle, and some other features. And TA:Kingdoms, don't even mention it. Cavedog had it's Kingdoms, Lucasarts has it's force commander. The end.

Now Dark Reign - that had some good points (not DR2, but the original). You could tell your units to go scout and they just went everywhere searching stuff. THAT WAS A BLOODY COOL FEATURE!!!!! Then there was the Rift Generators.... "Templar disturbance detected." You feared when you heard that.

Lambda07
11-27-2001, 07:53 PM
Don't understand much of programming, but could the 'firing-when-moving' be implemented in a patch or add-on? or its something to do with the engine?

Darth_Nixon42
11-27-2001, 11:02 PM
Granted,

Dog fights would be great fun, and i agree that they should have implamented it into the SWGB game.

But TA is still has NOTHING on the AOK engine. The point was made that the AI within TA was pretty ordinary, and i would have to agree. It just dosn't compare

No disraspect for you infuenza, but when i had my craptop (laptop), yes i could run TA, but it was up there with some of the chopiest and horrible graphics I had ever seen.

Where as i AOK ran perfectly.

Influenza
11-28-2001, 01:48 AM
Lambda: not without getting the source code to the engine. That feature is hard-coded into the engine, and the only way to fix it would for LA to get their hands on the source. And that isn't likely to happen without a large sum of money on the table ;).

Nixon: again, please read my posts. Specifically, the reasons why the TA engine is superior to the AoK engine (it was my first post in this thread). I've said it before, but since I doubt you'll read it, I'll say it again: anything the AoK engine can do, the TA engine can do too, and better. And there are tons more things that the TA engine can do, that the AoK engine cannot. I really suggest you learn the engines of the two games before making comments on them.

Just play SWTA...it's that simple. Play, and you will see the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free...

Jedi_Knight
11-28-2001, 02:08 AM
I am surprised that no other rts games have the search and destroy mode that dark reign had. that was cool

EndSub
11-28-2001, 03:36 AM
The Thread That Will Never Die.........

Danm, who the hell bumped it this time!?!?!?! ;)

My two arguments against TA were:

A) Bland Landscapes.
B) Unit Detail Lacking Because Of Top Down View.

And I was wrong about A....very wrong......the landscapes in TA can be VERY detailed.....

But B is where I am right, and where suggesting that the TA should have been used for GB is absurd.

Unit detail in TA is very lacking because you can only see the top of them. Now this is fine in games like TA where you have never seen the unit in all its glory, but I can you imagen watching that last jedi battle in E1 from a birds eye view? no? me neither.

The TA engine had some sweet bonus, the things people keep bringing up are units fireing while moving. This allows unit speed to actully matter as they can dodge attacks and such. It is one of the coolest features of the TA engine and I am surprised that it hasn't been put in other games.

but the 'waiting around' and that TA's gameplay is better because it is Go-Go-Go right from the start is bull**!t........

Personally I will take Aok's gameplay over TA's ANY DAY. in Aok you have to manage your resources carefully, In TA just plonk down some Moho Mines, build zillions of builder bots, build zillions of factories, then build zillions of guys then attack........works particularly well on metal maps....

feel free to challenge me on this one, you would no better than I: Aok has ALOT more battle field tactics than TA.....in TA I just grab my big ass army and send them over. In Aok you have mange your army ALOT more......

TA has its good points.....Aok has its good points......I like Aoks better....some like TA's.....where all intitled to our opinions, and there all on this thread....so before anyone new bumps this thread, READ IT! because all your questions will be answered.....and some of your arguments will be de-railed......then, if it hasn't been said once, twice, twenty times before, post it. :)

Wettis
11-28-2001, 02:33 PM
Hehe, I love this topic. I might actually get SWGB, it seems like fun. The demo was ok and since most people say it's been improved on a whole lot it might be good. The AoK engine is horrible technically, but pretty good pure gameplay wise. The best feature of the AoK engine has to be the formations, how are they implemented in SWGB?

Now over to SWTA, I think it's better because it has more action and still has room for lots of tactics. IMO, the actaul battlefield tactics are better too because of the superior TA physics engine. It works a whole lot better than the AoK engine on ranged weapons.

Anyway, I think I'll play both games, SWGB seems fun and SWTA's awesome.

EndSub
11-28-2001, 07:52 PM
Ok, you say that the battle feild tactics are better because of the 'the superior TA physics engine'.

What is that suppossed to mean?

In TA its about what you build (and since you never run out or resources.....) not how you fight your battles.....

jediaoe
11-28-2001, 09:09 PM
christ somebody just end this thing, its already made and we can't change anything about it so nobody complain.

Wettis
11-29-2001, 09:27 AM
jediaoe, why debate anything since "it's already made". It's an interesting topic and a good and friendly debate, so just SHUT THE **** UP WILL YOU ;)

EndSub: TA uses a realistic 3d physics engine while AoK uses an unrealistic 2d one. This makes TA battles more interesting and the outcome more uncertain. A good example is melee units in the AoK engine, when the animation starts, it has already hit. Ballistic weapons suffer from the same problem, but not nearly as much. TA ballistic weapons on the other hand are much more realistic.

DinoDoc
11-29-2001, 01:53 PM
I think that, despite its virtues, TA:K is a huge strike against the use of the TA engine in any other retail game.

General Crespin
11-29-2001, 02:01 PM
Can we end this horrible thread yet?

Influenza
11-29-2001, 02:48 PM
No, we cannot. Because unlike you, some people actually have things to contribute to the conversation. This topic has evolved into a debate over the TA and AoK engines. Since you don't seem to know anything about the two, leave the debating to those who do. Because every time someone says "can't we close this?" or anything like that, it just bumps the topic up to the top. And then even more people start their ignorant TA bashing, and I am forced to defend it again :cool:.

Wettis is right: AoK does not have a physics engine. Ranged units simply shoot their weapons, and the engine draws the pixels in a line towards the target. Things like elevation, obstacles, etc are not taken into account because the weapons are simply drawn on the screen; there are no calculations after the weapon is fired. Since the only ranged units in AoK are archers and artillery, this isn't very noticeable.

TA, on the other hand, doesn't stop with simply drawing a weapon's path. It constantly calculates speed, trajectory, and position through the entire flight, and is always checking for collisions. If a weapon's flight intersects a harmless tree, that weapon stops right there and detonates. It doesn't magically pass through the tree like in AoK/SWGB. Same thing for rocks, walls, mountains, and even other units. I don't like the way units in SWGB can shoot through walls AND other units. If there's a line of ATST's in front of an ATAT, a Rebel Trooper should not be able to shoot through the ST's at the ATAT.

So you see, AoK doesn't have a physics engine. Things just happen without much explanation or "reality" checking. That's a direct contradiction to the definition of a game engine: a set of rules and behaviours that define and regulate the way objects behave and interact in a game. AoK definitely has an engine, but not a physics engine.

As for why this matters: read safire's post about fire-while-moving, unit speeds vs. weapon speeds, and dogfights. These things are only possible in a game with a physics engine. And all these things add infinite possibilities and tactics to the game.

EndSub: many of the things you say about TA's strategies and tactics reveal that you aren't a very good TA player. Because if you tried 99% of the things you describe against a competant player (or even the Bloodthirsty AI I mentioned earlier), you'd see that they aren't the truth. Simply massing units and throwing them at the enemy is not how you win TA games. You win them through efficient production, unit control, and proper use of use-specific units. You might have pseudo-infinite resources (you actually can run out of them, you know), but how you spend them and balance your intake and outtake largely determines how you fare on the battlefield.

I could express the same complaints you have about TA with regards to AoK. In AoK, all I have to do is build 10 Assault Mechs and 20 Advanced Fighters, then slowly march them through my enemy's base. Where is the strategy in that?

Now, I realize that this wouldn't work against a competant, competetive player. Maybe it's time you realized that all the complaints you have about TA strategy simply dissolve when you play against another player instead of the (admittedly) lame Cavedog AI.

safire
11-29-2001, 07:30 PM
From my last post in this LONG thread, you might think that I am a TA fan and hate swgb or AoK or AoE... Not true - I own all of them (own, no CD rips). I even own TA:K and Dark Reign. I love swgb - the tie fighers screeching noise, the AT-AT walkers and laser sounds just bring a smirk to my face everytime. So, not all of us that think highly of the TA engine are anti-swgb. I love it, play it when time permits.

As someone mentioned, TA Kingdoms did hurt the TA engine being used by others. I can't deny that, it had bugs, ran slow with many units, and just didn't work well.

Someone else mentioned that the game has been created an put an end to this thread. True, but we are still allowed to discuss. Why not strive for a possible SWGB II where you see the wonderful features from all rts games. Every engine has something to offer - though I am not a huge fan of the Myth, Dark Reign II, Shogun 3d rts engines. It doesn't make for quick fun IMHO. But that is a perfect example of my next point -

Everybody has different tastes and it will always be the case. I though Dark Reign was an awesome game when the AoE, TA, DR rts battle started. Look at movies - everyone is yelling about Harry Potter or Anakin Skywalker or Frodo and who is best. All I can say is that Lord of the Rings is going to be awesome. But I digress.

Think of the good in everything and maybe with enough word from consumers a newer RTS game will be even more spectacular.

In defense of AoK - I love the resource management compared to almost all other rts games. This brings an aspect to the game that has no equal (well, considering most, not all rts games). To progress through the tech levels or ages like that is cool, it's great actually. Spaceports or Trading - a concept that is sweet. TA didn't have that (can the engine do it - don't know, not an expert on manipulating engines). A need for houses/prefab shelters is a good concept, it makes sense that you need places to house your people. I guess Starcraft and Warcraft II had the same thing. I also like the formation abilities that are integrated into the AoK engine. But this engine has it's flaws, especially pathfinding.

TA engine brings a lot to the plate. One thing that TA:K did well was the options you had with units. Take the archers - you had three options of what to shoot. Lots of peeps on this board are requesting "force abilities" for the Jedi. How force pull/push/jump etc works into an rts beats me, but the TA engine has a good system for it. At least it is better than the way that Jedi/Monks convert. Air - hover vs real moving air units, even the brawlers would float back and forth in their vtol state. The air of TA is implemented better by far. Even water units seemed to move more realistic than AoK. Yes, I agree the view of TA wasn't the best angle. Oh, TA's patrol was also awesome. You took a worker, set him to repair and told him patrol this area - anything inside of there would get repaired by him. Believe me - this rocks the pants off how swgb does it. Tell your medic/worker/repairer to patrol an area and all your units get healed/repaired. In battle, this was so incredibly helpful instead of taking droids and clicking R on everything one by one. The physics engine for projectiles that influenza refers to is better than AoK's non existant physics engine. The projectiles from your heavy ships and artillery looked so much cooler than the artillery/cruiser/cannon/bomber shots. You actually did BOMBING RUNS, not just send bombers to hover over a building. It was cool. The building queue system has no equal - take your commander and build 3 solar panels, mine, cannon, etc all over the map and he'd walk there and do each thing. swgb has a queue system but the buildings have to be practically next to each other. Imagine this, game starts and you click on your worker, hold down shift and queue one prefab shelter, scroll to the other side of your base and queue an animal nursery, scroll next to the command center and queue a power core, then scroll to another place on the map and queue a food processing center, scroll next to some trees and queue a carbon collecting center, and lastly click on a tree and let go of shift. Your worker is already busy building the first building and will do everything else in turn. Now you can manage the other stuff you need, it's beautiful.

Dark Reign has some amazing features that has not been shown in any recent game. Click on a scout and tell him to go roam the map and he did. The aggressive states were also handled better than most games I've played. Yes, AoK has a good aggressive/defensive/stand ground system, but Dark Reign had some sweet settings. I remember that one option was that when hurt too bad in a fight, it would fly that unit back and go repair. Same with ground units going to a "hospital."

Starcraft - wasn't the best engine ever built or the best graphics, but the game was incredibly well done.

Someone commented on there being no tactics in TA - whatever. You can hit your enemy's base from your own with big bertha artillery guns... you can send a big nuke bomb. You can build anti-nuke counter measures. And that doesn't even hit your mechs or tanks or air... the game required lots of tactics. Same person said there are just more options in swgb then swta...well, duh.. swgb was created by lucasarts, swta by some fans. Take all the swgb units and races and put it in the TA engine, then compare.

Ok, that's enough from me.... just remember that you voice your opinion and in turn others are allowed to voice theirs. So those who like a different engine or features specific to that engine are allowed to speak. This isn't a Taliban controlled world where different opinions aren't allowed.

Laters....

Shall I start a new thread on why the Dark Reign engine should have been chosen???? Kidding.

EndSub
11-29-2001, 08:29 PM
Those are alot of good points about why the engine should have
been used. especially about the planes. I cringe everytime I see those bombers stop.

But I am going to stick to my guns and say that there are more battle field tactics. Now I admit it, I have only played Cavedogs bullsh!t AI. But you can't say that big berthas and nukes require tactics. Nukes are point and click and Big Bertha's are even worse, just build them and the enemy gets soar. What I am talking about is when robot meets robot. Now I have said it once, you would know better than I, to me it seems that there is not alot of unit countering and that one unit can take another on pretty much as good as the next. Sure there are AA bots, but how much better can they shoot down air than all other bots? and I still don't see what the physics engine has got less to do with battle feild tactics than you say. OK units can strife shots, thats cool, but they automatically do it. And the line of AT-ST's plus AT-AT....how close do you think an AT-ST's can stand? close enough to have no gaps? Now shooting threw walls.....THAT is cr@p. but the point still stand. shooting through units isn't really that bad. Sure it could have been handeled better, but It doesn't really take away from 'battle feild tactics'.

Resources: I have NEVER ran out or resources on metal heck. and sometimes I go abit short at the beggining on non-metal maps, but once I get some metal storage up, and have more moho mines, I don't go short. But like I say, maybe its because the AI sucks and can't stop me.

Maybe one day I'll play one of you guys. then we can see if my tactics suck, and all my Mines get blown up. :)

safire
11-29-2001, 09:44 PM
EndSub - great post. I'm not here to say TA is the ultimate of rts engines. I just think that some are arguing when they are totally clueless about what is being said (no, not referring to you). I love swgb and the whole counter-unit is great, it makes for an awesome game. I don't really want to compare swgb to swta as it is currently, that's not fair. You have lucasarts going against a few ta fans. Take the units/races from swgb and put it into a TA engine. You'll still have bounties counter jedi, mech destroyers countering mechs - etc. Having the ARM and CORE in TA was sort of lame b/c 85% of the units were almost exactly the same, except the brawlers (can you tell I like brawlers).

True the berthas and nukes require little else then a single mouse click and that was a dumb reference for tactics - my bad. But I think if you take units/civ like in swgb and place in a TA engine, you'd have similar tactics.

Resource management - I already agreed that AoE had/has the best resource scheme. Makes the game so different. Dark Reign, Starcraft, C&C series are all the same - dumb. TA is somewhat similar, but needing to have energy and metal depots to keep more of each was a cool concept, no?

The battlefield - it was awesome when after a battle, you saw the wreckage of mechs, tanks, and stuff... all littering the battlefield forcing your units to go around - sheer beauty. Then, you could go collect the metal from dead units - sheer brilliance. I liked that part of the epic battles in TA, it seemed like a massive scale battle - not just 100's of units facing against each other. Wouldn't it be cool if after an epic battle in swgb you were able to send a few workers to collect carbon/ore from the AT-AT wreckage? Now, recovering food or nova from dead troopers and jedi would be lame, but you get my point.

Physics engine is important... should you be able to shoot over a wall with storm troopers? No, unless it is a pathetically low wall. Should you be able to lob your artillery over? Hell yeah. And the air thing is part of that, the bombing runs.

Shooting while moving can have a major role in battlefield tactics... think about your faster strike mechs firing while circling some AT-ATs real fast... AT-ATs are too slow to really shoot and hit everytime...makes the speed of units a major factor in fights... Right now your strike mechs or faster units run, stop, fire... rinse and repeat. That's lame - ever had a group of PeeWee's running around some enemy tanks, beatiful. PeeWees are weak armor but if used properly could lay into some heavy weapons... tactics right there. Cheap units can last longer than just being mauled.

The AT-ATs behind AT-ST - don't know what to say there...I didn't understand from the beginning... Why can't you hit someone in the second line of attack... You ought to be able to, AT-ATs stand a bit higher than AT-STs and it's not like there is a wall of them. So, no clue what to say.

The drawback to TA is the non-uniqueness of races, TA:K did show that you could have unique races.

All I want is for the next SWGB to have flying units like TA, scouting like Dark Reign, and resource management like AoK. Is that too much to ask for?

safire
11-29-2001, 09:51 PM
Just realized that the whole research thing doesn't exactly exist in the TA games - hmm, I'd miss that. Is something like that a possibility influenza????

Influenza
11-29-2001, 11:36 PM
Excellent points all around. Glad to see some intelligent debating, instead of the mindless "TA SUCKS!!" that started this topic.

(And on a side note...is it just me, or has this site been really slow lately?)

Let's start by saying that I, too, do not believe that the TA engine is the ultimate RTS engine. Things like upgrades (which can be done, but it is VERY hack-y and doesn't play very well), class-specific damages (TA allows unit-specific, but not class-specific damage), restricting unit fire-arcs to straight-ahead only (again, can be done, but it's ugly), and distinguishing repairing from healing are things that TA does lack. But I do believe that, as a computer science student who fully understands the capabilities and roles of game engines, the TA engine is pound-for-pound the best RTS engine out there.

Also, let me clarify the rather bad ATAT/ST example. What I meant to say is this: if there is a line of units, solidly packed, in front of another line of units of the same height which does not extend further outwards than the first line, how should a blaster be able to travel through the first line to hit the second line? In TA, such a situation would result in weapons hitting the first line (provided they are line-of-sight weapons, not ballistic) instead of the second line as intended. This isn't a major issue, but I meant it to show another example of the TA physics engine.

safire: very good posts :).

To expand on the whole nuke/bertha idea: sure, creating 5 nuclear silos, stockpiling warheads, and watching the ensuing nuclear winter doesn't take much skill. But you're playing against an AI. Here are some statistics to show you that actually using a Bertha/Nuke takes incredible skill:
One nuclear silo, unassisted, takes around 5-6 minutes on the fastest game speed. Since most MP games are not played on +10 speed, silos can take as long as 10-12 minutes to construct. And that's provided you have the required income to be constantly working on it. Berthas, on the other hand, take around 4-5 minutes in a typical game to construct. Once you construct your silo, it's still another 90-120 seconds to build an actual nuke. And once you get that nuke, you have to go scouting your enemy's base for vital structures, because any good player will set up radar jammers to block you from scanning. Same thing goes for scouting for Bertha targets. You'll need a good handful of air scouts to see far into your enemy's base, since they are very fragile and easily shot down by AA. And these scouts will show up on your opponent's screen and radar, giving away the fact that you're planning something big. Only the best players scout the enemy often enough for the act to seem inconspicuous, so chances are your enemy will KNOW something is coming. Let's say you find a nice, juicy target. You tell your nuke to fire away, and grin as the little X moves across the radar. But suddenly: it disappears well short of its target! Crap, that must mean the enemy has an anti-nuke system, which is cheaper, builds faster, and produces anti-nukes faster than your silo! What to do? Well, chances are you'll scout for their anti-nuke and hopefully take it out with some long-range bombers. All the while praying that your opponent isn't pissed off that you're trying to hit him with nuclear weapons and trying to find YOUR silo to destroy it with HIS bombers. Now, for the Bertha. Berthas are very inaccurate. Once you find a target, chances are it'll be around 15-20 seconds before it's destroyed (right away if you're VERY lucky). All this time your enemy will be seeing Flying Plasma Shells of Doom spraying over his buildings, and since he can use the shells' trajectory to calculate where they're coming from, rallying his bombers to take out your Bertha. Or, if you're lucky, he'll have a Bertha of his one that he'll use to fire at yours. Lucky, because it will be a while before his hits yours, so you'll have a chance to bomb his first :). If you're lucky, your nuke/Bertha will hit its target before the enemy has a chance to realize what's going on. In that case, good job, you at most just destroyed a unit lab, or a fusion power plant, or maybe the enemy commander himself! But since no smart player actually puts more than one fusion plant, unit lab, or other important structure on the same screen, you just spent a hell of a lot of resources to destroy something worth 1/10 the cost.So you see, using nukes and berthas effectively against a good player is far more difficult and strategy-needy than anything you do in SWGB.

And BTW...no one EVER plays Metal Heck, or any other metal map. So it's pointless to use that as an example. It would be like judging the gameplay of StarCraft when all you ever play is Big Game Hunters. It's just stupid.

captain_drake
11-30-2001, 10:41 AM
IS THIS TOPIC STILL GOING!!!!
i saw this topic back in october
look i never played ta but it's too late now to wish for
it to be made like it ok

:lsduel:

safire
11-30-2001, 01:28 PM
drake - maybe you should read the posts before commenting on them. You'd see that we aren't asking them to remake swgb.
Or if this thread bothers you so much - IGNORE it and read other ones.

captain_drake
11-30-2001, 01:36 PM
:o
soory but i am right about the length of the topic

safire
11-30-2001, 02:03 PM
True, it is a long thread.

Influenza
12-01-2001, 02:11 AM
Yes, heaven forbid people should have long, serious discussions :rolleyes:. I mean, that might actually require intelligence and discipline!

...there IS a reason why this is the most active thread in the history of this forum, drake. If you don't understand why, then we aren't interested in your input.

Influenza
12-04-2001, 02:11 PM
Hmm, I posted a reply to this thread before, but it must have gotten lost in the server move.

safire - upgrades are possible, but not in the form that AoK and SC implement them. TA doesn't support click-and-all-your-units-are-magically-better upgrades, but there are ways to offer better-performing versions of a unit for a cost. We're looking into implementing such methods, which includes replacing buildpictures of "upgraded" units with the picture of their upgraded form. It's hacky and isn't guaranteed to work like we want, but it's the best we can do, for now.

General
12-07-2001, 11:02 PM
I have just started playing star wars galactic battlegrounds.......dont get me wrong i love the game,but i have Total Annihilation and I cant stop playing it,It never gets old to me ,as for me Galactic battlegrounds does Im playing swgb more than Ta now,But itll never have as good gameplay to ME i know everyone has their own opinions on this but i think it would be pretty sweet if swgb was made with the ta engine i know im new on these boards,i just started playing swgb but i played AOE2 for a very long long time.

Im not sure how old this topic is so im sorry if im bringing up an old
old topicbut i want to say to everyone who said Ta has no strategies ..try playing starcraft fifteen units per team, i like swgb alot bu they should of had alot more units ......................And now im probably gonna be flamed :D

Dragon45
12-21-2001, 07:05 PM
Hey, I am a TA fan, and an Star Wars fan.
I really cant comment on Battlegrounds, since I haven't played it.
However, the general mood of this forum seems to be that the TA engine sucks in the grpahics department. Well, it really, really does not. In fact, there are a large number of mods and TCs (Total Conversions) for it that make it far better then it would be otherwise. The gameplay is smooth, and the game itself is very realistic. In StarCraft, you could fire say, a laser, and if the unit firing it was aiming for something on the oher side of a large hill or peak or something, the laser would go through the hill or whatever, and hit the unit on the other side.
Now, call me crazy, but lasers do not suddenly decide that they are not bound by the laws of physics, and decide to instantly hit something, and on the other side of a mountain, too. The missles and things are just 2d bitmaps, and they are really just for show; anything that is homing is guaranteed to hit. Heck, there is not even water in StarCraft! The only reason it sold so many copies was because it had so much funding behind it, and so many advertisements. TA on the other hand, has been going strong for all this time.
For example, the very wind on a planet/map affects a missle's path. A real-time physics engine determines every missle's path, every units path. So, when a missle lands next to a unit, if its explosion radius is large enough, it might still hurt the unit. Also, thanks to an add-on by a well-known 3rd party map maker, the trees actually move with the wind. It makes the maps terribly realistic. Also, TA is one of the few (if only) RTS games to successfully achieve the effect of a unit being partially submerged.
StarCraft is a PoS with 2d bitmaps for graphics. They are not that bad; but graphics are not everything. TA has real 3d models and real physics.
I will find some more stuff later.
-Dragon45 out

Locust99
12-26-2001, 12:40 PM
actually TA maps is just a bitmap which is big and a heightmap put on which decides if it should go up or down. this actually works quite well

the units then are in d and rendered on... etc...


where as GB they just a sprite. for all diferent movements...

Dragon45
12-28-2001, 03:27 PM
Some images of a TC for TA:

http://www.tauniverse.com/tads/images/ds/dsshot08b.jpg

http://www.tauniverse.com/tads/images/ds/dsshot13b.jpg

http://www.tauniverse.com/tads/images/ds/dsshot18b.jpg

As you can plainly see, TA can rival quite a few games in the graphics department, if you know where to get your add-ons.

Also, the actual in-game pictures look a LOT better. The
Dark Suns guys (http://www.tauniverse.com/tads) tend to overdo .jpg compression.

Evaders99
12-29-2001, 12:31 AM
All I can say, I'm still waiting to stomp around in the AT-AT in TA.

For now, SWGB will do it!


I've been watching SWTA since its start - from a few bunch of messy fighters to the Cheese pack, to finally a solid starter pack. And I wish them the best.

Besides, what better publicity than to go to the other SW RTS! :)

DinoDoc
01-21-2002, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Evaders99
All I can say, I'm still waiting to stomp around in the AT-AT in TA.

The last time I checked, the walker pack is in beta and should be out soonish.

Influenza
01-21-2002, 08:10 PM
Damn right. HANSOLO and I poured in dozens of hours this past week towards the Walker Pack. But that's better discussed at the SWTA bulletin board (http://www.tauniverse.com/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Star+Wars+Total+Annihilation&number=12&DaysPrune=10&LastLogin=), not here :).

pottys_ATAT
01-21-2002, 08:48 PM
i dont think they should chnage gb at all to a diffrent engine it's good the way it is.

sure people might say i would be better but will never know because it will never be made for that engine.

so i dont care which engine it's on as long as it is a good game.

Paragon_Leon
02-05-2002, 04:51 AM
Total Annihilation holds it's own thanks to the frantik action it can create with only a couple of units.

I sometimes still play it with a friend simply because it provides us with a massive hard battle.
By now, we simply cannot lose with TA, which is not the case with GB, providing GB with more longevity.

My points...