PDA

View Full Version : Building Durability...


J-5
06-29-2002, 11:08 PM
Why are the buildings of SWGB so durable!! I've seen games come down to stalemates because both sides had a ton of buildings and simply were incapable of making an army to destroy them all. I think that workers can construct buildings too fast. Armies can't destroy buildings as fast as they are being constructed. What do you guys think? Are buildings too durable or not?

DashRendar
06-29-2002, 11:19 PM
That's the fun of the game! The most durable buildings DO take awhile to build if you're low on workers, which is what you should do: Take out their workers and Command Center/Centers, which not only stops them from building anything, but also from Advancing Tech Levels, and Collecting More Resources. The only downside to that is finding all of the workers, and command centers, but if you shoot down a lot of their workers, you can always research Bothan Spynet, and take out the rest.

Kryllith
06-29-2002, 11:54 PM
I don't know. A group of cannons, cruisers (air or sea), assault mechs, bombers, or pummels can wipes out buildings rather quickly. Of course, depending on who you're playing, it may not even be necessary. A small army of jedi masters could be just as effective (or even more so) with conversions...

Kryllith

simwiz2
06-30-2002, 01:53 AM
Durable buildings make the game much more fun! One time in a MP game I was playing as wookiees against rebels, and my opponent killed my entire army in a surprise attack (adv fighters and repeaters vs my repeaters) so I had a last stand in my base, and much to my surprise it lasted almost 2 hours. That game was actually one of the most fun for me, as the cannons rolled up and i desperately suicided grenadiers to take them out, built my own cannons, and after an hour had only let the line slip about 4 tiles back. Then he destroyed my fortress, and I spent all my nova buying ore for another, and held out for a bit but then he kamikazeed his entire air force into my base and took out the important cannons and grenadiers. So I lost eventually, but it sure was a lot of fun holding his forces off for as long as I could.

This was pre-CC, and of course I was only able to kill so many cannons and assault mechs because (1) wookiee grenadiers had the +30 hp+2armor, (2) rebels don't get heavy weapons engineers, (3) rebel mechs arent very strong. If I was not playing as wookiees I would not have been able to hold out nearly as long. Post-CC, I would be more worried about Air Cruisers causing a stalemate, because they would toast enemy cannons with impunity from the cover of your AA turrets.

DarthMaulUK
06-30-2002, 02:37 AM
simwiz...haven't I asked you to change your signature?

Next time you post, I expect it to be changed.


DMUK

Sithmaster_821
06-30-2002, 07:21 AM
Haha, simwiz.

I find that the buildings are quite balanced if you use heavies or cruisers (both sea and air). Would you rather it be like AoE the orginal, where elephats had more hit points than even wonders and buildings fell very quickly to cheap units like chariots?

J-5
06-30-2002, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Kryllith
I don't know. A group of cannons, cruisers (air or sea), assault mechs, bombers, or pummels can wipes out buildings rather quickly. Of course, depending on who you're playing, it may not even be necessary. A small army of jedi masters could be just as effective (or even more so) with conversions...

Kryllith

But after all the building upgrades, power core upgrades, shield gens, and shielded walls even those weapons lose their effectiveness. A fully upgraded and shielded fortress has +14000 hit points :eek: !!! I feel like I'm sending my units to the slaughter against one of those! It doesn't make sense to me that a building can be more fearsome than some armies. And in tech-4, fortresses don't seem that expensive anymore (to me).

Problems with buildings:
- They're built too fast (while your knocking down one CC, he's building three more somewhere else on the map)
- If a worker stops constructing them, they have as many hps as the percentage that was completed (an imcomplete fortress could have 3000 hp even though it wasn't built yet)
- Cheap- made from the resource that is easiest to get: Carbon

Finally, I think that there would be a sense of urgency in the game if buildings were a bit weaker. You couldn't just build a few turrets and fortresses around the enemy's base and call it a day. I always think of SC when I think of weak buildings, but I think that they were too weak. If SWGB:CC could be somewhere between SWGB and SC building durabilities I think that would be nice.

Sithmaster_821
07-01-2002, 02:59 AM
As long as you can hit it from out of range, it doesnt matter how much hp it has, its going down.

simwiz2
07-01-2002, 03:21 AM
When attacking buildings range is the most important thing. Even if the building has 999 attack, it cannot move so if you outrange it by even 1, it is helpless. One cannon could bring down a fortress, assuming the defender had no army or cannons of his own. And high pierce armor also helps. Pummels can take down fortresses easily even though they don't outrange it and you would need several. And mounties, though very vulnerable to massed troopers, can take down turrets (and I would assume fortresses too in sufficient numbers) with ease.

Kryllith
07-01-2002, 05:12 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by J-5


But after all the building upgrades, power core upgrades, shield gens, and shielded walls even those weapons lose their effectiveness. A fully upgraded and shielded fortress has +14000 hit points :eek: !!! I feel like I'm sending my units to the slaughter against one of those! It doesn't make sense to me that a building can be more fearsome than some armies. And in tech-4, fortresses don't seem that expensive anymore (to me).[/i]

Take out the powercores first (or at the same time if you're using air cruisers). I usually have myself covered enough that I can wipe out the power cores and keep workers from building more. Once the cores are gone, the rest becomes much easier. And if the cores are just too hard to get (or too numerous), take out the shield generator.

Kryllith

J-5
07-01-2002, 05:35 AM
I'm not asking for strategies versus buildings, I'm just saying that I think that buildings should be slightly less durable. I heard that it takes one cannon with a 200 attack mind you, 12 shots to take out a fortress thats unshielded. It is the strongest seige in the game and it takes that long to take out one building.

I think that it would be okay if buildings took a long time to build but most don't. Example: When you're constructing a forward base and the enemy start destroying it, do you turn and run back home? I don't think so. You rather keep adding to the base or build another one nearby because you know that your opponent won't destroy the first base before you can make the second.

A determined player can make a game last hours if he/she keeps building production centers and fortresses. The game becomes based on who has the best economy and/or most production centers rather the battles themselves. At least that how I see it.

Sithmaster_821
07-01-2002, 05:54 AM
When attacking buildings range is the most important thing. Even if the building has 999 attack, it cannot move so if you outrange it by even 1, it is helpless. One cannon could bring down a fortress, assuming the defender had no army or cannons of his own. And high pierce armor also helps. Pummels can take down fortresses easily even though they don't outrange it and you would need several. And mounties, though very vulnerable to massed troopers, can take down turrets (and I would assume fortresses too in sufficient numbers) with ease.

Simwiz, you said exactly what I said but you were much more specific. You learn well.

Kryllith
07-01-2002, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by J-5
I'm not asking for strategies versus buildings, I'm just saying that I think that buildings should be slightly less durable. I heard that it takes one cannon with a 200 attack mind you, 12 shots to take out a fortress thats unshielded. It is the strongest seige in the game and it takes that long to take out one building.
As well it should. People who feel they should be able to wipe out bases with a single cannon need to have their heads examined. For that matter, these are suppose to be Fortress, they shouldn't fall easily (not at the cost of 550 ore, on average). As for the other end of the spectrum, I have taken down animal pens in 2 or 3 shots, which is extremely fast if you're using 2 or 3 cannons. If you're using 2 or 3 cruisers you can take them out plus do significant damage to any of the surrounding buildings as well.

Kryllith

Sithmaster_821
07-02-2002, 01:22 AM
If buildings fall to easy, then whats the point of building them in the first place?

Compa_Mighty
07-02-2002, 01:46 AM
Games are boring if buildings fall easily

J-5
07-03-2002, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Compa_Mighty
Games are boring if buildings fall easily

Funny, I though that was the other way around. Super durable buildings make bases last longer which makes games last longer. Super long games can become boring.

I guess that durable buildings fit in with this game though, because you'll alot of seige units if you what to level a base quickly and this game is all about mass battles. Oh well... :o

jcb231
07-03-2002, 04:22 AM
While the subject of siege weapons has been brought up, does anyone else really hate it when a computer player builds a ridiculously huge army of cannons and artillery and just decimates your base?

Man, that ticks me off. Real players rarely build THAT many siege weapons. Usually I win using or am beaten by armies of troops/mechs in combo with jedi and air units, etc....actual UNITS, not stupid heavy weapons that never appeared in SW movies.

Anyway, if it weren't for siege weapons the buildings would be even more durable.

CatholLynAyt
07-03-2002, 04:38 AM
The best defenses against siege weapons are mounted troopers. Send five of them against artillery and pummels and you'll stop most of them before your mounties are dead (assuming the computer was smart enough to send some troops of its own with the heavy stuff). Or the computer will lose a few pieces and pull back. I've been burned by artillery and cannon before so I always try to have a few mounties hanging around the base.
Don't the manual and all the strategy guides always say that a combined arms attack is the best way to go? I should do that more often.

Sithmaster_821
07-03-2002, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by J-5
Super long games can become boring
Super short games become boring too.

memezcom
07-03-2002, 07:46 PM
Yeah, I've noticed this too. I don't recall it in GB. Maybe it was because I was playing GB on easy and CC on moderate, but I find that (certainly on Confeds missions 4 & 5) that when I've finally amassed an army good enough to take out, say the wookie camp to the North in mission 5', the buggers then rebuilt a CC, airbase and troop centre damn quick! I had to go back again and re-destroy them.
I don't mind this, but it's made me aware of the fact that I now have to 'take out' everything, especially the workers. I think this is the reason for me taking a long time to complete some missions.

Kryllith
07-04-2002, 01:56 AM
Yeah, eliminating workers are tantamont to retiring a civ. I've level bases completely and the civ didn't retire because there was one worker roaming around someplace (I finally used to bothans just so I could locate the little bugger). Wipe out the workers, the CCs, and the spaceports a civ is basically scrapped (though if their confeds they might make do with animal facilities.)

Kryllith