PDA

View Full Version : Generic or Unique


Sithmaster_821
09-01-2002, 06:31 PM
There is much talk going on about swgb2 and/or another upcoming Star Wars RTS. Most people talk about what units should be added to the game. But when they do post, they generally think only in generic units. However I think that unique unit sets are a much more viable option.
The pros and cons:


Generic units Examples- AoE, AoK, RoN, SWGB(sorta)
Everyone has the same units, with various UU being the exception. Diversity is indroduced through disabling units and techs.
Pros: Takes up little space, and isnt very expensive/time consuming
Cons: To much similarity between civs, realism infringements (see any of Darth Windus threads), and forced units(gungan air). Also, if all units look the same, then alot of the unique feeling of playing from civ to civ is lost.

Unique Units-Warcraft 3, Starcraft, AoM(sorta)
Everyone has different units, with different arts, prices, abilities, stats, etc. Some units may share the same purpose, like spearmen, hoplites, and ulfsarks in AoM.
Pros: Diversity, and equal balance between gameplay and realism, no forced units or similar feel.
Cons:Alot of RAM is taken up (especially with 8 civs) which could spell trouble for already big games, small games, and lower end comps. Also is a bit costly and very time-consuming(imagine balncing 8 unit sets)

Comprimises
The SWGB approach-Keep generic units but make different art.
Pros: more unique feel.
Cons: All the other bigger problems with generic units still stay, and maybe are even bigger.

The AoM approach-Divide 3 unit sets amongst 9 civs(or 2 amongst 4, etc.)
Pros:Smaller and alot easier to do while retaining all of the pros from unique unit sets.
Cons:Doesnt work for Star Wars universe. There is no concievable unit sets that can be divided up amongst individual and warring factions.

Its up to you to decide.

simwiz2
09-01-2002, 09:55 PM
It should definately be unique unit sets IMO. Maybe then Windu will finally shut up, and we wont have to hear any more of his Gunship drivel. About the RAM issue, RAM is easy to upgrade, and for those who have low-end computers, well they should just get new ones :p

Sithmaster_821
09-02-2002, 01:57 PM
Yeah, shutting up windu would be nice.

lukeiamyourdad
09-02-2002, 02:33 PM
Why not keeping the generic set and make the units different?
For example:

Rebel Trooper: Low armor, more hit points, lower attack,faster speed.
Stormtrooper: Higher armor, lower hit points, higher attack, slower speed.

These changes can be easily made and does'nt take to much time or demands to much from your computer.

But then LA can take his time for making a sequel and shutting up windu is a very nice idea...

Sithmaster_821
09-02-2002, 11:10 PM
Umm..luke that is pretty much unique unit sets with similar purposes:D

Darth Windu
09-03-2002, 01:03 AM
There is another sort of compramise. Have unique unit sets for things like AT-TE, AT-AT type weapons, but generic units sets for infantry (every one has infantry)

Sithmaster_821
09-03-2002, 10:18 AM
But windu as you pointed out yourself, everyone's infantry is different. SBD's arent nerly strong enough and the BD is too expensive.

Also, i think that most unit art that were forced (alot of units fit in this column), should be deleted in favor of other more relateable units. Those that are nessassry for balance purposes should be kept. Remember that with unique unit sets, the purpose of units likened to each other in SWGB does not need to stay the same. Think outside the box.

Sithmaster_821
09-03-2002, 10:56 PM
Bump-didilly-ump-ump-ump!

Darth Windu
09-04-2002, 04:16 AM
What i mean with the infantry is that for all intents and purpose's, infantry are the same. Of course there are minor differences in firepower, armour etc, but i think it would be best to work off a generic set for units such as infantry. (although complete unique sets would be better)

Sithmaster_821
09-04-2002, 03:21 PM
I will agree that standard blaster troopers share the same purpose, but once you start branching out, there are some forced units, and units that were clumped together that have very different purposes.

lukeiamyourdad
09-04-2002, 05:41 PM
I agree with getting rid of forced units but only the not useful ones(geez gungan fighters What the....!)

Sithmaster_821
09-08-2002, 12:47 PM
I know and its worse that theyre dinosaurs

lukeiamyourdad
09-09-2002, 06:04 PM
they look a lot like the think we saw flying on Kamino, I wonder if they are the same...

Sithmaster_821
09-09-2002, 07:56 PM
Doubt it

lukeiamyourdad
09-11-2002, 07:52 PM
I think they look almost the same. I should check it out...

Admiral Vostok
09-18-2002, 09:46 AM
I think generic. That's what's amazing about Star Wars - although each army is so different, they are also so the same. Don't get me wrong, I also love those unique unit set games. But I think generic suits a Star Wars game better, especially the way they've done it in SWGB (though Republic should have better heavy weapons :) ).

On the Gungan Fighter issue: Yes, you did see the creature on Kamino. Originally that particular creature (now known as the aiwha) was designed for Empire Strikes Back to be a creature flying through the clouds of Bespin, with people riding them like we've seen. However, they proved to look too crap with 80's technology, so they were scrapped. Then, when the Phantom Menace was made, the Aiwha was suggested as a flying mount for Gungans, to be used in the Grass Plains Battle. This was also cut, probably because it was a bit silly. However, like several other scrapped concept designs, the Aiwha made an appearance in SWGB (the upgraded Naboo Starfighter and upgraded Trade Fed starfighter are also scrapped concept art).
Finally with Attack of the Clones, the aiwha made an appearance, this time ridden by a Kaminoan. I think it looks more at home in the water then soaring through pink clouds or launching attacks on battle droids.

lukeiamyourdad
09-18-2002, 05:56 PM
I knew it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sithmaster_821
09-20-2002, 10:07 PM
Ok, you got me. That was really intresting though.

Admiral, although different civs units fill similar purposes, I think that unique unit sets fit the Star wars universe better because of the unique capabilities of each individual unit and the completely different ways each civ would play. Also, you can eliminate a lot of the units that made the game seem a little too much like the Medival ages and not like star wars (ie pummels).

lukeiamyourdad
09-21-2002, 09:47 PM
Not only pummels. Think about the cannons and the artillery?!
What kind of beam is that? Should'nt they fire real laser beams?

Admiral Vostok
09-22-2002, 03:52 AM
I see your point Sithmaster, and I tend to agree. I think if they do make a SWGB 2 they should get rid of pummels, cannons, air cruisers and half of the boats. There is just nothing that resembles them in the movies. Artillery is still important though, otherwise the Gungans wouldn't have a catapult. Although it could be made a second UU, but I'm not in favour of lots of unique units. I think the Republic Artillery is all wrong, as lukeiamyourdad pointed out, because it's against what we saw in the movies.

Anyway, I still am an advocate for generic units. If each civ had unique sets, the game would be too huge and we'd see a return to simply Rebel vs Empire, or perhaps only Republic vs Confederacy, which I for one would not like. However, the main problem with generic sets at the moment is, as has been mentioned, the existence of units that don't fit, like Naboo Assault Mechs, Gungan Bombers, etc. For those who have played AoK, from which the engine was taken for SWGB, and particularly AoC expansion, I think the answer is obvious. In AoC, the "New World" civilisations weren't able to build cavalry. Many other civilisations were unable to build gunpowder units. I think if a unit doesn't fit, it should not be available, just like in AoK.

And also get rid of pummels, cannons, air cruisers, sea cruisers, destroyers and anything else that just doesn't fit.

Darth Windu
09-22-2002, 04:13 AM
What i would say in altering units would be-

-delete all naval units, make 'bongo' gungan UU
-delete canon
-give artillery canon range
-delete pummels
-give anti-air units ability to defend themselves

Sithmaster_821
09-22-2002, 03:10 PM
1. then the gungans would be able to own any map that had the tiniest bit of water.
2. I personally think, with a little art and funtion tweaking the cannon should stay in the game
3. Why?
4. Pummels seem to much like rams but an melee building destroyer is nessecary
5. That way windu dosnt have to group his units and have his aa sit around and do nothing while his blob attacks aimlessly

AU_Andy_Ewok
09-22-2002, 03:22 PM
Have certain generic things like everyone has a Mech Factory, a troop center and a dock. Then Make only rebels, Naboo and Repbulic have jedi factories and air centres. Rebels can have Bwings etc. Then make TF + Empire + wookies have Hvy weapons etc. This would be really cool. But preety hard to balance.

Sithmaster_821
09-22-2002, 03:25 PM
Not really, the civs would be different but equal, much like in the games named as examples under unique

lukeiamyourdad
09-22-2002, 03:27 PM
I dunno man...

It is a little...well...I dunno...maybe hard to balance...or simply it would not give anybody else the ability to build hvy weapons...

Darth Windu
09-24-2002, 11:36 AM
For a bit of clarification-
-bongo - unarmed submarine transport
-with the canon/artillery suggestion - the battles should be fluid for the duration, without the need to deploy canon's. Besides at the moment artillery is outranged by assault mechs, which i think needs to be changed.
-with the pummel it could be replaced by a new artillery unit, as suggested above, just give it extra anti-building attack, a melee anti-building unit is just wierd
-why would anyone design a piece of military equipment which cant defend itself?

AU_Andy_Ewok
09-24-2002, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Sithmaster_821
Not really, the civs would be different but equal, much like in the games named as examples under unique

Those sort of game are all old and have far less gamers than Aom will have, War3 has and the new C&C will have.

Everyone likes the civs to be more unique. like team and civ bonuses in CC. Like the MU's in AoM.

It would be hard to balance but it seems AoM has done okay.

In my opinion SWGB2 should be a new 3d engine. Take some ideas from AoM like choosing gods when you advance. These gods affect the units/building/upgrades avalible and which MU's. Obviously in SWGB it wouldn't be good and myth units it would be things like Research Heavy metal work "allow Airspeders and Hveay weapons" or Heavy organic growth "troopers and trooper UU"

Making games more unique is good for RTS. Look at AoK everyone 1v1 i play is Arabia and then skirm wars. Such great fun.

Admiral Vostok
09-25-2002, 09:02 AM
I think some sea units are needed. We do have evidence that other civs have water units, in the fact that the Trade Federation was able to invade Otoh Gunga. However, once again the left-overs from AoK has had effects on the ships.
Frigate = Galleon
Destroyer = Fireship
Cruiser = Cannon Galleon

I think in the Star Wars universe every civ would have some submarine capability, not just the Gungans.

I don't think the artillery's range should be improved if the cannon is taken away. Cannons could really devastate your defences but their weakness was their unpacking. Artillery doesn't have that, so unless you give them a really long reload time, it won't work well.

Melee anti-building units sound good, but do they really exist? A battering ram beats down a door, not destroys a whole castle. Pummels just don't fit, expecially in Star Wars.

Sithmaster_821
09-25-2002, 10:11 PM
Uhh...ewok that was my point. Unique is the wave of the future. I said that the games under unique did it right, and then you proceeded to say the same thing, critizing me for my standpoint in the proccess. Not trying to be mean, just saying that it seems a little hypocritical.

I agree that sea combat should be kept. A game that is all canon is all boring.

CorranSec
09-26-2002, 04:11 AM
Unique is the way to go, but there a some things that should probably remain vaguely generic for the sake of game balance and fun.

Case in point: Air units. I made up a list in the SW:GB 2 Ideas thread, and I think all civs should have something a lot like that list. There could definitely be differences in stats, speed, etc. but purposes should remain roughly the same. For example, Rebel fighters would be sturdy and have good firepower, Empire fighters would be fast but less armoured and less firepower. They would both still be fighters though!
This particular case is not only boosting the canon part of the game (that's what those particular fighters are like) but makes a notable difference between the civs and would make combat between the two far more interesting.

The whole thing with aircraft, too, is that everybody buys the same ships. A guy who pilots freighters for the Empire and a guy who pilots freighters for the Rebels would probably buy the same kind of ship, maybe even from the same shipyard. Many ships aren't manufactured by the civ themselves and as such many ships are used by many different civs.

CorranSec
09-26-2002, 04:12 AM
Unique is the way to go, but there a some things that should probably remain vaguely generic for the sake of game balance and fun.

Case in point: Air units. I made up a list in the SW:GB 2 Ideas thread, and I think all civs should have something a lot like that list. There could definitely be differences in stats, speed, etc. but purposes should remain roughly the same. For example, Rebel fighters would be sturdy and have good firepower, Empire fighters would be fast but less armoured and less firepower. They would both still be fighters though!
This particular case is not only boosting the canon part of the game (that's what those particular fighters are like) but makes a notable difference between the civs and would make combat between the two far more interesting.

The whole thing with aircraft, too, is that everybody buys the same ships. A guy who pilots freighters for the Empire and a guy who pilots freighters for the Rebels would probably buy the same kind of ship, maybe even from the same shipyard. Many ships aren't manufactured by the civ themselves and as such many ships are used by many different civs.

In other fields, too, much technology is used by different people. A Stormtrooper and a wookie could likely be using the same rifle, manufactured by BlasTech, or some such.

Apart from this, differences in unit stats etc. would be cool, but vague purposes should remain the same. They do in other unique games anyway.

CorranSec
09-26-2002, 07:36 AM
Unique is the way to go, but there a some things that should probably remain vaguely generic for the sake of game balance and fun.

Case in point: Air units. I made up a list in the SW:GB 2 Ideas thread, and I think all civs should have something a lot like that list. There could definitely be differences in stats, speed, etc. but purposes should remain roughly the same. For example, Rebel fighters would be sturdy and have good firepower, Empire fighters would be fast but less armoured and less firepower. They would both still be fighters though!
This particular case is not only boosting the canon part of the game (that's what those particular fighters are like) but makes a notable difference between the civs and would make combat between the two far more interesting.

The whole thing with aircraft, too, is that everybody buys the same ships. A guy who pilots freighters for the Empire and a guy who pilots freighters for the Rebels would probably buy the same kind of ship, maybe even from the same shipyard. Many ships aren't manufactured by the civ themselves and as such many ships are used by many different civs.

In other fields, too, much technology is used by different people. A Stormtrooper and a wookie could likely be using the same rifle, manufactured by BlasTech, or some such.

Apart from this, differences in unit stats etc. would be cool, but vague purposes should remain the same. They do in other unique-based games anyway, eg. a grunt and a footman are basically multi-purpose basic ground units (they kill things), though one may have a special ability.

Edit: Ah hell! I just noticed I posted three times. This was an accident, as a screen kept coming up that said LucasForums' database was offline, or something, so i kept going back and reposting. :( Oops.

Still, this should make you pay all that much more attention........;)

Kryllith
09-26-2002, 10:21 AM
Hate it when that happens. Usually I'm lucky and I'll only get the post out once, but sometimes it happens twice. What's worse those is when I type of a very long post and it gets lost. :P

Kryllith

AU_Andy_Ewok
09-26-2002, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Sithmaster_821
Uhh...ewok that was my point. Unique is the wave of the future. I said that the games under unique did it right, and then you proceeded to say the same thing, critizing me for my standpoint in the proccess. Not trying to be mean, just saying that it seems a little hypocritical.

I agree that sea combat should be kept. A game that is all canon is all boring.

I wasn't critizing you, if i was it wasn't meant. This sort of threads is just peoples opinion No one can be wrong :cool:

Sithmaster_821
09-26-2002, 10:18 PM
Didnt say you were critizing me. Just said we kinda repeated each other. I think you thought i was talking about generic.

Admiral Vostok
09-29-2002, 09:23 AM
Okay, I was an advocate for generic unit sets, but I'm coming around to unique unit sets from the arguments here. My problem before was that although the Star Wars armies are all different, I don't think they are different enough to warrant unique unit sets. However, if done properly, I think unique would work. As others have suggested, everyone gets troopers, but for each of the different civs they would have different stats. Everyone gets air (except maybe Gungans, but then you'd need some major balancing), except everyone's air is different. Prices of the units should also reflect this, so fighters with shields cost more than non-sheilded fighters, so weak air have strength in affordable numbers.

My other main problem with unique unit sets is that as far as I'm aware, we don't really have the technology available to feasibly fit eight civs worth of unique unit sets in the one game. Hopefully by the time they decide to start making another Star Wars RTS things have changed...

Admiral Vostok
10-08-2002, 09:10 AM
Thought I'd add a bit more to this thread, even though it seems it is a bit dead.

I've thought a lot about this and basically I think a Star Wars RTS should be a mixture of Generic and Unique. One problem I had with Unique units is that the games I've played with unique units, the different civs operate in completely different ways. Lets take WCIII for example. The different races not only field different units, but build buildings differently, mine resources differently, and are basically totally different.
Star Wars civs, although very different in a lot of ways, have similarities. So I think The different civs should operate in the same way, be able to build the same buildings and basic worker units, but then have differing military units. So basically buildings stay the same, and we still have "classes" of units (air, mech, heavy weapon, sea...) but within those classes the units are different from race to race.

lukeiamyourdad
10-08-2002, 07:36 PM
Well they already are different...

Sithmaster_821
10-09-2002, 08:12 PM
I agree admiral

CorranSec
10-14-2002, 03:11 AM
Yeah, I think that's basically the same idea as I proposed before. :) Obviously, it's the way to go.

Crazy_dog no.3
10-14-2002, 01:34 PM
And when was the last time u saw Wookiees building a Republic Troop Center?

lukeiamyourdad
10-14-2002, 03:20 PM
And when was the last time u saw Wookiees building a Republic Troop Center?

Euh.. If you're playing with the republic and you're up against a wookiee opponent, you can convert one of their workers and make him build a Republic Troop Center....

About the fact that they should build the same building and yadayadayada...I don't think they should build the same buildings, It would get boring overtime.

The units are already different...A little bit...It could work but it would be pretty hard to try and get different kinds of units for each civs.I mean, you can have an anti-infantry mech(strike mech) an anti-mech mech(mech destroyer) and an assault mech....what else? If they need to be different, you would need different classes of mechs.I mean you already have everything within the actual three classes of mechs.Something against infantry, against mechs and hvy weapons, ships, etc.

What else? If everyone has different mechs it would come back to the same thing...

Sithmaster_821
10-14-2002, 07:35 PM
Not completely different units. Probably units that are already in the game, but with different stats/bonuses.

Example:

ATAT-would be ~ to current assualt mech but with aa
MTT-weak attack, heavy armor/hp and 25 trooper cargo
CA Assault tank-sorta heavy strike mech, very good vs troops, kinda fast, expensive, bad vs mechs/buildings
ATTE-slow but very good vs mechs

as opposed to current assualt mech

And you could do this for all of the units, taking some out, adding new ones, etc.

Darth Windu
10-15-2002, 02:25 AM
sithmaster - didnt i already suggest that in a different thread?

lukeiamyourdad
10-15-2002, 07:36 PM
Windu- It was my thread

Sithmaster_821
10-15-2002, 10:41 PM
No you didnt, i suggested this in Luke's thread, then decided that it would make a good thread, so voila

Darth Windu
10-16-2002, 03:18 AM
No, i meant your post about the possible specs of the AT-TE, AT-AT and MTT if SW:GB 2 was made.

Sithmaster_821
10-16-2002, 05:59 PM
I posted on luke's thread about changes to units, and used the assualt mechs as an example (just like i did here because they make the best examples of a unique unit set)

lukeiamyourdad
10-16-2002, 06:18 PM
Exactly!:cool:

Admiral Vostok
10-18-2002, 10:56 PM
Exactly, Sithmaster. You'd still have units that are good at anti-infantry, or good at anti-mech, etc. but they would be a bit more varied in their stats than the current variations. I'll use Mech-Destroyers for my example:

The ones from the movies

AAT - This kicked ass in the movie. It should be fast, with strong armour, and long range.

AT-ST - This would be about the same speed as the AAT, with shorter range and less armour.

Homing Spider Droid - Slower than the others, but as it is bigger have more health points and since it is the only thing from the movies that actually is designed specifically for anti-mech, it would be better at killing them than the others. Long range too.

Gian Speeder - This should be Naboo's anti-mech. Remeber in the movie when they took out an AAT with one shot? They'd be really fast, with short range and low armour.

So obviously these units are not balanced with each other. But they will be considered with the whole army in terms of balancing.

Also, as someone else mentioned, some civs should not be able to access certain sub-classes. For example, Naboo have mechs (as mentioned above) but can't get an assault mech equivalent.

CorranSec
10-18-2002, 11:00 PM
Those Mech Destroyer ideas sound great. Combining canon unit uses with actual gameplay balance is always good. :D
You'd have to make sure there is actual gameplay balance, though.... but we'll leave that for another time. ;)

lukeiamyourdad
10-18-2002, 11:02 PM
You're right about the gian speeder thing. It sucks how they made the flash speeder the strike mech and the gian speeder the hvy strike mech.

Sithmaster_821
10-18-2002, 11:12 PM
The gian speeder is the mech destroyer. I think that the AAT would fit a more assualt mech role with being slighlty slow, but strong assualt battery that has a tiny bit of splash damage. Good vs pretty much everything like assualt mech is.

Admiral Vostok
10-19-2002, 12:18 AM
Yeah, that could work well, especially since MTTs probably would be fairly weak when compared to other assault mechs. They'd be well armoured and good transports, but their attack would be short ranged and weak. AATs would make up for them with good all-round stats. But I don't think the AAT is slow, one of my favourite bits in the Battle of Naboo is when the sheilds come down and the AAT's speed in, blasting everything in sight.

Darth Windu
10-19-2002, 12:47 AM
The way i see it, the various Mech Destroyer's and Assault mech's would be-

MTT - fairly slow, very well armoured, anti-infantry weapons, can carry 20 troopers

AAT - moderately fast, fair armour, 1 assault mech canon, no troop carrying ability

AT-AT - slow, very well armoured, 2 assault mech canon, can carry 10 troopers

AT-ST - moderately fast, fair armour, anti-infantry weapons, no troop carrying ability

AT-TE - fairly slow, very well armoured, 1 assault mech canon, can carry 5 troopers

Gian Speeder - fairly fast, very little armour, anti-mech canon, no troop carrying ability

lukeiamyourdad
10-19-2002, 02:12 PM
Then here is my point of view:

AT-AT: High hp, med armor, very strong attack, can carry a
small amount of trooper.

AT-ST: Med hp, med armor, good attack vs both but better against infantry.

AAT:Good armor, good hp, good vs mech but rather bad against infantry, can change weapon(artillery mode and normal) artillery mode will be like you saw in ep.1

MTT: Greatest Armor, defensive weapons only(used to defend itself but not good against anything) can carry a lot of troopers but only 10 destroyer droids.

AT-TE: cannot carry troop, good speed, med attack, med hp but low armor.

Gian speeder:Fast, anti mech weapon, low armor and low hp.

Flash Speeder: Low hp, anti-infantry weapon, low armor and low hp.

Homing spider droid: Good vs mech only, low hp but high armor, med speed, cannot carry troopers.

Dwarf Spider droid: stay as it is.

Sithmaster_821
10-19-2002, 02:24 PM
I have to disagree with a couple luke.

AAT-No switching weapons. I think giving it the artillery weapons always would make it more unique without the micro.

AT-TE-They should hold troops, and have good hp and bad speed and armor. bonus vs troops and mechs

Dwarf droid-These guys were slow and vurnable, but had a high attack and should have relativley sized splash damage.

lukeiamyourdad
10-19-2002, 02:30 PM
oK about the AAT and the dwarf droid(I did not know about that)

I think the AT-TE should not hold a lot of troops.

Sithmaster_821
10-19-2002, 02:34 PM
It did in the movies, and your current build seems kinda skimpy (the AT-TE was revolutionary and led to the basis of the empire's mech arsenol)

lukeiamyourdad
10-19-2002, 02:55 PM
Yes it is the ancestor which is supposed to be weaker

Sithmaster_821
10-19-2002, 03:01 PM
It basically knocked confederate socks off, thus leading to its populairty and evolution.

lukeiamyourdad
10-19-2002, 03:48 PM
Never said it would be that weak, just weakER.

Admiral Vostok
10-20-2002, 03:56 AM
Gotta agree with sithmaster on this one. The AT-TE should definitely hold troops, and the AT-AT should not hold a small amount but a large amount. Remember all the Snowtroopers on Hoth? They arrived in the AT-ATs. "All troops will de-bark for ground assault," General Veers says, and then there's heaps of snowtroopers everywhere. What do you think takes up most of the AT-AT and AT-TE's bodies? Trooper transport.

The AT-AT should hold maybe 20 while the AT-TE holds 10.

I started a new thread for this sort of thing, so go there :D

lukeiamyourdad
10-20-2002, 12:44 PM
What do you think takes up most of the AT-AT and AT-TE's bodies? Trooper transport.

It's engine maybe?

simwiz2
10-20-2002, 02:51 PM
If various assault mechs are going to be carrying 10 or 20 troops and have massive armor/attack then they need to take up more than one pop slot to prevent them from being overpowered.

lukeiamyourdad
10-20-2002, 04:41 PM
That's why they sould'nt carry a lot of troops.

Sithmaster_821
10-20-2002, 08:06 PM
Simwiz, the only one, in my opinion, that should carry more than than the current build would be the MTT, and it would hve a completely nerfed attack. Its purpose would be to transport the TF's substandrad troops through guarded or defended areas where the probably would have been killed. Gameplay with realism twist.
It's engine maybe?
I dont know about you but when i think of the ATAT or the ATTE, i dont think "fast":)

Darth Windu
10-21-2002, 02:51 AM
I actually lokked at the star wars databank in reference to troop carrying ability, and the numbers are-

MTT = 112
AT-AT = 40
AT-TE = 20

Hence, using the AT-AT as a reference, i figured the best way to go about the trooper carrying ability would be to give the AT-TE 5 troops, AT-AT 10, and MTT 20.

Admiral Vostok
10-21-2002, 10:27 AM
Yeah that seems reasonable, Windu.

I am also an advocate for more powerful units taking up multiple population slots. That would at least stop my friend from building about 40 AT-ATs :D They should take up 8 or 10 slots, like the terran battlecruiser and the protoss carrier did in starcraft.

lukeiamyourdad
10-21-2002, 07:14 PM
Maybe the AT-AT should take two units slots not more.

Sithmaster_821
10-21-2002, 09:41 PM
Im am so for the idea of good units costing more than one pop. Especially when using 3d engines, too many units can be taxing to a computer. Also this creates more of a balance between the small and weak units and the big and strong units.

simwiz2
10-21-2002, 10:08 PM
"Good" units taking more than one pop slot is, IMO, almost necessary for good balance in many of the newer games, especially if units are to be portrayed as they were. Just think of how AT-AT's could be very strong like they were in the movies, they would just take more pop and be expensive. Units can be portrayed much more realistically without upsetting balance if large units take up more pop.

Arthur2
10-22-2002, 03:55 AM
use unique unit sets...
don't make them all the same
it's good that starcraft has unique unit sets, but then starcraft is weak on strength and weakness settings of the units... (i dun see what big units can do when there are mass hydras...the big units die fast anyways.)
if we have unique unit sets and maintain the properties of the units then SWGB 2 will be a great game...
(for instance: assault mechs can kill a small group of troopers with one shot, that's more like it...it's absurd to use mass trooper and actually defeat someone with that in post-T4.)

Darth Windu
10-22-2002, 07:52 AM
Not a bad idea, with the more powerful units taking up more than 1 slot. Personally i like it coz it would allow those units to be even more powerful and more 'realistic'.

Arthur2
10-22-2002, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Not a bad idea, with the more powerful units taking up more than 1 slot. Personally i like it coz it would allow those units to be even more powerful and more 'realistic'.

yeah one thing to be aware though...
in SC, big units are relaly not worth the money and pop...
cauz they die too fast anywayz...

maybe the big units can take no population at all
but it's depended on how much population u have
for example, for every 10 ppl u can build one ATAT...something like that
so ppl can't mass...

well that's just an idea
actaully i still support the 1 population thing
cauz i think it gives us more space for large scale battles
we can put stress on the resources
(ATAT costs around 600 food, 600 nova...argh that's a lot of money already...maybe we don't need to change at all..)

Arthur2
10-22-2002, 08:47 AM
argh that's off topic!!!!
what i was gonna say is....let's use unique unit sets
so we get more diversity, and at the same time maintain the weaknesses and strength balance so we don't get stuff like STarcraft, which all units basically have the same attack and no attack bonuses....(the only advantage is range and damage)

i think AoK did well regarding strength/weakness balances

lukeiamyourdad
10-22-2002, 06:17 PM
the AT-AT costs 200 food 350 nova. you got it all wrong. Besides, it's weird how you can make 250 AT-ATs and only 250 troopers.

AoK did well but that's basically because all the civs were almost exactly the same.

Sithmaster_821
10-22-2002, 07:05 PM
AoK had this problem, and it was the biggest problem in the game. Very strong paladins took up the same pop as their counter, pikemen, but the pikemen where theoretically supposed to beat the paladins through numbers. Although that looks good on paper, as you approached pop limit, massed paladins could easily toast anything, as could other strong but expensive units en masse, like scorpions, elephants, and mamelukes. That is why AoM has stronger units costing more pop and more resources (it isnt that much, a standard foot soldier costs 2 pop and most calvary cost 3).

simwiz2
10-22-2002, 07:21 PM
Also most of the counter units in AoM aren't "trash units" like pikemen were in AoK. Even TC's upgrade of halberdier couldn't salvage the horrible paladin situation.

Arthur2
10-23-2002, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by simwiz2
Also most of the counter units in AoM aren't "trash units" like pikemen were in AoK. Even TC's upgrade of halberdier couldn't salvage the horrible paladin situation.

pop limit, dun think it matters that much
250 shold be the number of units, not number of pop
i think it's quite reasonable if u make expensive units cost more
oh the ATAT part, i was thinking about air cruiser.....
well i think ATAT should cost somewhere around 600 food 600 nova
that's reasonable...
it's the cost , not the units....
the problem in AOK is that, the only expensive units are the siege weapons
others, such as the paladins...are way too cheap

if u want to go with the population restriction idea
i'd say heavy units take up 2 pop or 3 max (like air cruisers take up 2 each)
no more than that...cauz it's gonna ruin the game.

Arthur2
10-23-2002, 12:15 AM
it makes more sense if each unit = 1 pop...
cauz there realy isn't any restrictions (in movies)
u just need the resource to build ur troops

Admiral Vostok
10-23-2002, 08:41 AM
As others have said, a multiple pop-cost for large units would be more "realistic" like the movies. It would force people to take a variety of units rather than fill up their pop with AT-ATs. You can get 50 troopers or 5 AT-ATs, rather than 50 troopers or 50 AT-ATs. As you get well into Tech 4, resource costs don't become as restrictive because you've got a healthy economy. So population limits are necessary.

I think AoM's multiple-pop cost is an indication of this, as the Age of Whatevers series has developed and improved itself over time. In AoK it wasn't so much of an issue, but once you involve monsterous machines that would require multiple people to run, like Terran Battlecruisers, Protoss Carriers and Imperial AT-ATs, it becomes important.

CorranSec
10-23-2002, 09:02 AM
I strongly believe that having a greater pop requirement for larger machines/units/whatever would work well in terms of gameplay and realism.
It's pretty obvious that in reality, it takes a lot more people to run an AT-AT than it does to have a single trooper. So it's plainly ridiculous to have them both worth a single unit of population.
In terms of gameplay, it would put a bit of a lid on mass-big-unit tactics, and make people actually consider that you can't have as many Air Cruisers as you can troopers.
As Vostok said, resources become less of a worry in the later tech levels, and population also isn't a concern. Seeing as upping the costs is rather silly, an increase in pop requirements is the way to go.

Arthur2
10-23-2002, 11:42 AM
LOL
250 indicates the number of units, not population!!!
and 600 food and nova crystals, I wonder how many of them u can build in T4
even if u got more than 60,000 of all resources, the max num that u can build is 100 of them...

AoX series balanced their units through the unit cost
u know how strong siege onagers are, and how much they cost???
i dun think ATAT will break the balance
becoz u can always use counter units like jedi or mech destroyer
and they are a lot cheaper
and rebel's speeder is just nasty against mechs
last time i tried to destroy someone's base with 20 ATATs, and i was defeated with 20 speeders
and how much does a speeder cost? like...1/5 of an ATAT?
u see? it doesn't matter
250 can be the unit number, not population

dun talk about SC units
it's crap balance, the big units are made way too weak
i don't think a battle cruiser can even kill 8 marines
whereas the ATAT can strike down a small group of troopers with one shot.

Arthur2
10-23-2002, 12:12 PM
plus, SC ruined the true nature of the units
becoz one battle cuiser can't fight 8 marines
ppl still mass marine in post game period, that's just...

in AoK, ppl do mass paladin sometimes
but think about the cost of one paladin and one pikeman

i can't remember who suggested 50 troopers to 1 ATAT
that's way too much
with the pop limit we have now, u can only build 5 ATATs, or 250 troopers
who will win? 250 troopers, of course.
if u want to be realistic, argh....X-wing will be counted as one pop , cauz only one person is needed to operate, C'mon!!! gimme a break man

the mech units are meant to be stronger
ask urself
in the battle of hoth, do u see storm trooper cruising on the battlefield? hell NO, they only use troopers to wipe out the remaining rebels

plus, gernade troopers are very very very good against mechs, 5 gernades kills an ATAT...

AOK is not the only game that each unit takes one pop
hmm, i think EE is the same
they stress the weaknesses/strengths balance of the units
can u still mass? hell yeah
but ur units won't live long if ppl use counter units, and counter units are always cheaper

let 250 be the number of units u can have, not how much population. ATAT and trooper both take up one slot...but think about the cost, think about the number, think about the creation speed...who has the advantage?
unless u guys are lame players who wait till post-T4 for a enormous battle, it's strategically dumb to do that.
otherwise u won't get mass ATAT , regularly
it requires too much resources, and ppl will continue to harrass u, and u might even encounter a large scale siege (most likely) if u don't attack.

Admiral Vostok
10-24-2002, 09:25 AM
I think what people are allowed to do is more important than what people should do. Sure, people shouldn't use masses of powerful units, but because they are allowed to they do.

The way I see it, population limit is equivalent to upkeep (even though they added different upkeep in WarCraftIII). If you have a population limit of 200, you have the ability to keep an army of 200 well maintained and battle ready. So mega units require more population as they require more upkeep.

I'm not denying the 1 pop per unit idea worked well for AoK. This is because the more powerful units would still only realistically take up one population spot. A Paladin is still just one guy, even if he costs more to train.

And as for using anti-unit-units - you try putting 20 AT-ATs up against 20 mech destroyers. I guarantee the AT-ATs (or any other heavy assault mech for that matter) will win. Speeders are a bit different, because although AT-ATs can shoot air, they aren't good at it.

Arthur2
10-24-2002, 11:53 AM
well consider the build cost of mech destroyers and assault mechs
it's not one to one ratio.
and besides, u can use air speeder and gernade troopers
gernade troopers are cheap, but then 5 gernades can take out one assault mech....

i think the one pop idea balanced well in this version of SWGB
i prefer not to change
if u change it to the starcraft/warcraft type pop structure, it's gonna mess up the game completely. look at EE, it's got air , ground and sea units, but it's still balanced , and the most important thing is that all units take up only one pop limit, well max 2. no more than that.. is the game balanced? YEAH...
do ppl still use weak units like troopers, YEAH...

the problem is not the population
it's about the way u guys play

if ppl mass, then u counter
counter units are way cheaper.
i don't see a problem with that.
unless u guys all wait till post-T4, otherwise there shouldn't be a problem with the population.

Arthur2
10-24-2002, 12:04 PM
another important thing to point out:
in GB, the building and research costs are on a great scale, in contrast with starcraft.

if u make the pop structure something similar to the SC/W3 structure, argh...ppl will stop using heavy weapons and mechs cause they are impossibly outnumbered by the troopers

just like ppl use ghetto crap like mass marines, mass hydras against a whole fleet of carriers...
doesn't make any sense.

some of u guys are talking about how many ppl needed to operate
hmmm, think about it
nowadays, are u bounded by how many freaking ships u have? or how many soldiers u have?
are u going to have excess of soldiers? or excess of ships?
it's so obvious...

there is nothing wrong with butchering troopers with ATAT
cause troopers are meant to be butchered...
that is why these days (talking about NOWADAYS) u use aircrafts and tanks and other crap to bomb the crap out of afghanistan. the only time u use infantry is specific missions like "capture osama bin laden" or "take over the land!!!"

u dun just send ur crap over and try to attack ppl wilth soldiers...

the good thing about SWGB is that it makes a lot more sense than SC, and i prefer not to ruin the essence of this game...
trust me, keep the one population limit per unit idea (or at most 2 population limit per strong units)...
most good strategies games use that...

CorranSec
10-25-2002, 07:11 AM
Umm..... hey, are we talking about GB 2 or GB?

Arthur2
10-25-2002, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by CorranSec
Umm..... hey, are we talking about GB 2 or GB?

of course GB2, the next starwars strategy game of lucasarts'
that's why i suggest we keep the good stuff

well u can only raise the build cost of heavy units or raise its population limit
but not both
i would go with the first one... the cost does matter
if u make an ATAT cost 600 food/600 nova and if u want to be more ruthless...600 carbon...i don't think u can mass ATAT anymore
it's too expensive
and besides, it's reasonable for heavy units to take over the battlefield ...it's T4!!!! time for troopers to get out, troopers don't usually fight in these battles, well maybe they do , but they cannot be the primary forces...they die too fast
:p
and there are other units that counters ATAT quite well
(gernade troopers, mech destroyers, fighters, bombers, speeders)
we dun have to worry about it
there is always a way to avoid mass

Sithmaster_821
10-25-2002, 08:55 PM
as long as there is a pop limit (and there will be) stronger units will always prevail if everything is based on cost alone. You re so worried about people massing trash units, imagine what people will do if stronger units cost 3x as much as they do now. The game will be a trooper war. The only time the whole pop thing comes in effect is when you near pop limit, and that is when, in the current build, stronger units become stronger than other units merely because counter units usually rely on numbers to beat stronger units. And at pop, they usually have insufficient numbers to fend off an attack by another player who is also at pop limit. Making units cost more pop solves this problem. Dont argue, it has been proven.

lukeiamyourdad
10-25-2002, 10:07 PM
Sith is right. It has been proven that augmenting the pop requirement for a unit balance it out.

If you think that troopers are useless witch they are NOT. Mounties can still be effective. Repeaters can deal lots of damage on a enemy base. AA troopers can still counter aircrafts. Grenade Troopers are still VERY useful. You should look at a perfect example of useless troopers. In C&C Tiberian Sun or any other C&C(I dunno only played Tiberian Sun) the light infantry gets totally useless in late games which is a bummer. Think about it, in WWII you still needed to use infantry to help around your armored vehicles. Most if not all RTS(the ones about a futuristic war) use strategies and tactics from WWII. If you play with today's tactics, it will be boring. Staying on your ass shoothing nukes from one base to another...

CorranSec
10-25-2002, 11:26 PM
GB 2. OK. It's all clear now.
Sith is completely right. Without expanding pop requirements, stronger units will dominate OR troopers will be overused. Neither are viable options.
Luke's dad- Who's side are you on? Your last post was a little confusing.

Arthur2
10-26-2002, 02:42 AM
hmm
well a lot of games are based on one-pop-per-unit
i dun think there is anything wrong with that

do u see anything wrong with the current GB?
not neccesarily

if u guys want to balance the pop limit thing
i suppose that'd be alright
just don't overdo this
make the strong units take up like 2 or 3
not 8 like in starcraft, that's too much

Arthur2
10-26-2002, 02:54 AM
the reason why i think one-pop idea is good
is becoz a lot of games, aok, ee, and swgb..
they all use one-pop idea
speaking of aok
the siege onager and wipe out mass infantry, mass archers and sometimes even mass paladin if u have enuff of them
but then it's just impossible since it's so expensive

btw, i don't agree on counter units wins by outnumbering
cause that way they won't be henced "counter units"
geonosian warriers can defeat troopers in one shot, that's what counter unit is like...
1 jedi can defeat many assault mechs, also royal crusader....it's strong against mech units (the reference book is wrong)
jedi virus mechs, is that out numbering? NO....
speeder vs. mechs, is that out numbering? NO....

the cost will balance..
ppl won't build troopers cause they are way too weak for mechs
one shot of assault mech kills 7 troopers, darn...
but ppl won't build all mechs cauz they'll run out of resource soon

if u guys still want to do the pop balance thing
hmmm well u can make mechs cost 2 pop per unit
but then no more than that
so ppl won't go "ah...i can outnumber the mechs with troopers since the numbers of mechs i can build is so limited"

Admiral Vostok
10-26-2002, 09:03 AM
Yeah I think probably 4 pop per Assault Mech. Most things should only take one population, but I'd say something like the following:

Troops of all types: 1 pop

Air units of all types: 1 pop

heavy weapons: 2 pop? not sure.

Scout/Strike Mech: 1 pop

Mech Destroyer: 2 pop (and make it a bit better)

Assault Mech: 4 pop

Ships: 1 pop except cruiser 2 pop

What do others think?

Arthur2
10-26-2002, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
Yeah I think probably 4 pop per Assault Mech. Most things should only take one population, but I'd say something like the following:

Troops of all types: 1 pop

Air units of all types: 1 pop

heavy weapons: 2 pop? not sure.

Scout/Strike Mech: 1 pop

Mech Destroyer: 2 pop (and make it a bit better)

Assault Mech: 4 pop

Ships: 1 pop except cruiser 2 pop

What do others think?

hmmm i suppose that would work....
see, now the two ideas are compromised....

lukeiamyourdad
10-26-2002, 03:31 PM
[I]Originally posted by CorranSec[I] Luke's dad- Who's side are you on? Your last post was a little confusing.

I'm not so sure myself..... what I meant was that I like using troopers in tech 4 and so.

Arthur2
10-26-2002, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad


I'm not so sure myself..... what I meant was that I like using troopers in tech 4 and so.

yeah there is nothing wrong with that
i just don't want troopers to be like marines in starcraft
shooting down carriers
cauz troopers are meant to be weaker (relatively..) than the mechs
they are stiill useful under some circumstances

CorranSec
10-26-2002, 11:30 PM
People should be able to outnumber anything with troopers. That's what it's all about. That's the whole point!
Troopers are the things that are (or should be) used in huge masses, but the point is that they can all be cut down by a couple of Assault Mechs. Now, if the Assault Mechs are equal to the Troopers in pop cost, it's clear to see what has the advantage.
Hordes of smaller units are supposed to overwhelm single big units, but the horde should cost more than the single big unit (duh). Of course, as costs become more and more unsubstantial (relatively), it's clear that the way to achieve balance is by increasing pop costs.

Has anybody had the thought that GB 2 might not have Assault Mechs, Mech Destroyers and the like, at least not in that sense?

Sithmaster_821
10-27-2002, 12:40 AM
Arthur, there is nothing wrong with the game. But opportunities to improve the way the game plays should be taken, atleast closely examined. Games are a work in progress. Did you find anything blatantly wrong with the game preptch? No. The patch just enhanced gameplay.

Arthur2
10-27-2002, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by CorranSec
People should be able to outnumber anything with troopers. That's what it's all about. That's the whole point!
Troopers are the things that are (or should be) used in huge masses, but the point is that they can all be cut down by a couple of Assault Mechs. Now, if the Assault Mechs are equal to the Troopers in pop cost, it's clear to see what has the advantage.
Hordes of smaller units are supposed to overwhelm single big units, but the horde should cost more than the single big unit (duh). Of course, as costs become more and more unsubstantial (relatively), it's clear that the way to achieve balance is by increasing pop costs.

Has anybody had the thought that GB 2 might not have Assault Mechs, Mech Destroyers and the like, at least not in that sense?

hmmm so yeah
that's why the other guy proposed 4 pop units for each assault mech, 2 pop for each mech destroyers and 1 pop for strike mechs and air fighters....

troopers are used in masses
that's why they shouldn't be balanced with mechs by increasing their abilities like in SC u marines can shoot down airplanes, and can almost kill everything with ease if u have them in dozens...

anywayz u guys are right..
let's just keep the pop idea, but try to make the pop thing under 4 so ppl don't feel so limited

i think in SWGB2 they should just call the troops ATAT, ATST, ATPT....whatever, just call them wut they are called in the movies...not mech destroyer..yada yada

lukeiamyourdad
10-27-2002, 05:29 PM
I think almost everybody wants the units to be called by their real names.

Sithmaster_821
10-28-2002, 09:13 PM
That was the impression i got when i read responses to this thread.

Sithmaster_821
10-28-2002, 10:40 PM
Arthur, heres a quote from Greg Street, head designer of AoK and AoM, conserning the problems of balancing units based on cost alone:
Making powerful units more expensive only works to a point. If you make units too expensive, then they are rare in the game, which isn't a lot of fun. Besides, when someone is rolling over you with a dozen powerful units, it doesn't make you feel much better than he paid through the nose to get them. Consider the Cataphracts from AOK. They were so expensive as to be really rare, but when someone got a large army of them, he cleared the map.

Arthur2
10-29-2002, 05:13 AM
hmm
so maybe some compromise will make this work
like the previous posts
4 pop for heavy mechs
2 pop for mech destroyers...
yada yada...

Admiral Vostok
10-29-2002, 07:27 AM
Remember Arthur, we're only suggesting the pop costs of StarCraft, not making Troopers as powerful as Terran Marines. Keeping the unit's fighting ability pretty much the same as it is would be good. In StarCraft, a Battlecruiser would have to take a few shots to kill a marine, but we still want an Assault Mech to kill Troopers in one shot.

So the problems you're talking about in StarCraft won't apply to SWGB.

Expanding on my previous post, I think Heavy weapons should be 2 pop. I've tried to make it 1 pop for things that are used in masses, 4 pop for rare things and 2 pops a nice in the middle one, not for massing but also definitely not rare.

Arthur2
10-30-2002, 05:06 AM
great :P
so..
assault mech, big ships - 4 pop

mech destroyer, heavy weapons, regaulr air and sea units - 2

troopers, strike mech and small stuff...1 pop

lukeiamyourdad
10-30-2002, 06:45 PM
Let's base this on what we know:

A fighter has one pilot= 1 pop
An Assault Mech has at least 3 or 4= 3 or 4 pop
Mech Destroyers have two pilots= 2 pop
Hvy weapons, unknown but AA mobile must have 2 pilots= 2pop

Fighters should only cost one pop.
Max pop should be raised if these changes are made.

CorranSec
10-31-2002, 01:16 AM
Hmm. Has it occured to anybody that there may not be Strike Mechs, Mech Destroyers, etc. in GB 2? And that there might be new units? Hmm....

Anyway, here's the way I see it.
Units which are obviously 1-unit (eg. 1 guy with a gun, 1 worker, 1 fighter, small mechs eg. scout) are, uh, 1-unit.
Units which are a bit larger, but wouldn't have more than 2 or 3 people, are 2-pop. For example, larger mechs such as the AT-ST, some medium ships (check my list of aircraft in the Ideas of GB 2 thread, and I was also thinking of the Assault Transport from the Gunship thread), small boats (frigates), etc.
Units which are medium-sized would merit 3 pop. Eg: larger ships such as the current AA frigate, most Millenium Falcon-sized (medium) aircraft, mechs that are better than Mech Destroyer but not as good as Assault Mech.
Large units are 4 pop. Eg: big boats like the current Cruiser (which might be 5 pop, I'm not sure), most cap ships (eg. Armed Transport), etc.
The biggest (top of the tech tree) units are 5. Eg. Assault Mech, Attack Cruiser (bigbig aircraft), etc.

The pop cap would of course be increased to somewhere between 3/400, unless of course you wanted small, focussed battles. But I don't, and that's very Blizzard-ish, and I know many people don't like that. So I hope everyone's with me.
:D

Arthur2
10-31-2002, 01:31 AM
300-400
that's a lot

do u think it's better to have 400 for every player
or like 2000 units for ALL players distribution
like if it's 1v1 then eeach player get 1000
if it's 2v2 then each player get 500

CorranSec
10-31-2002, 02:35 AM
Arthur- I like a lot. But nothing as big as Medieval: Total War, or anything.
I don't like that distribution idea. Seeing as this game is coming out in the future, what if servers can handle large numbers of people, and around 20 people play? Also, what if a player joins the game? Fluctuations never help gameplay.
No, I'd rather a fixed number.

Arthur2
10-31-2002, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by CorranSec
Arthur- I like a lot. But nothing as big as Medieval: Total War, or anything.
I don't like that distribution idea. Seeing as this game is coming out in the future, what if servers can handle large numbers of people, and around 20 people play? Also, what if a player joins the game? Fluctuations never help gameplay.
No, I'd rather a fixed number.

300 sounds good

lukeiamyourdad
10-31-2002, 07:26 PM
I'd say like Corran, about 400 seems ok and I think we could go to 500 but that is not likely.

500 pop limit is a lot!!!!! I don't our comps will be able to handle that! We must take that into consideration.

Sithmaster_821
10-31-2002, 07:30 PM
500 pop limit with 3d is computer suicide.

lukeiamyourdad
10-31-2002, 07:43 PM
Well not necessarily. It will depend on how strong the future computers will be. At the speed the industry is going I won't be surprised the comp will have three times the strengh of the actual ones. 500 MIGHT not be suicide. Highly impropable but anyway.

Admiral Vostok
11-01-2002, 02:07 AM
I didn't mean fighters to be 2 pop. Check my other post. Fighters are used en masse, like troopers, so they should be one pop. Maybe bombers should maybe be 2 pop, but then again it all depends on how strong they decide to make air in GB2. And I'd prefer bombers to be 1 pop like fighters.

I think 250 is probably still reasonably, even with multiple pop costs. Having a limit like this helps keep the ratios of units in check. If we had an unreachable limit, there is really no point to having multiple population costs. In excess of 250, there starts to get more units than you can keep track of.

lukeiamyourdad
11-01-2002, 10:08 PM
highering the pop limit would compensate for the new pop cost of some units. And I do agree on using unit strengh to decide of their pop cost.

CorranSec
11-02-2002, 03:48 AM
I think 500 is far too much, and 400 is probably pushing it.... but it's possible. Somewhere between 300 and 400 is what I'm looking for.
If we adjust the pop requirements and don't adjust the pop cap, then the game won't work the way we want it to- people just won't be able to get a reasonable number of larger units. Also, if you hit the pop cap quickly in the current GB (and CC), imagine how fast it would approach if units had greater pop costs?
If we're going to have larger pop costs we need a larger pop cap. It's quite simple.

Vostok- Too many units to deal with? This is most likely based on your personal experiences. Also, I'm sure that after the learning campaign (or whatever), players will be used to the large pop cap and have adjusted their style to deal with it.
I think you're right about aircraft. I'd like to see all "fighter" classed aircraft as requiring 1 pop. Looking at my list (it's the one I'm basing all my aircraft stuff on as I haven't seen another), all the fighters seem pretty equal in power (not literal damage etc. but actual tactical use) and so they should all only take 1 pop.

simwiz2
11-02-2002, 03:27 PM
A hard pop limit is something that new RTS should avoid IMO. In AoM expansionism is rewarded when you can get more pop by capturing more settlements. In RoN, the pop limit will be based on the number of cities you have, and so expansionism and attacking can increase your army's maximum size. Both games will benefit greatly from having a much more flexible pop limit.

Sithmaster_821
11-02-2002, 06:30 PM
*Agrees with simwiz*

simwiz2
11-02-2002, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Well not necessarily. It will depend on how strong the future computers will be. At the speed the industry is going I won't be surprised the comp will have three times the strengh of the actual ones. 500 MIGHT not be suicide. Highly impropable but anyway.

What about those people (like me) who just bought a really good computer and won't have a "better" one for at least 4 years?

Would we have lower pop than our opponents? :D

Admiral Vostok
11-03-2002, 01:20 AM
That sounds like a good approach, simwiz.

As for not being able to field a reasonable number of larger units, I disagree. One of my reasons for wanting a mulitple-population-cost for large units is so there aren't too many of them. With a cost of 4 pop per assault mech and a 250 population cap, you can still buy about 30 AT-ATs, leaving room for workers and support units. This is six times the number of AT-ATs present at Hoth and is also greater than the number of assault mechs at the Battle of Geonosis. That, to me, is reasonable.

However, I wouldn't complain about a 300 pop cap, maybe even 350, but 500 is getting up there. The pop cap is in place to limit your units, not to be an unreachable marker.

CorranSec
11-03-2002, 04:54 AM
These don't exactly sound to me like a 'flexbile pop cap.' They're just fancier houses, and kinda work the same way (I'm basing this on what simwiz posted). Ie, you get a city/settlement it increases your pop, if someone kills it, you lose pop. If you get more, you get more pop.
Sound familiar?
Uh, yeah, wow, sounds like a fancier way of building/losing houses! Very ingenious. :rolleyes:

Sithmaster_821
11-03-2002, 02:37 PM
Corran, settlements are much different from houses, and heres why:
1. They benefit expansionism. With houses the only thing limiting how many you could build was space, so someone could easily maintain a high population with houses in a remote corner of the map. Settlements require building outward and get rid of that long time standard in RTS's in which all the fighting took place at peoples bases, and that map space was only there for transporting.
2. The number of settlements is predetermined. If you have built all of your houses (10 in AoM), there is no quick fix for pop. It becomes more like a resource and more important.
3. Population becomes more mercantilistic instead of capatalistic. In other words, every player has to draw from the same pot, and fluctuations in pop (either up or down) effect every player instead of just the one who is fluctuating.

simwiz2
11-03-2002, 04:11 PM
It also means someone who turtles in a corner will have a tough time fielding large armies. AoM uses the concept that RoN will take to the next level; that to field massive armies you have to expand.

And I like how it prevents the whole 2-base-void thing that came up in the RoN discussions.

CorranSec
11-04-2002, 02:16 AM
Sure, sounds fine, but it seems that what simwiz said was a misnomer ('flexible' pop cap).
OK, so, we've got a bunch of 'settlements' scattered around the map, and you have to control them to get more pop? Sounds good, but I still think houses are useful. What about this combo:
When you start, your Command Center gives you 30 max pop, and 15 actual pop. You have to build houses (10 pop) to reach the 30 pop limit though.
Then, when you capture a settlement, you get another 30 max pop and 10 actual pop, and still must build houses to reach the actual limit.
How's that sound?

Oh, and just one possible problem that I just thought of- won't promoting expansion and quick grabbing of settlements also promote rushing?

Sithmaster_821
11-04-2002, 07:25 PM
The house settlement combo is what AoM uses (houses for early on when you need all of your resources to advance/build an army, and settlements come in later when you are trying to expand).

simwiz2
11-04-2002, 07:53 PM
Is promoting rushing really a bad thing?

joesdomain
11-04-2002, 10:26 PM
Unique unit sets should be used if they make a Galactic Battlegrounds 2 or another Star Wars RTS game. I think civilizations with the same type of units are boring. Especially the air cruisers, undeployed cannons, and ships.

Sithmaster_821
11-04-2002, 11:12 PM
[nostalgia]Remember when we thought that rushing was doing the game in, simwiz? And the scary part is that that was in April:)[/nostagia]

simwiz2
11-04-2002, 11:40 PM
You mean the turtle days of AoC? Please don't remind me.

CorranSec
11-05-2002, 05:56 AM
I don't personally think that promoting rushing is a bad thing, but we should strive to make a game which caters for all styles of play, and some people might like turtling and hate rushing. (and we hate them, but that's not the point)

Also, another thing that I just thought of- wouldn't this just lead to people fortifying the settlements they own, and creating a dozen mini-bases scattered across the map? Also, because everybody defends their settlements so well, it'd end up being too hard to capture them and thus leading to the pop cap staying in the same place for the whole game!!! :rolleyes: :mad: :eek:

And that is something that I do NOT wish to promote.

Admiral Vostok
11-05-2002, 11:09 PM
But that is a worst case scenario and it basically equates to what we've got now. So if the worst thing that could come from this idea is that it gets like what we do now, I say that's not too bad.

CorranSec
11-06-2002, 02:37 AM
That's not a worst case scenario, that's an educated prediction on what will happen in every game. If you had to keep something sitting out in the middle of nowhere, wouldn't you build towers etc. around it?
How does this equate to what we've got now?
Now- houses built in your main base, which of course is well defended
Settlements- houses scattered around the map, many well defended bases being built around the houses.
It's only my settlement/house combo which makes them like each other, and even that will still lead to both of the aforementioned situations.

Admiral Vostok
11-08-2002, 10:23 PM
I think you misunderstand me, or I you.

I think the multiple settlement idea is fine, but in your proposed case of "what if we stay in our bases and the population doesn't change" I was merely pointing out that now, even if we don't stay in our bases the population doesn't change.

And yes I think we still need houses or prefab shelters, but settlements also add to population just like command centers and fortresses do now.

CorranSec
11-08-2002, 11:18 PM
But right now, even if we do stay in our bases, we can still build our pop (by building houses). With the new idea, you could possibly do that, but only to a very small extent, and eventually you'd have to go out and try to capture a settlement.

Arthur2
11-09-2002, 05:22 AM
or maybe u can limit the number of prefab shelters that a certain settlement can hold
so eventually ppl will have to go out and find more settlements
well
i don't really like this idea cause it limits the gameplay too much ><

simwiz2
11-09-2002, 04:34 PM
If you have 6 settlements and are trying to defend all of them, then you can have about 1/6 of your force at each. Meanwhile, your opponent can attack one with his entire force, rip down the Command Center and build his own CC. As long as buildings aren't super-strong, capturing settlements from other players is not too hard.

Sithmaster_821
11-09-2002, 04:52 PM
Housing limits go hand in hand with settlements.

Sithmaster_821
11-09-2002, 04:55 PM
In AoM, it is rare to see people defend a settlement that isnt in the direct scene of the battle. Its just not worth your time and energy. The only settlements that people expand off of and fortify are the ones near forward bases or enemy towns or close to home.

simwiz2
11-09-2002, 05:04 PM
I am well aware they aren't going to put their army in that corner-of-the-map settlement. But I was simply illustrating how attacking is more advantageous than turtling around settlements.

Sithmaster_821
11-09-2002, 05:11 PM
Actually i was talking to Corran, who said that people would turtle all of their settlements.

Arthur2
11-10-2002, 01:05 AM
well i am still playing AoM demo
dunno about full version but shouldn't be too much different
i occupy some settlements and i just build couple of towers and let villigers do their work
if someone comes over and try to take over
i send me troops over...
that way u dun split ur troop so enemies don't have the outnumber advantage
neh
i think just keep the way it is now
cauz i think the settlements idea is not very...cool
dunno how to explain
just feels weird

CorranSec
11-10-2002, 07:11 AM
I was mainly thinking of people doing what Arthur does; fortifying them with turrets and the like, and then only sending a portion of your force there when it's attacked.
If you have a fortress (or equivalent defensive structure) and a bunch of towers and walls at each settlement, your opponent will need to utilise a great deal of force to take it from you, which they may not be able to possess, because they don't control the settlement, and can't build the units! This leads to an eventual unbreakable stalemate, something I dearly wish to avoid.

Arthur2
11-10-2002, 07:37 AM
so...let's drop that idea
in AoM
it's not that big of a deal becoz each settlement only adds like 15 pop or something
and one stupid Hydra adds 5, which means u will only be able to produce 3 more hydras with each settlement u conquer
...
i'd say just keep it the way it is now
or maybe we can do it like EE : not having any houses at all...
heh

Admiral Vostok
11-10-2002, 08:52 AM
Agreed. All that settlement stuff is making my head spin.

Sithmaster_821
11-10-2002, 07:30 PM
First of all, Arthur, i really dont see why you would need more than 3 hydra. They cost so much because they are so strong. Ah, balance in the works.

And, about towering up settlements: too expensive. Buildings arent very strong, and towers that arent defended fall easily to siege or anit-building MU. Towers work vs the AI (it is, and always will be, prone to just walking past tower fire without attacking), but humans can take 'um easy. Fortress equivelants are also the same way. You'd still lose an army if you attacked them headlong, but buildings in general fall much quicker than in AoK or SWGB. In a game between equals, settlement control is quite fluid.

And as for it not making sense, sure does. What you are essentially doing is going over and subjigating a neutral town, thus expanding the amount of soldiers you can build with the + people under your control.

Arthur2
11-10-2002, 11:43 PM
i don't see why we'd need that
just build houses
settlements are crap

simwiz2
11-11-2002, 12:04 AM
because unless everyone who will be playing the game is to have a 4 gHz computer, you will need a pop limit. And a hard pop limit is not only bland and boring, it limits gameplay. A fluid pop limit is MUCH more interesting. It is no longer just build a set # of houses and reach the 200 pop. Now you need to expand over more of the map. Just try out AoM, it works great in that game.

As long as LA carefully considers the effects of doubling building HP before doing so, GB2 will not be a game of turtling settlements.

Arthur2
11-11-2002, 01:57 AM
no i mean the settlements
it only adds like...wut? 15 population?
i think we shold add a little bit more than that
well 15 in SWGB is a lot
but in AoM is very little becauz units cost more than 1 pop, most of the time

CorranSec
11-11-2002, 03:18 AM
Ah, so to actually figure out this settlement thing, balance had to be turned on its head? Very nicely done, AoM creators. *applauds*
I'm talking, of course, about the fact that towers were downgraded and made more expensive, practically based on the fact that the game designers decided, as so many are, that "We don't want you to play our game in any way other than the way WE want you to. That is, attack attack attack (including rush), not so much defense, and DEFINITELY no turtling. We also want far more actual man-to-man battles than man-to-defense battles, because we don't like them."

Seems.............. very.............. hmmmmm........... what's the word................
BLIZZARD!!!!!!?????

Hmm. The much-vaunted AoM has fallen into the pits of despair of a tryhard Craft. Pity.

Of course, I may be exaggerating, but towers and defenses SHOULD be good. That's one of the main points of the Age series (excluding AoM, of course): the ability to play defensively if you wish, including turtling, because defensive structures and defensive positions are pretty damned good. But, if you wish, and/or if that's the way your civ works, you CAN plan massive attacks, raids, and rushes.

That's the main appeal of the Ages (and GB). The Crafts are mainly attacky/rushy; the 'grand epics' eg. RoN are drawn out campaign/defensy..... but the Ages (in the past) have proven to be able to handle both.
Settlements, if they don't totally eliminate this ability to use any strat, certainly deal it a hefty amount of damage.
If we don't use settlements, varied strats are still available, we don't need to screw around with balance, and there won't be any unbreakable stalemates.

Arthur2
11-11-2002, 05:25 AM
yeah i kinda feel the same about AoM
it's turning into something very Blizzard-ish
i like some of the features they added
but i got bored after 2 games cause there is no more large scale siege
i mean, man-to-man combat is cool, no problem with that
but then if we HAVE to fight man-to-man, what about strategy?
the advantage is not to fight ur enemies face-to-face.
It's better to let the defensive buildings do their job, cause IF u dun have any ppl in ur town, ppl can use siege weapons and crush ur town without losing one man.

btw, settlements is no fun if ppl won't really use it for further development but conquering it for some population like "15"
can't build anything with that, eh....
even if u conquer all the settlements on the map, i mean...so wut?
each settlement adds 10~15
that's not exactly a lot of population

simwiz2
11-11-2002, 01:35 PM
Corran, I'm not sure if you realize this but once in T4 it is incredibly easy for a turtle to make a game of GB drag on for hours, which is no fun at all for the other person. I hate to say this because otherwise the game has great balance, but before LA doubled building HP's with Shields, they should have considered the effects IMO. That is what I was hinting at in my last post. Buildings do not have to be weak, but they don't need to have 10000+ hp and shoot 5 lasers. THAT is probably why you think a game with settlements will be a stalemate: GB buildings are so strong. The fact that grenadiers can destroy any siege in seconds and defensive AC's can destroy any covering units doesn't help much. Believe me, any other game would not stalemate.

Actually I think buildings in AoM should have 50-80% more HP, castle-type buildings cost twice as much, and all non-tc defense have +2 range. I'm not too fond of the way some chariots can outrange towers either. Perhaps Eggy's should get an additional +2 defense bldg range tech, while Greeks should get a +4 defense bldg attack tech, and norse should just get some unit improvement. Siege should be more expensive and have a 1.0-1.5 sec deploy time IMO, so you can't micro the hell out of them.

I really dislike how easy it is to coat a map with castles, but even more than that I dislike how easily they fall, like paper castles.

Btw, 15 pop per TC is very significant. If you capture all 6 contested ones in a game you have 90 more pop, and therefore 45 more foot units to put in an army.

Sithmaster_821
11-11-2002, 11:31 PM
Yeah simwiz, thats because youre a turtle through and through;) (j/k)

Actually Corran, AoM has found the balance between the turtle fests of SWGB and the rush fests of WC3, building hp wise

WC3 buildings<AoM buildings<SWGB buildings

Buildings are still quite strong and forts/hill forts/migdols still strike fear in the hearts of many, but it isnt as buildings>all as SWGb was

simwiz2
11-12-2002, 12:20 AM
Migdols die so easy to regular units and a few MU's that you don't even need siege. Siege is only necessary if you want minimal losses. Buildings fall like paper. They should stand longer but cost more. A LOT MORE. A migdol should be more or less rare. The fact that a player in T4 has the resources to coat a map with Migdols is simply awful cost balancing. Maybe they shoulda left stone in...

Arthur2
11-12-2002, 04:58 AM
i think the problem is more about the way ppl siege
when u siege
u cover ur siege weapons
and siege weapons have long range
so i don't think it's a problem
when i siege
i camp my army outside of the enemy base and start firing at their fortresses
if they don't send troops to defend themselves, their base will be torn down sooner or later...
Gernade troopers, well, maybe u haven't noticed, but there is something called Dark trooper, or maybe some other anti-trooper stuff that u can use
mechs are strong, but they are weak against troopers, sometimes
u need to defend them

i dun think u can drag on for hours with just defensive buildings
it's either u win the siege or u lose the siege
and there is definitely no way that u can lose the siege if all ur enemy has is some crappy defensive stucture, unless u are some kinda stupid newbie who rely on mass trooper

i mean, heavy assault mech, cannons, pummels are all great siege weapons, and they have range longer than most towers (except pummels), how can u possibly , NOT win the siege when there are no troops garrisoning
if there are troops garrisoning then u fight them, and then siege later

as simple as that
i've seen some good players around and i don't think that rule applies to any of the AoK engine games.
play against some hardest comps and u'll know
computers build like 50 fortresses, but then it's only a matter of time

there is nothing wrong with strong buildings
as long as there are siege weapons, it won't be a problem
and i would say that SWGB's got good siege weapons

CorranSec
11-12-2002, 05:09 AM
GB did actually make an improvement over Ages I and II in terms of siege: The introduction of firstly Assault Mechs and Bombers, both very good against smashing down any defensive structure, and in CC the Air Cruiser, which is basically the top anti-turtle unit of all time.
I don't much like the wall shields either, but fact is, walls aren't the major concern when you're trying to attack someone, considering that most units have long range.
The thing is that buildings SHOULD be good. It shouldn't be as easy as it is in WC3 and, according to simwiz, in AoM, to knock a huge fortress down.
Even so, I'd much rather a game equally balanced between attacking and defense. GB attempted this, and the power of fortresses and the like is balanced out by a general lack of ore, but sometimes the balance tipped one way or another. AoM seems to have a great focus on attack, which sounds pretty damned bad.
The siege is one of the critical parts of nearly every RTS, and taking it out is removing yet another essential element. Just the same, purely man-to-man fighting has no place in any RTS, let alone Star Wars, in which- in case you hadn't noticed- amazingly advanced machinery and technology is always present.
A lack of siege and the like is yet another hallmark of Blizzard.... even though the Blizzard games didn't actually focus on the man-to-man fighting as such (there were large mechs and ships and the like), the focus was still on the down-and-dirty toe-to-toe battle.

Here's what I think- if you want a Blizzard-ish focussed-battle micromanagement-ish game, go all the way, and make it Warcraft 4, or some such. If you want an Age II-ish economy-heavy defensive-structure strategical-options game, go all the way, and make it Age III. This half-and-half, ATTEMPTING to convert the good points of each into a kind of "Age III," is just a waste of time.

Arthur2
11-12-2002, 12:28 PM
oh yeah i forgot to mention the shield generator
i don't think it's a problem...
cauz gernade troopers are strong vs shield, so are bombers
and besides
i don't think ppl build MORE THAN ONE power generator to power up the shield
so, by all means, BLOW UP THE POWER GENERATOR
gotta play smart , dude, if u can't, then too bad u gotta crush down the first few defensive structures before u go in and knock out the shield generator
personally i think the shield generator is good, like CorranSec stated, it's balanced due to a general lack of ore.
besides, the range of the shield generator is not that big, it's pretty easy to get to the shield generator

simwiz2
11-12-2002, 05:30 PM
Do you know about air cruisers? Air cruisers, if micro'ed the hell out of, will destroy your cover units. Then in comes the grenadiers! Byebye cannons! AA Mobiles chasing the AC's? Byebye AA mobiles, Grenadiers gonna kill them! Sure, an AC may be lost. But the attacker will often lose a hell of a lot of cannons, and ultimately, the attack.

The defender ovbiously needs some army. But not much of one, just enough to cover some grenadiers to destroy the enemy cannons. AA turrets will protect Air Crusiers. Air Crusiers will knock out a good chunk of the attacker's army, allowing Grenadiers several seconds to destroy many expensive cannons before re-enforcements come.

Arthur, I don't know of anyone besides you who would be dumb enough to attack a shielded fortress with nothing but laser troopers. That could only happen to an intelligent person if your dumb micromanagement hero idea was implemented. "That fortress is the most threatening, let's go kill it!."

Let's break down your post:
i think the problem is more about the way ppl siege
when u siege
(1) u cover ur siege weapons
(2) and siege weapons have long range
so i don't think it's a problem
when i siege
(3) i camp my army outside of the enemy base and start firing at their fortresses
(4) if they don't send troops to defend themselves, their base will be torn down sooner or later...
(5) Gernade troopers, well, maybe u haven't noticed, but there is something called Dark trooper, or maybe some other anti-trooper stuff that u can use
(6) mechs are strong, but they are weak against troopers, (7) sometimes
(8) u need to defend them

(9) i dun think u can drag on for hours with just defensive buildings
(10) it's either u win the siege or u lose the siege
(11) and there is definitely no way that u can lose the siege if all ur enemy has is some crappy defensive stucture, unless u are some kinda stupid newbie who rely on mass trooper

(12) i mean, heavy assault mech, cannons, pummels are all great siege weapons, and they have range longer than most towers (except pummels), how can u possibly , NOT win the siege when (13) there are no troops garrisoning
(14) if there are troops garrisoning then u fight them, and then siege later

as simple as that
i've seen some good players around and i don't think that rule applies to any of the AoK engine games.
(15) play against some hardest comps and u'll know
(16) computers build like 50 fortresses, but then it's only a matter of time

there is nothing wrong with strong buildings
as long as there are siege weapons, it won't be a problem
and i would say that SWGB's got good siege weapons

1 - No sh!t
2 - Again, no sh!t
3 - Isn't that nice? Better watch for them defensive AC's if you're camping your whole army there though.
4 - You assume they will have no army at all. I never said that was the case.
5 - In case you didn't notice there is something called Air Cruisers, heard of them? They are very good as an anti-ground unit. Byebye DT's, Strikes, and Troopers!
6 - Mechs? Well AFAIK Strikes are pretty damn strong VS troopers, and if Assaults are well defended they can knock out many troopers with Area Attack... so what mechs are you talking about? Even a mech destroyer can take 3-5 Repeaters down with it.
7 - Could you do us all a favor and not write pretty little poems? Sometimes WHAT? You make no sense. Is it sometimes mechs are weak or sometimes you need to defend them?
8 - No sh!t. Are you sure about that? I was taught one-unit type armies were the best kind of army one could have! :rolleyes:
9 - You can drag it on for an hour or more with defensive buildings and a skeleton garrison.
10 - And I thought my French teacher said dumb, ovbious things. You either win or you lose: what kind of dumb@$$ statement is that? I will repeat: no sh!t. Please refrain from stating the obvious in the future, I doubt this forum has many 2-year olds viewing it (besides Sith I mean ;))
11 - You are a fine one to talk about n00bs, I mean you want a hero to play the game for you because you don't know how to manage troops, but hey, I guess your knowledge is superior. Attacking shielded fortresses with laser troopers is a bad idea. Never woulda realized that, thanks for the strategy hints. :rolleyes:
12 - Lasers have range? Where the hell did you hear that? And cannons? I always considered them to be a melee weapon! :rolleyes:
13 - For the last time, I never said there would be no army at all! Jeez, how many AC's (protected by AA) do you think it takes to force back an army, how many Grenadiers does it take to destroy tightly packed cannons, how hard could it be for a few units to hit and run from the towers!
14 - Except you will be fighting the army under many lasers from garrisoned towers. Tower lasers hurt in this game. A lot. So do AC bolts. Assuming the defender micro's the units correctly, there will be minimal AC friendly fire.
15 - I have, but it is boring.
16 - That is beause the computer is DUMB. STUPID. WORSE THAN A N00B. AI HAS NO BRAINS! IT DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO GET THE FULL POTENTIAL OUT OF ITS UNITS! The AI cannot even use AC's correctly.

Arthur, your post seems to convey that you assume I know nothing of late game battle. I am not saying that turtling is the ultimate strategy. I am not saying that a n00b could beat an expert by turtling. All I am saying is that in a game against 2 more-or-less evenly matched people, one can drag a game out for a long time by turtling. And that is boring.

Sithmaster_821
11-12-2002, 07:47 PM
Simwiz, the amount of resources (remeber the favor cost) needed to coat the map with even hill forts is better spent on units. Buildings will die to an army that costs more than the building, or to siege or certain MUs that were meant to counter buildings. Also remember that the Eggies and Norse get a chunk of their armies from the buildings, so making them strong and expensive is counter balance. Also remember that this isnt AoC, where casltes ruled everything but trebs, and the weaker buildings lead to more fluid games. I think ensemble learned their lesson from the BBT forests of AoC or games when people relied solely on buildings. In AoM, if you have an army that is even half the size of the attacker, the forts will turn the tide. Only siege and siege MUS are the effective ways to take down even slightly defended buildings.

CorranSec
11-13-2002, 01:16 AM
Well, Sith, that also sounds terribly bad. First it was too strong, now it's too weak.... what is WITH this AoM!?
Anyway, if you actually link what you were saying to our debate, I'll happily respond. :)

Arthur! Simwiz! Everybody! PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME, JUST FOR A MOMENT.
We are discussing options for GB 2. As such, there may not even be shield generators, laser troopers, fortresses and so on in GB 2. If the majority of game players have their way, the Air Cruiser will definitely not exist in GB 2.
Here's what I'm thinking WILL happen in a GB 2 siege:
Attacker is a ground civ with good heavy mechanized units and heavy assault units (these are like the Heavy Weapons of the current GB).
Defender is also a ground civ, but excelling at light mechs and troopers instead, as well as defensive structures.
If Defender doesn't have a wall, there will be a damned lot of hacking around inside and outside their base, but I'll ignore that possibility for the moment.
Defender's towers are behind the wall, and cannot reach Attacker's heavy attack mechs and destruction mechs (both big attacky things eg. AT-ATs). They start knocking down the wall, but Defender sends out a bunch of light mechs, and battle is done.
*laser fire* *mech collapse noises*
While this is going on, Defender builds some more towers both inside and outside his base. These towers begin to shoot at Attacker's force, which has been reinforced by more mechs.
Depending on the different strategies, units, resources etc. of each force, it would probably go one of 2 ways:
1) Attackers heavy mechs totally smash Defender's towers, and move on to conquer his base, OR
2) Defender's light mechs and troopers, with the benefit of agility and speed, drive away the attackers.

Arthur2
11-13-2002, 04:00 AM
that simwiz2's post was too long and it's 3:00 in the afternoon, dozed off on the bus, don't feel like reading some ghetto crap
well let me make it simple

wut u are talking about is still unit-to-unit battle
LOL
let's see u gernade someone's mechs when there are laser troopers around, ppl aren't dumb
things won't go as fluent as u think it will
if u successfully defended ur town, i dun see a problem with that
cause that means u got good tactics to break down the enemy formation

yeah i did assume u know nothing about the game
cauz u keep saying that defense is too strong
no it's not, defense is the same as offense, u need tactics, and i don't think anyone is dumb enuff to outnumber ur fortresses and towers with laser troopers, the defensive structures are only useful to some certain extent....
and besides, DEFENDERS always have the advantage, no doubt about that...
well read corransec's post
offense and defense are balanced, cause the offense is way stronger, and the range is longer
in AoK, u can almost block ANYTHING both just couple of castles, and only a few units can take down castles, if u don't have enuff paladins, u'll have to retreat when u lose all ur terbuchets...now, that's crap balance, SWGB is a lot better
so stop complaining

about corransec's SWGB 2 thing, i need some visual to really understand it....

Sithmaster_821
11-13-2002, 08:26 AM
Corran's mock battle was cool:cool: I understood it:) Sheilds were one of the best features in SWGB, it made the game a lot less linear.

And we were talking bout implenting settlemnts into GB2, and AoM did settlements quite well. I think settlements make perfect sense, seeing that most of the battles in SWGB are meant ot occur on foreign planets, and settlements are the towns tof the indigeous people (like Ewoks)

And, since i already know simwiz's response to Arthur's post, let me say they were Wookie troopers, with +30 hp, +2 pierce armor, and regeneration, vs rebel heavies, which were the worst in the game.

simwiz2
11-14-2002, 04:14 PM
LOL Sith, are you talking about that 1v1 in April where I had a Last Stand? The last stand that lasted well over 3 hours and slaughtered 300+ of your units, only ending when you kamikazeed an 80+ unit air force into AA to knock out my grenadiers, and I had no more nova to make more? That was funny. I expected the game to end soon after I lost the army battle, yet after knocking down the corner of a hastily-built wall, it took you well over an hour to push my defense line back! And 3 hours to win!
:lol:

Btw I have seen the turtle thing work very well. I tested it once, against Bulzye. I had had a game dragged out by a turtle, and I wanted to see how effective it really was. Assuming the turtle isn't rushed, the game can take quite a while. I held off Bulzye's attacking army with a mere wall and turrets, 2 AC's, 5 masters, and 15 grenadiers, and a few more units as necessary, for over 3 hours.

__=wall
T =turret
C =cannon
A =AA turret
FF =Fortress
___________________________________
T T C A C T FF C T A C A C C T T A C T A C C T


Attacker=Rebs (no SE)
Defender = Reps

First Attack:
40 troopers, 30+ MD's, about 40 other army units that I dont remember what kind they were, and at least 10 cannon (packed together) start dropping shells on the corner turret. 3 shielded cannons fire back at cannons rather ineffectively, but the 2 AC's wipe out the 40 FU troopers. They escape back to the AA turrets. 15 grenadiers force the mech destroyers to retreat, then demolish every cannon. About 5 are lost to various other units (including bounties). My jedi are not even needed. The fighters sent to avenge the 40 troopers die a horrible death to the AA turrets.

Telling all the details of the turtle test is getting a bit boring... and you must get the idea Arthur, so instead of me wasting 3 hours of my life relating every detail, think of an attack plan, and I will tell you how it would die horribly to a turtle.

Kryllith
11-14-2002, 04:44 PM
Should have attacked it with ACs with fighter backups... a couple of shots would have taken out the grenaders and the AC's could have stayed out of the range of the AA turrents while still dealing damage to them, the walls, etc...

Kryllith

lukeiamyourdad
11-14-2002, 05:57 PM
I'm not sure but in April i don't think they could have had CC.

simwiz2
11-14-2002, 06:27 PM
The April game was pre-CC. If it had been post-CC I would have killed MANY more units.

I was Reps in the test, and stealth starfighters would have destroyed the enemy AC's easily and fighters could have distracted enemy fighters possibly even taking out an AC as well. I would never have let my Grenadiers die that easy, I would move them back a bit. AC shot misses, and my own AC's would be able to fire back at enemy AC's and aid my fighters in killing them.

lukeiamyourdad
11-15-2002, 11:30 PM
Anyway, you sure have a good memory. Remembering one game in April.......

simwiz2
11-16-2002, 01:36 AM
I remember it because it was sooo hilarious. Tactics almost triumphed over econ, despite GB being about 70% econ! Well over 300 units, several assaults of 150 or more units, annihilated by a tiny ragtag group of grenadiers and laser troopers, a few rusty cannons, and some other assorted guerilla fighters not totaling more than 40 at any given time (I had almost no resources thanks to his jedi raid, and I was also new to the game and had a lamentable econ). At the end of the game I had lost about 120 units, and 60 of those were from the battle that I lost before the Last Stand. Then, outnumbered at least 3 to 1, I killed over 300 units and only lost 60. And the 60 I lost were cheap trooper-type units mostly, while his were expensive cannons and assault mechs.

It wasn't so much exceptional tactics by me, it was mostly terrible tactics by Sith. One assault plan I will never fully understand was this: Sith sent 10 cannons 1500 pixels around to the side to destroy an unshielded fortress, keeping his trooper army 1500 pixels away where it was. My 25 grenadiers (staggered formation) come and start slaughtering the cannons, so he decides to send some units to save them. Troopers? No, that would make too much sense! He sent Rebel Assault Mechs to kill my FU Wookiee Grenadiers! :rofl:

Inevitably he lost 12 cannons then (10 + 2 more that he sent, confident his mechs would kill my grenadiers) and all 8 of the assault mechs he sent to save the cannons. That's 5200 Nova! And I only lost a 550 nova fortress and 2, 20 nova grenadiers!

Sithmaster_821
11-17-2002, 04:34 PM
Tactics almost triumphed over econ
They did. Clever tactics uprooted a turtle with all the holocrons.:p

You lost about 300 as well. We had equal armies when i first hit you, but mine were +upgraded, under a shield and being healed. The you lost countless cannons and workerstrying to defend your town, not to mention the fact you had to rebuild your grenadier army and lost your army/econ when i wiped you out

Is it just me or did they add that?

simwiz2
11-18-2002, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Sithmaster_821

(1) They did. Clever tactics uprooted a turtle with all the holocrons.:p

(2) You lost about 300 as well. (3) We had equal armies when i first hit you, but mine were +upgraded, under a shield and being healed. (4) The you lost countless cannons and workerstrying to defend your town, not to mention the fact you had to (5) rebuild your grenadier army and (6) lost your army/econ when i wiped you out

Is it just me or did they add that?

1 - Hate to pop your ego, but it was only my second game. If I had beaten you that would have meant that you suck horribly at GB. And I wasn't turtling, I was taking a last stand after my army got sliced by lasers.

2 - Not even close. Barely over 100. Too bad I didn't save screenshots from then, I would like to prove you wrong AGAIN. And even if I had lost 300, remember that they were cheap units. I was not having 350-nova assault mechs cut down to enemy fire. You simply did not understand the concept of counter units.

3 - Yes, and you also had many times more fighters than I was prepared to counter. But like I said, my second game.

4 - Not even close to the many you lost trying to push my wall back... you got it back 3 tiles and it stalled there, your cannons exploded under a thick cloud of grenades, and your assault mechs met a similarly tragic fate.

5 - Yes, I did periodically have to replace the 1-2 grenadiers (20 nova each) lost as your troopers chased me trying to avenge the 200 nova cannons I had just killed. Occasionally if you got a lucky assault mech shot in, I may lose several, which is why I ended up losing about 60 units total in that defense. But if you had used tactics that even remotely approached intelligence, you should have rolled right over my town. Especially since Wookiee turrets had 1 less range, and there were no AC's for me to use in the last stand.

6 - Yes, finally after 3 hours by Kamikazeeing an 80-unit airforce into my base! :lol: And remember, my second game, while you had been playing GB since Christmas.

Sithmaster_821
11-18-2002, 10:26 PM
actually will, it was like your tenth game Two other 1v1, plus a handful of games on the zone (remember commenting on the fact that neither of us rushed vs each other, something we only started after a bunch of zone games)

and grenadiers cost 40 nova

simwiz2
11-19-2002, 04:28 PM
We did not start having zone games until after that game, that was when we decided that it would be more fun because our 1v1's were reaching near stalemates.

It was my second game. First game we had was on a modified black forest map, second was that game on a flats map.

20<350
40<350

I don't see the problem. It's not like an extra 20 nova even comes close to your 350 nova mechs. 20 must be the mounties then...

Sithmaster_821
11-19-2002, 06:01 PM
We started zone games as the first one hit a stalement. Then we played that map again, while still playing zone games. We slowly got used to rushing, so our next one vs one was on the map we both liked after playing a number of times on the zone: flats.

Edit-Post 700, oh yeah!

simwiz2
11-19-2002, 07:36 PM
No, it was my second game and we played on flats so that you couldn't accuse me of turtling.

lukeiamyourdad
11-19-2002, 08:11 PM
Always arguing:rolleyes: ............

simwiz2
11-19-2002, 08:29 PM
Well, HE started it! :rolleyes:

Sithmaster_821
11-19-2002, 10:13 PM
Since its obvious your memory fails you, I wont argue any more :angel:

CorranSec
11-20-2002, 01:24 AM
Wow. My internet goes down, and simwiz and sith break out in an off-topic debate of who is better.... and then just before I come back, they stop arguing. Am I missing something here? :confused: ;)

Eh. Now is the time when I tell you to get back on topic or I'll grab you all by the necks and drag you back on topic, with a few healthy lightsaber prods to help you along.

I'm glad to see you liked my mock battle. :D If nothing else, it managed to staunch the flow of argument for a bit.