PDA

View Full Version : warcraft3 or swgb


bill r
09-13-2002, 01:01 AM
i personaly like swgb better..what do u guys think of warcraft3..i would like swgb to have graphics like that..but still swgb has it beat..tell me what u think

MadrixTF
09-13-2002, 05:12 AM
I have both games and i prefer SWGB, especially with the CC expansion! I find that Warcraft III gets a bit monotonous, whereas with SWGB the strategy is better and the options are almost endless...
i agree about the graphics though - that would be nice...

DarthMaulUK
09-13-2002, 06:52 AM
SWGB is a far all round better game....graphics.. ohwell, we cant have everything.

Oh and by the way bill... create a thread like you did flaming someone and i WILL ban you from here... clear? thank you

DMUK

Duke Straykker
09-13-2002, 07:24 PM
Heh, long time no see UK.

Glad to see your still showing the b00ns whose the boss ;)

Sithmaster_821
09-14-2002, 07:47 AM
SWGB by a long shot. And if you dont like the graphics, you can always close your eyes :D.

lukeiamyourdad
09-14-2002, 10:43 AM
Warcraft3 is a clickfest and lacks big strategies while SWGB requires more thinking but a little more strategy could make the game harder and of course funnier...

Sithmaster_821
09-14-2002, 08:53 PM
You say clickfest, too? I thought that only simwiz and his "people" said that.

lukeiamyourdad
09-15-2002, 02:46 PM
Hey dude! I say what I wanna say! By the way, I ain't one of SimWiz's ''people'' !!!!!!!!!

bill r
09-16-2002, 12:46 AM
ohh sorry uk.get the stick out of your ass

DarthMaulUK
09-16-2002, 06:40 AM
bye bye bill.

Sithmaster_821
09-16-2002, 12:38 PM
Luke, that was an jab directed to simwiz. I personally dont care how others talk, all i worry about is what others say. Sorry if i offended you.

simwiz2
09-16-2002, 01:11 PM
Sith, clickfest is hardly some word that I made up, so stop acting like it is. If an RTS has no econ and no strategy and is a boring piece of crap then it is a clickfest. If you like those kind of games so much then go play WC3 and try to pass the learning campaign in only one month, so you can beat your SWGB learning campaign time.

MadrixTF
09-17-2002, 03:27 AM
SithMaster: "If you don't like the graphics than close your eyes"

Maybe when Dream-VR becomes an everyday reality then it will be possible...

Breton
09-23-2002, 02:17 PM
I am sorry to say this on a GB forum, but....


WARCRAFT ALL THE TIME WARCRAFT RULES BIG TIME!

Better graphics, better gameplay (after my opinion), much larger
difference from race to race, though still great balance, there is mages and cool heroes in Warcraft, and very important: 15643 TIMES BETTER STORY!!!

Fishflesh
09-23-2002, 02:31 PM
Wacraft 3 is a realy bored game i only played it for 4 hours all time

and the graphics are a bid messy and to cartoony

its not my pc have a gaforce 4 so

warcraft 3 is the worst rts (rpg) ever

i was thought it would be a nice game but i was wrong

Breton
09-23-2002, 02:38 PM
I was actually a bit disappointed first time I played swgb, after all it is little more than Age of Empires 2 in star wars universe. I am sure that Lucasarts have made a deal with microsoft about copying AoE2.

Sithmaster_821
09-23-2002, 07:49 PM
Yeah they did make a deal with ensemble and microsoft, but IMO SWGB is much better than AoK (but not AoM:))

MadrixTF
09-25-2002, 07:10 AM
I must say that i got a bit bored with Warcraft 3 after a few weeks - but the more i play SWGB the more i enjoy it. I'll give it a try again - maybe i missed something...

thajason
10-03-2002, 05:58 PM
WC3 was kind of boring for me. I did play it a week though. Took me 1 1/2 days to beat the campains (way to easy on hardest level). The multiplayer game is more interesting in difficulty. There just wasn't to much different content in the game, stating from the point of view of different attack and defend routines. It pretty much becomes the same ol same ol really fast. Don't get me wrong though eventhough the campains were way to easy, the story line was good and was fun to play.

CorranSec
10-03-2002, 10:50 PM
I thought Warcraft III was a really good game. Its graphics were great- just because your computer can't handle them doesn't mean they're bad. The storyline was very good, traditional of Blizzard, and the cinematics were awesome.
Gameplay was a bit limited, with the tech and unit tree being very small. The game was designed to focus far more on battle and far less on economy, base building, and micromanagement of your workers.
Some say this is bad. For me, it was OK. Every single RTS game these days seems to require huge amounts of work on your economy before you can even consider battle.
The single player campaigns had interesting and varied gameplay backed up by nice graphics, sound and cinematics.
The concept of hero exp and items was well done, and as I've said in the "Ideas for SW:GB 2," I think it would work even better in the SW universe.
There were some really good comedic touches, primarily with the unit responses. They really brought it alive in a way that GB doesn't.
You must admit, the storylines of the GB campaigns weren't exactly top-rate. Many of the missions were practically AoE missions with a new (Star Wars) look. And I'm not just talking about the learning campaign, which was only bearable because the Star Wars factor made it fun.

The Scenario Editor for WC3 was easy and quick to use, and triggers and the like were easily set, rather like the StarCraft editor. AoE's editor is getting rather outdated.

The multiplayer (or Custom Game, or whatever) was what let WC3 down. Back to the typical base-build-army-kill-enemies 'strategies,' which aren't really strategies because they're so basic. Not to say it's too easy or anything, just that it's been done so many times. The heroes made it a lot better though.
GB definitely wins hands down in the 'custom game' arena. Varied strategies and a wide range of units, coupled with the fact that it's Star Wars, makes it a whole lot of fun.
Now that I've finished the WC3 campaigns, I barely ever play online or just play a normal Custom Game, while I do often come back to play GB's Custom Games.
I guess that's really the deciding factor. GB has a large replay value, while WC does not. But still, the single player game plays a large part, so I'd have to declare it a tie.
LA could learn a lot from WC3 and many other upcoming RTS games. Move to a new engine and put more work into the campaigns and GB has it hands-down.

Jedi Dad
10-13-2002, 11:50 PM
I liked them both, each for different reasons. The one rub against WC3 is the limited viewable area. I mean really. Surely blizzard could make a game that can handle higher resolutions. It's hard at times dealing with strategy when you cant see all the units fighting. However, SWGB has the same sort issue when the long ranged units get involved. Even so, they are still fun to play...

Breton
10-14-2002, 05:21 PM
Normal RST (like SWGB) are 70% recourse gathering and 30% fighting. Warcraft III is 30% recourse gathering and 70% fighting. I don't know about you, but I prefer the last.

Sithmaster_821
10-14-2002, 06:18 PM
Resource gathering makes the game less who can click the create button faster, and more who is a better player. I personally like AoM's 50/50 split.

CorranSec
10-15-2002, 06:14 AM
Well.... sith, I don't know what makes you think that.
It's not about hitting the "create" button faster. It's about fielding different armies, different strategies, use of special abilities eg. spells, countering those spells, etc. etc.
Economy is about hitting the "build" button faster, if that's the way you want to put it. Producing more workers, sending those workers off to get resources, putting buildings down in a certain pattern (if that counts as an interesting part of the game), etc. Defensive structures and the like is far more of a "battle" part than an "economy" part, so don't try to bring those up.

AoM sounds pretty good, but that's not what the debate is about. What kind of balance, in your opinion, does GB have?

DarthMuffin
10-15-2002, 04:37 PM
This is LUCAS FORUMS. Don't ask stupid thing like :'WC3 or SWGB?' It is OBVIOUS that everybody (or almost) here will prefer SWGB...

But because I like defend my ideas I will tell you my opinion...

WarCraft III is much better than SWGB... And I have played both games since they are out so I know what I'm talking about.

Why?

Simple :

Graphics : Tell me that SWGB's graphics are better then WC3's and I'll kill you. WC3 wins here.

Gameplay : WC3 is far more strategic. Why? You can't get hundreds of units and you actually have to MICROMANAGE. The four races in WC3 are completly different. The 8 civs in SWGB are... well... not SO different. WC3 wins here.

Story : I would say they are both equal here. WC3's story isn't that great, since the most fun part is multiplayer on BATTLE.NET (not some crappy thing like 'The Zone'. On the other side, SWGB's story would have been better if it was the movie's story. That's a tie.

Replay Value : Once you have finished the campaigns, SWGB gets more boring... You can still play on the zone, but it gets repetitive... WC3's campaign is more a training; it'll get you ready for b.net. WC3 wins here.

Sound : I have to say here that SWGB wins. LucasArts' sounds are really great.

Final score : WC3 : 3 SWGB : 1 1 tie

Even if I play almost only play WC3, I still SOMETIMES play SWGB...

But don't forget that we are comparing here a new game (WC3) and a game that was based on some old game (SWGB almost = AoE).

So, my final opinion is :

WHY DID LUCASARTS MADE SWGB BASED ON AGE OF EMPIRES???
Cmon guys, just imagine what it would have been if based on something like SC... or better yet, WC3!

*Sorry if I hurted your feelings in this small review*

simwiz2
10-15-2002, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Normal RST (like SWGB) are 70% recourse gathering and 30% fighting. Warcraft III is 30% recourse gathering and 70% fighting. I don't know about you, but I prefer the last.

IMO:

First = RTS

Last = RT; or Clickfest; or mindless spell-casting game, etc.

I would personally like a 60% econ 40% fighting or something near there. Some emphasis on economy is necessary IMO to preserve strategy, replayability, and fun. As many have said, Clickfests such as WC3 have almost no replayability.

AU_Andy_Ewok
10-16-2002, 12:13 PM
I'd prefer 60% econ 40% fighting. I'd prefer if it was easier to attack in T1. Making the game faster would make for a better more intense game.

Sithmaster_821
10-16-2002, 05:08 PM
Attacking in t1 isnt included because it makes the game too much like the Warcrafts, when rushing is the only option, nd the winner is the won who rushes first. The t1 break allows for someone to get their econ started and the foundations of their army built so that they can begin fighting right away. In AoM, despite the fact that you cant build practically any armed units (except heroes), classical seems more like a t3 than a t2 because it tends to be long, full of battles, and there is way more unit selection. There isnt this pressing urge to age up in AoM, something many AoK and SWGB players like me had to learn the hard way (i went to heroic quick one game, and was summarily beaten by a classical army even though i was an age ahead. It is better to wait and build an army and attack than it is to horde resources for a fast age advancement.

simwiz2
10-16-2002, 09:36 PM
I agree it is good that AoM is not the frantic Age race that AoK was.

CorranSec
10-17-2002, 04:12 AM
Um... Andy, either you made a mistake in your post, or you're contradicting yourself.
You would prefer more economy than battle, yet you like fast-paced and intense games. Well, if you look at the post that comes straight after yours, Sithmaster has pointed out that the Warcrafts are very focussed on rushing. So why do you prefer economy-based games (eg. SWGB)? Or have I missed something?

And actually, Warcraft III doesn't have to be about rushing. Sure, rushing may be a useful strategy, but if you beat back your opponent's rush and build up your defenses instead of rushing him/her, you can settle in for the long haul.

Arthur2
10-17-2002, 04:39 AM
I am not really Biased,
so I won't use SWGB, I'll use AOK and EE instead
I think War3 is a good game, for common game players
cauz what they prefer is something simple, and gives u the intensity of game playing , just like Mcdonalds...Fast Food...blah blah blah...
but then AOK and EE are focused on the strategy and tactics, it's more suitable for heavy-RTS players...(like me :P)

Warcraft 3...hmm
ppl argue that it's focused more on the battle and is more strategic cause u need unit control.
Well first of all, unit control is not strategy, it's tactic for battle...strategy is long term planning which warcraft 3 really lacks...cause the game goes too fast and the map is too small!!! if u lose one battle u die....and u dun need much planning, u just build units and attack...(dun even need siege)

and seriously, the unit control in Warcraft 3 is kinda poor
because melee and ranged attack is only like...couple units away, that's no use....and the battles are short..besides, the units don't really have any bonus attack against other units.....and tell u what, protecting ur hero is not unit control...

I like AOK better cause it requires more time to think ...and the siege process is really awesome, unlike Warcraft 3 u just rush in and kill everything without really thinking (cause the towers suck anywayz, comparing to AOK)

I am not saying that Warcraft 3 is a bad game
(otherwise i wouldn't have bought it...arghhhh)
it's just different from AOK...
AOK and Warcraft have entirely different usergroups..
(common vs. RTS-maniacs)

MadrixTF
10-17-2002, 06:22 AM
My two cents:

The fact that WC3 lends itself to a "Rush" strategy is exactly what i don't like about the game. I prefer to have a balance between Econ and Battle. Also, the maps in WC3 are not the greatest and tend to be repetative in my opinion, even though the graphics are good, and that is why i got bored with WC3 after a while. On the other hand SWGB, has many Map options and also Gameplay options, which i have no doubt will keep me playing SWGB for a very long time.

Both games are good, but SWGB is a better long-term investment in terms of enjoyment and gameplay - i never get tired or bored of playing SWGB.

Darth54: I strongly disagree with you in your assessment. Here is my opinion of your rating system:

1) Graphics - Ok, you win on this one
2) Gameplay - You MUST be kidding! SWGB has far more
strategic options, the strategy of WC3 is repetative
3) Story - Definately not equal - Star Wars is one of the
best stories ever written - billions of fans can't all be wrong
4) Sound - SWGB wins here again.

Totals: WC3 = 1, SWGB = 3

At the end of the day it will always come down to opinion, but the facts can't be changed - SWGB is a far better RTS than WC3, even if it uses a tried and proven engine. I think they made a smart move when they used the AoK engine...
;)

Arthur2
10-17-2002, 02:46 PM
Darth..I am sorry but I have to disagree as well

1) Graphics - OK, who cares...graphics is just shallow stuff

2) Gameplay - omg, that's the dumbest I've ever hard, Warcraft 3 being strategic? managing your units in battle is not strategy, it's tactics....do you know the difference between a strategic bomber and tactical bomber (it exaplains the difference between strategy and tactics)????? strategy is long term...in War3, the map is way too small, and it's damn hard to revive your base once ur base is destroyed (even if u got money)...ppl can find u within no time and u'll be doomed again...and u dun really need siege weapons in War3...u just use all these crappy units , the defense towers suck...the game is relied too much on the hero....and there are only two resources....it limited the strategic possibilities in War3...

hmm also tactics...the units' attack range is way too short...not very different from Melee units...that's one thing about war3...and the map is too damn small, ppl walk too damn fast...if u think moving ur hero back is called managing ur troops then...OKAY...whatever


3) Story - Blizzard Stories don't make sense....Starcraft has one of the worst stories...and Warcraft, argh...i dun even want to read the plotline...
4) Sound - actually i think war3 is better in terms of sound effects...SWGB has some crappy sound effects for dark trooper, destroyer droids...the only sound effect set i am satisfied with is ATAT :P

I am not saying that War3 is a bad "game"
it's just...a bad RTS game...cause it's too limited
well, not everybody likes to play deep/complicated games like AOK/SWGB...so yeah...we are just different
ppl have different opionions, some ppl like fastfood strategy games, some ppl like long and brain-cell-killing strategy games....
we got different tastes

:atat:

CorranSec
10-17-2002, 05:27 PM
OK. Here goes:

1) Graphics. Graphics isn't "shallow stuff." Graphics are just as important as sound and gameplay to most game manufacturers, and graphics probably count the most in terms of sales- ie, you pick up the box, you can't hear the sound or play the game, so you look at the amazing graphics and say "Wow, this game looks good." Of course, not everyone does that, but graphics does count for more than the rest (unless you get to play it somehow).

2) Gameplay. There are both strategy and tactics in WCIII. They are both far more varied because of the unique unit sets- ie, the Night Elves set up their bases far differently to the way the Undead would. In GB, all races have the same units (apart from UU) so it gets a little monotonous.
You can change the game speed, I think, so if you don't like units being fast....
You don't have to use any particular unit. It's up to the personal preference. Some people like to use siege units as an integral part of their strategy.
Heroes are a great development in the RTS genre. They add an RPG flavour into your traditional game. You can't win a game with them, though- you still need your traditional armies and the like.

3) Story- Blizzard stories are fantastic. The GB stories were OK, but I hated the way they weren't linked in the slightest and were remarkably small. And there was no Naboo campaign. :mad:
Consider these stories (spoilers!)
Clone Campaigns
(Confederacy I) Kill all these people in this canyon so that your grand leader can meet at the start and end. Has cinematic thingys at the start and end.
Warcraft III
(Human I) Lead a team of troops to an embattled settlement, completing side quests and levelling your hero. Has nice in-game cinematics with interesting characters.

It's obvious which is better. I won't even start on the later and more detailed missions.........

4) Sound- WarIII had great unit responses, though I prefer the Star Wars music. This is kinda personal preference.

I'm not saying either are bad games. They're both equally good.


Madrix- If you like a balanced game, why do you like GB? It seems to lend itself more to economy than battle.

Breton
10-17-2002, 05:31 PM
1. Graphics: Warcraft big time

2. Gameplay: You won't nesciserely win the battle by rushing. Warcraft is based mostly on who is the best to control their units in battle and who uses the hero and units best. And also very important, who is the best defender? Defending in Warcraft is far from just gathering a random group of units, it is very much strategy with what units you should build, the number of towers you build (they don't stink) and very important, where you build them. In warcraft there may not be as many units as in SWGB, but at least all of the units in W3 are different, unlike SWGB. Warcraft wins.

3.
3) Story - Definately not equal

You are at least right about that. The story in Warcraft (and also Starcraft) is great, there is much happening, awsome cutscenes, and good plots. The quality of the story of SWGB is faaaar from the movie one, after all, it is nothing more than some EU crap linked together. Warcraft wins.

4. Sound: Warcraft wins again here, the sound in W3 is like being in the world of warcraft itself.

Warcraft: 4 SWGB: 0

lukeiamyourdad
10-17-2002, 05:48 PM
wtf are you doing here if you prefer warcraft?

Sithmaster_821
10-17-2002, 09:04 PM
Graphics-Seeing that Warcraft is in 3d and is using a far newer engine, there is no contest.

Gameplay-Here is where SWGB econ and random maps beat the so called strategy of WC3. It it is far better in this critical catergory.

Story-Blizzard always has very good stories and SWGB had very bad ones, even for a standard RTS.

Sound-They are tied here

So its 3 to 2, but gameplay is way more important than the other fluff stuff.

Arthur2
10-18-2002, 01:56 AM
Graphics- I dun care that much about graphics...War3 wins

Gameplay- LOL did u read my thread? Unit control is not strategy, it's tactics... the way u construct ur base...that's only a slight difference...at the end it's just mining gold and cutting wood, waitng for opponents to come...defense....omg, the defense in war3 really sux, SWGB towers are way stronger, and it takes more strategic planning before attacking in SWGB than in War3.
War3, again, the map is too small....attacking is basically just going in the front door, because the defense building suck anywayz, it makes no major difference how u enter the enemy base. War3, unit control....the units die tooo fast , and the battle range is too short.. the unit control u are talking about is probably moving ur more expensive units to the back...

Story-good stories? hmmm no judgement then...i played starcraft and warcraft, the stories sound really weird to me.

Sound-War3 wins, why do u think War3 only has 4 civs, and it fills up the entire CD? becoz it's got lots of sound files and graphics files...that's why.

u can't just say it's # to #, as a RTS game, story and graphics really isn't that important comparing to Gameplay

Arthur2
10-18-2002, 02:06 AM
This is how most ppl play on Battlenet
i'll use general terms
build altar --> build barracks --> build hero --> build ghouls/huntresses/ whatever...

yipee* let's go attack
and then 10 seconds later u see this "help, help, help"
and then all ur forces clash
if the defending team fails then the team loses the game

War3 lacks strategy becoz it's built for short games and short term plans....u dun't really think about launching a huge and effective siege at a certain time or certain circumstances....
most of the time u just throw ur forces over...

MadrixTF
10-18-2002, 10:37 AM
So, i think the consensus is as follows:

WC3 is a good Tactical fighting game with good graphics and good sound.

SWGB is a good RTS game where you have to use your brain.

I like RTS games and that is why i don't like WC3 as much as SWGB- WC3 is too tactical and gets really boring after a few games = early end of life for the product.

Arthur2
10-18-2002, 01:12 PM
W3 is not too tactical
it's just less strategic
i dun think wc3 is any better than SWGB regarding tactics..
anywayz....both good games, Wc3....very good time killer

lukeiamyourdad
10-18-2002, 08:42 PM
WC 3 is like all the other Blizzard RTS. Very short games....I Star Craft, it was all about rushes. I will tell you why: no tech levels.

CorranSec
10-18-2002, 09:33 PM
Luke's dad- I'm here because I like this game and I want to contribute my opinion. Is that a bad thing? :confused:
About the tech levels thing, both Starcraft and Warcraft (SC especially) have tech trees which you must work your way up. For example, it's guaranteed to be rather late in a game of WCIII when players begin fielding Chimaeras and Frost Wyrms, just the same as Battlecruisers and Carriers in SC.

No matter what people say or prefer about tactics, tech levels, graphics or whatever, it is clear that LA could learn from the success (in a manner of speaking) of WCIII and factor some of its good points into their RTS games.

lukeiamyourdad
10-18-2002, 10:15 PM
Corran- why are you telling me this? did I say something agaisnt you?

CorranSec
10-18-2002, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
wtf are you doing here if you prefer warcraft?

I thought this may have been aimed at me. Obviously not. Sorry.

lukeiamyourdad
10-18-2002, 10:25 PM
I don't aim anything at people who I think are good guys;)

Arthur2
10-19-2002, 01:36 AM
hmmm I play Warcraft
but then I think the tech tree is kind of messed up
I've see people use cheap units and defeat like a huge group of fully upgraded Frost Worms...There is really little difference between big and small units...

at the end, ppl still use huntresses, ghouls, shamen....
it's all the same thru out the game...that's why it gets really boring after a few games

Arthur2
10-19-2002, 03:57 AM
and heroes/magic kind ruins the fun of the game
in W3 if u have some good lvl 6 heroes then other units don't matter as much...

CorranSec
10-19-2002, 06:15 AM
Are you mad? Heroes are great! Heroes are one of the main high points of the game. It's ridiculous to say that high-level heroes make other units obsolete; you always need a mixed force to win any battle, and heroes can be easily overwhelmed by masses of enemies (and of course other Heroes).

Arthur2
10-19-2002, 09:46 AM
oh, I AM SORRY
I guess I have different opinion
is that my fault?
I think the heroes thing is stupid,
sometimes I feel that Warcraft 3 is a unsuccessful RPG game...u can even hiro mercenary and buy items...
They try to make the game special by ruin the essence of RTS games...

lukeiamyourdad
10-19-2002, 12:42 PM
Heroes are good and if you could make them in SWGB, it would just be great. Imagine having Darth Vader in a normal RM!

Arthur2
10-19-2002, 01:55 PM
yeah
imagine Darth Vadar casting Star Fall or Blizzard!!!
how's that???

lukeiamyourdad
10-19-2002, 01:58 PM
I never said he would cast those!?

I just meant as a regular jedi hero.

Sithmaster_821
10-19-2002, 02:06 PM
I agree with Arthur on the whole hero thing. The RPG style ruins the fun of the RTS game.

Luke, Vader et. al can be added gameplay wise doing what ensemble did with greek heros in AoM. But i think that being able to create Vader every game and recreate him after he dies would kinda ruin it.

lukeiamyourdad
10-19-2002, 02:44 PM
We could have a limited amount of heroes, if a hero dies he can't be rebuild and besides, it isn't too RPG 'cause there is know level up and stuff.

Sithmaster_821
10-19-2002, 02:58 PM
The Greeks in AoM can build named heros from greek myths (like Heracles, Perseas, Jason), but only one. When they die, you see a spirit lift to the sky (as with all heros) and you cn build them again. If heros wre included, they would defenetly have to be weaker than those in the scen box currently.

lukeiamyourdad
10-19-2002, 06:39 PM
Of course, but it depends on the kind of hero and the price to get him. Like Han Solo in the toybox for example, he isn't that strong!
It would be unfair for him to have his power decreased.

ckcsaber
10-19-2002, 06:45 PM
My fav. RTS is Total Annihilation

Sithmaster_821
10-19-2002, 09:45 PM
Han, Leia and others are fairly weak. But Vader and Maul and Yoda would definately have to be toned down. There comes a time when a unit is too strong no matter what price you payed. Although you're right. Linking hero stregnths to price would be the way to go.

Arthur2
10-20-2002, 12:33 AM
Hey have you guys ever played EE?
the heroes in EE are cool...
the tactical hero / warrior, if you roll into battle with them
they'll arrange ur army for the best attack position
and autometically order your troops to attack.
The heroes even know which enemy target is the most menacing...
if this kind of hero is what you are talking about then I'd say, YEAH WHY NOT???
it's nice to have tactical assistance...

lukeiamyourdad
10-20-2002, 11:29 AM
Yeah maybe I didn't though about that, it could work. Tactical assistance could be nice.

simwiz2
10-20-2002, 02:26 PM
I would prefer my units/turrets to decide what is most menacing without a hero. Things like empty trannie flooding to get fighters past AA, are not strategies, they are just taking advantage of supid unit AI. Heros should not be needed to reduce micromanagement. Imagine if you needed a hero to queue up farms! :eek:

lukeiamyourdad
10-20-2002, 03:48 PM
Well it's not to reduce micromanagement, but a hero is more a commander in the heat of the battle. Of course it would be nice to have smart turrets.

Sithmaster_821
10-20-2002, 07:00 PM
The purpose of an RTS is for you to decide who to attack, what formation to put your units in, where to march, and when to fight. Unless, of course, you prefer the AI to play the game for you, but personally, i find the AI to be not the brightest tool in the shed, if you get my drift.
empty trannie flooding to get fighters past AA
:D :D :D

Arthur2
10-21-2002, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by Sithmaster_821
The purpose of an RTS is for you to decide who to attack, what formation to put your units in, where to march, and when to fight. Unless, of course, you prefer the AI to play the game for you, but personally, i find the AI to be not the brightest tool in the shed, if you get my drift.

:D :D :D


Sithmaster, wut u are talking about is tactics
micromanagement is tactics, not strategy
strategy is how u manage ur resources, build ur troops, know who to attack...
do u know the difference between a battle and a war?
to win a war u need strategy
to win a battle u need tactics
as it titles, it's RTS game
Real time Strategy, not tactics....
u can leave the tactics part to heroes
u don't have to make it like a complete turn over to the AI
if u've played EE before, u'll know
the heroes only order ur troops when u didn't give specific commands
if u command ur troopers to attack, u'll overwrite the heroes' commands
the AI of the tactical heroes, are really good
they arrange formations, and even order some units to defend the back of the army....u'll see
just remember, this is a strategy game
think about it
when u attack in SWGb, do u really control every single unit?
no, u just do general attack orders like (assault mech attack the towers, the rest protect assault mech....yada yada)
a tactical hero would be the same thing
except that it takes care of little details like when someone attacks ur primary siege weapons, the other troops will autometically come in and protect ur siege weapons....stuff like that, just taking care of the details.)

lukeiamyourdad
10-21-2002, 06:40 PM
Actual you call it a Real Time Strategy because it involves strategies but tactics are the main part of an RTS. If it was strategy only then it would be like rolling dices without knowing what would be the result.

Arthur2
10-21-2002, 11:37 PM
not neccesarily
it's called RTS for one reason: it's strategy
tactics....argh
do u really go over units one by one???
no way, u just click on them, choose formation and then order them to attack in specific order and sequences
like i said
let the tactical heroes take care of details
knowing when to attack is more important than how well u do in battles
cauz no matter what, the defending team always has the advantage (they are stationed, and u are mobile)
if u want tactics, play warcraft 3
u need to do all the manual control for magic spells(and see, they even have auto-casting, makes ur life easier, why? becoz tactics is not as important)
AoK/GB is a good game, because the AI for units is already good (at least better than warcraft3, i m talking about units ai not computer opponent AI) and ...it's got more strategy involved in the game
there is no point playing RTS if all u want to do is control ur units in the battle...if u are not convinced, think about the way u play SWGB
do u win by strategy? or win by tactics?
of course strategy...

Arthur2
10-21-2002, 11:48 PM
tactics is only important when u are fighting face to face somewhere in the middle of the map where u are both far away from ur bases

other times, for example: siege
u choose the best location that'd benefit the war in general (makes u win, perheps?)
and then u setup ur siege weapons and start to siege the enemy town
let the tactical heroes (like ones in EE) do the micromanagement...
all u gotta do is send the troops to the right place and roughly arrange them into attack formation and sequences

there are no magic spells in SWGB
i dun see why u want micromanagement...
the scale of the war is much much larger in SWGB than in warcraft 3
u can't go after each unit and change their diapers all the time
(OMG MY ARCHMAGE IS GONNA DIE, MOVE HIM BACK... --> warcraft 3)

Arthur2
10-22-2002, 04:02 AM
Gosh why are we arguing on this issue
it's not even close to what i posted previously
i said...
Tactics is not as important
but still, it's a part of the game
u still do the same thing
u throw ur army to the frontline and then u order them to attack
but then the hero will arrange them into smaller groups (for example the hero will save couple of troopers to defend ur back just in case if something escapes)...these kind of stuff
i am not saying that the AI will take over everything
it'll just help u on the battleground... (another example: ur units idle sometimes, the hero will keep them busy after they destroyed their target)

it won't change the way u play...
if u don't trust me, go play EE
u still play the same way, still control units in battles....
but then the hero will reinforce ur orders so ur troops get into formation that is the most beneficial...

lukeiamyourdad
10-22-2002, 05:25 PM
Agreed on the heroes helping you around a bit but then you could just leave your army in front of someones base and they will destroy it without you ordering anything. You could just sit back and enjoy the show!

Arthur2
10-22-2002, 11:12 PM
Well the hero will order the army to fight whatever enemy unit is in the window
unless u order ur army to crush the enemy base
ur hero won't go far
like i said, u still have to order ur troops...the hero just manages the details

another good thing about the EE heroes is that
when u move ur troops u usually just right click on the destination
and ur troops won't attack until they arrive at the spot
that means, if someone attacks u during the travel, ur troops won't do anything about it

in EE, if u order ur troops to move to a certain spot (right click)
the hero will do so, but if any enemy units appear, the hero will stop ur troops and fight the enemy units...
after the conflict's resolved, the hero will resume the travel to the destination u set earlier...
it comes in handy sometimes....

CorranSec
10-23-2002, 07:56 AM
Um.... what precisely is wrong with RPG heroes? Or the RPGness in general? I really liked it. I'm a big fan of the RPG genre, so seeing it as a part of an RTS was really quite exciting.

Arthur, the way you play isn't necessarily the way everyone else plays. The same goes for everyone else as well. Me, I usually separate my units into groups and target them in those groups, eg. Assault Mech group take out the gate, Mounties start tearing down this turret, Jedi take down their enemy troopers, whatever.
Some people like micromanagement. I personally find that, as some people like to say, God is in the details (not that I'm a big Christian or anything). I actually enjoyed having to do something ie. decide when to cast a spell, who to target, whatever rather than the vaguely mindless "click the target, your intelligent little men will do the rest." The latter kind of 'tactics' or 'strategy' or whatever is enhanced by the EE Tactical heroes; it practically makes it so you don't have to do anything.
Of course, you can do that in SW:GB as well; ever heard of Attack-Move? It works for me... though I prefer to actually take control of the battle personally. Each to his/her own, I guess..... but wouldn't a game which combines elements of both be great?

Arthur2
10-23-2002, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by CorranSec
Um.... what precisely is wrong with RPG heroes? Or the RPGness in general? I really liked it. I'm a big fan of the RPG genre, so seeing it as a part of an RTS was really quite exciting.

Arthur, the way you play isn't necessarily the way everyone else plays. The same goes for everyone else as well. Me, I usually separate my units into groups and target them in those groups, eg. Assault Mech group take out the gate, Mounties start tearing down this turret, Jedi take down their enemy troopers, whatever.
Some people like micromanagement. I personally find that, as some people like to say, God is in the details (not that I'm a big Christian or anything). I actually enjoyed having to do something ie. decide when to cast a spell, who to target, whatever rather than the vaguely mindless "click the target, your intelligent little men will do the rest." The latter kind of 'tactics' or 'strategy' or whatever is enhanced by the EE Tactical heroes; it practically makes it so you don't have to do anything.
Of course, you can do that in SW:GB as well; ever heard of Attack-Move? It works for me... though I prefer to actually take control of the battle personally. Each to his/her own, I guess..... but wouldn't a game which combines elements of both be great?


i'll use that back at u
"the way u play, isn't exactly the way other people play"
obvoiusly SWGB is not primarily about micro management,
and gosh when will u listen to what i am saying
it's not a god damn turn over to the AI, it's just an assistant
guess wut, AI knows a lot more about the units in the game then u do
he'll help u arrange ur troops
if u don't like the idea, fine, dun use it
in EE, u can choose to do everything by urself, while the computers do way better than u do.

No, what makes war3 a great game is also what makes war3 a bad game
the heroes, some ppl think that it's good while some others think that it's a messed up thing to add to a RTS
gosh do u really know how to play EE?
have u ever tried tactical hero?
no, u still have to control ur troops, he just does minor adjustments, especially when u encounter unexpected assaults
the AI is already present, when u order ur units to attack, they are partially controlled by AI...the tactical heroes make that part of the AI better.
the way u describe ur tactics is basically what other ppl do
u still just control a group of units and tell them what to do
(assault mechs, take out the defense, strike mech, take out the tropers, whatever)
u don't babysit ur precious units one by one, so DON'T TALK about micromanagement
(strike mech 1 take out trooper number 1, strike mech 2, take out trooper number 2, strike mech 3, retreat, omg strike mech 4 is dead...and i still have 60 strike mechs left to give specific command)

if u want to play micro management
go play team melee or warcraft 3
moving ur mounties to the front is not exactly micromanagement
u got way too many troops to look after
most of the time u just order different groups of units to do different tasks...u DON'T babysit each unit, DO YOU?
(OMG I JUST LOST A LASER TROOPER, OMG MY WORKER DIED, OMG A FARM IS EXHAUSTED, OMG MY STRIKE MECH DIED, OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG)
if u really like to babysit ur precious units, go play something like warcraft, where u get some LIMITED AND PRECIOUS units, and u have to use a lot of micromanagement to win the battle? (haha)

dude, it's a strategy game
know how when to attack and how to attack is what this game is about

Arthur2
10-23-2002, 01:13 PM
same thing in AOX series
when u encounted paladin horde
what u do is u get ur counter units like pikemen to the front to fight paladins
u don't go "pikeman 1 do this, pikeman 2 do that"
like u do in warcraft 3
"archmage is about to die, move back and cast blizzard, other units march forward, sorceress, turn enemy units into sheeps , priests, heal..."

the AOX engine is focused on large scale battles, rather than weenerish encounters.

gosh wut are u doing here if u like war3 over SWGB?
have u ever seen a guy on an AOX forum criticizing AOX not having enuff micromanagement?
this game is NOT about micromanagement
what u trying to do? convert the players to the ghetto blizzard games?

Sithmaster_821
10-23-2002, 08:18 PM
Although i agree that the AoE-ish games have a ton less micro than Warcraft, especially on a single unit scale, they still require some microing, like with economy and groups of units shifting targets and retreating/advancing.

And i also like to be in control of my units, because sometimes i dont want to attack the most menacing army, especially if they outnumber me. Or other times i want to retreat and not push foward with the attack. Fighting unit ai usually creates more micro than it was originally meant to get rid of, lessening the appeal of the games.

Arthur2
10-23-2002, 10:39 PM
gosh , wtf
get this straight
what is micromanagement?
do u babysit ur units one by one like u did in warcraft 3?
NO...u command ur troops in groups
and i am tired of saying this, IT'S NOT A TAKE OVER of CONTROL
U STILL COMMAND UR UNITS
IT'S JUST THAT THE HERO WILL HELP UR UNITS IF U DIDn'T give STRICT ORDERS, and if u give strict orders to destroy a specific target, the hero will get ur units into best attack arrangements
, and yes u can always overwrite the heroes' arrangements, and if u don't like it, too bad, don't build a hero, it's not like u need to get one...
gosh...

it's always nice to have tactical assistants
strategy is more important than tactics
why? becoz the units are way too vulnerable in this game
don't waste ur time trying to babysit them
do more strategic planning

MadrixTF
10-24-2002, 07:51 AM
After reading this rather heated debate, i must agree with Arthur:

SWGB involves a holistic strategic approach in order to win the game - i NEVER micro-manage each troop individually - that would really be a waste of time!

Yes there are tactics and a certain degree of micro-management, but the enjoyment of any true RTS comes out of MANAGING your war - making decisions on when to attack when to hold back and defend, when to get more resources, etc. ,etc. The best example of combining strategy and tactics would be chess. If you compare a RTS game to a game of chess then you clearly see the differences between tactics and strategy...

Sithmaster_821
10-24-2002, 09:57 PM
You never micro indiviual units, but any good SWGB player would tell you that microing is intergral in this game. Microing workers, microing unit queues, microing GROUPS of units during battles, all of it is what separates good players from those who arent so good. Granted it isnt _Craft where microing is essential, but if you play on higher levels, good microing is a good skill to have.
Yes there are tactics and a certain degree of micro-management, but the enjoyment of any true RTS comes out of MANAGING your war - making decisions on when to attack when to hold back and defend, when to get more resources, etc. ,etc. The best example of combining strategy and tactics would be chess. If you compare a RTS game to a game of chess then you clearly see the differences between tactics and strategy...
Exactly. Thats why having a unit do it for you would be absurdly unfun.

Arthur2
10-25-2002, 04:11 AM
didn't i just say that the heroes won't do it for u?
u still do the same crap
u order groups of units
but then the heroes will do stuff like move the wounded ones to the back and stuff like that

when u right click and order ur troops to gather at a point
ur troops won't stop until they arrive at the destination
even if they are under attack
and the hero takes care of that
IF ur troops encounter some sort of attack
the hero wiilll stop some of ur units and fight the enemy.

I never said that the hero will do everything for u
if u don't give any orders, the hero WILL NOT send ur troops to battle
it will only do defensive arrangements
(and if u are under attack, the hero will alert nearby idle units to help)


get that straight
k? i don't want to repeat what i just said
it's not gonna change the way u play , that's for sure
think of it this way, ur control the group
and the hero will control individual units, like moving wounded ones back...so ur troops will last longer...
the hero does the ghetto stuff that ppl do in warcraft 3, again, moving wounded units to the back and order medics to heal the wounded ones...

if u want to swamp urself coz u like war3 micromanagement so much
then u can always press delete and get rid of the hero
or...simply don't build one!!

i guess i was talking about the same (micromanagement)
i just think that the phrase has been associated with W3 so much, that i am starting to dislike the phrase (it only tells me some ghetto tactics like moving heroes up and down. like u do in war3.)

Sithmaster_821
10-25-2002, 08:04 PM
Medics heal automatically, hero or no hero.

lukeiamyourdad
10-25-2002, 08:47 PM
Nobody takes care of one unit at a time.

What I am saying is I enjoy micromanaging a battle. It's fun to feel in total control of everything on a battlefield, that's all. If you don't want to micromanage your battles than sit back and let your units do all the job, but of course it's gonna get boring.

Arthur2
10-26-2002, 02:01 AM
to sithmaster:
no duh
but then they only heal nearby units
the hero will make them move around and heal the more important units...

luke's dad:
yeah that's point i am trying to make
the heroes won't take complete control, ...u stil have to mange ur troops, but then the hero will do one-unit-at-a-time arrangements
and if u want to swamp urself by doing everything urself, sure....don't build a hero, and u can enjoy doing one-at-a-time arrangements...there is nothing wrong w/ that

CorranSec
10-26-2002, 10:17 PM
Um... correct me if I'm wrong, but heroes are actually good, right? As in, they are better than normal units at killing things, and are thus useful in other ways than just dealing with micromanagement?
Because if people didn't use heroes because they wanted to micromanage, they'd end up denying themselves a good unit, just because of their playing style. And that is, obviously, not an acceptable outcome.

Arthur2
10-27-2002, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by CorranSec
Um... correct me if I'm wrong, but heroes are actually good, right? As in, they are better than normal units at killing things, and are thus useful in other ways than just dealing with micromanagement?
Because if people didn't use heroes because they wanted to micromanage, they'd end up denying themselves a good unit, just because of their playing style. And that is, obviously, not an acceptable outcome.

yeap u are right
the heroes' attack is about 3X a normal infatry unit's
and it's got a lot of hit points, like couple thousand...
well most ppl in EE use heroes to help them do the details
cauz heroes cruise usually run all over the place without attacking the enemy (unless u tell the hero to)...
yeah if they don't like heroes, just don't build them
the heroes in this game is kinda different from the ones in War3...

simwiz2
10-27-2002, 01:02 PM
Why have 2 sets of unit AI, a "not-so-dumb" and a "really dumb", and require a hero that may have to be micromanaged to access the "not-so-dumb" when you could just have the better one be used all the time? If I tell my mounties to attack a turret, I want them to stand at that turret and shoot fire at it while lasers sear their skin and not budge until that turret is a pile of rubble. I don't want a hero deciding that the troopers underneath a garrisoned fortress are a more "threatening" target and have the mounties get their dumb selves killed. Equally infuriating is how units come out of their creation places on aggressive, I have to babysit the creation places in my forward base to make sure my new mountie doesn't decide that it can take down the nearby shielded fortress single-handed.

lukeiamyourdad
10-27-2002, 04:13 PM
Simwiz has a point.

It's stupid to say that your units need heroes to give them commands. I think a small trooper and a hero both know that an AT-AT is a bigger threat than another trooper.
We should make all the units already smart rather than making a hero just so your units can be smart.
If you know how to handled a blaster, you are smart.

MadrixTF
10-28-2002, 06:12 AM
Well i don't know where this "Hero being able to micromanage troops" came from? I have never seen this in a RTS game...?

I like managing the troops / units myself, just not at a one-by-one level - and i certainly wouldn't want a Hero managing my troops unless it was intellegent...

CorranSec - Hero's should be better than normal units, but in WC3 i don't see the Hero's as a serious advantage - they die too easily for my liking and that's what p!ssed me off about WC3...

CKCSABER - i also still play Total Annihilation - great game!

lukeiamyourdad
10-28-2002, 06:01 PM
Of course heroes would be better than normal units.

We could take the scen edit units like Han or Leďa and put them as ''troopers'' heroes. They would cost slightly more than a normal hero.

We could also have Jedi heroes, like Luke, Obi-Wan.
They would cost more than a Jedi Master.

You can only build them once. If you build a Luke Skywalker and he gets killed, you won't be able to build another one.

Sithmaster_821
10-28-2002, 06:36 PM
Luke's idea is by far the best concerning heros.

lukeiamyourdad
10-28-2002, 06:40 PM
Thank you:p .

Sithmaster_821
10-28-2002, 07:30 PM
I only said that because it resembled the one i posted earlier and then was assimilated into yours.:)

CorranSec
10-29-2002, 02:19 AM
Mhmm. The heroes idea sounds OK... but I preferred the levelling of the WC3 heroes. Nevertheless, an "uber jedi" or "uber trooper" or something which could only be built once would be good.
How good are these heroes going to be?

Arthur2
10-29-2002, 03:59 AM
GOSH NOT THAT
if u order ur mounties to attack the turrets
the heroes won't do crap about it
heroes will only decide which is more threatening when ur troops are idling...get it??

simwiz2
10-29-2002, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Arthur2
GOSH NOT THAT
if u order ur mounties to attack the turrets
the heroes won't do crap about it
heroes will only decide which is more threatening when ur troops are idling...get it??

Okay, so I have a group of mounties sitting in my forward base and I'm waiting for an upgrade before I do a massive attack with many units... and then the hero makes the mounties decide that some troopers under a garrisoned fortress are threatening and go get their dumb selves killed.

A few times of that and I would never play the game again... losing entire armies because of a stupid hero trying to give orders for you is just too infuriating.

It's frustrating enough watching that newly created mountie running towards the fortress... it's even more frustrating if your are queing farms or making workers and you don't see it in time to do something... imagine how frustrating it would be if an entire army of units did that... large groups of Jedi deciding a bigger group of bounties is "threatening"; strikes deciding a shielded fortress is "threatening"; AAM's deciding grenadiers are "threatening"... What a mess the game would be.

lukeiamyourdad
10-29-2002, 05:47 PM
Simwiz has a point. If they do that then nobody will ever build heroes.

Corran- No they won't be that useful but it's just for the fun of it.

Sithmaster_821
10-29-2002, 10:02 PM
You are the general directing all troop movement, not some insignifigant unit.

CorranSec
10-30-2002, 12:02 AM
Luke's dad- If they're not going to be that useful, then I'm totally against them. Sure, I like things that are fun, but actually introducing a new unit which is pretty useless in battle I am totally against.

What I would prefer is something like this-
The "Uber" units would be a lot better like the normal unit, but would function basically the same, with the exception of possibly a special power or two.

Here are a couple of examples. Note that in SW:GB 2, there might not be Troop Centers, Mech Factories, Mech Destroyers, or anything of the sort. Also, unique unit sets could complicate this idea quite a lot.
At the Troop Center, you can build an "Uber Laser Trooper" (with a better name of course). It would have greater range than the normal trooper, and greater damage, but have the firing range of a Heavy Trooper, not a Repeater trooper.
Its 'special ability' is Blaster mount, which fixes it in place, gives it the firing range of a Repeater Trooper, and reduces its damage.

At the Mech Factory, you can build an Uber Mech Destroyer. It would be faster than the normal Mech Destroyer, have greater damge, and better armour (that's basically the case with all the uber units). Its special ability would be "Shock Blast" or some such- basically, it gives its normal attack splash damage. This would require a kind of "mana" usage.

What do you think?

Arthur2
10-30-2002, 04:36 AM
simwiz....NO
not that
it's a tactical hero , not a strategic hero
it will not order ur troops to Attack ANYWAYZ

it will only do so if ur troops are idling and someone comes over the attack u
like when u right click on the destination, ur troops won't attack until they reach there
if u are under attack, u'll probably lose half of ur troops , or maybe the entire chunk
the hero will stop stuff like that
it will stop ur troops and fight back , and ur troops will return on route after the conflict is resolved..
get it?

another example is that
if u place ur troops somewhere just chilling
and someone comes over and attack ur troops
ur hero will split the idling troops and order them to fight back

it's an assistant, not a computer player
it helps u take care of the little details
UNLESS u are under attack + ur troops are idling and u didn't give any orders
then the hero won't do anything

even if there is a hero
ur troops will behave the way they use to be
it's just that they got smarter
u'll see, check EE out...
i won't propose something that's as crappy as a computer player that plays for u...

CorranSec-
can we not?
that's just like starcraft
u can add stuff to the hero like make it stronger
but don't add spells and mana stuff cauz ppl will start relying on the hero like they do in war3
maybe hero units (like...battle units?) can have multiple turrets
cause heroes...most likely will stay on a battleship, right?

CorranSec
10-30-2002, 04:54 AM
Arthur- I'm not suggesting anything quite like War3, where heroes are absolutely neccessary to get anywhere in the game. The heroes will be good, sure, but not that good. They're also not as readily available as the War3 heroes, and because they can't respawn, players might use them rather cautiously.
Anyway, how do spells and mana make people rely upon the heroes? Jedi have 'spells' and mana but they're not relied upon.
I like the StarCraft and War3 heroes, so I'd rather it if they're a lot more like them, but this is a compromise. What kind of a hero is it if it doesn't even have a special power? And how stupid would it be if that special power could be used over...... and over...... and over again with no limit? Especially if it's a really good power, like the Mech Destroyer's Shock Blast?

What if there was an option for the hero to 'deal with the details,' as you put it, so people like yourself could let the hero do his job, while people like me could turn the option off and micromanage? I think that would work well.
Notice I could've said "can we not do that? That's too much like EE" but I didn't, cos I want to reach a compromise. :)

Arthur2
10-30-2002, 07:25 AM
no have nothing against the Hero thing...
cauz heroes are meant to command the army, they are the LEADERS :P

but then i don't think giving the heroes power is exactly the way to do it, cause ppl will start relying on heroes since they have spells... (like blizzard, nova and star fall in war3)

maybe we can do something like that big ship in episode 6 (hmm corr something ship that alkbar rides)
it's like a ...frigate, if u know what i mean
a unit that's stronger than normal units...and maybe provide more tactical options. Spells...hmmm.. i still don't think it's a good idea....

lukeiamyourdad
10-30-2002, 05:33 PM
Spell will give us more micro.
Anyway, Corran, your idea is good and I to like the W3 and StarCraft heroes but those things seem not to fit really well in the Star Wars universe(except for Jedi). I think the heroes should be more like healers or maybe able to hijack mechs or something.

For example:

Han Solo: Able to hijack mechs

Leďa: Convert enemy TROOPERS.

Luke: Force push, other stuff.

simwiz2
10-30-2002, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Arthur2
(1) it will only do so if ur troops are idling and someone comes over the attack u
(2) like when u right click on the destination, ur troops won't attack until they reach there
(3) if u are under attack, u'll probably lose half of ur troops , or maybe the entire chunk
the hero will stop stuff like that
it will stop ur troops and fight back , and ur troops will return on route after the conflict is resolved..
get it?

(3) another example is that
if u place ur troops somewhere just chilling
and someone comes over and attack ur troops
ur hero will split the idling troops and order them to fight back

(4) it's an assistant, not a computer player
it helps u take care of the little details
UNLESS u are under attack + ur troops are idling and u didn't give any orders
then the hero won't do anything

it's just that they got smarter
(5) u'll see, check EE out...
i won't propose something that's as crappy as a computer player that plays for u...

1 - Okay, so my mounties are standing ready for an attack and a trooper takes a shot at one of them and runs under a shielded fortress. You see how easily something like this could be abused?

2 - I would expect any good recent game to have a stance or something for this, not a hero.

3 - No, when I hear a siren or warning sound I look on the mini-map and look at whats blinking. Then I go tell my units to stop and fight.

3 - It's the incompetent hero that will get all my troops slaughtered. No thanks.

4 - They already fight back. It's called defensive or stand ground, depending on preference.

5 - I wouldn't play that game even if someone GAVE it to me, and I certainly am not going to spend money on such a crap game. In fact, if your idea was in EE then that is one reason NOT to put it in GB:2! :p

Sithmaster_821
10-30-2002, 08:02 PM
Heros with special powers is probably the worst idea that Blizzard has had. And forcing them into Star Wars amplifies the problems not to mention makes them seem very lame. Special Powers add layers of micro and undermine gameplay due to a relience on heros and a shift away from regular units. At the outset of AoM, i was worried that it would be a battle between monsters and the human units werent going to be the central players. However, it is just the opposite, and AoM rates high in the fun factor. Oh, by the way, it comes out tomorrow.

CorranSec
10-31-2002, 01:49 AM
Sith- did you completely miss what I posted before? The 'reliance' factor is eliminated by making them harder to produce and more valuable by the fact that they cannot respawn.
AoM is the opposite? Hmm....... doesn't sound as good as I thought.
Heroes with special powers (and in fact, special powers in general) is one of the best ideas ever implemented in an RTS. It makes the game more exciting, and rather than mindless "people shooting at each other," it's "people casting spells, counterspells, buffs, protections, increasing their attacks, etc. etc." It adds even more strategy and tactics into the game.

Arthur- I know what you're suggesting. All you want are heroes with a better attack, armour, whatever.
Well, in my opinion, this completely destroys all the fun. Having just one more unit which happens to do more damage is pretty damned boring for me. Special powers, spells, and the like are what really liven a game up, as I pointed out before.

Luke's dad- I think it'd work even better in the SW universe. Have you heard anything about the new SW RPGs coming out, KoTor and Galaxies? They show in-depth how heroic, varied and powerful characters can really be, and it is our duty to reflect this in GB.
In fact, it is heroes that truly gives you a link to the core of SW. Has anyone forgotten that it was heroes that turned the tide of every battle in the movies, and in fact, the entire war?
Of course, I'm not suggesting that we're going to rely on heroes, but I believe that they should be shown, and would complement normal troops nicely.
Also- there is no way that we're going to make characters from the movies buildable in the campaigns. In fact, your very mention of them seems a shift away from your "uber-units" idea which I am running with. Is this the case?
The problem (or lack of a problem, whichever way you see it) is that the whole 'uber-units' thing makes it necessary that all the units be combat units. Unless, of course, you want an uber-medic, which I personally do not. Of course, certain units might have non-combat special powers, and even pure combattants could have a healing power as well as a fighting power. That is, if people will let me give them more than one power.

Everyone- in case you haven't noticed, I like micromanagement. I believe it's the key to the RTS genre. Has anyone every played a game called Battle Realms? That was the king of micromanagement, and I loved it.

MadrixTF
10-31-2002, 05:19 AM
I also like the approach AOM has taken with the Hero concept and i can't wait to get it.
CorranSec - as far as i am aware the Hero units in AOM do cast "Spells" and such and brings the world of Mythology to life... that's what makes it exciting over and above the new 3D RTS engine...

Arthur2
10-31-2002, 12:03 PM
I just got the trial for Age of Mythology
actually, the heroes are pretty weak in that game.
I think the reason why people create them is to get the spells and additional battle options

yeah I think it's ok...as long as the spells are not too strong

btw,
some info on Age of Myth
it's pretty much like AoK, except there are only three resource : food, wood and gold...the graphics is pretty good...
well the myth powers are kinda....argh...strong
I just played my first game and i got my ass whooped by a computer...
the computer used this myth power called "underworld passage" which allows them to attack my base without tranveling half way across the map. Very interesting..
The myth units are pretty strong but then they are really expensive and they take up about 4 population each.

You guys should check out the demo
i got it from fileplanet...
worth taking a look...
It is a possibility for a future SWGB 2 cause...hmm I think the graphics is good enough..and the flying units look like they are actually hovering , not like a picture glued on the map in SWGB...
You'll see..
in the trial u can only use Greek - Zeus and the age is limited to like...hmm what's the third age caled? classical age? can't remember...
download the demo and enjoy it :P

some food for thought :)

Arthur2
10-31-2002, 12:08 PM
just got the trial for Age of Mythology
actually, the heroes are pretty weak in that game. the attack and hitpoints are just like other units, not excessively strong in either field. (they are weaker than myth units)
people create heroes because they make ur troops smarter (HAHA!)
and they give bonus damage to some troops (like..this JASON dude gives bonus damage to myth units and Odysseus gives bonus to archers...)
the heroes don't have anything special other than leading ur troops, and give bonus damage...
yeah this is kind of thing I am talking about cauz otherwise people may be relying on their hero like they do in war3...
i like heroes that give plain assistance and bonus to damage...
so they don't ruin the game balance...

btw,
some info on Age of Myth
it's pretty much like AoK, except there are only three resource : food, wood and gold...the graphics is pretty good...
well the myth powers are kinda....argh...strong
I just played my first game and i got my ass whooped by a computer...
the computer used this myth power called "underworld passage" which allows them to attack my base without tranveling half way across the map. Very interesting..
The myth units are pretty strong but then they are really expensive and they take up about 4 population each.

You guys should check out the demo
i got it from fileplanet...
worth taking a look...
It is a possibility for a future SWGB 2 cause...hmm I think the graphics is good enough..and the flying units look like they are actually hovering , not like a picture glued on the map in SWGB...
You'll see..
in the trial u can only use Greek - Zeus and the age is limited to like...hmm what's the third age caled? classical age? can't remember...
download the demo and enjoy it :P

Oh, something on the farm thing
the farms in AoM provides infinite amount of food
meaning u don't have to do the replantation crap
as long as u have villigers working u'll get food
some food for thought :)

lukeiamyourdad
10-31-2002, 05:03 PM
corran- I do know about KOTOR and GALAXIES and I am soooo getting them!

Anyway, I don't think ''spells'' are part of the Star Wars universe, they just won't fit and will be pretty weird.


Example: The battlecruisers in StarCraft used the ''Yamato Gun'' and it was kind of lame.
Templars used Psionic Storm and it pissed off everyone else.

The point is giving them super powers won't make the game better in terms of gameplay and even less in realism.

Sithmaster_821
10-31-2002, 06:15 PM
Heres a note about the AoM trial, IT SUCKED!!!!!!!! Not only was the lag worse than the alpha, you got so little scope of the game it wasnt any fun. Believe me, Arthur, the game is way better with full techs/civs. Zeus vs Zues is boring as hell, because the Greeks are boring and too much like AoK (especially Zeus). The campaign is good, but the lag involved makes it a strenuous ordeal.

I played the alpha, the game is about 6x as good as the demo. The real game is nothing like AoK.

Arthur2
11-01-2002, 01:27 AM
yeah luke's dad I agree..
I think heroes should be granted tactical advantages like giving ur surrounding troops more damage and more battle options

realli?
the demo...eh it gets kind of boring after a while
cause there are only like....15 units
2 infantry units, 2 archers, 2 calvaries, 1 siege, 3 myth units, and some crappy boats and heroes....
argh....
what's the alpha lijke?

MadrixTF
11-01-2002, 05:03 AM
Well, i'll skip the DEMO and wait for the Full-game - it's not too long to wait now...

simwiz2
11-01-2002, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Sithmaster_821
Heres a note about the AoM trial, IT SUCKED!!!!!!!! (1) Not only was the lag worse than the alpha, you got so little scope of the game it wasnt any fun. Believe me, Arthur, the game is way better with full techs/civs. Zeus vs Zues is boring as hell, because the Greeks are boring and too much like AoK (especially Zeus). The campaign is good, but the lag involved makes it a strenuous ordeal.

I played the alpha, the game is about 6x as good as the demo. The real game is nothing like AoK.

1 - Sith, the trial was not put out before the optimization like the alpha. It should not lag badly. I think you need to consider the possibility of AoM not running very well on your computer. Also check and see if you have the required graphics card. Actually, in a 12-player large map it was lagging slightly even on MY computer, and mine is well over twice as fast as yours. I am not very impressed with the performance of the game.

Overall the game is okay, and it is a fun game, but it's not the awesome revolutionary game that Sith makes it seem like. The editor is lacking, and many pre-game options that added replay value have been eliminated. There are 2 map sizes for each number of opponents: normal and large. So no more fast-paced games with many players on very small maps; no long expansionist games with few opponents on very large maps. Also, no speed settings. There is one speed, and it is fast+, so every game, even just one vs the AI, is frantic.

Okay, but not great. AoM could have been better.

Sithmaster_821
11-01-2002, 01:36 PM
The editor is lacking
Just because the editor only has one bridge, doesnt make it lacking;)

And simiwz, even though the maps automatically adjust to the # of people (which is a major plus), large map 1v1 are still quite expansive and small map 6v6 are about as crunched as it should be (overlapping towns suck). Another thing (and i can confirm this), the speed is a tad faster than normal in SWGB. Just because you have the reflexes of a drugged up snail doesnt mean we all do. I have no trouble clicking on moving units.

Arthur, heres a hint, each culture has their own unit set, and each civ has their own really different bonuses. I personally dont like the way the Greeks do their econ or their armies (its too much like AoK for me). There are about 4x as many units in the real game than the ones you mentioned. I find the Greek civs not very exciting. I only played Eygptians civs and Norse civs in the alpha. I have no idea why they choose Zeus to be the god in the demo. Out of all the gods, he is the most boring and the most like AoK.

Sithmaster_821
11-01-2002, 05:33 PM
I think i have a defective demo version (or is the game supposed to lag in the history menu?:D) Oh well i am going to go buy the game tomorrow anyhow.

simwiz2
11-01-2002, 07:28 PM
I think you have a defective computer. :p :D

And I actually don't mind the speed for MP games, but sometimes (especially in single player) I want a less frantic type of game. They should at least give the option. More options = Good. It seems they believe the average consumer is not intelligent enough to select their own map sizes, speed, etc, so they dumbed it down. They clearly don't want moron n00bs complaining about long games when they play 1v1 on a massive map, so they simply don't allow it (and many other combos). Not a good move, ES! :mad:

And...
I played a MP game today. It lagged periodically. It was 2v2, and 1 person from each team had 56k. Me and the other person had adsl. The host had 56k and 2.2 GHz athlon, 512 RAM, Geforce 4. And it still lagged. My impression of the game right now is that it is a bit ahead of its time. Sith, you told me that AoM was less dependant on connection speed, so there was no reason for there to be lag.

Confirm your normal+ all you like, Sith. I am perfectly capable of clicking. Remember that on an 18" LCD I see the units in a location 35 milliseconds later than they really are, and I would have expected them to have some slower and faster speed options for no more reason than SOME PEOPLE LIKE IT THAT WAY, AND IT'S AN OPTION, SO WHY THE HELL NOT? Just because it is not the way you would play the game does not mean it is n00bish or the person has no reflexes. It is sad how you think they way you play a game is the only correct way.

This "one bridge" in the editor is a rickety wooden piece of ****, a fixed size, and cannot go over water. If there is another then it is very skillfully hidden.

Sithmaster_821
11-01-2002, 08:29 PM
I know your gonna laugh, but i think i found the problem. I forgot to uninstall the alpha:o. Im currently re-dling and installing the trial w/o the alpha. Lets see what happens. I posted this problem on AoMH, but no one could find the solution. I tell you if it works:)

simwiz2
11-02-2002, 10:11 PM
Sith, Bulzye was playing AoM today on my computer and he was having trouble clicking on moving villagers. Seems I'm not the only one who wants a slower speed option. When a game has as good graphics as AoM has I would rather not play it on my smaller CRT... I could click a bit easier but it just wouldn't be the same as a big bright high contrast LCD :(

Sithmaster_821
11-02-2002, 10:20 PM
All i can say is that i have no problem clicking on units.

simwiz2
11-03-2002, 11:00 PM
Who knows... maybe all the units go slower on your Pentium 3. :lol:

Though I can click on units just fine... but Bulzye was having some trouble.

Arthur2
11-04-2002, 03:15 PM
Pentium 3...
I have a P3-1Ghz
it runs just fine but then I have a crappy video card , TNT2
it laggs like hell when I play 3D strategy games

Sith u are right about the zeus
and it's not even AOK
in AOK u got more options, the Greek is more like AOE
they should have used the Egyptians as the trial version race so ppl experience something DIFFERENT.

AU_Andy_Ewok
11-04-2002, 04:18 PM
I take it you haven't looked at a AoKTC forum recently. Most people are saying that they wish AoM was more like AoC, Anyone who's played AoM get hocked. It's obivous logic to put on a civ that's like AoC but still different enough.

People who have played AoM like it to be different, but die hard AoCers hate changes. I mean why didn't they come play CC, which is blatantly a much better game. I mean AoC once you get past 1850 it's all Arabia, Normal speed and a possibility of one whole stratergy, Boring! SWGB had far more Strats and possibilitys as does AoC. Give AoC fans what they like, an AoC civ and slowly they will like it loads and not even think of AoC again.

Sithmaster_821
11-04-2002, 05:59 PM
Honestly I havent looked at a AoC forum for over a year now, but we get the people you are talking on AoM forums, b!$#@ing about how they should have just made a AoC in 3d. They're part of the reason SWGB and AoM have so much variation, people were complaining that the "experts" werent really experts becausewere only good on one map with one civ and one strat. They had no adaptablility. And the fact that they dont want to have to let go of their feudal skirm wars and flushes just furthers the point. Even Zeus is is too different for them.

simwiz2
11-04-2002, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Arthur2
it runs just fine but then I have a crappy video card , TNT2
it laggs like hell when I play 3D strategy games

Hey Sith, isn't that the same kind of video card that you have? :lol:

Sithmaster_821
11-04-2002, 10:09 PM
Actually its a TNT M64 Pro:)

CorranSec
11-05-2002, 05:13 AM
Eh. I'm really not sure what to say. Maybe I should just go talk to the drunken monkeys for a while..... they're sure to speak to me in a language I understand.
Ah, but soon, I shall be d/ling the AoM trial, and THEN I can actually talk with you people INTELLIGIBLY! (sp?)
Oh, I'm a tusken. They're ugly. Eh.

Edit: Drunken is not spelt Drunkey. Though Drunkey Monkeys sounds kinda cool. *shrug*

CorranSec
11-05-2002, 05:40 AM
Hey- I just had an idea......
Maybe they should make a new forum section in the GB part of LucasForums- call it "Off-Topic AoM discussion." I think that'd work pretty well, don't you?

Arthur2
11-05-2002, 06:31 AM
TNT2....man it sux like crap
32 MB ....

simwiz2
11-05-2002, 12:13 PM
LOLOLOLOLOL, Sith's has 32 MB too! :lol: And I don't remember him mentioning any "M64 Pro" when he first told me what card he had... wishful thinking Sith? Because I NEVER just say "I have a Geforce 4", I say "I have a GeForce 4 TI 4600 with 128 MB". It just sounds so much better :)

Sith, just admit that your video card sux and I'll drop it :p

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Sithmaster_821
11-05-2002, 06:48 PM
Because I NEVER just say "I have a Geforce 4", I say "I have a GeForce 4 TI 4600 with 128 MB".
Well I usually just say TNT2 because, unlike other nameless forumers, my computer speed and internet connection isnt the only thing i worry about.

Arthur2
11-06-2002, 04:55 AM
yeah I got a M64 Pro too
it sux like crap
when I play war3 it lags like hell (not becoz of internet connection)....when people place more than 40 units i can hardly see what's going on
and...hmmm when I play Jk2, the graphics is ...not really good
i mean, go to jk2.net and u'll see how jk2 really look under Geforce3/4 , it looks much better, almost movie quality scenes and characters
and in SWGB if a large scale battle like chunks of ATATs, troops, whatevers and air cruisers....ah....
the only thing i can do is watch the show, cauz it laggs to damn much...
><

Sith master, buy a Geoforce 3 or 4
it's pretty cheap, well that's what i am gonna do now
get a Geforce next time I go to a hardware store

simwiz2
11-06-2002, 01:52 PM
LOLOLOL, too funny! Sith, give it up! Your video card, like your RAM, sux. :lol:

Prediction: You will get your 256 RAM upgrade and AoM will still lag because your TNT2 sux.

Get a GeForce 4 TI 4200 or 4600. TNT2 is horrible. It is ovbious you are just defending the card because it is what you have. If you get a GF4 you can see the graphics in high detail at 1280x1024 like I do... and finally see the graphics as they were meant to be seen. :)

You cause so much MP lag that I am almost willing to let you borrow one of my 256 RAM modules until you get this upgrade you keep hoping for. Except they probably aren't compatible with your computer, and my parents would probably not be very happy about me taking RAM out of the computer.

Arthur2
11-07-2002, 01:19 AM
oh, c'mon!!!
go on JK2.net and u'll see how good jk2 really look under Geforce
it looks so real, much much much much better than TNT2
(even though that's what i have on my P-!!!)

i have 512M RAM, normally i use up 256M MAX even when i play games
btw, ppl, GET TWO MONITERS
so u can play SWGB and watch some movies at the same time

J-5
11-17-2002, 04:28 PM
Im probably late posting this but..

Hi, Im J-5. I been gone for around 5 months now. I thought i'd come back to gloat. I've left this forum on July 3, 2002 exactly. Can you guess what happened that day?:rolleyes:






WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!!
WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3!! WARCRAFT 3?!


YEAH ............. WARCRAFT 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's no comparison. WC3 owns SWGB. Easy!! The horde, alliance, sentinels, and scourge.... OMG!!! unique races....*tear falls from eye*.....units different from each other...drool....heroes....lol.....strategies..... yea baby.....items, no need for 150 workers, 2 resources, CREEPS(not dumbass cats), hail WARCRAFT 3!! love WARCRAFT 3!! praise WARCRAFT 3!!

****holy light shrine upon head****


WARCRAFT 3!! RULES


:D ;) :D :cool: :p :D :p


END OF POST
(you may flame me now, but i wont be here to listen, guess where i'll be.....:rolleyes: )

Breton
11-17-2002, 07:18 PM
Well J-5, we all knew that already:D

The real question is: What is best of Warcraft 3 and Age of Mythology?

Sithmaster_821
11-17-2002, 08:19 PM
Let me give you a hint. If SWGB was better than WC3, do you think AoM will be too? Hmm.... (dont read spoiler until you've quessed)
AGE OF MYTHOLOGY KICKS WC3'S BUTT!!!!

J-5
11-18-2002, 09:48 AM
LOL!!!!!!!!!! You made a funny. The ONLY game that kicks WC3's butt is STARCRAFT!! End of story.

AOM = make myth units if you want to win. Myth units = overpowered. Anything overpowered = bad game ( not that AOM is one...:rolleyes: )


p.s. AOM is out now right?

Sithmaster_821
11-18-2002, 09:35 PM
AOM = make myth units if you want to win. Myth units = overpowered. Anything overpowered = bad game ( not that AOM is one... )
Where did you hear that? If anything they're underpowered (i dont think so but the experts at HG think they are underpowered)

p.s. AOM is out now right?
Its been been for +2 weeks:)

Dark Merkaba
12-02-2002, 03:17 AM
i havent played WC3 yet, but i have played other blizzard games and i do have to say that they put out some fantastic games. they might be more mainstream and not for the people who wish they lived in the game and not in their parents basement and redicule every part that isnt true to the movie..... i think that SWGB is a good game, and thats all. while most of the RTS games ive played from blizzard are above good, maybe not great, or excelent, but better than good.

what i think seperates Blizzards games, starcraft for example, from SWGB is the diversity. i am very big on this. why have 6 civs when they are pretty much the same? when you can have three or four that are different, and requires different tatics to attack and win. not just saying, "well empires jets have 4 hits leess than mine...and thats about it. so i'll send in a lot of jets" take the zerg for example, they had lots of those little b!tch zerglings. a few sucked, but a lot and you were in trouble, and they could hide under ground. that made ambushes and quick in and outs excellent. while the terrans had the Ghost, and the nuke, and the protos had the carrier and sheilds.
what does SWGB have? extra points here and there, or a UU with sheilds vs. one with out. thats about it. ive said it before and i will again. what SWGB 2, if there is, is those "HOLY SH!T" units. like the nuke, or the seal that blew up a building on its own. and DIVERSITY! that is what broke the game for me. i like playing it, but it is too repeditive. there really is no difference from once you beat one civ to going to the next, they just look different.
for the people who say you must micromanage you econ, how? Build workers, send them to gather or build, create units, then attack with the same tactic as you did with the last civ. the only difference in managing starcraft from Star Wars is that SWGB has 4 things to collect while starcraft has 2.
now im not bashing SWGB, its just i will stop playing it to go launch a nuke at a hundred zerg and kill the rest with a few siege tanks. then go back to building the same units in star wars.

another thing i would like to see is movies. there really is nothing to look foward to after you beat a civ but to go on to the next one.
so yeah, thats my opinion.

Demolisher
12-07-2002, 07:33 PM
I got the demo for SWGB a while ago and I really liked it and asked for it for Christmas. But last week I got the Warcraft III demo and now I'm stuck on what to get. I don't like the whole micromanaging thing. Anybody ever play Stronghold? It's really cool, you just have to worry about buildings and your army because the peasants come to you and do their own thing. I played Warcraft II a while back and I hated worrying about every single person on the level, and the Warcraft III demo is the same thing. I also love the Warcraft III graphics and how it is compared to other games like this. I'm a huge Star Wars nut though, so I'm still not sure what to get. So far with the demo, I like the whole hero thing. Diablo II was great with having a character, but it was kinda lonely because it was you vs everyone else. Whereas Warcraft III seems to combine Diablo II with Warcraft II. So I am so stuck as to what game to get. I can't wait for KoToR to come out. Now if only there was a Star Wars game using the Warcraft III engine. :D Maybe I should go back to Stronghold? :confused: I'm coming from mostly playing games like Jedi Knight II, Heretic II, Hexen II, Quake, Unreal Tournament online. Games like SWGB, Warcraft III, and Diablo II, I've only play single player and I'm new to these types of games. So I don't even know what I'm really looking for based on the demos of SWGB and Warcraft III :(.

Sithmaster_821
12-07-2002, 10:39 PM
The demo for SWGB was really bad. It is not much like the real game. If you are going for sp only, its a toss up. WC3 has better campaigns, but SWGB has a better AI and random maps, which add to the replayability and fun level of the game. But if you are planning on going multiplayer, SWGB is a lot better. The only problem is that Bnet has way more people and is a lot more coordinated than the zone.

simwiz2
12-07-2002, 11:02 PM
lot more coordinated than the zone

What an understatement! GB MP has been completely ruined by scenario games taking over the RM room, morons who lock rooms, the experts all leaving, and the hackers spamming the GB room chat frequently.

For MP, I would recommend AoM, as GB MP is pretty much dead. :(

Sithmaster_821
12-07-2002, 11:23 PM
I was trying to be optimistic.

lukeiamyourdad
12-08-2002, 04:48 PM
If the Zone was better coordinated, swgb would a hell of a good MP game.
You still can enjoy the SP side of the game because swgb has a good replayability.
Of course WC3's campaigns are a LOT better then the ones of swgb. If I was you, I would ask both:D !

Demolisher
12-08-2002, 09:50 PM
They're both $50 :cry8: :doh: I wish I could get both SWGB Saga and Warcraft III :rolleye1: :nut: I love Star Wars, but I also like the graphics and RPG aspect of W3, but I hate the micromanaging. It's hard trying to judge games based on their demos. For example, had I gotten the JK2 demo first, I would've thought that JK2 was an easy game. However, having bought the game first, I know it's not :nutz3:

Sithmaster_821
12-08-2002, 10:11 PM
Well, if its microing you hate, then WarCraft 3 isnt your game.

Demolisher
12-10-2002, 01:27 AM
Well I dont hate it, just find it too tedious. I worry that everyone will die if a bunch of guys are fighting in one spot, while peasants/peons are doing something else. I did hear that it's not as bad as Warcraft II was. Eventhough the graphics are calling my name, I still wanna check out this game, SWGB that is :D

Sithmaster_821
12-10-2002, 07:08 AM
What SWGB lacks in graphics, it makes up in gameplay

Admiral Vostok
12-10-2002, 07:21 PM
Well I haven't played much of WarCraft III, but I have to agree with Dark Merkaba's comments on StarCraft. StarCraft is still my all-time favourite game. If I wasn't an amazingly huge Star Wars fan I'm not sure I'd even be playing SWGB.

So it depends on what you're into. I love the uniqueness of StarCraft and WC3's races, the way they are so different that your tactics need to change for each one. But at the same time, this isn't necessarily the best thing for a Star Wars game. In WC3 all your races mine gold and harvest lumber in different ways. But in Star Wars, every civ would mine in the same way, so this level of uniqueness wouldn't work.

And I loved the cutscenes in StarCraft, so much so that when I'd finished all the levels I'd go back and watch my favourite ones over and over again. I knew Arcturus Mengsk's Coronation Speech off by heart. But would it work for StarWars? The way Blizzard does things, no - it would be too cartoony. But if they did live-action cutscenes it would be great, kind of like the cut-scenes in Rebel Assault 2 (which was the worst game I've ever played, but still had cool cutscenes).

So whatever does it for you.

lukeiamyourdad
12-11-2002, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
And I loved the cutscenes in StarCraft, so much so that when I'd finished all the levels I'd go back and watch my favourite ones over and over again. I knew Arcturus Mengsk's Coronation Speech off by heart. But would it work for StarWars? The way Blizzard does things, no - it would be too cartoony. But if they did live-action cutscenes it would be great, kind of like the cut-scenes in Rebel Assault 2 (which was the worst game I've ever played, but still had cool cutscenes).



Agreed that it wouldn't fit SW.
Your Favorite cutscene is Arcturus Mengsk's coronation? Mine is the one where a group of marines is being sent to destroy a corrupted science vessel and gets attacked by some Zergs. That one is simply awesome!

DarthMuffin
12-12-2002, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Sithmaster_821
Let me give you a hint. If SWGB was better than WC3, do you think AoM will be too? Hmm.... (dont read spoiler until you've quessed)
AGE OF MYTHOLOGY KICKS WC3'S BUTT!!!!

I know im a little late for this, but I don't think AoM kicks Wc3's butt so easily.

I have played Wc3 since... the day it came out (I was waiting at the doors of the shop at 9AM:D ) and I still play it a lot.

Then, everybody here were saying that AoM was going to be the best cpu game ever and bla bla bla... So I bought it!

The game is really great, I can't say it sucks... but I think it's too close to the original Age of Empires... Archers, horses, swordsmen, archers, more archers, more horses... its always the same thing. God powers and myth units don't bring a lot of new stuff... Myth units are... well more powerfull units with special attacks. And can you decide when to use this special attack? No!

About ESO, it is a copy of B.net. Anonymous matchmaking, rating, ladder system... it comes from wc3's b.net. However, b.net is better. The rating system calculates everything, from wins to losses, from the most used race to the profile's avatar...

IMO, these two games should not be compared. They are not even the same thing: Wc3 an RPS and AoM an RTS.

And for those who don't know wich one to buy? Don't ask those questions on forums... If you talk about AoM at Bliz's forums, they will awnser : "What the heck is that???" OR "Oh Yeah, that stupid little game, it sucks so much!" and I heard someone complaining about AoM at Mr.Fixit Online. Try the demos and get the one you like!!!

simwiz2
12-12-2002, 08:37 PM
AoM is a great gameand has amazing graphics, but you need a great computer to run it - for 2v2 MP you will need a P4, 512+ RAM, Geforce gfx card. Ignore ES's minimum specs - someone with the minimum P2 450 mHz and 128 MB RAMwill be cursed at when playing MP and lagging everyone (even in a 1v1!) and will be able to play SP with about 4, maybe 5 AI players.

OTOH, I find Warcrap III to be very dark and gloomy. The units look like something out of a poorly drawn DBZ episode and the buildings are worse than the original AoE.

Sithmaster_821
12-12-2002, 10:09 PM
What does the P in RPS stand for? Real Person Strategy?

Your complaining about AoM having the same basic sets of units (horses, foot soldiers, archers) isnt that considering it is historically based, and there werent very many other sets to choose from. It is pretty hypocritical seeing that not only does Warcraft 3 have the same sets of units as its predecessors, some of the units didnt even get a name change!

Acharjay
12-13-2002, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Sithmaster_821
What does the P in RPS stand for? Real Person Strategy?

...It is pretty hypocritical seeing that not only does Warcraft 3 have the same sets of units as its predecessors, some of the units didnt even get a name change!

1) Role Playing Strategy, because of the Heroes that level up and become stronger, learn new spells and have an inventory list.

2) When unit names are as basic and straight-to-the-point as "Grunt" and "Footman", why on Earth should they need a name change?

DarthMuffin
12-13-2002, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Sithmaster_821
What does the P in RPS stand for? Real Person Strategy?

Your complaining about AoM having the same basic sets of units (horses, foot soldiers, archers) isnt that considering it is historically based, and there werent very many other sets to choose from. It is pretty hypocritical seeing that not only does Warcraft 3 have the same sets of units as its predecessors, some of the units didnt even get a name change!

They could use the modern ages or the renaissance.

It is pretty hypocritical seeing that not only does Warcraft 3 have the same sets of units as its predecessors, some of the units didnt even get a name change!

Yes, but Wc3 adds 2 NEW, DIFFERENT races

lukeiamyourdad
12-13-2002, 07:58 PM
you're all talking with your own personnal opinion and not looking at the facts. AoM has some points and some bad points so does WC3! So better stop complaning!

Acharjay
12-13-2002, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Darth54
This is LUCAS FORUMS. Don't ask stupid thing like :'WC3 or SWGB?' It is OBVIOUS that everybody (or almost) here will prefer SWGB...

Sithmaster_821
12-13-2002, 09:41 PM
I'd hate to admit it to you, but renaissance and the modern age would have less unit variety and pretty much the same unit sets as all other historically based games.

And the new civs are about as new as any of the three Norse or three Eygptian Gods in AoM.

Admiral Vostok
12-14-2002, 12:05 AM
I have to agree with simwiz's comments. The art is way too cartoony, and the relative sizes are terrible! A Grunt is about as big as a tower. At least in SWGB the troopers are way smaller than an AT-AT.

Demolisher
12-14-2002, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Darth54


And for those who don't know wich one to buy? Don't ask those questions on forums... If you talk about AoM at Bliz's forums, they will awnser : "What the heck is that???" OR "Oh Yeah, that stupid little game, it sucks so much!" and I heard someone complaining about AoM at Mr.Fixit Online. Try the demos and get the one you like!!!

That's a good point. It'd be nice if demos would show more of the game. I think the decision would be much easier if the games had similar engines. Like the other thread, it'd be cool if SWGB had more of a 3D engine where you can look down into the game and also have heroes.

A message board dedicated to 1 game is hard to compare 2 different games. That's the mistake I'm making
:nutz3:

lukeiamyourdad
12-14-2002, 05:32 PM
*Agrees with Demolisher*

As for renaissance and modern ages.

Look at cossacks. It was based around that time period and the units were not the same with AoK(i know it's not an Age of ....... but just to make a point). it was different. the sets were different.

DarthMuffin
12-16-2002, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Demolisher


That's a good point. It'd be nice if demos would show more of the game. I think the decision would be much easier if the games had similar engines. Like the other thread, it'd be cool if SWGB had more of a 3D engine where you can look down into the game and also have heroes.

A message board dedicated to 1 game is hard to compare 2 different games. That's the mistake I'm making
:nutz3:

AH! At last! someone agrees with me!

Admiral Vostok
12-16-2002, 08:55 PM
It's funny that billr's thread has survived a lot longer than he did.

lukeiamyourdad
12-17-2002, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Vostok
It's funny that billr's thread has survived a lot longer than he did.

That's because he insulted DMUK. What an idiot...

CorranSec
12-17-2002, 10:41 PM
I may be gravely mistaken, but WarCraft III is an RTS. I've never heard of the genre RPS, and I suppose it's something made up by a game rating site or some such to cover the vague role-playing elements of WC3.
Well, let me put it this way. You build buildings. You build men. You make the men fight each other. It's not first-person. It's in real time. And so on, and so forth.... it's an RTS! A bit of role-playing on the side (which I nonetheless liked in WC3) does not turn it into a completely different genre.
Thus, GB and WC3 have every right to be compared.

About the whole AoM thing:
OK, Darth54 and others, you really don't go in for the whole medieval/mythical unit sets thing. Well, it's your loss, but that shouldn't completely destroy the game as a whole.

Oh, just one thing-
Sith, you know stuff about AoM... Is it worthwhile to get the AoM collectors set instead of the normal AoM?

Admiral Vostok
12-18-2002, 01:17 AM
Yeah I wouldn't call it a whole new genre. But it is definitely at least a combination of genres. Still it is more RTS than RPG and there is no doubt it could be compared against SWGB.

Sithmaster_821
12-19-2002, 08:11 PM
Cossaks has different units and so does AoM. In fact, AoM has less repeated units than WC3. But Cossaks still has infantry, calvary, siege, ranged, ect.like any other history based rts