PDA

View Full Version : Add Capital Ships or not?


MadrixTF
09-18-2002, 07:42 AM
I would just like to know how many of you out there would like to see all the Capital Ships (with flying and attacking ability, etc.) for each Civ added to the existing CC expansion - in a patch format for instance?

Kryllith
09-18-2002, 09:26 AM
Maybe as cheat units (like the current star destroyer and blockade runner). But if you're talking about adding them as a buildable unit, then no. Maybe for SWGB II if space combat became a bigger factor, but not for low-level planetary combat.

Kryllith

joesdomain
09-18-2002, 04:15 PM
I want to see alot of capital ships. Maybe in a space battle option or a mode. Maybe a space battle campaign or scenario. I still think Capital ships are buildable in a 2-D RTS game. If they went to 3-D they would have to decrease population limit from 250 units to 100 units. I wouldn't like that. I prefer 2-D RTS games. You get more hero, special, unique units as well toy box units. I would like to see Mon Calamari Star Cruisers, Esocrt Frigates, corellian corvettes, Trade Federation Droid Controlled Ship, Trade Federation Battleship, Republic Assualt Ship, Star Destroyers and Super Star Destroyers. It might be cool if they add some capital ship or regular aircraft that was first introduced in Force commander or Rebellion also.

joesdomain
09-18-2002, 04:17 PM
I forgot to add to my previous post. No air cruiser attack! Please don't make them as cheats like tantive iv and star destroyer in clone campaigns.

lukeiamyourdad
09-18-2002, 04:21 PM
No air cruiser attack! Please don't make them as cheats like tantive iv and star destroyer in clone campaigns.

I agree with you and I don't think they'll put it like that if there is a space combat mode.

KoL ShadowJedi
09-18-2002, 05:40 PM
for the love of god joe!!!!!! DO you ALWAYS repeat yourself?!?!?!

lukeiamyourdad
09-18-2002, 05:42 PM
i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!i guess he does!

joesdomain
09-18-2002, 07:10 PM
Yes I do! This thread is a different thread than the previous ones! This thread is about whether or not capital ships should be added. Not all new people go back and read all threads and post. There are way too many post and threads to do that. There is no rule in here saying I can't repeat. I am trying to find new ideas and topics to talk about but until I do I will continue to talk about my old ideas to the newcomers.

Kryllith
09-18-2002, 10:11 PM
Think maybe if they do make capital ships they might fire like fortresses...?

Kryllith

joesdomain
09-18-2002, 10:59 PM
That would be more logical to fire weapons like a fortress or the command center. Air Cruiser attack has a slow recharge time and it looks so fake. Replacing Aircruisers with capital ships is always a option. I am sure Lucasarts could make the civilizations that are weak in air like trade federation, confederacy, etc. cheaper to make capital ships. Make empire, rebels, republic, and wookies costly since they are powerful. Especially if empire has star destroyers and super star destroyers.
Maybe:

500 Food and 1000 Nova for Empire, Republic, and Rebel capital ships

250 Food and 750 Nova for Gungans, Confedracy, Wookies, and Naboo

Add an upgrade for Gungans, Confederacy, Wookies, and Naboo to increase building speed of capital ships maybe 15% more speed.

Make the empire, rebels, and republic have slower building time for capital ships.

jedi3112
09-19-2002, 06:39 AM
Another game very much like st-armada use all the ships from X-Wing alliance and have only space combat and boarding combat. Have lots of different ships. Have civs like Republic Confederacy Empire and Rebels, Naboo could be part of the Republic

MadrixTF
09-19-2002, 06:54 AM
I think there could be two possibilites:

1) Replace the Air Cruisers with Capital Ships or
2) The Capital Ships are the command centre in space scenario's / maps.

In the movie they often use these ships as a command centre or control centre anyway.

joesdomain
09-24-2002, 02:05 AM
Say build an army and gather resources on the planet and defend it from invading armies, then once you get enough resources advance to the space and transport your army to a fleet of ships. In order to do so, you have to get resources to build transport ships and craft to protect them.. Then you can move to the next planet to invade or gather more resources depending on how much you have. You have to invade and kill the other civilizations bases in order to win.

jedi3112
09-24-2002, 05:22 AM
The Rebellion idea sounds good, problem is I don't have Rebellion, so I'm not sure what sort of combat we're talking about. My opinion is that you should be able to command the ships and stuff individually in real-time combat. I wouldn't mind moving troops and stuff in turn-based, as long as I battle in real-time. I also would like to have lots of different ships. Like

All corvettes, cor, mod cor and marauder
All stardestroyers, victory I and II Imperial I and II and super
All mc cruisers
Add some Republic and Confed ships to match the stardestroyers, Confed could use driod control ship, no idea for Republic

MadrixTF
09-25-2002, 08:03 AM
joesdomain:
i like your ideas. I think instead of having T1, T2, T3, etc. you could have Planet Age, Space Age, Advanced Space Age, etc. Sounds similar to AoE, but it would make sense in your idea - once you get to space age a whole lot of new technologies and units specifically suited to space combat become available...

Admiral Vostok
09-25-2002, 08:28 AM
I like the idea of a capital ship being your command center, very nice!

The biggest problem with a buildable capital ship I can see is the Gungans. Come on! The air cruiser is ridiculous enough.

But I think no to capital ships in this sort of RTS. It could work in a Rebellion type game, but they'd have to improve their 3D fights a whole lot, the space fights in Rebellion were lame. That was apparent in the fact you could just let the computer do it and it would tell you how they went.

Also Rebellion had too much EU... :)

MadrixTF
09-25-2002, 08:56 AM
Admiral - i agree it would be nice for LA to create an authentic Star Wars RTS, but they should at least have used the Capital Ships instead of those ugly Air Cruisers!

However, using a Capital Ship as a command centre would require quite a bit of redesign, etc. So, that would only work effectively in a totally new game environment...

Kryllith
09-25-2002, 11:06 AM
I always envisioned capital ships as mobile fortresses rather than command centers, but I can see it working both ways. Perhaps they could have two levels, with the smaller capital ship acting as a command center and the larger version acting as a fortress.

Kryllith

KoL ShadowJedi
09-25-2002, 11:46 AM
why wud u have to cut it down to 100 pop limit????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????? i mean look at RA2, it has tonnes of ground units and quite a few aircraft, that is 2D/3D a pure 3D game wud ruin RTS at the moment.....cos the technology isnt that good...look at EE

General Nilaar
09-30-2002, 03:56 AM
I voted no, mostly because you asked the wrong question. If you had asked whether I wanted to see a fleet based RTS game I would have shouted YES! YES! YES!

But do I want to see capital ships in GB or GB2? NO! NO! NO! They don't belong in this series in any way, shape, or form. The last bit of accuracy to the Star Wars universe would be stripped away.

I'm a huge Star Wars fan, but strangely I've noticed that all the other "fans" keep fighting the wrong battles....

MadrixTF
10-02-2002, 05:50 AM
General Nilaar, I think the technology availbale isn't good enough to create a true 3D Fleet RTS game using Cap Ships, Death Star, etc. I would also like to see a fleet RTS game as i am sure many of the people who voted "Yes" would as well - but seeing as there isn't one - the next best thing would be to replace the Air Cruisers for Cap Ships from an art perspective - even if it is out of scale - who cares anyway! It would have the same balance and would just look a lot better!

Or as Kryllith suggested replace the fortresses with Cap Ships in a space-combat mode expansion or something....

jedi3112
10-03-2002, 05:35 AM
st-armada is a space combat RTS, just change the ships into SW shouldn't be too hard

CorranSec
10-03-2002, 07:37 AM
Actually, you guys should all go to the SW:GB 2 thread. Cap ships won't fit with the current game, you'd need a complete overhaul of everything (including buildings and ground units) to fit with the other ships.

Everybody seems to want Air Cruisers to be displayed as canon ships. This has to be the worst idea in a long history of bad ideas, as Ian Malcolm would say. (Lost World was the best...)
All those who support canon stuff and all those who support working to scale, you're being hypocrites. Name me a ship in the movies that can participate in atmospheric combat, is smaller than a Troop Center (but... um.. Troop Centers aren't in the movies, so we'll say... about the size of an At-At). The fact is, they really don't exist. It's not a cap ship. It's an air cruiser. AIR! They're not really space cruisers. If you want to stretch the limits, in the movies they'd be about the same size as a Rebel Transport (and they weren't represented to scale in the game anyway, so nobody talk to me about accuracy!)

Air Cruisers aren't based on any canon ships. They're completely different. Sure, some of the art work is completely stupid (eg. Imp is a flying bus with a tube on the front) but changing them (eg. Imp being a Star Destroyer) is just out of scale, out of realism, out of gameplay, just plain old silly.

MadrixTF
10-04-2002, 03:56 AM
CorranSec, if you read all the posts in this thread then you would have noticed that the direction the Cap Ships idea is moving is to a Space-combat RTS for the very reason that they won't really fit into a ground-based war.

But, i still think the Air Cruisers could have been Cap Ships for Art reasons - some of the Air Cruisers just look silly! (Yes, i know it's not practical, but who the hell cares anyway! - It would just look good!)

Admiral Vostok
10-04-2002, 09:24 AM
CorranSec, I'm with you. Capital Ships shouldn't replace Air Cruisers. However, I also think Air Cruisers should never have been introduced. Take me back to the good old Galactic Battlegrounds unit sets before Clone Campaigns. Okay, I guess they had to introduce a new standard unit to make it interesting, but I think the air cruiser is perhaps not the best choice.

CorranSec
10-05-2002, 07:01 AM
Ah. Madrix, thanks for the clarification.
I really didn't understand what you were saying, primarily based on the fact that in the first post in this thread you specifically specified that the cap ships would be added to CC.

I think a SW space-based RTS would be good, sure. But you still could have smaller 'cap ships' (basically cruisers) in SW:GB or SW:GB 2, like the ones I've suggested in the "Ideas for SW:GB 2" thread.

So... yeah. This thread seems to be coming to a bit of an end, cos we're discussing a completely different game. And of course there doesn't seem to be much of a debate here. :rolleyes:

MadrixTF
10-08-2002, 07:42 AM
I'm glad you understand now CorranSec! :)

Am i imagining things or did you just contradict yourself in your last two posts? First you say it's the worst idea you've heard and now you also want to include a smaller ver. of the Cap Ships in SWGB!

btw, the only Thread that should be coming to an end is that bl@@dy Gunship thread - it just never ends!!!

Admiral, I think you are right about the cruisers - they don't really impress me that much - especially when they take out 20 of my ground troops in one blast!

:eek:

ckcsaber
10-08-2002, 07:52 PM
Add them

lukeiamyourdad
10-09-2002, 05:45 PM
ckcsaber- Add what?

MadrixTF
10-14-2002, 08:55 AM
I am sure he is refering to the Capital Ships as this is the topic of this Thread... plus i noticed another vote on my Poll in favour of Cap Ships...

CorranSec
10-15-2002, 06:48 AM
No, Madrix, you've entirely misunderstood my idea.
Firstly I was saying that using canon cap ship (massive space ships) artwork to replace Air Cruiser (small atmospheric assault craft) artwork is remarkably stupid, and I gave reasons why, which I shall not repeat. Even though I kinda already did. :rolleyes:

Secondly, I proposed an introduction of some new generic classes, which are not designed to be air cruisers or replace them, but are instead smaller 'capital ships.' To reinforce my point, examples of these kinds of ships are light and heavy freighters (such as the Millenium Falcon or the Wild Kaarde), armed shuttles (such as Lamda-class shuttles), and frigates (such as the Nebulon B, even though that's probably too big), as well as some kinds of fighters which are in the Ideas for SW:GB 2 thread.

Plainly, an inclusion of a whole new sheaf of hugely unbalancing and out-of-scale Capital Ships (canon or otherwise) would not work in the current SW:GB and CC, and is best set as an idea for SW:GB 2.

MadrixTF
10-17-2002, 06:30 AM
Okey dokey, whatever tickles your fancy...

;)

Arthur2
10-17-2002, 02:53 PM
yeah I would say add them
but then not in this version of SWGB...cause the engine is not designed to have huge units with tiny units in one game...
u can consult EE's carrier and infantry...
they balance the game if they gonna add huge units like Star destroyers...or other ships.

MadrixTF
10-21-2002, 01:31 AM
Arthur, we have come to that conclusions as well. The Cap Ships won't fit into the current game unless they replace the Air Cruisers - but that is obviously not ideal. The ideal situation would be to have a space-combat RTS with Cap Ships, etc.

Arthur2
10-21-2002, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by MadrixTF
Arthur, we have come to that conclusions as well. The Cap Ships won't fit into the current game unless they replace the Air Cruisers - but that is obviously not ideal. The ideal situation would be to have a space-combat RTS with Cap Ships, etc.

dude this is a game
it's not the reality
who cares
in EE they got carriers
we can use the cap ships to do the same
like the guy who wrote about 1 ship per 100 population
i think it's a good idea......
u can always blend it in...there is a way...
u don't have to go for all the details in SW, else u'll get tired of this game ---- too complicated

lukeiamyourdad
10-21-2002, 06:35 PM
Yeah but how would you balance that out?

A Star Destroyer would wipe out a whole base within seconds.

Arthur2
10-21-2002, 11:40 PM
make it less powerful then...
as simple as that...
there are other ships besides star destroyer
u can always choose something smaller
quoted from another thread
"game play reasons"

lukeiamyourdad
10-22-2002, 05:30 PM
Yeah
I always pictured something like the corellian corvette.

It could be some kind of even slower and less powerful battlecruiser like in starcraft but of course without the yamato gun thing.

Arthur2
10-22-2002, 11:08 PM
i guess wut u mean by less powerful is "it cannot destroy a base with ease like it did in the movies"

it's gonna suck if the capital ships can be killed by 8 troopers, like in Starcraft, it doesn't make sense ><

CorranSec
10-23-2002, 01:58 AM
Arthur- "don't let them be killed by 8 troopers, it doesn't make sense."
To quote you:
dude this is a game
it's not the reality
who cares

That actually makes a damned lot more sense than GB's "er.... let's not let laser troopers shoot at air units, even though they should be able to, but for the sake of gameplay (even though we COULD balance it out, but we're too lazy to) we're going to introduce some crazy non-canon 'AA' unit which is pretty useless anyway."
Needless to say, I'm not very happy about that issue. But that's not the point.

Trying to base GB on EE is a bad idea. EE wasn't a very good game, and even if it was, it's not GB, it's not Star Wars, and it just doesn't fit in.

Why use a certain set of canon artwork (eg. Star Destroyers) to fulfill a role they wouldn't be able to, have them terribly out of scale and all-around whacked-out, when you can take
another set of canon/EU artwork (eg. Millenium Falcon, Lambda-class shuttle and the rest I proposed earlier) and fit them into the role that they are supposed to fit?

I'm assuming that by "less powerful" people are meaning "actually sane and fitting within the game, and thus being totally the opposite of what it was in the movies." Thanks everyone, you've proved my point.:D

Arthur2
10-23-2002, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by CorranSec
Arthur- "don't let them be killed by 8 troopers, it doesn't make sense."
To quote you:
dude this is a game
it's not the reality
who cares

That actually makes a damned lot more sense than GB's "er.... let's not let laser troopers shoot at air units, even though they should be able to, but for the sake of gameplay (even though we COULD balance it out, but we're too lazy to) we're going to introduce some crazy non-canon 'AA' unit which is pretty useless anyway."
Needless to say, I'm not very happy about that issue. But that's not the point.

Trying to base GB on EE is a bad idea. EE wasn't a very good game, and even if it was, it's not GB, it's not Star Wars, and it just doesn't fit in.

Why use a certain set of canon artwork (eg. Star Destroyers) to fulfill a role they wouldn't be able to, have them terribly out of scale and all-around whacked-out, when you can take
another set of canon/EU artwork (eg. Millenium Falcon, Lambda-class shuttle and the rest I proposed earlier) and fit them into the role that they are supposed to fit?

I'm assuming that by "less powerful" people are meaning "actually sane and fitting within the game, and thus being totally the opposite of what it was in the movies." Thanks everyone, you've proved my point.:D


hmmm maybe u should comment on EE after u play the game, perheps? i am not saying that SWGB 2 should be based on EE, but there are definitely some good ideas from EE that can be used for SWGB development.

absurd, when's the last time u see a laser trooper attacking a X-wing?
when i say "not reality" i am talking about big units
the big units like ATAT are definitely not as strong as they use to be in the movies...
i am talking about balancing the game
that's different from SC
SC is not balanced, it's crap balance
and they don't really have big units... (battle cruiser? not big enough...the attack is still too weak and no bonuses to any other units)

what i mean by "less powerful" , ah...take a look at ATAT
it's not as strong as it is in the movies (jedi master can kill one ATAT in 3~5 swings)
that's what i am talking about
letting troopers shoot down capital ships is one of the worst ideas ever, cauz ppl can now mass trooper and not worry about air....

CorranSec
10-23-2002, 07:03 AM
I have played EE, that's why I said it wasn't too good. Others will agree with me on this one.

StarCraft was balanced remarkably well for a game with three totally unique civs.
The fact that marines and the like could take down air units was balanced out by the fact that those air units were actually very good and worthwhile to use individually.
There was also the fact that the Marines themselves were worthwhile individually, which is a step away from massing tactics of any sort.

If you've watched the movies, you'll see all kinds of ground units attacking all kinds of air units, and vice versa.
For example: Stormtroopers firing at the Millenium Falcon as it took off from Mos Eisley.
I believe Leia, Chewie and Lando took a few potshots at the Slave I as it flew off from Bespin.
Droidekas fired on Anakin's Naboo N-1 in the Theed Hangar.
And so on, and so forth.
It's clear that troopers should be able to fire on air units, and it should be easy to balance out.

About AT-AT's:
If an AT-AT is supported by other mechs and carring troopers, the Jedi Master would go down quite easily. Of course, there's the other argument that in the movies, it took a half-trained Jedi just one swing and a good throw to take out an AT-AT..... :D
You claim to be supporting balance, but then you take realism above gameplay. That's just not the way it works. Certain canon issues must be sacrificed for the sake of balance and gameplay, and the AT-AT thing is one of them.
And also, the Anti-Air upgrade does make AT-ATs remarkably self-reliant and undoubtedly the most powerful of all the Assault Mechs.

Arthur2
10-23-2002, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by CorranSec
I have played EE, that's why I said it wasn't too good. Others will agree with me on this one.

StarCraft was balanced remarkably well for a game with three totally unique civs.
The fact that marines and the like could take down air units was balanced out by the fact that those air units were actually very good and worthwhile to use individually.
There was also the fact that the Marines themselves were worthwhile individually, which is a step away from massing tactics of any sort.

If you've watched the movies, you'll see all kinds of ground units attacking all kinds of air units, and vice versa.
For example: Stormtroopers firing at the Millenium Falcon as it took off from Mos Eisley.
I believe Leia, Chewie and Lando took a few potshots at the Slave I as it flew off from Bespin.
Droidekas fired on Anakin's Naboo N-1 in the Theed Hangar.
And so on, and so forth.
It's clear that troopers should be able to fire on air units, and it should be easy to balance out.

About AT-AT's:
If an AT-AT is supported by other mechs and carring troopers, the Jedi Master would go down quite easily. Of course, there's the other argument that in the movies, it took a half-trained Jedi just one swing and a good throw to take out an AT-AT..... :D
You claim to be supporting balance, but then you take realism above gameplay. That's just not the way it works. Certain canon issues must be sacrificed for the sake of balance and gameplay, and the AT-AT thing is one of them.
And also, the Anti-Air upgrade does make AT-ATs remarkably self-reliant and undoubtedly the most powerful of all the Assault Mechs.


SC? Balance?
man u must be joking me
dude u gotta know what kinda balance u talking about
SC balanced civ to civ, but then i am talking about big units vs. small units balance

EE did a much better job on that.
u can mass air bombers, but then ppl can always shoot u down with craps like anti-air mobile, air-to-air fighters

troopers firing at air, answers is still no way
they fired on those aircrafts becoz they are in the hanger?? perheps??
u think u gonna fire at an air fighter while they are on flight? ...uh...yeah if u are back in the WW1 period, u can...LOL
it just doesn't make any sense.

i am not taking realism above game play
dude, u are supporting Starcraft
and u know what? Starcraft is a way too simplisticated game comparing to AoX, EE or SWGB
starcraft has crap balance, big units are way too weak, that's why starcraft sux , it doesn't have enuff strategy involved...

in SWGB, u can't play the way u play in starcraft, juts mass units
cause i can take u out with counter-units
ATAT is powerful, but against, gernade troopers???
plus, if u can mass, that means other ppl can mass, right?
programmers aren't as dumb as u think they are...
this is how game companies manipulate their supporters
blizzard knows that its strategy games are crap, but then ppl like the style, so they make it
Microsoft knows that AoX cannot beat Starcraft, becoz AoX is much more complicated in terms of a strategy game.
SWGB is definitely a good strategy, enhanced verison of AoX...
there is no way that SWGB can beat Starcraft besides turning SWGB into some ghetto crap like Starcraft....the market is different
so dun try to mess up SWGB with ideas from blizzard games
we want a profound strategy game, not a shallow one.

Arthur2
10-23-2002, 11:55 AM
LOL i find it amusing
i come to this board becoz i like SWGB
and it's good , just like AoX series
i am trying to give ideas to enhance the game

but u, come to this board to tell us that SWGB is crap and u want to change it to blizzard style
u shouldn't even be here if u prefer blizzard games over SWGB
we should keep the good stuff, and make it better
not change the essence of this game to some ghetto blizzard design, u'll ruin this game completely
do u want it to be a good strategy game? or a popular game?
i'd choose good strategy game, becoz popular games are often shallow....Counter-Strike is a very very good example (comparing to Jedi Knight 2)

Crazy_dog no.3
10-23-2002, 02:39 PM
U're joking right?! CS is second only to BF1942!


System Shock 2 is not a very popular game, yet I believe is one of the most chilling games there is, so u could be right there.

Arthur2
10-23-2002, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3
U're joking right?! CS is second only to BF1942!


System Shock 2 is not a very popular game, yet I believe is one of the most chilling games there is, so u could be right there.

read the reply again
what i meant is that
CS is very popular, but it's a shallow game
u don't get lightsabres and u cannot counterattack if the bullet has been shot, at u.
the game structure is much simpler
that's what i mean
just like War3 vs. AOK
War3 is much simpler..

Crazy_dog no.3
10-24-2002, 02:42 AM
Ah, I get it now.:)

But why would u have lightsabre's in a reality-based game?

CorranSec
10-24-2002, 07:03 AM
Arthur, I'm getting really sick of you basing everything you say on EE. It seems to be becoming abundantly clear that you prefer EE to SWGB, so-
"but u, come to this board to tell us that SWGB is crap and u want to change it to EE style"
EE had some good points. They were limited. StarCraft had some bad points. They were limited. SWGB has good and bad. Neither are limited- the good outweigh the bad, but we can always make things better.

What is this "ghetto" business? Unless it's some kind of slang, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Thankyou. You've admitted that SC was balanced civ-to-civ. That's what the main point is, not some weird idea that "small units are not as good as big units." It's an established fact-in gaming and real warfare- that big things kill small things, but lots of small things can kill big things. Medium things kill lots of things, but we won't go into that yet.
In SC, there are no hangars, there is no WW1 period. Period. ;)
Please, stay away from EE when you're actually discussing SC.

In SC, they fire on the aircraft because it's realistic and balanced in gameplay terms. Everyone loves realism, and it's even better when it actually works.

The best games are generally the most popular games. If there was a game- let's call it Popular Game A- and it was put on the market, and everyone bought it cos they thought it looked really cool, instead of buying Deep Arthurish Game A, then it turned out to be not as good as Deep Arthurish Game A, a lot of people would subsequently buy Deep Arthurish Game A and play it instead of playing Popular Game A.
This did not happen with StarCraft. Or WarCraft III.
SC's sales figures are huge and are still growing. Its online community is still very strong.
WC3 is doing great in terms of sales-in the millions- and has a jam-packed online community.
GB wasn't very popular when it first came out, and CC helped a little, but not much. There are more people still playing AoK than there are playing CC.
Do you see hundreds of "ghetto-ish" game players rushing away from the stores to give their games back to purchase Deep Arthurish Games? No. And even if all these game players merely have a different gaming style to you, that proves my point even more, because the game should be changed to fit the majority. They're generally right, and they are, um, bigger, and we want more people to buy the game. Right?

Arthur2
10-24-2002, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by CorranSec
Arthur, I'm getting really sick of you basing everything you say on EE. It seems to be becoming abundantly clear that you prefer EE to SWGB, so-
"but u, come to this board to tell us that SWGB is crap and u want to change it to EE style"
EE had some good points. They were limited. StarCraft had some bad points. They were limited. SWGB has good and bad. Neither are limited- the good outweigh the bad, but we can always make things better.

What is this "ghetto" business? Unless it's some kind of slang, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Thankyou. You've admitted that SC was balanced civ-to-civ. That's what the main point is, not some weird idea that "small units are not as good as big units." It's an established fact-in gaming and real warfare- that big things kill small things, but lots of small things can kill big things. Medium things kill lots of things, but we won't go into that yet.
In SC, there are no hangars, there is no WW1 period. Period. ;)
Please, stay away from EE when you're actually discussing SC.

In SC, they fire on the aircraft because it's realistic and balanced in gameplay terms. Everyone loves realism, and it's even better when it actually works.

The best games are generally the most popular games. If there was a game- let's call it Popular Game A- and it was put on the market, and everyone bought it cos they thought it looked really cool, instead of buying Deep Arthurish Game A, then it turned out to be not as good as Deep Arthurish Game A, a lot of people would subsequently buy Deep Arthurish Game A and play it instead of playing Popular Game A.
This did not happen with StarCraft. Or WarCraft III.
SC's sales figures are huge and are still growing. Its online community is still very strong.
WC3 is doing great in terms of sales-in the millions- and has a jam-packed online community.
GB wasn't very popular when it first came out, and CC helped a little, but not much. There are more people still playing AoK than there are playing CC.
Do you see hundreds of "ghetto-ish" game players rushing away from the stores to give their games back to purchase Deep Arthurish Games? No. And even if all these game players merely have a different gaming style to you, that proves my point even more, because the game should be changed to fit the majority. They're generally right, and they are, um, bigger, and we want more people to buy the game. Right?


I think the conversation is getting pointless since u don't have a high-enough IQ to understand what I just wrote

EE, I am giving examples, ok? and the supports from EE becoz i am trying to give u more-than-one examples against SC
SC, the balance between big-small units doesn't make sense at all

big units kill small units? and small units kill big units?
when's the last time u see marines firing at aircrafts? and actually shoot them down?

dude I don't like EE at all, it's way too complex.
it's just some details that the EE team did well, and it may or may not help the game playing, it's always good to have OPTIONS like tactical heroes. don't start again on this topic, just shut up about it since u can't read.

that's why i am here, NOT on the crappy sierra forum
i am the one who is getting sick of it
u are trying to get ghetto blizzard crap into the new version of SWGB

"the most popular games are the best games"
that's the ghetto-est crap i've ever heard
DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK that everybody prefer games like SWGB?
why? and why not?
they don't prefer SWGB becoz a lot of ppl think it's too complicated, so they go and keep playing their ghetto war3
what they see in SWGB, is a game that's pointless, complicated and time-consuming, and furthermore, braincell-killing...
is SWGB a good game? definitely...SWGB is a good RTS game

but why do ppl play war3?
becoz that's what blizzard wants, blizzard make its simpler and simpler so it can get more support from the players. War3 , is a really terrible RTS game, but ppl like it, so blizzard make it anywayz.

is war3 a bad game? no, it's a good popular game, it's just a bad RTS game, and i dunno why u want to play a rts game that's a bad rts game

fit the majority? argh...go play ur war3 if that's what u want
u want SWGB to become the most popular game? no way
i'd rather see a good RTS game, than a popular game
AOK is a good example, good RST game, but not as popular
only ppl who have no idea why they play games care about the popularity of a game
gosh go check out other forums, JK2?
is it more popular than CS?
NO, and in the asia region, only Korea has a solid no. of jk2 players
what does that tell u?
IT DOESn'T MATTER, ok?
none of the lucas games has been rated "number 1", or number 2...ppl play this game becoz they like starwars and they like strategy

I pull this EE crap in becoz i want to get ur War3 ideas out
it is absurd to sacrifice a good game for popularity

Arthur2
10-24-2002, 12:17 PM
You should go cruise on the Blizzard forums
if you want to be a part of the community-the-most-popular-games

i don't care anymore

if u guys like strategy, like i do
i'd say let's keep the blizzard ideas out of this forum

if u guys like popular and shallow RTS games,
i'd say make SWGB using some ghetto war3 engine so we can do micromanagement ALL THE TIME!!!!!!!!
:o

u guys decide
i know i am very radical
therefore i don't represent any groups of ppl on this forum
i am just giving ideas

if the majority want SWGB to drop its RTS essence and become a popular game, then....i guess there is nothing i can do about it

Crazy_dog no.3
10-24-2002, 12:43 PM
Actaully if marines shoot at a helicopter enough they could destroy it but hiiting the fuel tanks...

simwiz2
10-24-2002, 02:38 PM
The clickfest Blizzard games are IMO some of the worst RT's ever made. Calling them RTS is insulting to the RTS genre.

EE is IMO a horrible game. Balanced worse than the original AoE, with graphics comparable to Civ2. The fact that there are entire clans based around making custom civs with nothing but villie speed and attack bonuses, and using their start villies to rush and destroy an opponent, just highlights the fact that EE is a joke.

Dagobahn Eagle
10-24-2002, 05:18 PM
No, Madrix, you've entirely misunderstood my idea.
Firstly I was saying that using canon cap ship (massive space ships) artwork to replace Air Cruiser (small atmospheric assault craft) artwork is remarkably stupid, and I gave reasons why, which I shall not repeat. Even though I kinda already did.

You cannot replace Air Cruisers and Cap Ships simply because Cap Ships -any ships from Corvette and Nebulan B Frigate class and above, cannot travel in atmosphere. This has been proven in novels and comics.

I like the idea about replacing Command Centers and Fortresses with Cap Ships, though. Then Workers could be replaced with Construction ships. Only one catch: Cap Ships are mobile. If Command Centers and Fortresses are made mobile, it will disrupt game balance. It would sound fun as a new game (sort of like Homeworld) sort of like two armies fighting each others.. except HW turned out to be a horrible game :).

My conclusion:
1. Because 90% of the maps are atmosphere, Cap Ships would be almost unseen.

2. Homeworld sucked.

3. If Cap Ships are replaced with buildings (Corvettes are turrets, Star Destroyers are Fortresses, and a XQ Platform or something is the Command Center), they will have to be stationary. Then it'll be a good idea. However, it sounds more like a good idea for a GB mod.

Crazy_dog no.3
10-24-2002, 05:26 PM
Hey Eagle, I thought u left already?:confused:

jedi3112
10-24-2002, 05:30 PM
I don't think we should discuss cap ships in SWGB, simply because it's a ground assault based RTS, not space combat. I think that we need a space combat based RTS like Rebellion or St-armada. That way we could have the really big ships (SSD and DSTAR) too, if the maps are large enough. That game will also need to have some sort of counter system, EE has a pretty good system for this except you don't notice it very well.

Dagobahn Eagle
10-24-2002, 08:46 PM
I just started missing y'all. I'll hang around.

Arthur2
10-25-2002, 03:58 AM
hmm
i never said EE is better in anyway
EE just have some stuff like tactical heroes
and EE's got aircraft carriers and nuclear subs
the way EE does it may be some food for thought...

that's what i suggest

cauz there are some aspects that EE did do a better job
for example: the airplanes more real, and tactical heroes stop ur troops (when u order them to move forward, normally they don't stop and attack until they reach the gather point) and fight back...these are some cool ideas

anywayz, just food for thought
I THINK we should start listing the ideas and do some compromises...the replies and threads are really messy right now
we should blend the ideas
and make it into a game proposal...

we can start doing that as soon as ppl have no more opinions (well objections don't count cauz we'll compromise later)

CorranSec
10-25-2002, 05:43 AM
Hmmm. That might work. Blending is always best.
Hey, Arthur, why is it that in every thread we both are in, we seem to argue about the same thing? :confused:

I actually did quite like the aircraft in EE, especially when zoomed in on them. They looked rather nice.
I personally don't like the idea of tac heroes, but others might. Maybe a Tac Hero will be a certain build option, and other kinds of heroes are also available.

Dagobahian Eagle- Er, I totally agree with you. Why did you quote me? :confused:

jedi3112
10-25-2002, 08:04 AM
The tact hero was not very tactical, more of a weak warrior hero, still strong enough though. I used the tact hero in the invasion of England mission, the last 1 in the German campaign, were you can't build anything except transport ships, citizens and the German officer hero. Worked very effective.

Arthur2
10-25-2002, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by jedi3112
The tact hero was not very tactical, more of a weak warrior hero, still strong enough though. I used the tact hero in the invasion of England mission, the last 1 in the German campaign, were you can't build anything except transport ships, citizens and the German officer hero. Worked very effective.

corranSec -- LOL yeah....hey let's get ideas together so if lucasarts staff comes to this forum, they'll see organized proposal, not scattered pieces of thoughts.

jedi -- hmmm tactical, i dunno, i tried a couple of times, and i was amazed by the way the hero helped...i send my army to the frontline, but all of a sudden a nasty horde of enemy infantry appeared...and the hero stopped my troops and fought the enemy...it really brought down the numbers of casualties....
and besides, the hero's attack is about 3 times a normal infantry unit...
well all i can say is that it helped, well maybe not entirely
oh wait, i forgot...the tactical hero i meant was the warrior hero in EE...
not the "tactical hero"...the "tactical hero" is meant to be strategic, i dunno why sierra gave it that awkward name
(how can the hero be tactical if the only thing it does is make ur workers work faster)

MadrixTF
10-25-2002, 09:04 AM
I agree with you Arthur, i don't like Blizzard game ideas on this forum either, plus i think SWGB has enough balance as it is.

SWGB is a true RTS and should be compared by games of equal RTS level, not Star Craft and WC3.


Eagle: Who mentioned Homeworld? I agree with you 100% about Homeworld anyway - it was pathetic - that's what worries me about creating a true space-combat RTS - it will need plenty of development time and good technology to build a proper Star Wars game - one should be able to zoom in and out of space / ground combat modes, just like in the movies! Then we could really use the Cap Ships / Star Destroyers in their correct roles!!!

(i think this was Jedi3112's good idea...)

jedi3112
11-02-2002, 08:45 AM
Here's my first idea about the space combat. First of all I think we should use 3 main types of weapons, the normal laser, the turbolaser and the proton torpedo, these are just classes, a fighter's laser is not as powerfull as a corvette's laser.

The normal laser is good vs fighters and bomber
The turbolaser is good vs corvette and bigger
Proton torpedo can penetrate shields and does major damage, only used vs frigate and bigger.

Corvette counters fighters/bombers, think of blockade runners for the rebellion, modified corvettes for the republic and lancers for the empire, about 4-5 lasers.

Frigate counters corvette, think of nebulon B, about 3-4 turbolasers, maybe 1-2 lasers to destroy a few fighters/bombers

Small cruisers counter frigates, think of dreadnought (republic) interdictor (empire), has about 10 turbolasers, maybe interdictor field to prefent enemy ships from entering hyperspace

Capital ships counter small cruisers, think of stardestroyers and mc-cruisers, about 30-40 turbolaser, expensive and slow.

Fighters/bombers counter ships without lasers, think of x-wing/y-wing/b-wing for rebellion, tie-fighters/interceptors/bombers and assault gunboat for empire. Fighters/bombers have normal lasers+proton torpedo, fighter better vs bomber, bomber has better proton torpedoes.

Any1 else

Arthur2
11-02-2002, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by jedi3112
Here's my first idea about the space combat. First of all I think we should use 3 main types of weapons, the normal laser, the turbolaser and the proton torpedo, these are just classes, a fighter's laser is not as powerfull as a corvette's laser.

The normal laser is good vs fighters and bomber
The turbolaser is good vs corvette and bigger
Proton torpedo can penetrate shields and does major damage, only used vs frigate and bigger.

Corvette counters fighters/bombers, think of blockade runners for the rebellion, modified corvettes for the republic and lancers for the empire, about 4-5 lasers.

Frigate counters corvette, think of nebulon B, about 3-4 turbolasers, maybe 1-2 lasers to destroy a few fighters/bombers

Small cruisers counter frigates, think of dreadnought (republic) interdictor (empire), has about 10 turbolasers, maybe interdictor field to prefent enemy ships from entering hyperspace

Capital ships counter small cruisers, think of stardestroyers and mc-cruisers, about 30-40 turbolaser, expensive and slow.

Fighters/bombers counter ships without lasers, think of x-wing/y-wing/b-wing for rebellion, tie-fighters/interceptors/bombers and assault gunboat for empire. Fighters/bombers have normal lasers+proton torpedo, fighter better vs bomber, bomber has better proton torpedoes.

Any1 else

LOL I have ordered the Starwars Encyclopedia
guess I need to look up some of those "vocabs" before replying to your thread
Well I think it's good idea though...
even though capital ships cannot enter the atmosphere,
they can still fire some sort of cannons , right?
or maybe just disable the ground attack for capital ships

CorranSec
11-03-2002, 04:10 AM
Jedi3112- I guess with the different kinds of weapons, different kinds of armours etc. you're referring to something a bit like WC3 (ie where different units had siege/melee/hero/chaos attacks which were good against fortified/light/heavy/etc. armour)?
What I ask is- why have actual different kinds of weapon when it could be simply programmed that the same weapon does different damages against different units, like in the current GB??? :confused: :confused:
You did give me one idea though- the proton torpedoes. This could be an upgrade for all/most fighters (different name for different civs, obviously) which gave them a BattleRealms-esque limited-use special power. Here's how it works: In normal combat eg. blue fighter vs. red fighter, the blue player pushes the "Proton Torpedoes" button on the command box. The blue fighter fires a proton torp for his next attack, and it does much greater damage than the normal lasers (enough to destroy a fighter with full health, and severely damage a medium ship). These may seem remarkably powerful, but they're limited in their use, so they have to be used wisely (unless you can throw away the money to get a whole new squadron of fighters cos the last ones used up their torps).

jedi3112
11-04-2002, 09:14 AM
CorranSec- What I meant with the lasers is that some ships can only use a part of their firepower on fighters/bombers, also some ships wouldn't be able to fire at fighters at all, so fighters will not be blasted out of space too easy, I didn't mean any armor to counter like in WC, more like the battleship from EE can't fire at subs.

If the protorps are truly limited, I think 1 or several ships should be able to reload the fighters/bombers, this could work very well, especially if the bomber could carry about 12-16 torps and the fighter only 4-6. If they use special energy, I think the bomber should recharge faster or have more energy or a combination.

I also think the bigger ships should be able to carry fighters/bombers, cause TIEs can't enter hyperspace by themselves. This would have an impact on gameplay, since the Empire can't perform deep space strikes with only TIEs, might also be made up with the assault gunboat

CorranSec
11-05-2002, 05:24 AM
I actually considered the "cap ship carries li'l ships" option, but dismissed it, for several reasons.
(Note: When I say "fighters," I mean fighter-sized ships, eg. X-Wing, B-Wing, TIE Bomber, anything that size).
First: Scale. I don't want any remarkably big cap ships (Vic SD's, Nebulon B's, etc.) in this game, because to put things into scale, they'd cover about half the map. If they were made smaller, they'd look pathetically stupid, and their abilities would have to be scaled down far too much.
Seeing as it would only be these ships which would carry fighters, I think it's fair to say that fighter-carrying ships are out.
If you need another reason, 2: plain old gameplay. If fighters actually needed a cap ship to get around (andthey shouldn't, which I'll explain later), then it'd have a severely detrimental effect on any air battle. Gone are the scouts; gone are the raids, gone are the practical uses of fighters....

About what you said-
There are no 'deep space strikes,' or there shouldn't be. This isn't and won't be a RoN-style galaxy-spanning game. It should end up functioning just like the current GB- bases on a planet/asteroid field/whatever battling it out, and assuming that all/most locations are within reach of fuel, food, resources, whatever.
With the lasers; I don't like the idea of ships being plain old not able to fire at other kinds of ships, but I do like the 'specific-target-lasers' idea. From what you said, this should end up working like WC3; seeing as they can only use part of their firepower, they end up doing less damage. This is represented on their stats by them having an anti-fighter laser and an anti-larger ship laser, and also different looks on-screen. I think this would actually look nice and work well.

Arthur2
11-05-2002, 05:45 PM
How bout let's make capital ships another "layer" of units
capital ships cannot attack ground directly, but it can send fighters and ground troops

capital ships' turbolasers can only fire at other capital ships or air units
how's that?

CorranSec
11-06-2002, 01:46 AM
Arthur- having 'cap ships' not able to fire at the ground seems remarkably stupid in terms of realism and gameplay. If you look at my list of ships in the Ideas for SW:GB 2 thread, it shows a bunch of cap ships which aren't too large to be real (like a Star Destroyer) and would fit nicely with gameplay.
Having ships cruising around which can't attack ground (for no apparent reason) and which can carry large amounts of starfighters (even though only about 5 fighters would fit on top of it, let alone within it) seems a confusing waste compared with the smaller cap ships which I proposed in the Ideas for SW:GB 2 thread.

In terms of actual Cap Ships (like Star Destroyers), however, they could be included in one way:
A certain unit would target a location for an "orbital strike," which is where an orbiting ship (eg. Star Destroyer) fires a deadly turbolaser barrage, heavily damaging everything in the area.
This idea would work a lot like the Ghost Nukes in Starcraft.

Arthur2
11-06-2002, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by CorranSec
Arthur- having 'cap ships' not able to fire at the ground seems remarkably stupid in terms of realism and gameplay. If you look at my list of ships in the Ideas for SW:GB 2 thread, it shows a bunch of cap ships which aren't too large to be real (like a Star Destroyer) and would fit nicely with gameplay.
Having ships cruising around which can't attack ground (for no apparent reason) and which can carry large amounts of starfighters (even though only about 5 fighters would fit on top of it, let alone within it) seems a confusing waste compared with the smaller cap ships which I proposed in the Ideas for SW:GB 2 thread.

In terms of actual Cap Ships (like Star Destroyers), however, they could be included in one way:
A certain unit would target a location for an "orbital strike," which is where an orbiting ship (eg. Star Destroyer) fires a deadly turbolaser barrage, heavily damaging everything in the area.
This idea would work a lot like the Ghost Nukes in Starcraft.

Sorry
I guess I need to pay more attention to old replies
yeah i guess that would work
btw, add ion cannons!!!

how come u guys know so much about the ships and stuff
do u guys have the Starwars Encyclopedia?

CorranSec
11-06-2002, 03:31 AM
I don't have the encyclopaedia; I've read a lot of books (and own them, so I reread them), and checked the website (though not much at all). Just constantly seeing technical words and information in the books kinda drills it into you. I guess it's the same with everyone else.
Ion cannons; yeah, I guess that could work, either as an attacking option for some ships or as part of the orbital strike.
As an attacking option: At some aircraft-creating building, you can research "Ion Cannons." This gives all cap ships and selected fighters (eg. B-Wing) the ability to use Ion Cannons instead of regular lasers. It works as a toggling button in the unit control panel, and has a double effect against enemy shields, but no effect on health. (It would be too hard to actually reflect powering down ships, and getting rid of shields is much more rational in gameplay).
The Ion Cannon Orbital Strike; works like the Turbolaser Strike, except rids all units in the area of the equal amount of shield points, not health points. Most useful if the enemy posseses a bunch of Shield Generators or something.

By the way, what is the health of a fully upgraded Fortress? I've forgotten.

Oh, and while we're on the topic:
Maybe in GB 2, the effects of shield generators could stack, and shields could actually exceed the unit's health. Here's how it would work: Each shield generator can provide up to the health of the unit, but each extra shield generator provides half again of the shields provided. Eg, a 30 health fighter with a shields upgrade comes near a shield generator; now it has 45 shields. Another shield generator overlaps; now it has 57 shields. And so on, and so forth.

Arthur2
11-06-2002, 05:00 AM
oh , u guys read extra starwars novels? like Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy...hmm maybe i should buy some of those books....
well the encyclopedia has a lot of information, but it's sorted by words, it's kinda like a dictionary

ion cannons
yeah that'd be good
but the ion cannons can only damage large space ships, right??
maybe u can use auto-swapping istead of manual swapping...
btw, i read about the ion cannon, the official encyclopedia says that the ion cannon does damage to mechanical units only and paralyze them for some time.

CorranSec
11-06-2002, 05:10 AM
That's what I meant by "reading books"- mainly EU stuff like the Thrawn Trilogy.

Where did you get the idea that ion cannons could only damage large space ships? You said it yourself about a sentence afterwards- they short out any mechanical unit's circuitry. The encyclopaedia should also say that ion cannons are also often used to knock down shields before unleashing a turbolaser barrage.

Auto-swapping would just be kinda lame after a while, and would basically turn it into an aesthetic difference, while actually decreasing the fun of being in there and commanding your ships to fire in certain ways. This is the same as the proton torp option- reflecting that battle commanders do change their methods of attack when they want to, not when required.

Perhaps ships could have a "function" bar as well as their health and shield bars...... this would give players a reason to use ion cannons instead of lasers once the shields are down, and add more complexity to the battle. Yeah, I think that'd be good.
Here's how it would work:
Every ship has a "systems" meter as well as the health and shields. It starts at 100%, and can be repaired along with health. Only ion cannons can damage it. Once it reaches 0, the ship can no longer do anything until repaired.

Arthur2
11-06-2002, 07:19 AM
yeah that'd be good
btw...
DUDE WHERE DO U LIVE AND WHEN DO U GO TO SLEEP???
everytime i reply this thread like 10 minutes later i receive a mail informing me of a new reply....

jedi3112
11-06-2002, 10:08 AM
You's also need repair ships if you want to repair a disabled ship, the ion-cannon is a great idea though. I think we should freeze the space battle if some1 goes to command a ground battle. Might be difficult with multiplayer though. We'd also need some sort of 'manual swapping space/surface'.

BTW in EP IV they say 'The fighters are too small, they're evading our turbolasers' Vader:'Let's get them ship to ship, get the crews to their fighters'. That's why I think turbolasers shouldn't bee able too fire at fighters. I was also thinking of a very big space map, with multiple planets, moons etc. on it, the bigger ships can come out of hyperspace a bit further from the planet, out of radar range. I think planetary shields should be able to withstand heavy turbolaserfire from space (battle of Hoth EP V Veers:'Admiral Ozzel came out of hyperspace too close to the planet, the rebels have raised their shield, we can't perform a bombardment' Vader:'Prepare your troops for ground assault').

CorranSec
11-06-2002, 03:45 PM
Uh.... jedi, all of my ideas are based around the fact that there will be no individual battles, just a totally combined battle. This is the best way to do it, as I pointed out before.
It's because of such irritating factors as those that I decided to eliminate large-scale ships and battles from the game, and instead have an easy, focussed game where everyone can fire at everyone else, just not as well.
And about that Ep IV thing- weren't they attacking the death star, and thus evading fixed turrets, not the mobile cannons of a mobile SD?

CorranSec
11-06-2002, 03:49 PM
Also-
Yeah, I kinda figured there'd be an "Airborne Utility Trawler" or some such, which can build/repair things in the air.

I live in Australia, and I went to sleep at 10:10. Go figure.

joesdomain
11-09-2002, 12:46 AM
Make the armor, shields, and hit points realistic on the capital ships. Then make the Capital ships size unrealistic in order to have space battles in space maps. Also make them transport alot of aircraft, troops, vehicles, etc.

CorranSec
11-09-2002, 05:37 AM
Hmm...... I'm getting a weird feeling of deja vu..... deja vu.... deja vu.........

Maybe it's because Joe constantly repeats his posts?

Crazy_dog no.3
11-09-2002, 06:46 AM
LOL :rofl:

Darth Kane
11-09-2002, 07:06 AM
I think capital ships would be good if they were flying assault mechs (troop transport, good lasers,etc).:deathstar :vsd:

CorranSec
11-09-2002, 07:13 AM
Actually, Kane, that sounds far too good. Imagine a fully upgraded AT-AT, yet with the mobility of an aircraft... you'd just totally crush any enemy with an army of these 'flying assault mechs.' The whole thing that balances assault mechs out is their lack of speed and agility, and turning them into flyers just eliminates this and makes them unstoppable.

What I'd rather is a kind of airborne assault craft, large and good at destroying bases, yet rather slow and not very good against units, to serve as the primary air-to-ground base destroyer, and have an Assault Transport and Armed Transport as the air transports.

lukeiamyourdad
11-09-2002, 03:15 PM
cap ships don't fit in this game. If they ever put them, it will be in some other thing like a space mode.

Crazy_dog no.3
11-09-2002, 06:15 PM
There could be 2 types of battles: Ground battles and Space battles.

Arthur2
11-09-2002, 11:59 PM
uh don't make this game so complicated
one mode is enuff...

CorranSec
11-10-2002, 06:22 AM
Crazy dog: No. Both a ground-only battle and a space-only battle are too limited, and we can take the best elements of both and combine them to form the kind of game we have now (only with more air units :)).

Arthur2
11-10-2002, 06:49 AM
yeah i agree
just make the battleground bigger
add stuff to balance it...
use smaller ships instead
i remember victory-class star destroyers can interfere ground assaults (planetary combat, is that what is means?)

lukeiamyourdad
11-10-2002, 02:28 PM
One-thing, a VSD is still way to strong!!!!!!! I would probably go for something as big as the corellian corvette not more.

Crazy_dog no.3
11-10-2002, 03:07 PM
U don't switch modes in the midst of combat, that's too complex, if u think that's how I meant it.

lukeiamyourdad
11-10-2002, 03:14 PM
Somebody on another thread proposed it this way:

You would start on a planet, moving thru tech lvls and into space. After in space, you will build cap ships and send your invasion force to another planet. Between that there is a mode switching thing.

The main problem with this idea is that it will simply take too long to finish a game.

Admiral
11-10-2002, 05:10 PM
Go here for a mod that features SW capital ships ect.


http://nightsoftware.com/project/armada/

CorranSec
11-11-2002, 02:52 AM
Oooh..... 300th post... yay!
(don't mind me. Blame the monkeys).

Admiral- uh, thanks, but that mod's not for GB. It still might be interesting though. :)

Luke's dad- Yup. I don't want any kind of stretched-out, multiple-battle, grand-epic kind of game. Neither do I want the total speed and focus of the Crafts (though I do like them, I'm trying to reach a middle ground). As I've said before, its best to stick with the range of speeds and strategies the GB and Age games are renowned for.
I agree about not having huge ships in the game. I'd rather prefer the smaller cap ships (eg. light cruisers) which actually can handle atmospheric combat.

Arthur- The only real use for the VSD's atmospheric capabilities is to get in close for an accurate and deadly aerial bombardment. As this cannot be reflected in a unit, I'd rather use a VSD strike (or the like) as the "Turbolaser/Ion Cannon" strikes.

Arthur2
11-11-2002, 04:17 AM
hmmm i dunno
i don't think the moving to another planet is a good idea
u are making this into a round-based sorta-like game
which is , not something u want to play online with ur friends
unless u got nothing better to do

MadrixTF
11-11-2002, 05:25 AM
CorranSec - I'm sure i remember you saying something about flying Mechs a while ago? Are you changing your mind yet again or are you just against the Flying Assualt Mechs? I was the one who was skeptical about this idea - i'm sure it revolved around EU or something...

I am sill for Capital Ships - although i think the debate seems to be shifting to "What would be the best way to introduce Cap Ships?"

I for one can't see Cap Ships in the atmosphere (after many debates already) and therefore stick to the mode-switching idea (hopefully not a long drawn out epic-scale as some suggest)

The way i see it is that the Star Wars universe involves space-combat and ground-combat - so in order to create an accurate Star Wars RTS - this would be a logical approach - it just HOW they would do it that would matter...

but if anybody has a better idea than mode-switching - please, lets hear it???

Arthur2
11-11-2002, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by MadrixTF
CorranSec - I'm sure i remember you saying something about flying Mechs a while ago? Are you changing your mind yet again or are you just against the Flying Assualt Mechs? I was the one who was skeptical about this idea - i'm sure it revolved around EU or something...

I am sill for Capital Ships - although i think the debate seems to be shifting to "What would be the best way to introduce Cap Ships?"

I for one can't see Cap Ships in the atmosphere (after many debates already) and therefore stick to the mode-switching idea (hopefully not a long drawn out epic-scale as some suggest)

The way i see it is that the Star Wars universe involves space-combat and ground-combat - so in order to create an accurate Star Wars RTS - this would be a logical approach - it just HOW they would do it that would matter...

The problem is that, WE don't want one
RTS games are not suppose to be 100% accurate, so if u want space combats
make it like Starcraft where the big ships can be shot down by marines, which is....crappy balance

but if anybody has a better idea than mode-switching - please, lets hear it???

mode-switching only happens in round-based games...
adding stuff like that will only make a RTS stink

Kryllith
11-11-2002, 10:51 AM
Personally I'd like to see multi-version play. You could play a ground based game, which would take place entirely in a planet's atmosphere (or a large asteroid perhaps). Basically it would play pretty much GB plays now. Another game play style would be space conquest, which would primarily revolve around the use of capital ships, fighters, and the like. The third style would use both.

The first two version would be realitively "fast" games, better suited for multi-player because they wouldn't last so long. The second would be more of a one person game (though if you can find someone dedicated enough to play with you for long hours, I suppose you could do it multiplayer). It would actually be sort of like doing a campaign, only instead of just getting transported through space to the next part of the campaign, you'd actually have to fly, land, etc. Of course, this would require paying more attention to building detail, since certain units wouldn't operate in space and vice versa. You'd have to make sure you've not enough power to both transport/protect your units while in space, while making sure you've enough units to start planetary conquest...

Kryllith

Admiral
11-11-2002, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by CorranSec
Admiral- uh, thanks, but that mod's not for GB. It still might be interesting though. :)

I know that. But it is for people who want SW capital ships. You download Armada II demo, then get the mod and you have a stragety game with the ships. Since more then likely Capital ships will never be in GB.

lukeiamyourdad
11-11-2002, 05:40 PM
Why don't we seperate it into two kind of games. Like Rebellion+SWGB but into one game. First option would be space battle(command center or space station in space) and another would be ground based(like SWGB). You could also have an option to play in both(explained earlier).

Arthur2
11-12-2002, 04:02 AM
yeah agree

make it into another game

CorranSec
11-12-2002, 04:21 AM
Madrix- Ah, I was waiting for you to show up. :)
I did propose a kind of flying mech, but it eventually turned into an airborne turret, and it was NEVER like this amazingly powerful flying assault mech.
I have a better idea. It involves using a variety of spaceships, separated into three groups: Fighters, Medium ships, and Capital ships. The fighters and medium ships we should all understand; the cap ships, however, will NOT be the astoundingly large SD's and the like; rather, they will be smaller ships, yet still considered cap ships, and balanced and fitting in with the game. These cap ships might include Lancer-class frigates (I think that's their name) and light cruisers.
Also, I agree with Arthur. We don't want an "accurate" SW RTS. Accuracy is good, but gameplay>realism should be our philosophy. But Sith will NOT be the head of our religion.... I've had bad experiences with him trying to handle religion :D
The larger ships of SW can be reflected in the way I described above without having to resort to a completely different kind of game.

Arthur- agreed.

This goes for everyone- Keep the game the way it is, at least in terms of mode. GB is not a round-based, mode-switching, epic-battle game; neither is it a small-battle, focussed game. Keep it the balanced way it is, and if you want, make StarWarsCraft or Rebellion II. But we're not talking about them here.

MadrixTF
11-12-2002, 04:28 AM
Kryllith i like your ideas and see your point about mode-switching being more a single player type of game. Seing as how i hardly ever play multiplayer online, i was taking the single player view point.

However, that said, clearly the future of gaming is ONLINE Multiplayer so we would have to find either a middle-ground or LA would have to have some brilliant design that allows you to mode-switch quickly and easily, contolling space and ground combat. This would probably be a difficult type of game to play and require a lot of concentration, but if you think about it - isn't that what we do already when switching between managing Econ and managing war?

In this Space and ground combat it probably would be a good idea to remove Econ altogether and focus on War and strategy instead - using space-combat instead of Econ management...

CorranSec
11-12-2002, 05:01 AM
I also see Kryllith's ideas, and I'm deeply saddened, as I always considered him a rational kind of person (aka generally on my side). The dark side claims another soul....

To be successful, popular and most of all enjoyable, a game (especially RTS) must be playable both single player and multiplayer. Having two completely separate "game modes" (not ground and space, the "fast" and "slow" modes that Kryllith suggested) is definitely NOT the way to do this.

Even if you could switch between ground and space 'quickly and easily' (though I don't see what's quicker and easier than clicking a button and having a quick load time), the whole ground/space thing just doesn't fit in with the kind of game GB is. You're completely right, Madrix- it's far too complex for this kind of RTS. For something like RoN or Rebellion, it might be plausible, but it is not for Galactic Battlegrounds 2!
Switching between ground and space are not in any way like switching between war and economy.
@ To begin with, ground and space don't mix and interact, while war and economy most definitely do. To start with, you have to BUILD your war units, which you subsequently might send into battle.
@ Ground and space are completely separate and limited modes, while economy and war, while not actually being modes at all, don't require any kind of real switch, and can actually be easily managed simultaneously, without requiring great depths of detail and concentration.

OK. First you were mad, now you've stepped over the edge into insanity.
Ground/space modes was bad enough, but I assumed that at least one and hopefully both would include a building/economy effort. But now you want to drain the game DRY of any economy (and thus depth of gameplay) it might have possesed, and turn it into a solely-battle game whose only actual strategy is in the battle.
You've gone too far! This is absolutely nothing like the original GB, and not even close to RoN or Rebellion!
Please, I beg of you, contain these ideas and try to think about a kind of game that is at least remotely similar to GB.

MadrixTF
11-12-2002, 05:16 AM
Ah, my dear CorranSec, it is all a matter of opinion and not insanity...

I can give you an example of how space and ground interact - i use a Death Star to DESTROY the ground! hehehehehe

You shouldn't be "saddened" by the fact that Kryllith has turned to the Dark Side - it is inevitable and irresistable - soon you too will see that the Dark Side can offer you so much more....

Let me re-iterate (at the risk of sounding like Joe): I have NEVER played Rebellion or RoN so i don't EVER compare to them or get ideas from them - just so we are clear...

And, it wasn't my idea - i just like the idea of incorporating Space Combat seeing as how it is STAR WARS!!!

So, to conclude, don't be so narrow-minded and try to think of what is possible and not what already is...




:deathii:

Kryllith
11-12-2002, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by CorranSec
I also see Kryllith's ideas, and I'm deeply saddened, as I always considered him a rational kind of person (aka generally on my side). The dark side claims another soul....

To be successful, popular and most of all enjoyable, a game (especially RTS) must be playable both single player and multiplayer. Having two completely separate "game modes" (not ground and space, the "fast" and "slow" modes that Kryllith suggested) is definitely NOT the way to do this.

Even if you could switch between ground and space 'quickly and easily' (though I don't see what's quicker and easier than clicking a button and having a quick load time), the whole ground/space thing just doesn't fit in with the kind of game GB is. You're completely right, Madrix- it's far too complex for this kind of RTS. For something like RoN or Rebellion, it might be plausible, but it is not for Galactic Battlegrounds 2!
Switching between ground and space are not in any way like switching between war and economy.
@ To begin with, ground and space don't mix and interact, while war and economy most definitely do. To start with, you have to BUILD your war units, which you subsequently might send into battle.
@ Ground and space are completely separate and limited modes, while economy and war, while not actually being modes at all, don't require any kind of real switch, and can actually be easily managed simultaneously, without requiring great depths of detail and concentration.

Heh, I wouldn't consider it being drawn into the darkside. Now wanting certain civs to be totally bs at that sufferance of others... that's being drawn into the darkside. Besides, why not allow different types of games in one game? I've seen numerous games that have had a variety of modes. Giving different modes simply allows people to play the style of game they're interested in playing. Personally, I'd probably play "full game" mode all the time.

Not only that, we're talking about a game that would probably not be released for another 3 years or so. Who knows what type of engines may be available at that time. If at all possible, I'd love to have both land and space mode running concurrently. If we're talking about adding a bunch of different types of air, including multiple levels of capital ships, then why should we limit it to ground/air combat? Why not ground/space combat?

We could have planetary bombardment by capital ships, would could send fighters/transports down, either to capture the planet and use the resources. Or you simply annihilate the opponent, perhaps at the cost of wiping out all the resources, effectively making the planet worthless. What people ultimately decide would depend on how they stay economically and militarily. Of course, if we're allowing bombardment, we could also allow for planetary defenses, like the Ion Cannon. Such defenses would be worthless against ground and air, but highly effective against space-based attacks.

Point is, we're looking at 3 years of potential gaming/computer evolution. We may not have the capabilities to run such a game with current engines on current systems, but that doesn't mean we should be reliant on today's standards for tomorrow's games...

Kryllith

MadrixTF
11-13-2002, 12:52 AM
Well said Kryllith! That's exactly the point that i was trying to get through to CorranSec as well...

I sincerely hope that game developers are as open-minded as you and i so that we may see these type of "engine-innovations" in the future...

I really like your idea about capturing the planet and using resources, plus having planet defence with Ion Cannons - sounds like fun!

CorranSec - we understand that you are used to the simple type of games such as WC3, but please, please lets just think about what could be possible in the future and NOT what we have available at the moment!
You are always using Siths line about "Gameplay>Realism" - but if we have the technology in the future it will be possible to have "Brillant Gameplay+Realism" - the only reason why realism is sacrificed is because the technology is not good enough yet....

Arthur2
11-13-2002, 03:16 AM
eh
i think we shold convince Lucasarts first
cuz i don't think they are even gonna have a SWGB 2 project

Kryllith
11-13-2002, 09:59 AM
Of course, if the thought of controlling both planetary and space units seems too overwhelming (which admittedly it could be, unless AI has improved quite a bit), then here's another idea for making the system work better. When I first started playing AoC, my friend (who'd played for a while) had me play MP against the computer. He and I used the same civ on the same team, effectively meaning we controlled the same units.

In the planet/space version this tactic could work quite well. One person could control the land/air units (and the ground based economy), while the other focused on space battles, bombardments, and other potential space aspects--trading perhaps, or even resource gathering if it's available. Afterall, we know from the movies that the land and space units were typically run by different commanders...

Kryllith

CorranSec
11-15-2002, 12:49 AM
Madrix- I understand that you have absolutely no idea what 'games I am used to.' I am not 'used to' any game, and I take offense (as I'm sure and Blizzard-liker would) at your accusations that WC3 is designed for simple-minded people. Rather, it is the opposite; the battle micromanagement of the Crafts is in many cases more complex than the simple point-and-click of GB. But that's not the debate. Please, let's leave comparisons, insults and the like out of this.
So it's Star Wars. This is what I'm trying to show with my air units ideas. With these, we CAN HAVE a truly SW game, without being forced- and yes, it is forced- to resort to such desperate measures of mode-switching.
So it's Star Wars. Stars, I wish Sith was here. He'd give you a good dressing down for that comment. :D
I sincerely hope that game developers aren't as single-minded and reality-focussed (and game-destroying) as you, and that we will never see these "innovations" (which are more like steps backward) in the future.
I'd much rather the typical planet-battle style of the current GB (and every successful strategy game in the past, as far as I know of) that your 'planet capture' method. With this planet-battle style, augmented by the many ideas suggested above (the ones which I've supported, not YOURS:rolleyes: ), we will have a real combined SW battle.
The only reason that realism is sacrificed is that it would be plain stupid to put a perfectly real game ahead of gameplay. If we look at the SW universe, if it was perfectly recreated in a game, the Rebels would always lose, UNTIL they got Luke and through him the Force. And, powerful technology or otherwise, it's impossible to accurately represent that in a game.
The only games which will totally realistically represent space battles are space simulation games (eg. XvT, which did a damned good job). In three years, how can we hope to achieve such visual and gameplay effects as fighters moving up, down, around, dodging debris and other fighters, twirling to dodge laser fire, and finally being intercepted and destroyed? And let's think about cap ships.... there's one captain for every ship, and it requires all his concentration to decide which of his gun batteries he'll fire, how he's going to start up his damaged engines, and so on.
That would be a GREAT game. Because it's so realistic, all one player can completely control is a single battleship! And you'd have to select each turret, designate targets, yada, yada... Yeah right.
What you're aiming for is more like "Pretty nonexistent gameplay and a vague attempt at realism>Corran's ideas which can actually make the game good"!

Kryllith- I'm not quite sure what you meant about making some civs bs at the expence of others, but that couldn't have been aimed at me, because I'm totally avoiding that.
I've seen numerous games with a variety of modes, and none of them were particularily realistic or had innovative gameplay. Giving different modes simply forces people to make a choice between several modes, all rather limited, rather than having a single mode which encompasses the best of all modes. And besides- you're fooling nobody here. A game can never, absolutely never, please anybody. And why even try to please everyone at the expense of good gameplay?
I think it was Luke's dad who said this: "That's stupid. If we wanted options, we'd just put in options for everything, and that'd make the game useless." He's completely right. You may take a small step to pleasing everyone by incorporating options for absolutely everything, but some options will definitely give an advantage to one side. And that is something that I want to avoid. I can't be sure about you.
Not only that, we're talking about a game in the future. And we mustn't forget: "Always in motion is the future." We have absolutely no idea what could happen in 3 years, but I'd rather undershoot than overshoot. Look at GB: It's several years below the games around it, but we don't hate it. And I'm giving options which are far and above GB, while yours don't promise any particular innovations at all. There were mode-switching games decades ago, and your idea only takes some vaguely SW ideas and shoves them in.
If we can have ground/air combat, without having to resort to the mediocrity of mode-switching, why limit ourselves to ground/space combat? I'm talking about adding a bunch of different air units, all of which will fit in with any battle, WITHOUT needing mode-switching.
We could still have transports, smaller cap ships, and so on, without needing to limit the game to mode-switching.
The game you're proposing seems:
@ Incredibly limited
@ To lack any credible details, eg. where econ will take place, tech trees, etc.
@ To be promoting a vague form of realism above the varied and intriguing gameplay I am promising
@ To be turning the game into a Master of Orion-type game: very long, unsuitable for multiplayer, and requiring long single-player sessions to even get anywhere in the game, unless of course you're wiped out within the first couple of TURNS.
@ And yes, it seems that in one mode at least, you'd have to go back to turns. If you're going to be moving massive ships and such around the galaxy, most of these epic-scale games do use turns. And they sometimes work. But I'd much rather a REAL-TIME Strategy game, not a TURN-BASED Mode-switching game.
Point is, we're not really talking about the amazing innovations and capabilities of tomorrow's computers, especially that your game doesn't seem to be needing any of them.
I'm not 'relying on today's standards.' Some of the concepts I'm promoting have never been considered before, though I do admit that some are based on other (top-rated) games.

In conclusion: Please. Drop this idea, and let's get back to some down-to-earth discussion of what could be in Galactic Battlegrounds 2.



Edit: Whoa. Long post.

MadrixTF
11-15-2002, 10:35 AM
Looks like you've had another case of verbal diorriah! :D

You seem very self-opinionated and really love your own ideas - even though other people happen to have better ideas.

I will say it one more time: The mode-switching was NOT my idea - i just support it because in my opinion it is the closest we will get to a tue Star Wars game. (and please don't start on gameplay>realism beacause it is obviously that when designing this sort of game they should put gamplay first)

There are many people on this forum who want to see space-combat incorporated into a Star Wars RTS - it only makes sense really!

Yes, you seem to have plenty of ideas about Tech Trees and units, etc., etc. - that's all good and well, but they don't really seem to indicate any form of Space combat (ok, i haven't read ALL of your lenghty posts, so you may have suggested this somwhere at some point) or correct use of Capital Ships.

If you are really so against mode-switching, then why don't you rather suggest an alternative that does incorporate space combat?

So, if you come up with a better idea, then i am willing to drop it, ok?

Oh, and i won't mention the Craft games again - it seems to be a sore point so we will just have to "agree to disagree" on that one and leave it alone...

Kryllith
11-15-2002, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by CorranSec
Kryllith- I'm not quite sure what you meant about making some civs bs at the expence of others, but that couldn't have been aimed at me, because I'm totally avoiding that.
Actually it was targeted of armour and shields, 2 missile launchers, and 4 independent firing lasers. :) Certainly wasn't targeted at you, because even if you do one high powered units, you want them for all the civs, not just one or two.

I've seen numerous games with a variety of modes, and none of them were particularily realistic or had innovative gameplay. Giving different modes simply forces people to make a choice between several modes, all rather limited, rather than having a single mode which encompasses the best of all modes. And besides- you're fooling nobody here. A game can never, absolutely never, please anybody. And why even try to please everyone at the expense of good gameplay?
1) Simply because you've seen past games that weren't realistic or innovative, doesn't mean that such games cannot exist. Let's keep a little optimism. :)
2) Personally I like choices. As far as I'm concerned if they can come out with a game that works perfectly well as a ground based game (like the current GB) and then toss more elements into it, I'm all for it. If people just want to play the ground based game, there's nothing to stop them. If people prefer to play a space game, more power to them. If they prefer to combine them (which, admittedly would place quite a bit of stress on the player and might serve better if more than one player played a single civ) then why not?
3) Who's trying to fool anybody? Point of the various thread is for people to express what they'd like to see. This is what I'd like.

I think it was Luke's dad who said this: "That's stupid. If we wanted options, we'd just put in options for everything, and that'd make the game useless." He's completely right. You may take a small step to pleasing everyone by incorporating options for absolutely everything, but some options will definitely give an advantage to one side. And that is something that I want to avoid. I can't be sure about you.
Options hardly make a game useless, they just allow you to customize it however you want to. Besides, I'm really only talking about giving a ground, space, or ground/space game, not whether individual units, upgrades, etc are available within the individual games. Of course, if we DIDN'T have options, then we wouldn't be able to choose map sizes, map types, single or multi-player, whether or not people can cheat, which civ we wanted to play, etc. So it's not like there aren't already options in the game.

Not only that, we're talking about a game in the future. And we mustn't forget: "Always in motion is the future." We have absolutely no idea what could happen in 3 years, but I'd rather undershoot than overshoot. Look at GB: It's several years below the games around it, but we don't hate it. And I'm giving options which are far and above GB, while yours don't promise any particular innovations at all. There were mode-switching games decades ago, and your idea only takes some vaguely SW ideas and shoves them in.
Excuse me? I'm not sure where the heck this is coming from, but apparently you haven't been paying attention to all the ideas I've either introduce or added on too since I've been here. I'm NOT interested in just taking any slipshod ground and space game and just jamming them together. Am I overshooting? Perhaps, but after seeing the leaps and bounds made in technology over the course of a few years numerous times, I'm willing to overshoot. Will I be disappointed if GB doesn't contain space combat? certainly not. But I'm all for promoting the idea in the hopes that they will anyway (or even for a later game, if more time is required).

If we can have ground/air combat, without having to resort to the mediocrity of mode-switching, why limit ourselves to ground/space combat? I'm talking about adding a bunch of different air units, all of which will fit in with any battle, WITHOUT needing mode-switching.
We could still have transports, smaller cap ships, and so on, without needing to limit the game to mode-switching.
Same response to this... if GB2 came out and had all this, I'd be perfectly happy. On the otherhand, if more was possible without detracting from the game, then why limit?

The game you're proposing seems:
@ Incredibly limited
@ To lack any credible details, eg. where econ will take place, tech trees, etc.
@ To be promoting a vague form of realism above the varied and intriguing gameplay I am promising
@ To be turning the game into a Master of Orion-type game: very long, unsuitable for multiplayer, and requiring long single-player sessions to even get anywhere in the game, unless of course you're wiped out within the first couple of TURNS.
@ And yes, it seems that in one mode at least, you'd have to go back to turns. If you're going to be moving massive ships and such around the galaxy, most of these epic-scale games do use turns. And they sometimes work. But I'd much rather a REAL-TIME Strategy game, not a TURN-BASED Mode-switching game.
1) How so? I'm suggesting the complexity of the original game, with more on top of it. Granted it may require either really good AI or another player to make it perform really smoothly.
2) Econ and tech trees would work pretty much the way it does now. People would start on a planet and gather resources the same as usual. When they get high enough tech to produce capital ships, then they make explore elsewhere. If an opponent(s) starts on the same planet, then the player would probably have to eliminate said opponent(s) before continuing elsewhere. They don't HAVE to of course, but since you'd need to take workers and possibly military when you travel to another planet (unless you're just scouting) it might be a good idea to remove the threat before weakening your colony. There may be outerspace econ (having ships gather gases, rock fragments, or the like) but it would be primarily ground based.
3) That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, I personally don't see it as being nearly as vague as you suggest.
4) Of course, you wouldn't be required to play the very long game. Some people like them, some don't. I play both depending on my mood, so I'd prefer the ability to play either. I wouldn't consider them unsuitable for multi-player. I know quite a lot of people that would be more than willing to play very long mp games...
5) I wouldn't use turns quite frankly. Turns serve to allow people to keep tabs on everything that's going on at the risk of losing units because the player's too busy dealing with a crisis elsewhere or just not paying attention. The pause button works just as well in this capacity, if people really need to jump around a lot. Otherwise, I'd rather play it give and take. You make the choices based on priorities and if that means you lose the bulk of your fleet, or your armour, or your base, then so be it. It's already like this in the game anyway, this would just require more to pay attention too. Course, better AI or players working together can help counter it.

Kryllith

lukeiamyourdad
11-15-2002, 10:02 PM
Whoa! Those were very long threads!

MadrixTF
11-18-2002, 06:50 AM
Thanks Kryllith for putting it into perspective for CorranSec - your suggestions are rational and logical and seem to consider the greater gaming community!

I also like your idea of being able to collect resources in space - gases, rock/asteroid fragments, etc. I also agree that it shouldn't be a Turn-based game - i think it should be real-time (i think the Turn-base suggestion was CorranSec overreacting again );)

CorranSec
11-20-2002, 01:10 AM
OK. This is getting very complex. Too much for my Craft-liking brain to handle, eh? :D

Madrix- I wouldn't call it verbal diorrhea (sp?) but rather a sudden flaring-up of my righteous anger. :)

Self-opinionated? Maybe. Like my own ideas? I've yet to come across a single person on this world who doesn't like their own ideas. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have said it. I have no doubt that you and Kryllith love the ideas that you support.
Better ideas? Each to his/her/its own. I believe my ideas are better. You believe your ideas are better. Simple.

Okay, so the mode-switching wasn't your idea. Nevertheless, you support it, and I'm going to argue with you about it. Simple. And yes, when designing games it is obvious that they should put gameplay first, and put all concerns about getting a true SW game later. Are you by any chance admitting that your ideas- whoops-a-daisy, the ideas you SUPPORT :D- would never actually fit in with a game, and that you wouldn't make a good game designer? :D;)

There are many people on this forum that support jedi monkeys (eg. myself, sith, emimar) but that doesn't quite mean they'd fit in with the game. No matter which way public opinion goes, I have every right to continue arguing my case- at least until I'm found, arrested and shot by your secret police.

Space combat.... space combat, space combat, space combat. It seems to be the word of choice these days. Before I even get into MY ideas for space combat, let me say just one thing- must there be space combat at all? For the sake of gameplay and all those other nice things, it may turn out far better to simple forsake space combat and have air combat or some such instead.
Is there such a difference anyway? One is in the atmosphere, one is in space. In terms of gameplay, it would most likely be much better to just settle for what is indeed a wide and useful range of flying units which can be used in either, like the ones I've provided.
If you want space combat, I'll make sure that "asteroids" and "space" map types are included, so you can play them all the time. And-bonus bonus- not only are there air units in space, but you can also use the full range of other units as well? Apart from sea units of course... but nobody seems to care about them.
What precisely is "correct use" of cap ships? If all we seek is a completely real use of cap ships, we'll end up with a BAD GAME. If you're talking about correct tactical use of cap ships, what is this correct tactical use? And, may I ask, what exactly are cap ships? I have proposed several kinds of 'capital ships,' as defined by SW material, which can legitimately fit in with various kinds of maps and gaming styles without needing mode-switching. What do you think they are, if not Capital Ships?

*end righteous anger*

Kryllith- I'll come back to you. I don't want my posts getting toooo long, or people will just skip through them, and I don't want that.





P.S. Spoiler- do not read unless you have absolutely no hope of coming to an agreement with me!

I have an idea for a slight compromise.
Perhaps if you play a kind of "space" map, like the "space sattelites" in the current GB, different (and larger) kinds of ships and airborne buildings will be available. I haven't thought much about this, but you might like it.....

OOM-9(2)
12-02-2002, 08:49 AM
Yes, but only on space/asteroid games. On land, they'd be to destructive- Fed lander or droid control ship anyone?:bdroid1: :bdroid2: :bdroid1: