LucasForums (
-   Galactic Discussion (
-   -   What should the Imperial homeworld be in SWGB2? (

Darth Windu 02-29-2004 02:42 AM

What should the Imperial homeworld be in SWGB2?
Hi everyone. As the second part of my two polls, the other for the Republic, i'd like ot know what you think the Imperial homeworld should be in SWGB2 when the Republic is present as well.

Please remember that if the Republic has Coruscant, the Empire cant have it as well.

Sithmaster_821 02-29-2004 06:00 PM

How about no?

swphreak 02-29-2004 08:19 PM

Unless this is in the Later New Republic area, Bastion won't work. The Imperials didn't settle down there til later.

There's Byss, but that is after Death Star 2, but before Rebels took Coruscant.

You're making this more complicated than needed. The Republic is the Empire....

General Nitro 02-29-2004 10:29 PM

the should both have Coruscant. the republic should get a lighter looking Coruscant like in the majority of episode 2. the empire should get a darker version of the planet like in the celebration scene at the end of rofj or where count dooku goes to see palpatine at the of episode 2.

FroZticles 03-01-2004 12:23 AM

Well the Empire has no ONE planet that they call there own they have many Naboo, Tatooine, Dantooine, Dathomir, Coruscant (even though it wasn't mentioned much) ect.

So the empire has a system of planets so they have no homeworld. Unless you call the death star a planet.

Darth Windu 03-01-2004 02:44 AM

Why do you all seem to fail to understand such a basic idea.


In the Imperial campaigns, their homeworld will be Coruscant, just as the Republic will have Coruscant as their capital in their campaigns.

This poll is to see what the Imperial capital should be when BOTH the Empire and Republic are present.

pbguy1211 03-01-2004 03:35 AM

LOL... dude who cares? First of all why do they need to be different?
Second, why do they need this so called homeworld for a campaign? The Republic campaigns take part while chasing Sev Rance anyway.

Darth Windu 03-01-2004 10:43 AM

Huh? Pbguy - you do realise im talking about SWGB2 and not SWGB right?

Why do they need to be different? Thats probably the dumbest question i've been asked for quite a while. Think of it in terms of a game where you can play as two different sides, Czarist Russia and Communist Russia. If you were to play a game in which you capture the enemy capital in order to win, how on earth could both have Moscow as their capital?

swphreak 03-01-2004 02:07 PM

The East and the West side!

Sithmaster_821 03-01-2004 11:55 PM

Well, Windu, typically, if a game maker has both Czarist and Commie Russia, they don't appear as two separate entities in a campaign. Just a helpful hint.

pbguy1211 03-02-2004 01:35 AM


Originally posted by Darth Windu
Thats probably the dumbest question i've been asked for quite a while.
Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black... You DO realize you're the novelty act of the forum correct?

Darth Windu 03-02-2004 09:33 AM

Sith - i have already explained this. THEY WONT BOTH APPEAR IN CAMPAIGNS!!!
The time they WILL both appear is when a player chooses to have a CtG mode with ALL civ's present. The only objective there is to conquer the galaxy, as opposed to story-based campaigns.

Pbguy - and that somehow makes your statement more intelligent?

pbguy1211 03-02-2004 02:14 PM

OMG, if they happened during different times, why do they need to be different? It's the generally the same organization.
And if you want a legit answer to your lame ass question, the Imperials home planet wouldn't be a planet it would be a moon... wait a minute, that's no moon...

Sithmaster_821 03-02-2004 10:55 PM

Windu, unless I misunderstood, your CtG thing would be a single-player "adventure" of sorts, kinda like a connected string of single player games games on a campaign (key word) to rule the galaxy. It isn't multiplayer, it isn't free-match (where you pick your opponents, etc.), the scenerios are connected, and it isn't player created. Thats a campaign.

Darth Windu 03-03-2004 09:16 AM

Sith - yes, you misunderstood.

The way i see it, there will be 2 single-player modes in addition to multi-player (which is essential)

1. Campaigns - these will be a series of story-based missions for all 8 normal civs. Campaigns of one civ will NOT occur at the same time as those of another civ.

2. CtG - i see three modes here
- Civil War - in this mode, there are the Wookiees, Rebel Alliance, Empire and Hutt Cartel. You can play as any of them, but the Wookiees and Rebels and allied, as are the Empire and Hutt's.

- Clone War - in this mode, there is the Republic, Naboo, Confederacy, Federation. Again, you can play as any, but the Republic and Naboo are allied, as are the Confederacy and Federation.

- Free-for-all - this is when all civ's are present and the only objective is to conquer the galaxy, and all other player civs.

Is that any clearer?

FroZticles 03-03-2004 10:13 AM

Windu explain your plan better do civs start on different planets in a free for all mode? Cause you have led most of us hanging with only half an idea here....

Compa_Mighty 03-03-2004 04:13 PM

Why homeworlds in Free-for-all?
OK, I get your point, it's not campaign.

Then if it's not campaign why do you want them to have a homeworld? If you're trying to do the capital thing a la Rise of Nations, then just use capitals, let the player name the city, and everything's settled.

In my opinion, homeworld are out of place in that particular game mode.

Sithmaster_821 03-03-2004 09:40 PM

I still don't understand why there must be a free-for-all mode...

And technically Windu, your RoN copycat idea is a campaign, just separate from the other ones. Thats like saying that the "battles of the conqeurors" in AoC wasn't a campaign because there wasn't any linked scenerios. Question: does RoN have a campaign? Yes, the CtW is their campaign, and in your little world, its just a variation of the campaigns. I have no idea why you are having so many different campaigns, cause, as I said before, people prefer MP, SP RM, and the editorover the campaign. The campaign has become now a cool thing to do for a couple of weeks before really starting the game.

joesdomain 03-03-2004 09:54 PM

The Imperial Homeworld should be Courscant. It is where the emperor's palace is located.

Darth Windu 03-04-2004 01:00 AM

FroZ - yes they do, their HOMEWORLD

Compa - because the way to defeat your opponents is to capture their homeworld. Similar to RoN's capital idea, excapt that in the actual battle-bits, you have to completely destroy your opponent rather than just capture a particular city.

Sith - becuase it gives players more options = more fun.
Also, no, it is not a campaign. According to the dictionary i have right in front of me, a campaign is: "a number of connected military operations in a war which are aimed at some special purpose" - therefore, the FFA mode is NOT a campaign.

With regards to what you listed as what you THINK people prefer, they would all be in the game anyway, so why do you such a big problem?

Sithmaster_821 03-04-2004 01:32 AM

Windu, your cheesy CtG is a perfect fit to the definition. Is it not a series of connected military operations aimed at a special purpose (conquering the galaxy)?

BHG, the creators of your idea, also agree with me, calling their CtW a campaign multiple times on their website.

Finally, they're what I know people prefer, from what RTS players have said, and from what the big Three Companies have said and done. I have such a big problem because the concept is superfluous junk that will force other, more important things, like graphics and civ variety, into a lesser state. And, of course, there's the whole originality issue....

Darth Windu 03-04-2004 06:08 AM

Sith - oh please, spare me. What is original today in RTS'? Ranged infantry, melee infantry, ranged vehicles, aircraft etc are they original? The only thing that matters is HOW you put it together - not the individual components, but how those components fit together is what makes a game good or bad.

As for the campaign, is it a definition for CtG? No. The whole point of CtG and RoN's CtW is that there are almost limitless decisions you can make - the different senario's arent inter-related. The only reason BHG calls it a campaign is to cover the fact that they didnt bother putting real campaign's into their game.

The only problem you have with this idea is that you dont understand it, and hence attack it. Perhaps if you opened up your mind a bit more, you would see that the CtG mode offers infinately more re-play value and fun when held up in comparison with other games like SWGB.

Admiral Vostok 03-05-2004 02:41 PM

Just because things are similar between some RTS games doesn't give you license to entirely steal an idea from an RTS.

And Windu, what you are describing is a campaign. It fits your definition perfectly, as Sith pointed out. What's the big problem with calling it a campaign?

The way I understand your idea - and mind I haven't played RON - is that all eight or however many civs you want start on a point on the galaxy map, then chose which regions to fight in, gaining more of the galaxy under your control. I think the reason you don't want to call it a campaign is because the battles won't be scenarios, they'll be essentially RMs where you fight a single opponent depending on who currently controls the region of space you've decided to invade. Is this correct? So there are no little missions or cinematics, just like normal single player mode but with a greater purpose. That is still a campaign by your dictionary definition, but not by the understood meaning it has in terms of RTS games. A campaign in RTS terms is a series of linked scenarios. This CTG game mode is a series of linked RMs.

Oh, and I voted for the Death Star, but I don't think it should be mobile. It stays in one place, but is still called the Death Star. This way the Empire doesn't get a rediculously unfair advantage of being able to move their homeworld.

lukeiamyourdad 03-05-2004 03:15 PM

And destroy other people's homeworld without fighting...

Darth Windu 03-06-2004 12:59 AM

Vostok - so, with my use of ranged infantry in my template, does that mean i'm stealing that idea?

With the Death Star, the CtG campaign would be TB with conbat being RTS just as in RoN. For the Empire to move their homeworld, they wouldnt be able to do it instantly, but over a few turns.

luke - the Death Star would be a political center, not a weapon - so dont worry.

pbguy1211 03-06-2004 01:15 AM


Originally posted by Darth Windu
luke - the Death Star would be a political center, not a weapon - so dont worry.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why don't we just call it the Fun Star? Instead of metal it can be made of mirrors! And it'll be like a giant disco in space! This one was good Windu... you always seem to amuse me in one way or another...

lukeiamyourdad 03-06-2004 01:28 AM

Yes indeed! :lol:

Darth Windu 03-06-2004 08:45 AM

once again we see the famous pbguy wit - half of it anyway...

The Death Star, for CtG would be, as i said, a political center and not a weapon. The reason for this is that it would be far too powerful as a weapon, and really, the only places of power for the Empire we ever saw in the films were the 1st and 2nd Death Star's.

Admiral Vostok 03-06-2004 02:32 PM

No, you're not stealing ranged infantry, because every RTS has ranged infantry. The same with resource management, constructing buildings, and anything else that is a fundamental part of what makes an RTS. You are stealing Conquer the Galaxy, because only one RTS has it, and you're even using almost exactly the same name for it.

If you can't tell the difference you're worse than I thought.

pbguy1211 03-06-2004 03:02 PM

He can't be worse than I've thought... because I already think nothing of him. :p

Seriously 'du you need a hobby or a girlfriend.

Sithmaster_821 03-06-2004 09:43 PM

Windu, there exists a fine line between building off an idea and blatantly stealing one. This is the basis for originality. How much of the same words in the same order is considered plagerism and not coincidence? You have crossed this line by far. Even SWGB was more subtle in its transformation. Your idea even has the smae name as BHG's, only with world exchanged for galaxy. Thats like as if SWGB was called the Age of Jedi.

Also, the fun star should have a big smilely face where the laser is, so that nearby worlds can be sure that its not a weapon too.

Darth Windu 03-07-2004 03:28 AM

vostok - so you think that the second RTS to be created was stwealing all of it's ideas from the first? If that is the way you'd prefer to have it, there would be very little in the way of interesting RTS'. The whole point of evolution and revolution is that you build on the good ideas, and remove the bad ideas from whatever has come before the thing that you are creating.

How, therefore, can you accuse me of 'stealing' anything? As i said, was SWGB stealing the idea of ranged infantry? or melle infantry? or armoured units?

As for Conquer the Galaxy, it is called that becuase the whole point of the exercise is to...Conquer the Galaxy.

lukeiamyourdad 03-07-2004 03:54 AM

Arguing with you is useless. Ripping-off the Conquer the Galaxy from RoN's Conquer the World isn't building from a good idea.

Building from a good idea would be taking a certain concept and developing it further, something that you obviously aren't doing your CtG idea. It's the EXACT same thing as CtW.

If LA tried to do that they get their ass sued.

pbguy1211 03-07-2004 06:21 AM


Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Arguing with you is useless.
You're only realizing this NOW?! :D

Darth Windu 03-07-2004 06:36 AM

luke - i dont see how you came to that conlcusion. If it was possible to use companies in the video game industry who used ideas similar to yours, there would be an endless number of lawsuits.

As for CtW/CtG i suggest you actually play RoN before coming to conclusions.

Finally, in regards to arguing with me, if you think you are right and i am wrong, then convince me of that.

saberhagen 03-07-2004 09:38 AM

I really don't see the problem here. Clones of successful formulas are almost as old as computer gaming itself. Developers are always "stealing" ideas from each other. I'd suggest that there isn't really much originality in games these days, but that's not necessarily a problem. A game doesn't have to be original in order to be good. For example, there's at least one level in MOHAA where the gameplay is exactly the same as Space Invaders!

The real question is: is the idea that Windu has taken from RoN any good? I've only played the demo of RoN, so I don't know exactly what CTW is like, but from what's been said here, I don't see anything that would cause a problem. After all, this is something extra on top of RM and scenarios/campaigns. It wouldn't detract from anything that's already there, and the effort of implementing it would probably be very small compared to the rest of the game.

lukeiamyourdad 03-07-2004 02:06 PM

Yes but if someone made another Mythology based RTS, including 3 civs, the norse, the egyptians and the greeks, with sub-civs being minor gods and called the game Time of Mythology, Ensemble has a hell of a good reason to sue them.

That's ripping-off.

pbguy1211 03-07-2004 02:45 PM


Originally posted by Darth Windu
Finally, in regards to arguing with me, if you think you are right and i am wrong, then convince me of that.
Because you don't neccessarily see other people's points of view or listen to them. Hence making argueing with you a lost cause. No one wants to debate or argue with someone who isn't being receptive to the ideas and opinions of the other people involved. That's not really a debate or an arguement. The only thing that leads to is the person who's voice is not being heard is getting annoyed/pissed.

That's not neccessarily a statement about this conversation, but most of yours. I haven't followed this one close enough to care, and I generally shrug off everything you have to say because of my previously stated reasons of not wanting to debate or argue with you! :p

FroZticles 03-07-2004 11:30 PM

Well it all comes down to this if Windu ever had an original thought I think his head would explode how many times have we listened to his templates all ripping one game or another.

Red Alert 2
War Craft 3
and many more that ive prolly forgotten and now RoN has just been added to that list jeez if your gonna steal ideas at least try to disguise it......

Admiral Vostok 03-08-2004 02:44 AM

I seem to remember there was this one time where Windu changed one of his ideas because everyone opposed it... or maybe I am remembering wrong...

Anyway, as you may have already read in one of the other threads, I now have a copy of RoN, so Windu can no longer use the excuse that no-one has played it.


so you think that the second RTS to be created was stwealing all of it's ideas from the first?
Well back in those days, yes, it was very much like stealing. However the second RTS ever made wasn't exactly the same as the first - it took ideas in different directions and played very differently, more differently than RTSs today play.

And before you think I'm making that up I have done a bit of reading in the past on this, here's the article:

Now please tell us at least one thing (apart from changing things to Star Wars civs and locations) that differentiates the gameplay of Conquer the World to the gaameplay of Conquer the Galaxy.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2015 - All rights reserved.