LucasForums (
-   Galactic Discussion (
-   -   Official SWGB 2 Game Engine thread. (

DarthMaulUK 02-25-2003 03:22 AM

Official SWGB 2 Game Engine thread.
Put your ideas here as to which gaming engine LA should use for SWGB 2.

Should it be Age Of Mythology (AoM), Command & Conquer Generals, maybe even the VERY impressive Creative Assemblys engine used in Medievil Total War?

Or, is it about time LA made their own engine or are they better off just creating the unit/structure artwork?

Give us your thoughts


Crazy_dog no.3 02-25-2003 05:54 AM

RoN, RoN and RoN!!!!

It is like AoK only larger scale and thefore will fit GB more.

If not then LA's own engine.

And then the Medieval Engine because it is conquering territories with RTS battles.

Those are the 3 options I would choose.

But not AoK, AoM or WC3.

swphreak 02-25-2003 06:54 AM

I think C&C:Generals would be cool. The Air would finally be like flying and dukeing and stuff, not the . . . . standing in the air shoot out. But I can see how that would not work to well. So I'd either go when RoN (because I like the idea of Coquer the World) or AoM.

Crazy_dog no.3 02-25-2003 01:06 PM

Or thier own engine (I have to say this otherwise CorranSec or somebody will flame me) !

I think Generals will be a cool engine for any fast-paced RTS. But it's not the same style as GB. So Star Wars RTS- Maybe SWGB2- No

joesdomain 02-25-2003 01:56 PM

Personally, I don't care what engine they use. I just want Galactic Battlegrounds 2 to be able to play on my Pentium III 667 with a 8MB Intel video card. Otherwise I won't buy the game because I am paying $1500-$2000 for a new computer just to get a 16MB, 32MB, 64MB, 128MB, or above video card. Because I can't upgrade my video card. I do prefer prefer engine that will allow more civilizations. Also, I want the engine to let us make at least 250 units per civilization if not more. If they can do that using a 3-d engine and still only require 4MB or 8MB video game then that would be cool!

swphreak 02-25-2003 02:40 PM

Yea, Generals is pretty fast paced.

people still have Pentium 3? wow.... j/k

I believe by the time SWGB 2 comes out, it will require a minimum of Pentium IV and an Advanced Video Card like GF or Radeon. I have a GF 4 ti 4600 and it is my baby.....

now backon topic: I really wish LA would finally use it's own engine because i don't want them to have to owe Microsoft anything when SWGB 2 becomes a hit......

Admiral Vostok 02-25-2003 07:17 PM

Their own engine is really the only option if they don't want SWGB2 to look as much like a (professionally-done) mod as SWGB1 did.

However, if for whatever reason that is not feasible, I'd go with AoM. RoN is to large-scale, while Generals is too small-scale - although admittedly I don't know that much about Generals.

I've stated reasons why I like the AoM engine in my thread titles "Age of Mythology and SWGB2". However, I'd like to see LucasArts and Ensemble to work together on an engine. That way you've got the Ensemble-feel so it isn't too different from SWGB1, but at the same time it will be a completely different engine from AoM.

joesdomain 02-25-2003 07:43 PM

That was funny! Not everyone who plays strategy games or Star Wars games has Pentium 4's. I still know alot of people who use Pentium 2. I just think engine should be able to run on the majority of customers computers when they finally release it. Most people will have at least a Pentium III by the time they release it. Plus, not everyone is buying a computer or upgrading their computer graphic cards every year for a game like Galactic Battlegrounds 2.

swphreak 02-25-2003 10:25 PM

Well, my dad got this comp last year and I got the GF 4 for christmas cuz i needed it for Generals and Cuz I want to make full use of SWG graphics,

Besides, in 2005, I'm sure comps with Pentium 4s will be a lil cheaper

CorranSec 02-26-2003 02:19 AM

I would most definitely say AoM. It fits the game style, and is an obvious choice, seeing as it's the sequel to AoK, yet different enough to be an amazing game in its own right without being seen as too close to the prequel.
However, I haven't played C&C Generals yet. So I can't give my opinion on it....... however, I daresay AoM will be the best option for a while to come.
As for RoN, well, I post reasons for it not to be used on every second thread on these forums, and I'm too lazy to post 'em here. Regulars will know my reasons off by heart by now...

Edit: Wait wait wait! Oh, how foolish of me: I meant to say that AoM is the best choice IF LA doesn't make their own engine. It should be obvious to all and sundry that if LA is willing to fork out the resources necessary to create a unique and powerful engine for GB2, it will be far better than any modded version of another engine could ever be.

Crazy_dog no.3 02-26-2003 06:06 AM

Problems with AoM:
Only 3 factions (but more if u count Gods and all)
No air units (this was a problem with GB too)
Godly powers (don't give me "the Force" or "Generals". If it was that was in Canon Luke would destroy another AT-AT using Force Push. And C&C Generals handles the whole Generals thing better. If it would be like AoM we would be getting further from original GB and closer to FoCom, with it's "command points" and subsequent reinforcements)

swphreak 02-26-2003 06:52 AM

I'm sure LA would scrap the 'God powers" and 'Favor" and other things that arn't StarWarsey. And they can add the stuff they need but if they use AoM, they'll have to owe Microsoft something and i don't want that....

Admiral Vostok 02-26-2003 06:10 PM

That's why I think LucasArts and Ensemble should join forces. Simply just modding AoM would be bad because you'd have to take out God Powers and Favor. The bad things about this are:
:atat: Taking something out will make it look like an inferior game to AoM.
:atat: It's probably such an integral part of the engine it would be impossible to remove without a large amount of re-engineering.

Joe: I've said it before and I'll say it again. You are dreaming if you think game developers want to cater for people with slower computers. They are part of the computer industry, and they want you to buy new things to keep the industry alive. Therefore, they make you buy new things if you want to play their game. It's all part of capitalism and that's how the society you live in works.

Sithmaster_821 03-01-2003 04:57 PM

Their own engine is by far the best. If they used C&C, AoM, RoN, or any of the others, I probably wouldn't play it. RoN is just a flawed game (I can say this now that simwiz isn't here) and both Generals and AoM would have to lose intergral parts of their engines to adopt them to SW or else seem unfun and forced.

Darth Windu 03-02-2003 01:12 AM

In my opinion, LA should go and look at (and play)-
AoM, AoK etc
C&C: Generals
C&C: Red Alert, RA2, TS etc

Take the best features and the features that best fit a Star Wars RTS, and then build their own engine. As for the other engines

Out of the question-
AoM, AoK, C&C series

Would Work-
RoN, Medievil

joesdomain 03-02-2003 01:59 AM

I think the engine right now works. Just add more units per civilization, more structures, buildings, units, characters, heros in the scenario editor. Add more Star Wars Locales in Single player mode. Make it so Fighters, Bombers, Transports can land when not fighting. Make aircraft like B-wing, X-wings, etc. open their wings like in the movies. Also when aircraft attack they shouldn't just hover above the object. That is fake.

CorranSec 03-02-2003 03:18 AM

Windu: I agree that LA should go and look at other top-rated games to try and find what works, but I can't see why AoM would be out of the question and RoN wouldn't. I mean, sure, God Powers and Favour are quite insane in a SW setting, but there are some great ideas in those games, and some much more suited to the genre than RoN, which shouldn't even be in discussion. (Remember all the reasons I posted in the RoN thread?)

Crazy_dog no.3 03-02-2003 06:07 AM


Originally posted by joesdomain
I think the engine right now works. Just add more units per civilization, more structures, buildings, units, characters, heros in the scenario editor. Add more Star Wars Locales in Single player mode. Make it so Fighters, Bombers, Transports can land when not fighting. Make aircraft like B-wing, X-wings, etc. open their wings like in the movies. Also when aircraft attack they shouldn't just hover above the object. That is fake.



I also think that LA should make thier own engine, becuase RoN's release is too far away.

Sithmaster- Gah! Play it first then critisize!!

Sithmaster_821 03-02-2003 01:47 PM

I'm just predicting. You don't know if its good either

Crazy_dog no.3 03-02-2003 02:28 PM

Ok fair enough, but so far to me it LOOKS like a very good game.

CorranSec 03-02-2003 03:32 PM

And to many followers of the Mayan calender, it LOOKS like the world's going to end in 2012, but they don't know until they've tried it..... :p

Admiral Vostok 03-02-2003 09:10 PM

Joe, you are dreaming if you think they would use the AoK engine again. Who would bother buying exactly the same game, but with a few things that should have been put in a second expansion pack and given a price tag half the value? I certainly would not. If LucasArts does this it is an insult to us and commercial suicide for them.

While taking the best ideas from other games is a good idea, I would also like to think LucasArts has the ability to introduce something new into the RTS genre.

Darth Windu 03-02-2003 11:01 PM

Joe - let us never speak of this again...

Sith - thats unfair. To me, RoN looks great.

Corran - because AoM is built on ancient earth mythology with 3 civs, while RoN is designed to operate right through WW2 (on which SW combat is based) right up to now. Hence it would already have the framework to accomodate a SW mod (ie tanks, aircraft, ranged infantry) whereas AoM would not.

Crazy_dog no.3 03-03-2003 08:05 AM

CorranSec- Well perhaps in 2012 an Independence Day-type scenario will occur. I, for one, haven't tried it.:D

Admiral Vostok 03-03-2003 06:40 PM

I think AoM is better than RoN for SWGB2 because even though there are elements in both that don't work, the elements in AoM can be more easily made to fit Star Wars than those in RoN.

For example:
What doesn't work in RoN?
:atat: It has too many ages. Cutting these down will suit Star Wars better but make SWGB2 look like less of a game than RoN.
:atat: Borders. These don't really make sense for Star Wars, and making them fit Star Wars is a bit of a stretch.
:atat: Scale. RoN is large scale RTS, while idealy SWGB2 should remain medium scale like SWGB1.

What doesn't work in AoM?
:atat: God Powers. However, these could be changed to be military tactics or officer commands. For example, the Rebels might have a "demolition team" tactic, that works pretty much like Meteor Shower except you see all these Rebels run out of the enemy buildings before they explode.
:atat: Minor God Worship. This could quite suitably be altered to Officer stationing, where each officer brings new techs and a new military tactic to each.
:atat: Favor. This could be changed to be similar to the Force. You would need Force to buy Jedi and Sith, as well as research Jedi/Sith techs. Light-side civs generate Force similar to the Greeks, but you would have troopers and Jedi "meditate" to gain Force/Favor. The Dark Side should gain their Force in combat like the Norse.

So I think AoM could be made to fit Star Wars in a more acceptable way than RoN.

Sithmaster_821 03-03-2003 10:16 PM

Yeah, but Vostok, the three "fixes" you listed under AoM, are incredibly forced and an obvious stretch.

As for RoN-I think that conceptually it's a good game, and the single player may be ok (depends on BHG's AI), but I forsee MAJOR imbalances on the MP level. Why? From looking at all of the civ previews, I can point out some pretty big flaws, most of which have been previously done by other developers and caused some equally prominent problems. Also, it is a prime example of realism over gameplay. If you look at the nature of most of their "innovations" they all deal with ways of making the game more realistic, usually at the expense of gameplay/balance. I have said many many times the problems with too many civs, and the problems with borders, "special" resourses, and other related Realism>Gameplay ideas that they implement have also been brought up

Admiral Vostok 03-03-2003 11:03 PM

I know my AoM fixes are forced, but my point is fixes to AoM would not be as forced as fixes to RoN.

CorranSec 03-05-2003 12:06 AM

Windu: Oh, please. If I was an unkind man I would ask you to shut the hell up. But I'm not, so I'll just tell you for what is hopefully the last time:
Do not use real-world examples in relation to SW, GB or any such thing?
SW is build on real-world combat? Then why is it that in real-world air combat, planes mostly rely on long-range missiles, while in SW they dogfight and fire their lasers? Why is it that in real-world ground combat, tanks just roll along and get blown up by other tanks, while in SW moving engines of destruction called AT-ATs get tied up by snowspeeders and slashed up by lightsabers? Why is it...... you get the point. WW2 is hugely different to SW. It is, to put it in gaming terms, 'an entirely different engine.' And there is no way that things as integral to RoN as epic-scale mode-switching and countries with borders can be incorporated into SW, and neither can they be removed without making an entirely different game.

AoM is much more suited, and although Vostok's fixes might seem forced, it's only natural and rather smooth to convert god powers and myth units to force powers and Jedi.
:amidala: The Minor Gods could be Officers which you choose to lead your army, with their own tactics (GPs) and elite teams (MUs). Or they could be Jedi Masters with tide-turning force powers and their Jedi underlings. (not too sure about the underlings, I'd appreciate someone offering a Jedi-related MU replacement that makes sense....)

Darth Windu 03-05-2003 02:55 AM

Corran - ill give you a quick lesson on WW2.

1. Aircraft didnt use missiles, they had short-range guns and canon (normally 20mm) and had intense dogfights.

2. There were tanks used by the Germans called the Tiger and King Tiger. They were incredibly well armoured although rather slow (in one instance a single Tiger holded off an entire allied division and killing 25 allied tanks before the Tiger being killed). Due to this thick armour the easiest and best way to kill them was aircraft.

3. The Millenium Falcon is based on the B-26 Medium Bomber (look at the cockpit and ventral and dorsal turrets)

So as i said, Star Wars combat is based on WW2, as RoN has a WW2 age as part of the game, the combat would ba far, far more natural and realistic, especially when you consider AoM doesnt include armour and aircraft.

Anyway, as i said the best thing is for LA to make their own engine after analysing the other popular RTS engines/games and then make their own.

CorranSec 03-05-2003 03:33 AM

1. Okay, so they didn't use missiles like modern craft do (and you've used modern craft in your arguments before). But did those aircraft have shields? No. Did they have laser cannons? No. Did they have proton torpedoes? No. Did they fight capital ships? No. And, indeed, was there anything bigger than a fighter up there flying around? Unless there were some armed dirigibiles floating around, I would say no.
2. And by some amazing twist of logic, a Tiger becomes an AT-AT? No. Were they huge, lumbering beasts, which actually walked along and had a cockpit? No. Did they have lasers (or any kind of guns) mounted on the sides of this cockpit? I doubt it. Did aircraft actually fly around them, between their legs, and tie them up with cables? No.
3. The Martin B-26 Marauder (commonly known as The Flying Prostitute, for god knows what reasons) looks nothing like the Falcon. Your argument is like saying the AK-47 assault rifle was the inspiration for the Imperial blaster carbine- why, they've both got triggers! They must be the same!
The B-26 is a bomber. The Falcon is a heavily modified freighter. The B-26 drops bombs. The Falcon fires quad lasers from its two turrets. The B-26 is a Xendor-damned plane with wings and propellers, Windu..... stop kidding yourself, because you're the only one laughing.

Ah! RoN has a WW2 age. I have no doubt that it also has many ages that aren't WW2. So basically, you're choosing RoN as an engine simply because you (incorrectly) think one facet of it was the total inspiration of Star Wars.
When you hold it up like that, does it seem weak and insipid to anybody else?

Admiral Vostok 03-05-2003 06:24 AM

I think AoM MUs are the messiest part in turning it into a Star Wars mod, so I suggest replacing the temple with Jedi temples and instead of building MUs there you build Jedis. It's a bit boring compared all the myth units available to AoM, but following certain officers would give you unique units available from other buildings, so it makes up for it.

It makes sense that Jedi replace all MU, because if "Force" replaces Favor it would make sense that Jedi cost Force to buy.

Oh and instead of needing a temple to progress you might need a War Room or something representing the place the Officers lead from.

Darth Windu 03-06-2003 06:21 AM

Corran - how is it possible that you STILL fail to see what is right in front of your face? Of course laser's and proton torpedo's werent used in WW2, the point is the PRINCIPLES of the weapons are the same.

Lasers - rapid fire, inaccurate, lots of ammo
Machine Guns - rapid fire, inaccurate, lots of ammo

Also, bombs are used in SW and WW2, and also aircraft were fitted with Rockets which were extremely powerful (especially with the Typhoon)

Was there anything bigger than fighters? Yes. The B-17, B-24, B-29, Lancaster, Wellington etc were all rather large, especially when compared to fighters.

Did fighters attack capital ships? Yes. How do you think the super-battleship Yamato was suck? By USN aircraft. Also, at pearl harbour Japanese aircraft managed to sink several capital ships.

Falcon - the cokpit is that of a bomber, the only aircraft to carry dorsal and ventral turrets were BOMBERS. The falcon is very similar to the B-26.

DarthMaulUK 03-06-2003 10:36 AM

If LA were to outsource the gaming engine, AoM, although looks pretty just won't work for mass battles.

Prehaps one of the best engines around is the Creative Assemblys Total War engine.

Handles mass battles, even gives units and advantage when using a hill!


swphreak 03-06-2003 10:59 AM

oooh. I'll have to try thatdemo when I get home. keep the link

Crazy_dog no.3 03-06-2003 05:13 PM


Originally posted by DarthMaulUK
If LA were to outsource the gaming engine, AoM, although looks pretty just won't work for mass battles.

Prehaps one of the best engines around is the Creative Assemblys Total War engine.

Handles mass battles, even gives units and advantage when using a hill!


Yes that is the alternative to RoN, but it needs to be changed extensivly.

Admiral Vostok 03-06-2003 06:57 PM

DMUK and others: SWGB1 wasn't about "mass battles", so neither should SWGB2. SWGB1 and AoM both have the same scale.

I wouldn't want the scale any larger, because the only Star Wars battle that was kind-of as large-scale as Total War was the Battle of Geonosis, and you can still have a battle of that size in AoM.

Star Wars has always been about personal struggles in an epic battle. Making SWGB2 a large scale game will lose the personal side of things. But making it as small scale as WC3 will lose the epic battle side. So the best scale for a Star Wars RTS is medium scale like AoM, AoK, etc. because you can have both personal and epic struggles.

Darth Windu 03-07-2003 09:54 AM

Vostok - i actually i agree with you here. Although i think the vast scale of RoN is going to be great, the drawback of that is that you cant play senario's such as (in relation to SW), the attack of theed for example.

All LA needs to do is find a compramise, perhaps on a slightly larger scale than SWGB, which would have the added benefit of being able to have larger cities to attack

eizo131 03-07-2003 11:19 AM

I go for RoN. From what I have AoM sounds like a good idea. How bout mixing the two?

Real quick, the allies (WW2) DID use missiles but the were just like RPGs. No chips. No homing stuff.

CorranSec 03-07-2003 10:47 PM

I agree with Vostok. We shouldn't be looking for an epic-scale 'mass battles' game, we should be looking for a medium-scale GB2 game.

Principles? Right. Well, using that amazing logic, you could indeed say the DL-44 blaster pistol is based on the AK-47 assault rifle because the principle of both is to point the hole at the baddie and pull the trigger.
Lasers- can be rapid/slow/medium fire, quite accurate, unlimited ammo
Machine guns- rapid fire, inaccurate, lots of ammo

As eizo said, no guided missiles/torpedoes were used in WW2.

I meant, was there anything of a different class than fighters- ie
medium ships that you can actually live on, capital ships that can hold thousands of people..... the obvious answer is no.

I was talking about airborne capital ships, which in our world do not exist.

The cockpit does hold a vague similarity to that of bombers such as the B-26, but even in that minor area, there are great differences- for example, the Falcon's cockpit is not rounded, but slopes down and then flattens.

Did these bombers have even a remotely similar design to the Falcon's- for example, did they have a flattened disk shape? No. Were their dorsal and ventral turrets even remotely similar to those of the Falcon's- for example, did they fire quad lasers? No.

Admiral Vostok 03-07-2003 11:16 PM

Corran, much of Star Wars is based on real world things, but contrary to what Windu believes it is not an exact translation, many things are very different.

While it's true we don't have airborne capital ships, the capital ships seen in Star Wars are in fact based on our navy ships, so Windu is correct in that regard.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter that RoN has WW2 stuff in it, because AoM can easily be made to use the same things. I would not say the fact that RoN has WW2 stuff in it is a deciding factor at all.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:18 PM.

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