Darth Windu Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Hi everyone. As you may or may not have noticed, my sig now includes a link to an online version of my idea for SWGB2. This link goes to my website, and from there, you can choose to either- 1. Look at the idea online 2. Download SWGB2.doc I cannot express how much i recommend you download the file. The reason for this is that it was created in Microsoft Word format, and uses various internal links that dont work in the online version. Hopefully i will be able to fix this, but at the moment downloading is your best bet. If there are any questions and/or comments, lease feel free to post them here or email me. Darth Windu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clonedjedi Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 hmmmmm it was kinda hard to read clicking on all those links going up and down but i read it some of the ideas are good. but vong and hutt civs are controversial and joining gungan and naboo no comment those unique buildings are good some are kind of mini super weapons lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Some interesting ideas Windu. Here's my comments: Some of your unique buildings get amazingly good powers (Confederacy War Room, Ion Cannon, Starfleet Uplink) whereas others give negligible benefits (Moisture Farm). I assume these will be balanced by being available at different stages of the game and costing vastly different amounts of resources. Also it's not clear what the Wookiee one does (Where do the reinforcements come from? Where do they go?). I also assume the Star Destroyer Bombardment destroys a large area of buildings and units. You're aware of my dislike of the Aircraft limitations, so we won't go into that again here. I'd suggest for cloaking that it work the opposite way around (ie visible on mini-map but not on main screen). This is because players watch the main screen far more often than the mini-map. I'm guessing here that you're going with the idea we discussed about cloaking in the other thread in that it doesn't really make a unit "invisible", but only makes it impossible to detect on radar. This is all well and good for realism, but I think in gameplay terms it works better the other way around. I'm also guessing eve though you can see it, units can't attack it unless spotted by a detector? Otherwise cloaking seems a bit pointless just to avoid being seen on the mini-map. Seems a bit weird to have a trooper cost half a population. Why don't you just double all the population costs so a Trooper can take up a whole existence? As a minor note you spelt cannon wrong throughout the document. "Canon" means a part of Holy Scriptures, and has been adopted by fan bases such as those of Star Wars to mean what is taken as being correct in the continuity of the fan's text. "Cannon" is a big shooting thing. Sorry to nitpick but that's me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted September 29, 2003 Author Share Posted September 29, 2003 Forzted - trust me, its worse without the links Vostok - some good points there, 1. Well i still have to sort out a few, and with the Hutts, i couldnt think of anything more unique than a Moisture Farm (since they will be representing Tatooine). I'm thinking of increasing the amount of funds you get from it. The Wookiee building calls for re-inforcements that arrive in a Wookiee Air Transport (unbuildable). When you activate the unique building, the transport appears at one of the edges of the map, fly's over to the closest Wookiee Command Center, and drops off it load of troopers. Not sure if i will make the transport targetable by the enemy or not, but at the moment im thinking not. 2. Well, i think it's necessary... 3. The problem i have with that is that, for example, how could a Battle Droid fail to see a Jedi Master standing in front of it? Instead, i was thinking of editing cloaking to make units invisible on the mini-map and making the range at which they are detected halved (ie if a droid sees 6 squares, it would detect a cloaked unit only at 3) 4. I did? Silly me, ill have to check on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 3. By that analogy, how could some sort of radar (your mini-map) not be able to detect a Jedi trying to cloak himself? However, the most important thing is that it doesn't make much sense gameplay wise. 5. You still didn't explain why Troopers cost half a population. Do they share bunks or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted September 29, 2003 Author Share Posted September 29, 2003 Vostok - a few things- 2. I removed the 'range' idea for Aircraft, forgot to do that earlier 3. To me, it makes more sence to have them invisible on the mini-map rather than the main map. Also, i have added the modification where a unit will only be able to see a cloaked unit at 50% of its normal LOS (ie if it sees 6 squares, it will only be able to see a cloaked unit at 3) 5. Well, this is because i want to keep the pop limit as easily understood as possible. I could make them take up one slot, but then i would have to double everything else, so that the total pop slots would be 600, and an AT-AT would take up 8. It really isnt significant, just a measure of how i do the pop slot thing Finally, with the unqiue buildings, i have opted for a new type of progress in that buildings will become available over time depending on how much research you have invested. Since they all give good bonus' they would become available on average about 3/4 of your way through building research Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 2. But you still have the thing where they need a store of Gas, right? Then I still don't like it. 3. It could work. At least it is an original idea. 5. I don't see what the problem is with doubling. It would be far easier to understand than having something cost half a pop. Thinking from a programmer's point of view, the pop counter will be implemented as double what you have anyway because integers take up less room than floating point numbers. So you have a max pop of 600. So what? That sounds good for consumers who want more. And you'll still have exactly the same number of units as you have now, so there is now problem there. An AT-AT take up 8? Nothing wrong with that either, especially when you consider some of the units in WarCraft 3 that cost 8 pop when there was only a max pop limit of 90 (as much as I like Blizzard games that combined with the upkeep concept was the worst idea ever). If having a unit cost half a population is "easily understood" why can't I understand it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 Vostok - 2. As i've said before, i've increased the power of aircraft, and so there needs to be something to limit that power somewhat, hence the Gas idea. All you do is collect it from the air (ala Bespin) or you can buy it at your spaceport. I cant think of anything else to replace Gas with, and im not having infantry fire at aircraft. One other thing is that it hasnt been done before, and i think it would be interesting to see how it works. 5. I suppose i could double it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 2. Hasn't been done before? What about in RoN? 5. Yes you could. It would be silly not to, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 2. No, it hasnt been done before to the best of my knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Isn't there some sort of similar thing with oil in RoN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 1, 2003 Author Share Posted October 1, 2003 Well i dont have RoN, but as far as im aware, oil is a resource that only becomes available when you enter the 'industrial age', and it is necessary for vehicles and aircraft. Whether you can buy/sell it or not, i dont know, you'd have to ask someone who has the game. Even so, my idea with Gas is different, and quite realistic in a Star Wars context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Well, well, well, the truth coms out. Windu doesnt own RoN, but persisted to push it as a great game, and a potential engine. Sounds very similar to another ex-forumer I know, who openly touted RoN, and now lets it collect dust while he continues to play (and complain about) AoM, which he persistently mocked on the forums. Very intresting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 2, 2003 Author Share Posted October 2, 2003 I still want to get it, im just not going to pay $90 for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Gas is used in fighters yes that is undeniable but contrary to what everypone is touting in here only TIE Fighters needed it to stay airborne Gas is used to power the weapons no Gas No Weapons. Apart from torpedo's and of course Kamikazee and having aircraft not flying because of no gas is dum unless it's a TIE Fighter i really don't see an X-Wing needing Gas To Fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I have RoN and yes its not a bad RTS. However, the gaming engine is older than the original Star Wars (1977!) but it does have some nice touches that could be used in SWGB 2, IF it was going to be a resource driven game. I would like to see it move away from resources and have territory yeld cash to buy better weapons - almost likw force commander, just not as bad. DMUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compa_Mighty Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 So SWGB2 is not resource driven! Hehehe. Sorry man, you've earned it, I will watch everything you say very closely to see if I can get some information! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 hehe I have also heard it features Stormtroopers ;-) DMUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Stormtroopers?! Awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compa_Mighty Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by DarthMaulUK hehe I have also heard it features Stormtroopers ;-) DMUK No kidding! Man, this is awesome, now we can really start our speculations... Stormtroopers! Who would've thought about that?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saberhagen Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 I hope they're canon stormtroopers and not EU stormtroopers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 3, 2003 Author Share Posted October 3, 2003 DarthMaul - you realise that from that statement, you have effectively confirmed the existence of SWGB2 dont you? Viceroy - what good are fighters with no weapons? Hence, my idea retains realism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by Darth Windu DarthMaul - you realise that from that statement, you have effectively confirmed the existence of SWGB2 dont you? Ah! I didn't confirm anything, Garry Gaber did that earlier in the year ;-) DMUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 NO Windu That's YOUR CRACKPOT IDEA that's why you would head back to base to get replacment Gas cylinders to power your weapons. How is saying NO GAS IN THE FIGHTER WEAPONS DON'T WORK saying they don't have weapons at all. Oh I get it you realise your wrong and are now backed into a corner cowering before the truth .Embrace the truth climb down the ladder and embrace the truth for it is pure and we shall forget about your blunder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 As erratic as Viceroy's post is, he has a valid point, Windu. While the battles we see in the movies are shorter than the games we'll be playing, the need for Gas to continually power your Aircraft is too limiting, and will more than likely discourage their use. I want just the opposite, so much as to even encourage the use of weaker Air Forces like the Trade Federation. Reliance on Gas will not help the situation. It is a realism idea, and while that doesn't necessarily mean bad gameplay as many believe, in this case it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.