clonedjedi Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 Transports just dropped there cargo in SWGB should it still work that way or should they land and undeploy? I think landing and undeploying is the more better option giving ground forces a chance to knock it down before it has totally deployed its load. Also if units are given the oportunity to fire at aircraft and not making much damage would that damage increase while they get closer to the ground since accuracy would be alot better..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 I'd like to see things work this way, though I know Sith is violently opposed to it, and I can understand his point. Still I think vulnerability when landing transports is an important part of warfare, which is why in Star Wars armies always land out of range then advance. The exception is of course the Gunship, though I think since it is heavily armed it might be okay to use as a mid-battle lander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 Yep, he is violently opposed to it. I'd like to see it happen, but only graphically, and have it not take very long so it doesnt mess with the gameplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 Well it's not supposed to take a long time anyway. If you're unloading troopers it should just take you a sec. I think there should be a different unload time(if the transport lands) for different units. Unloading an AT-AT and a few troopers is a different situation. The exception would be the Republic Dropship that can easily unload an AT-TE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Well, i agree with Vostok here. In warfare, transports are vulnerable when offloading their contents onto a battlefield, and this needs to be shown. It also makes the game more interesting by making players think more about where they are putting their transports, because you dont want to lose a transport just as it starts offloading, so players will target transports more (to kill the inside units) and also land further away, like in Ep2. With the transports of different civ's, the only different one i see in the Republic. (In my idea) the Republic's transports carry a lot less than other civ's, but their Dropship drops its cargo and leaves more quickly, and of course the gunship can hold its own on the battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Right. I never thought I'd live to see the day I agree with Windu, but here it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 I love those drop ships in Episode 2 that drop off the walkers into battle. They had ships like that in Dune 2000 DMUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clonedjedi Posted December 1, 2003 Author Share Posted December 1, 2003 Well it wouldn't be vulnerable if your had fighters backing it up........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Too bad Windu that this is a game, not real life, cause I'd agree that you were right if this were real life. Sadly, however, SW doesnt exist, not any more than Santa Claus or the bogeyman, and games are not real life. And you know the saying about what reigns over realism, so I wont repeat it (its in my sig). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 First of all, Santa does exist, so be nice... Anyway, so sithy, you are saying that in SW transports are immune to any damage? That sounds GREAT for gameplay and realism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clonedjedi Posted December 3, 2003 Author Share Posted December 3, 2003 Well I say landing is the best thing if your dumb enough to land inside a army that your bad luck of course the transports would have some armor and take a fair few trooper and mechs shots And shields would add to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Exactly Frozted. Actually I take back what I said before, I don't understand Sith's point of view. Which makes better gameplay, Sith: Use a transport to fly into a base and drop off all whole bunch of troops. Use a transport to land your force in a strategic position, then use actual skills to progress from that position into the enemy base. Once a stronger position has been established, reinforcements can be transported in without the danger of enemy attacks. Quite obviously this is good for Gameplay and Realism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 The first scenerio by far. What do you do then on small asteroids or islands, or when you need to send in reinforcements into a busy fight? Or saving dieing ones? Or picking up a cornered Jedi? Or doing just about anything that requires that enemy troops and transports be in range of each other? I oppose it because I feel that it is superfluous realism. Do we need to have transports be vurnable to land units while doing their little stunt? Has there been a problem with transports being able to land unassailed by land troops? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clonedjedi Posted December 4, 2003 Author Share Posted December 4, 2003 Well nothing is stopping you from sending armies into a busy fight just land the transports further back and walk into battle not that hard.... And if your jedi was cornered any good player would kill it on the spot before you got a transport to pick it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Hmm....unless you have mucho bounties, I doubt you are gonna kill a jedi "on the spot". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Originally posted by Sithmaster_821 What do you do then on small asteroids or islands, or when you need to send in reinforcements into a busy fight? Or saving dieing ones? Or picking up a cornered Jedi? Or doing just about anything that requires that enemy troops and transports be in range of each other? Well, you may have to use *gasp* a strategy such as one they would use in a similar situation in the real world. But there is an issue that hasn't been addressed that I feel may set Sith's mind at ease. The question is: should transports land to offload troops and if so should they become vulnerable to ground fire whilst doing so? Well something we haven't thought about is when a landed transport is destroyed what becomes of its cargo? Most RTS games in the past (including SWGB, I believe) has the troops disembark as soon as the transport is destroyed, or even when it is severely damaged. I think a similar option is viable for these transports: when an Air transport is killed on the ground, the passengers will immediately disembark, and maybe take a little damage from the blast. They will not be killed instantly as though they were airborne. This way things don't really change from the way they were before. You can still use them to pummel drop, for example, but the transport most likely won't survive whereas the pummels would. So it encourages you to use tranports realistically (setting passengers down away from battle) but still can be used in emergency cases where troops need transportation to or from the heat of battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 I agree with Vostok here. I would like to see Transports destroyed while flying to have their contents blown up too, but if landed then have the contents exit still, a little worse for wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 I think that I could concede to Vostok's idea in the face of all this opposition, but I still think that a quick graphical demonstration is the way to go. Vostok, changing strategies/tactics doesnt necessarily make them better. For example, I could say that all ranged units have 1 minimum range, give a perfectly valid realism explination, and claim that it is both gameplay and realism, because it has you change tactics and strategy. In fact, that idea addresses something that any of the realism freaks ever do: a current balance quirk. Ranged units are much better than melee ones ATM. But it still is not a good idea, and still represents meddling with gameplay in the name of realsim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 What exactly do you have against realism, Sith? What we're proposing improves realism, and while gameplay may be different I certainly don't think it's any worse. How can that be a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clonedjedi Posted December 7, 2003 Author Share Posted December 7, 2003 Sith does have a good point you can't just make everthing in the game realistic which is what most of you want (which can never happen for balance issues). For me gameplay rules over realism you have to draw the line between the two you can't have full realism or full gameplay for a star wars rts to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 I realise that, but I don't see why you can't have more realism when gameplay, though different, isn't worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clonedjedi Posted December 7, 2003 Author Share Posted December 7, 2003 SWGB 1 had heaps of realism just not all the units were in the movies. And the gameplay was excellent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Cause, Vostok, typically it is worse, because when you delve furhter into realism, you are adding the limitations and endless variations that are applicable to real life. When you add these limitations or other added layers of needless crap like "well technically troopers could shoot at airplanes" and "technically a trooper could destroy a AT AT with a lucky shot" and then the game turns out crap, cause you have too many rules and limitations and quirks and special cases, and everything is complicated cause realism is complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 I would not say "typically". It can be worse, but doesn't have to be. In my experience realism is just as much reverred by critics and gamers alike as gameplay is. But as I said before I don't want to turn this into a realism debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 But do the gamers/critics prefer a game with realism over a one with good gameplay. No. They like realism (mostly with FPS's, though), but not if it impedes with gameplay. In fact, in RTS's, most reviewers look negativley on games that include more realism than the typical RTS, and much of the gaming community has little regard for realism. Thats why games like War Craft are popular while Empire Earth sits in the discout bin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.