lukeiamyourdad Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Windu- 1-So? What does it have to do with your "political" center? The political center was taken. 2-It had been bombed, yes, but not been destroyed or taken. Taken that into consideration, Berlin was wiped out of the map... 3-??? saberhagen That's actually a good idea. It's original, and since you don't start on the same planet everytime you play a particular civ, its got more replayability. But then the purists won't be happy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Well being Lord of the Purists you may or may not have noticed the attitude I'm taking towards this: The Republic can fight the Empire. Ergo Things ain't entirely realistic. I think in gameplay terms it would be wise to have a random starting planet. I say this because I've just recently gotten hold of RoN, on which Windu's idea is entirely based. The problem with Conquer the World is that it suffers from the same problem that the game Risk upon which it is based did: if you are a certain country, the geographic location you start in can have advantages and disadvantages. For example some nations start bordering each other, while others are off by themselves so they can take a few territories without having to fight anyone. With random starting locations this could be fixed, though. Sure it would be weird if you're playing the Gungans and you start on Tatooine, but it's all for fun, so I don't think anyone is going to care too much. Oh and Windu, Geonosis IS a political center. Perhaps you've forgotten that the Dooku's treaty was signed there? If Geonosis isn't a political center, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 Good idea people. I will now change it so that in the free-for-all mode, players start on random planets, perferably as far away from each other as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Someone by the name of oback in the "SWGB2: Should it mix ground and space battles" thread suggested that the civs start from "motherships" - though to make it more StarWarsy I'd suggest calling them flagships. This would be ships like the Executor for the Imperials, Home One for the Rebels, and ships like a Droid Control Ship for the Federation/Separatists and a Republic Assault Ship for the Republic. Perhaps that's a good analogy to take? Though on second thoughts it really wouldn't make sense that you can't move around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saberhagen Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I think the problems with using spaceships as bases is that it would either make space combat necessary or make the lack of it look more glaring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Yes, quite right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majin Boba Fett Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 i think capturing should be more of a pride thing. like if u capture a capitol, u get some upgrade. i mean, if u sacked a city, u would get pretty pumped up over it. however, u dont need a capitol to fight. so capturing it shouldnt end the fight, but it should help the capturers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.