lukeiamyourdad Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Well it would be weird if the troopers fought on the trees. Maybe on platforms but that wasn't doable with the engine. Still, Bioware obviously ignored your description of Dantoine showing it in KotOR as a huge savannah, not a swamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 It wasn't completely covered with swamps. Also, Kotor was 20,000 or so years before ANH. A lot happenes in 20,000 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted February 20, 2004 Author Share Posted February 20, 2004 Phreak - well, in relation to Kashyyyk and Dantooine, we have to look at it two ways. 1. We have 'seen' the planets in games, and they are therefore better than book descriptions. 2. The levels have to be playable. How are we going to use AT-AT's on Kashyyk? Make them use platforms and bridges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 I guess you can't use AT-ATs on Kashyyyk. The platforms are big enough for AT-STs though. And other small vehicles. The Empire mostly had storm troopers there from the local base. I guess on kashyyyk, the Imperials would have to be a bit more strategic, and use more TIEs. Wookiees don't have much in the way of tanks or ground assault vehicles, and they have some starfighters. In YJK, when the Shadow Acadamy assaulted Kashyyyk, they had to disable the orbiting gun platforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted February 21, 2004 Author Share Posted February 21, 2004 Well as i said, the levels have to be playable, and for ground combat, platforms wont be enough. Add that to the fact that we saw the ground of Kashyyyk in SWGB and it wouldnt make any sense to go along with the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 We'll see how ep3 portrays Kashyyyk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Why did I vote no? Three reasons: One, too many civs. Playable or not, that's still info you must store and use, 3-d models that must be made, etc. Unless you own a supercomputer Windu, I can't see how you think that your ideas are gonna work. And I thought having Windu's ten (or eight or whatever) completely unique civs was going to be taxing, but now he adds sub-civs (essentially new civs), as well as a multitude of non-playable ones, thats going overboard. Better solution: going the trandoshan route in SWGB. Give a handful of editor only units and buildings to a certain civ, and they get to play pretend. Two: Why the bonuses? Is it because RoN did it (not to get ahead of myself, but this is number three)? All this causes is it to be quite hard early on, when you have no bonuses, and veyr easy later when all of the planets have consolidated underneath you. Isnt that counterintuitive for a campaign? I know Windu that you are going to say that it makes it more realistic, that a large government would have a huge advantage over a puny planet in real life, but, guess what, this is a game, and primary objetcive is to have fun, not to be blown out of the water, or mindlessly kill weaklings. Three: Ummmm.......Can you say blatant ripoff? Come on. The whole idea is that we are trying to be original, because the lack thereof hindered our current game's sales and following, and the only things you suggest is "lets go and make a SW mod for RoN/C&C:G". Its shooting yourself in the foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted February 27, 2004 Author Share Posted February 27, 2004 Sith - 1. These minor civs would NOT include the same number of units or bonus' that the playable civs get. The whole point of having them is so that there is a more realistic and fun 'feel' to the Conquer the Galaxy campaign. This was basically one of my gripes in terms of RoN in that the 'barbarians' you took uncliamed lands from were exactly the same as each other. 2. To realistically portray the Star Wars universe, to provide motives for attacking different planets, and to reward those players who are more aggressive in terms of expansion. There is no doubt that a player who controls most of the map is the most powerful, but that doesnt mean they are undefeatable either. This can also work well in Empire vs Rebels senario's. 3. Read the first two points. BTW thought i might just add that not every planet would have a minor civ. Some would be 'colonies' of other worlds, and also there would be pretty much a single human minor civ to cover worlds like Corellia, Alderaan (if it isnt the Republic homewolrd) etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 1. Windu, I think its telling you something when RoN had to cut corners with the CTW scenerio. They had generic unit sets, so all they would have needed to do was slap on a new skin, and change a name here or there, and they still didn't do it either. Not to mention that they had to cut corners graphically just to make the game run smooth (faux 3d anyone?) 2. Umm...Windu, when I predict that you will say somethingand counter it, don't go ahead and sya it for the hell of it. 3. How did your other responses talk about blatant mimicry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted February 28, 2004 Author Share Posted February 28, 2004 Sith - 1. RoN also has 18 nations, bringing that up to 24 in the expansion pack, compared to my 8. There are also more units and different gameplay. In terms of graphics, i really dont see anything wrong with them. 2. So you think you can deny me the use of an argument? Let's live in the real world sith. Thats like saying 'i think speed camera's are bad and you cant say they're good because they punish those who break the law' - its just plain stupid. 3. They explained that it isnt blatant mimicry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 1. 18 (or 24) civs that are exactly the same, aside from a handful of UUs and bonuses (which don't take much comp space). They can pop these babies out without taxing the CPU at all. The only limit to civ size in games like AoK and RoN is balance. However, you want 8 civs with completely unique unit sets and building sets, with 3 variations each, and on top of that, a bunch more non-playable civs, which will also have unique unit sets, or atleast a generic set different from all the other games. That's double the number of the next highest games (WC3, AoM), plus additional civs and variations, and, if those other games can barely run on people's computers with good graphics, how do you think yours will fair. 2. What I said was that you didn't refute the arguement I posted there, just went on saying what I said you would say without addressing my counter. 3. You have not addressed this. Reread your freaking post. Not once do you say, "My ideas are dramatically different from RoN or C&C because...". Thats cause they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.