Darth Windu Posted March 7, 2004 Author Share Posted March 7, 2004 vostok - as i explained before, i decided the outcome of the other poll because it was tied. sith - it is necessary, and how would it make the game worse in the eyes of reviewers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 SWGB was worse in the eye of the reviewers because it looked too much like AoK. Your idea will be worse in the eyes of the reviewers because it's a total rip-off of RoN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 7, 2004 Author Share Posted March 7, 2004 Hardly. I admit that my template uses many idea's from RoN - but it is most certainly not a 'total rip-off' and if anyone here apart from me had actually played RoN and read my idea, they would know that. In addition, for my idea, the game would (ideally) have a purpose-built engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Your CtG IS a total rip-off of RoN's CtW. Not everything, I admit, not your whole template but that particular part is a total rip-off. No, it is not "based" on it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I have just gotten hold of a copy of RoN and as I'm playing I keep saying to myself "hey, this is just like Windu's template!" Sure, it isn't exactly the same, but it's close enough. About as close as SWGB1 was to AoK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 luke - there are differences. For example, in CtW, you can taken an enemy capital city and if you hold it long enough, you win without having to defeat your opponent. Hpwever, in my idea, cities still exist and give bonus' for being taken, but you only win that senario when you completely defeat your opponent. vostok - what do you think of it? There are actually a fewfeatures about RoN that really peeve me, which i have obviously not included in my idea. These are attrition (although national borders still exist) and the final four techs in the Information age. I dont know about you, but i find they undo all of BHG's good work and make the game a click-fest at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Actually I think attrition is one of the best if not the best part of the game. It makes you actually think about when and where to fight. I haven't played it enough yet to comment on the final four techs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 If RoN had a slower pace, attrition would be good. It gives a huge advantage to the defender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 9, 2004 Author Share Posted March 9, 2004 luke - actually it really doesnt. Unless you are playing as the Russians with a good amount of attrition research done, it really doesnt affect enemy units. vostok - i agree that it had it uses, and i like the idea of the russians having attrition, i just dislike every civ having attrition in their territories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Windu, the problem with your ideas is that what you are doing is like taking Romeo and Juliet, adding a stanza, and then passing it off as your own. Thats called plagirism. And for the record, attrition and national borders were to of the ideas from RoN that I hated. I causes the game to degenerate with the two sides just sending their forces into a meatgrinder at the center boundary, with that becoming mroe pronounced because, if you get any little foothold, the enemy can just start making units much cheaper than you can until its economical to just spam units senselessly into the same area, because standing armies cost more to replace. Thats not my idea of fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 10, 2004 Author Share Posted March 10, 2004 sith - Shakespear plagarised 'Romeo & Juliet' and 'Hamlet' - what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saberhagen Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 He's got you there: lots of Shakespeare's works were derived from earlier works by other people, although he most definitely redid them in his own style, without which they would most likely be forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 No he doesn't have a point. Shakespeare took the story and then redid it, adding plot elements and putting it into his own words. Thats sort of like what RoN did to the Age games. However, reread my analogy: Windu isn't doing what Shakespeare did. He's doing blatant plagirism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 11, 2004 Author Share Posted March 11, 2004 Of course it's different sith, of course it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.