Darth Windu Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Hi everyone. As the second part of my two polls, the other for the Republic, i'd like ot know what you think the Imperial homeworld should be in SWGB2 when the Republic is present as well. Please remember that if the Republic has Coruscant, the Empire cant have it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 How about no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Unless this is in the Later New Republic area, Bastion won't work. The Imperials didn't settle down there til later. There's Byss, but that is after Death Star 2, but before Rebels took Coruscant. You're making this more complicated than needed. The Republic is the Empire.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majin Boba Fett Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 the should both have Coruscant. the republic should get a lighter looking Coruscant like in the majority of episode 2. the empire should get a darker version of the planet like in the celebration scene at the end of rofj or where count dooku goes to see palpatine at the of episode 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Well the Empire has no ONE planet that they call there own they have many Naboo, Tatooine, Dantooine, Dathomir, Coruscant (even though it wasn't mentioned much) ect. So the empire has a system of planets so they have no homeworld. Unless you call the death star a planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 Why do you all seem to fail to understand such a basic idea. IN A FREE-FOR-ALL THE REPUBLIC AND EMPIRE WILL BOTH EXIST, AND HENCE CANNOT HAVE THE SAME HOMEWORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the Imperial campaigns, their homeworld will be Coruscant, just as the Republic will have Coruscant as their capital in their campaigns. This poll is to see what the Imperial capital should be when BOTH the Empire and Republic are present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 LOL... dude who cares? First of all why do they need to be different? Second, why do they need this so called homeworld for a campaign? The Republic campaigns take part while chasing Sev Rance anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 1, 2004 Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 Huh? Pbguy - you do realise im talking about SWGB2 and not SWGB right? Why do they need to be different? Thats probably the dumbest question i've been asked for quite a while. Think of it in terms of a game where you can play as two different sides, Czarist Russia and Communist Russia. If you were to play a game in which you capture the enemy capital in order to win, how on earth could both have Moscow as their capital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 The East and the West side! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Well, Windu, typically, if a game maker has both Czarist and Commie Russia, they don't appear as two separate entities in a campaign. Just a helpful hint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Originally posted by Darth Windu Thats probably the dumbest question i've been asked for quite a while. Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black... You DO realize you're the novelty act of the forum correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Sith - i have already explained this. THEY WONT BOTH APPEAR IN CAMPAIGNS!!! The time they WILL both appear is when a player chooses to have a CtG mode with ALL civ's present. The only objective there is to conquer the galaxy, as opposed to story-based campaigns. Pbguy - and that somehow makes your statement more intelligent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 OMG, if they happened during different times, why do they need to be different? It's the generally the same organization. And if you want a legit answer to your lame ass question, the Imperials home planet wouldn't be a planet it would be a moon... wait a minute, that's no moon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Windu, unless I misunderstood, your CtG thing would be a single-player "adventure" of sorts, kinda like a connected string of single player games games on a campaign (key word) to rule the galaxy. It isn't multiplayer, it isn't free-match (where you pick your opponents, etc.), the scenerios are connected, and it isn't player created. Thats a campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 3, 2004 Author Share Posted March 3, 2004 Sith - yes, you misunderstood. The way i see it, there will be 2 single-player modes in addition to multi-player (which is essential) 1. Campaigns - these will be a series of story-based missions for all 8 normal civs. Campaigns of one civ will NOT occur at the same time as those of another civ. 2. CtG - i see three modes here - Civil War - in this mode, there are the Wookiees, Rebel Alliance, Empire and Hutt Cartel. You can play as any of them, but the Wookiees and Rebels and allied, as are the Empire and Hutt's. - Clone War - in this mode, there is the Republic, Naboo, Confederacy, Federation. Again, you can play as any, but the Republic and Naboo are allied, as are the Confederacy and Federation. - Free-for-all - this is when all civ's are present and the only objective is to conquer the galaxy, and all other player civs. Is that any clearer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Windu explain your plan better do civs start on different planets in a free for all mode? Cause you have led most of us hanging with only half an idea here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compa_Mighty Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 OK, I get your point, it's not campaign. Then if it's not campaign why do you want them to have a homeworld? If you're trying to do the capital thing a la Rise of Nations, then just use capitals, let the player name the city, and everything's settled. In my opinion, homeworld are out of place in that particular game mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 I still don't understand why there must be a free-for-all mode... And technically Windu, your RoN copycat idea is a campaign, just separate from the other ones. Thats like saying that the "battles of the conqeurors" in AoC wasn't a campaign because there wasn't any linked scenerios. Question: does RoN have a campaign? Yes, the CtW is their campaign, and in your little world, its just a variation of the campaigns. I have no idea why you are having so many different campaigns, cause, as I said before, people prefer MP, SP RM, and the editorover the campaign. The campaign has become now a cool thing to do for a couple of weeks before really starting the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joesdomain Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 The Imperial Homeworld should be Courscant. It is where the emperor's palace is located. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 FroZ - yes they do, their HOMEWORLD Compa - because the way to defeat your opponents is to capture their homeworld. Similar to RoN's capital idea, excapt that in the actual battle-bits, you have to completely destroy your opponent rather than just capture a particular city. Sith - becuase it gives players more options = more fun. Also, no, it is not a campaign. According to the dictionary i have right in front of me, a campaign is: "a number of connected military operations in a war which are aimed at some special purpose" - therefore, the FFA mode is NOT a campaign. With regards to what you listed as what you THINK people prefer, they would all be in the game anyway, so why do you such a big problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Windu, your cheesy CtG is a perfect fit to the definition. Is it not a series of connected military operations aimed at a special purpose (conquering the galaxy)? BHG, the creators of your idea, also agree with me, calling their CtW a campaign multiple times on their website. Finally, they're what I know people prefer, from what RTS players have said, and from what the big Three Companies have said and done. I have such a big problem because the concept is superfluous junk that will force other, more important things, like graphics and civ variety, into a lesser state. And, of course, there's the whole originality issue.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 Sith - oh please, spare me. What is original today in RTS'? Ranged infantry, melee infantry, ranged vehicles, aircraft etc are they original? The only thing that matters is HOW you put it together - not the individual components, but how those components fit together is what makes a game good or bad. As for the campaign, is it a definition for CtG? No. The whole point of CtG and RoN's CtW is that there are almost limitless decisions you can make - the different senario's arent inter-related. The only reason BHG calls it a campaign is to cover the fact that they didnt bother putting real campaign's into their game. The only problem you have with this idea is that you dont understand it, and hence attack it. Perhaps if you opened up your mind a bit more, you would see that the CtG mode offers infinately more re-play value and fun when held up in comparison with other games like SWGB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Just because things are similar between some RTS games doesn't give you license to entirely steal an idea from an RTS. And Windu, what you are describing is a campaign. It fits your definition perfectly, as Sith pointed out. What's the big problem with calling it a campaign? The way I understand your idea - and mind I haven't played RON - is that all eight or however many civs you want start on a point on the galaxy map, then chose which regions to fight in, gaining more of the galaxy under your control. I think the reason you don't want to call it a campaign is because the battles won't be scenarios, they'll be essentially RMs where you fight a single opponent depending on who currently controls the region of space you've decided to invade. Is this correct? So there are no little missions or cinematics, just like normal single player mode but with a greater purpose. That is still a campaign by your dictionary definition, but not by the understood meaning it has in terms of RTS games. A campaign in RTS terms is a series of linked scenarios. This CTG game mode is a series of linked RMs. Oh, and I voted for the Death Star, but I don't think it should be mobile. It stays in one place, but is still called the Death Star. This way the Empire doesn't get a rediculously unfair advantage of being able to move their homeworld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 And destroy other people's homeworld without fighting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted March 6, 2004 Author Share Posted March 6, 2004 Vostok - so, with my use of ranged infantry in my template, does that mean i'm stealing that idea? With the Death Star, the CtG campaign would be TB with conbat being RTS just as in RoN. For the Empire to move their homeworld, they wouldnt be able to do it instantly, but over a few turns. luke - the Death Star would be a political center, not a weapon - so dont worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.