A new thought for swgb2

[pbguy1211]

I don't read the civ templates and all that other crap for my own reasons which i don't want to get into at the moment... however in playing a game this morning 1 thing came to me crytal clear that a version 2 NEEDS. And that is, the ability to build BRIDGES!

I was in a swamp map vs the comp and it may as well have been an ugly precipice. The ability to build small bridges at either t2 or t3 would be a nice thing.

[DK_Viceroy]

either that or at least make transports more useful by being able to carry more mechs or someat.Nobodies really tackled any practical ideas for that event yet have they? expect Pbguy just now with buildable bridges.

[Majin Boba Fett]

I was thinking that exact same thing the other day. I agree 100%. Bridges are a must. Why would a civ bother to fly to other land masses when they can just build a bridge? Also, the bridges should be over the water like an arch so that boats can pass by. Great idea pbguy.

[Admiral Vostok]

I like this idea too, and I wonder why no-one has included bridge-building in other RTS games... or maybe they have but the games are so obscure I don't know them.

 

At any rate, bridges would be an excellent addition, especially if naval units are not going to be included (remember our poll earlier in the year indicated naval units aren't really essential).

[Majin Boba Fett]

No navy would make the Mon CAlimari sad:( . And now for a reason that makes sense. Although naval units aren't seen in the films, it is likely that the factions would have them if the oppurtunity to use them ever showed up.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Admiral Vostok

I like this idea too, and I wonder why no-one has included bridge-building in other RTS games... or maybe they have but the games are so obscure I don't know them.

 

Sudden Strike had them if you can consider that an RTS.

 

Excellent idea, makes for great strategies and tactics. It'll make the real-life strategy of blowing up enemy bridge to slow them down doable.

[Puzzlebox]

Bad idea I think, I had them in mine before; there is probably a good reason why they don't implement them as well, probably more trouble than its worth.

[pbguy1211]

Originally posted by Puzzlebox

Bad idea I think, I had them in mine before; there is probably a good reason why they don't implement them as well, probably more trouble than its worth.

 

Right... because there's no use for a bridge in war.

There are trucks that carry bridges on them for current day ground war that can hold the weight of very large tanks for crossing.

[Admiral Vostok]

I'd prefer to see them as buildings rather than built on the back of trucks. For example, you get some workers to build it on one side of the crossing, then when it's finished you get to "close the bridge", so it reaches the other side and you can send units across straight away.

 

there is probably a good reason why they don't implement them as well

Yet I use this same argument against your pilot idea and you won't have a bar of it

[Majin Boba Fett]

I think you should be able to build bridges they Vostok described. I also think that you should also be able to build from only one side. The workers build a piece, step on the completed peice, and then make another peice. They do this until the bridge is complete.

[Nairb Notneb]

I had this thought a long time ago. Of course it could also be another scenerio like defend the monument, but in this case, "hold the bridge". There could by "types" of bridges to. The standard bridge (low tech level) medium, heavy and shielded bridges. Maybe even a draw bridge that can be locked like the gate keeping your oponents from using your bridge. Something like this would be nice when on a randome map and there is a nerf on a small isolated island that you can't get inside a transport. Build a bridge across it and then from there to the other side again and it solves two problems, you don't have to build a nursery for one nerf plus you get a second access to another island. Just a quick thought.

[FroZticles]

Buildable bridges......

 

Maps have different tactics and if you can't cover your shallows or enter your enemies base because they have uber defense on there entry points doesn't mean you need bridges. Better luck next time

[Darth Windu]

Well actually, in my template, bridges arent necessary. For shallow water, units simply wade through, and for medium to deep water, units do the RoN auto-transport. This eliminates the need for otherwise useless units and solves the problem of water crossing without having to resort to air transports.

[Puzzlebox]

Same, what original ideas do you have though? I have some resources streaming in mine but you can't count that as from Cossacks, its sorta an eventual discovery situation.

[Admiral Vostok]

Puzzlebox - Your streaming resource idea sounds a lot like that in C&C:Generals.

 

Windu - I'd just like to state once again how much I hate the RoN style of transporting. Dumbest idea ever.

[DK_Viceroy]

define streaming resources.

 

I steered well clear of RoN and bought Empires Dawn Of The Modern world instead because while empires does have a good deal of generic buildings but the only generic units are workers and even they have different names and buildings

[Nairb Notneb]

To keep on the subject: I would like to have a lot of movie civs. The one thing that makes a game great is the number of times that you can play it. Why can you play a game a multiple number of times? Because each game is unique. SWGBG2 needs to have a lot of customization to it for the players. It already does, but the more I, as a player, can change the settings of a game, the more I can control, the more I want to play it. The more unique scenarios that I can create the better. I need options, with a multitude of unique units that differ from each other. Toy box units are fun, but I also want buildings that can generate those units in a game too. I want to be able to play as the Tuscan Raiders and attack some Jawas or a homesteader, that would be cool. I want to be a Trandalosian civ attacking wookies. Or what about an ewok civ in a multiplayer battle of Endor? It would be nice to be able to generate new ewoks in a fight. If there is a unit, there should be a way to generate new ones during game play.

[DK_Viceroy]

* Decieds to be suspiciuosly Absent while Vostok And Co Bring Out Their Big Flamer Guns*

[Admiral Vostok]

I agree essentially with what Nairb is saying, which why I put minor civs in my RTS design. Though to include civs like Ewoks and Trandoshans with the same amount of playability, variety and balance as civs like the Empire and Rebellion is of course out of the question.

 

Though I feel I should point out that although Nairb started his post with "To keep on the subject" it is in fact quite off topic... Let's try to stay with the bridge topic, shall we?

[Nairb Notneb]

By that I take it you did not hear the tone of sarcasm in the opening of my post. My apologies. There are time when I "feel" bridges add a new dimension of play to the game, but also if you can't build a bridge then that too also adds another dimension as well (to really get back to the subject of the post). If there were to be bridges, could there be an option at the beginning to turn them on/off? Or are they to minor of a detail?

[Admiral Vostok]

No options to turn things off! This is just silly - you can't please everyone by having every single feature in the game able to be turned off. Either live with it or play another game. The only thing you should be able to turn off are cheats.

 

As for your sarcasm... no, strangely enough I can't "hear the tone" of your typing. Sarcasm is best followed by this smiley:

[Nairb Notneb]

I agree with you on either keeping them on or off all of the time, it was a passing thought I had while typing. It sort of leaked out (I need to check that hole in head again). What about a bridge that would go up a mountain top? I guess there could be two different types of bridges, a spanning bridge (to cross water, etc.) and a climbing bridge (over mountains, etc.). Again this just came to me. What are your thoughts? It would eliminate the need for sea and air transports, but they would need defended because they could be destroyed.

[Admiral Vostok]

You mean a bridge across cliffs? Not a bad idea, though it could be difficult to implement. The reason I say this is that a future Star Wars RTS would no doubt use a 3D Engine, and 3D Engines don't have the platform-like levels of terrain that SWGB has, their mountains are far smoother, more continuous, and as such building bridges between them could get weird.

 

I think keeping it just for water crossing would be best.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Note that bridges would not remove the usefulness of Air/Sea transports. I see bridges used for getting rather large number of units across rivers and such while transport are for flanking and taking small commandoes behind enemy lines. Or perhaps transport can be used when the enemy "land" is too far for a bridge to be used.

[FroZticles]

Bridges could add alot of frustration, you have covered all your entry points ohhh wait a second my workers are getting wiped out thanks to a bridge at the back of my base. Also does not make much sense since they have transports in the first place.