Unit Massing

[Majin Boba Fett]

Clone Campaigns is the only RTS, but I'm pretty sure that in order to win matches on the highest level it requires unit massing. Now, I've never been a big fan of this, but I'm assuming this is just the way it works. Would yall be in favor of some sort of control that only allows you to build so many of a certain unit at a certain time? Or you could just mass Star Destroyers.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I hope it's kind of like Age of Empires, where you have to stick with weak units early on and then gradually get more powerful units.

 

Star Destroyers, then, would be the equivalents of Trebuchets - powerful things only available later in the game.

 

And I certainly hope the game doesn't deteriorate into masses of Calamarian cruisers fighting masses of Star Destroyers. I want combined arms!

[damnidiots]

It has been said that every unit will have a unit which is good against it, there won't be any super units. So you will need to have several types of units to be covered.

 

As it turns out, the general idea behind combat between the game's various units goes a step beyond rock-paper-scissors. Every unit in the game will have a "counterunit" that can defeat it easily (so there won't be any individual "superunits" you can churn out exclusively to win), but every unit in the game will also have a favored enemy unit it will be extremely effective against.

[DK_Viceroy]

I wouldn't mind an epic battle between a huge fleet of Star Destroyers V Calamarian Cruisers what on earth is wrong with that? It's the most likely thing to happen anyway no matter what happens.

 

Every Game I can think of has unit massing sometimes it's just massing the same three units.

[Heavyarms]

Originally posted by DK_Viceroy

I wouldn't mind an epic battle between a huge fleet of Star Destroyers V Calamarian Cruisers what on earth is wrong with that? It's the most likely thing to happen anyway no matter what happens.

 

Every Game I can think of has unit massing sometimes it's just massing the same three units.

 

Kind of like empire earth 2. They sort of take the same couple of units, except they give them different abilities and weapons and change them, so there's like a total of ten units per epoch but they all just keep changing. I didn't like it

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Kind of like empire earth 2. They sort of take the same couple of units, except they give them different abilities and weapons and change them, so there's like a total of ten units per epoch but they all just keep changing. I didn't like it

How else would it be done? EE II has 500 units already, and there is a limit to how many you can make and put into a game, especially when they're 3D models.

 

I wouldn't mind an epic battle between a huge fleet of Star Destroyers V Calamarian Cruisers what on earth is wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is that I want all the units in the game to matter, not just two of them.

 

It's the most likely thing to happen anyway no matter what happens.

Nope, it isn't, judging from the quote posted a few posts above yours.

[Admiral Vostok]

I don't believe the game designers intend for their games to turn into mass-fests. Afterall, what's the point in spending the time creating the art and programming for a number of units when only one or two in the army will ever get used?

 

Unfortunately to date there have been few games where there hasn't been a super unit that it is well worth massing. I'm sure Viceroy will pop in and point out my Naboo Bomber massing in Galactic Battlegrounds, and certainly that is a decent example.

 

However I feel in EaW, particularly when it comes to the space battles, they've got things sorted. You could mass Star Destroyers, but if your enemy has a lot of bombers then that was a horrendously poor investment.

 

Still no doubt a crapload of AT-ATs will fare rather well against everything. Yet again it looks as though anyone with a handful of Snowspeeders won't have much to worry about.

 

Personally I'm against posing artificial limits on super units. They should be made economically draining so that getting a lot of them isn't necessarily wise.

[damnidiots]

Originally posted by Admiral Vostok

I don't believe the game designers intend for their games to turn into mass-fests. Afterall, what's the point in spending the time creating the art and programming for a number of units when only one or two in the army will ever get used?

 

Unfortunately to date there have been few games where there hasn't been a super unit that it is well worth massing. I'm sure Viceroy will pop in and point out my Naboo Bomber massing in Galactic Battlegrounds, and certainly that is a decent example.

 

However I feel in EaW, particularly when it comes to the space battles, they've got things sorted. You could mass Star Destroyers, but if your enemy has a lot of bombers then that was a horrendously poor investment.

 

Still no doubt a crapload of AT-ATs will fare rather well against everything. Yet again it looks as though anyone with a handful of Snowspeeders won't have much to worry about.

 

Personally I'm against posing artificial limits on super units. They should be made economically draining so that getting a lot of them isn't necessarily wise.

An AT AT as a lot of downsides, like speed and turning rate, which makes it easy to shoot them from the back (though they probably have the strongest armor there)

[DK_Viceroy]

I already pointed out your Air WHoring earlier on but even you realised you couldn't purely mass air any more why else would you use cannons Strike Mechs some troopers and a suprise navy when the ability arose. Near the end of our Forum games your armies became as diverse as mine I wish we could have had more of them

 

The AT-AT had quite a respectable speed actually so don't say it's speed is a weakness.

[damnidiots]

Originally posted by DK_Viceroy

I already pointed out your Air WHoring earlier on but even you realised you couldn't purely mass air any more why else would you use cannons Strike Mechs some troopers and a suprise navy when the ability arose. Near the end of our Forum games your armies became as diverse as mine I wish we could have had more of them

 

The AT-AT had quite a respectable speed actually so don't say it's speed is a weakness.

It moves in about 60KPH. Not very slow not very fast. It's turning speed is horrible though.

 

I wonder what's the snow speeder's shortcomings are. (I love snow speeders) ^_^

[Hermie]

Probably some sort of weak armor, making it easy meat for turrets and such...

[Admiral Vostok]

Originally posted by damnidiots

It moves in about 60KPH.

How come Luke can run faster than it then?

 

Viceroy, it's true that towards the end my armies were more diverse. But that is only because people expected my air whoring. The first five or so games we played I only built bombers and fighters, and was very successful. Against the uninitiated this is still my favourite tactic; I rarely played on TheZone but when I did my victories came about through air whoring, as most players didn't expect it.

 

I guess it is pretty hard to truly do away with unrealistic unit massing. Sure, you can give them weaknesses against certain units, but if the enemy hasn't got those certain units in the kind of numbers you do then your massing is successful.

 

While I'm sure the game itself doesn't have many fans I'd just like to mention The Battle For Middle Earth. I think it is a fantastic game, despite slight balance problems here and there. One thing it is excellent at is not encouraging unit massing. Sure, you can mass a crapload of Rohirrim, but if the enemy has a handful of Pikemen or something then you are toast. In BFME if something is good against a certain unit, it is VERY good against it. So massing of a single type of unit is rarely seen in BFME.

[Majin Boba Fett]

When playing against you in GB, I eventually started building nothing but Anti-Air units. Good for nothin bombers...

[DK_Viceroy]

True there Vostok True but I dispute the statement that BFME has balance as ludicrous an army of FU Elves butcher anything even Fully Upgraded Fighting Uruk-Hai.

 

It is in effect unrealistic to think you can do away with Unit Massing after all it happens in reality you mass a huge amount of the same tank and a few support units and then infantry.

[BeBop]

Got to agree with Viceroy on the balance in BFME. If you were to build nothing but Archers and upgrade them with Fire Arrows you would slaughter everything. Just build a battering ram and that's about as much variety you will need.

 

I really hope that EaW pulls off a way to make infantry nessecery, And I know I personally would not unit mass, but I guess that there will always be someone who unit masses, just have to change your strategy when you run into them.

[Majin Boba Fett]

I want to see massive trooper wars...

[Admiral Vostok]

I didn't say BFME was well balanced, I just said it discourages unit massing. Elves are too hard to mass since they don't last for long, and although archers with fire arrows are powerful they can easily be taken out with cavalry.

 

My point was that I think BFME is a game where you can't expect to win with an army made up entirely of one type of unit.

[DK_Viceroy]

Vostok you haven't played online have you? on BFME a Rohan player will mass Elves and heroes and NOTHING else and when they have crushed you they'll send in Ents to finish the job. FU Elves butcher anything before they can even get close and that includes Uruk-Hai when FU which shouldn't happen because they are a listed counter to bowmen and Cavalry are weak AGAINST archers.

 

I don't think Unit Massing should be made impossible it's realistic during the Battle of Geonosis I saw masses and masses of Super and normal battle droids and some mechs which is what I do I'm criminal for unit massing but I do REALISTIC unit massing so would everyone try to stop it where it's realistic?

[lukeiamyourdad]

Viceroy's right, nothing stops a bunch of FU Elves. Cavalry can surprise them, but that's highly unlikely.

 

Unit massing in this context is very different. The Empire can easily mass units, while the Rebels cannot. So logically, and realistically, the Rebels can't mass and the Empire should.

[Admiral Vostok]

Okay, the issue isn't whether the BFME balance is perfect. What I'm trying to say is that a model similar to it is a good idea. Maybe you can win by unit massing in BFME, but if a similar model to theirs is applied consistently then it could work.

 

As for realistic unit massing, I agree with Viceroy. Massing basic infantry should be a good thing, a very good thing. This relates to the infantry thread too I suppose. Masses and masses of infantry should be extremely difficult to move. This doesn't necessarily mean they should get a horde bonus like China in C&C:G; as Viceroy will agree FU Infantry don't need anything like that to be hugely effective, provided they have a decent staying power like the Super Battle Droids in SWGB.

 

But I don't think basic unit massing is the issue under discussion here. It is more super unit massing that is a potential issue. Few of us want to see an army of 50 AT-ATs and no infantry, or 50 Star Destroyers and no fighters.

[DK_Viceroy]

I will point out for you now Vostok that the model BFME uses is little more than Over glorfied Rock Paper Scissors and is very badly implemented in said game in other games however it is quite well implemented and from what we've heard so far it's implemented in EaW. Heck SWGB has better balance than BFME because it has

 

Strike Mechs > Infantry

 

Mech Destroyers > Strike Mechs

 

Infantry > Mech Destroyers

 

Though the problem is though is Realsim translating into Gameplay it is preposterous to say that a Rebel Soldier ws as well armoured as a Super Battle Droid and while Intelligence in the movies would be the defining differnce that usually doesn't transalte into a game, However though I doubt anyone would be foolish enough to send in AT-AT's without support however if it were a situation like Hoth were Imperial Infantry or in this case Snowtroopers and Stormtroopers wern't deployed in force until they were ready to go and capture the base the main opposition to infantry were the AT-ST's. Also from the looks of things Fighters have to be included in an attack since Fighters by themseleves look like if given time quite capable of demolishing a Star Destroyer and I suspect that Star Destroyers may have a squadron of TIE Fighters bundled in with them automatically.

 

Also for the Record the Horde Bonus while useful was in essence meaningless because Generals Infantry had a habbit of spreading out for no apparent reason meaning Horde Bonus's were worthless, besides the GLA had better FU Infantry far better.

[Admiral Vostok]

I realise BFME is paper-scissors-rock, but the important difference for me is that whereas previous games have paper-beats-rock-beats-scissors-beats-paper,

BFME has made in paper-annihilates-rock-annihilates-scissors-annihilates-paper.

 

For example, if you charge a cavalry squad through a basic infantry squad, the infantry will be dead in a few seconds, and the cavalry may have taken a single casualty. The infantry were annihilated. However if the cavalry charge pike/spear-wielding infantry, the tables are turned and the cavalry will be annihilated while the pikemen are relatively unharmed.

 

Sure, as you've all pointed out BFME isn't perfectly balanced and indeed this annihilation model may not extend to everyone, but what I have found in playing the game is that unit-massing - that is, an army entirely of one unit type - is not really feasible. Get an army full of cavalry and a few squads of pikemen will annihilate you. Get an army just of infantry and cavalry will annihilate you. You need an army made up of nearly all the available units in order to be unstoppable.

 

And whilst on the subject I'd just like to say that while BFME may not be the best balanced game ever, it is in my opinion the most fun ever. Yes, I'd even rank BFME above Galactic Battlegrounds and possibly even StarCraft, which most of you will know is quite a statement. Why, you ask? Well I am more of a movie-fan than a game-fan, and BFME has succeeded in making a game that perfectly compliments the movies. There is not a single unit in BFME that does not appear in the movies, proving my theory that there doesn't need to be any made-up or EU material to make a fun game. Every unit in game is seen in the movies, exactly the same as in the most recent Star Wars RTS design I did for my own amusement, for which the link still resides in my sig.

 

If there was a Star Wars RTS that followed the design philosophy of BFME - that is, make the game experience exactly like the movie experience - then I would be happy. That is why I don't believe I will be a fan of EAW - I have seen my dream for Star Wars realised in LOTR form, and know it is achievable.

 

[/RANT]

[lukeiamyourdad]

Well, you have to udnerstand that Elves are a special case. They're the most versatile unit in the whole game. They can even withstand a cavalry charge.

 

I have to say though, that BFME, wasn't that close to the movies for me. I had to download mods in order to recreate the feel. Why? The pop limit. I had to have it raised A LOT to be fun. Or else, there's a certain loss of epicness.

 

At least, that's my opinion, at the default pop limit, the game is still fun.

 

But StarCraft is king

[DK_Viceroy]

However Vostok it is not acheivable and BFME does nothing to recreate the feel of the movies or did I miss the part where Saruman would wave his staff around and sunddenly a small army is under his control or the bit about Gandlaf riding into the middle of an army chanting for 2 seconds and then an entire army being destroyed nor do I see Accurate Mumakil or Nazgul.

 

Try playing BFME online and I'll show you how bad it is. Dawn of War may have a just as limited pop but it's far better. Didn't you wonder why EA nerfed Pikemen against infantry, because Pikemen >everything just as Elves>everything in BFME you need only build an army entirely of elves and beleive me it happens, Elves and Heroes are the only units you see from Rohan, from Gondor you usually see Cavalry Mordor is usually Massed Catapults and Orcs with Nazgul and Isengard is perhaps the only one where your encouraged to mass more than one type of unit and even then it's Uruk-hai and Crossbows with both heroes and a handful of Mines.

 

BFME is a bad game the engine wasn't optomised enough for the battles it was meant to create so before you even get to the fighting it's fundamentally flawed plus the shear fact that SAGE engine is crap. Perhaps it's only saving grace is how easily the Generals Variant was to mod, heck given some models I could recode the entire thing in a week or 2.

 

Vostok you cannot have diverse armies and then call for no EU the two simply do not go together and you know that, there simply isn't enough material from the films remember it's more character and story oriented not empire and Confederacy oriented you as the great Scholar around here should know that.

[Admiral Vostok]

You seem to miss my point, Viceroy. I'm saying it is possible to make a game where only units from the movie are used. I'll agree with Luke's Dad that the pop limit is a tad low, but the fact remains that the game LOOKS like the movies. Star Wars has a lot more units in it than LOTR did. All I'm saying is I'd like to see a game without EU, so it looks more like the movies, and BFME is proof that such a game can be both fun to play and a best seller.