Battlefront 2: Empire at war?

[Rok_stoned]

Does any one else think that EAW and battlefront could be combined to make a game like Savage or a bit like battle field 2? I mean they have so many simalarities (specificaly goal wise) like control all the planets, research new units, and space battles with only a few ships. Also it would be wouldn't it be better to have a person controling the BF2 AI 'cuz the ai does really stupid stuff and doesn't weork together if the was some one commanding the AI they would become a powerful force possibly deadlier than amateur players. Any who agrees or disagrees with this is welcome to post and discuss the ingenuity (or folly!) of this idea.

[killerluk]

how can you mix those 2 games?

in eaw you control your forces inspace and on the ground

in battlefront you are one of em ?

you cant control and play one of em at the same time imh

[Jeff]

Battlefront II is a shooter, Empire at War is an RTS. Battlefront II sucks, Empire at war will be awesome. I'm not seeing too many similarities.

 

 

The only thing that could be done is doing something like how they made WoW out of Warcraft III.

[popcorn2008]

I had posted something like this a while back in November or December. But now my opinion has radically changed on the matter. EaW is going to be far different from Battefront II, because you get to control things on a more grand scale than in BF II.

 

Like Moeller said, there two different genres of video games.

[Hallucination]

He means that there is a commander guy building/harvesting resources and controlling armies, and then there are people on the battlefield who just run around like in Battlefront, doing whatever they want.

My Opinion: No thanks, I don't want half a game and half of another game put together.

[Jeff]

He means that there is a commander guy building/harvesting resources and controlling armies, and then there are people on the battlefield who just run around like in Battlefront, doing whatever they want.

That would be just like Galactic Battlegrounds. Only possibly worse.

[(TAG)Rebel_Stri]

I could see what he is talking about. You give the orders to attack, like an RTS, then u can switch to a shooter to try and take the objective yourself.

[Hallucination]

That would be just like Galactic Battlegrounds. Only possibly worse.

Actually it wouldn't. The guys running around on the battlefield would be just like an FPS, and I don't remember GB being an FPS . But yeah, it would be suck-tacular.

[Jeff]

But how would you control every single soldier on the battlefield like an FPS game?

 

But it would be ****ty either way.

[Xtreme Muppet]

how can you mix those 2 games?

in eaw you control your forces inspace and on the ground

in battlefront you are one of em ?

you cant control and play one of em at the same time imh

 

If you have played savage you would understand what he is talking about.

 

Even though I see what you're saying Stoned, I just can't see it happening in EAW. One of the reasons being FPS/RTS combos never seem to go very well, The reason being that one team usually PWNS the other. This can be very annoying as a grunt if your commander sucks or vice-versa. While it is a lot of fun if you have a team that works well together, this is about a 50/50 chance. All in all though, I'm really not a fan of RTS/FPS combos so my opinion is a little biased.

Besides, seeing as one is already out and the other almost out, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Hallucination]

But how would you control every single soldier on the battlefield like an FPS game?

 

But it would be ****ty either way.

Sorry for being unclear, but the Commander would control guys on the field like a normal RTS. Then there would be player-controlled guys (controlled by different players than the Commander) on the field with FPS controls. Each of those guys would only control one guy.

[darthfergie]

Yeah, the concept works in Savage pretty well. Check it out to see what they're talking about.

 

I don't really see something like that happening with the EAW franchise, although I wouldn't be too surprised if it pops up in the next iteration of the Battlefront series. Battlefield 2 has the commander element and all, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Battlefront take that element and shift it a little.

[Guest DarthMaulUK]

savage bombed although the idea was neat. The company that published it - Digital Jesters has also bombed! Rumour has it though, Savage 2 is under development.

 

DMUK

[shadowsfm]

anyone played battalion wars?

http://cube.ign.com/articles/650/650932p1.html

[Rok_stoned]

Dudes Please read the thread bofore your post, I said like savage not battlegrounds it can be done they've done it in several games savage being a prime example.

 

I don't really see something like that happening with the EAW franchise, although I wouldn't be too surprised if it pops up in the next iteration of the Battlefront series. Battlefield 2 has the commander element and all, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Battlefront take that element and shift it a little.

 

Yeah i just diciede to post it here becuase theres more people and and the idea belongs in either forum.

 

But how would you control every single soldier on the battlefield like an FPS game?

 

Have you ever played an RTS? you tell A.I to do something, they do it its done.

[Jeff]

Have you ever played an RTS? you tell A.I to do something, they do it its done.

That has nothing to do with an FPS. FPS is generally about you controlling the character, hence the title first-person shooter.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

[absboodoo]

So a commander player do his RTS thing, but all his/her unit is also real player from all over the internet... That's just not going to work lol.

 

Stormtrooper shooting each other for AT-AT or AT-STs, Y-wing and Tie bomber tk all over the map with their bombs, capital ships run into each other with pack of explosive in front, Scouts bike ramming every moving things insight. Sure, it was fun in Battlefield 2, but not really fit into a hardcore RTS like Empire at war.

[Rok_stoned]

That has nothing to do with an FPS. FPS is generally about you controlling the character, hence the title first-person shooter.

 

Okay, maybe I wasn't clear enough, up to 62 players take of an FPS style fighter .and 2 taker control of a RTS style commander

 

In savage units and players are simialar in those aspects only they have far more freedom, for example an A.I unit WILL follow assignements regardless of any personal dangers however when human players are issued orders they such as "move to a certain point" or "destroy target unit" they recieve a way-point designating their obective. Also players take control of certain classes (or unit types) and may upgrade their weapons thorugh purchasing upgrades but can also be upgraded in the traditional sense of mass upgrades (improved melee armor, weapons etc...). If you need any further clarification let me know Savage and other games like itr have a complicated system thats hard to explain.

[absboodoo]

The problem with player controled unit is that, nobody really give a damn what commander thinks. It usually turn out commander is just doing an assist role to support his team, instead of commanding them. Unless u give commander the freedom to tk anyone without penalties, to ensure people will follow his rules. Otherwise it's just fps with a little of rts elements, which just end up like another battlefield 2.

[Rok_stoned]

I see your point those reasons are why it wouldn't work for random match making games. But in clandistine stuff were you play with the people all the time you can trust your commander and his/her unique view of the battle because quite obviously he/she would be a good leader or else they wouldn't be leader would they? Also the leader would likely know what best for the team who work best together would be keeped in close proximity to one-another who is the best sniper would be ordered to higher elavations with a good view of battle, whoeverworks best with a distraction would always have cover-fire whoever is an awesome harasser could be sent into the enemy base to sabotage building or asinte weak units,anyone who is currently weak could have several units form a barricade in front of them and whoever is good at vehicles would always have access to one. Basically its like having heroes or super-versions of a unit.

[aggie_john]

I like the idea but in reverse. I hope BF III has some of the elements of EaW in it.

 

The idea that a group of humans fight the battle in FPS while another is a supreme commander playing a RTS is not bad. You could make it so that the other players have to listen to the leader by taking away their radar so in a sense their blind to want is around and are forced to rely on the command to move them about but at the same time they can take an object though any means they see fit to use.

 

Reguardless this is more a battlefront III topic not EaW one.

[darthfergie]

The problem with player controled unit is that, nobody really give a damn what commander thinks. It usually turn out commander is just doing an assist role to support his team, instead of commanding them. Unless u give commander the freedom to tk anyone without penalties, to ensure people will follow his rules. Otherwise it's just fps with a little of rts elements, which just end up like another battlefield 2.

 

Actually you'd be surprised how well people end up following leader's commands on Savage and BF2. Leaders have benefits etc which really make them valuable and it's just human nature to kinda follow the leader. I've lost count of the times where I've seen squads pulled from attacking a base because the commander has said to go to a different base. Admittedly there are many cases where people just don't care and do what they want, but that's the case with any online focused game. Also with Savage there was more of an overall strategy element, there was harvesting and such which made the commander a little more necessary. Having the strategic commander wasn't just a nice thing on the side, it was necessary to the game.

 

I don't really see the commander having that kind of overall strategy in an SW franchise like Battlefront though (unless it was in terms of building certain vehicles for use or turrets in places to defend), but I could see more of a SW version of the battlefield2 commander.

[Rha]

I think the problem with a FPS/RTS isn't that they don't work it's that 9 out 10 times the FPS players want to do their own thing or just F-OFF and to hell with anyone that wants to work together to win the game.

 

There isn't going to be a mix between a Battlefront and EAW. They are two totally different games. A Star Wars Version of Savage might be fun, but good luck trying to get a game minded group of people to ever play it.

 

In my opinion Battlefield 2 has just the right amount of FPS/RTS cross over. There isn't enough RTS stuff to make it a RTS. There is an option to have a commander and the option to do what they ask you to do. It is helpful, but not game breaking to be w/o. SWBF 2 doesn't come close to being as a good as BF2 even with the problems BF2 has.

 

By adding too many RTS elements to a FPS game you make it long drawn out and time consuming. People who play FPS want to play FPS that isn't bogged down by a commander’s inability to research their weapons and equipment fast enough. I didn't like Savage for the point that if the Commander didn't want to make a weapon available and you just had to do w/t. the game was too dependant on the commander and not enough of the players.

[Heavyarms]

The other game recently that has a mix of this is the most recent Advance Wars game on GCN. At least I recall it did. Anyway, it would be an interesting idea, I like the way Natural Selection does RTS/ FPS. Surprised no one mentioned that one yet. BF2 is all right, I do like its commander/squad system, however it's just too esay to blow off the commander, which is the #1 problem in all of these games.