Jump to content

Home

Things that need to be fixed for this game your ideas


Naphtali
 Share

Recommended Posts

:lol: For once I agree. It would definitely help to be able to skip that logo. Though it's not that long and call me impatient if you wish, I find it stupid not to be able to skip it. Maybe only "force" it the first time, but after, you should be allowed to just press escape and never see it again :p
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It depends on what you consider a swift charge. If you plan to deploy artillary next to the drop zone, I consider that cheating, there's no skill required for that. However I want it like this, if a unit can be fired upon it is fully under your control. I have lost a tank in a brigade several times, because it took the transports 30 sec to unload them. And maybe there should be an option of making the dropships transparant. That would make it much easier to select units behind them.

Well....since it doesn't really involve altering the system in a biased way, it's not really cheating per se. It's just using the capabilities of a particular unit in a way that irritates you--and that's exactly what a good commander would try to do to you, anyways. I mean, face it, if your landing zones are under heavy artillery fire, there's really no way you'd be winning that battle anyways. I think that just placing units under AI control between the moment they leave the transport and the moment the transport lifts off again, so that the units will make for cover and return some fire, would pretty much solve the problem.

 

I haven't heard much of removing the landing zones and allow landing everywhere in sight. Though you shouldn't be allowed to land straight in the enemy base in that case.

A good idea...but there should also be a minimum amount of "clear space" required to plop the transport down. That's basically what the drop zones are trying to simulate, anyways...but perhaps some more freedom of where troops can be deployed would add strategic depth to the game. I think reinforcement points would still be necessary to capture to provide you with the ability to land extra units, however--like establishing supply lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: For once I agree. It would definitely help to be able to skip that logo. Though it's not that long and call me impatient if you wish, I find it stupid not to be able to skip it. Maybe only "force" it the first time, but after, you should be allowed to just press escape and never see it again :p

 

Yay, we agree on something! Let's continue this trend :D

 

I think I counted the time it takes for the logos at 20 or so seconds. That's 1/3 of a minute. So let's say that you (like me) needed to constantly move in and out of the game over and over again, and let's say you did it once a minute. In an hour, you would have wasted 20 minutes just looking at logo screens that should be skippable (is that a word?)

 

One of the few good things I can say about M$ is that even they let you skip the logo screens. Seriously, if the monopolizing *expletive deleted* M$ people can let you skip logos, LucasArts should be able to as well.

 

 

To Wedge- I always thought the landing zones idea was stupid anyway, so one of my first plans for TSW is to remove them. Or at the very least, let the sides be able to "build" their own landing sites. The idea of a guidance beacon comes to mind, something that you have to build, that can be destroyed, but allows extra landing precision...I dunno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man there has been some action on this thread…..okay time to be brief:

 

I agree, get rid of the unnecessary logos. Put the Lucasarts and petro symbols on the menu screen if you have to but get rid of the logo screens.

 

ISDs have two shield hardpoints…not a bad idea…I modified my XMLs to improve ISDs in a few areas ad this was one. Those globes are sensor domes though, with shield generators underneath. The main shield generator is the little bump underneath the SD. I know what some tech guides say but I have seen this quote from one of the original dudes at Lucasfilm about the ISDs concepts. Ill find a link if people want to argue the point. The ROTJ scene with the Executor caused some confusion but it not necessarily untrue.

 

Empire having rocket troops will be fixed with FoC and with the new units should be a bit more balanced because the Rebs own the Empire on the ground at present.

 

Stormtrooper special attack? I thought their ability to storm was taken care of by the faster movement upgrade. I think that’s about all you will get from petro. And I agree, infantry should not get squashed so easily. If they use the spread out ability they would be diving out of the way and all sorts of acrobatic s*&t.

 

The time delay to land units should be drastically reduced then you don’t have to worry about making them invulnerable, etc, while they disembark.

 

Bigger maps and better graphics means better computers or lag. I have a pretty damn good computer at the moment and I don’t want to have to get a super computer just to run this game. It will probably need bigger maps to move the SSD around.

 

As for the strong opinions on Zahn, what can you say. They are subjective and this is obvious. I read snippets of his trilogy but was never really interested in reading it. Did nothing for me. I had a Trekkie friend who read the trilogy and liked them but what ‘converted’ him was not the trilogy is was playing the RPG and especially Tie fighter when I got a copy. Yeah sure Zahn came up with a good story and some new ideas but he is not the saviour who re-invented SW. Have to disagree with you about him. What Anarch said about Zahn attracting new fans coz of his books could not have been said better.

 

Lucas has been smoking some bad crack over recent times. If you watch some of his interviews he completely contradicts some things that he said previously. Some stuff he DEFINATELY has made up as he went along (even from the original trilogy), or ‘refined’ as you could say but hey, he is SW so if he wants to change things 180 degrees, he can do whatever he likes.

 

I hate virtually all EU but to say the prequel trilogy destroyed those ideas is incorrect seeing as the majority of EU stuff was post ROTJ. Lucas has not known all along the plot of the prequels and the vagueness of this period of SW history prevented him from disrupting much accepted canon. There was little canon to destroy. Personally I think he and his aides did a good job, except for episode 1 which could have been better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well....since it doesn't really involve altering the system in a biased way, it's not really cheating per se. It's just using the capabilities of a particular unit in a way that irritates you--and that's exactly what a good commander would try to do to you, anyways. I mean, face it, if your landing zones are under heavy artillery fire, there's really no way you'd be winning that battle anyways. I think that just placing units under AI control between the moment they leave the transport and the moment the transport lifts off again, so that the units will make for cover and return some fire, would pretty much solve the problem.

 

It's not an honorable way to fight. It also isn't fun to fight like that or to fight against that. Artillery doesn't fit in with SW either. So I think the artillery should be removed. Though I doubt that will ever happen. At the very least there should be an option to remove them from the game. But I must say that fighter cover would be a good counter against them. I wonder if the Imperials can finally bring air units to the land battles as well. That could balance things out, if done right.

 

I always considered the landing zones stupid as well. I would really like to bring units into play the way it happens during space battles.

 

Using the landing points to raise your max units on the planet could work, but I think it should be changed into a building that has to be garrisoned. I don't know if you remember Force Commander, but those bunkers would work nicely for that. Let me just explain what I was thinking about.

 

You have this building that can only be captured by infantry. I'm not sure if you should be able to destroy it as well, or only capture it, also not sure if units should be allowed to fire from inside the building. There's also the question of whether the units inside should still count to your pop cap but we can leave all that to the devs. And we'll leave the looks to the devs as well.

 

Anyway, as long as there's infantry inside you have a higher pop cap. Same as currently with the landing points. If the enemy wants to capture the building, they should storm it with infantry. The amount of infantry depends on the number of units inside as well the type of units. It will not be a good idea to use rocket troops, blasters are much better. Commanders with their elite guards will deal even more damage (and maybe even raise the cap a bit further). The defending side will also always have some advantages, so sending in a full stormtrooper regiment against a garrison of a full stormtrooper regiment, the defender will win. Rebels have smaller bands and as such they should use more of them. Same amount of troops vs same amount of troops on equal level and of the same type, also not counting the defender bonus. I'll hope you get the idea. I also think there should be a maximum of units inside.

 

Things that this could/would do

 

1 Provides more use for infantry, something I think the game can really use

 

2 If squashing of infantry remains, infantry in the building cannot be squashed though I also believe that those infantry bunker spots should prevent infantry squashing as well (like in Emperor: Battle for Dune, what is called the infantry rock)

 

3 If units can fire from inside the building placing rocket troops inside is by all means usefull. (I really support this)

 

4 If attacked, invulnerable and units can fire from inside, the ROF could be reduced by a small percentage, making storming easier.

 

5 If strategically placed on the map and able to fire and possibly invulnerable, capturing these could provide you with a somewhat safe landing zone, provided landing can be done everywhere. They could also be placed near the defenders base, making it a bit more difficult to destroy it.

 

What needs to be considered

 

1 If the building can't be destroyed the units inside don't have to be killed for a victory, otherwise it would be impossible to win if you ran out of infantry but still have tons of vehicles. I think that would be unfair.

 

2 If they can be destroyed units inside should be able to fire back, just to stand a chance.

 

3 If they can be destroyed, they should also provide the defender with some advantage, otherwise there would be no point for the defender to not destroy them. I was thinking about increasing the amount of troops the producing buildings 'garrison'. Also depending on the planet.

 

There's probably a bit more that should be considered, but tell me what you think about this.

 

Oh, and I want to skip the logos as well. Though I wonder if replacing them with empty files would work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"All is fair in love and war", as the saying goes. And the concept of landing zones is an excellent one, and entirely realistic. Beaches of Normandy, anyone?

 

We're not talking about WW2 where people are limited to ground, sea, or even air-based transports. We're talking about Star Wars, where gigantic capital ships rule from orbit. They can drop their barges anywhere they *%&$ well please. I agree, in a normal RTS the idea holds merit, but when you have a Star Destroyer sitting in orbit, the guys above aren't going to worry about "oh, we can only land our guys in two places on this planet, because of some unseen force that keeps us out." It makes no sense at all.

 

The idea of a guidance beacon, however, makes sense. Or restricting landing vehicles to areas where your troops can see. That makes sense as well. But limiting them to weird icons that can be lost is...well...strange. 'sides, the land troop limits are -far- too small. This is STAR WARS, not star dance-around-with-a-few-guys. While I hate the prequals, at least they had battles. Battle for Geonosis, anybody? I didn't see no pop cap there.

 

My idea for the guidance beacon is this: remove the landing zones completely. Barges and whatever can land wherever they want. These are atmospheric craft coming in from orbit, there's nothing that's going to stop them from dropping in. Instead, however, troops can build Guidance Beacons a certain distance away from theirs or the enemy base. These Guidance Beacons allow barges and transports to land -faster-, more coordinated attacks. These Beacons can be destroyed or upgraded, and they -slow- down enemy transports. Dunno, just my ideas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta say, an awesome RTS, Act of war: High treason, best overlooked game ever, RULES.

 

It has mercenaries, you tell the recon chopper to Recce the place, once a few seconds has passed, the troops you've hired are brought in. As long as the place they're reccying is CLEAR, troops can be dropped anywhere.

 

I think a bit of idea stealing wouldn't go amiss to add to this awesome game.

 

P.S. Buy Act of war, ^_^.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay, we agree on something! Let's continue this trend :D

 

I think I counted the time it takes for the logos at 20 or so seconds. That's 1/3 of a minute. So let's say that you (like me) needed to constantly move in and out of the game over and over again, and let's say you did it once a minute. In an hour, you would have wasted 20 minutes just looking at logo screens that should be skippable (is that a word?)

 

One of the few good things I can say about M$ is that even they let you skip the logo screens. Seriously, if the monopolizing *expletive deleted* M$ people can let you skip logos, LucasArts should be able to as well.

 

 

To Wedge- I always thought the landing zones idea was stupid anyway, so one of my first plans for TSW is to remove them. Or at the very least, let the sides be able to "build" their own landing sites. The idea of a guidance beacon comes to mind, something that you have to build, that can be destroyed, but allows extra landing precision...I dunno.

 

 

Theres a way to skip them, u have to modify something and its easy, dont know if i can post it here without breakeing forum rules, ill come back later to check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote some wise person from another thread: "Gameplay > realism".

 

 

This is why abuse of such words can make it sound like a desperate attempt at getting one's point across.

 

First, you claim the landing zones as realistic, now you fall upon the "gameplay>realism" argument...

 

There are options available for landing troops, that are both realistic and balanced for gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you allow the invading player to land his troops anywhere he wants you ruin the whole point of land battles. Allow me to elaborate:

 

If the defender doesn't have planetary shields: The attacker can land his troops inside the defender's base. Imagine 10 AT-ATs being dropped inside your base. You're screwed. There is no way to defend against something like that. At least three of them can be deployed at a time, and no matter how fast you shoot some of them will survive. Then the defender can kiss his base goodbye. Automatic victory for the attacker.

 

If the defender has planetary shields: Since the attacker can land his troops anywhere he wants on the map, there is no way for the defender to fight him off. Ergo he must retreat all his troops inside the planetary shields in an attempt to defend his base. At this point the ground battle degenerates into a slugfest with the defenders mercilessly pounding away at the attacker's forces as they enter the shielded area.

 

My point is that with clearly defined landing zones there is a strategic element of choice. The defender, rather than retreat to his base, can deploy his forces in the direction of one or more landing zones. If he can prevent the attacker from taking them, he effectively limits the size of the attacking force. The attacker will likewise have an incentive to do something other than a simple rush at the defender's base. He can send what units he has (usually between 3 and 5) towards the base, or he can attempt to secure more landing zones so that he can bring more forces to bear.

 

Landing zones is a way of converting an abstract concept into something that works in a game context. Of course, in a wholly realistic setting the attacker could land troops anywhere on the map. However, if you want to lean on the realism issue, the defender could build 500 bases all over the planet rather than one little base in one very confined area. Landing zones and the resulting pop cap is an excellent way of adding tactical depth to the land battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Landing zones and the resulting pop cap is an excellent way of adding tactical depth to the land battles.

 

At the sacrafice of strategy. But anyway, you missed the point. In a Galactic Conquest mode, yes the idea of a beachhead makes sense, get the troops on the ground in one spot, far away from the enemy base. But once down there, no-holds-barred we can drop anywhere we want, as long as our troops can see it. Or did you miss that part? Which means you'd have to get your troops to the other side of the map before you could drop something in, and with the exception of speeder bikes you aren't going anywhere fast. And even in that case, let's say that certain units are excluded from the "spotter" list, kind of like how now you have to have troops take the areas. Make troops line-of-sight the indicator, but don't restrict us to landing on just a few spots on the map. It turns everything into a map of little more than decorated chokepoints.

 

In skirmish, however, where both sides already have bases and beachheads and usually shields, the idea has no merit whatsoever. Beef up defenses a bit to compensate (which they should be anyway)and voila...you have an awesome way of playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the defender doesn't have planetary shields: The attacker can land his troops inside the defender's base. Imagine 10 AT-ATs being dropped inside your base. You're screwed. There is no way to defend against something like that. At least three of them can be deployed at a time, and no matter how fast you shoot some of them will survive. Then the defender can kiss his base goodbye. Automatic victory for the attacker.

 

100% wrong. He needs a clear area and obviously, the middle of a base is not a clear area.

There can be ajustments to how big a clearing somebody needs to deploy various units. Smaller for infantry and bigger for vehicles.

 

 

If the defender has planetary shields: Since the attacker can land his troops anywhere he wants on the map, there is no way for the defender to fight him off. Ergo he must retreat all his troops inside the planetary shields in an attempt to defend his base. At this point the ground battle degenerates into a slugfest with the defenders mercilessly pounding away at the attacker's forces as they enter the shielded area.

 

Also wrong. You assume that they'll simply turtle in and wait for the attack, but with the concept of landing zones à la E@W, that can also happen.

Again, the concept of requiring a clear zone could easily allow scouts to detect potential drop zones. Securing such drop zones would give more flexibility to the player, allowing him to make serious decisions and not constanly holding his hand through everything.

 

 

My point is that with clearly defined landing zones there is a strategic element of choice. The defender, rather than retreat to his base, can deploy his forces in the direction of one or more landing zones. If he can prevent the attacker from taking them, he effectively limits the size of the attacking force. The attacker will likewise have an incentive to do something other than a simple rush at the defender's base. He can send what units he has (usually between 3 and 5) towards the base, or he can attempt to secure more landing zones so that he can bring more forces to bear.

 

You can't drop everything everywhere on the map. Rivers and on water terrain shouldn't allow landing of troops.

In fact, the concept of a clear and big enough zone to land troops is already in the game. It only has a little holographic flag to show it.

 

 

Landing zones is a way of converting an abstract concept into something that works in a game context. Of course, in a wholly realistic setting the attacker could land troops anywhere on the map. However, if you want to lean on the realism issue, the defender could build 500 bases all over the planet rather than one little base in one very confined area. Landing zones and the resulting pop cap is an excellent way of adding tactical depth to the land battles.

 

Except that you're uing a totally idiotic example of realism to forward your point, claiming that realism does no good. An example of overuse or rather a bad use of "gameplay>realism". Gameplay should come before realism, but if a realism element can enhance gameplay, it should not be overlooked either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

((Off topic to Darth Anarch: Point One: You're wrong, the city-planet idea AND the name were both invented by Zahn, and Lucas was even not going to use them but finally buckled under pressure. Two: yeah, you're right, I forgot about west end. Third, sorry, you're wrong again, Zahn wrote his books as true Sci-Fi, something that Star Wars the movies was not. His books reached a larger audience as he had already won the Hugo award and was famous for science fiction, so he attracted, perhaps not millions, but certainly thousands of new fans because of his writing. Fourth, yes Lucas created the universe. However, once you set something in stone, I don't care who made it, it does not give you the write to go back and "fix" things. Anybody in the business knows that you go with the flow, you don't like how something turned out, too bad you're stuck with it. What does Lucas do? He screws up the movies in order to make more money. THAT automatically disqualifies him from his own works. It would be like Da Vinci suddenly saying "you know what, I don't like the way this guy came out on the cistine chapel, I'm going to go over and do it again, adding a few other things that I think were missing." He had already performed the painting, put it in stone, it was over. Same goes with the movies. Also, he did not have his master plan done. All he had was a very rough draft. In the end, you either love the prequals or you hate them, and I hate them, and I have a lot of reasons for doing so :p))

 

I may be wrong, but was the City-Planet not slated to be in Star Wars: A New Hope? At least, Coruscant was supposed to be in Return of the Jedi, and it was most definately a City-Planet at the time. So no, Zahn did NOT create the City-Planet. He created the name. Simple as that.

 

Secondly. Star Wars was never meant to be a true Sci-Fi. It's a Space Opera, meaning it does not care about all that scientific mumbo-jumbo, it is in it for the people, the development of characters, and the sake of a good story.

 

Thirdly. I don't get your "Set in Stone" thing. George Lucas had the vision of Star Wars from the beginning. THAT was set in stone. Those little novels were not. They were allowed to be changed simply because they conflicted with the original, GEORGE LUCAS version of Star Wars. He had at the beginning the idea of Star Wars being Anakin's story. He had the ideas of the Clone Wars, and all that. He did not forsee Heir to the Empire, and all subsequent books. Therefore, at the end of the day, if George Lucas wants to alter the course of events to suit HIS vision, then so be it. It is he who created Star Wars, it's his story. You wouldn't want someone to tell YOU what to write and what not to if you were writing a novel, would you?

 

Fourth Point; I don't really see why people hate the storylines of the Prequels. Albeit, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman cannot act these parts very well, the Storyline is exceptional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% wrong. He needs a clear area and obviously, the middle of a base is not a clear area.

There can be ajustments to how big a clearing somebody needs to deploy various units. Smaller for infantry and bigger for vehicles.

 

Also wrong. You assume that they'll simply turtle in and wait for the attack, but with the concept of landing zones à la E@W, that can also happen.

Again, the concept of requiring a clear zone could easily allow scouts to detect potential drop zones. Securing such drop zones would give more flexibility to the player, allowing him to make serious decisions and not constanly holding his hand through everything.

 

You can't drop everything everywhere on the map. Rivers and on water terrain shouldn't allow landing of troops.

In fact, the concept of a clear and big enough zone to land troops is already in the game. It only has a little holographic flag to show it.

 

Except that you're uing a totally idiotic example of realism to forward your point, claiming that realism does no good. An example of overuse or rather a bad use of "gameplay>realism". Gameplay should come before realism, but if a realism element can enhance gameplay, it should not be overlooked either.

Your argument is, essentially, that the attacker should be able to land troops anywhere where there's a clear area large enough to accommodate them, correct? There's an expression for that: Landing Zone. The landing zones on the map is just that: an open area large enough to land troops on.

 

One way of resolving the "land anywhere you want"-issue is of course to take into consideration that the defending forces would be able to see the drop-ships coming in from a long way away. Have a ping go off on the map a minute or two before the ships land, so that the defender has a chance to deploy troops to intercept. That would make things more interesting.

 

And on a side note: While I disagreed with you in the above posts, at no point did I lower myself to referring to your posts or arguments as "idiotic". Please extend to me the same courtesy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument is, essentially, that the attacker should be able to land troops anywhere where there's a clear area large enough to accommodate them, correct? There's an expression for that: Landing Zone. The landing zones on the map is just that: an open area large enough to land troops on. C

 

Which is what I said.

 

One way of resolving the "land anywhere you want"-issue is of course to take into consideration that the defending forces would be able to see the drop-ships coming in from a long way away. Have a ping go off on the map a minute or two before the ships land, so that the defender has a chance to deploy troops to intercept. That would make things more interesting.

 

That is quite a good idea. It would make perfect sense actually.

 

 

And on a side note: While I disagreed with you in the above posts, at no point did I lower myself to referring to your posts or arguments as "idiotic". Please extend to me the same courtesy.

 

It was one argument and my comment still stands. It was a bad example and a bad attempt to simply scoff at realism to make it sound utterly stupid to even remotely accept realistic elements into the game. You took an example that nobody ever brought up, that nobody, even realism gurus, wants. It was too exagerated.

I don't think you understand the difference between calling someone stupid and something stupid.

 

By the way, you can call my arguments stupid or idiotic if it actually is, but I'm trying to be careful about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fourth Point; I don't really see why people hate the storylines of the Prequels. Albeit, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman cannot act these parts very well, the Storyline is exceptional.

 

I will not be dragged into the same argument that has already faded, but I will make a comment on this. If you consider an unimaginative retread of a 4000 year old story to be exceptional, you really have no idea what a good story is. The whole "born with no father", "prophecies", and all that are found somewhere else. It's called the Bible, which is the most widely distrubuted book in the world. So instead of coming up with something good and original, Lucas steals an idea from the world's most popular book. Yeah. That's exceptional all right. Where's my rolling eyes smilie?

 

On to the other debate: Once again, lukeiamyourdad, we find ourselves on the same side of an argument :D. I like the idea of the landing ping. Put that in there with the ability to land anywhere, according to ship size, and you have an excellent way of doing things.

 

For instance, Slave I and any of the other smaller hero ships are famous for being able to land anywhere, they don't need a huge cleared area. Troop transports are a little bigger and therefore would need a little more room, but not that much. It's only the big barges that would require quite a bit of clear space. Keep that, the Guidance Beacons to hasten your own transports down, and you have a good way.

 

But keep in mind that with the way landing zones are now, you know where your enemy is coming from. You also know where your enemy base is. That removes the absolute -need- of scouting forces. Back in the day you had to search a map before you found your opponent, and the first person to figure out where the other was had an advantage of information. That's the way it should be. Fight to keep your forces secret, fight to know where your enemy is. That's part of warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in the case of bases, I mean, you can spot a big glowing shield dome from extremely far away.

 

Combine with the ping idea, there could be a radar detection station or something. It would allow the defender to detect incoming landing forces. Destroying it would allow landing more silently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why don't just take the option where the troops automatically fire in defense or offense like we saw it in AotC, or like in the space battles?, maybe a change in the ships that drop troops, some kind of assault transport to help the descending troops, something to make the attaker think twice before he raids the reinforcemnt point while troops are being deployed. And the actual transports could still be used in the retreats.

 

well thats what i think that could help to solve the problem and help to the realism.

 

In general i like the way in wich troops are deployed, even if i can only deploy a couple of troops, ive never been in real trouble there, what i mean is that the pop cap is fine with me, but yes it would be nice if ur troops had some kind of deffence or offence while they are being deployed. =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The landing zones, or as in other games build points, are critical points that the devs want players to fight over. As we all know, ownership of these are an advantage. I like some ideas put forward on here but I cant see the devs changing this. In skirmish they are not so critical because you can still bring in units you just have to march further if you dont have possession of any points. My biggest gripe about the whole landing zone thing is in galactic conquest when you invade a planet and your landing zone gives you say a pop cap of 3. Your enemy has lord knows how many resources on the planet and if they have any brains (an AI of med or above) the entire force hits you while your scrambling to take over a second landing zone to bring down more units. These 'wave attacks' are stupid. At Hoth did the Empire send in an AT-AT a time...no, if they did they would have got hammered. Landing zones should not give increases in pop cap. They should only allow deployment. Otherwise allow orbital bombarment, like in Rebellion. The size of the fleet should determine the damage inflicted on the garrison. food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the way it is, even if u can only deploy 2 units, you just need some wits on how to use those 2 units, and ur bombing rungs, normaly with low caps there are more build paths.

 

This is my point of view at least in GC, no idea of skirmish, I dont play it a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...