Things that need to be fixed for this game your ideas

[Darth Anarch]

Orbital bombardment will be a feature in Forces of Corruption.

[wedge2211]

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

At the sacrafice of strategy.

Uh...you're saying that tactical depth was increased at the expense of strategic depth? Since "strategy" refers to overarching goals and plans (i.e., the Galactic Map), and this is a discussion about land battles, "tactics" are the only thing that matter here and you just made a totally nonsensical comment. And for the record, Xyvik, the "born with no father" stuff is only <2000 years old. Besides, George Lucas drew on known mythical stereotypes, including those in the Bible, in creating the Star Wars saga right from the outset. He called Star Wars a "modern myth" himself. There's no surprise there. He just set out to tell a good story--and he did that for the first three movies he made, at least...

 

This discussion has generated some really interesting ideas. While landing zones are a bit contrived, they make plenty of sense from a gameplay perspective. They serve to bring the battle out into various points on the map, make players fight over critical terrain, and force players to take and hold points that they might otherwise neglect in favor of an all-out rush on the enemy base. I haven't often been frustrated by the reinforcement point system. However, a number of the ideas put forward in this thread seem fun to me. How about this as as alternative fusion of landing zone ideas?

 

Certain key points on the map should remain designated as reinforcement points, and allow players who capture them to land some number of additional units. Instead of being associated with a small circle on the map, however, the reinforcement point should control access to a landing zone comprising a whole sector of the map area, with a size in proportion to the number of units the reinforcement point allows. The landing zones for all the reinforcement points put together will cover the entire playable area of the map. Some of the landing zones might be quite extensive, allowing troops to be landed far from the beacon. Transports should be allowed to drop anywhere in a friendly landing zone where there is enough space to fit the transport. As soon as a transport is called, there will be an announcement and minimap ping made for each player in the game. After some delay (about 30 seconds, or maybe variable depending on how far the transport is from the beacon), the transport will actually land and deploy its units.

[Rust_Lord]

Landing zones and pop cap actually reduce the ability to employ tactics as these things limit the forces you can deploy. Tactics is not simply about having a versatile force, tactics relates to use of forces in order of battle and performing military actions. A strategy for victory may be to cripple the enemies capacity to produce starships and tactics in achieving this would involve deploying X number of Y type of ships for use in hit and fade attacks. EaW is not very strategic because it does not give the scope for it. All you can do is conquer planets outright.

 

I dont mind your idea Wedge, its probably a better compromise but still it involves reinforcement points. As for needing wits, I will give an eg of where the reinforcement points system is unrealistic (theres that dreaded word) and dumb. If you win a space battle and you are sitting over a planet with an overwhelming force, why should you be forced to land only small groups which can be easily overrun? Surely your not saying there isnt enough room? Its a planet! The planetary garrison does not bring on additional units in the way of reinforcements. It starts with its entire force. Invading forces have to wear down the garrison until they are defeated. If there is buildings on the planet then, as you all know, they continue to spawn units as well. Since the only way to conquer a planet is through ground invasion you are forced to get involved in a meatgrinder every time you want to attack a well garrisoned planet. There is very little room for tactics. In reality you could deploy your entire force and move to meet the enemy (or blast them a bit from orbit and move in to mop up; Rebellion got it right.) If the enemy is still superior in force then you have your work cut out for you and a real opportunity to use tactics but if you have the advantage in numbers you can make that advantage felt, without having to lose a heap of units unnecessarily in wave attacks.

 

If you invade a planet and your fighting someone who knows what they are doing they will move all they have to the first reinforcement point. Since it is contested you cant bring down more units and you have to defeat the entire garrison to clear the point. Try doing this with a 3 unit limit like on some planets and it gets rather annoying.

 

Oh and one other thing, there was a religeon before Christianity that had the idea of immaculate conception. The Christians liked the idea and 'borrowed' it. One of my friends told me as he studied theology but I cant for the life of me remember their name. I have no idea how much earlier than the Christians they existed but it wasnt 4K years.

[Xyvik]

Uh...you're saying that tactical depth was increased at the expense of strategic depth? Since "strategy" refers to overarching goals and plans (i.e., the Galactic Map), and this is a discussion about land battles, "tactics" are the only thing that matter here and you just made a totally nonsensical comment.

 

I'm talking about skirmish battles, not GC battles. In a skirmish battle, the tactical depth was increased at the sacrafice of the strategic gameplay. In GC mode, yes, I agree the land battles are tactical but even on a planetary battle strategy should not be sacraficed -completely- for the tactical considerations. It's not as important because we have the giant chess board, but it feels like its almost non-existant.

 

I beleive that we could leave GC mode as it is and not suffer needlessly, but the skirmish battles need a bit of a rewrite in my opinion.

 

And for the record, Xyvik, the "born with no father" stuff is only <2000 years old.

 

Actually, the first prophecy involving the Messiah is approximately 6000 years old, being the first prophecy in the Bible (he will bruise you in the head and he will bruise you in the heal.) The later prophecies, involving the lack of a human father and what not, were uttered in the Psalms as well as the Prophets, which are approximately 4000 years old. The Messiah being born and fulfilling those prophecies is 2000 years old, so it is the fulfillment of the prophecies that is only 2k old. The actual prophecies are much older

 

To Rust_Lord: It was the Hebrews who had the original prophecies, and the Hebrews gave way to the TRUE Christians once Jesus came to earth. Most of the doctrines taught in today's churches are actually Babylonian in origin, but the prophecies regarding the birth of Christ are genuine. And that comes from my past 8 years of studying theology

[lukeiamyourdad]

Being a forum veteran, I've seen enough threads including the word "religion" somewhere degenerate. I'm happy that it isn't the case, but I still prefer to take some precautions. Try to keep this on topic by dropping the discussion involving religion. If you want to further debate the subject matter, please do it via PM.

 

Thank you for your cooperation

 

Back on topic...

 

I think we're all talking about the same thing basically, only one side has big holographic circles and the other doesn't. I realize that things cannot be drastically changed, so the idea of forcing players to control key areas without holding their hands through it is impossible.

In a beautiful perfect world, critical points would be so by nature. Take the example of a hill or a chokepoint, which confers advantages, both offensively and defensively to the player. The smart player would then struggle to keep these key areas.

However, with E@W, that is not possible.

Points on both sides are very good. Rust is 100%. Why can't we land our whole force if we want? Or at least a larger number? It makes very little sense to force players to land only a fraction of their forces at any given area just because it has to be this way. I can't believe I didn't go "why?" sooner. Yes, there should be a certain population cap. There has to be one for several reasons (your game not lagging like hell for one). However, I don't really see why a general could not land more forces at this sole point once the first landing team moves out of the way.

Yes, it allows some tactical depth and prevents a rush to the enemy base. Well, it wouldn't be a rush since most of your forces have not landed thus you wouldn't risk an all out assault before they all land.

 

I'm not sure if what I'm saying makes sense. I think that I'm just turning around stalling. One thing is sure, it's a real debate and we're not out of the woodwork yet.

[wedge2211]

Maybe the thing to do would be to limit the rate at which units can be landed rather than the number. In my mind, reinforcement points can be rationalized away as necessary control points for supplying logistic support to all the units on the battlefield. However, perhaps that can be realized as a cooldown timer before additional transports can land. I can certainly imagine that in a combat situation, the more area one side controls, the more effectively they can bring in support. Of course, more than one unit would have to land initially for this to work.

 

Maybe land skirmish battles should be distanced from tactical battles as part of a Galactic Conquest game. In a GC, players might have a huge force arrayed in orbit only waiting to be deployed. But in a skirmish, reinforcement points serve a critical role of focussing combat around certain strategically important areas.

[Naphtali]

I think the best way to solve the landing part is to give the shuttles blasters, damage to vehicles and infantry will force you to keep a distance if to say 2 shots can knock out your at-st. that would be a good deterent

[Rust_Lord]

I get what you are saying Xyvik about skirmish over GC. What your saying is true as there is almost no strategic element in 'skirmish', hence the name. Its too small scale. To get any sort of grand or strategic scale you would have to have ground battles conducted using an engine like the Total War series or something akin to that.

 

Wedge, not flaming you at all but when you say "land skirmish battles should be distanced from tactical battles as part of a Galactic Conquest game", land skirmish and GC are already totally different. You say "But in a skirmish, reinforcement points serve a critical role of focussing combat around certain strategically important areas." This is true they give you the opportunity to quickly reinforce your advance without having to march reinforcement all the way across the map while your front line guys hold on. The areas themselves are not otherwise important...see next paragraph for what I mean. As for cool down timers, this reminds me of Force Commander, which was an aspect of the game I utterly hated. If you look at combat drops whether it be infantry deployed by helicopters in 'Nam or clones on Geonosis they came in, dropped took off and were followed up in quick succession by other transports waiting for room. Hell, I rememebr seeing one transport drop a AT-TE and hardly even stop. Cool down timers are not the answer. Drops take too long as it is in my opinion.

 

What ur saying does make sense Luke... I understand what you mean. There are critical points in the game, and I am not talking about reinforce points. What about Satellite arrays that give you full map view. They are probably the most important in the game, especially if you have bombing runs. The Naboo map always results in a mad dash to get this area and hold it. The fact that it is elevated and in the centre of the map is a great place for some arty too.

 

I agree that we cant delploy unlimited forces at once. Lag is always going to be the limiting factor because you will always be able to deploy enough forces to cause lag before you run out of room. Luke... your right about deploying your force and then move then out of the way for the more. I was going to raise this point but thought my post was getting long winded. There is nothing wrong with doing this, you can deploy and form up elsewhere. Not every landing zone is going to be big enough for your force so its something you have to manage...but at least you can bring on your entire force. You are not going to be able to rush the enemies base because it will take time to bring down all your units and get them in order, plus it will take time for them to get to the base. Alternatively if the enemy decides to rush a landing force, that force is getting larger as time goes by and it might not in the best interest to attack immediately. This gives you the opportunity to use tactics.

 

Giving shuttles and transports blasters could work but why bother? Most transports werent even armed. Are you going to allow them to be shot down by AAA to even things out? If your landing forces in an unsecured landing zone you should expect to get cut to pieces. You might not necessarily get wiped out but you should not be able to deploy in such a situation unscathed.

 

Now the hard part; what limit do you put on the number of units you can have at once? In Skirmish the max units you can have is 9. Since you get a number of units in each company this is not actually a bad figure and manageable. In GC the maximum planetary garrison you can have is 10. Why not have a maximum force size of 10 units and anymore than this are your reserves. The planetary garrison also have unlimited reserves from any building they have so this has to be taken into account. This gives the defender a slight edge even when facing a force of equal size. This is more than fair because in reality who ever rules space would have a tremendous advantage. This idea is subject to change when we see how effective orbital bombardment is in FoC. That could completely change ground combat, but only in GC.

 

 

Yeah...edited something out...that's what I don't want...even as a joke...I'm not religious by the way so I'm in no way offended by anything, just trying to avoid any possible conflicts. -LIAYD

[lonepadawan]

This is probably rather OT.. but at the mo are the Underworld chappies seeming more rebely than the rebels? Stealing vehicles, guerilla warfare etc, existing in small numbers on enemy planets...

[The Death Star]

Sorry to bring up an old topic, but I thought of something. Whenever a Death Star or SSD is in orbit around a planet, actually show it, In 3D orbiting the Planet. It would look cool.