CorranSec Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 About the engine debate: I think it's pretty clear that the best way to go is with a new, custom-made, Star Wars-made engine. Using another developer's engine will lead to poorly concealed rip-offs and units not fitting into the engine's predetermined unit slots. I certainly hope LA has learned from their failures with attempting to convert and disguise the AoK engine (not to say that there aren't good points, but anyway), and will instead spend the worthwhile time and effort making their own engine. Anyway, we can argue all we like about the merits/fault of the GB conversion of AoK, and of AoK itself, but I'm here to talk about SW:GB 2, and that's what I'm going to do. Hey, that kinda rhymed. Anyway.... Windu, I really like that idea. I hope this means that you're now going to support naval units (was it you who was totally against them? I think so... sorry if it wasn't). Another thing I'd like to see are Sea Gates, which are, um, gates you build in the sea. They'd be really useful in bottlenecks and the like. Arthur- No offense, but I really think you need to get over EE. I think basing everything you say and propose (that's an exaggeration, but anyway) on EE is a bad idea, primarily because there's no way SW:GB 2 would use the EE engine, and there have been far better games, and far better ideas from our own minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 23, 2002 Author Share Posted October 23, 2002 Yeah that was me, im an unashamed anti-shipist I would prefer ships were left out of the game, except maybe for submarines, but if they are going to be there i would like some modifications (such as the bridge issue) to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Yaah! May the forces of anti-shippy-ness feel my wrath this day! YAAAAAHHHH!! (many war cries) *pokes Windu with stick* That should do it. On the serious side, Windu, I think ships are an integral part of the game. They may seem a little silly in the SW universe, but they add another dimension to gameplay. I think the submersible part of things is really important. I'm not sure if this would work, but basically, practically every ship (apart from the heavy assault eg. cruisers) could use the "Submerse" option, which makes them undetectable to scanners but slightly slower and with a slightly weaker attack, with AA ships possible not even being able to function at all. (It's a little silly if you have to fire a missile through water and air.) There would also be special Detector ships, which could not submerse, and lack a decent attack (only good for killing innocent Util Trawlers and the like) and have pretty poor speed, but can detect submersed ships. Not cloaked aircraft or anything, just submersed ships. I would of course like such modifications as the bridges, Sea Gates, and more. (pokes everyone with stick so that they will come up with ship ideas). Hey! I'm an Ewok now! *makes Ewok noises* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 CorranSec - EE, all i've said about EE is the hero part..u should take a look at it... it helps sometimes...Personally I don't like EE as much as SWGb, in fact, I don't like EE...it's too slow, even in tournament mode. But some of the features in EE are really good, such as the heroes, i never thought that the heroes could be so helpful. I never said that the heroes will replace the tactical aspect of the game, it's an assistant, not replacement. (u have the choice not to use it anywayz) the engine thing, argh...do u know how much time it takes to develop their own engine? i don't think that all games made from someone else's engine are rip-offs....look at Unreal Tournament and Jedi KNight2, they are made from the same engine, but are they rip-offs? NO.... it depends on how much time they put in to the game. obviously, Lucasart is not technically strong, that is why it requesets help from Microsoft...they have their reasons this u have to understand u can tell by the game "force commander", how poorly it did all the games lucasart release in the recent years are designed by other companies (microsoft, sony and activision) it's perfectly normal... sony, they don't make their own video games anymore, instead, they design games for other platforms. it's perfectly normal this days, and u'll suprised how many games are made from Q3 engine... SWGB is a ripoff becoz they didn't put enuff enuff time into it, not becoz it uses other engines, u gotta get that straight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 I agree Arthur. As good as SWGB is, when I first saw screenshots I thought it was a hack for AoK, they look so similar. I don't mind some of the units, but some of the inherited techs make no sense. The worst offender I can think of off the top of my head is "attack programming" (I think that's what it's called) whcih is totally inherited from sappers. Workers get +15 against buildings... why? On the ship thing, I can see why you wouldn't want them Windu. Those who have read my posts on other threads probably know how anti-EU I am, so probably think I'm against sea units as they aren't in the movies. However, including significant sea units doesn't CONTRADICT the movies like so many other units they've added in, so it adds a whole new level of gaming. It's possible that sea fleets exist, but as we've seen no water battles we don't know. However, we know units like cannons don't exist, because the Empire would just have used one to take out the Hoth sheild generators and not lose any AT-ATs to harpoons and tow cables. And besides, we know that sea fleets exist - how did the Trade Federation invade Otoh Gunga otherwise? Having said that, the ships could have been done better. I think even if not all ships can submerge, all civs should be allowed a submarine. They can travel through hyperspace but they can't build a submersible? Gungans can't be the only creatures in the Galaxy to have thought of going underwater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 25, 2002 Author Share Posted October 25, 2002 Well im still an anti-shipist. I wouldnt have as big a problem with, say, two classes of submarines. Combat sub - can fire at other ships and short range AA Transport - sub, is a sub and can transport units Actually with the AA thing, many modern submarines fire their missiles while they are submerged... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by Darth Windu Well im still an anti-shipist. I wouldnt have as big a problem with, say, two classes of submarines. Combat sub - can fire at other ships and short range AA Transport - sub, is a sub and can transport units Actually with the AA thing, many modern submarines fire their missiles while they are submerged... and i guess u'd referring to the subs in EE (I DON"T LIKE EE BUT THAT'S THE ONLY EXAMPLE I CAN THINK OF RIGHT NOW) u know, u need some special frigates to knock out subs, and subs are excellent for killing non-submerged sea combat units yeah it would work but then the game will become a lot more complicated u need to build frigates, subs...what ever all kinds of ships the anti-air thing, yeah it makes sense of course but then....argh don't u think that the air units in SWGB are at disadvantage already?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 25, 2002 Author Share Posted October 25, 2002 Actually ive never played EE. As i said, have two classes. One which does all the combat stuff, the other which transports units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Windu, what's wrong with my big list of submersibles? Arthur, I was kinda thinking of that "sub-killer frigate" thing when i proposed the Detector. The difference is that anything can now kill submersibles, which is neccesary, as practically anything can be a sub. I did think of that AA thing, but think gameplay>realism. It really wouldn't be all too fair if a flight of fighters are just cruising along and are just suddenly knocked out of the air by some completely undetectable AA frigates. People would get very scared, and would probably get a Detector aircraft to accompany every group of fighters that went out, and most of the time that's just a waste. It's a big difference when two sea fleets meet, and they're completely aware of each other's presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by CorranSec Windu, what's wrong with my big list of submersibles? Arthur, I was kinda thinking of that "sub-killer frigate" thing when i proposed the Detector. The difference is that anything can now kill submersibles, which is neccesary, as practically anything can be a sub. I did think of that AA thing, but think gameplay>realism. It really wouldn't be all too fair if a flight of fighters are just cruising along and are just suddenly knocked out of the air by some completely undetectable AA frigates. People would get very scared, and would probably get a Detector aircraft to accompany every group of fighters that went out, and most of the time that's just a waste. It's a big difference when two sea fleets meet, and they're completely aware of each other's presence. yeah I agree hmm what some of the games did is that they make the structure like: sub kills non-submerged units and there are some specific anti-sub units that can be used to destroy subs well...the game will become really complicated that way we don't want a complicated game in which we' have to worry so much about coastal bombardment this is a good reason why u guys should try EE and u guys will learn exactly why EE is not popular.... EE's way too difficult to play EE's got damn powerful carriers and frigates for naval blockade and damn powerful air fighters and nuclear bombers for air strike, this is probably why the game play is disintegrated...... u need to manage ur fleet, air units and ground units at the same time if u leave one of them idle in the middle of no where, the next minute all u'll see is debris of ur precious ships/fighters/tanks/whatevers...this applies especially when u are playing against computers. so, ur sea unit idea is a good one for this game this is set in the future, i dun think sea is gonna be that big of a deal, u can launch air strikes anywayz, + there is no flight time limit.... and Darth Windu, yhah i have to say that the AA thing is not that ...good for game playing reasons cauz in real life, subs and frigates cost WAY more than air fighters that's why the Kamikaze actually worked (u know, WWII japanese suicidals) if u want to do the AA thing u proposed then u need to raise the cost of subs and air units by much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 CorranSec Quoted " ...what's wrong with my big list of submersibles? " What's wrong with it is that it is a BIG list (as usual). I don't like sea-units - i bought SWGB becuase it has SPACE units and such - if i wanted sea battles then i wouldn't buy a space-game! Windu - i also like your idea about bridges - i think there are bridges you can use in the Scenario Editor though - but units going underneath... i don't think you can do that in the SE... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by MadrixTF CorranSec Quoted " ...what's wrong with my big list of submersibles? " What's wrong with it is that it is a BIG list (as usual). I don't like sea-units - i bought SWGB becuase it has SPACE units and such - if i wanted sea battles then i wouldn't buy a space-game! Windu - i also like your idea about bridges - i think there are bridges you can use in the Scenario Editor though - but units going underneath... i don't think you can do that in the SE... yeah u are right sea battles....aiya.... well the bridge idea would be good suggestion, IF there is more water..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Well, Madrix, it's not really a big list. I'm not planning to expand the current navy list much- in fact, I don't think it needs to be expanded at all, other than a detector ship. All that's changing are the properties of the ships. Arthur- I think we need all of them. Many people did complain about such games as WC3, which completely lacked navies, but did contain large bodies of water in many of the maps. If we look at a map based around an island, a series of islands, a sea bottleneck, etc, it's obvious to see how sea units make the game far more interesting. If you don't like 'em, play space maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 I don't think we need an entire armada of ships. But having no sea units would be a big mistake, expecially with Gungans in the game. I think everyone should have a submarine, a frigate-like ship (possibly more powerful, though) and a cruiser-like ship. I think the destroyer and the AA destroyer should be left, though. The destroyer is basically something to take over from AoK's fireship, while the AA destroyer is far too powerful. Navies are supposed to be susceptible to air attacks, so I think a special boat that solely takes out air is a bit much. Maybe incorporate a weak AA weapon into a frigate or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 Artheu - i wasnt actually proposing that as an AA thing, just saying it can happen in real life. With ships i would like to see them gotten rid of, but if not keep them as simple as possible and make the main fighting units air and land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Vostok- how do you know Star Wars navies are susceptible to air attacks? And also, weakening the AA destroyer (or removing it), would make entire armadas easy pickings for any aircraft which happen to come cruising over the body of water they're in. If ships cannot protect themselves against aircraft, this will be the situation: Blue's big navy force heading in to destroy Red's base. A large Red aircraft group (comprised mainly of fighters and bombers) is scouting, and comes across the navy force en route. They begin tearing them to pieces. Blue sends a group of his aircraft in. They arrive at the battle scene, notice a large amount of their unprotected navy fleet destroyed and only around 7 of the Red airfleet destroyed. They charge in, lasers blazing. Red's fighters turn about and prepare to defend themselves from Blue's fleet, hell-bent on revenge. Meanwhile, Blue's navy cruises on, ignored by the battling aircraft, but is destroyed outside Red's base as their defensive ships had already been destroyed by Red's fighters. End result: Navies cannot function effectively, leads to more air battles to protect/destroy them, which can be seen as good or bad but is more like just a waste of units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 30, 2002 Author Share Posted October 30, 2002 Now really, tell me why, in the Star Wars universe, civ's such as the Republic and Empire would invest resources into units that cant fly, and hence arent very mobile, and can only operate in water, when land is the only thing you need to conquer? That is the main reason i dont want ships, and if they are in the game, only sub's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Now really, tell me why, in the Star Wars universe, civ's such as the Republic and Empire would invest resources into units that cant fly, and hence arent very mobile, and can only operate on land, when the primary battles of the SW universe are fought in space? This is why I think air units should be the main force of any army. But then again, that's just what I think. Nevertheless, no matter what the 'main force' might be, all three are needed for a balanced and varied game. Also: Tell me why, in Episode I, how the heroes could have reached Theed without the Gungans posessing a navy? And how could the Trade Federation have conquered Otoh Gunga and other Gungan underwater cities without a navy? Civs would use sea units because (and these are just a few reasons): a) they provide a tactical advantage. Eg, your opponent is on an island in the middle of a large sea. Do you just attack with air units? No, any good commander would utilize a sea force. b) any unit is a good unit. If the Empire took a planet, and made massive armies of stormtroopers to hold the cities, and a mighty air force to hold the air, why wouldn't they also build a sea force? Also, what if it was an ocean planet (Mon Calamari, for instance)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 hmmm good question navy...well Maybe we should do this: make gungans have the ability to construct underwater city not just the shelters but most of their buildings maybe for other civs, too... dunno if u want to make Navy a larger portion of the game u gotta make use of the water...not just for fishing... cauz right now in SWGB, aircrafts are too damn strong against Ships and ships are too limited , they can only operate on water we gotta do something to make water territories more important... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Hmm. How to make water more important? Well, fishing can be a vital part of the game, if all the food bushes are used up and you don't want to spend carbon on farming. But here's something I thought of (it might sound crazy, but here goes): Players may choose to spend a rather large deal of resources on 'terraforming' a small area of land into a lake, filled with fish. He can then load his ships up into transports and deposit them there. Useful if you plop a lake down near the enemy town and pop a bunch of cruisers in there. Bang! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 30, 2002 Author Share Posted October 30, 2002 Whch is why i said if there is going to be naval units, only use subs. In a galaxy where fighters are small, fast and powerfully armed, there is no need for large, expensive, slow water-only vessels which would use up a lot of crew. I would also like to point out that using the 'repulsorlift' system for ships is rather odd, considering they would sink if they went into anything less than calm sea's. Naval units are not important, and have only limited operational use. The main battle units should revolve around air and ground units, having a very small navy if needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Originally posted by CorranSec Hmm. How to make water more important? Well, fishing can be a vital part of the game, if all the food bushes are used up and you don't want to spend carbon on farming. But here's something I thought of (it might sound crazy, but here goes): Players may choose to spend a rather large deal of resources on 'terraforming' a small area of land into a lake, filled with fish. He can then load his ships up into transports and deposit them there. Useful if you plop a lake down near the enemy town and pop a bunch of cruisers in there. Bang! interesting fishing well yeah but then u know that all u need is a couple of fighters to protect ur fishing boats....why build ships? make water territories more important by....building underwater structure that ppl cannot see unless they have detector? that's just an idea... or build floating structures... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 If GB2 is based on Ron, then: 1) There would be no need for transports altogether. 2) There could be water only special resources, which would create alot of competition between players over who controls the oceans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 I think ships are very important in an RTS First of all, Air Transports are very vulnerable to fighters if not escorted. Sea Transports last longer. Cruiser: Think of it like a cannon that travels over the water. AA ships: Of course we need them. Destroyers: The only stupid reason they put them in: They are good vs cruisers. Frigates: Who wouldn't need them to go scout in T2 on island maps? Why did they use ships in WWII if the aircrafts could do all of that? Why do they still use Ships today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joesdomain Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 I think each civilization should have more different types of Troopers and Mechs and Aircraft, etc. for Empire. For example: Empire: Troopers: Laser Troopers- Stormtroopers Anti-air Troopers- Stormtroopers with anti-air missiles Mounted Troopers- Stormtroopers on Dewbacks Thermal Detonator Troopers- Imperial Navy Troopers with thermal detonator launcher Scout Trooper- Imperial Scout Trooper Specialized Trooper- Dark Trooper Guard- Imperial Navy Trooper Command Trooper- Imperial Officer Rodian Bounty Hunter Bounty Hunter (Bossk species) Mech: Specialized Scout- Imperial Probe Droid Scout- Imperial Scout Trooper on speeder bike Strike Mech- AT-PT Walker Scout Mech- AT-ST Walker Assualt Walker- AT-AT Walker Aircraft: (Ability to make all of them at the end of Tech Level 4) Tie Fighter Tie Interceptor Tie Advancedx1 Tie Defender Tie Bomber Imperial Lander (Unit Carrier) Imperial Lamda Class Shuttle (Unit Carrier and fighter) -Add Fighter, Bomber, and Transport Pilots to each ship. Sith: (Ability to make all of them at Tech Level 4) Sith Appreciece Sith Knight Sith Master Misc. Workers Medic Power Droid Maybe Protocol Droid Unique Units: Moffs Imperial Officers Differents types of Bounty Hunters No Ships, No Deployed Cannons, No Air Cruisers, No Artillery and No Pummels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.