Darth Windu Posted October 31, 2002 Author Share Posted October 31, 2002 luke - the reason ships were needed was to secure and protect sea trade routes, and also because aircraft had a rather limited range and payload (today's A-6 can carry the same amount of bombs as a squadron of WW2 B-17's!) As aircraft in Star Wars seem quick, unlimited range and carry a large amount of firepower with them, ships are not needed. Also as i said in a game of multiple planets, resource and personel intensive pieces of equipment, with limited use, are not needed. crazy dog - in RoN, you can only get oil from the sea, which is an essential resource Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 Hey! Joesdomain is back. Wow. Er... anyway...... Windu- let's consider the facts. A) SW aircraft are not short-ranged. They still need fuel and power, and their pilots need air, food and water. Most fighters won't operate without their being a larger support ship or base in the region, unless they're a roving squadron. Also, the majority of the Empire's fighters (and many others) aren't hyperdrive-equipped, so basically they can't get anywhere without there being a larger ship in the region. B) Some of them really don't have that much firepower, and I don't see what that has to do with eliminating ships. Mechs have firepower, why do we need troopers?? -As you can see, this argument is kinda unsuited to the topic. C)Many of them aren't quick. Even if you look at the current game-Bombers are pretty slow, and Air Cruisers......... I won't start. On the other hand, ships are useful in the conquest and defense of any planet. And as for your thing about 'resources from the sea'- if they don't exist, we can make them up. Actually, that'd be a good way to make seas important- incorporate a few resources that could only be gained from the sea. Joe- er, I think what you're trying to say is that you want unique unit sets. I agree with this, and your list sounds OK, but I won't accept it straight off on the basis that it must be balanced against other civs. Crazy dog- I definitely don't want GB 2 to be based on RoN, as I don't believe its scale works with SW. There are also many parts of it which just wouldn't work with SW. I'll start with what you just said- why wouldn't you need transports? Unless there's some kind of magical (oooooh, magic) teleportation system, which I am strongly against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 U can use ur military ships to transport units, which means spending less resources. Joe- Yes, welcome back, but please don't start... Windu- Lets keep ships. They add more startergy. And how was the Empire meant to wage warfare on Mon Calamariif it didn't have ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 You no longer need ships in warfare today - i was watching a documentary on National Geographic about the evolution and demise of Battleships, etc. These days you have really long range aircraft and ballistic missiles (i hope they never use those) which can do 1000000 times the damage of a battleship. They use them mainly to carry ground troops these days when trying to avoid using the unmentionable... Star Wars is supposed to be even further into the future - i don't think ships are practical for warfare - i like the fishing ships, but that's as far as i will bend. In fact, i don't play water-maps in SWGB anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 Ah yes, but ships are still used to fire torpedoes at far away targets that planes can't reach becuase their fuel runs out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 Ok, then if we play like today modern warfare we just need to sit back, press a button to launch missiles and enjoy the show! We still need ships. If we don't need them anymore, why do we still use something called the AIRCRAFT CARRIER!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted November 1, 2002 Author Share Posted November 1, 2002 Aircraft carrier's are used to provide air defence for other naval units and to provide a strike ability. However as recent conflicts such as the gulf war and afghanistan have shown, there is no longer any real need for aircraft carrier's. corran - there is no need for ships at all in Star Wars. As i said they are resource and crew intensive, can only operate on water (which you dont need to control) and could easily be replaced by simply using aircraft, or, for example, the Republic using their assault ships. Rise of Nations would be the BEST engine to use if there was a SW:GB 2. The reason i say this is because - it is designed to use tanks - no need for sea transport, the units transform into transports when told to move onto the water - it is designed to use aircraft - epic scale of the game, create your own empire and many other reasons. If anyone wants to check it out go to-www.strategyplanet.com/riseofnations ron.heavengames.com http://www.bighugegames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted November 1, 2002 Share Posted November 1, 2002 Well come to think about it... the only time you would use sea units is...when you HAVE to investigate something underwater...right? so, if we make people build underwater structure then people will HAVE TO use sea units so they can find these structures and destroy them... it gives the game more variety, too just an idea... well battleships, carriers are dying out BECAUZ.... it's still a part of the ground assault, it's just a way to attack the enemy on the other side of the globe(travel pass the pacific?)...it's still ground assault isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted November 1, 2002 Share Posted November 1, 2002 Until they actually come out with "Under-sea" maps and structutres, i don't see the need for ships in a Star Wars game. (Note the use of the word "Star" and NOT "Sea Wars") If we were talking about Battlefield 1942, then that would be a different story altogether... I think the next Star Wars game should be Star Wars Galaxtic Fleet-Battles and use a 3D space-combat engine, which also allows you to zoom into Worlds and switch to Ground-combat mode - just like in the Movies. So, you have two combat modes: 1) Space-combat mode: This would obviously involve a hell of a lot more space-craft from the movies and use Capital Ships or something as Fortresses / Command Centres. 2) Ground-combat mode: Similar to SWGB, but with more enhancements and using 3D engine (perhaps AOM engine)... I thnk it was Jedi3112 who came up with the "zoom-in" theory and myself and Joesdomain came up with the switching of combat modes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 1, 2002 Share Posted November 1, 2002 Mode switching games are too complex, and are a waste of time when the best elements of all modes can be combined into a good game. Games which only focus on one mode, however (eg. a solely space battle game) are far too limited in their scope. Keep something like the current GB! Everybody. In case you didn't notice- tactics in modern day or historical warfare have absolutely no relevance to those used in the SW universe. If I look at the arguments many of you have been using, the way you're going, it's reasonable to say "Oh, well, all we need is air units, cos they're just so damned good. Byebye ground, byebye sea, byebye diversity and good gameplay! Byebye everyone playing the game (other than you people)!" You don't need to control water? Fine. I'd like to see you be the Trade Fed invading Naboo. Or the Empire invading Mon Calamari. Or anyone invading any place with the slightest bit of water where enemies could hide, plan, plot, build, and finally rise to destroy you once and for all.............. Windu- RoN is a good game in its own right, but in my opinion, it is one of the WORST game engines to use to carry on the GB legagy. - What do tanks have to do with anything? And there are no tanks in SW.... - Removal of any hint of realism and actual management when the units do everything for you - What is this "designed"? What proof do you have of this? - "Epic scale" often translates to "Too big to comprehend and play effectively, especially compared to the current GB." Now, if RoN was, say, Rebellion II, that might be OK. (this is based on what I've heard of Rebellion..... I think that's the name of it!!) But for GB, if LucasArts decides to be foolish and not design their own engine, it would be much better to use one based on focussed battles (like AoM, WarIII) not grand epic wars (RoN) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted November 1, 2002 Share Posted November 1, 2002 Please, not W3! Of course I would like RoN to be used, and I won't mind that much over the Genie engine or AoM, but I probably won't even get the demo if it's W3! CorranSec: 1) Tanks in SW: Well the Rebels, Trade Fed, Naboo, Wooks and Confederacy all use tanks as opposed to Empires, Ganguns (kinda) and Republic walkers. 2) For prooof of air units check out these screens 3) It's a damn galaxy we're talking about! There's also a conquer the world mode, described in my thread here (BTW it's my second account there, as opposed to using my 3rd here;) ), which could be replaced by a " conquer the galaxy" campaign, possibly like Rebellion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted November 1, 2002 Share Posted November 1, 2002 Correction: It was actually jcb231 who came up with the idea of "mode-switching". CorranSec: You stated that jcb231's idea was really good as well, but now you say it is too complex and a waste of time??? If they don't "waste" their time trying to develop a true Star Wars game then we will never have one - sometimes you just need to use your imagination and believe it is possible! And please don't ever suggest using WC3 as an engine - it is such a narrow-minded game with really poor gameplay and options! (Maybe that's why you think "combat mode-switching" is too complex!) As CrazyDog said: It IS a galaxy we are talking about in the Star Wars context and if you want a true reflection of the Star Wars world then the only way to achieve it would be to have space-combat and ground-combat (with many planets to invade and dominate...) I can only conclude from your post that becuase you enjoy playing WC3 you enjoy narrow-minded games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted November 1, 2002 Share Posted November 1, 2002 Mode-switching IS hard. Imagine having to mind to ur starfleet but when u switch back to ur ground mode u find all ur troops are dead. I think it's better to spilt a battle like that into 2 separate battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Althought I like mode-switching which could be fun but however it would take you forever to win a game. Another thing, if aircraft are sooooo good than why the hell do we still use ground force in STAR WARS GALACTIC BATTLEGROUNDS NOT REAL LIFE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Madrix- 1) Oops. I must have been on heavy drugs, or perhaps I realized the folly of my opinion, and changed it. Hey, I'm allowed to be a hypocrite. I'm me. But I'm not. You see? 2) Your idea of a 'true' SW game is actually the opposite of what we see of SW in the movies and EU - Every military battle was focussed: Death Star air battle, Hoth ground assault, Endor air strike on DS2/Ground commando team, Grassy Plains (gungans vs. droids), Air Naboo attack on Droid Command ship, etc. Do we see any grand conquest of galaxies? No. It's always been the battle over a planet, and then another battle over a planet, and so on. It would be untrue to the SW genre if GB 2 was 'epic.' Also, remember, it's Battlegrounds (an individual battle) not Epic Galactic Wargrounds (epic galactic war). Epic galactic war can be easily (and more successfully) reflected in a series of missions, linked to form a campaign. 3) And please don't suggest RoN as an option- it's not nearly as complex and well-structured as GB or WarIII! 4) I can only conclude from your post that you (strangely) dislike WarIII and want to destroy GB as a series- maybe that's why you want RoN! Mode-switching isn't a very good gaming option, but I'm not totally against having it included in a different SW game- eg. Rebellion II- but not GB! GB 2 should follow on from the structure of GB 1- ie, focussed battles which include air, ground, sea in one map, and not as huge as RoN. Crazy_dog: Please not RoN! I don't want WarIII to be used either- LA would be much better coming up with their own SW-tailored, perfect engine- but it is far more relevant to the genre of game than RoN! 1) Everyone uses everything, basically. I don't want any engine to be 'specifically' good at anything, because that generally costs another thing. A balanced game is the best, and I mean balanced in terms of detail and time spent on making every section, as well as gameplay balance. 2) WoW. Air units. Every game has air units, but that doesn't prove the air units are 'especially specially special' or whatever. And, as I pointed out before, I don't want a game based only on one kind of unit. 3) There might be a large-scale and small-scale battle, but that doesn't mean we want to play them both. And in most cases in SW, the majority of the galaxy is all fine and peaceful, and the fighting occurs in specific areas, as I pointed out before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 I'd say, AGAIN Lucasarts use someone else's engine cause their engine SUX use AoM engine, it's 3D and it's got really good air units support It's pretty good actually Make underwater structure so people can hide underwater and build up, this will force u guys to use sea units... mode switching, hmm, more realistic but it'll make the game a lot more complicated than it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 LA took someone else's engine because their engine sucked? I think not. They took someone else's engine because they didn't have an engine, but i believe they did have a deal with Microsoft (and therefore Ensemble), and took the AoK engine because it was 'tried and tested and worked before and will work now,' or some such, and would also save them time and effort (and, of course, money). Is this correct? Anyway, the point is that if LA does want a really great game, then they have to be prepared to pour the effort into their very own engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Ah, CorranSec, but I didn't say anything about air other than the fact that RoN had it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Ah, crazy_dog, I understand now. You see, I thought you were replying to my reply to Windu's "it is designed for air units" and supporting that claim. Obviously I was confused...... like I am now....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted November 4, 2002 Author Share Posted November 4, 2002 corran - what im saying is that RoN, unlike the AoE series (including AoM), has been designed from the beginning to use armour. This means large armoured vehicles designed to assist infantry, break through enemy lines, and to provide indirect support. This, in the SW universe would include the walker's, tanks, artillery etc. The advantage here is that everything with their use would already be balanced etc, and we wouldnt have the problems with the large armoured vehicles in SW:GB, same goes for aircraft. Also, RoN comes ith many inovative features such as villagers who, if not given a task after a while, will go and find one. There are also in-built anti-rush, anti-turtle features and borders also mean you can go and start building in your opponents territory. luke - aircraft are great, but you cant control land without soldiers on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 4, 2002 Share Posted November 4, 2002 There are problems with the large armoured vehiclees in GB? And the siege weapons in the AoE series? I thought they were fine, especially in GB. (Can someone tell me about AoM please?) I assume you meant you can't build in other people's territory. This is a bad thing, and so is the destruction of strategies such as turtling and rushing. Sure, they might be pretty stupid and irritating strategies, but destroying them is basically saying "Oh, um, we don't want you to do anything silly. Go fight battles the way WE want you to!" Though I don't like turtling much, it's sometimes the only way to survive (and the AIM of some scenarios). Rushing is actually a viable and oft-used tactic in most RTS games, and removing it is removing a vital part of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted November 4, 2002 Share Posted November 4, 2002 LOL CorranSEc, there is something called REALITY , here. not every company has the ability, the resources and the budget to develop good PC game engines like Microsoft, Blizzard and IDSoft. IDSoft, it's been there for a long time, no doubt about the quality of its engines... Microsoft, LOL u know how much $$ it has Blizzard, owned by EA, EA owns like lots of companies, and 8 out of the 10 most popular games are produced by EA or one of EA's companies...trust me, EA is a monster Lucasarts, it's so obvious what's lucasart's last "ok-selling" game? ah...X-Wing Alliance?? Rogue Squadron??? past LA games had been disasters and apparently LA does not have enough resource to develop a GOOD engine. it's a lot easier to use someone else's engine, they can't win with the tech they have here, LA is not advanced like IBM, and it does not have $$ like Microsoft, nor does it have lots of human resource like Electronics Art..... Sorry to say but this is reality, creating an engine is not that simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted November 4, 2002 Share Posted November 4, 2002 CorranSec - i never suggested using RoN as an engine simply because i have never played RoN. Please read posts carefully before making assumptions... Yes, the combat-mode-switching will be complex in the design, but it is possible! CrazyDog - I never suggested playing ground and space battles simultaneuosly - now THAT would be difficult! I was thinking along the lines of a campaign type of game, where you start in space-mode and then have to invade / assist / whatever a planet and then switch to ground-mode (or vice versa). This would not be too difficult if the design of the game was easy to use (simple switching between modes) Then, we could enjoy true space combat as well as planet/ ground combat. This is what happens in the movies after all and if they could replicate this in an RTS, i think it would be a winner! The RM's could be based on the objectives e.g. Invasion of Hoth - you would start off in a space command centre and secure the area of space around you and then invade the planet (Hoth) and build gound-troops suited to this planet (or you could simply transport them in, having built them in the space command centre). Anyway, it is just a suggestion and my opinion of what would be a great Star Wars RTS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted November 4, 2002 Share Posted November 4, 2002 Ah, now I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 I would like to point out that the anti-rush features in RoN, especially the no attack till a certain age, are OPTIONAL and the game is not a n00b no-attack-till T4 kind of game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.