Sithmaster_821 Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 You can go on believing that Simwiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 Madrix- the mode-switching may be OK, but NOT for Galactic Battlegrounds II. Maybe there could be a Galactic Fleetgrounds, or Galactic mode-switchingGrounds, but we're not talking about them now, are we? If the game is going to be a continuation of the same series, it should at least follow the same outlines- aka. A battle between bases on a planet, with no mode-switching, no cities, no borders, etc. This is the way all serieses (i doubt that's a word) work- they follow the same outlines, and just improve upon the former. Sith- lol, did you return to this thread solely to argue with simwiz? Ahhhh!!!........... *puts up large barricades and castles to protect himself from grand battle between simwiz and sith, which will invariably lead to comparisons of RoN and AoM, and eventual mention of the Gunship and, most likely, drunken monkeys. Don't ask.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted November 5, 2002 Author Share Posted November 5, 2002 simwiz is right, the features such as anti-rush and smart villager AI can be turned off if you want to. So if you want rushing you can have it. Also the anti-turtle feature means you have to be aggressive, and the fact that you cant build in your opponents territory is a GOOD thing, because now you cant just go and build defensive structures in the middle of your opponents cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted November 6, 2002 Share Posted November 6, 2002 I think the RoN engine would probably be a good choice. From what I've seen, RoN takes many of it's ideas from AoK and makes it so you can build modern armies as well. Now making SWGB from AoK worked fairly well, so why wouldn't making SWGB2 from an engine that is in some ways a sequel to AoK work well? My only concern is that it seems you have to progress through lots of ages in RoN. Any more than 4 Tech Levels in SWGB2 would be a bit silly, I think. So If you can cut out some of the earlier ages, maybe to the one just prior to getting planes, then it could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 6, 2002 Share Posted November 6, 2002 The RoN is in many (most) ways completely different to AoK, and the ways that it IS alike are shared by practically all RTS games. If you wanted a GB sequel based on an AoK sequel, then you're looking for AoM. I wouldn't have as many problems with that as with RoN, but I think that taking someone else's engine is a step backwards when we're trying to make a game which is a step forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted November 6, 2002 Share Posted November 6, 2002 Vostsok: IMO there should be 5 tech levels, no more, no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 6, 2002 Share Posted November 6, 2002 IMO there should either be a few more tech levels eg. 6 or 7 so that there can actually be a bit of time between the worst version of a unit and the best version, or.... We could have a "tech tree" with tiers of buildings and units that you have to reach. I think I've said this before, but I'd like a mix of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted November 7, 2002 Author Share Posted November 7, 2002 corran - RoN has 8 ages, with only the last 3 having aircraft and the last 4 (i think, might be 3) having tanks. It would be quite interesting to start off with Wookie Hoplite's and barbarians and build them into a civilised species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 Interesting..... well, interesting has many meanings. In this case, it means- Totally against SW Totally against realism Totally against gameplay Making it like RoN and not SW at the start Making you wait ages (literally) to get to the SW part... And so on. I do want a large amount of tech levels, but I don't want to start in the Dark Ages. It is assumed that when a player starts, his civ has just landed on a planet, and has a basic base, and no access to advanced technologies (which must be learned from other worlds or some other explanation). It is NOT assumed that any SW game will begin with rock-throwing Wookies, progress through the discovery of the Force, the development of blasters, the building, flourishing, and demise of empires, and ends with the actual battles one can enjoy in a much simpler format in the current GB....... unless, of course, you want to go on to a Post-SW age, which I don't even want to think about. If we ignore that factor, there's even more; Seeing as aircraft are to play a large part, and so are mechs and the like, I'd want them available much earlier (in small amounts of course, eg. only fighters and scout mechs). For example; in Tech 1 the player can basically only focus on his economy, and can maybe scout around a bit, but there's not much military development (only build a barracks-type building and a couple of men). In Tech 2, a few military options are explored; the Barracks starts to open up, sea ships and scouting mechs can be built. It's in this age and the next that rushing, if it occurs, will occur. In tech 3, the Barracks is even larger, and some small mechs are available (Strike Mech size). In tech 4, aircraft start becoming available; player can build an Airbase, and some fighters. In Tech 5, Mech destroyer-sized units are available, as well all/most barracks units. More fighters now available. Player can build an Airborne Construction Yard, and a few medium ships (freighter, frigate, assault transport). Heavy Weapons facility (or thereabouts) can be made, and some heavy weapons made. Tech 6; all fighters available, most medium ships available, apart from one or two. Player can build the Capital Ship Construction Yard (airborne), and build one cap ship (probably attack transport). Player can build big (assault mech) sized mechs, but not fully upgraded. Most Heavy Weapons things available. Tech 7; All medium ships available, most cap ships, assault mechs almost totally upgraded. All hvy wpns available. Tech 8; Everything (duh). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 let's fade out that ron thingy... the tech lvls you talking about in Ron is just like EE it sux, u'll be busy getting ur ass all upgraded before u think about battling someone, that's not RTS is about... too many tech lvls can be a burden, and a really bad one I'd say 8 is way too much and tech lvls don't really make sense, so if we are going to have them, don't make it too big of deal... i mean, spending huge amount of resource to upgrade... it's just like someone wakes up in the morning and say "hooray!renaissance, we are no longer medieval beasts" that doesn't make sense at all... i prefer tech-trees over tech lvls i think 4 is enuff, 5 is ok, but more than 5 the game is gonna stink bad... some of the games don't even have tech lvls that's one good thing about blizzard games, the tech lvls aren't that obvious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 I would sacrifice some 3 of the ages for extra civ-unique art. I would think of it like this, however. Lets take the Rebels: Tech level 1-4: GB current tech levels Tech level 5: Upgrades to New Republic stuff, however for simplicity's sake still called Rebels. And maybe for Republic: Tech level 1: The so-called Old Republic (there is lots of info available http://www.theforce.net/timetales. Maybe Republic gets Jedi first. Tech levels 2-5: Current However, for all civs, just so u won't get me wrong, no matter what the Rebels and Republic's Tech level 1 troops look like, they are still called "trooper recruits" as are T1 in the current GB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 5, sounds alright cuase now we basically have T1 - infantry T2 - stronger infantry T3 - fighters and light mech T4 - bigger air units and heavy mechs maybe we can make it T1 - strong infantry T2 - light mechs and light air and sea units T3 - advanced land/air/sea T4 - ultimate weapons - capital ships, large units narrow it down to 4 cause i feel that T1 and T2 in SWGB isn't that big of a difference... (basically just an AOK rip off) i'd suggest that the rest of the upgrades remain in tech tree form, not tech lvls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 Originally posted by Arthur2 let's fade out that ron thingy... (1) the tech lvls you talking about in Ron is just like EE it sux, (2) u'll be busy getting ur ass all upgraded before u think about battling someone, that's not RTS is about... too many tech lvls can be a burden, and a really bad one I'd say 8 is way too much and tech lvls don't really make sense, so if we are going to have them, don't make it too big of deal... (3) i mean, spending huge amount of resource to upgrade... it's just like someone wakes up in the morning and say "hooray!renaissance, we are no longer medieval beasts" that doesn't make sense at all... (4) i prefer tech-trees over tech lvls some of the games don't even have tech lvls (5) that's one good thing about blizzard games, the tech lvls aren't that obvious 1 - In RoN you will have eras, not TL's, and you don't "pay 800 food 500 gold to get to gunpowder" as in EE and other RTS. 2 - Really? Then why doesn't all battling occur in T4 in GB? Because people rush and it is more beneficial to rush than wait! The same will apply in RoN as long as you avoid the n00b no rush games. Rushing will be a bit harder, so there will actually be other options than rushing. Still rushing will be very viable, and attacks will occur throughout the ages as long as someone wants war and declares it. 3 - Again you show how little you actually know about RoN and how your entire argument is based off of assumptions. You do not spend traditional resources to upgrade. Knowledge is used for advancement in tech, and in eras. 4 - Actually RoN does have more of a tech tree than most RTS games. It has eras to supplement its tech tree. 5 - I can think of one reason why blizzard games don't have "obvious" tech levels! Because they are designed for people who don't know about strategy! They have almost no economy, therefore less research. Those RTT's are for kiddies who would pick up a game like AoM and say "why can you only use each GP once per game, that's lame, I want it to be a lightning slinging, meteor battle game." That was actually a thread on AoMH:lol:. And people said: "let me guess, you play WC3", and he admitted it! WC games, in general, are for people who cannot comprehend the strategic play of other games. EDIT - Added the (2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted November 8, 2002 Author Share Posted November 8, 2002 There's nothing wrong with games like 'Command & Conquer' and WC, even if they dont have the depth of games such as AoE, AoK etc. corran, arthur - just because RoN has 8 ages doesnt mean we have to use all of them. Also corran, that thing about wookie hoplites was a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 I think the tech tree advancing suits Star Wars better than Tech Levels. Also, if we don't have tech levels we could probably have more civs, as you don't need multiple sets of animations for the one unit through different tech levels. Nearly all of the games that use ages, eras and so forth do so because they are those age/era spanning games where you start in the stone age or something and build up to modern times. Star Wars isn't like that, so I don't think Tech Levels are the go. Simwiz, you're last point isn't entirely clear. While I agree with the strategy side of things, I don't see what that guys comment about GP has to do with tech levels. I think it would be better if we had just as much research and stuff, but the tech tree still limits your abilities. You could even have limits based on the size of your population or military units. I think this would be good because the worst thing about the blizzard games is the guy who rushes through just buying the buildings he needs to get the mega units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 The last argument was evidence of how shallow and unstrategic the gameplay or WC3 was. Arthur says that it's good that Blizzard games (such as WC3) have no ovbious tech levels. I said it was because there is no strategy in those games, no economy, therefore not much research at all. To prove it I cited some n00b over at AoMH who was a "veteran" of WC3 and wanted AoM to join WC3 as an unstrategic, boring GP/spell clickfest where econ and human units don't matter, it just matters who clicks their spells/GP's in a better spot. Btw, in a well balanced game there should not be any "mega-units" to get in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 C&C RA2: YR used to be my favourite game for a while. But IMO it should be more fun than W3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 I'm going to be ignoring the whole 'relative merits/utter failures of WC3 and other RTS games' argument, because it's not really relevant to what I'm trying to say. So... yeah. Vostok- yeah, I think tech trees would work a lot better, considering that it is a highly technological SW race setting up a highly technological base, rather than rock-smashing villagers slowly building up to a grand steel-smashing civilisation. I still think it should progress the way I suggested before, though. This would still work with a tech tree system. But there still could be a tech level element.... ie, there is a tech tree for tech level 1, but you must get to tech level 2 to reach the next couple of tiers of the tech tree, and to reach better units and technologies. Arthur- I guess I basically agree with what you said. *Fade out RoN* Simwiz- (in response to your response to Arthur) 1) Eras? Ouch. Even more un-SW. 2) He wasn't talking about GB, I think he was talking about the large amounts of levels and upgrading in RoN. 3) But, unfortunately, that is what it IS like in such RTS games as GB, AoE I and II, etc, and that's what we're trying to avoid. In fact, it's like that in any defined tech level system, and if it's not like that (as you say it is in RoN) then it must incorporate a tech tree as well. So, what's the point of having tech levels if there's a tech tree AND absolutely no significant differences between the 'eras'? 4) You don't need to 'supplement' your tech tree IF it's actually a significant tech tree. I'm not sure what kind of wacky mix between tech levels and tech tree RoN has, but it seems like a pretty bad one. 5) I can think of one reason the Blizzard games don't have tech levels! It's because they realized it would be pretty stupid to have tech levels in a fast-paced, futuristic, intense game like StarCraft, as well as WarCraft! I suppose you're going to launch into a discourse about the difference between 'strategy' and 'tactics'. Well, whatever they are, the Blizzard games seem to excel at both of them. There's still the elements of base-building, army structure, and the like, but there's also a healthy focus on the primary element of the rtS genre- combat! And also, I'll be disappointed if the so-called age of 'MYTHOLOGY' (mythology often including grand lightning-slinging magic-dueling battles between gods and their minions) doesn't include reasonably powerful magical heroes and astounding god powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 I think it's simwiz2 or who ever that is I find ur comments amusing WC3 does not have obvious tech lvls becoz it's designed for ppl who does not know strategy the second half of the statement is....relatively true but i don't think the first part make any sense obvious tech lvls, what does that have to do with strategy games' depth? less obvious tech lvls make more sense that's what i am trying to say i dun think the removal of tech lvls will have any negative impact on the depth of the strategy game i've seen alot of other Real-Time and rounb-based strategy games without tech lvls eras/tech lvls/ages, that's microsoft's idea i don't think we HAVE to use it... C&C/RA doesn't have tech lvls Wc3 doesn't have tech lvls even that crappy game Enemy Nations doesn't have tech lvls all u gotta do is research enuff technology to get what u want... i'd prefer a giant tech tree so ppl can come up with different combination of units availible like some ppl who choose to put research time into air units may not have ultimate/dreadful ground units that's kind of an AoM idea (different gods)....happens in Enemy Nations too (hahaha getting sick of it?) tech lvls kinda limit the variation.... that's why i suggest we have as little as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 I never said anything about primitive Wookiees advancing to conquer other galaxies. I just meant 5 tech level, 4 of which are the regular GB tech levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted November 9, 2002 Share Posted November 9, 2002 I don't think an absence of tech-level-equivalents has got anything to much to do with strategy. As CorranSec said above, those games had less research because it suited the style of play they wanted. They wanted fast paced action, which is what they got. It would also not make much sense if everytime you started a new mission you were back in a low tech level again. Also, I wouldn't be so opposed to Tech-Levels if they weren't obvious translations from the ages in AoK. There is no reason why the appearance of your buildings would change everytime you got better technology. Some sort of sort of tech level research would be fine as long as it doesn't visibly change your army, it just opens new branches of research and units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 9, 2002 Share Posted November 9, 2002 Yeah, I like the buildings changing and such too. We could just work that in with the tech tree/tech level combo I pointed out above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joesdomain Posted November 9, 2002 Share Posted November 9, 2002 Rebels: B-wings V-wings E-wings Rebel Snowtroopers Endor Troopers Empire: Imperial Lamda Class shuttle Tie Advanced Imperial Snowtroopers Imperial Navy Troopers Imperial Officers Trade Federation: Trade Federation Battleships etc. Confederacy: Ability to produce certain Federation units like- Droideka's, Droid Troopers Republic: Republic Assualt Ships etc. Just to name a few! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted November 9, 2002 Share Posted November 9, 2002 the point i am trying to make is... looking at renaissance and middle ages for example u don't gather enuff resource to upgrade to another epoch it doesn't make any sense that's why i prefer a bigger tech tree which includes multi-unique unit combinations like they sort-of-have in AoM but i think AoM's unique unit combination is not enuff i've seen better ones, can't remember which game tho... anyayz.... it's ok to have tech lvls but we shouldn't make the game be based entirely on tech lvls... cauz it just...kinda limits the possible variations we can have with the units and technologies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted November 9, 2002 Share Posted November 9, 2002 Yeah, Arthur, I totally agree with you on that one. The tech levels will be there, but not at the core of the game, like they are in GB. Dear gods, joe. I thought we'd settled this, many times, but I'll say it again. PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT YOURSELF! We've heard it all before, and told you why it's bad, before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.