Community idea's for a possible SW:GB 2

[Darth Windu]

Come on people, let us know what you like and dislike about Galactic Battlegrounds, and what you want, and dont want, to see in Galactic Battlegrounds 2!

[CorranSec]

Whoa. I completely forgot about this thread.

Anyway...

I think weather was a great idea. No matter where you go, what races live there, whatever, it's always broad daylight!

While we're on this topic, I propose that the editor (and therefore all the campaigns) terrain is run like StarCraft... there were several tilesets to choose from, and they all looked completely different- there were desert worlds, 'badlands' worlds, jungle worlds, TWILIGHT worlds... This sort of represents weather. But a weather generating engine would be good. Has anyone played Battle Realms? That had rain, and when it rained everything went darker and overcast... WarCraft 3 has a day/night cycle... but none of these fantastic and realistic ideas are present in SW:GB.

They must be in SW:GB 2. I guess this is part of the 'new engine' debate, and as such, I believe that these must be incorporated into the new engine (or take an engine that already uses them).

 

Nilaar, and anyone else who believes that the game is 'ground based'- I personally believe that the new game should have it more evened out in every field. The majority of battles in the movies were in space or atmosphere. The majority of full-scale battles in EU (i said full-scale because everyone knows that Jedi go around killing evil groundside) are airborne. That's what the SW universe is based around, an as such I believe that it should be greatly empowered in SW:GB 2.

 

I don't think anything (apart from fortressses and turrets, Kryllith said) should be able to see over walls. Artillery and the like should have to use their 'attack ground' function to damage suspected enemy buildings and units inside the walls.

 

I think assault mechs should have an 'attack ground' function. There are some things that you just couldn't be bothered getting artillery for, and in literal terms assault mechs could do it. eg. blast a hole through a forest, fire just in front of a gate to kill incoming/outgoing units, etc.

 

The cannon does have a role, and it is exceptionally useful when conducting a long-range siege on an enemy base. They can take out enemy structures, especially walls and turrets, from long range without any risk to themselves- and if the enemy sends out troops etc. to destroy your cannon, YOUR troops can engage in combat without having to worry about coming too close to the turret.

I'm not sure if that made sense... but it's my strategy.

[General Nilaar]

I agree that space battles have played a more important part in the movies and books (well at least the classic time period stuff) than the ground based battles. And I would LOVE to see a space based RTS game. Something kinda like homeworld I guess. But it still doesn't belong in a ground based RTS game like Galactic BattleGrounds. What we have now is about all we really need I think. Except the fighters should be able to swoop around and strafe enemy targets instead of hovering.

 

A single game can't do it all. If you try to do everything you'll end up doing nothing very well. You have to find the focus of your game and concentrate on that. For the Galactic Battlegrounds series that is ground combat. If they release a Galactic BattleFleet game then that game's focus should be on capital ships. You just can't mix the two scales very well. I'd love to see either or both of those games. I just don't want to see them together that all;)

[Kryllith]

Originally posted by CorranSec

I don't think anything (apart from fortressses and turrets, Kryllith said) should be able to see over walls. Artillery and the like should have to use their 'attack ground' function to damage suspected enemy buildings and units inside the walls.

I think there should be a scout upgrade that allows them to see over walls using advanced technology. Of course, they'd have to drive near the walls for it to work. Doing so would allow them full view of whatever is on the other side (buildings, units, terrain, resources). When the scout pulled back, only "permanent" structures would remain viewable. This would allow artillery to fire upon buildings or grounds attack resources if they want to, but prevent them from targeting units and preventing them from knowing whether the building/resource has been destroyed or not unless the scout is still next to the wall (in which case it would probably be killed quickly). Of course, as it is, people can simply use fighters for the same purpose... so I'd probably give scouts a few more changes..

 

Kryllith

[DK_Viceroy]

SWGB 2 should be Similar to Imperium galactica 2 alliances but differenet like it should be galaxy wide with each civ having a starter planet and a small fleet in orbit of that planet .{i do admit for some civs they would have to be made up for a space fleet}

Each civ having about 20 Unique Units NO pop limit but pop would grow depending on morale and what their cities are like say if about 200 ppl had houses and none for the rest pop would grow slowly. For ships and mechs and things u wouldn't be able to build them unless you had a certain amount of unused ppl to crew them as well as resources.Their should be something like 100 planets 20 civs it would rock any one who has played imperium galactica 2 or any game similar would definetly agree with me. It would take the game into 3D in too ways. it would make the gameplay more free going o fighting is not confined to one battlefiled per game and it would be in 3D graphics who thinks it would be a good idea. Also it wouldn't have a scenario editor it would have a galaxy creator which would allow you to create the galaxy and say whether a planet was rich in resoources or otherwise and would have premade scenarios like senate.

[jcb231]

PLEASE Viceroy.....use some freakin' punctuation and paragraphs or something....

Jeez you're hard to understand.

[simwiz2]

I think a few improvements could be taken from other games. Farms never running out improves gameplay drastically. No more coming back later and finding 10 idle villagers and the queue run out. Also, no hard pop limit, instead having it based on controlling certian strategic locations. Turtling would be harder, and there would be importance to controlling more of the map.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Hey guys,

 

Im new here so please don't flame or insult me unless what I say is really stupid.

 

I' ve read this thread from the start and I think some of the changes would only complicate things. Althought some are really good. Remember that this is an RTS and not everybody are experts. If the game is too complicated or has need for a lot of micro management, the rookie players will just get bored. For example: If anybody ever has played Alpha Centauri, you'll have noticed that it attracted great reviews... from the hardcore gamers. I played it for half an hour and got tired because it was too complicated. And by the way, they should add a comsat station like in Star Craft. It could help you see over the walls when you're using artillery just like when you use Terran Siege Tanks in Star Craft.

[KoL ShadowJedi]

I like the concept of 3D, that would make it cool but remember it would take time to make a completely new engine, i would also like to see bigger maps. You might have guessed that im a scenario player and to be honest when i make a senate map the biggest map you make is tiny, cap ships are cool but it would ruin the concept of battlegrounds, maybe if the cap ships were in the toybox..... then i would agree. I hate the way the AT-AT is weak, I thought that in the films AT-AT's were the Strongest ground unit ever built (as 5 of them took out echo station) and in the game its a job for 2 AT-AT's to take out a turret. Hmmmmmm that bit needs work. night/day enviroments are cool, if it could go through day to night on 1 game that would also be cool, Tiberian Sun wasnt a great hit but it had a good concept with search lights etc. I dont agree with having more than 10 - 12 civs, perhaps in the toybox they could have more species.

 

Thats all i can think of right now so laters.

[lukeiamyourdad]

To KoL Shadow Jedi

 

I totally agree with you about the AT-AT. In the movie, a big bunch of Snow speeder have a really hard time to get rid of 5 AT-ATs and they only destroyed one! (The one that luke destroyed does not count in my post because he wasn't in his Snow Speeder) In the game, a few snow speeder can get rid of a lot of AT-AT. I think they have some time to develop a new engine although I am not for it. If they ever make a SWGB2 it will out around Ep 3 and that is not before 2005. Tiberian sun was a good game anyway. It had some good stuff.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Remember, it has to be b-a-l-a-n-c-e-d.

 

Airspeeders degraded mean a serios disadvantage for Rebels vs Empire missions/ scenarios/ matches.

[eizo131]

I think that SWGB2 shoulkd still be on one planet, have a wheather generator, night/day, no cap ships unless their are 2 planets, more civis, infinite farms and auto-reaserch.

[Darth Windu]

viceroy - i really dont think thats a good idea. GB is a ground based game, i think if there is going to be a game based on what you're suggesting, they should make it a new one.

 

With artillery, i think there should be two sorts, strategic and tactical, sorta like the balista and catapult in AoE. The tactical artillery would be quick, cheap with a short range, while the strategic would be slow, expesnsive, powerful, and have a long range with a large area of effect, and also replace the canon.

[simwiz2]

Originally posted by Darth Windu

With artillery, i think there should be two sorts, strategic and tactical, sorta like the balista and catapult in AoE. The tactical artillery would be quick, cheap with a short range, while the strategic would be slow, expesnsive, powerful, and have a long range with a large area of effect, and also replace the canon.

 

Strategic should not get area of effect. It was rediculously easy to mow down massive armies with onagers in AoK. Unless they had cavalry they would rarely reach the onagers to counter them. And in GB, it is rediculously easy to kill an army of almost anything with a few aircruisers.

[lukeiamyourdad]

It depends on what kind of rts you're playing. In GB, you have aircraft that can counter both the artillery and the air cruisers so they have at least a big weakness you can easily take advantage of.

[KoL ShadowJedi]

I have to say that AC's are fairly easy to destroy if you have the right force for E.G. 3 AC's attacking ur base they have 5 AA troopers wiv em and 4 aircraft (preferably fast fighters) u send in (if you have around that number) 7 fast fighters 2 troopers and 2 AA.............. then u get a defense again etc...

 

 

You see the fast fighters would get their air cruisers while ur AA is getting their fast fighters and your troopers are getting rid of their AA..

 

Im not sure if it works cos i havnt had a chance to try it.

[simwiz2]

I know they are easy to destroy. The problem is, by the time you have destroyed them, your army is lying in a shattered heap upon the ground. Yes, your opponent lost 1800 nova but your army is gone. Giving that kind of potential to much tougher, less expensive ground units would be a problem. The only way to give them area attack would be to give them low attack, so that they damage alot, but don't destroy any unless you have several. And there are certain situations where AC's can deliver carnage and be completely safe.

[Kryllith]

Originally posted by KoL ShadowJedi

I have to say that AC's are fairly easy to destroy if you have the right force for E.G. 3 AC's attacking ur base they have 5 AA troopers wiv em and 4 aircraft (preferably fast fighters) u send in (if you have around that number) 7 fast fighters 2 troopers and 2 AA.............. then u get a defense again etc...

 

 

You see the fast fighters would get their air cruisers while ur AA is getting their fast fighters and your troopers are getting rid of their AA..

 

Im not sure if it works cos i havnt had a chance to try it.

If I were in this situations with the air crusiers, I'd level the enemy ground force of 4 units with my air cruiser (one or 2 should do the trick). While the fighters are attacking my aircruisers, my fighters and AA would be attacking their fighters. Given the odds, I'd stand a fairly good chance to destroying the opponent without losing a unit...

 

Kryllith

[CorranSec]

OK. I went on holidays for a week, so obviously I've missed a lot. Please accept my most humble apologies. (Last sentence said the way Kub'ar Mub'at would say it... )

 

ShadowJedi, Kryllith, simwiz, the fact is that Air Cruisers were designed to be easily countered by fighters and AA while still being able to hand out hefty amounts of damage to ground troops.

Fighters can intercept them en-route and knock them out of the sky, while AA's can do the same thing. AA turrets and the like can even outrange them, so they are balanced and should remain the same.

 

Luke's dad, ShadowJedi, the At-At thing is a matter of

Gameplay -->> realism. The fact is that many things you see in the movies will not work the same way in the game- if they did, the game balance would be thrown out the window. This would overpower At-At's, and even if it was done to all assault mechs, turrets and airspeeders would become rather useless in this area.

Airspeeders were designed to wreak absolute havoc on mechs, representing their skill against At-At's in the Hoth battle. Their tow cables etc. could not be shown, so they just increased their laser power. Makes sense to me.

 

Luke's dad- Whoa, I wasn't suggesting anything amazingly complicated aka Alpha Centauri style. Swooping and twisting fighters, etc. is just graphics. Freighters and frigates etc. would just be another thing built at the Airbase, or some such. And so on, and so forth. What exactly has been proposed that would excessively complicate the game?

 

Viceroy, plus whoever wants a purely space based/purely ground based game, I believe this would make the game boring and narrow. The whole point of an SW game is to portray battles and the like occuring in the SW universe- and these are not just air OR ground battles, but a mix of both. If you want to look at the movies, every SW movie released (with the exception of ep 4) has had a large ground battle AND a space battle. Doesn't this show that a mix is necessary to accurately show the SW universe? And isn't it obvious that a broader scope would bring in a broader consumer base?

I've played IG2, and though it was fun, it is clearly one thing and one thing only- a space RTS. Now this is ok for a made- up world like the IG world, but not appropriate for the SW world, as I said before.

[simwiz2]

Originally posted by CorranSec

ShadowJedi, Kryllith, simwiz, the fact is that Air Cruisers were designed to be easily countered by fighters and AA while still being able to hand out hefty amounts of damage to ground troops.

Fighters can intercept them en-route and knock them out of the sky, while AA's can do the same thing. AA turrets and the like can even outrange them, so they are balanced and should remain the same.

 

Yes, it is mostly balanced. I am just saying that if that kind of destructive potential (a "large" area of effect with long range) was given to a more difficult-to-destroy ground unit, it would be unbalanced. Also I am assuming strategic artillery would not cost 600 nova, so it could not have that ind of destruction. Btw, AA turrets do not outrange AC's unless you attack them directly. But why attack them directly when you have a several-tile blast radius?

 

However, there are rare times in a game where AC's can become near invincible. A few forward AA turrets and your aircruisers are quite safe unless they decide to kamikazee their entire air force - not recommended. AAM's, troopers, AA troopers - suddenly the second their army steps in front of their AA turrets its life expectancy plummets. No other unit can do this, and it can become a stalemate fast because you need troopers/strikes to stop grenadiers from making short work of your cannons that are removing their forward base. *Air Cruiser(s) Fires* Entire covering army gone. Grenadiers come and destroy cannons 1 by 1, or a few more AC's demolish the whole group. Spreading your units out only delays the inevitable and buys your units a few seconds. In late T4, with homing sensors and adv AA, If you have a few covering AA turrets, a few AC's can kill almost any attack instantly, and then it's just a matter of mopping up the few units that escape. Someone could kamikazee 40 fighters into the AA and kill two, if they are lucky. And if you have a few covering fighters as well as AA, forget it. The ONLY unit that can take down AA + fighter covered AC's cost effectively is Airspeeders. They take 3 AA hits and for some reason their attack vs AC's isn't half bad. Starfighters too, until your opponent learns about sentry posts. AAM's work to an exent, but it's a micro-intensive process of making a "bait" group and making the "revenge" group, making sure the other person only sees the bait, letting it be destroyed, and persuing with the revenge ones after the AC shot is already used. And grenadiers will make quick work of the AAM's.

 

They are not really overpowered, but sometimes I wonder if creating stalemates was what LA had in mind.

[jcb231]

Originally posted by Darth Windu

viceroy - i really dont think thats a good idea. GB is a ground based game, i think if there is going to be a game based on what you're suggesting, they should make it a new one.

 

With artillery, i think there should be two sorts, strategic and tactical, sorta like the balista and catapult in AoE. The tactical artillery would be quick, cheap with a short range, while the strategic would be slow, expesnsive, powerful, and have a long range with a large area of effect, and also replace the canon.

 

Don't we sort of have this already with the heavy weapons factory artillery as the tactical and the cannons as the strategic?

[lukeiamyourdad]

Corran, I said that it was complicated a little bit for rookie players and my reference to alpha centauri was just a exemple. Maybe you read me wrong or it is me that did not explained myself clearly enough so sorry...

 

but on another thing about the air cruisers and the possibility of having new units in SWGB 2 (if they ever make one).

 

I have been thinking about the possibility of some kind of fighter/bomber that fires a rocket or torpedo against it's enemy.

It would have bomber speed and attack bonuses against turrets and air cruisers but against everything else it would just suck( to balance it out). Every civs could get one. It does not get shields however but has about 50 hp(or lower). Unlike bombers, it would have a better range and Im proposing this because when your playing a civ that depends only or mostly on their air force(like the Naboo on non-water maps) it gets frustrating to lose a big bunch of bombers to destroy a few Adv AA turrets since it needs to close in on the turret first( 1 is not a very useful range). I figure out that we would need a aircraft that could deal big damage on the turrets without the need of closing so close. We already have the air cruiser but i don't think it's worth the cost against turrets (Adv AA can outrange ACs and they get killed in less than 5-6 shots which is not enough time for the aircruiser to destroy that turret). Remember what I said it sucks against everything except the turrets and air cruisers( it means it would do 1 damage to everything else and would be weak against all aircraft and AA stuff. oh and it would have a long reload rate, as long as the jedi starfighter's one)

 

Please tell me what you think about that. If everybody things it's stupid than I'll just back out...unlike some people(not pointing out anybody:mad: )

[lukeiamyourdad]

By the way I forgot,

Corran I was talking to everyone when i said the stuff about Alpha Centauri and the rest of it not exactly you anyway...sorry:(

[simwiz2]

Originally posted by jcb231

 

Don't we sort of have this already with the heavy weapons factory artillery as the tactical and the cannons as the strategic?

 

Yes. And that is how strategic should be - no area of effect, somewhat inaccurate, possibly a deploy time.

[KoL ShadowJedi]

hey, if LA read the forums and stuff they shud take our thoughts into consideration after all we do buy the games - if there good