Kryllith Posted October 5, 2002 Share Posted October 5, 2002 Originally posted by Sithmaster_821 When you think about it, a ball shooting pterydactital would be good against air, and it never would engage in space warfare. So why is it a fighter? Because it made sense. And the gunship was good vs air. Why do you want to fix something that isnt broken? Because the Gunship did something the X-wing, TIE-fighter, Droid fighter, Naboo fighter, etc. didn't do, dropped off any picked up troops. Of course, I could toss in another idea to mix things up a bit, which would also make it unique (among air units anyway). Since the Gunship is primarily a low altitude craft, we could let any units its carrying survive if the unit is destroyed (provided it's not destroyed over water/space/trees or any other place said units wouldn't normally be able to go. After all, if Amidala could survive a fall out of the ship in torn clothes, than surely a Jedi or armour trooper would be able to (remember, this assumes they're low flying). Now would I really want this for it? *shrugs* probably not, though I might consider it given certain circumstance, for example the idea that a gunship in SWGB II would have hovering ability while other fighters would have to keep moving. Perhaps the units would only survive if the ship were hovering instead of speeding along. Could depend on the unit too. Maybe troopers and jedis would survive, but workers and medics wouldn't... It was said in one of those pre-CC Garry Gaber interviews about the upcoming expansion. I think it was also mentioned in gamespots preview but im not a member so i cant check. The interview is not in the archives, but it was discussed in thatrebels/republic thread, epsecially the whole awing thing. Since both you and i posted in that thread, i dont hink i need to go and retrieve it. Cool, thanks. I'll see if I can find it. I've been meaning to look at the old stuff anyway (especially the videos). Kryllith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 5, 2002 Author Share Posted October 5, 2002 sithmaster - you just proved our point. You say that the other UU's in the game are poor vs air, well so is the gunship! It didnt shoot down any aircraft, and at least one was shot down. jedi3112 - and exactly where is this shuttle? It doesnt really matter anyway, since a shuttle is very different to an assault helicopter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi3112 Posted October 5, 2002 Share Posted October 5, 2002 X-Wing alliance has armed shuttles. Anyway it's an example of the fact that the armed transport is NOT unique wich windu keeps saying. Indeed it's different from an assault helicopter, that's what could create more differences between the civs, 1 could be very fast, 1 heavily armed, 1 could carry more troops etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 5, 2002 Share Posted October 5, 2002 Ah. Madrix, it was a veiled insult. Clearly far too veiled. I was reminding myself not to insult you about your bad rugby players. So I was insulting you. I'm never going to explain myself again..................... About the Assault Transport, go to the "Ideas for SW:GB 2" thread! I've explained it in great detail there. Edit: Uh, I just noticed the entire 9th page of this thread, so I'm going to respond now. Gunship discussion can be here or there. It really should be here because we're still talking about the gunship being in SW:GB CC. The SW:GB 2 thread is currently quite sane, apart from occasional outbursts. Well, they're not quite insanity, but bad ideas. I know there are armed shuttles. The fact is that a full generic unit class, "Armed Shuttle," would not fit into the current game, and would do much better in SW:GB 2. Must go... be back later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 6, 2002 Share Posted October 6, 2002 Because the Gunship did something the X-wing, TIE-fighter, Droid fighter, Naboo fighter, etc. didn't do, dropped off any picked up troops. The gunship's capacity was quite neligible. Remember SWGB and all other RTS's are representitive. Instead of 100 troops attacking 100 troops, you have 10 attacking hundreds. Instead of armies of 100, you have armies of 1000. The troopers in the gunship=about a third of a unit. So as opposed to using fractional units, LA took the easy and sensible and gameplay>realism approach. sithmaster - you just proved our point. You say that the other UU's in the game are poor vs air, well so is the gunship! It didnt shoot down any aircraft, and at least one was shot down. And the gunship was good vs air Windu do you need an English review? Was=yes Was not=no. And I said that js, as, and ac werent good vs air because they arent reaslisticly and it makes the least bit of sense to add aa gameplay-wise. The Awing, which just so happens to be a unique unit, is good vs air. The status of unique unit is not granted because something is good or bad vs air. The status of unique unit is granted, especially for a second uu, is granted for gameplay reasons. Is the republic unpopular? Do they have a bad air force that desparetely needs revamping? Do their transports die too easily? Is the republic totally unable to land their troops in enemy territory? Does the republic need a unit that is so pointless, all it does is sit their on its button, totally neglected by those who have half a brain? Is this game so horribly scarred canonwise by having the gunship as a fighter? If you answered yes to any of the above questions, windu, then you have sunk to a new low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryllith Posted October 6, 2002 Share Posted October 6, 2002 Originally posted by Sithmaster_821 The gunship's capacity was quite neligible. Remember SWGB and all other RTS's are representitive. Instead of 100 troops attacking 100 troops, you have 10 attacking hundreds. Instead of armies of 100, you have armies of 1000. The troopers in the gunship=about a third of a unit. So as opposed to using fractional units, LA took the easy and sensible and gameplay>realism approach. Certainly it's fractional, so we make it carry 2 instead of 10. But if that's not enough, as you and other members of the opposition are fond of saying, gameplay>realism. So the amount of units the gunship can carry doesn't to have equal a fractional 1/3 of a unit since gameplay is the concern, not the realism of how many units the gunship can carry compared to how many units would be in the entire war, or could be carried by a regular transport. Is the republic unpopular? Do they have a bad air force that desparetely needs revamping? Do their transports die too easily? Is the republic totally unable to land their troops in enemy territory? Does the republic need a unit that is so pointless, all it does is sit their on its button, totally neglected by those who have half a brain? Is this game so horribly scarred canonwise by having the gunship as a fighter? I'm not interest in making the gunship to make the republic better than other civs; I'm interested in the gunship for making the republic different. I'd want the overall strength of the civilization to stay the same while an aspect of how the civ plays changes. Kryllith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 6, 2002 Author Share Posted October 6, 2002 sithmaster - i would appreciate it if you didnt add false quotes in the future. I would also like to point out that this discussion is about the possiblity of adding the Gunship as a Republic UU in a possible SW:GB2, not SW:GB or CC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 6, 2002 Share Posted October 6, 2002 I'm not interest in making the gunship to make the republic better than other civs; I'm interested in the gunship for making the republic different.[i/] I'd want the overall strength of the civilization to stay the same while an aspect of how the civ plays changes. Krillith- Ok. At least you don't want to overpower the republic but anyway. I agree that it might work in swgb 2 or another sw RTS. Althought it would be better to give everyone an armed transport if in swgb2 they use generic units. The only way to make this work is for LA to use a unique set of units.Otherwise it will give the republic a **** of an advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 6, 2002 Share Posted October 6, 2002 Certainly it's fractional, so we make it carry 2 instead of 10. But if that's not enough, as you and other members of the opposition are fond of saying, gameplay>realism. So the amount of units the gunship can carry doesn't to have equal a fractional 1/3 of a unit since gameplay is the concern, not the realism of how many units the gunship can carry compared to how many units would be in the entire war, or could be carried by a regular transport. Gameplay over realism also states that you should fix something that isnt broken:) I'm not interest in making the gunship to make the republic better than other civs; I'm interested in the gunship for making the republic different. I'd want the overall strength of the civilization to stay the same while an aspect of how the civ plays changes. The only way to give a perfectly balnced civ a new unit witout affecting its strength is to make the unit so worthless no one would build it. The gunship that you were proposing would either give the republic an advantage or it would fit in the worthless pile as you continously nerf its abilities. Thats the problem with going realism>gameplay. Youll come to a point where you have to mke the choice do i make one civ/unit too strong or do i not make it at all? Thats why its best to find problems with gameplay to fix, not inequalities between the game and the movies. And those questions where directed to windu, who is trying to make one cive superior to all so that he can win any game. sithmaster - i would appreciate it if you didnt add false quotes in the future What are you babbling about his time Windu? Anything you see in the quote box has been taken from the forums. Im way too lazy to type long posts AND long quotes. I would also like to point out that this discussion is about the possiblity of adding the Gunship as a Republic UU in a possible SW:GB2, not SW:GB or CC. Taken from question at the top of the poll Which would you prefer for the Republic Gunship in SW:GB? If the discussion was about SWGB2, then why is the poll about SWGB? Very intresting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted October 6, 2002 Share Posted October 6, 2002 Originally posted by Darth Windu sithmaster - i would appreciate it if you didnt add false quotes in the future. LoL - you say that whenever you are embarrassed about something stupid you have said and want it reburied, don't you? Like when you made the not-so-bright comment about the slow nonstealth gunship being a recon asset and I quoted it, you denied ever saying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted October 6, 2002 Share Posted October 6, 2002 I just read though Sith's post and he is right. Windu, it is pointless to deny your pining for a gunship in the current game. This thread is replete with examples of you arguing that it should be added in a patch, x-pack, etc; these could easily be cited if you continue to uselessly deny it. If you have a stupid idea and want to change it or back down, then you should just say so, rather than making a fool of yourself attempting to deny ever supporting the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 7, 2002 Author Share Posted October 7, 2002 simwiz - how many times do we have to go over the same thing? I said the Gunship COULD be used as a recon asset, not that it would be. Also, yes the poll was originally for SW:GB. After the deabtes about it, i dropped the call for the gunship UU in SW:GB and instead began calling for it in a possible SW:GB2. As this thread was already up and dedicated to the gunship, i saw no need to create a new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted October 7, 2002 Share Posted October 7, 2002 CorranSec: I thought that it was an insult - i just wasn't sure exactly what you were trying to insult. Although Oz are the current World Champs - never forget that S.A. have aslo won the WC in '95. The talent coming out of S.A. Rugby this year is definately going to challenge Oz for that title next year - but we will have to wait and see... By the way, thanks for the EU reading material - i'm hoping it will expand my SWGB 2 ideas... As for the rest of the posts on this thread - no comment (seems like another flame war starting up) Oh btw, i'm tired of this topic already - couldn't someone please start something NEW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryllith Posted October 7, 2002 Share Posted October 7, 2002 Originally posted by Sithmaster_821 Gameplay over realism also states that you should fix something that isnt broken:) I'm pretty sure you meant "shouldn't" . But since GB II isn't currently made it would be neither broken or fixed. Assuming we're talking about making the Gunship a UU for the current GB (or even giving the present Gunship fighters the ability to carry troops), then yeah, I'd have to agree. I'd still be interested in seeing how it would play in the current GB, but I couldn't give an opinion as to whether or not I really wanted to keep it until I actually had a chance to try it out. The only way to give a perfectly balnced civ a new unit witout affecting its strength is to make the unit so worthless no one would build it. The gunship that you were proposing would either give the republic an advantage or it would fit in the worthless pile as you continously nerf its abilities. Thats the problem with going realism>gameplay. Youll come to a point where you have to mke the choice do i make one civ/unit too strong or do i not make it at all? Thats why its best to find problems with gameplay to fix, not inequalities between the game and the movies. And those questions where directed to windu, who is trying to make one cive superior to all so that he can win any game. Again, this is going back to the original GW. Since none of the civs for GB II exist (despite my wishes) then the fact that they're balanced is a bit moot. I've no problem with the Gunship giving an advantage in one of it's capabilities, provided disadvantages serve to balance it out. Seeing as we can't actually playtest it, it's bit hard to say whether or not a specific unit will throw something out of wack (least after tweeking it a bit). Personally, I feel that it may be possible to add it to the first game and keep it balanced provided a few modifications are made, such as those suggested for the current Republic transport. Would I want them? I couldn't say without trying it out. If II had it from the outset though, then I'm pretty sure I'd be favorably inclined towards it. Kryllith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted October 7, 2002 Share Posted October 7, 2002 Originally posted by Darth Windu simwiz - how many times do we have to go over the same thing? I said the Gunship COULD be used as a recon asset, not that it would be. I will not bore everyone else repeating the entire argument that occured on the other thread but here's the summary: "It could possibly be used for recon" is NOT the same as "It could be used as a recon asset." The former simply states that the unit has a line of sight. The latter states that the gunship could be good at recon, which has been proven untrue many times. It is ovbious that you have long ago given up winning many of your foolish arguments, but rather than admit that you weren't thinking clearly then, you deny you ever said them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 I'm pretty sure you meant "shouldn't" Oopsies:o Again, this is going back to the original GW. Since none of the civs for GB II exist (despite my wishes) then the fact that they're balanced is a bit moot. I've no problem with the Gunship giving an advantage in one of it's capabilities, provided disadvantages serve to balance it out. Seeing as we can't actually playtest it, it's bit hard to say whether or not a specific unit will throw something out of wack (least after tweeking it a bit). Personally, I feel that it may be possible to add it to the first game and keep it balanced provided a few modifications are made, such as those suggested for the current Republic transport. Would I want them? I couldn't say without trying it out. If II had it from the outset though, then I'm pretty sure I'd be favorably inclined towards it. Hypothetically speaking, if LA was ever to make a gunship that was both balanced and useful (flying pigs and a frozen-over hell included), it would still be impossible to balance the civ. A balanced unit doesnt make a balanced civ. And with everything precariously balanced on top of each other, the whole game could come toppling down. Also, yes the poll was originally for SW:GB. After the deabtes about it, i dropped the call for the gunship UU in SW:GB and instead began calling for it in a possible SW:GB2. As this thread was already up and dedicated to the gunship, i saw no need to create a new thread. In other words, your trying to use SWGB2 as a fire exit now that everyone hates you for your ludicrius support of the gunship and your other halfbrained ideas. Im not buying it. And you still havent backed up your accusation of false quoting. This situation seems very familiar, i just cant put my finger on it. Something to do with someone not appretiating "slander" on the boards. Simwiz, do you have any recollection of this? Im drawing a blank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 8, 2002 Author Share Posted October 8, 2002 Originally posted by simwiz2 "It could possibly be used for recon" is NOT the same as "It could be used as a recon asset." Are you an idiot? Those remarks mean EXACTLY the same thing, just re-worded. As for the SW:GB2 issue, i said long ago that i had accepted the Gunship UU wouldn't be done in SW:GB, and hence the discussion turned to the Gunship UU being in the possible SW:GB2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 As much as i hate this thread and couldn't give a **** about whether or not it could be used as a recon unit - i have to give you my two cents worth: Windu - the fact that you used the wording "recon asset" implies that it is particularly good at recon therfore making it an asset - otherwise you should have said recon unit, not asset then it would still be debatable at least. The two statements are not the same one is a very weak statement almost suggesting that you are guessing that it could be used for recon, the last statement refers to the recon ability as an asset - meaning you are very sure that this is what it is best at. That's it folks - if you ever need another literacy interpreter again - just give me a shout... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 8, 2002 Author Share Posted October 8, 2002 A recon asset is something which is used for recon. Therefore, the statement of "It could be used as a recon asset" means exactly the same thing as "It could possible be used for recon". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 Windu, you are not too great with words. You were wrong about having a majority, and you are wrong now. I advise dropping it before you seem like even more of a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Just because he failed ESL and speaks barely enough english to pass of as the real thing, doesnt mean you can pick on him. And you could blame the ignorance on genetics:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 wtf is ESL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 English as a Second Language, a which is basically some classes that help people who come to the US learn english. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Windu, why don't you participate in the other Threads as much? It would be nice to see your opinions on the Question Thread, where we discuss actual gameplay and not units so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 Because he has no opinions on gameplay:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.