Sithmaster_821 Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Why do workers have an attack? So they can defend themselves from scouts/animals before the person has a true army. I was assuming that the person using the armed transports has an army and maybe an air force, but maybe im just assuming too much:) The fighters would do what they always do, perform precision strikes on ground/air forces and provide protection for other forces. Heck, I use fighters for protecting my mechs even though they are readily capable of protecting themselves. And I would still be using the transports for transporting. If I don't have them actively sending troops to a battle field, I keep them close by to pull out wounded units. I was refering to Corran saying that the assualt transport can do everything a fighter can, but worse. Not talking about current game. Dems the breaks for having sucky air... luckily they typically have better AA ground units to eliminate the fighter support. As for arming transports, see my previous paragraph. The assault transport would be designed for offensive ground combat, true, but the armed would probably be fairly weak vs. everything so it really wouldn't make much of a defence if it attacked ground forces. The guns would be intended for defense, not for wading a heavy transport into combat. You can use workers to attack mechs if you really wanted to, but most people wouldn't... Bad air civs still have to have equal strength transports just so that they all can do drops and play on space maps. And why give something attack if its not intended to use it? Corran, did you not understand what i was saying? I was refering to the fact that Greg Street said that realism>gameplay ideas should be taken out and shot. Thus the shooting range because there is a plethora of realism>gameply ideas. Also, (im not quoting because i kinda hit the submit reply button halfway through my post:o, so if i misquote you, bear with me) i still dont see why you want a downgraded fighter tht can transport only troopers as the only transport t3. T3 is when you get mechs and heavies, and i would so rather have a non attacking transportthat can carry essentail units, over one that can be easily replicated by a fighter. And how is a "downgraded fighter" available on t3 going to be balanced if it can beat fighters and fast fighters? It seems like your taking away a good chuck of our current transport and replacing it reduntantly with fighter parts. Is a bomber trasnport in the workers so that we can have yet another wasted unit? I know you guys are smart, just wish you would think sometimes. Now Windu... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 25, 2002 Author Share Posted October 25, 2002 As i have said all along, the whole idea with the Gunship would be that the Republic recieved - Gunship UU = can carry 2 infantry-only units, good anti-ground attack but very weak anti-air - Repoublic transport modified to only carry 3 units instead of the standard 5 And that was it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Sith, I was joking. I understood entirely what you meant. I meant that you were the one getting in the way of my jolly good gameplay idea, which is jolly good, and you are not, so we shoot you. *shoots Sith* Come on, everyone, join in! Sith, Kryllith, EVERYONE- I severely doubt that SWGB 2 will even have tech levels, and I doubt there will be as few as there are currently. These are the times I believe such transports will become available: Let's assume the game has eight "tech levels." Assault Transports will be avaliable around tech 3, before heavy mechs and other heavy weapons have been developed. This way, there can be transport of everything available at the time. Armed Transports will become available around tech 6, at which time the player will most definitely have heavy units, and can now use them to their fullest extent. Assuming the game has a 'tier' system like War3. The Assault Transport will be available several tiers after medium-level troopers can be built, around the time where strike mechs become available. By the time you can transport your troopers, they should be pretty good troopers, backed up by small mechs. The Armed Transport will be kinda the same- Available a couple of tiers after Mech Destroyers, and around the time Assault Mechs and all heavy weaponry is available, but not fully upgraded. Of course, I doubt there will be Assault Mechs, Mech Destroyers, and so on in SWGB 2, so replace them with whatever you can come up with. I didn't say that the Assault Transport is like a downgraded fighter. It is like a downgraded fighter in one way- in the way it kills unprotected ground units. It is not like a fighter in that it excels in air-to-air. It is not like a fighter in any other ways, other than the fact it can do what fighters do (shoot at air units, scout, etc.), but then there's the fact that Bombers and, dammit, Air Cruisers can do what Fighters do, just that they're not as good at it. Anything can do what anything does, but they're not as good at it. I've already explained why the transports are being given attack, and they're not exactly like workers. Ie, if a worker is intercepted by a bunch of troopers on its way back to base, it is going to die. Period. Workers can kill other workers (maybe) and animals. That is all. In the SW:GB 2 thread I have a rather large list of ships. The transports are just part of them. But luckily, there are no bomber transports.... but you've given me an idea.... Eh, no, I'm not that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 It'll function much like a downpowered fighter I didn't say that the Assault Transport is like a downgraded fighter I think somebody needs to recheck their post;) This arguement reminds me of a similar one going on at the "civs for SWGB2" thread. What it boils down to is that if you clog the gae with too many similar units (or civs) many will be redundant and unused. Splitting a currently perfectly balanced unit into two units purely for aethestic purposes is a quite blatant step in the "clog" direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 I think we are jumping to conclusion too quickly. SWGB 2 might be a totally different game with a totally different type of gameplay where an armed transport, an assault transport and a fighter can live happily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 Sith, I'll say it again. It functions like a downpowered fighter in this regard- it can prey on unprotected ground targets. The reason I said "like a downpowered fighter" was because it's doing something that a Fighter is good at, but it's just not as good. I must stress, though, that this is only one aspect of the Assault Transport's stats and purpose. Aesthetic purposes? Has everything everybody has said just flown straight over your head? I'll say it again. We're arming the transports to make the game more canon and more fun. We're arming it for gameplay. We're arming it for realism. Aesthetics plays a part, but the rest is more important. Kapeesh? (whatever that actually means........) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 27, 2002 Share Posted October 27, 2002 Kapeesh? (whatever that actually means........) Actually, it is capisce and it's italian for understood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Thanks for the clarification, luke's dad. I was actually kinda joking. Joking. Ha. Ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Anyway, it will probably be just for realism, nothing more. In term of gameplay, it doesn't change a lot. They will still be really weak against Fighters and also against AA but will deal a lot of damage to AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Lucasarts said (this time i know where: the SWGB strat book:)) that they were constntly struggling to find equilibrium between air and land. They said that such balance is achieved when air serves mainly as a support force for ground units, not vice versa. And i was talking mainly about the whole two transport thing. Splitting a unit that really doesnt need to be split (i dont know about you, but i didnt find the transports to powerful) is prime realism>gameplay no matter how the game plays. Its like splitting mounties into one thts good vs buildings and one thats good vs mechs/heavies. Too much specification of units and narrowing of their scope=negative impact on gameplay and +RAM being used. Especially if the fighter is added into the equation. more canon and more fun More canon seldom equals more fun. See the Canon vs Noncanon thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 That's what the transport would be good for: air support! Since fighters aren't good enough against AA mobiles, Assault transports could be. I know that you can use bombers but they have little range and they are too slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Fighters nor any air should be good vs AA. That defeats the whole prupose of counter units and defies the whole land/air balance i talked about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 Well the Republic Gunships seemed to rip through the Confederate Hail Droids pretty easily. Perhaps the Gunship should simply be made a UU, with similar stats to the bomber but having the ability to carry 2 infantry, and then replace the Republic bomber in conjunction with my other idea about UU's replacing GU's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by Darth Windu Perhaps the Gunship should simply be made a UU, with similar stats to the bomber but having the ability to carry 2 infantry This sounds a bit familiar. Oh yeah, it was the idea that I REPEATEDLY argued against on your third Gunship thread, and I used good gameplay reasons, while you replied with your realism lamentations. There is no reason whatsoever to include an underpowered (or overpowered) bomber-transport hybrid. And why take out the regular bomber? There is no gameplay reason to do this. Let me guess - this Gunship bomber is going to have better attack, more speed, more hp, some AA - in short, anything you can think of to give the republic an unfair advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Sith: they would be as good as bombers not better. and certainly not as good as air cruisers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Sith: they would be as good as bombers not better. and certainly not as good as air cruisers! I think you mean simwiz;) Well the Republic Gunships seemed to rip through the Confederate Hail Droids pretty easily. And ATATs killed just about everything, and 12 X-wings could take on 100 TIEs.. The problem with directly making the game from the movie is something called balance, which you have repetatively tried to undermine with your more than half dozen threads. Balance=good. Super units=bad. Even you can understnd that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Sith: If no air units were good against AA, and (in the interests of your vaunted land-air balance) no land units were good against AG (Air-to-Ground), then we couldn't have battles! Alternatively, if all but a single ground unit was bad against air, and all but a single air unit was bad against ground, you'd just get battles between those two units, and then air-to-air and ground-to-ground battles. Now, when we're talking about air-to-ground balance; I think Starcraft and Warcraft had that. It worked, and, lo and behold, nearly every ground unit could kill air units! And vice versa! I think that when you're talking about balance, the only way to achieve this is making air forces good against ground (as well as air) and ground forces good against air (as well as ground), rather than having uber-anti-air/ground units which absolutely dominate and require battles expanding to air+ground vs. ground+air, rather than having a balanced air vs. ground battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 30, 2002 Author Share Posted October 30, 2002 sith, sim - as i said, going along with the idea that UU's replace generic units, the gunship would be a good candidate for a number of reasons. - Gunship good vs mechs, heavy's, buildings etc - same as bomber - Has unique infantry carrying ability - It would shut me up - It would increase game realism So why shouldn't the gunship replace the Republic Bomber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Windu- several reasons. - Who even knows if there's going to be a generic bomber class in GB 2? - What's wrong with the Assault and Armed Transports? They're actually dedicated to transporting with ground support ability. I'm not sure what the focus of your Bomber Transport would be, but either way (transporting or bombing) it'd be rather useless. And if you had the BT, would you still include the Assault and Armed Transports? Or would it just be a speciality of the Republic bomber that it could carry a couple of troopers? - I don't really care about shutting you up. Sorry. - It would actually detract from game realism. Now, your earlier ideas about the Republic Gunship being a kind of fighter/transport mix, they actually reflected the Gunship's abilities in the movies. But is the canon gunship: slow, not good against fighters, good against buildings which it sits around and drops bombs on, and easily destroyed by AA? And is the bomber transport: fast, able to transport reasonable amounts of troops, good at decimating large amounts of troops, armed with rockets which can take out many buildings and mechs, and easily able to evade AA? I don't like the idea of a bomber being able to transport troops. A fighter; maybe, but a bomber; definitely not. It's a gunship, not a bomber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 30, 2002 Author Share Posted October 30, 2002 This idea assumes that there will be generic unit sets. The reason i suggested using the gunship to replace the republic bomber is because the bomber seems to have the same sort of abilities that the gunship has, although im sure in SW:GB2 bombing runs and such would be better, better still if all bombers carried rockets instead of bombs. I still dont like the generic assault transport / armed transport idea. I dont mind the transports having self-defence guns, but i think we should keep the Gunship as a UU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Windu- I'm pretty sure I've explained this several times before, but I'll say it again. The Armed/Assault Transport idea is not an example of using 'generic' unit sets. It is an outline of what the ships will be like for each civ. The actual stats may greatly differ, and the unit sets will be unique, but the purposes will remain the same. You don't like generic Armed/Assault transports- that's fine, because they don't exist. I don't like the idea of the game being generic. Unique unit sets is the way to go. Windu- As I said before, the abilities of the gunship (as shown in the movies) greatly differ from those exhibited by the current Republic Bomber, in CC. How precisely are they the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W0RF Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 I took SIX WEEKS!!!! off from this game to play Dungeon Siege and Unreal Tournament 2003, and I come back and this is STILL GOING ON?!?!? For the love of God, close this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 If you have problems with AA, bring in your land army. If just one air unit was good vs aa, then people would be able to mass just air units and thats something LA tried to prevent. They belived in a game with varied armies, where it was necassary to have ground support for your air. Remember it isnt an air:ground ratio but an air:mech:heavy:trooper:jedi ratio that matters. AA is the only counter to air units, and allowing an air unit to be able to beat it would be disasterous. Its like having a calvary unit that can easily beat pikemen. The people could just mass clvary, because they dont have to worry about the opposing player being able to stop them with a counter unit. And if you can ever make an army of one unit class that is unstoppable in a game, then that game is poorly balanced. - Gunship good vs mechs, heavy's, buildings etc - same as bomber Gunship uses lasers, is good vs troopers and can fire at air. It has good aa. Fast and good at raiding. Sounds like a fighter to me. - Has unique infantry carrying ability My bombers cant do that:) - It would shut me up Hitting you repetitively with a blunt object would have the same effect, and it would be a tenfold more enjoyable. - It would increase game realism It would decrease gameplay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 On June 9th, 2002, Windu first proposed his gunship idea. 5 months, 4 threads, 17 pages, and 553 posts later, we are in the exact same spot, except an admission 2 pages ago that SWGB has no room for a gunship UU. Doesnt that give you the impression that this idea is beyond dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted October 31, 2002 Author Share Posted October 31, 2002 The Gunship is not good anti-air, it didnt shoot down a single object. How do you know it's good at raiding? It was used as an assault transport helicopter gunship in a large ground battle. The Gunship also uses rockets, and is very good vs mechs, as we see in Episode 2. It would increase gameplay and realism. You dont have the ability to hit me with a blunt object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.