A Republic Gunship we can all live with!

[Darth Windu]

Personally i think there should only be 3 types of air units-

1. Fighter - good vs air units, reasonable vs infantry units

2. Bombers - good vs large and/or stationary units, buildings

3. Air Transports

 

I would also say that for bombers, combine the current bomber and air cruiser. Give the bomber missiles, instead of bombs with a shorter range than that of the aircruiser, but less powerful than the current bomber. Also make it so that they have a finite number of weapons.

[CorranSec]

Windu- No, no, and no, but I'll go into that later.

 

Sith-

1) If I'd played Supremacy, I would have been screaming for a better, balanced, rounded-out game, as I am now. It doesn't HAVE to be a ground battle, and honestly, what intelligent gamer can say they don't want varied, balanced, and large forces?

2) And a mixed force of fighters/medium/cap ships. The air forces will have their individual parts, just like the ground.

3) Fact? More like hope for one of the things that could make the game a truly SW and fantastic game.

4) How does adding more air units so that air will equal ground, and having individual unit classes within 'air,' DETRACT from gameplay? And the Rebels and Naboo's air forces were the crucial players and winners of each war shown in the movies.

The Rebels- air units fought in the Battle of Yavin and destroyed the 1st Death Star, ground units were horribly beated at the Battle of Hoth and only saved from destruction by air units, a large air force won the day, the war, and the salvation of the free peoples of the galaxy in the Battle of Endor.

The Naboo- their skilled air pilots enabled the Queen's escape from the Trade Fed blockade. Their ground force (and only an elite section of it at that) did play a part in the liberation of Theed, but without air units going in and taking out the Droid Control Ship, the Naboo ground forces- and the Gungans- would have all perished.

 

Simwiz-

1) Air will be made up of several classes, eg. Fighter/Medium/Capital ships! It will only be a united force of these classes that will win the day.

2) Once again. An air force made solely up of one class (eg. just fighters) will lose against a diverse ground force, but it is the combination of the air classes that will provide a balanced battle!

3) Such as more canon and EU classes. You're saying these would lead to rock-paper-scissors when you don't even know what they are!

Anyway, if you want to take out all the strategy and layers of gameplay, RTS games are rock-paper-scissors at their cores- it's even present in the current ground forces; you send in assault mechs, I'll counter with mech destroyers, I'll send in jedi to kill them, my bounty hunters will take your jedi out, my air cruiser will just kill everything, my fighters will come kill your air cruiser, MY fighters will come kill your fighters, more of MY fighters will come.....

4) As I've said several times, this will be avoided by it NOT being a single unit class, rather, it will be made up of several unit classes.

I don't want air to be just 'raiders' and 'turtle busters'; as I've already pointed out, I think it will be much better if a diverse air force can be the equal of a diverse ground force.

[Sithmaster_821]

1. Rebellion was a purely space RTS with only air units. A space RTS is the proper place for the idea you posted earlier, not a ground RTS purely because you also have to make ground units too, and that would be like putting the amount of units in 2 games into one. And, i dont know about you, but i have pretty varied, balanced, and large forces in GB as it is. But since you only see the classes as ground and air, making these two equal would only detract from the variation seeing that all you can make are grounmd or air units.

2. There is a point in every RTS where so much is too much, and that goes for the people who want 20+ civs [cough]Windu[/cough] and those who want extravegant amount of units. An increase in air units, which in its own right is fundamentally detrimental, calls for a decrease in ground units, which is quite disasterous, seeing that this is a ground RTS and that the game is very balanced and, on a whole relatalbe to anyone who has seen a Star Wars movie. Replacing these familiar units with strange ones at the expense of gameplay just because someone wants there to be more air units is absurd. Go play Rebellion if you want to use air units so much. Most of the ships of which you speak rarlely interacted with ground forces.

3. Only in the eyes of the illusioned

4. How does adding more calvary units, so that there is a calvary unit that fills the same purpose as every non mounted unit, only theyre faster, and putting different classes amongst the calvary units, until you never have to use a pathetic archer, seige, or infantry again, DETRACT from gameplay? Concerning the Rebels and Naboo, imagine how they would have faired without their troopers or their jedi? Air=trooper=mech=heavy=jedi. The empire without their TIEs is just the same as the empire without its stormtroopers or its ATATs. Each is equally emblematic and each is seen equally in the movies.

[CorranSec]

Here's the key point:

You said it yourself, Sith. It's the TIE in itself that is the equal of the At-At, not the actual air force. Here's how it works:

AT-AT=Stormtrooper=Sith Knight=Dewback Trooper=TIE fighter=TIE Bomber=Lamda-class Shuttle=Star Destroyer=Imperial Trading Freighter.... and so on, and so forth.

 

1) GB is NOT a purely ground RTS with only ground units. An amazing and greatly varied game is the place for the diversity I have suggested, and I guess you don't want GB 2 to be that. A pity, really.

I have seen vaguely varied forces in GB, but the thing is that they're almost always mostly ground forces, and thus, true variety cannot be reached.

Where did you get the idea that there would only be 'ground' and 'air'? For the last time (unless I say it again), their will be individual unit classes inside 'ground' and 'air,' such as troopers, mechs, jedi, fighters, cap ships, and so on.

2) An increase in air units, which will finally do proper homage to the SW title, and make the game a damned lot better, will not at all detract from ground units. The amount of possible units in any game is greatly increasing with every passing moment (ever heard of Medieval: Total War?), and the idea I proposed can be reached without surpassing overly large amounts of units.

Did you fail to notice that in my last post, I pointed out several air units which played a large role in a ground battle? And, if this isn't enough, gameplay>realism, as you are so fond of saying. Battles involving forces of both ground and air units will be a lot more enjoyable and challenging to play that purely ground battles with a touch of air.

3) Only in the eyes of those, such as myself, who aren't impressed with a limited, unenjoyable, and un-SW focus on ground units.

4) Have you been missing out on everything I've been saying? Air will have unit classes within it. Air will be ground's equal, and will have advantages and disadvantages.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Ok......

 

Corran-I am opposed to putting to many aircrafts into the game. What will happen to non-air strong civs?

[simwiz2]

Sith I think you mean disillusioned

[Sithmaster_821]

No simwiz, disillusioned means you are awaken from your illusions and into reality. On the fact of whether illusioned is a word or not, this is a forum not English class. Ive made up plenty of words before, this is the first one you noticed (i suggest rereading the alien jedi thread).

 

1. Of course its not. Thats why there are the smaller air craft that are the ones that make the real difference in ground battles.

2. Ever heard of AoM or WC3? The trend is smaller unit sets but unique ones, even if a relatively obscure game goes the other way. And gameplay>realism means your actaully trying to help the game, not hinder the fun quality. What you aree preposing is faux realism>realism. The thing is that you create one or two air units and then make more to counter those and more to counter those and so on and so forth.

3. You seem pretty lonely.

4. A unit class should never be the equal of all its counterparts combined.

[simwiz2]

Making up words is a bad idea beause it assumes that others have learned a nonexistant language. Remember Viceroy, and how when he posted in Vicroyean no one could understand him?

 

Btw disillusioned makes perfect sense in the context used.

[Sithmaster_821]

People are supposed to understand me?

[lukeiamyourdad]

Of course...

 

but to some you probably sound like this:

 

blablablablabla,blablablablablablablablablablablabla,blablablablablablabla.blablablablablabla.blablablablablablablablabla!!!!!!!!!!

[CorranSec]

1) But there is an easy opportunity to slot in any number of other craft which can, could, have and shall make a difference in ground battles.

2) As a renowned WC3 hater, I don't think you're going to succeed with that argument. And even in AoM, there still are a great number of units. But on the other hand, ever heard of Medieval:Total War or Rise of Nations? They handle huge masses of units quite fine, and while I'm not supporting either of them, I'd just like to point out that it is possible and plausible to include reasonable numbers of both ground and air units, with a smattering of sea thrown into the mix.

3) What about the monkeys? They all support me.

And anyway, that's not what we're debating about......

4) BY ALL THE FLYING MONKEYS, SITH, you just don't seem to notice what I've been constantly saying! AIR IS NOT A UNIT CLASS. It is made up of several unit classes, none of which will be the equal of all their counterparts combined.

 

Luke's dad- In case you've missed out on what I've been saying, the objective of my plan is to make a diverse ground army the equal of a diverse air army, and thus, a player can win with either. Those civs which aren't too good at air will have other advantages (such as better ground units) which they can use to counter air.

[Darth Saul]

I remember coming here over the summer and seeing four pages of posts. It's still around and with 47 pages!?!?!? Wow, I've never seen a message board that can stay on topic that long. Congratulations!!! Now you get to go to *** ****, to meet Natalie Portman!!!

 

Darth Saul, darn it, why can't I put the state!?!? Who needs privacy anyway?

[lukeiamyourdad]

Corran- The problem with your idea is this, the civs who have great air will over-rely on air and the non great air civs will over-rely on ground which will suck.

[Sithmaster_821]

Looks to me like theres only 12 pages

[CorranSec]

Saul- actually, we're totally off-topic, but shhh! Don't tell anyone!

And it looks like 12 pages to me too. Maybe you were thinking of some OTHER thread.

 

Luke's dad- what do you consider over-reliance? They won't end up using a completely air-based army; any player would use at least a smattering of ground units.

But in terms of over-reliance: The Naboo now are considered to over-rely on air, and they get along fine. They are also strong in jedi, and thus, they also use ground forces. Get it?

And also, I doubt any civs will be good at all kinds of air units. It'll work like it does now: strengths will lie in individual classes, eg. Jedi and Fighters, Cap ships and Mechs, Medium ships and sea ships. Thus, most people will end up using a diverse army, but if the civ is good (or the player is) at air/ground, it will be possible to win with solely one.

And even if people 'over-rely' on ground, why does this suck? Bases are still primarily built on the ground (duh), and ground forces can crush a base just as easily, and probably more easily, than an air force. In terms of balance, I think it'll work like this:

Air- advantage: can travel anywhere, fast, etc. Disadvantage: not as plain old powerful.

Ground- advantage: more powerful (does more damage, etc.) disadvantage: not as free in movement, slower (on average).

[CorranSec]

Also- sith, if you don't want us to understand you, that's fine. I'll just completely ignore you, and suddenly have much less opposition.

*hint, hint, HINT!*

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by CorranSec

Luke's dad- what do you consider over-reliance? They won't end up using a completely air-based army; any player would use at least a smattering of ground units.

But in terms of over-reliance: The Naboo now are considered to over-rely on air, and they get along fine. They are also strong in jedi, and thus, they also use ground forces. Get it?

And also, I doubt any civs will be good at all kinds of air units. It'll work like it does now: strengths will lie in individual classes, eg. Jedi and Fighters, Cap ships and Mechs, Medium ships and sea ships. Thus, most people will end up using a diverse army, but if the civ is good (or the player is) at air/ground, it will be possible to win with solely one.

And even if people 'over-rely' on ground, why does this suck? Bases are still primarily built on the ground (duh), and ground forces can crush a base just as easily, and probably more easily, than an air force. In terms of balance, I think it'll work like this:

Air- advantage: can travel anywhere, fast, etc. Disadvantage: not as plain old powerful.

Ground- advantage: more powerful (does more damage, etc.) disadvantage: not as free in movement, slower (on average).

 

I guess that's a point. But anyway It would still be better if we only have small ships(correllian corvette). And they would move quite slow.

[Sithmaster_821]

But Luke has a point. What about the air weak civs? If air=ground, then no one will play the civs that are bad at most of the game.The idea works mediocre in theory for civs like the rebs, but the rebs arent the only civ out there. The gungans, trade feds, and confeds will be the least played civs in the game, where as the rebs will be played by almost everyone. And, if you divide up the air into different classes, how will you differentiate which civ gets better of one air class and not the other. It was pretty standard in the movies, if you were good in one section of air, you were good in them all. Some ideas look OK on paper and in generalities, but, once you start applying them, they fall apart.

[CorranSec]

Luke's dad- Thankyou, you've joined the light side.

I think I've said this many times before, but anyway:

The ships I've proposed won't be very large; The fighters are X-Wing sized, the medium ships are mostly around Millenium Falcon-sized, and even the capital ships won't even brush the edges of the really large ships (eg. Nebulon B, Star Destroyers, etc.) Even Correlian Corvettes might be pushing it... I'll check on their size and get back to you. Or you could check for me. Whatever.

 

Sith- No civs will only rely on sea. Even the gungans, who will probably be good at sea, will also be good at a kind of land (eg. troops or mechs, like they are currently). And sea units won't actually be terrible either; with the new submersible capabilities, they'll be sure to play a part in any attack on a coastal enemy base, and will (of course) be especially useful in island maps.

 

In terms of differentiating between fighter, medium and cap ships; Gameplay>realism. In the interests of the actual game, not all of the balance decisions have to be based on the movies, especially if the material isn't all there.

Here's what I was thinking about the civs who will be good at air:

Rebels: Fighters (based on the fact that their fighters were pretty damned good, and played crucial roles in all the movies)

Republic (if they end up being good at air, which I don't particularily want): Medium ships, seeing as that's basically all we've seen as their air force, in the form of the Gunships.

Galactic Empire: Capital ships, based on their total dominance of the galaxy due to their SD's and the like (even though the actual SD won't be in the game).

Royal Naboo: Probably fighters, based on the fact that they were all we saw, apart from the Queen's ship, which I doubt will be battling anytime soon.

Smugglers' Union: Medium ships, based on the fact that most smuggling craft are medium ships.

New Republic: Fighters or capital ships, seeing as they are the dominant force in the galaxy (and thus the ones using the biggest ships) and also their great fighters carry over from the Rebels.

Yuuzhan Vong: I'm not sure if they'll be good at air, but if they are, I'd guess fighters or cap ships; both their corralskippers and their large worldships and the like are pretty damned good.

Mon Calamari: Fighters, definitely, based on the fact that they MAKE them, and are excellent pilots of them.

And so on.

[W0RF]

For the love of God someone close this!

 

Worst. Thread. Evar.

[Darth Windu]

Originally posted by W0RF

For the love of God someone close this!

 

Worst. Thread. Evar.

 

LOL, very good WORF, ever considered english lessons?

 

With the aircraft thing, IMHO it should be that-

"Ground > Air"

 

As good as aircraft are, and as we can see in the Star Wars universe they are needed, but the only way to control a piece of land is to have a soldier on it.

 

Also, as the need to keep a large object in the air, defying gravity, is not needed, ground-based weapons can have heavier weapons and armour than aircraft.

[Sithmaster_821]

Windu, I remember not too long ago recommending the same thing to a certain forumer...

 

 

Corran, I reread post, and the words "navy" nor "sea" came up:confused:

 

And Smuggler's Union on down dont belong in any new game (read vong thread).

 

And about air weak civs, in the current game they would have a 1/5 weak, while if youre idea were implemented they would have 3/8 weak. Air weak civs are now weakened.

[W0RF]

Originally posted by Darth Windu

 

LOL, very good WORF, ever considered english lessons?

 

It was a deliberate misspelling, Windu. It's an old running gag.

 

Still, close this thread.

[simwiz2]

Windu, don't be a moron. You do not know what the most basic words mean, yet you critizize a misspelling, which could be deliberate or a typo. Neither suggests the need for English lessons, a few of us do not wish to waste time proofing posts. And as W0RF said, it was deliberate. Windu, you really are desperate to seem intelligent, you jump at the chance to critizise something, frantically typing up a post that you clearly did not think though. Though I don't honestly see why you care if the thread gets closed, as it went off topic many pages ago. I would guess that at least 50% of this entire thread is OT.

 

Btw, while on the topic of spelling errors, Windu did you ever realize that a cannon (as in the weapon in GB) is NOT spelled c-a-n-o-n?

[Darth Windu]

If there is no more community interest in this thread, it will cease to gain new posts and will thus move into irrelevance. Why should a thread that has one of the biggest number of replies on this board be closed because of one member?