Arthur2 Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 argh that's off topic!!!! what i was gonna say is....let's use unique unit sets so we get more diversity, and at the same time maintain the weaknesses and strength balance so we don't get stuff like STarcraft, which all units basically have the same attack and no attack bonuses....(the only advantage is range and damage) i think AoK did well regarding strength/weakness balances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 the AT-AT costs 200 food 350 nova. you got it all wrong. Besides, it's weird how you can make 250 AT-ATs and only 250 troopers. AoK did well but that's basically because all the civs were almost exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 22, 2002 Author Share Posted October 22, 2002 AoK had this problem, and it was the biggest problem in the game. Very strong paladins took up the same pop as their counter, pikemen, but the pikemen where theoretically supposed to beat the paladins through numbers. Although that looks good on paper, as you approached pop limit, massed paladins could easily toast anything, as could other strong but expensive units en masse, like scorpions, elephants, and mamelukes. That is why AoM has stronger units costing more pop and more resources (it isnt that much, a standard foot soldier costs 2 pop and most calvary cost 3). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 Also most of the counter units in AoM aren't "trash units" like pikemen were in AoK. Even TC's upgrade of halberdier couldn't salvage the horrible paladin situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Originally posted by simwiz2 Also most of the counter units in AoM aren't "trash units" like pikemen were in AoK. Even TC's upgrade of halberdier couldn't salvage the horrible paladin situation. pop limit, dun think it matters that much 250 shold be the number of units, not number of pop i think it's quite reasonable if u make expensive units cost more oh the ATAT part, i was thinking about air cruiser..... well i think ATAT should cost somewhere around 600 food 600 nova that's reasonable... it's the cost , not the units.... the problem in AOK is that, the only expensive units are the siege weapons others, such as the paladins...are way too cheap if u want to go with the population restriction idea i'd say heavy units take up 2 pop or 3 max (like air cruisers take up 2 each) no more than that...cauz it's gonna ruin the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 it makes more sense if each unit = 1 pop... cauz there realy isn't any restrictions (in movies) u just need the resource to build ur troops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 As others have said, a multiple pop-cost for large units would be more "realistic" like the movies. It would force people to take a variety of units rather than fill up their pop with AT-ATs. You can get 50 troopers or 5 AT-ATs, rather than 50 troopers or 50 AT-ATs. As you get well into Tech 4, resource costs don't become as restrictive because you've got a healthy economy. So population limits are necessary. I think AoM's multiple-pop cost is an indication of this, as the Age of Whatevers series has developed and improved itself over time. In AoK it wasn't so much of an issue, but once you involve monsterous machines that would require multiple people to run, like Terran Battlecruisers, Protoss Carriers and Imperial AT-ATs, it becomes important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 I strongly believe that having a greater pop requirement for larger machines/units/whatever would work well in terms of gameplay and realism. It's pretty obvious that in reality, it takes a lot more people to run an AT-AT than it does to have a single trooper. So it's plainly ridiculous to have them both worth a single unit of population. In terms of gameplay, it would put a bit of a lid on mass-big-unit tactics, and make people actually consider that you can't have as many Air Cruisers as you can troopers. As Vostok said, resources become less of a worry in the later tech levels, and population also isn't a concern. Seeing as upping the costs is rather silly, an increase in pop requirements is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 LOL 250 indicates the number of units, not population!!! and 600 food and nova crystals, I wonder how many of them u can build in T4 even if u got more than 60,000 of all resources, the max num that u can build is 100 of them... AoX series balanced their units through the unit cost u know how strong siege onagers are, and how much they cost??? i dun think ATAT will break the balance becoz u can always use counter units like jedi or mech destroyer and they are a lot cheaper and rebel's speeder is just nasty against mechs last time i tried to destroy someone's base with 20 ATATs, and i was defeated with 20 speeders and how much does a speeder cost? like...1/5 of an ATAT? u see? it doesn't matter 250 can be the unit number, not population dun talk about SC units it's crap balance, the big units are made way too weak i don't think a battle cruiser can even kill 8 marines whereas the ATAT can strike down a small group of troopers with one shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 plus, SC ruined the true nature of the units becoz one battle cuiser can't fight 8 marines ppl still mass marine in post game period, that's just... in AoK, ppl do mass paladin sometimes but think about the cost of one paladin and one pikeman i can't remember who suggested 50 troopers to 1 ATAT that's way too much with the pop limit we have now, u can only build 5 ATATs, or 250 troopers who will win? 250 troopers, of course. if u want to be realistic, argh....X-wing will be counted as one pop , cauz only one person is needed to operate, C'mon!!! gimme a break man the mech units are meant to be stronger ask urself in the battle of hoth, do u see storm trooper cruising on the battlefield? hell NO, they only use troopers to wipe out the remaining rebels plus, gernade troopers are very very very good against mechs, 5 gernades kills an ATAT... AOK is not the only game that each unit takes one pop hmm, i think EE is the same they stress the weaknesses/strengths balance of the units can u still mass? hell yeah but ur units won't live long if ppl use counter units, and counter units are always cheaper let 250 be the number of units u can have, not how much population. ATAT and trooper both take up one slot...but think about the cost, think about the number, think about the creation speed...who has the advantage? unless u guys are lame players who wait till post-T4 for a enormous battle, it's strategically dumb to do that. otherwise u won't get mass ATAT , regularly it requires too much resources, and ppl will continue to harrass u, and u might even encounter a large scale siege (most likely) if u don't attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 I think what people are allowed to do is more important than what people should do. Sure, people shouldn't use masses of powerful units, but because they are allowed to they do. The way I see it, population limit is equivalent to upkeep (even though they added different upkeep in WarCraftIII). If you have a population limit of 200, you have the ability to keep an army of 200 well maintained and battle ready. So mega units require more population as they require more upkeep. I'm not denying the 1 pop per unit idea worked well for AoK. This is because the more powerful units would still only realistically take up one population spot. A Paladin is still just one guy, even if he costs more to train. And as for using anti-unit-units - you try putting 20 AT-ATs up against 20 mech destroyers. I guarantee the AT-ATs (or any other heavy assault mech for that matter) will win. Speeders are a bit different, because although AT-ATs can shoot air, they aren't good at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 well consider the build cost of mech destroyers and assault mechs it's not one to one ratio. and besides, u can use air speeder and gernade troopers gernade troopers are cheap, but then 5 gernades can take out one assault mech.... i think the one pop idea balanced well in this version of SWGB i prefer not to change if u change it to the starcraft/warcraft type pop structure, it's gonna mess up the game completely. look at EE, it's got air , ground and sea units, but it's still balanced , and the most important thing is that all units take up only one pop limit, well max 2. no more than that.. is the game balanced? YEAH... do ppl still use weak units like troopers, YEAH... the problem is not the population it's about the way u guys play if ppl mass, then u counter counter units are way cheaper. i don't see a problem with that. unless u guys all wait till post-T4, otherwise there shouldn't be a problem with the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 another important thing to point out: in GB, the building and research costs are on a great scale, in contrast with starcraft. if u make the pop structure something similar to the SC/W3 structure, argh...ppl will stop using heavy weapons and mechs cause they are impossibly outnumbered by the troopers just like ppl use ghetto crap like mass marines, mass hydras against a whole fleet of carriers... doesn't make any sense. some of u guys are talking about how many ppl needed to operate hmmm, think about it nowadays, are u bounded by how many freaking ships u have? or how many soldiers u have? are u going to have excess of soldiers? or excess of ships? it's so obvious... there is nothing wrong with butchering troopers with ATAT cause troopers are meant to be butchered... that is why these days (talking about NOWADAYS) u use aircrafts and tanks and other crap to bomb the crap out of afghanistan. the only time u use infantry is specific missions like "capture osama bin laden" or "take over the land!!!" u dun just send ur crap over and try to attack ppl wilth soldiers... the good thing about SWGB is that it makes a lot more sense than SC, and i prefer not to ruin the essence of this game... trust me, keep the one population limit per unit idea (or at most 2 population limit per strong units)... most good strategies games use that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Umm..... hey, are we talking about GB 2 or GB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by CorranSec Umm..... hey, are we talking about GB 2 or GB? of course GB2, the next starwars strategy game of lucasarts' that's why i suggest we keep the good stuff well u can only raise the build cost of heavy units or raise its population limit but not both i would go with the first one... the cost does matter if u make an ATAT cost 600 food/600 nova and if u want to be more ruthless...600 carbon...i don't think u can mass ATAT anymore it's too expensive and besides, it's reasonable for heavy units to take over the battlefield ...it's T4!!!! time for troopers to get out, troopers don't usually fight in these battles, well maybe they do , but they cannot be the primary forces...they die too fast and there are other units that counters ATAT quite well (gernade troopers, mech destroyers, fighters, bombers, speeders) we dun have to worry about it there is always a way to avoid mass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 25, 2002 Author Share Posted October 25, 2002 as long as there is a pop limit (and there will be) stronger units will always prevail if everything is based on cost alone. You re so worried about people massing trash units, imagine what people will do if stronger units cost 3x as much as they do now. The game will be a trooper war. The only time the whole pop thing comes in effect is when you near pop limit, and that is when, in the current build, stronger units become stronger than other units merely because counter units usually rely on numbers to beat stronger units. And at pop, they usually have insufficient numbers to fend off an attack by another player who is also at pop limit. Making units cost more pop solves this problem. Dont argue, it has been proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 Sith is right. It has been proven that augmenting the pop requirement for a unit balance it out. If you think that troopers are useless witch they are NOT. Mounties can still be effective. Repeaters can deal lots of damage on a enemy base. AA troopers can still counter aircrafts. Grenade Troopers are still VERY useful. You should look at a perfect example of useless troopers. In C&C Tiberian Sun or any other C&C(I dunno only played Tiberian Sun) the light infantry gets totally useless in late games which is a bummer. Think about it, in WWII you still needed to use infantry to help around your armored vehicles. Most if not all RTS(the ones about a futuristic war) use strategies and tactics from WWII. If you play with today's tactics, it will be boring. Staying on your ass shoothing nukes from one base to another... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 GB 2. OK. It's all clear now. Sith is completely right. Without expanding pop requirements, stronger units will dominate OR troopers will be overused. Neither are viable options. Luke's dad- Who's side are you on? Your last post was a little confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 hmm well a lot of games are based on one-pop-per-unit i dun think there is anything wrong with that do u see anything wrong with the current GB? not neccesarily if u guys want to balance the pop limit thing i suppose that'd be alright just don't overdo this make the strong units take up like 2 or 3 not 8 like in starcraft, that's too much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 the reason why i think one-pop idea is good is becoz a lot of games, aok, ee, and swgb.. they all use one-pop idea speaking of aok the siege onager and wipe out mass infantry, mass archers and sometimes even mass paladin if u have enuff of them but then it's just impossible since it's so expensive btw, i don't agree on counter units wins by outnumbering cause that way they won't be henced "counter units" geonosian warriers can defeat troopers in one shot, that's what counter unit is like... 1 jedi can defeat many assault mechs, also royal crusader....it's strong against mech units (the reference book is wrong) jedi virus mechs, is that out numbering? NO.... speeder vs. mechs, is that out numbering? NO.... the cost will balance.. ppl won't build troopers cause they are way too weak for mechs one shot of assault mech kills 7 troopers, darn... but ppl won't build all mechs cauz they'll run out of resource soon if u guys still want to do the pop balance thing hmmm well u can make mechs cost 2 pop per unit but then no more than that so ppl won't go "ah...i can outnumber the mechs with troopers since the numbers of mechs i can build is so limited" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 Yeah I think probably 4 pop per Assault Mech. Most things should only take one population, but I'd say something like the following: Troops of all types: 1 pop Air units of all types: 1 pop heavy weapons: 2 pop? not sure. Scout/Strike Mech: 1 pop Mech Destroyer: 2 pop (and make it a bit better) Assault Mech: 4 pop Ships: 1 pop except cruiser 2 pop What do others think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 Originally posted by Admiral Vostok Yeah I think probably 4 pop per Assault Mech. Most things should only take one population, but I'd say something like the following: Troops of all types: 1 pop Air units of all types: 1 pop heavy weapons: 2 pop? not sure. Scout/Strike Mech: 1 pop Mech Destroyer: 2 pop (and make it a bit better) Assault Mech: 4 pop Ships: 1 pop except cruiser 2 pop What do others think? hmmm i suppose that would work.... see, now the two ideas are compromised.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 Originally posted by CorranSec Luke's dad- Who's side are you on? Your last post was a little confusing. I'm not so sure myself..... what I meant was that I like using troopers in tech 4 and so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad I'm not so sure myself..... what I meant was that I like using troopers in tech 4 and so. yeah there is nothing wrong with that i just don't want troopers to be like marines in starcraft shooting down carriers cauz troopers are meant to be weaker (relatively..) than the mechs they are stiill useful under some circumstances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 27, 2002 Share Posted October 27, 2002 People should be able to outnumber anything with troopers. That's what it's all about. That's the whole point! Troopers are the things that are (or should be) used in huge masses, but the point is that they can all be cut down by a couple of Assault Mechs. Now, if the Assault Mechs are equal to the Troopers in pop cost, it's clear to see what has the advantage. Hordes of smaller units are supposed to overwhelm single big units, but the horde should cost more than the single big unit (duh). Of course, as costs become more and more unsubstantial (relatively), it's clear that the way to achieve balance is by increasing pop costs. Has anybody had the thought that GB 2 might not have Assault Mechs, Mech Destroyers and the like, at least not in that sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.