Arthur2 Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 gosh , wtf get this straight what is micromanagement? do u babysit ur units one by one like u did in warcraft 3? NO...u command ur troops in groups and i am tired of saying this, IT'S NOT A TAKE OVER of CONTROL U STILL COMMAND UR UNITS IT'S JUST THAT THE HERO WILL HELP UR UNITS IF U DIDn'T give STRICT ORDERS, and if u give strict orders to destroy a specific target, the hero will get ur units into best attack arrangements , and yes u can always overwrite the heroes' arrangements, and if u don't like it, too bad, don't build a hero, it's not like u need to get one... gosh... it's always nice to have tactical assistants strategy is more important than tactics why? becoz the units are way too vulnerable in this game don't waste ur time trying to babysit them do more strategic planning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 After reading this rather heated debate, i must agree with Arthur: SWGB involves a holistic strategic approach in order to win the game - i NEVER micro-manage each troop individually - that would really be a waste of time! Yes there are tactics and a certain degree of micro-management, but the enjoyment of any true RTS comes out of MANAGING your war - making decisions on when to attack when to hold back and defend, when to get more resources, etc. ,etc. The best example of combining strategy and tactics would be chess. If you compare a RTS game to a game of chess then you clearly see the differences between tactics and strategy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 You never micro indiviual units, but any good SWGB player would tell you that microing is intergral in this game. Microing workers, microing unit queues, microing GROUPS of units during battles, all of it is what separates good players from those who arent so good. Granted it isnt _Craft where microing is essential, but if you play on higher levels, good microing is a good skill to have. Yes there are tactics and a certain degree of micro-management, but the enjoyment of any true RTS comes out of MANAGING your war - making decisions on when to attack when to hold back and defend, when to get more resources, etc. ,etc. The best example of combining strategy and tactics would be chess. If you compare a RTS game to a game of chess then you clearly see the differences between tactics and strategy... Exactly. Thats why having a unit do it for you would be absurdly unfun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 didn't i just say that the heroes won't do it for u? u still do the same crap u order groups of units but then the heroes will do stuff like move the wounded ones to the back and stuff like that when u right click and order ur troops to gather at a point ur troops won't stop until they arrive at the destination even if they are under attack and the hero takes care of that IF ur troops encounter some sort of attack the hero wiilll stop some of ur units and fight the enemy. I never said that the hero will do everything for u if u don't give any orders, the hero WILL NOT send ur troops to battle it will only do defensive arrangements (and if u are under attack, the hero will alert nearby idle units to help) get that straight k? i don't want to repeat what i just said it's not gonna change the way u play , that's for sure think of it this way, ur control the group and the hero will control individual units, like moving wounded ones back...so ur troops will last longer... the hero does the ghetto stuff that ppl do in warcraft 3, again, moving wounded units to the back and order medics to heal the wounded ones... if u want to swamp urself coz u like war3 micromanagement so much then u can always press delete and get rid of the hero or...simply don't build one!! i guess i was talking about the same (micromanagement) i just think that the phrase has been associated with W3 so much, that i am starting to dislike the phrase (it only tells me some ghetto tactics like moving heroes up and down. like u do in war3.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 Medics heal automatically, hero or no hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 Nobody takes care of one unit at a time. What I am saying is I enjoy micromanaging a battle. It's fun to feel in total control of everything on a battlefield, that's all. If you don't want to micromanage your battles than sit back and let your units do all the job, but of course it's gonna get boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 to sithmaster: no duh but then they only heal nearby units the hero will make them move around and heal the more important units... luke's dad: yeah that's point i am trying to make the heroes won't take complete control, ...u stil have to mange ur troops, but then the hero will do one-unit-at-a-time arrangements and if u want to swamp urself by doing everything urself, sure....don't build a hero, and u can enjoy doing one-at-a-time arrangements...there is nothing wrong w/ that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 27, 2002 Share Posted October 27, 2002 Um... correct me if I'm wrong, but heroes are actually good, right? As in, they are better than normal units at killing things, and are thus useful in other ways than just dealing with micromanagement? Because if people didn't use heroes because they wanted to micromanage, they'd end up denying themselves a good unit, just because of their playing style. And that is, obviously, not an acceptable outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 27, 2002 Share Posted October 27, 2002 Originally posted by CorranSec Um... correct me if I'm wrong, but heroes are actually good, right? As in, they are better than normal units at killing things, and are thus useful in other ways than just dealing with micromanagement? Because if people didn't use heroes because they wanted to micromanage, they'd end up denying themselves a good unit, just because of their playing style. And that is, obviously, not an acceptable outcome. yeap u are right the heroes' attack is about 3X a normal infatry unit's and it's got a lot of hit points, like couple thousand... well most ppl in EE use heroes to help them do the details cauz heroes cruise usually run all over the place without attacking the enemy (unless u tell the hero to)... yeah if they don't like heroes, just don't build them the heroes in this game is kinda different from the ones in War3... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted October 27, 2002 Share Posted October 27, 2002 Why have 2 sets of unit AI, a "not-so-dumb" and a "really dumb", and require a hero that may have to be micromanaged to access the "not-so-dumb" when you could just have the better one be used all the time? If I tell my mounties to attack a turret, I want them to stand at that turret and shoot fire at it while lasers sear their skin and not budge until that turret is a pile of rubble. I don't want a hero deciding that the troopers underneath a garrisoned fortress are a more "threatening" target and have the mounties get their dumb selves killed. Equally infuriating is how units come out of their creation places on aggressive, I have to babysit the creation places in my forward base to make sure my new mountie doesn't decide that it can take down the nearby shielded fortress single-handed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 27, 2002 Share Posted October 27, 2002 Simwiz has a point. It's stupid to say that your units need heroes to give them commands. I think a small trooper and a hero both know that an AT-AT is a bigger threat than another trooper. We should make all the units already smart rather than making a hero just so your units can be smart. If you know how to handled a blaster, you are smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Well i don't know where this "Hero being able to micromanage troops" came from? I have never seen this in a RTS game...? I like managing the troops / units myself, just not at a one-by-one level - and i certainly wouldn't want a Hero managing my troops unless it was intellegent... CorranSec - Hero's should be better than normal units, but in WC3 i don't see the Hero's as a serious advantage - they die too easily for my liking and that's what p!ssed me off about WC3... CKCSABER - i also still play Total Annihilation - great game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Of course heroes would be better than normal units. We could take the scen edit units like Han or Leïa and put them as ''troopers'' heroes. They would cost slightly more than a normal hero. We could also have Jedi heroes, like Luke, Obi-Wan. They would cost more than a Jedi Master. You can only build them once. If you build a Luke Skywalker and he gets killed, you won't be able to build another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Luke's idea is by far the best concerning heros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Thank you:p . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 I only said that because it resembled the one i posted earlier and then was assimilated into yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Mhmm. The heroes idea sounds OK... but I preferred the levelling of the WC3 heroes. Nevertheless, an "uber jedi" or "uber trooper" or something which could only be built once would be good. How good are these heroes going to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 GOSH NOT THAT if u order ur mounties to attack the turrets the heroes won't do crap about it heroes will only decide which is more threatening when ur troops are idling...get it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by Arthur2 GOSH NOT THAT if u order ur mounties to attack the turrets the heroes won't do crap about it heroes will only decide which is more threatening when ur troops are idling...get it?? Okay, so I have a group of mounties sitting in my forward base and I'm waiting for an upgrade before I do a massive attack with many units... and then the hero makes the mounties decide that some troopers under a garrisoned fortress are threatening and go get their dumb selves killed. A few times of that and I would never play the game again... losing entire armies because of a stupid hero trying to give orders for you is just too infuriating. It's frustrating enough watching that newly created mountie running towards the fortress... it's even more frustrating if your are queing farms or making workers and you don't see it in time to do something... imagine how frustrating it would be if an entire army of units did that... large groups of Jedi deciding a bigger group of bounties is "threatening"; strikes deciding a shielded fortress is "threatening"; AAM's deciding grenadiers are "threatening"... What a mess the game would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Simwiz has a point. If they do that then nobody will ever build heroes. Corran- No they won't be that useful but it's just for the fun of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 You are the general directing all troop movement, not some insignifigant unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Luke's dad- If they're not going to be that useful, then I'm totally against them. Sure, I like things that are fun, but actually introducing a new unit which is pretty useless in battle I am totally against. What I would prefer is something like this- The "Uber" units would be a lot better like the normal unit, but would function basically the same, with the exception of possibly a special power or two. Here are a couple of examples. Note that in SW:GB 2, there might not be Troop Centers, Mech Factories, Mech Destroyers, or anything of the sort. Also, unique unit sets could complicate this idea quite a lot. At the Troop Center, you can build an "Uber Laser Trooper" (with a better name of course). It would have greater range than the normal trooper, and greater damage, but have the firing range of a Heavy Trooper, not a Repeater trooper. Its 'special ability' is Blaster mount, which fixes it in place, gives it the firing range of a Repeater Trooper, and reduces its damage. At the Mech Factory, you can build an Uber Mech Destroyer. It would be faster than the normal Mech Destroyer, have greater damge, and better armour (that's basically the case with all the uber units). Its special ability would be "Shock Blast" or some such- basically, it gives its normal attack splash damage. This would require a kind of "mana" usage. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 simwiz....NO not that it's a tactical hero , not a strategic hero it will not order ur troops to Attack ANYWAYZ it will only do so if ur troops are idling and someone comes over the attack u like when u right click on the destination, ur troops won't attack until they reach there if u are under attack, u'll probably lose half of ur troops , or maybe the entire chunk the hero will stop stuff like that it will stop ur troops and fight back , and ur troops will return on route after the conflict is resolved.. get it? another example is that if u place ur troops somewhere just chilling and someone comes over and attack ur troops ur hero will split the idling troops and order them to fight back it's an assistant, not a computer player it helps u take care of the little details UNLESS u are under attack + ur troops are idling and u didn't give any orders then the hero won't do anything even if there is a hero ur troops will behave the way they use to be it's just that they got smarter u'll see, check EE out... i won't propose something that's as crappy as a computer player that plays for u... CorranSec- can we not? that's just like starcraft u can add stuff to the hero like make it stronger but don't add spells and mana stuff cauz ppl will start relying on the hero like they do in war3 maybe hero units (like...battle units?) can have multiple turrets cause heroes...most likely will stay on a battleship, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Arthur- I'm not suggesting anything quite like War3, where heroes are absolutely neccessary to get anywhere in the game. The heroes will be good, sure, but not that good. They're also not as readily available as the War3 heroes, and because they can't respawn, players might use them rather cautiously. Anyway, how do spells and mana make people rely upon the heroes? Jedi have 'spells' and mana but they're not relied upon. I like the StarCraft and War3 heroes, so I'd rather it if they're a lot more like them, but this is a compromise. What kind of a hero is it if it doesn't even have a special power? And how stupid would it be if that special power could be used over...... and over...... and over again with no limit? Especially if it's a really good power, like the Mech Destroyer's Shock Blast? What if there was an option for the hero to 'deal with the details,' as you put it, so people like yourself could let the hero do his job, while people like me could turn the option off and micromanage? I think that would work well. Notice I could've said "can we not do that? That's too much like EE" but I didn't, cos I want to reach a compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur2 Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 no have nothing against the Hero thing... cauz heroes are meant to command the army, they are the LEADERS but then i don't think giving the heroes power is exactly the way to do it, cause ppl will start relying on heroes since they have spells... (like blizzard, nova and star fall in war3) maybe we can do something like that big ship in episode 6 (hmm corr something ship that alkbar rides) it's like a ...frigate, if u know what i mean a unit that's stronger than normal units...and maybe provide more tactical options. Spells...hmmm.. i still don't think it's a good idea.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.