Admiral Vostok Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 Would people rather lose completely non-canon units such as the cannon, pummel and air cruiser in favour of a more Star Wars-y feel? Or does the fact that they provide different strategic options merit their inclusion merely to make the game interesting? On the one hand, I think the Star Wars environment would be more evident without these units of which we find no trace of in the movies (and I'm not talking about Gungan fighters... NO civs have anything like a pummel). On the other hand, the strategies and playability are drastically different with these units. Personally, being a Star Wars purist, I think the cannon, pummel, air cruiser, sea cruiser and destroyer don't really belong. What are others' opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 Sea unit are Star Warsy. I mean, exept for air units, how does the Empire expect to wage war on, say, Mon Calamari? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 A canon only game is boring...and of course the startegies are very different but i am in favor of removing ''too forced'' units like for exemple the gungan fighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted September 22, 2002 Share Posted September 22, 2002 Somethings dont make sense, but since they have strategic benefits, keeping them or finding a more cannon approach would be your best bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 23, 2002 Author Share Posted September 23, 2002 Sea unit are Star Warsy. I mean, exept for air units, how does the Empire expect to wage war on, say, Mon Calamari? I'm not saying get rid of all Sea Units. I think a better example of their existence comes from the movies (not EU, which is what Mon Calamari is) in the fact that the Trade Federation was able to invade Otoh Gunga. My problem is that some units are just left over from AOK because of their stratiegic use. The destroyer is just the fire ship. In fact, I think even though we only see a Gungan Bongo, all civs should have submarines. Why wouldn't they? The destroyer is a different story, because it's just a fire-ship in disguise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted September 23, 2002 Share Posted September 23, 2002 More units will create more strategies. GAMEPLAY OVER REALISM!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joesdomain Posted September 24, 2002 Share Posted September 24, 2002 I vote canon units over non-canon units. More realistic units from the star wars universe. Just like some other people I am a Star Wars fanatic and stick close to the 5 movies. Pummels, air cruisers, cannons and artillery and some of the sea units shouldn't be there. I am no RTS fanatic. I don't buy games like Warcraft, Starcraft, Age of Empires, etc. I buy Galactic Battlegrounds and it's exp. pack because it is Star Wars. That is why I am a canon person. I realize to video game people especially RTS gamers it is important for balance and gameplay but being realistic in a star wars game is important. Who would actually play a RTS game labelled star wars that was all or mostly non-cannon units that were made up for that game. I certainly wouldn't. Star Wars fans and Non-RTS gamers and first time RTS gamers who buy this game usually buy it because it has characters, ships, vehicles, locations, weapons, technology of the star wars universe not age of empires, warcraft or command and conquerer units. I do agree that non-cannon units like pummels, anti-air mobiles, air cruisers, undeployed cannon, artillery and various sea units were brought over from other non-star wars RTS games. I know alot of you hate my ideas because I want a more realistic game. All I ever wanted in my life was to play a realistic star wars game or at least close to it. None of the star wars games have been that realistic. Galactic Battlegrounds was another step closer in the right direction. Maybe Lucasarts can make the next RTS game closer to the Star Wars Universe. That would make me happy. It would be so cool to build Star Destroyers, B-wings, Tie Advanced, etc. in a RTS game. If you get the right person to make the game, you can make a balanced game with the realistic star wars units and still not make the empire or the rebels stronger over the civilization. A realistic star wars game is not only cool but exciting not boring like many of you have said. I hope they make a sequel as soon as possible or an expansion soon! I would lose interest in Star Wars RTS games if they waited till Episode III to come out to release another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 25, 2002 Author Share Posted September 25, 2002 I couldn't have said it better myself. That's exactly how I feel about the situation. If you want a strategic RTS, there's plnty out there. If you want an authentic Star Wars RTS experience, it just doesn't exist. I enjoy many of the LucasArts games. They are a fine company. But quite often I find some of their Star Wars games a bit silly. The Jedi Knight games, for example. Even back in Dark Forces, things were dodgy. Especially in light of the new movies, the notion of the Empire creating Dark Troopers is just wrong. First, their robots, and the whole reason stormtroopers are human is because they're superior to droid troopers. Second, the Empire's strength is in a small number of really powerful units, and a large number of really weak units. They have heaps of TIE Fighters, and they're crap. They have only two Death Stars, and they kick ass. They have heaps of Stormtroopers, and they're crap. At the largest ground battle in the civil war they only deployed about 5 AT-ATs, and they kick ass. So having a heap of powerful troopers is against the Empire's logic. I never played Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight, except for in multiplayer mode, and I was blown away with how rediculous some of the Force powers available were. I did play a fair bit of Jedi Outcast though, and although they made the Force Powers better, they still think the Imperial Remnant would make such powerful things as Reborns. It is wrong, in my eyes. That's just my rant about how non-canon games can be a bit lame. Canon all the way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted September 25, 2002 Share Posted September 25, 2002 I agree - it would be nice to see an authentic Star Wars RTS game - joesdomain and i have been chating about this in my Capital Ships Poll, and the idea is to move towards a more space-rts with more authentic units such as the TF Battleship, Star Destroyer, etc. This is exactly what i would like to see in a SWGB sequel... Oh, and i do play other RTS as well - but i'm also a Star Wars fanatic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryllith Posted September 25, 2002 Share Posted September 25, 2002 Just to clarifiy a point, artillery is canon in Star Wars. The Gungan used catapults in TPM, the Ewoks used them RotJ, and both the Republic and Confederacy had a form of artillery in AotC. Heck, for that matter we could possibly consider the satellite dish-like lasers the Rebels used in the Battle of Hoth as artillery, although they still weren't effective against the AT-ATs Kryllith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoL ShadowJedi Posted September 25, 2002 Share Posted September 25, 2002 ahahahahaahaha admiral u make me laugn so much!! Jedi Knight 2 is excelent Reborns are only powerful because they had the for "injected" in them by crystals similar to the ones in sabers! yes sabers have the power of the force inside them! Stormtroopers are excelent....they are not crap For instance EPISODE 4 quote from obi wan -"these blast points are to accurate for sandpeople, Only imperial stormtroopers have this good aim" or sommet similar TIE FIGHTERS CRAP?????? AHAHAHAHAHA TIE Fighters are not crap as they are as fast as X-Wings they can beat down Y-Wings easily and other things. u think Hoth was the largest battle in the civil war?....I'm not sure but there was a lot of "inner wars" which involved mass armies including the empires The Remnant is strong! dude only half of the imperial fleet was at endor.....Less than that even...Just because something didnt happen in the movies doesnt make non-less of a starwars game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted September 25, 2002 Share Posted September 25, 2002 GAMEPLAY OVER REALISM! How would u guys like to play an unbalanced game. If the game would be realistic, then the Empire, Republic, Trade Federation and Confideracy would always win. What fun will that be if u were playing as the realistically weak Naboo, for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted September 26, 2002 Share Posted September 26, 2002 Well, i think the Naboo are pretty weak in the game - although they do look pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU_Andy_Ewok Posted September 28, 2002 Share Posted September 28, 2002 Naboo Rules Keep the canon units Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 29, 2002 Author Share Posted September 29, 2002 KoL, I think you missed my point: Reborns are only powerful because they had the for "injected" in them by crystals similar to the ones in sabers! yes sabers have the power of the force inside them! That, to me, is not Star Wars. It's just a bit too silly. It is Star Wars Expanded Universe, but not Star Wars. And I didn't say that Jedi Outcast was a crap game, I love it. But to consider it on a par with the Star Wars movies is blasphemy to me. Crazy Dog, where does it say a game has to be balanced? I won't say "winning isn't everything", because that is crap. But winning with a disadvantaged civ, now that would be fun. It's like Jedi Knight, although I didn't play it often. The Dark Side powers were way better than the light side powers, but I always had a light side Jedi to rise to the challenge. Empire, Republic, Trade Federation and Confideracy would always win Actually, the Empire was defeated at the Battle of Yavin and the Battle of Endor, the Trade Federation was defeated at the Battle of Naboo and the Confederacy was beaten at the Battle of Geonosis. So making them win all the time wouldn't be realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU_Andy_Ewok Posted September 29, 2002 Share Posted September 29, 2002 Having one civ that was made to be weaker wouldn't make the game better or more fun. I play some one and choose that civ they would think i was arrogant. It would be used as an excuse "i was weak civ you were empier give me a re match!!" and even worse no body would use the weak civ if another civ where better. It's like playing someone and never going to tech 4 just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted September 29, 2002 Share Posted September 29, 2002 Of course they lost all those battles. However there it was skill on the opponents side. I mean realistically, compare the Rebels to the Empire. The Empire have some 75 % of the Galaxy. Rebels have some 20 %. The odds are against the Rebels. Now then the Empire, Republic, etc. are going to be n00b civs now. Everyone but the skilled players will be using them. What if a 10 yr old n00b wants to play as Gungans. He is pretty much gonna lose. Skill aside, the Ganguns are an unbalanced civ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU_Andy_Ewok Posted September 29, 2002 Share Posted September 29, 2002 Skilled players will still use the strongest civs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted September 29, 2002 Share Posted September 29, 2002 Having a bad civ would be just like not including it at all, because, aside from a few newbs and the occasional expert looking for a challenge, the will be neglected. Whats the point of LA designing and balancing a whole civ if no ones gonna use it? Thats the problem that Ensemble ran into late in AoK:TC. There was like 5 civs out of 18 being used, so ES practically wasted their time making the other 13(Fortunately, in AoM, there are only 9 civs, and each has about the same amount of followers). This is a problem that all games with lots of civs run into, and one that LA has basically been able to avoid for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted September 29, 2002 Share Posted September 29, 2002 Agreed about the civs, that was the main reason I stopped playing AoC. The civs were very unbalanced. It seemed every balance patch they released actually made it worse. I think any sequel to GB should put balance and fun ahead of realism. The worst thing LucasArts could do is overpower units/civs for the sake of realism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Nilaar Posted September 30, 2002 Share Posted September 30, 2002 Whose to say there isn't pummlers, air cruisers, or whatever in the Star Wars universe? What's the fun of constantly playing with the same units in sequel after sequel? Yes the canon units HAVE to be there. That doesn't mean that we can't have other units as well. I wouldn't mind getting rid of farming and such, because I can't imagine the Empire taking the time to plant farms as their setting up a command post and launching a planetary invasion It's not the UNITS that I mind it's all the other conventions of typical RTS games that don't belong. Not that I want to get rid of the economy aspect of the game. I'd just like it changed somewhat so it fits in the universe better. That's a completely different subject though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadrixTF Posted September 30, 2002 Share Posted September 30, 2002 No offense meant Ewok, i also like the Naboo - especially in the Movie, but i like it even better when i am TF and blasting pretty Naboo to pieces! hehehehe:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted September 30, 2002 Author Share Posted September 30, 2002 Okay, I was wrong about the balancing. Still I think you could still have a great game without the cannon, pummel and air cruiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU_Andy_Ewok Posted September 30, 2002 Share Posted September 30, 2002 How could i Air Cruiser rush with No Air Cruisers !?! Without cannons, Air cruisers and pummels games would just make it take longer to finish games. Late games already take too long in my opinion. Keep them all One of the funniest strats is when you drop loads of Pummels on someones base and watch all the buildings die. Then you panic and makes Strike mechs to kill his Mountys Cannons are probally the most cost effective building destroyer except for maybe Mounted troopers. As for MadtrixTF Naboo Rule hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joesdomain Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 I am sticking to my opinion. Get rid of the pummels, air cruiser and cannon. More canon units, less non-canon units. I am a star wars fan who goes by the star wars movies. Those are the official story, units, characters, vehicles, and ships. EU is made up by someone other than George Lucas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.