Civ's for SW:GB 2?

[Teabag]

NL Ackbar; Age of Mythology has 3 art sets or castes...they are Norse, Greek, and Egyptian. From these 3 civs they have numerous sub civs. But all these sub civs are, are just the main civ with another name and a few minor changes. For instance, all of the Egyptian sub civs will have just about all the same LOOKING infantry, cavalry, and archers. The differences in the sub civs will be some have access to different technologies and god powers...maybe a unique unit that the other civ does not have but ALL the egyptian sub civs will have the same buildings, workers, units and such only 1 sub civ will have archers with +1 range and the others will not. So when you look at it AOM only really has 3 civs!! 3 civs, that's about the most you gonna get out of 3d engine these days and i wonder if they will allow you to build up to 200 units per side? I doubt it. SWGB has 8 totally different civs, each with their very own units, art, and buildings. That can only be accomplished with 2d as it stands. So if we want all these civs we are clamoring for like Hut Cartel and such it will have to be 2d. If they make the sequel a 3d game i guarantee you it will only be Rebels and Empire! Once again, AOM will only have 3 civs. The egyptians will have sub civs like lets be hypothetical...the Plampolines and Anktepots. The Plampolines have Egyptian units, buildins and such but their archers have +1 range, the god power of famine, and a special units the Giant Scarab. The Anktepots have Egyptian units, buildings, and such but their infantry has +2 rate of movement, the god power of Mass Diharreha, and the unique unit the Flying Monkey head. See, in actuality there are only 3 civs in AOM.

[simwiz2]

Originally posted by Teabag

(1) i wonder if they will allow you to build up to 200 units per side? I doubt it.

 

(2) See, in actuality there are only 3 civs in AOM.

 

(3) SWGB has 8 totally different civs, each with their very own units, art, and buildings. That can only be accomplished with 2d as it stands

 

1 - There isn't really a max pop per civ, it is based on settlements. On a normal map 1v1, unless you have already won and claimed all settlements you can expect about a 200 pop cap. This is misleading because only villagers, trade carts, and maybe a few other economic units take up one pop slot. Most military foot units take 2, most mounted units take 3, and many MU's (the sub-civs UU's) take up 4-5. Siege takes up 4 IIRC. So in an average, evenly matched game you will not be building 200 units.

 

2 - Uh Oh! You said it! Now Sith is going to copy-paste a bunch of irrellivant facts about AoM, claim you are completely ignorant about AoM, and start a flame war to protect his precious favorite game.

 

3 - RoN has 18 very unique civs (not quite unique sets but 4-6 UU and many tech differences + regional art) in a hybrid 3d-2d engine. All units are 3d, but buildings are 2d to allow higher detail than the polygon-looking buildings of today's 3d.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I got nothing to say about AoM.( I am sooooooo drunk right now)

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Golden rule of the forum: Never post while drunk .

 

Ewoks could be balanced into the game. Who cares if catapults are sent on fire with one shot of a blaster?

 

I do, because if a unit is destroyed by one shot, like in ROTJ, that would mean it has something like 10HP in GB, while the other mechs have something like 60-70HP. And rocks do not do as much damage and artillery volleys. Period. Yes, rocks are harmful, but not that harmful.

 

Dagobhan Eagle that is crazy! Why would you not want more civs? It adds so much variety and replayability to a game!

 

Variety can be achieved in other ways. Ever played Ground Control? It had only two sides. Was the game linear and boring for that reason? Heck no! Both sides had really developed characters and the plot and graphics were great. Variety with a ton of civs? That's bull. The more civs, the less variety. AoM has 9 civs and a good deal of variety; AoK has 16 (?) civs and no variety -the units even look the same.

 

Why I don't want more civs?

 

1. Because as in Ground Control, you can add a good deal of diversity to a civ. Ground Control, in reality, had 4 factions troughout the game: Corporation, Order, Corporation-Order Alliance, and Parker and Stone's rogue army. Number of civs? 2. Imperial remnants and the Empire is the same thing. If you want a campaign with the remnants and one with the Empire, yes, so do I. But with different civs? Nope. Add more ships as toybox units, or expand the timeline of the units to add units outside the movies (Fighter=Z-95, Fast Fighter=X-Wing Adv. Fighter=E-Wing, for example). That way, you've got both the Republic and the Alliance.

 

2. Because the fewer civs, the more time the developers will have to do other things+they will have more time to develop characters and stuff for those civs.

 

A ton of games that are popular and best-selling today have as little as 2 civs.

 

Age of Mythology didnt limit themselves to 3 actual civs just because they thought more civs would be uneccessary...its because that's about all a 3d engine can handle...3-5 different looking civs!

 

It's not about the engine. Engines handle number of units, number variety of units. In a game of 20 stormtroopers versus 20 rebel troopers, the game will have to load 40 units. This is the same as a game with 10 stormies versus 10 rebels versus 10 ewoks versus 10 Vong. The real point is disk space. 18 civs of 3d models would be a way too big game (think Flight Simulator and multiply by x).

 

You want more civs? Fine, but then you'll have less diversity and variety, both graphic and gameplay-wise. I prefer variety.

[lukeiamyourdad]

It depends on the kind of game. If you only have two civs but a great plot it can compensate but that's only in the campaigns and not the normal games.

 

In a Star Wars game you must have a lot of civs or it is just boring. Or you get something like force commander.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

It depends on the kind of game. If you only have two civs but a great plot it can compensate but that's only in the campaigns and not the normal games.

 

Good point. However, again, it's all about balancing stuff out. Ewoks are too weak, Bespin has no navy, and so on.

 

You could say that little diversity is okay because hey, there are 3 Norse civs in AoM, and the three are mostly the same. Sure, except there is no such thing as minor gods and god powers in SW. Which actually added a good deal of diversity.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Of course asking for too much diversity is impossible.

[Sithmaster_821]

Dagobahn Eagle is 100% correct. More civs equals bad. Use the general and famous ones, then include to other tiny civs like the ewoks and te remnant in the big ones.

there are 3 Norse civs in AoM, and the three are mostly the same

Thor plays just as differently from the other two as he does with other culture's gods, mainly because he, unlike every other civ Ensemble has ever made, doesnt go heavy on food first, but goes heavy on gold. Set and Ra are the same way, but to a lesser extent(radical econwise). Although I must admit the Greek gods play very similarly, but thats because they wanted one culture to be quite similar to AoK, and in AoK there want much civ difference (the greeks still play more differently than the civs in SWGB)

 

And teabag, check out the Thoughts on SW Saga (which kinda went off topic to find out why AoM has 9 civs instead of three).

[Teabag]

1. Ok once again i repeat! There are only 3 REAL civs in Age of Mythology; they are Norse, Egyptian, and Greek. The game has no civ artwork or building architecture outside of those 3. No chineses artwork, no Anglo Saxon artwork. Just those 3. When you say "sub civs" that is not a fair statement becaues the "sub civs" are really just the main civ with a few differneces in the numbers i.e. +1 archer range, -1 cavalry speed. So all 3 Norse "sub civs" look EXACTLY the same. Their differneces will be in the god they worship..which you will not see. You'll see the power that god provides meaning click on the "god power button" and all the sudden lighting comes from the sky for the Zues "sub civ"; but that "sub civ" will still look just like the Hades and Posideon civs only the Posideon civs will have faster boats; mind you they are the SAME boats that the Zeus civ has. 3 real civs that's it! You can say what you want but that's the bare facts...3 civs with 3 variations per civ and maybe a unique unit for each "variation" of the main civ.

 

2. More civs are good for the simple purpose of breaking monotony. I wont even buy an RTS game if it only has 2 civs. More civs are good because you will have more options and strategies when making war.

 

3. You just proved my point. Lots of 3d units would eat up too much memory so you'll only really be able to build about 60 units. That's not real fun if you ask me. Like Warcraft 3. I played it just so i could see all the CG endings and learn the storyline and i havent' played it since. 3d graphics are good for games that have a small number of entities active at once like First Person shooter games (Unreal, Quake 3) and Fighting games (Tekken 4, Dead or Alive 3). But when it comes to handling multiple entites at once in games like RTS games; 3d isn't fully up to the task. In the meantime til 3d rts becomes and exact science I think 2d is plenty for me; especially the Genie engine. The more options you have the more likely you are to say, "hey let me play this game a couple more times to see what its like to play with these guys!" as oppose to forgetting about the game.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

also there must be some water on Endor. Without lakes or seas, there cannot be life.

[Admiral Vostok]

Without lakes or seas, there cannot be life.

 

Maybe in the real Universe, but in Star Wars what about Tatooine and Geonosis? They don't have lakes or seas.

 

What about Empire Earth? I'm not saying use it's engine, I'm saying that you can have something like 200 units or more in that per civ, and its 3D. I realise that every civ has the same art, but they have about twenty ages worth of art, each with different units who have different abilities, so surely this could be split up amongst eight Star Wars civs to use the same gaming abilities? Most likely the "Tech Level" idea will not exist in SWGB2, as it's just left-over from AoK, so you could potentially have maybe 10 different civs who keep the same building and unit art throughout a game.

 

However I don't own Empire Earth, I've just played it a couple of times, so I could be wrong. If I am, EE is definitely a step in the right direction.

 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've seen RoN looks like a remake of AoK, with more unique units, more ages and in 3D. It seems to work in the same way and everything. Can anyone confirm this?

[Kryllith]

Genosis and Tatoonie have water, but it's in very minute qualities (hence the moisture farms on Tatoonie). Of course, neither Genosis nor Tatoonie have huge forests like Endor. Endor doesn't need lakes or sea, though it's highly likely to have them given the terrain (or at least to have rivers). Either that or it's pretty much perpetual rainfall there.

 

Kryllith

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Admiral, it looks like AoK and the devs said this was to fimiliarise gamers. However, there u build cities instaed of a big powerbase (yes technically u can build more than 1 city but other than defences and resources why would u want to?). Also there is National Borders, "real" flanking, everlasting resources, more advancing diplomacy, trade, etc. http://ron.heavengames.com and http://www.strategyplanet.com/riseofnations are 2 very good websites were u can find lots of info.

 

 

Now on Tatooine and Geonosis are very different from Endor. Endor is a forest planet. The water for all those trees must come from somewere. Also what do it evry strange to have a completely dry planet, and one which is covered in trees at that.

Now I'm not saying that nothing can live in a desert, it's just, there is even water in the desert! Underground possibly.

[KoL ShadowJedi]

hi guys, im back and ready to give my views out..........AGAIN.

 

Kryllith is right bout water on geonosis and tatooine, and why does every1 want 12-18 civs, there isnt any point, u want ewoks as a civ...WHY?!?!

 

I say have 8 at most, and shove as much as they can into the toybox, remember, you can create a random map game in the scenario editor and have triggers to make a certain tech tree (im going from info from a friend about WC3 for the last bit)

[AU_Andy_Ewok]

Originally posted by KoL ShadowJedi

hi guys, im back and ready to give my views out..........AGAIN.

 

Kryllith is right bout water on geonosis and tatooine, and why does every1 want 12-18 civs, there isnt any point, u want ewoks as a civ...WHY?!?!

 

I say have 8 at most, and shove as much as they can into the toybox, remember, you can create a random map game in the scenario editor and have triggers to make a certain tech tree (im going from info from a friend about WC3 for the last bit)

 

Why Ewoks you say. Ewoks would most definatly own Wooden Assult mechs lol

[lukeiamyourdad]

Putting to much stuff in the scenario editor will suck. What if there will be none(of course there will be one but WHAT IF?)?

 

Not everybody are good map makers or want to spend a day making a map.

[KoL ShadowJedi]

luke, i just said that they shud have 8 civs and then cram a load of stuff into the scen editor

[lukeiamyourdad]

exactly what I am talking about!

 

Let's say you have 8 civ and the Ewoks are with the rebels in the scen editor but you want to play with them without the need of making a whole new RM with the scen editor because you suck at the scen editor!

[Sithmaster_821]

It aint that hard. Placing units doesnt rely on triggers (which is what most people find hard to like in the scen editor).

 

Teabag, just because they look the same, doesnt mean they are the same. In AoK, the Huns and the Teutons looked the same, but in actuality, they were on completely opposite sides of the spectrum. In AoM, within cultures, the civs still play very different (excluding the Greeks, who are supposd to be the most like AoE and AoK, thus there is less variation, but still more than SWGB or AoK).

[lukeiamyourdad]

I am talking about an RM. How do you want to build Ewoks in an Ewok Troop Center if there isn't an Ewok civ?

[CorranSec]

OK. I've been offline for a while, so I've missed quiiiiite a lot.

 

Civs can be unique and still numerous. As someone else said, consider RoN and AoM.

 

It's a fact that putting a couple of units of a civ in the Scenario Editor is quite different to putting them in as a playable civ. Consider the current game: There are a number of Ewok units in the Editor, there have been many scenarios featuring Ewoks, but they're still not a civ.

 

Here's the way games are prioritised by most gamers:

Custom Games/Online Gaming

Campaign

Scenario Editor

 

If their fave civ isn't available in the campaigns, they won't cry. (Well, I did when there was no Naboo campaign, but that's not the point. ) If they're not playable at all, however, there may be crying, and some destruction of furniture.

 

Argh. Must go. More postage later. (I've said that before, haven't I...)

[Admiral Vostok]

Maybe in the real Universe, but in Star Wars what about Tatooine and Geonosis? They don't have lakes or seas.

I never said anything about there not being water. Of course there's water that's what moisture farms are for. But it was specifically stated that a planet needs lakes or seas to sustain life, and I was merely rejecting that idea.

And more relevant to the subject, you can't have a navy if you need to farm your water.

 

I agree it would be nice to have a workable Ewok civ, not just create a random map (that you have to look at to create) then plop in a few Ewoks from the toybox. However, the balancing question (as it stands with the game mechanics of SWGB) is too great in the face of an Ewok civ. However, it would be nice if they could take the existing Ewok units from the toybox and make them selectable as an army in an RM game. Most people who want to play Ewoks wouldn't complain if they were grossly not balanced. It's mostly for the fun element.

 

Crazy Dog - thanks for the info about RoN, it looks pretty cool. So many RTSs, so little money.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by Admiral Vostok

ICrazy Dog - thanks for the info about RoN, it looks pretty cool. So many RTSs, so little money.

 

No sh*t.

 

I wonder what the Ewok's wooden assualt mechs would look like...?

[Sithmaster_821]

I hate to post this because simwiz will come on with Brian Reynolds quotes, but I seriously doubt the variation between the civs in RoN, mainly because of the sheer numbers of civs and the fact that civ bonuses will be down played due to the resource bonuses, like gathering horses makes your cavs better and diamonds make your villies work faster (if i remember correctly).

 

Although BHG did one thing very right, all of their showcases are done through gamespy, not Game$pot. The pay for gamespot thing was probably the worst idea from a business standpoint. I used to go there all of the time to look up games and read/watch previews of various games, now i never go there. And when user traffic goes down, ad prices go down, so i bet gamespot is losing more money with their idea to get more money.

[Darth Windu]

Personally, i think that RoN will be perhaps the BEST RTS ever developed, for a number of reason being-

 

- 8 different ages, from the stone age to information age

- 18 unique nations

- minimum of 4 UU's for every nation

- resources that dont run out

- national borders

- 'smart villagers' = less micromanagement

- different lines of research for extra replay value

- conquest is the name of the game, you must expand to survive

- more complex diplomacy, not just 'ally, neutral, enemy'

- spies, to check up on your enemy

- cities you can capture

- special forces to jam radar

- use of tanks, battleships, fighters and bombers

- different unit costs/build times for each nation

- different nation personallities (eg aztecs very aggressive)

- excellent 2D building, 3D unit art