Darth Windu Posted October 27, 2002 Posted October 27, 2002 I was wondering what the community would think of UU's replacing regular units. What i mean by this is that, for example, the Naboo Royal Crusader would be its cavalry, the Trade Federation Droideka would be its strike mech etc. Of course there would still be some UU's which would compliment the civ, such as the A-wing for the Rebels. Thoughts?
simwiz2 Posted October 27, 2002 Posted October 27, 2002 This is for GB2, right? If it's for GB1 then I think it's too late to make such a change. If it's for GB2 and Unique Sets are used, then of course every unit will be a UU and there will be no generic mounties, fighters, etc. So UU's would be the only units period.
Darth Windu Posted October 28, 2002 Author Posted October 28, 2002 Its not neccessarilly for any game, just an idea. If UU's have better stats than generic units (in a game with generic unit sets) such as the DD, should they just replace the generic unit?
Kryllith Posted October 28, 2002 Posted October 28, 2002 The UU might be better overall, but the regular unit might be cheaper. So people might choose to build the non-UU instead. Course the price might be evened out if one were eliminated. Personally though, there are a number of canonical units I wouldn't want to see disappear, if for no other reason than they are canon. Using your example: I love the DDs and HDDs, but I'd probably miss seeing the STAPs... Kryllith
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 28, 2002 Posted October 28, 2002 Windu, no. Droidekas and STAP's will be separate units with different uses/stats/costs/bonuses. I personally doubt they will include the current naboo mountie, but i dont think they will shrink the RC down to its level. Those are the only two i can think of replacing units, unless you want to kiss the gunship goodbye:)
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 28, 2002 Posted October 28, 2002 Royal Crusaders are Royal Crusaders. Droidekas are Droidekas. STAPs are STAPs. They are totally different. Example: Droidekas have shields-STAPs don't.
Admiral Vostok Posted October 29, 2002 Posted October 29, 2002 Also there are some UU that are UU because they don't fit anywhere else. What would the Sheild Fambaa replace? What would the Geonosian Warrior replace? What would the Berserker replace?
Darth Windu Posted October 29, 2002 Author Posted October 29, 2002 Well using the trade fed as an example, the mech line would go- Scout = STAP Strike Mech = Droideka (UU) Mech Destroyer = AAT Assault Mech = MTT As i said, the idea goes that if there is a UU with better stats than a generic unit, such as the case with the Droideka, should it replace the Generic unit outright (assuming cost, build time remains unchanged)? Some of the units which would be replaced by UU's would be- Naboo Cavalry = Royal Crusader Empire Strike Mech = Dark Trooper Empire Scout = Probot Republic Fighter = Jedi Starfighter (assuming its given fighter weapons) and of course there would still be some UU's which wouldnt replace any generic units, such as the A-wing and Gungan Fambaa shield generator.
KoL ShadowJedi Posted October 29, 2002 Posted October 29, 2002 the dark phase trooper isnt a mech, hence the name trooper
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 30, 2002 Posted October 30, 2002 I take it that the only unit that you feel that is truely unique is the gunship, right? Or possibly jedi masters?
Darth Windu Posted October 30, 2002 Author Posted October 30, 2002 Well assuming that the Gunship and Jedi Master are made Republic UU's, the Gunship would replace the Republic Bomber, and the Jedi Master would replace the Jedi Knight. KoL - i know that, but for all intents and purposes, its a mech.
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 30, 2002 Posted October 30, 2002 The Dark Trooper is not a mech and does not have the abilities and purpose of a mech. It's more like super-strong trooper because Mech destroyers are not good against them.
Sithmaster_821 Posted October 31, 2002 Posted October 31, 2002 Well assuming that the Gunship and Jedi Master are made Republic UU's, the Gunship would replace the Republic Bomber, and the Jedi Master would replace the Jedi Knight. Are you crazy (dont answer, that was a rhetorical question:))? Not only is the gunship NOTHING like a bomber and jedi masters and jedi knights were able to be used concurrently, this completely goes against what YOU said in the gunship thread about the gunship being unique. In fact, the gunship's uniqueness was your only arguement on the matter, so, if the gunship is no longer unique enough to be a UU, but instead a bomber, THEN WHY DO YOU WANT IT TO BE A UU IN THE FIRST PLACE? And, if you're just going to turn it into a bomber, THEN WHY DONT YOU JUST LEAVE IT AS A FIGHTER (which more closely resembles a gunship), AND DROP THE SUBJECT ALREADY?
Darth Windu Posted October 31, 2002 Author Posted October 31, 2002 The Gunship is more like the bomber then the Fighter. It is pathetic vs air, and is good vs mechs, heavies and buildings. Also, it would be a UU, and would hence replace the bomber, but have greater abilities, such as the ability to carry 2 infantry units. This also assumes that bombers would use rockets instead of bombs.
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 31, 2002 Posted October 31, 2002 If Bombers would use rockets this will greatly affect gameplay! Especially for airstrong civs that already have good bombers, now they will have range bombers! What are you thinking about dude?!
Darth Windu Posted November 1, 2002 Author Posted November 1, 2002 Who said they would have a good range? I just think that it would be a lot smarter to use rockets instead of bombs for obvious reasons. Also, depending on wether air cruisers are in the game or not, bomber's would possible be your main air strike weapon.
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 2, 2002 Posted November 2, 2002 Air cruisers are not the main strike aircraft it's still the bombers (at least for me) and rockets imply a good range. Why would we use rockets if we need to close in and shoot it like you are dropping a bomb?
Sithmaster_821 Posted November 2, 2002 Posted November 2, 2002 This also assumes that bombers would use rockets instead of bombs. It also assumes that snipers would use plungersinstaed of rifles... Bombers drop bombs I think ive found the source of your "ideas": overexposure to "Sponge Bob Square Pants". And sitting right next to the TV didnt help.
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 2, 2002 Posted November 2, 2002 I think ive found the source of your "ideas": overexposure to "Sponge Bob Square Pants". And sitting right next to the TV didnt help. HAHAHAHA:lol: :lol:
Admiral Vostok Posted November 3, 2002 Posted November 3, 2002 So Windu, let me get your idea straight... Units that are presently unique but bear similarities (no matter how minor) too other existing units should replace those units as superior versions. However, units that are presently unique but don't resemble existing units remain as unique units. Is that it? Most of your ideas I can see some sense behind but this is just plain bad. So the Royal Crusader (who is already a unit made up specifically for the game) replaces the Naboo mounted trooper, and Naboo get another different unique unit, that will also have to be made up specifically for the game? Or are you suggesting those civs who would undergo unique unit replacement would just not have a unique unit anymore? The latter would be silly.
Sithmaster_821 Posted November 3, 2002 Posted November 3, 2002 In other words, every civ but the republic would lose a unit due to this unique/generic merger, whereas the republic would gain two units (the gunship and the master) and lose none. Favoritism, I think so.
Darth Windu Posted November 4, 2002 Author Posted November 4, 2002 sith - your problem is that you like to see favouritism in every suggestion, just so you can concoct some reasonable objection to it in your head Also, what the hell are 'Sponge Bob Square Pants'? I would also like to point out that the statement of "Bombers drop bombs" while true is misleading. Aircraft such as the F/A-18, F-14, F-15, F-16 etc also carry bombs, yet are called fighter's. Aircraft such as the B-52, B-1, B-2 etc carry missiles, mines etc yet are called bomber's.
Sithmaster_821 Posted November 4, 2002 Posted November 4, 2002 Windu your arguement would have been valid if we were discussing the real army of the United States. But we are discussing a made up army in a game, where gameplay>realism and the Western worlds current airforce has no relevance. sith - your problem is that you like to see favouritism in every suggestion, just so you can concoct some reasonable objection to it in your head No i see favoritism in posts that want to give units the republic while downszing everyone else. Also, what the hell are 'Sponge Bob Square Pants'? Oh, yeah, I forgot after that whole Nick News thing that you dont get Nickelodeon. You havent lived (or died for that matter)unitl you watch Sponge Bob. Actually its a cartoon show that chicks find quite entertaining.
Darth Windu Posted November 5, 2002 Author Posted November 5, 2002 sithmaster - what i was saying about the aircraft is that a bomber doesnt only carry bombs, a fighter doesnt only fight other aircraft etc. What's in a name? Just because they are bombers doesnt mean they cant carry missiles.
Sithmaster_821 Posted November 5, 2002 Posted November 5, 2002 No cause that would make them gunships (duh!). Notetheres a difference between the Clone Gunship and gunships. One is republic specific the other just carries missiles. And no, gunship should not be a separate unit.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.