Should Unique Units replace regular units?

[Darth Windu]

What? A gunship is defined in the dictionary as 'a helicopter carrying heavy machine guns and rockets for support of ground troops' - hence the Republic Gunship.

 

As i said, a gunship is a helicopter, while fighter's and bombers are fast and hight-flying fixed wing aircraft. There is a huge difference.

[simwiz2]

Bombers, while able to carry missiles, are still bombers and many still do carry bombs. I'm sure troopers are capable of carrying butter knives and using those to attack. But is it a good idea?

 

Bombers in games, especially when the game is set in a ficticious universe, should carry bombs.

[Darth Windu]

What i am trying to get through your head is that JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE CALLED BOMBERS DOESNT MEAN THEY HAVE TO CARRY BOMBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The F-117, a strike aircraft is technically designated a fighter, yet is cant fight other aircraft!

 

What im saying is that just because something is called a bomber doesnt mean it only carrys bombs. Just because it is called a fighter doesnt mean it fights other aircraft.

 

Also, in wartime, it is much, much smarter and safer to arm your strike aircraft with stand-off weapons, such as missiles, instead of bombs as this means that the aircraft doesnt have to overfly the target and is exposed to enemy anti-aircraft weapons for a small fraction of the time than if it was carrying bombs!

[Admiral Vostok]

While that is true for the REAL WORLD, you can't use REAL WORLD arguments for the STAR WARS UNIVERSE. They are different.

 

However, you do have a minor point in that X-Wings carry torpedoes and Y-Wings still have lasers.

 

As Sithmaster is always keen to point out, Gameplay > Realism. What's the point of having two units do pretty much the same thing? If a bomber was to have missiles then it would be a ranged aircraft like the fighter. The bomber as it currently exists has a very different role than the fighter, and giving it a weapon similar to the fighter would be a bit silly.

 

Unless you're suggesting it has both? More than one kind of attack can get complicated...

[Darth Windu]

No, no, no. The idea goes as such-

 

Fighter - ranged, good vs aircraft and infantry

Bomber - ranged, good vs mechs, heavies, buildings

 

The things the fighter and bombers are good against wouldnt change. What would happen is that we would get rid of the air cruiser, but then give the bomber a ranged attack that would be slightly less powerful then at the moment, as it would be your main air strike unit. The fighter would have lasers, the bomber would have rockets.

[joesdomain]

I think the aircraft should be alittle more realistic. It would be cool to have Y-wings have similar weapons like the movie Y-wings and so on with the other aircraft.

[Darth Kane]

I don't think so because if dark troopers replaced stormtroopers it wouldn't be very realistic would. The same fo the royal crusaders. You don't see any of those in the film do you?

[CorranSec]

Here's the way I see it:

I do support unique unit sets, but I'm not exactly sure what Windu's getting at...... In my idea, the Trade Fed will have a Droideka, a STAP, etc. and they will all fulfill their relevant roles. All units are UU's, so there shall be no debating about civ-specific UU's (eg. GUNSHIPS!!)

 

The way I see it, in GB 2 there will be many more air units than there are now, and so the Bomber may not be your 'main air

strike unit.' It would probably be the best fighter-class air unit vs. buildings, but not the best vs. buildings. I'd also cancel out its effect against mechs a little bit, seeing as there are other anti-mech (mech being a relative term, seeing as the generic class 'mechs' doesn't exist in my idea) units.

 

Giving bombers rockets is a bad idea in terms of both gameplay and realism. I'll start with realism:

In the movies, every decisive strike by a fighter-classed unit against a building (or fixed air structure) was done at close range, and occasionally EXTREMELY close range (Droid Control Ship, Death Stars). Though craft did carry torpedoes, torpedoes were more useful against other aircraft, mostly fighters, and were sometimes used by fighters against larger ships to deal a powerful blow before switching to lasers.

In many pieces of EU, ships had to actually drop bombs on a target to destroy it, and if not that, get in close to fire off their poewrful rockets. In SW games (eg. XvT), the most powerful secondary weapons carried by ships you could fly were the Space Bombs and Heavy Rockets, which both travelled at extremely low speeds and thus required extreme proximity to the target.

 

In GB 2, some civs may have rockets as an added bonus, but I think sticking with normal bombs is the way to go. Alternatively, if a swooping/strafing/circling method of attack (like EE) is added, bombers COULD have rockets, but still fire them at bomb range.

[Darth Windu]

Dath Kane - there was never any suggestion that stormtroopers would be replaced.

 

corran - in SW:GB2, there should only be 3 air unit classes. Fighter's, bomber's and air transports. Hence the aircraft would have specs similar to what i have suggested in order to provide an effective strike platform, keep realism, and keep gameplay balanced. Any more than 3 or 4 air units will make it too complicated as they are more difficult to control than ground units in many games.

[simwiz2]

What I'm trying to get though your thick skull is that JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE PROUD OF KNOWING ABOUT THE STEALTH FIGHTER AND WANT US ALL TO CONGRATULATE YOU DOES NOT MEAN FICTICIOUS BOMBERS IN A FICTICIOUS UNIVERSE NEED TO CARRY ROCKETS!!!

 

And what the hell does the Stealth Fighter being unable to fight other aircraft have to do with your idea? So far you have just spewed out random facts copy-pasted from the US Army website. Sorry, but pretended knowledge does not make an idea good.

 

You still have not privided a single good gameplay reason to make such a change. Your motive seems so that bombers an be more powerful and the Republic can have a better bomber, overpowering them.

 

Just one question: If the Republic was overpowered and you were beating a non-Republic player with them, would you giggle gleefully and think you were good?

[lukeiamyourdad]

Allright Windu, stop getting some US army stuff and some more SW stuff.

 

As I have already mentionned it in some other thread, I think that most RTS were made from strategies and tactics from world war II. And in WWII, you didn't have rockets(I mean fired from an aircraft).

[CorranSec]

*sigh* I didn't want to drag the "more air units" debate into this thread, but if it's necessary to convince you of my point, Windu, so be it.

There should be more air units because-

It increases gameplay

@ greater number of units leads to greater opportunities in tactics and strategems

@ balanced air vs. ground battles

@ a share between air and ground in terms of being able to win a battle; no longer must it be focussed on ONLY ground or ONLY air to win, you can now win with either or both

It increases realism

@ the main part of SW is the S- stars, space, ships..... That's what the Star Wars universe is all about; starships cruising around and battling it out

@ ships and ship classes from SW can be reflected, eg. the gunship, TIE fighters, X-Wings, etc. as they were truly meant to be

@ battles from SW involving ships which were previously unnatainable can now be created and re-enacted

 

That should do for now.

[Admiral Vostok]

I agree CorranSec, although I still think classes such as "Mech" should exist, just within those classes the units are unique.

 

Anyway, while I agree with you Windu on the point about getting rid of the Air Cruisers, I still think the hard-hitting air unit should do so from close range.

 

Back to the actual topic, Windu your idea WOULD replace the Stormtrooper with the Dark Trooper, as Darth Kane said, because the Dark Trooper is a Trooper and not a Mech.

[Darth Windu]

Actually the US Army isnt allowed to operate any front-line fixed-wing combat aircraft, and only the USAF uses the F-117.

 

The point i was trying to make was that the name's 'fighter' and 'bomber' dont have to mean that they fight other aircraft and only carry bomb's.

 

As for gameplay, assuming the bomber was your main strike aircraft it would keep it further out of range of enemy AA weapons, therefore making it harder to hit. The extended range of its weapons would also make it a greater threat, as it would be able to engage enemy targets while remaining outside the range of the enemy's countermeasures.

 

luke - actually during WW2 rockets were used quite a lot. The main British strike aircraft of the time, the Typhoon, had rockets as it's primary weapons and was very powerful, in one instance a group of Typhoons wiped out a large German army column trying to escape. I would also like to point out that rockets were used during WW2 in preferacne to bombs because they were more accurate and allowed to firing aircraft to make stand-off attacks.

[CorranSec]

Vostok- yeah, there still would be a mech 'class,' but not quite as obviously as in the current game (ie Mech Factory, Heavy Assault Mech, Everyone Has These Things Called Mechs And We All Know They're Mechs).

Also- did you miss my point? The Heavy Assault Craft (or whatever it's called) isn't much like an air cruiser. It won't have the same stats; the only similarity is in the role, which is unavoidable.

 

Windu- I don't really care whether "Bomber" means 'dropping bombs,' 'firing rockets,' or 'launching screaming bomb-loaded monkeys out of rocket tubes into an enemy banana plantation.' The fact is that we're talking about balance and gameplay, and rockets don't fit into either.

I'm not sure what you mean by "main strike aircraft." The main aircraft for swift striking etc. will be a kind of Fast Fighter (A-Wing etc.) The main aircraft for all-around strike will be the Space Superiority Fighter (X-Wing etc.) The main aircraft for striking destroying fixed enemy things will be the Bomber (aka Y-Wing etc.)

Of course, if you're willing to trade speed for more punch, larger ships are the way to go; and thus, you'd end up with Assault Cruisers (that's my new name for the Heavy Assault Ship), Interceptor Cruisers, etc.

But in any case, the Bomber will never be the total all-around best aircraft for destroying buildings.

 

We need balance in this game, Windu. Every unit has advantages and disadvantages, and you're trying to give the Bomber a sizeable advantage (range) in return for a disadvantage (less damage) which will either be so small it might as well not be there, or so large that the unit might as well not be there. I'd rather stick with the normal bomber. Advantage: ability to beat hell out of any fixed enemy. Disadvantage: lack of speed and range.

Of course, I could make a compromise: The "Proton Torpedoes" which have been discussed in another thread could be given to the Bomber, which it could use as a long-ranged attack when desired, but not regularily.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Windu- Will you just stop about the real military stuff?! It's a game! It doesn't need to look totally like real life!!!!!!

[Sithmaster_821]

Corran, when not even Windu wants to agree with your "new" idea, i think its a good idea to reconsider your standpoint

 

Windu-Shut the hell up about the "real world" crap. Just because you have the intelligence of a first grader and have to recite needless facts verbatim out of textbooks to make you look smart, doesnt mean that the Star Wars universe is identical to what happens in our galaxy. In Star Wars, the only thing that is real is what Lucas says is real, and Lucas said that bombers drop bombs (watch ESB).

[CorranSec]

Sith- Ah, I'm not worried. There are some people who agree with me, and if everyone got scared and ran away when Windu didn't agree with them on something, you and simwiz would be long gone.

Also, even though I do agree with you on the bombs/rockets/windu shouldn't quote real life thing, I'm setting out to irritate you, so..... what Lucas says is real does have an effect on this game, but in the interests of gameplay, we must think........... Gameplay>Realism.

 

Windu- I'd give it up if I were you. We all know your arguments have basically no relevance to the topic. Who cares if the F-1111123827098273 American Special Forces Strike Fighter is called a "bomber" and fires "rockets?" The point is that we're talking about 1) The SW universe, which is not real life and 2) a GAME!!! Rockets are detrimental to both gameplay and realism, and will probably turn out either overpowering or useless, especially if there's also a wide range of other ships.

[Darth Windu]

Actually giving bomber's rockets makes more sense than giving them bombs. A strike aircraft is normally known to the uninformed public as a 'fighter-bomber'. This is an aircraft that is designed specifically to attack enemy ground targets, normally high value tactical targets such as C3 installations and airfields. The difference between these and normal bomber's is that they are the size of a fighter (hence the term).

 

For both realism and gameplay, rockets makes more sense. It keeps the attacking aircraft out of the way of enemy AA weapons, or at least exposes it to less of them and hence makes it a greater threat to the enemy. It would also keep the importance of air as in SW:GB but without the aircruisers. As i said i would imagine the rockets, if used, would have a range and firepower slightly less than that of the aircruiser, but be faster. In essance it would be a bomber/mini-aircruiser hybrid.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Darth Windu

Actually giving bomber's rockets makes more sense than giving them bombs. A strike aircraft is normally known to the uninformed public as a 'fighter-bomber'. This is an aircraft that is designed specifically to attack enemy ground targets, normally high value tactical targets such as C3 installations and airfields. The difference between these and normal bomber's is that they are the size of a fighter (hence the term).

 

For both realism and gameplay, rockets makes more sense. It keeps the attacking aircraft out of the way of enemy AA weapons, or at least exposes it to less of them and hence makes it a greater threat to the enemy. It would also keep the importance of air as in SW:GB but without the aircruisers. As i said i would imagine the rockets, if used, would have a range and firepower slightly less than that of the aircruiser, but be faster. In essance it would be a bomber/mini-aircruiser hybrid.

 

In SWGB original, bombers which dropped ''bombs'' did pretty well so no need for those bomber/mini-aircruiser hybrid in a possible SWGB2

[Admiral Vostok]

Windu, feel free to use a Star Wars example to back up your claim at any time.

 

Things that we've seen with rockets:

 

Republic Gunship - Definitely not a bomber in anyone's language.

Hailfire Droid - Even more so.

X-Wing - While a proton torpedo acts like a rocket, an X-Wing still isn't a bomber.

N-1 Starfighter - Ditto.

 

Things that we've seen bombers use:

 

TIE-Bombers - BOMBS

Y-Wings - well they all died before they could take out the Death Star, so they can't be used in the argument.

 

Conclusion:

 

Bombers drop bombs. Things that shoot rockets are not bombers.

 

 

A rocket-shooting unit isn't a bad idea, but make it a different air unit and don't take away bombers. Rockets could be good against mechs as we've seen in the movies. And while bombers' vulnerability to AA because of their small range is a disadvantage, it is supposed to be that way.

[Darth Windu]

luke - hardly. During an RM as the Republic fighting the Empire, i decided to do a little experiment. My oppontent had fortified their base with AA turrets and fort's, so i created a group of 40 fully-upgraded bombers and sent them to attack. All of my bombers were destroyed and the best they did was to set a fort on fire, which was then repaired.

 

vostok - go take a look at the databank, it says the TIE Bomber etc carry rockets, also in ESB the TIE Bomber's weren't striking military targets.

 

I have already stated why this is a good idea, and there is no need to further complicate the matter by adding more new air units.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Darth Windu

luke - (1)hardly. During an RM as the Republic fighting the Empire, i decided to do a little experiment. My oppontent had fortified their base with AA turrets and fort's, so i created a group of 40 fully-upgraded bombers and sent them to attack. All of my bombers were destroyed and the best they did was to set a fort on fire, which was then repaired.

 

vostok - (2)go take a look at the databank, it says the TIE Bomber etc carry rockets, also in ESB the TIE Bomber's weren't striking military targets.

 

I have already stated why this is a good idea, and there is no need to further complicate the matter by adding more new air units.

 

1-Which is why everybody else uses AC against those and even with that, why didn't you used them against the AA turrets? Or waited until having a bigger wing of bombers? or even simply bring some cannons with ground units?

 

2-That's true that in ESB they didn't strike down military targets but still bombs are used against military targets in all SW flight sims.

[AlliedCommander]

Isn't it ironic that while many people disagree with windu, the threads he originate often have multiple pages?

 

Here's an idea: a Large Strike Cruiser. Similair to an air transport in size, hps, and speed. Maybe it could be built at the command center. It could only attack ground, and when it is built, you set a waypoint. It will travel to the waypoint, drops a devastating warhead (powerful as an air cruiser blast, but not as widespread) and immediately turn back and go to the place where it's waypoint was set; it does this so you don't have to bring it back. It is extremely vulnerable to all aircraft-shooting units, but can destroy an important tactical obstacle quickly.

 

Cost: 500 carbon, 200 nova. HP: 150 Attack: 50. This unit's suggestive strategy would be to do hit-and-run attacks against massing land-force armies.

 

Attack bonus vs. buildings and a slight bonus vs. mechs. Might not be available to all civs, the ones without it just need to build substancial anti-air.

 

This unit idea would probaly only work on a GB 2.

[Sithmaster_821]

Windu, only morons send their bombers to take out fortresses and AA turrets. You are a moron.

 

In ESB, i clearly saw them dropping bombs. I'd doubt that they'd change weapons when they decide to bomb a city.

 

Commander, Its because Windu is so stubborn about his ideas, he keeps argueing while everyone shouts at him that he is wrong. Look at the gunship threads (any one of them). And youre idea is basically an air cruiser/bomber merger. It kinda overshadows the other two. Despite what Corran feels, in a ground battle, it is nesassary to have a ground army that would deal with things that the air force was incapable of, and, in a ground battle, ground units should make up the bulk of your army.