Official SWGB 2 GB.com Thread

[Admiral Vostok]

I agree with everything you said, Fergie. I'd prefer to have a unit representing my Officer, but I've come to the conclusion it would work better the way you said it.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Wait wait!

 

You mean like adding points to the rebs in ships for example would only make them medium in ships right?

[darthfergie]

Wait wait!

 

You mean like adding points to the rebs in ships for example would only make them medium in ships right?

 

?!?!?

 

If you add points into your officers stats for ships you recieve a certain percentage better ships. So if you have a Rebel Officer with a strong emphasis in Ships you'd have a SUPER POWERFUL fleet...but a weak mech unit and troops wouldn't be top notch either...

[lukeiamyourdad]

oh then no it shouldn't be made like this. It would make all the civs look like each other and make it pointless for the guys at LA to even try and balance those stuff...

[CorranSec]

Vostok: It may somtimes be unrealistic, but it would be fun, and it'd also be fun to use those points to customise the units to be realistic.

Noo! Don't fall to the dark side of fergie's ideas!

 

Fergie:

1. So? Gameplay>Realism. Thrawn's particular special skills may be geared towards capital ships, but think about the gameplay here.

2. My points idea does just the same thing. There is no 'skill tree!' What are you talking about? You can pick the special skills, and they are wide and varied. The points allow you to customise your general in a very important way- stats.

The officer is not 'you.' Yes, you are the commander giving Solo orders from long distance-thus, the Solo officer is present on the battlefield. Your persona is not seen in-game. It's the Officer. You aren't Solo, you aren't Thrawn... you're just some commander guy.

In normal skirmish you choose a Officer/make one: fine. You may choose a preset general or make your own, spend points on stats and choose the three skills from three lists.

In campaign you start with a particular Officer (who is the main character of the campaign) with preset stats and special skills, but you get stat points to spend at the end of every mission.

Okay, so now you want "Special Abilities" as well. Aren't these generals getting a little overpowered?

But, if you want it, so be it. There's another passive skill that the Officer can select from a drop-down menu. It may affect the Officer, a certain kind of unit (though this would be bad), all your units (though this would be bad), or all units in a certain area (eg. around the Officer).

 

Why not? Have you ever heard of 'balance'? The people at LA will probably work their butts off to get this game perfectly balanced, and some people come along and completely ruin it because they want Jedi-strong Gungans. If they can't do without the Jedi, well, play a Jedi-strong civ. That's how it's designed.

It screws up both gameplay and realism. In another thread, you were talking about how people would be confused if the New Republic is a lot like the Rebels. Well, they'd be even more confused (and disappointed) if Officers can make them a lot like the Rebels, and nothing like what they're supposed to be. People will be equally annoyed and confused if Gungans are suddenly expert with Jedi, despite everything shown about them.

If an Imperial Officer went to the Rebellion, he'd use his special skills and passive ability where he chose, seeing as they have no influence on civ strengths. End of story.

 

And now you want Officer points to spend on certain kinds of units. That's even worse than civ-enhancing abilities. Balance will go out the window, gameplay will go out the chimney, and realism will blow a hole in the front door and run away.

[Admiral Vostok]

Okay Corran, now I'm agreeing with your counters to fergie. I'm so confused!

 

Well I think you could still have a Gungan Officer who likes Jedi, but it still won't give Gungans spectacular Jedi. Their Jedi will be slightly better than another Gungan player who doesn't like Jedi, but they won't be able to compete with Jedi-strong civs.

 

Let's say for example we have a Gungan General who for some reason likes Jedi. He might get a build time bonus, or a cost reduction, or maybe even access to Jedi Techs that Gungans don't normally recieve. It won't make his Jedi overly great, and won't completely go against the civ theme. But his opponent won't be expecting an attack by Jedi, so it might give him a small advantage. They won't be "Jedi-strong Gungans" but it will be better than normal Gungans.

[CorranSec]

That still might play hell with the carefully constructed balance, so I'm not sure about giving my approval. Would this be one of those passive abilities?

[Admiral Vostok]

Probably a passive ability. It fits better with what an Officer would actually bring to the army, plus it would probably be easier to balance.

[darthfergie]

Originally posted by CorranSec

Vostok: It may somtimes be unrealistic, but it would be fun, and it'd also be fun to use those points to customise the units to be realistic.

Noo! Don't fall to the dark side of fergie's ideas!

 

Fergie:

1. So? Gameplay>Realism. Thrawn's particular special skills may be geared towards capital ships, but think about the gameplay here.

2. My points idea does just the same thing. There is no 'skill tree!' What are you talking about? You can pick the special skills, and they are wide and varied. The points allow you to customise your general in a very important way- stats.

The officer is not 'you.' Yes, you are the commander giving Solo orders from long distance-thus, the Solo officer is present on the battlefield. Your persona is not seen in-game. It's the Officer. You aren't Solo, you aren't Thrawn... you're just some commander guy.

In normal skirmish you choose a Officer/make one: fine. You may choose a preset general or make your own, spend points on stats and choose the three skills from three lists.

In campaign you start with a particular Officer (who is the main character of the campaign) with preset stats and special skills, but you get stat points to spend at the end of every mission.

Okay, so now you want "Special Abilities" as well. Aren't these generals getting a little overpowered?

But, if you want it, so be it. There's another passive skill that the Officer can select from a drop-down menu. It may affect the Officer, a certain kind of unit (though this would be bad), all your units (though this would be bad), or all units in a certain area (eg. around the Officer).

 

Why not? Have you ever heard of 'balance'? The people at LA will probably work their butts off to get this game perfectly balanced, and some people come along and completely ruin it because they want Jedi-strong Gungans. If they can't do without the Jedi, well, play a Jedi-strong civ. That's how it's designed.

It screws up both gameplay and realism. In another thread, you were talking about how people would be confused if the New Republic is a lot like the Rebels. Well, they'd be even more confused (and disappointed) if Officers can make them a lot like the Rebels, and nothing like what they're supposed to be. People will be equally annoyed and confused if Gungans are suddenly expert with Jedi, despite everything shown about them.

If an Imperial Officer went to the Rebellion, he'd use his special skills and passive ability where he chose, seeing as they have no influence on civ strengths. End of story.

 

And now you want Officer points to spend on certain kinds of units. That's even worse than civ-enhancing abilities. Balance will go out the window, gameplay will go out the chimney, and realism will blow a hole in the front door and run away.

 

I really don't think it's a good idea to have officers on the battlefield and having to acess their abilities through the CLT+1 or something like that. Instead with you being the officer, your officers commands and stat sheets are in easily reachable via a button on the control panel at all times. Plus, no worring about having to protect the 3HP officer who is standing at the front to better support his troops. I mean you can still have Heroes like in WCIII and AoK.

 

And special abilites is basically specialized skills. They cost more points and are temporary large effects such as a large improvement in moral for units in an area that makes them better at ATK/DEF. Then there are generalized skills which may look much like a D&D Character sheet with points in various areas that improve the commander's bonus to certain units by some percentage points.

 

And lastly, Vostok nailed it about the Gungans. If you love Jedi and want to make the Gungans good at it you have to put TONS of points into it and with the dedication of that large an amount of points to that small area the general will undoubtedly be too unbalanced so that when attacked other units of his will be much likelier to fail because of the bad training by their officer/commander. So if you want to go off the deep end and kill yourself by focusing on Jedi...it's okay, but just don't expect to win that way...smart commanders will focus on their strengths.

[CorranSec]

Fergie:

With my "Field Officers," as I've taken to calling them, all the abilities and stats will be in the control box (where the stats are for all the normal units in most RTS games). All you have to do is click them, or press the hotkey.

You'd never have a 3HP officer at the front. Most people wouldn't use their officers in battle anyway, but with enough stat points spent on attack and HP they might end up pretty good fighters. It depends on the player's preference.

 

Now you're talking about morale..... there must be no morale. Period. We've already been over it. However, a special skill which improves ATK/DEF of all units in an area (temporarily) would be fine.

My idea was special abilities is that they're permanent and passive. Most of them would work like 'auras,' in that units around the Field Officer get healed/stats increase/damaged/etc. I'm trying to avoid game-shattering things like "Every single mech on your side gets +10 ATK."

I don't like the specialised skills either. As I've said before, they'd play havoc with game balance.

 

Well, the Gungan thing now seems pointless. If it's incredibly stupid and suicidal to have Gungans good at Jedi, then why give people the option?

As you said, ensible people will probably end up putting points into what the civ is already good at (eg. Gungan sea units), which means that you might as well give the civ normal bonuses, instead of worrying about Officers.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Exactly!

 

It would also be stupid. Gungans are supposed to be weak at Jedi.

Giving everyone the ability to have super-strong something is kinda stupid. And aura thing looks the best

[darthfergie]

With my "Field Officers," as I've taken to calling them, all the abilities and stats will be in the control box (where the stats are for all the normal units in most RTS games). All you have to do is click them, or press the hotkey.

You'd never have a 3HP officer at the front. Most people wouldn't use their officers in battle anyway, but with enough stat points spent on attack and HP they might end up pretty good fighters. It depends on the player's preference.

 

And if you lose your officer, it sucks to be you...you lose bonuses and all kinds of stuff...you life is meaningless since the other guy is whipping the crap out of you with his officer hiding in a fort just casting temp bonuses on his men from afar...WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING A FIGHTING OFFICER? This guy isn't any Leuitenant or something like that. No this guy is a general. An entegral part of you command structure...if you want to risk losing everything by putting your general on the front you need your head examined. Especially when you invest all those points into ATK/DEF etc...it'll make you too specialized and too unbalanced and most civs will be able to exploit it.

 

Now you're talking about morale..... there must be no morale. Period. We've already been over it. However, a special skill which improves ATK/DEF of all units in an area (temporarily) would be fine.

 

what did I say moral was? A PERCENTAGE OVERALL INCREASE!!! THAT'S ALL! I said nothing about a moral counter or fleeing factors etc that are normally associated with moral. I said it increased moral...and what does moral do to your men? Make them fight better...thus you have the temporary percentage increase. I'm not advocating a moral feature in the game at all.

 

My idea was special abilities is that they're permanent and passive. Most of them would work like 'auras,' in that units around the Field Officer get healed/stats increase/damaged/etc. I'm trying to avoid game-shattering things like "Every single mech on your side gets +10 ATK."

I don't like the specialised skills either. As I've said before, they'd play havoc with game balance.

 

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? You are a typing paradox. You advocate temporary auras and then call specialized skills stupid. THEY'RE THE SAME THINGS! Specialized skills are for ONE SPECIFIC THING OR GROUP OF THINGS. It's like giving a group of units a healing, or an attack boost...not godlike powers. Generalized skills don't have to be selected by pressing a button, they are permanent throughout the battle. They are already applied as you use the units. Like say you have 6 points invested into manufacturing and it gives you 3% faster factories.

 

Well, the Gungan thing now seems pointless. If it's incredibly stupid and suicidal to have Gungans good at Jedi, then why give people the option?

 

BECAUSE IT'S RPG LIKE! Have you ever played D&D and used a gnome for a barbarian? It's just some people like to break the mold. They think to themselves..."wouldn't it be cool if..." Why take the option away?

 

As you said, sensible people will probably end up putting points into what the civ is already good at (eg. Gungan sea units), which means that you might as well give the civ normal bonuses, instead of worrying about Officers.

 

Okay then we'll put a big red X through the whole officer discussion and call it worthless shall we?

 

I personally think officers would give a nice variety to the gameplay with their special skills and bonuses it what you like to use most etc. Gives the player better flexibility and it creates an infinate amount of subcivs for a different play every time.

[Admiral Vostok]

Look, Gungans will not be able to have "super-strong Jedi", no matter how you look at it. What they will have is the option to have better Jedi than a Gungan might normally have. The only advantage this will give them is the benefit of a surprise attack. The enemy will not expect them to attack with Jedi, but when they do, even if their Jedi are weak, they might have the advantage of surprise. Most people will play to the civs strengths as they should. But what is the harm in allowing Gungans to be slightly better than normal at Jedi? They will still be a lot worse than Rebels, Empire, Republic and Naboo. Again, that does not make the ability pointless - the element of surprise is an important one, not to be underestimated.

 

And Fergie, the reasons you've quoted for not having a field officer are the exact reasons it would be good. You need to protect your officer at all costs. If the enemy assassinates him, then yes, you will be in trouble. What's the answer? He needs to stay at home, safe in a command center or fortress... wait for it... JUST LIKE WE SEE IN THE MOVIES. This is another reason why I'd like to not give them an attack. Here are my reasons:

It will discourage stupid people to bring their Officer to the battlefront when they can't defend themselves.

It will even out obvious differences between Jedi Officers and Political Officers. A Jedi without a lightsaber is only slightly better than a Queen without a blaster. The difference between the two is negligible on an RTS scale.

The really great Officers from the movies we don't see actually fight. Sure Mace Windu runs into battle, but he wasn't a commanding Officer, was he? Yoda stays back at the command center, as he is the commanding Officer. Other Officers were in vehicles (Luke in X-Wing/Airspeeder, Veers in AT-AT, OOM-9 in AAT).

So you need to protect your Officer, keep him/her back at the command center where they can do the most good, and if your base is invaded and they are assassinated, then yes you are at a loss. Just as it should be.

 

And I wouldn't rule out morale entirely. I have a fairly good system designed for how it could work. But that isn't the issue here. Yet.

[CorranSec]

Luke's dad: Thankyou. I have one supported. At least, I'm not sure whose side Vostok is on...

 

Fergie:

1. The point of a fighting officer is the fun of it. You know, people might want to fight with an officer. Or, more appropriately, people might want an officer with the capability to defend himself, if the situation calls for it.

The Field Officers aren't designed to be used in battle, but it can be fun to use them in battle. Would you prefer something like the "Commanders" in the current game? Some pathetic sitting duck who would probably get killed by a speeder bike?

Field Officers are going to be on the field, and they're going to be able to fight- but not too well, and it would make more sense to keep them at home base most of the time. It's fun. Live with it.

"Investing points into ATK/DEF"? What's this? You have points to spend on stats. You don't have points to spend on silly things like making Gungans have super-strong Jedi. We've been over this before.

 

2. Thus, I said that an ATK/DEF increase (by way of an 'aura' like power) would be fine with me.

 

3. Special skills are different to specialized skills. The way I'm understanding it, specialized skills are your ideas, in which your 'Generals' can put points into areas and screw up game balance.

Okay, now you've decided to call them 'Generalised skills.' Fine with me. Well, it's fine with me what you call them, but I hate the idea.

Special skills are my temporary auras/buffs, which may indeed include giving a group of units a healing, or an attack boost.

 

4. Bad idea. If you want to do that, just play as the Gungans and make lots of Jedi. Including a supposedly critical game feature just so you can break the mold and play "What If" is silly, especially when it screws around with game balance.

And yes, I have played D&D, with a gnomish fighter. It was fun, but I got pretty smacked up, and went back to my half-elf rogue, which was just as fun. To continue with the analogy, half-elves can also be fighters, rangers, you name it. It's not as if generalised skills are the only way to escape the tyranny of only using one unit!

 

5. Let's put a big red X through your generalised skills idea. Special skills will still give nice variety, what with all of them being *gasp* different and all that.

Once again, players will have plenty of flexibility without screwing around with game balance. Every unit will have its uses- even Gungan Jedi- without having to make them better with a General.

 

 

Vostok:

The harm is screwing around with game balance. I consider that a pretty big harm, don't you?

If the skill effect is so minor as to be only good for suprises, why include it at all? Being a cynic and all, I'm getting terrible images of players building huge armies of every single unit possible so they can counter whatever suprising new thing their enemies throw at them. We don't want this.

On the other hand, the Jedi-loving player will get absolutely smashed by any player who happens to have a few Jedi-killers around.

"Damn, I thought those generalised skills would make my Jedi good. But wait- that would screw around with game balance. Ah, don't they seem rather pointless? Yup... let's get rid of them."

 

I heartily agree with your other points. Okay, two people on my side.

[joesdomain]

I think they should make a new sequel where it has ground based battles on land, air and sea, but release an expansion pack a month later with a space battle expansion for people who like space battles. Each civilization should have alot more types of troopers

Suggestions:

Different types of laser troopers

Thermal Detonator Troopers

Mounted Troopers

Anti-air Troopers

Officers

 

EX: Empire

Different types of Bounty Hunters

Stormtroopers

Stormtroopers on Dewbacks

Snowtroopers

Stormtroopers with anti-air

Darktroopers

Imperial Navy Troopers

Imperial Officers

Imperial Navy Troopers with thermal detonators

 

I also think they should increase the the number of aircraft.The craft should be able to land when you don't use them.

Stick with the movies.

EX: Empire-

Tie Fighters

Tie Interceptors

Tie Advanced

Tie Bombers

Imperial Lander

Imperial Lamda Class Shuttle (Should be able to land and fold wings like in the movies)

 

Add buildable droids like:

Imperial Probe Droids

Imperial Interrogator Droids

etc.

[Admiral Vostok]

Joe - I don't really see what use Interrogator Droids would be on the field:

"Are you going to shoot me?"

"Yes."

KABOOM

 

And I don't see how a space battle could be built into an expansion. They really need to be two separate games. What would be cool is if you own both these games, they have some sort of link in them so you can play massive campaigns. You play a space battle to blockade a planet, then play a ground battle to invade the planet, for example. I don't think you can package them as one game.

 

Corran - Very good points. You've brought me over to your side if I wasn't before. A special skill is probably better in terms of gameplay than a generalised skill. But what would these special skills be? I hope not much like in WC3 where you have mana. I'd prefer it to be like an aura, where units within distance benefit from something. I think this is more appropriate for Officers, since they'd be shouting commands to everyone in a radius.

 

Now what about this idea - the problem I can see with the above is that your Officer can only be in one area. So what if your Commanding Officer is available from the start of the game, and every Tech Level you get a subordinate Officer. The subordinate Officers project an aura that gives the same special skills as determined by you Commanding Officer, but their aura is about half the size. This way you could spread out attacks rather than one concentrated front. The special skills would not be cumulative though, so it won't matter how many Officers are in the same area. If your Commanding Officer is killed it won't effect the other Officers, but keep in mind they have a smaller aura and are probably easier to kill so you won't go as well.

 

Corran, can you give some examples of special skills so I know we're talking about the same things? I know you did some for Thrawn (I think it was you) but the discussion has evolved since then.

[CorranSec]

Vostok:

I agree with your comments about Joe's ideas. Joe- you can't make a game entirely out of canon units. Canon concepts and basics, yes, but in the interests of game balance new things must be invented to fill the gaps.

 

What's wrong with a kind of 'mana' like in WC3? This is the only way to have activatable and temporary skills, because it's unbalanced if you can just use them over and over. I mean, it doesn't have to be exactly like mana, there could just be a recharge time before the Field Officer can activate a skill.

 

Some of these skills could be auras in the way you suggested. But I think others could be targeted at units, units in an area, enemies in an area, whatever. It's not just shouting orders, it's the Field Officer's skills (eg. making units stealthy, freezing enemy units in place, whatever).

 

I don't think "Subordinate Officers" will be necessary. That's the whole point of the 'aura' skills- you have to get your Field Officer around to where you want to use them. It's a balance issue. And, once again, the 'auras' aren't the only skills available.

 

I still like the ones I suggested for Thrawn, but here's a few more I've just come up with:

 

(these are actually lines that you suggested, but I've changed the effects)

OOM-9:

"If they're down here sir, we'll find them." Aura: Units surrounding OOM-9 get temporary LOS bonuses.

"They will not stay hidden for long." Area-effect: Sea units in an area can see/attack cloaked units.

"Open fire!" Area-effect: Mechs in an area get ATK bonuses.

 

General Veers:

"Blizzard Force moving in." Aura: Mechs surrounding Veers increase in speed. (I don't know if this is a correct... hopefully you can give me his real lines).

"Target at maximum firepower!" Target: Target on an enemy building, and its defense (building armour, whatever) decreases dramatically.

"I can't think of another line." Area-effect: Heavy mechs get an attack increase.

[Admiral Vostok]

Well I suppose the inclusion of subordinate Officers depends on the Population limit you are going to have. If we're going to have a 400 pop max, I think you might want to have multiple attack fronts, and therfore multiple Officers. What if you get your Commanding Officer in Tech Level 2, then a subordinate Officer for TL3 and TL4? Then you only have two extra guys.

 

How about these for Veers:

"All troops debark for ground assault." Area of effect. All troops get a temporary speed bonus.

"Target, maximum firepower!" Aura. All mechs get a temporary attack bonus.

"The sheild will be down in moments." Target. Reduces the shielding on an enemy building by a certain amount.

 

I think it would be nice if each Officer gets an Area Of Effect skill, an Aura skill and a Target skill as their three skills.

 

Would you have rubbish skills for bad Officers, like Jar Jar?

"My give up!" Aura. All units cannot attack for a while. (Only kidding about that one )

[CorranSec]

I thought of a way to balance subordinates out. Every time you want a Subordinate to use a power, you have to select an option in the Command Center (or whatever) called Comm Transmission. It's pretty expensive, and represents the Field Officer communicating to his subordinates what he wants them to do.

Does that make sense?

 

Actually, after watching that particular scene again, I was thinking of including those quotes. However, I have a few comments:

"All troops debark for ground assault." This might be a little overpowering, as you could bunch a whole group of troops up, give them the speed boost, and rush an opponent.

"Target, maximum firepower!" I believe that my version is more balanced. I'm also thinking of something different to use, but it probably won't work out.

"The shield will be down in moments." This is probably either underpowered (because shields are rare) or overpowered (because shields are normally difficult to take down). It's also fairly unrealistic- it refers to Veers attacking a shield generator, not blasting a shielded target.

 

Heh... that quote (among others) might convince people not to use Jar Jar. And then we wouldn't have the pleasure of killing him. So, unfortunately, we'll have to make him balanced.

[AU_Skythe]

wow, you guys post so much! i have totally skipped all but the first page of posts in here and just thought i'd voice my opinion.

 

i have been looking at RoN a lot and it is definly the next game im going to buy after SWGB. With that sayed, i do not think RoN will be outdated by the time the new game is released. It would be better, people wouldnt need as much specs as in aom, no super laggy games. The RoN engine could practically be almost considered a sequel to the aok.. it has most of the aspects but altered. You can zoon etc. The border thing is like your men need to eat or they loose health slowly (unless you bring carts in which allow them to carry food). It is semi 3d. most things are 3d save the buildings.

(There would also be the problem of nukes, what could it be? death star signal sender, lol, or would it just be removed).

 

Anyyways.. if you consider thousands of people still play aok now. And it seems as if RoN is going to be a big hit with already more fansites than SWGB, lol and with microsoft support, since BHG is a microsoft company, it will be a big game. So i think it would be more of a true sequel to SWGB.

 

Then you could have LA make their whole own new engine. Shees, how long is that going to take? by that time episode 100 will be out (or episode minus 6).

 

Well whatever LA chooses, i hope they do it right.

 

Personally myself i would hope for

Everything featured in SWGB but with more realism.. for example bombers fighters changed, they fly around or something like that)

 

More Civs.. a lot more.

More Unique units

More civ uniquness

More Team bonus stuff, making it more important which civ you pick.

and more multiplayer support

also.. a thing i noticed from warcraft III.. better campaign interface. WC3 had the best campaignes i had ever played in any games. If LA could take scenes from the star wars universe, add them as intros and do a whole SWGB SAGA campaign with almost every aspect of each movie in campaignes.. that would be totally awesome! i bet half the people who buy this game dont even play it online, but if they chatted to their pals about the ultra cool campaignes more people are gonna come online, better community etc!

 

I hope they keep it the same game style as SWGB, aok etc.

If you wouldnt say thats not really a sequel.. then they could make the game more in-depth. like i sayed better fighter interface, more jedi powers and stuff.

 

But one things for sure it will be mighty cool having the complete star wars movie sets in 1 game!!

 

 

 

(Who knows maybe it isnt SWGB2. Maybe its like episode 3 completely with all its units )

 

Thats my 100 cents

[AU_Andy_Ewok]

Skythe

 

Maybe i'll get RoN now just so i can own you at it lol. When's it released?

 

Oh, just scan through the post to look for my posts. They're the only ones worth reading

[Lex]

Skythe got it...i'd take 14 instead of 8 civs, and more units...but more uniquess can be dangerous, coz they may become unbalanced...everything else is fine

[lukeiamyourdad]

Let's keep RoN for the RoN thread...

[Admiral Vostok]

Corran -

That solution seems okay for subordinates, except in the heat of battle it's a bit annoying to go back to your comm-center. I suggest having a sub-ordinate use powers has a cost attached to it, that you pay automatically when you select the skill. The Commander can use his skills free, though. Also, the subordinates would take longer to recharge their "mana" (need to think of a better and more relevant name).

 

I'm assuming there would be a certain range for the "target" and "area effect" skills. So you couldn't use a skill form half the map away.

[CorranSec]

Skythe: Yeah, post about RoN in the RoN thread. I agree with most of the other stuff. By "better campaign interface" do you mean cutscenes and all that, like in WC3? Those were fantastic.

 

And this takes be to something I'd like to propose. Most RTS games coming out have in-game cutscenes, both pre- and post-mission. I think we can all agree that these are a good idea.

However, I would also like to see some of the WC3-style cutscenes- the ones shown at the beginning/end of the campaign which introduce/conclude the story and all that. But I'd like them done in a different way to WC3.

Has anyone here played Jedi Knight 1 (or Dark Forces 2)? That took a really inventive way with cutscenes, using actual actors and sets with CG effects. I thought that was a great idea, and I far prefer it to the cutscenes in JO (or JK2). Would anyone else like to see live-action cutscenes?

 

Vostok:

I considered that, but people might just keep on using subordinate skills without noticing the cost. Having to research it at the CC makes you fully aware of what you're doing. However, people will probably notice that they have to pay to use the skill, especially if a message pops up when you try to do it. So yes, that would be better.

I think that you should be able to use the target and area-effect skills half the map away- as long as you can see the target. That's the whole purpose of the non-aura skills: to be used by an officer who can be quite a while away from the battle. That's the way it's worked for plenty of other RTS games, and it'll work for the Field Officers, I assure you.