Official SWGB 2 GB.com Thread

[swphreak]

hmm... officers boosting moral and stuff. . . not completely a bad idea. it could be done. Like you could build 1 general/commanding offcer at a time, and like as many as 5 Subordinate officers. They can boost moral, area effect stats, ect. I would suggest they be built from a "Command School" or something like the Temple iin AoM. Not the Command center, you gotta work hard for 'em. Maybe you can get one officer at the begining.

[Admiral Vostok]

The WarCraft 3 cutscenes that are in-game, how did they work? Were they similar to the ones in Empire Earth where you have the units standing around and acting out a scene, then you get control of them to play the mission?

 

So you could have as many subordinates as you wanted to? I like that idea, but if that's the case I don't think you should have to pay to have them use skills. They should really just have skills that aren't as strong. For example, if your Commander has an Aura effect that gives Mechs +2 attack, your subordinates have an aura that is smaller than the commanders and they only give +1 attack. Their Leadership would also take longer to recharge. I think officers would work very well like this. Subordinates would probably be pretty expensive to build, and their effects are not cumulative (so if you have two subordinates in the same area your mechs won't get +1 attack from one and +1 attack from the other for a total of +2, they would only get the +1).

[CorranSec]

SWPhreak: Read the last couple of pages, and you'll understand the kind of thing we're aiming for.

 

Vostok: The WC3 cutscenes were done with triggers (units moving around, attacking, etc), camera angles, lack of player control and dialogue. I really liked the way they were done.

 

I think that subordinates should still need to pay. After all, they answer to their leader- they don't have skills of their own. And by the way, I understand what the word "cumulative" means.

[Admiral Vostok]

Well I think that would be a great way to do briefings, and the cinematics could work with non-main characters. However, I'd still like to see main characters as units in the briefing cutscenes, voiced by other actors as they are now, but they don't appear in the live action cinematics.

 

I guess it would still be okay to pay, especially if we change nova to credits as we suggested in the other thread.

 

And by the way, I understand what the word "cumulative" means.

Yeah but SE_Vader's only little.

[CorranSec]

In-game cutscenes are the best kind of briefings, I still believe. Why do you insist that canon characters must be used? They just can't, for realism and gameplay reasons! Just let the devs make up some all-new interesting characters that don't require a great feat of fiddling around with time to incorporate. Storylines with freedom are the best.

 

Yay.

 

Vader isn't here..... thank the Force.

[AU_Skythe]

um.. why shouldnt it be a game based on the actual star wars movies?? i see no reason why it shouldnt be. LA probably made the campaignes in GB the way they did because the age of empiresII engine wasnt fit to do the sort of stuff they would need to be able to do to make the campaignes as the movie storylines.,.

 

(BTW sorry about the posting thing im not used to it posting more than once when you press it mulitple times)

 

When that happens...press the EDIT button under your post and at the top of the next page there is a big box that says DELETE...check "yes" and then press the DELETE NOW button -darthfergie

[thomhasj]

 

I hope SWGB 2 will be a 2D engine, otherwise I could not play it.

[CorranSec]

Because a game based on the movies would probably be a 1PS. That is, you're Luke running around inside the Death Star with a blaster. The GB genre (RTS, where you build bases and units) doesn't fit in with what happens in the movies (apart from some Fixed Force bits, like the Battle of Hoth). The rest is 1PS, action/adventure, space sim, it could even be an RPG- but not RTS. It just doesn't fit.

But hopefully, GB2 will be such a great game that people could (in the scenario editor) make campaigns of the movies, where you just run around as a person and don't build things. That'd be good.

 

Don't worry about the multiple posting thing. We've all done it. I think...

[Admiral Vostok]

Well the campaigns based on the movies worked well enough for SWGB1. Why wouldn't similar (but obviously different enough to be interesting) campaigns work for SWGB2?

[CorranSec]

1. There were no 'campaigns based on the movies' in GB1.

Wookiees? Nope. A vague attempt to use a main characters in a learning campaign that didn't quite work out.

Trade Fed? Loosely based, yes, but nothing in there was seen in the movies, apart from the Grassy Plain bonus mission (which was altered so it had a different ending). It's basically preparation for Episode I.

Gungans? Only mission 4 is close to the occurances of the movies.

Empire? The bonus missions are loosely based on occurances in the movies, but not the truth, and only there for fun anyway.

Rebels? The main campaign isn't based on anything, and doesn't really fit in with anything in the movies or otherwise. Two of the bonus missions are loosely based on movies... loosely.

Wookiees? Nope. Nothing like the movies, apart from Chewie, Han and Lando's existence.

 

2. The stories of the movies are not suited for an RTS. It would be far more sane to have a 1PS or some such. What would you rather: you (as Han) running around in the Death Star's corridors in a 1PS, or you commanding a FF in an RTS?

 

3. We shouldn't restrict ourselves to things that have been done many times before. We can use them as a basis and as source material, but the real battles should be made-up. It gives the devs a lot more freedom and is new (and interesting). Who knows- there could be some cameo appearances made by the main characters. But cameos only. Things like the tale of Boss Gallo, told in the earlier part of the Gungan campaign, are what we want. Or at least what I want, and what would work best.

[darthfergie]

Fergie - I resent you suggesting we have no lives. You're a moderator so you should try to set a good example for others rather than act in a way that gets most people banned.

Hi and hello to you...did you happen to notice the POST under my intro joke? Lighten up!

 

 

 

"Open-ended game?" Do you have any concept of how this is going to work? As you said yourself, it's never been implemented in an RTS. It'll end up having no storyline at all, and will probably just look like a bunch of battle missions. And I know how all you want to do is battle, but I'd rather have a storyline.

 

I'd rather not. I'd rather make my own destiny. It has been done in RTSs BTW. They just have two engines for the game. A battle engine, and a board engine. I love open ended games. I've played more than a few with RTS engines built inside the board game outer engine. I prefer it this way to the limited and linear campaign tradition. I mean you could call in conquer the world skirmish game...whatever...but it could also be integrated into the campaign...do you remember Tiberian Sun? The big map...you choose where to go? Well this could be the same thing only deeper, loads more stuff added in.

 

Please, don't overreact. Having a single 'sorcerer' doesn't mean a lower pop cap and smaller squads. There's one unit with these skills, and they won't require much micro at all. I'm not turning this into a Craft, don't you worry.

 

sounds waaaaaay too much like a WCIII heros thing to me. It is the latest trend, but I dunno how well it would work in an SW environment.

 

Nobody would actually send their Field Officer into the front lines to blast away at the enemy. He'd hang back, providing support by means of auras, and damaging the enemy/buffing his allies with area-effect and targeted skills.

You will still have these "morale boosts," even though that's a terrible name for them (stick with 'auras,' if you please).

 

sure...but you'll have less moral boosts if you devote more points to HP, ATK, and DEF. What's the point of building those skills up if you're never gonna use him/her in combat? I mean it might be useful sometimes to have a fighting general...I mean think of Mace! I don't really like the idea at all...and in fact I'd add fighting generals under the hero category...BUT ANYWAY...now that I think about it...I see no real reason the generals couldn't fight in combat...but It'll be microing hell for those who just want the moral boosts in their character...

[Admiral Vostok]

Corran - you seem to be forgetting that ALL campaigns were filled with characters from the movies, which is what I thought we were talking about. They might not be based on the movie plotlines, but they're based on the movie characters.

 

Fergie - By open ended you mean like in the Westwood games where you chose which part of the map to move onto next? If so then I agree.

 

I don't think I'm a fan of building the Commander's stats. I'd prefer the Officers to pretty much be all the same except for their skills. I don't think you'd have any Jedi's as Officers, because it would be too hard to balance well. And it wouldn't make sense to have a Jedi Officer's stats less than a normal Jedi's stats.

 

I think Officers should just be the Officers from the movies:

Galactic Empire - olive brown uniforms

Galactic Republic - Clones with the yellow or red trim

Gungan Grand Army - grey skin like Tarpals

Rebel Alliance - light brown uniforms

Royal Naboo - blue and red like Panaka

Trade Federation - battle droids with the yellow trim

Confederacy - Well we didn't explicitely see any but we might in Ep3.

 

Save Jedi for being Jedi, not Officers. Gameplay>Realism.

[CorranSec]

Fergie:

'Making your own destiny' is nothing next to a great storyline. You generally don't get complaints about RTS games being linear... sure, the missions are the same, but there's plenty of different tactics to implement, different places to build bases, and all that. And note that it'll be difficult as hell to have an open-ended campaign map for about 12 civs...

 

If it sounds like WC3 heroes to you, you've obviously misinterpreted what I've been saying. WC3 heroes are resurrectable, fight, and have game-deciding spells. Field Officers are one-use-only, aren't that great at fighting and have useful but not overpowered special skills

 

Uh... no. You don't spend 'points' on your special skills (which aren't all auras, by the way). You choose them, and the points go into stats (such as health, damage and armour). Building these skills up is a fun thing to do on the side and makes the FOs much more unique (one might be tough yet do little damage, while another is an all-out attacker). In the late game your FO might be quite formidable in battle, so you could have Mace slashing evil guys to bits, but they won't be as great as the WC3 heroes.

 

Vostok:

I know they had characters from the movies, and that was partially was gave them such terrible storylines. Imagine not having to work around the constraints of the existing SW universe, timelines and all that, and being able to create your own epic!

 

Why would you want to have all FOs the same? Jedi can easily be balanced- it's just the person's name and avatar after all, not their stats. There still will be normal Jedi, but the main character Jedi will be FOs. Gameplay>Realism....

 

Ah! What happened to all the great generals we thought of? Here's your chance to include movie characters- as FOs in standard games! I'm sure everyone would much prefer Luke Skywalker, Count Dooku, Grand Admiral Thrawn and Admiral Piett to typical troopers in drab uniforms.

[Admiral Vostok]

All FOs need to be the same for Gameplay reasons. The fact that FOs need to be balanced (Gameplay) is greater than the fact that Jedis were Officers (Realism).

 

I'd prefer to have the characters in the scenario builder and campaigns than in RM games. Just imagine having Mace Windu, who gets both Jedi powers like we're talking about on the other thread and Officer powers. It would be a lot of fun I think. It just seems silly to not give the person their proper stats when they can be included in a different way and given their proper stats.

 

Having a single character with great abilities doesn't really fit well in an RTS. It's better suited for RPGs, or combinations like WC3. I think not getting to play as Luke Skywalker all the time is a small price to pay for having Luke Skywalker with realistic stats.

[CorranSec]

All FOs need to be the same for Gameplay reasons. The fact that FOs need to be balanced (Gameplay) is greater than the fact that Jedis were Officers (Realism).

But FOs will still be balanced. Everyone has ten stat points.... they just spend them differently.

 

Jedi officers with real Jedi powers would be too good. You'll never have main characters with 'realistic' stats, and you can never hope to have a realistic, open-ended or free campaign with main characters involved.

I mean, sure, they could be in the scenario editor. That could make for some fun. But not in the normal game.

[VA_Rebel_Spies]

Wait a minute. There is a Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds II coming out?? or are you talking about the clone campiagns expansion pack?

 

I was hoping there is a new SWGB coming out. Is there one in the making or what?

 

[Boba Rhett]

Yes, there is.

[VA_Rebel_Spies]

OMG thats awesome!!

 

When is it scheduled for release? or is it not even in the making yet. ??

[darthfergie]

'Making your own destiny' is nothing next to a great storyline. You generally don't get complaints about RTS games being linear... sure, the missions are the same, but there's plenty of different tactics to implement, different places to build bases, and all that. And note that it'll be difficult as hell to have an open-ended campaign map for about 12 civs...

 

Not really. You've once again missed the boat. Go out and buy Medievil Total War or Shogun Total War please. Totally open ended with many many civs on the board at one time, but with this game you down-tone the board part a bit so it isn't as in-depth and keep an emphasis on the battling. Each territory has its own map and it may randomize the situation you fall in, thus giving a mission-like feel. I've played most open ended games MUCH more than linear one...linear games, you play through once...maybe twice...sometimes three times if you REALLY like it. I've played through the open ended scenarios of Europa Universalis II at least 30 times...and the scenarios usually take days or weeks to complete...and since I d/loaded a scenario editor I've found near infinate replayability. Open ended games just last.

 

If it sounds like WC3 heroes to you, you've obviously misinterpreted what I've been saying. WC3 heroes are resurrectable, fight, and have game-deciding spells. Field Officers are one-use-only, aren't that great at fighting and have useful but not overpowered special skills

 

Why not have great fighting generals? Darth Vader, Mace Windu, Yoda, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, etc...they are all great fighting generals. You build up HP, ATK, DEF, and sacrifice a few other skills.

 

Uh... no. You don't spend 'points' on your special skills (which aren't all auras, by the way). You choose them, and the points go into stats (such as health, damage and armour). Building these skills up is a fun thing to do on the side and makes the FOs much more unique (one might be tough yet do little damage, while another is an all-out attacker). In the late game your FO might be quite formidable in battle, so you could have Mace slashing evil guys to bits, but they won't be as great as the WC3 heroes.

 

So no matter what, no matter how stupid or how smart your general is, you'll have the any moral boost you want in the same amount too. Stupid. You should have to spend points on your moral boosts. They should cost alot in comparison to the standard ability points. The non-fighting general could then have alot of moral boosts (many that are very powerful) and high skill in support stats, and the fighting generals have less and weaker power moral boosts because they can't afford them with the high investments in HP, ATK, DEF, etc.

 

 

BTW, no release date as of yet...and no official press release either...*points to http://www.lucasarts.com*...but maybe we'll see a preview/anouncement at this year's E3.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Main characters- IF the story is good then it should be made so. I highly doubt that however. See as how SWGB1' campaign sucked.

 

Heroes-We still don't have those special abilities we're talking about. Except auras, we don't know what kind of other speciality the will have.

[Admiral Vostok]

I honestly don't think the point spending thing will work all that well. And it doesn't matter if Heroes are really good in campaigns - having both Jedi and Officer abilities might be a great combo but it still won't win any battles on it's own. I just think it's a lot more realistic and at the same time great gameplay to just have Officers and Jedi separate, with only heroes possessing Jedi and Officer powers together. Note heroes won't be allowed in MP or RM games, just as it is now.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Of course.

 

I believe games with good story AND good gameplay do better. It would be a shame to have a good game without a good story.

[CorranSec]

Fergie:

Do the "Total War" games have any kind of storyline? I highly doubt it. Storyline is one of the key aspects of the game. And by the way, this is an RTS. Linearity is something that applies in an RPG, or occasionally a 1PS. Not an RTS. And hey, you can play through the campaigns plenty of times. Build different units. Try different strategies.

Why not have great fighting generals? Because it doesn't make sense and they'll end up overbalanced. Generals are not designed to fight, although they can. They're there for their skills.

You can't change how stupid or smart your general is. This isn't like WC3, with intelligence, strength and the like. The auras work the same. I might consider an increase when the general 'levels up' (new campaign mission/standard game research or tech tree level), but you shouldn't have to spend points on your skills (which aren't just auras!!). You pick them at the start of the game.

All generals are kinda non-fighting. They're not soldiers, and they're not really front-line leaders (although you could design a general for that). They exist for their skills, and stat customisation exists for fun and uniqueness.

 

Luke's dad: They story probably won't be good if a main character is forced into it. GB's campaigns sucked even with the halfhearted inclusion of main characters (and possibly because of them). Why should we have to have main characters?

Well, I know what the other skills are. There's auras, area-effect skills (you target them at an area), and targeted (you target them at a unit/building). I don't know the exact skills yet, but they could really do anything.

And, of course, storyline is an essential part of the game (single player at least). You can't have a great game without a great story.

 

Vostok: What's wrong with stat point spending? It seems to work fine. Jedi and Officer abilities, with some attempt at realistic stats, would be unbeatable. I mean, take a Sith (eg Palpatine). You've got Lightning and Conversion, an aura skill, an area-effect skill, a targeted skill, great attack, great defense, great speed and great HP.

Officers and Jedi are separate. Officers may happen to be main-character or prominent Jedi, but that's of no consequence.

What do you mean by 'heroes' in MP? If you're meaning Field Officers, of course they'll be in MP. They're an addition that affects the entire game.

[Lex]

lol waitin for Star Wars: Total War?

 

ok, my thoughts again: 2d, just rocks, and if u make civs differnent, u will ahve the same **** as AoM has!!! ok make 16 civ if u want, but keep em close to each other or they'll be unbalanced!!! the officers would be a good thing, and i guess some units of Ep3....Storyline, well, i never played the campaings and i guess few people do... AoE has still 6000 players althought it's very old! so why not keep old engines alive?

[CorranSec]

Um... 2D might be okay, but 3D is better. AoM isn't really ****, what makes you say that? Different civs are far better than generic ones, and if you keep them close they'll get repetitive and boring.