Official SWGB 2 GB.com Thread

[Sithmaster_821]

Less civs is alot better. Not to the extreme of Blizzard's games, but i think that 6-8 unique civs can be made with unique unit sets and unique features.

 

even AoM moved their amount of civs down to 3.

There are nine civs in AoM (sorry its a pet peeve:) I cant stand people saying AoM has 3 civs)

[darthfergie]

Originally posted by Sithmaster_821

There are nine civs in AoM (sorry its a pet peeve:) I cant stand people saying AoM has 3 civs)

 

Technicly there are three...if want to divide it up into the different combos with gods then yes there are 9 subcivs, but they are still basically the same civ with a few differently placed bonuses.

 

It seems that FoCom is ur kind of game Fergie.

unfortunatly no. The crappy camera angles and very linear campaign (Many levels have ONE path to take because of natural barriers making a newb trail...or a slaughter zone...however you want to look at it) has me cringing even today...

 

And lastly...8 civs is WAY too much. Focus here. Just get the important civs and drop the useless ones like Naboo, Gungan and Wookies. Stay with the power civs. Empire, Rebel Allaince, Confederacy, Old Republic. 4 civs...done. TF fits nicely inside the Confederacy unit structure since basically half of the confederacy is the TF. And if they have extra time on their hands a Vong civ, but I wouldn't expect it since they'll probably shy away from basically creating the total look of the Yuzhaan Vong from scratch. But realistically a max of 5 civs...there are such a thing as X-pacs for you nuts who must have civs...

[CorranSec]

Fergie, why do you assume that the larger number of civs will be crappy and rushed? I'm sure the AoM and RoN supporters will assure you that their larger numbers of civs are indeed different. The 15 or so civs I'm proposing will have a great number of differences- far more than just two or three civs would give you.

 

People will get sick of just two or three civs pretty damned quickly, I can tell you right now. With larger numbers of civs, multiplayer games in particular will be much more diverse.

With my 4v4, you'll end up with Rebs+Old Reps+New Reps+Smugglers' Union vs. Yuuzhan Vong+Imperial Remnant+Hutt Cartel+Galactic Empire.

With yours, it'll be something like Rebs+Imps+Reps+Rebs vs. Imps+Reps+Rebs+Imps.

Which is better?

 

Since when are we players considered to be mere generals? We are the emperors, the rulers, the overlords of an entire economical and military force. We aren't Rommels, we aren't Napoleons, we are King Edwards, Queen Cleopatras, and so on.

One must gather resources to build an army. This is one of the most important parts of an RTS. If you want, though, there could be more intelligent workers....... but I'm sure that will greatly displease any economical fans.

You're cutting out one half of the entire genre, and taking one half of the players + one half of the fun with it.

All right, I can see your points about the gameplay. In GB2, there will hopefully be such things as flanking, amubushes, so on and so forth.

 

Okay, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this command map. But it seems like a huge amount of work just put into merely one campaign, and I was hoping to have several campaigns.

Do we want people just playing campaigns? Are we going to turn this into WarCraft III, where the campaigns were basically the game, and multiplayer/scenarios were a side thought?

I hope not.

 

Er... you think that a complete engine change, a unit sets overhaul, and such are merely matters for an X-Pack? Tell that to a game developer.

My ideas might not be as radical as yours. But yours are radical on the 'suicidally radical' scale. As in, jump off the top of the Empire State Building suicidal.

Maybe we should become communists. Then we can get all the radicals (like fergie) shot. :)

[Sithmaster_821]

Technicly there are three...if want to divide it up into the different combos with gods then yes there are 9 subcivs, but they are still basically the same civ with a few differently placed bonuses.

I've been here before, but I'll say it again. There are nine civs and different combos of different minor gods can bring the total up to 72 very un-unique subcivs. But ony the nine civs feel like civs. If you're one of the people who say that the three cultures (which delienate units, art, and music, areas rarely dealt with in normal civs) as civs, than you probably have either not played the game, or maybe just played the demo. The nine civs deal with bonuses, unique units, and prefered strategies, things that normal civs deal with.

[CorranSec]

Hint of the Day: Never say there are any less than nine civs in AoM, because the Wrathful Avenging God of AoM Facts (Sith) will come and rant.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

FoCom is definetely ur game Fergie. Lack of resource management (as in farms, etc), only 2 civs, unique units, no need to build buildings, so to speak.

 

Getting rid of resources and making less civs defies the whole concept of RTS. It becomes RTT (real-time tactics). Even the C&C series realises this.Within the 2 groups of the RA series, there are like 6 subgroups, and after Yuri's revenge, even a 3rd new group was added.

[JediMaster Jono]

My thoughts on the numbers of civs is that overall a sequel needs to represent all armies seen in all SW episodes, and some novels. A major belief of mine is that SWGB2 should mirror what is seen on the big screen. That makes Rebels, GE, Republic, Confederacy definates. TF could be incorporated into Confeds, and a Gungan/Naboo combination civ in my eyes should also be included, those armies deserve a presence in the game.

 

It is up to the game developers to decide how to tackle this problem, it is their job after all. The biggest problem is not the number of civs involved, it is actually making sure the civs are balanced but diverse in their own way. If developers wanted to go all the way sub-civs could be introduced to reflect different Rebel Forces, Confederacy Armies, Smugglers etc. As long as what is on the big screen can be done in SWGB2 in a balanced way, most gamers will be happy. The number of civs wont worry them.

 

May the Force be with you...

[Sithmaster_821]

FoCom is definetely ur game Fergie. Lack of resource management (as in farms, etc), only 2 civs, unique units, no need to build buildings, so to speak.

horrible UI, poor Gaming, single color terrain. The list goes on...

[Darth Windu]

Why is everyone so worried about the number of civs? Personally i would like about 10-12. This would give us the main civs (Republic, Empire, Rebels etc) along with the lesser, but still important civs such as the Naboo and Gungans, and finally the 'just-for-fun' civs, such as the Wookies, Hutt Cartel etc.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Like corran already said, it's not so hard to make civs with UU sets. you can keep the classes and everything just falls into.

Like he said:

 

For example rebs and imps fighters:

 

rebs-X-Wing- Medium hp, high attack, shields, high cost, medium speed

 

imps-Tie Fighter-Low hp, medium attack, no shield, cheap, fast

 

just as easy!

[Clefo]

What you need are Civs that are UNIQUE, as in they can have totally different tech trees, yet balanced, that was one reason GB was sooo flippin' boring! You need to make changing your Civ a totally different experience, to keep the intrest level high.. Give me 3 good very different Civs rather than 10 carbon copies!

[Sithmaster_821]

Luke I am creating something like that, but for the whole game. It's long (and i'm procrastenating), but i hope it will be posted soon.

[CorranSec]

Er... excuse me for being stupid, but what is FoCom a shortening of?

 

Yay! Go Sith! Finally, someone who actually does something rather than just sit around theorising!

Er... hey, why don't we all do that?

 

Just one thing- if we do start coming up with huge lists and precise details about what the civs should be like, we run the risk of sounding like joesdomain.

 

Clefo- of course we want unique civs! That's what we're all aiming for. All the civs that I'm thinking of have great differences and would easily be made unique.

[Sithmaster_821]

FoCom=Force Commander

[darthfergie]

15 very unique civs? Dear Lord you have gone nuts. THAT IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! The graphics will have to be 2D or REALLY crapped out 3D to even get close to any kind of decent fps. BTW, how the hell can we NOT theorize? The friggin game hasn't even been anounced officialy! THE REASON WE'RE ALL WORRIED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF CIVS IS BECAUSE THIS IS FRIGGIN 3D PEOPLE! IF YOU WANT ANY DETAIL IN 3D YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT DOWN ON CIVS!

 

I'm sure the AoM and RoN supporters will assure you that their larger numbers of civs are indeed different. The 15 or so civs I'm proposing will have a great number of differences- far more than just two or three civs would give you.

Very unfotunate, but AoM has three civs with 9 subcivs (and yes I've played the game so go suck a lemon and get over it). RoN basically pulls an EE with lot of different types of units and it will have UUs, but it will mostly have the same feel with all of the units looking the same and acting the same for every side. Sure one civ may have a bonus of +3% in agriculture, but who cares? Nobody really. AoK was all about those little background bonuses...not like anybody noticed them. I played with every civ on AoK and can win with almost all of them equally well...because they are nearly exactly the same (oh sure, one has a better UU then one of the others...who gives a crap?). With the differents civs I'm proposing each side WILL BE DIFFERENT. Much like StarCraft's totally unique 3 civ set. Sure it may not be super unique like StarCraft's, but they need to be much much much more unique then AoK's. And it's really impossible to have 15 very unique civs unless you want to make this game in 2D and I'm certain that nobody at LA is that stupid...or...well...I'm hoping that nobody at LA is that stupid.

 

Getting rid of resources and making less civs defies the whole concept of RTS.

Who said we were getting rid of resources? Prestige is a resource. I realize prestige may not be accepted, but at the VERY LEAST make supply lines. NO FRIGGIN RESOURCE COLLECTORS! Get rid of research. Please. Maybe put a system in place to where you can earn the new unit types, but no "research and development" stuff. I get so bored in most RTSs today researching over and over and over again the exact same stuff. It sucks just as bad as building up an economy. It's absolutly boring and does not involve anything close to realism! Besides, this is the Star Wars universe. It is not nearly as limited as ours. Where as we have but one planet to wreck havoc on, the Star Wars universe offers hundreds of thousands of planets to wreck! If cities or economies are used in the mechanics of this game it's just insanity since some planets don't even HAVE farms or minerals, they are just trade centers. Yet in GB you still build farms...EVEN ON BESPIN! Stupid.

 

People will get sick of just two or three civs pretty damned quickly, I can tell you right now.

tell that to StarCraft fans and see how quickly you get your head ripped off...

[Clefo]

Frankly, the idea that you can 15 unique civs is very naive (The idea mind you, not yourself)

[CorranSec]

Please, people, try to be optimistic. We can at least try to make 15 unique civs.

All of these 15 civs will be different in a large variety of ways. Some may share things (for gameplay AND realism reasons), but that's life, isn't it?

 

Ookay, fergie, you think econ is boring. That's your own personal preference. Some people think that econ is great, and that military is boring. Thus, we should try to include both- a 50/50 split makes everyone happy.

It actually is quite realistic that a small force will have to build up and research, but gameplay>realism, as always.

 

There are two key elements of RTS. Battle and economy. It's been this way for a long time and by God, let it stay, because it works!

I must insist on this- keep the gameplay roughly the same. GB 1 is not an epic-scale game. It is not a battle-only game. It is not an econ-only game. It is a mix, and we should keep it like that, because it works and is popular.

 

In this new age of far more powerful computers, having 2 civs is laughable, and having no econ at all would be even more laughable. Even 3 civs is pretty low. And with 3 or so years to improve, I'm sure that computers can and will handle larger numbers of civs.

[darthfergie]

Please, people, try to be optimistic. We can at least try to make 15 unique civs.

All of these 15 civs will be different in a large variety of ways. Some may share things (for gameplay AND realism reasons), but that's life, isn't it?

 

No. 15 civs can NOT be done. FACE IT! If we get 15 unique civs we lose gameplay and frame rate because of the massive amount of different artwork. All of it 3D. If it was 2D it wouldn’t be near as taxing on the comp, but the thing is we’ve all agreed on 3D.

 

Ookay, fergie, you think econ is boring. That's your own personal preference. Some people think that econ is great, and that military is boring. Thus, we should try to include both- a 50/50 split makes everyone happy.

It actually is quite realistic that a small force will have to build up and research, but gameplay>realism, as always.

 

No, Actually I enjoy econ/warfare sims. I own quite a few. Shogun Total War, Europa Universalis II etc. The problem is that it doesn’t belong in this type of RTS. RTSs need speed that is what they are built around. With GB the economy was so badly bungled that I stoped playing within a few weeks. I had beaten the game and had more then my fill of repetative economy building, to build my buildings, to build my technology, to build my units. There was never a battle where a general started with ancient technology and at the end of it he had cutting edge technology…not with outside help…but by his own research. This is even more crazy in the star wars universe! An AT-PT army in the beginning…towards the end of the battle (1 day later) you’ve invented the AT-ST…wow…you’re good…but you do this not only ONCE! Not twice! Not Three time! But 94 times until you delete the game from your hard drive in disgust...all you wanted to do was kick some arse, but you can’t get to it because of the same thing over and over and over again…collect the wood…build the building…collect more wood…research the armor…collect the ore, wood, and nova…research the unit upgrade…FINALLY build the unit…when all you wanted in the first place was the FRIGGIN UNIT! I like base building, don’t get me wrong, but making the economy and building 125 villagers and managing THEM in the middle of managing your defenses…and your supposed to be a general in the SW universe? Eh…no.

 

There are two key elements of RTS. Battle and economy. It's been this way for a long time and by God, let it stay, because it works!

I must insist on this- keep the gameplay roughly the same. GB 1 is not an epic-scale game. It is not a battle-only game. It is not an econ-only game. It is a mix, and we should keep it like that, because it works and is popular.

 

You live a sheltered life if you think the real time strategy genre is limited to that. Have you never seen the Sudden Strike series? There is no economy building. You get your units and go. C & C Generals has supply lines replace economic rhetoric and I like that solution the best. Although it would be a bit strange in a Star Wars setting…that’s why I suggested the prestige resource.

 

In this new age of far more powerful computers, having 2 civs is laughable, and having no econ at all would be even more laughable. Even 3 civs is pretty low. And with 3 or so years to improve, I'm sure that computers can and will handle larger numbers of civs.

 

Sure…WarCraft 3 is pretty low…I mean you can tell the 3 civs impacted it really badly…only a 9.3 from IGN. Only a 94% in PC Gamer. And for goodness sake! It got the PC Game of the year from GameSpot…just plain horrible. Also just look at RA2 if you want to see patheticness…two main civs…wow…just look how badly that game did.

 

BTW, oh sure computers will be more advanced by then…but do you have enough money to buy the best top of the line computer every single year? My Pent 4, ATI 8500, 1 GB RAM comp still takes a large frame hit in some of the games today…yet in a few years I will most likely still have that computer and I garentee you that I will not be able to play a game that throws around horrid frame rates and massive slow downs like the proposed 15 civ, 3D, good graphics game you are suggesting. It will NOT happen in the next 2 years. Maybe 3-5 more years…maybe. (that is if you still want gameplay on the side)

[CorranSec]

Er... Sith, please... hurry up with your civ lists.... before Fergie explodes....

 

If Shogun: Total War can handle hundred upon hundreds of units onscreen, with all sorts of tricky camera stuff (this is going off a review I've read, correct me if I'm wrong) I think that within three years LA can come up with something that will allow 15 different civs. Hell, they don't have to be onscreen at the same time! We could make it that the maximum number of players in any game is 8. Thus, we only need it able to handle 8 different sets of artwork... just like in the current game. Except in 3d.

 

What precisely is 'this type of RTS'? If I'm not wrong, based on the 1st game, Galactic Battlegrounds is a combined econ/military RTS. Not a primarly military/some econ (like WC3), not a no econ at all (like FoCom).

You want FoCom 2, it seems. All right, you'll probably get a FoCom 2... sometime... but we're talking about GB2. Galactic Battlegrounds 2. And I just specified what Galactic Battlegrounds is.

In EE, a player starts in the dark age and ends up in about 3000 A.D. I think RoN has the same kind of thing. Are they terrible?

Are you trying to tell me that you never got to wage warfare in GB? Wow.... that was probably because you never got around to it, having spent the majority of your time screaming at the entire economical side.

GB has plenty of battle! The point of the game is battle!

And if you don't want much research, well, play DM's!

And are you trying to tell me that C&C Generals has no research at all? A pity, I was thinking it would turn out to be a good game, and a true RTS at that.

RTS's don't need speed. They can be made for speed (ie the Blizzard games), they can be made for mostly econ. This type of RTS is a balanced RTS, and balance is always the best.

If you got sick of the resource gathering, I believe that a large number of people might get quite sick of solely battling. Sometimes you want to manage your little workers! Build a grand base! Research a variety of techonologies! Watch your civilisation grow!

You don't start in the Dark Age. You start with a fully functional base and the ability to make units. Might I add in that those units have amazingly high-tech weaponry to begin with?

In my opinion, the GB progression is a lot more fun than the AoK progression, even though they're basically the same. This is because GB is SW, and there are plenty of reasons why research and units aren't available (parts need to be obtained, you actually have to research the technology seeing as you didn't bring it with you). It's a damned lot better than AoK, where you could go from stone-bashing and rough shacks to grand castles and gunpowder in a matter of minutes.

Since when are you a general in the SW universe? Princess Leia had to manage diplomacy and the expansion of the New Republic. Emperor Palpatine had to oversee a flow of slave labour and materials to create the Death Star. The Gungans had to hunt food animals and build their underwater cities. All of this on top of waging war.

It's this that is carried over into GB. It's this mix, this wide availability of options that makes the true RTS games a lot more fun to play than the only base-building or only baddie-killing ones.

You want a fast-paced kill-em-all RTS? Play WC3. It's a good game. But it's not GB. And it shouldn't be GB2.

 

Okay, that may have been a stupid comment about WC3 being low. But it's obvious that 15 or so mostly unique civs is better than a couple of totally unique ones.

[Admiral Vostok]

CorranSec, you say a lot of things with nothing as a backup. Where is your proof that people will get bored with 2-3 civs? I can't see it in any game that has that amount of civs. Did anyone cry "We need more civs" for Red Alert 2? No, because it wouldn't make sense to add more. The same with SWGB. It just would not make sense.

 

However, I don't think we should go down to the four galactic-scale civs (Empire, Rebels, Confeds, Republic). But I'd rather see that than 15 civs. Now that would suck.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I want a game just like Star Wars in the movies. Let's look at Star Wars in the movies, shall we?

 

EPISODE IV - The Battle of Yavin

Rebel Alliance vs Galactic Empire

 

EPISODE V - The Battle of Hoth

Galactic Empire vs Rebel Alliance

 

EPISODE VI - The Battle of Endor

Rebel Alliance and Ewoks vs Galactic Empire

 

EPISODE I - The Battle of Naboo

Royal Naboo and Gungans vs Trade Federation

 

EPISODE II - The Battle of Geonosis

Galactic Republic vs Confederacy of Independent Systems and Trade Federation

 

So to be faithful to the movies, we need all of these civs with the exception of Ewoks as they could not be balanced well enough to compete one on one with the others. That means Rebel Alliance, Galactic Empire, Royal Naboo Security Force, Gungan Grand Army, Trade Federation, Galactic Republic and Confederacy of Independent Systems. If SWGB2 does not have all seven of these civs I will not buy it, because it is not faithful to the movies. I wouldn't mind an eith just to make it even, but anymore than that is just not sensible. People will NOT get bored of them, if they do they must have ADD or something.

 

And as an aside I thought if they were going to call it Rebel Alliance instead of just Rebels and Galactic Empire instead of just Empire, why didn't they call it Galactic Republic instead of just Republic and Confederacy of Independent Systems instead of just Confederacy?

[darthfergie]

Er... Sith, please... hurry up with your civ lists.... before Fergie explodes....

 

If Shogun: Total War can handle hundred upon hundreds of units onscreen, with all sorts of tricky camera stuff (this is going off a review I've read, correct me if I'm wrong) I think that within three years LA can come up with something that will allow 15 different civs. Hell, they don't have to be onscreen at the same time! We could make it that the maximum number of players in any game is 8. Thus, we only need it able to handle 8 different sets of artwork... just like in the current game. Except in 3d.

 

ROTFL! Have you played Shogun Total War? The graphics in battle are horrible in comparison to GB! That's why it can hand;e all those units. Also the main reason Shogun is sucessful is not the battle map, but the campaign map. The campaign is a totally unique experiance every time with you choosing what to take over...in fact I usually skip the battle map part of gameplay because it is so hard to use properly and effectively. 8 sets of artwork in 3D is incredible and I would love to see ANYBODY be able to pull it off without a hot rod Alienware comp, but it isn't going to happen for quite some time unless they have some monumental innovation in the engine department, because with every increase in technology the better the graphics are going to get. And the better the graphics get the more you have to sacrifice in terms of gameplay. It's a horrible balancing act in which some have droped graphics alltogether. Just look at the majority of the Wargaming genre. It has thousands of different unit types for thousands of different situations, but their graphics are usually limited to a board and some boxes with symbols in them.

 

What precisely is 'this type of RTS'? If I'm not wrong, based on the 1st game, Galactic Battlegrounds is a combined econ/military RTS. Not a primarly military/some econ (like WC3), not a no econ at all (like FoCom).

You want FoCom 2, it seems. All right, you'll probably get a FoCom 2... sometime... but we're talking about GB2. Galactic Battlegrounds 2. And I just specified what Galactic Battlegrounds is.

 

No we won't. We'll never get FoCom 2. Besides I've played FoCom and I do not like it. Too linear and many many bugs. I don't think I want another failure like that so quit stereotyping me into that category when you have no clue. What I want is a grand strategy game that is totally unique every time you play the campaign. The ultimate single player experiance with some decent MP on the side if you so choose. I know that will never happen because the majority of the people in LA are total followers. Recently I have not seen an original game in their lineup. Although Gladius is pretty original... My ideal star wars game is very SW Rebellion like with much better space combat and detailed stats for characters...basically Rebellion 2...not FoCom 2. I'm just tring to save GB 2 and personally I do not think that if we follow the layout of the previous failure we will get a decent game. I've had it up to my neck with failures in the strategy gaming department. I've really had it. If another game sucks in the strat dept I'll probably loose my mind with rage.

 

In EE, a player starts in the dark age and ends up in about 3000 A.D. I think RoN has the same kind of thing. Are they terrible?

 

No. But unfortunatly this is STAR WARS. It takes place within a small time period. There can be no AGES...no ERAS. Oh sure there was plenty of years there, but not all of the civs were around durring the same times so how can you judge ages? You can't. This is not an AGE or TECH LVL. game. It was a bad format to begin with and if it runs with the same thing again...it will likely fail again.

 

Are you trying to tell me that you never got to wage warfare in GB? Wow.... that was probably because you never got around to it, having spent the majority of your time screaming at the entire economical side.

GB has plenty of battle! The point of the game is battle!

 

Yeah I got around to it...after nearly 30 mins of wasted economy building...I battled for 10 mins or so and game over...wow...3/4s of my time was spent building bases and building up economy every time that it was pointless to play! I'd rather just design a scenario and go because it beat the hell out of sitting there for sometimes an hour if I wanted to get to Tech 4 and get out my super unit and then build units for another 30 mins...then FINALLY launch an offensive...oh sure you could streamline your offensive package and focus on defeating the enemy in the early stages...with your crappy AT-PTs and regular troopers and speeder bikes...wooptido. That isn't fun. To get your favorite units you had to spend hours getting there! and in campaign mode you would research to tech 4 one level and then be back down to tech 2 the next level...pointless. Unfortunatly many RTS suffer from this and there is a trend showing that gamers like less base building and more action in their gaming experiance. That's a reason why WCIII has only 13 units per side and few buildings. They get you to the action. Yes I'm suggesting something pretty radical...a change of this proportion...but GB sucked so badly as a straight clone that I will not tolerate another.

 

And are you trying to tell me that C&C Generals has no research at all? A pity, I was thinking it would turn out to be a good game, and a true RTS at that.

 

did I say that? NO. It has research. It has plenty. But it has no resource collection which is a major plus. It has supply lines. It has chinooks bring you the necesary supplies instead of having to HARVEST it on the battlefield.

 

RTS's don't need speed. They can be made for speed (ie the Blizzard games), they can be made for mostly econ. This type of RTS is a balanced RTS, and balance is always the best.

If you got sick of the resource gathering, I believe that a large number of people might get quite sick of solely battling. Sometimes you want to manage your little workers! Build a grand base! Research a variety of techonologies! Watch your civilisation grow!

 

then make it a grand scale RTS! Make it a Shogun type game. or a Rebellion type game. But not, for heavens sake, another friggin Ages clone!

 

You don't start in the Dark Age. You start with a fully functional base and the ability to make units. Might I add in that those units have amazingly high-tech weaponry to begin with?

 

riiiiiiight...and those units can be killed with one shot from the later units in tech 4.

 

In my opinion, the GB progression is a lot more fun than the AoK progression, even though they're basically the same. This is because GB is SW, and there are plenty of reasons why research and units aren't available (parts need to be obtained, you actually have to research the technology seeing as you didn't bring it with you). It's a damned lot better than AoK, where you could go from stone-bashing and rough shacks to grand castles and gunpowder in a matter of minutes.

 

at least in AoK it was somewhat realistic! They had to do innovation on the battlefield in that time. They had villagers on battlefields in that time. They had to pillage the country side at that PRIMATIVE time! This is STAR WARS. A HIGHLY ADVANCED CULTURE. They have no need to mine for resources while kicking arse. They can import supplies from other planets etc. There is no need to research because their scientists on a faraway planet do so for them. Then they can tell the generals the latest innovations and eventually allow the generals acess to these new units.

 

Since when are you a general in the SW universe? Princess Leia had to manage diplomacy and the expansion of the New Republic. Emperor Palpatine had to oversee a flow of slave labour and materials to create the Death Star. The Gungans had to hunt food animals and build their underwater cities. All of this on top of waging war.

It's this that is carried over into GB. It's this mix, this wide availability of options that makes the true RTS games a lot more fun to play than the only base-building or only baddie-killing ones.

You want a fast-paced kill-em-all RTS? Play WC3. It's a good game. But it's not GB. And it shouldn't be GB2.

 

Right...sure...another problem with GB...the diplomacy sucked. It sucked REALLY badly. Emperor Palpatine didn't oversee it! Some lacky in a cubical did. The Emperor focused on the grand strategy because it was his job to be supreme commander of all and even with his God Like jedi powers he could not oversee EVERYTHING. That is why he had others take care of things for him. He didn't research the death star nor come up with the idea. The Geonosian scientists came up with it and delevered it into the hands of the Emperor...he did nothing to research.

 

BTW, WC3 is not the end all RTS for quick time players. THere are much faster paced games. I'm just saying for the Star Wars feel you have to go with a fast paced feel or an overall grand strategy like Rebellion to retain a decent Star Wars atmosphere...and no...GB did not retain this atmosphere. It retained an atmosphere that came straight out of the annuls of ancient history...it had the Ages atmosphere...plain and simple. So what it had skins that looked like SW units. The game still played out much like AoK with very few differences. The Air Attack didn't even add that much to it.

 

Okay, that may have been a stupid comment about WC3 being low. But it's obvious that 15 or so mostly unique civs is better than a couple of totally unique ones.

 

No...it isn't. Mostly unique civs? I've seen those with AoK. 15 mostly unique civs...honestly I had more fun in Star Craft, even though it was much older, because of its 3 totally unique civs.

 

heheheh...I love debating and theorizing over a potential game...it's the reason I joined back in the ancient days...

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by JediMaster Jono

My thoughts on the numbers of civs is that overall a sequel needs to represent all armies seen in all SW episodes, and some novels. A major belief of mine is that SWGB2 should mirror what is seen on the big screen. That makes Rebels, GE, Republic, Confederacy definates. TF could be incorporated into Confeds, and a Gungan/Naboo combination civ in my eyes should also be included, those armies deserve a presence in the game.

 

It is up to the game developers to decide how to tackle this problem, it is their job after all. The biggest problem is not the number of civs involved, it is actually making sure the civs are balanced but diverse in their own way. If developers wanted to go all the way sub-civs could be introduced to reflect different Rebel Forces, Confederacy Armies, Smugglers etc. As long as what is on the big screen can be done in SWGB2 in a balanced way, most gamers will be happy. The number of civs wont worry them.

 

May the Force be with you...

 

 

 

That's all fine and dandy ( ) but TF and Confids are 2 very different civs. U see in Ep. 2 they didn't actually merge. Just like there is not a Europe/American government becuase the British also landed on D-Day.

 

Also Gungans and Naboo are 2 very different civs. Naboo are peaceful, have pretty buildings and live on the surface. The Gungans are aggresive, have buildings made from bubbles and live underwater. To merge them would be insanity on realism's side, though would not effect gameplay, unless ur Fergie and want less civs.

[darthfergie]

So to be faithful to the movies, we need all of these civs with the exception of Ewoks as they could not be balanced well enough to compete one on one with the others. That means Rebel Alliance, Galactic Empire, Royal Naboo Security Force, Gungan Grand Army, Trade Federation, Galactic Republic and Confederacy of Independent Systems. If SWGB2 does not have all seven of these civs I will not buy it, because it is not faithful to the movies. I wouldn't mind an eith just to make it even, but anymore than that is just not sensible. People will NOT get bored of them, if they do they must have ADD or something.

 

See the thing is. The Gungans don't stand a chance in a straight battle. They are planet specific too. They are just a generally weak civ. Now the Naboo...well since they ARE under the wing of the Republic it seems pointless to put them in there. Oh yes Naboo archetechture...feh, they can put that in the scenario editor if you really want it. Also my reasoning behind moving the TF under the confed, is that did you notice the basic unit of the confed? It was the repeater trooper! The basic unit was a repeater droid. A technical advancement over the battle droid and should be shown that way in the tech tree, yet it was not and was considered on par with the TF battle droid. The TF makes up nearly 60% of the COnfed fighting forces, yet you want to make them their own side? The COnfed are now weakened to the small size of 40%. I think the TF should be included in the Confed because they are the senior partner. They ARE the confederacy! And of course wookies elimainated as a civ beecuase they are species specific and are really part of the Rebel Allaince and will become a powerful member in the New Republic. They never once go on any crusades as a species cast or anything of the sort. You don't see hordes of wookies throwing themselves into battle in any kind of battle even in EU.

 

 

Also Gungans and Naboo are 2 very different civs. Naboo are peaceful, have pretty buildings and live on the surface. The Gungans are aggresive, have buildings made from bubbles and live underwater. To merge them would be insanity on realism's side, though would not effect gameplay, unless ur Fergie and want less civs.

 

I don't propose merging them...I propose deleting them. They are planet specific. Neither of those nations can throw their military might around outside of their small realm of one planet. Neither would ever stand up to the might of the full weight of any of the superpowers. And don't tell me the naboo and gungans did in Ep I. If you remember the blockade fleet had to leave to make it easier on the ONE SQUADRON to attack and defeat the droid control ship. stupid. Let's move all our fleet back to the normal areas because we invaded and there won't be any resistance...YOU DON'T MOVE VITAL FORCES AWAY FROM A HOT SPOT! STUPID!

 

...sorry that last bit was another little thing that can get on my nerves...

[AU_Andy_Ewok]

darthfergie you should stop being such a fan boy. The game isn't going to be 100% like the Star Wars. Who cares that Naboo could be under the Republic and that crap. This gam would be no fun with only a few civs.

 

You've tried to compare SWGB to games like C&C & War3. Basicallu non econ games. It's just stupid, those types of games suck.

 

Also SWGB2 will be more econ than battle because it's being made by the same people as SWGB:CC so they're hardly gonna scrap all there ideas and listen to some fanboy who's completly flamed there game...

 

this quote was quite funny ..

This is STAR WARS. A HIGHLY ADVANCED CULTURE. They have no need to mine for resources while kicking arse. They can import supplies from other planets etc. There is no need to research because their scientists on a faraway planet do so for them. Then they can tell the generals the latest innovations and eventually allow the generals acess to these new units

...

 

SW = a movie. It's not liek were trying to make a real like game that mirrors actuall real event like WW1 isit? it's based around a fictional movie.

 

It retained an atmosphere that came straight out of the annuls of ancient history...it had the Ages atmosphere...plain and simple. So what it had skins that looked like SW units. The game still played out much like AoK with very few differences. The Air Attack didn't even add that much to it.

 

Technicly there are three...if want to divide it up into the different combos with gods then yes there are 9 subcivs, but they are still basically the same civ with a few differently placed bonuses.

 

Play both games prorperly then you wont make ignorant remarks like this.

 

Right...sure...another problem with GB...the diplomacy sucked. It sucked REALLY badly. Emperor Palpatine didn't oversee it! Some lacky in a cubical did. The Emperor focused on the grand strategy because it was his job to be supreme commander of all and even with his God Like jedi powers he could not oversee EVERYTHING. That is why he had others take care of things for him. He didn't research the death star nor come up with the idea. The Geonosian scientists came up with it and delevered it into the hands of the Emperor...he did nothing to research.

 

How did LA miss such an important thing as this. Oh My God, i'm never going to play SWGB again this is totally ****ed up. Damn LA Sucks and so does SWGB. *sigh*

[darthfergie]

Originally posted by AU_Andy_Ewok

darthfergie you should stop being such a fan boy. The game isn't going to be 100% like the Star Wars. Who cares that Naboo could be under the Republic and that crap. This gam would be no fun with only a few civs.

 

Right. And Star Craft was no fun with 3 civs, and RA2 was a bore with only 2 civs...right. Great well have fun in your own little world.

 

BTW, obviously I care. And I know many others who also care. We "fanboys" are the basis of the SW market. We are the driving force behind SW. If we had not stayed behind it I doubt that we would have even seen an SW THX version let alone special edition and the extra episodes.

 

You've tried to compare SWGB to games like C&C & War3. Basicallu non econ games. It's just stupid, those types of games suck.

 

ROTFL. wow. You're spot on...WC3 only got Gamespot game of the year and in the majority of major reviewers I saw nothing below a 90%. C&C Generals looks to be next year's game of the year with its stellar graphics and great gameplay. You've just said that 2 potential game of the years...suck...next time consider your opinion vs. reality...k

 

Also SWGB2 will be more econ than battle because it's being made by the same people as SWGB:CC so they're hardly gonna scrap all there ideas and listen to some fanboy who's completly flamed there game...

 

yes, very unfortunate. But at least I'm moving the debate along the lines of real fan feedback. I'm suggesting alternative ideas to make a GOOD game. Just look at all those people in off-topic. The majority of them used to be posters right in this very forum. I used to post here like mad. I got 1000 in here, without posting a single post in off-topic and it was all debating what our ideal RTS should be like. Everyone has since moved to Off-Topic just to stay in contact with each other...but any mention of the game and most of us cringe. I don't want that to happen again. I want a game that I can be happy I played. GB was a wasted oportunity clear and simple...GET OVER IT. I'm here to debate GB 2 and hopefully help solve many of the troubles GB had. If that means differing in opinion to move a debate along I will gladly do so.

 

this quote was quite funny .. ...

 

SW = a movie. It's not liek were trying to make a real like game that mirrors actuall real event like WW1 isit? it's based around a fictional movie.

 

SW has many many many concrete facts established through the years. Unfortunatly idiots like you love to crush the beloved Star Wars history and just throw it out the door. This game is based on a fictional events, but if you want to make a game where you can just change it all around...then just throw out the SW cannon completely. Go make yourself another game in your own little universe.

 

 

Play both games prorperly then you wont make ignorant remarks like this.

 

And you should also watch your ignorant remarks. I have played and beaten AoM. It's my personal opinion so suck a lemon if you don't like it.

 

How did LA miss such an important thing as this. Oh My God, i'm never going to play SWGB again this is totally ****ed up. Damn LA Sucks and so does SWGB. *sigh*

 

That was a rebuttale to another arguement and is not exactly a major complaint. Although it is anoying when they advertise diplomacy and ther is none. It's just another mistake in a long line of them.