lukeiamyourdad Posted December 21, 2002 Share Posted December 21, 2002 Good point. Retracting tow-cables idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted December 21, 2002 Share Posted December 21, 2002 Was that meant to be a pun? I think that was meant to be a pun. And by the way, you'd immobilise a mech because it's quicker, and leaves you time to deal with other units BEFORE you kill it. Especially seeing as it can kill you. So I like the tow-cables idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 21, 2002 Share Posted December 21, 2002 Oh, I get it, retracting tow cables Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 Exactly what I meant! :D It wasn't really funny... It only depends on how long it's immobilized... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 I have a twisted sense of humor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 Immobilizing is not a good idea in the interests of gameplay. Keep things simple. If you could immobilise a mech considerably faster than it would take to destroy, it would overpower the airspeeder. You could take out a whole lot of AT-AT's with one airspeeder. If it took the same time, just kill it! Gameplay>Realism even if Realism spawns Gameplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 Sith, it's not you who has a twisted sense of humour. Er.. okay, maybe you do (considering the Alien Jedi thread), but luke's dad said it. Vostok- Okay, how does this sound: Of course tow cables would take less time. You click the 'tow cable' button, click the mech, the airspeeder circles it, and it's immobilised. BUT: * Each speeder only carries one tow cable. * Tow cables is an expensive research. * You still need others to actually kill the mechs. * Speeders can be shot down while immobilising. * Immobilisation doesn't last for very long (10 seconds? I'm not sure on this one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 10 sec seems fair. note that only mechs are affected by tow cables. it means that the air speeder cannot immobilize an AAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 Originally posted by SE_Vader_536 I mean really if jedi can deflect and send back lasers why do they attack close range in SWGB? This makes it so a bunch of troopers can kill darth vader or any other jedi which is not very accurate. Good greif:rolleyes: Gee why didn't the Jedi think of that in Geonosis? Could it be that THEY WOULD GET SLAUGHTERED? They can't deflect 20+ blaster bolts coming in at them all at once. Many times throghout EU Jedi's have tried to take on multiple enemies at long range with little sucess because it takes ALOT of concetration to hit a moving target with a reflected shot. Because you have to know EXCATLY how to hit the shot...exactly...if you hit it just a fraction of a centimeter differently it might go careening into space or fly wide of your target. When many many people attack at long range your concentration is not as strong and thus your defense weakens rapidly until the Jedi is either injured or retreats to a better position. Okay, how does this sound: Of course tow cables would take less time. You click the 'tow cable' button, click the mech, the airspeeder circles it, and it's immobilised. BUT: * Each speeder only carries one tow cable. * Tow cables is an expensive research. * You still need others to actually kill the mechs. * Speeders can be shot down while immobilising. * Immobilisation doesn't last for very long (10 seconds? I'm not sure on this one). Um sure...Tow cables...expensive...Riiiiiiiiight...I bet you think they specially equiped them for the battle with AT-ATs too... I thought the snowspeeders were a wasted UU in GB because their CANNONS did loads of damage, where in SW cannon their blasters had NO EFFECT. But now your just making them even weaker by making them immobalizing units. I say take them out completely. Give the Allaince a MUCH better UU...PLEASE! Give them Guerilla fighters, demolitions experts, A-Wings, B-Wings, SOMETHING, but giving them those dadgum speeders is a supreme waste of a UU and really just a cop out of creativeness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 A-Wings They have A-wings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 Originally posted by Sithmaster_821 They have A-wings In the TOYBOX:rolleyes: Not as a UU. Also not very much detail was given to the unit...it really didn't feel anymore powerful then the standard X-Wing...it was pathetic...much like the TIE Defender not having shields...just a flat out fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Ookay. Once again, we have fallen into the trap of thinking in GB 1 terms. Let's not. Please? In GB 2, there may not be an AAM. And it might be in our best interests to let the speeders immobilise them. So let's keep our options open. Fergie- 1) We're not downsizing the speeders. They will still have their blaster cannons which are good against many mechanized units. They just now have tow cables. 2) And please, stop thinking about the realism! This is a game. Or will be a game. Hopefully. 3) I'm basing this idea on the concept that GB 2 will have unique unit sets. Thus, the Alliance will have X-Wings, B-Wings, A-Wings, and the Snowspeeder/Airspeeder, as well as much more. 4) They do have A-Wings. Or don't you have CC? And they're pretty damned good units actually... one of my favourites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Yeah, they have A-wings. T4, do A-wing research and bam! you can make them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Yay! Go A-Wings. Er.... what were we talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Why are the speeders any different from any other UU? DD's are suped up strikes, fambas arent great, berserkers may as well be jedi knights, geonosian warriors suck to a big level, speeders and like flying mech destroyers... and are cheap. JSF's serve a purpose... great spies. naboo mounted guys suck... why are the speeders so much worse than anything else? i love em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 I think they're great. Mix'em with fighters (or A-Wings) and you hve a very powerful air force. Some games vs. the computer, all i build are air units (as rebs of course). Bombers and ac's vs buildings, airspeeders vs. mechs/heavies, and fighters/A-Wings vs troopers/air. All I need is an anti-jedi air unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 airspeeders are great! Another thread that has gone off-topic because of us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 We are so bad:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Yay. Another thread destroyed. You know what? I think that eventually, we're going to get banned, and then mobbed and bashed by hordes of angry forumers. Quickly! Must start building A-Wings to counter the Angry Forumers! Er.... don't mind me.... I like airspeeders. They're the thing that can let the Rebels conquer all just with air. I love doing that.... Isn't it weird that although the Naboo are considered to be the best at air, the Rebels have the widest range of air units? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Because the naboo have very strong single purpose air force and the rebs have a swiss army knife, its useful but not highly effective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Ookay. Once again, we have fallen into the trap of thinking in GB 1 terms. Let's not. Please? In GB 2, there may not be an AAM. And it might be in our best interests to let the speeders immobilise them. So let's keep our options open. Look at the failures to guide your futures... Fergie- 1) We're not downsizing the speeders. They will still have their blaster cannons which are good against many mechanized units. They just now have tow cables. 2) And please, stop thinking about the realism! This is a game. Or will be a game. Hopefully. 3) I'm basing this idea on the concept that GB 2 will have unique unit sets. Thus, the Alliance will have X-Wings, B-Wings, A-Wings, and the Snowspeeder/Airspeeder, as well as much more. 4) They do have A-Wings. Or don't you have CC? And they're pretty damned good units actually... one of my favourites. 1. Geez. THE BLASTER CANNONS DID FRIGGIN SQUAT TO THOSE AT-ATs! DIDN'T YOU WATCH THE TRILOGY? We need to stick SOMEWHAT to Star Wars facts, the little that we have. And that just happened to be said in the movies. "LUKE: That armor's too strong for blasters." 2. If we don't stick to what IS fact then why even base the game on SW? Make it Starry Wars and make a whole new franchise so that we can do what you want to do. 3. Your point? That doesn't mean that they should or will have all of those. Depends on what they can fit in the game and what is feasable. I personally think that the snowspeeder is not feasable. If it is, it definatly should not be the only UU like it was in GB...such a let down. 4. oh yes...i forgot:rolleyes: the wonderful X-pac solves all. I must say that the A-Wing was a waste tho. I really don't notice any difference at all except for crappy attack power. The faster speed is not noticed. [rant]GB and CC were goofs and are fun to critisize because it is so easy. It was a fumble of great proportions. The online community didn't even survive a month. Oh sure some of you still get together online, but the vast majority had switched games within a month of picking it up. It was a repeat of AoK...very repeatative thanks to the excessive basebuilding and researching. I felt that I had played the game a few years before and I hope to God that they don't pull the same cloning act this time and do something original.[/rant] BTW, why would you get banned? It was a stupid question to start with and you made it into a decent debate thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 1. We are sticking to SW facts, because speeders are good against mechs. If we did stick to SW facts the way you want to, speeder blasters would do nothing to mechs, and their only decent weapon would be the tow cable. My way, you have both, and it's a lot more fun. 2. We can't stick exactly. So we go for the next best thing. Gameplay>Realism. 3. My point is that in my idea of GB2 every unit will be a UU! And the Rebels will have a variety of fighters, all UUs! 4. I love the A-Wings. But each to his/her own. Er... nice rant... If you're talking about me, the banning thing had nothing to do with the original question. I was joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Originally posted by CorranSec 1. We are sticking to SW facts, because speeders are good against mechs. If we did stick to SW facts the way you want to, speeder blasters would do nothing to mechs, and their only decent weapon would be the tow cable. My way, you have both, and it's a lot more fun. 2. We can't stick exactly. So we go for the next best thing. Gameplay>Realism. 3. My point is that in my idea of GB2 every unit will be a UU! And the Rebels will have a variety of fighters, all UUs! 4. I love the A-Wings. But each to his/her own. Er... nice rant... If you're talking about me, the banning thing had nothing to do with the original question. I was joking. 1. SPEEDERS ARE NOT GOOD AGAINST MECHS. They have a tow cable…they are good against very light mechs and infantry…but can’t so squat to heavy armored cav…the thing is they have a tow cable…and that is the reason I don’t think they are a good feasable unit to put in. 2. But why put it in? It adds nothing really to gameplay. Sure it’s a real unit, but it’s in the wrong classification…it’s good against all mechs when it should not be. They were slaughtered against the AT-ATs. Sure they may be decent against light mechs where they can actually do some dmg against them, but against the bigger mechs they don’t stand a chance. 3. Riiiiight…all UUs yet they somehow feel exactly like their counterpart’s units…besides that is once again impossible with 15 civs. It is feasable with 3-5 civs. 5 is probably pushing it in fact. 4. …it was another clone unit… I know you were joking…but I wasn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 1. Er. Did you see them doing quite well against the AT-ATs at the Battle of Hoth? In fact, that's the only battle we've ever seen them in. So that's what we're working off. Where did you get the idea that they're good against light mechs? I'd like to see a speeder try to wrap a cable around a speeder bike... 2. It adds an element of fun micromanagement and realism. It's a real unit, and we've seen it as good against mechs, and it would be a good addition in terms of GAMEPLAY to the Rebel forces, so I'm putting it in. 3. They all have unique statistics. Some might feel the same, and have the same purpose, but they will be used in different ways- eg. the Empire uses its TIEs to hit-and-run in swarms, while the Rebel fighters would meet the opponents head-on. Also, the Empire will crush enemy bases with their heavy mechs, while the Rebels might only have access to lighter forms of mechs, relying instead on air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted December 24, 2002 Share Posted December 24, 2002 Okay, break it up you two. CorranSec, what's the point of the tow cable if your blasters do the work anyway? You said yourself Gameplay>Realism. In this case Gameplay would be the fact that having two different attacks is dumb, and Realism being that they have two different attacks. I wish I'd never said anything about tow cables... I was using them as an example of badness afterall... DarthFergie, do you even like SWGB at all? What are you doing on these forums? I understand you want to make SWGB2 even better but criticising every aspect of the original game is not the best way to do it. Leave Airspeeders as they are. They aren't 100% true to the movie, but they work well in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.