lukeiamyourdad Posted December 17, 2002 Posted December 17, 2002 I was thinking. Some cities could be appearing in RM. You could garrisson a certain number of units in that city and in exchange they will give you some ressources after a certain amount of time. The cities could be full of activities(speeders flying, people walking, farmers farming...). The enemy would have to kill every troops you have garrissoned in the city and garrison theirs to control the city. Note: I am talking about swgb 2 here.
pbguy1211 Posted December 17, 2002 Posted December 17, 2002 kinda like a king of the hill scenario but in a city?
Troopr-Undr-Fir Posted December 18, 2002 Posted December 18, 2002 I say yeah if there were some sort of challenge involved, but I don't have any Ideas for 1...
CorranSec Posted December 18, 2002 Posted December 18, 2002 Er... sounds a bit too complex and time-consuming just for a few resources. Also, the maps would have to be made a hell of a lot bigger, thanks to there being a few cities plopped around the map. So I'd have to say no to what you've said. But I had another idea- some resources could be gained from/exchanged with several small neutral towns around the map (like VERY small, only a couple of houses and a spaceport-type thing). I think this might be kinda cool and introduce a new element of strategy into the game.
Admiral Vostok Posted December 18, 2002 Posted December 18, 2002 Ooh, yeah. Like the way they have that "Tatooine Spaceport" in one of the CC campaigns that actually belongs to the Confederacy. Something like that for the different terrains, that every one can trade with. Or you could build turrets around it if you want exclusive trading priveledges!
SE_Vader_536 Posted December 18, 2002 Posted December 18, 2002 hey i like the town idea a city would be way to big and army consuming. a tiny town is a nice side thing to do to get even more recs
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 18, 2002 Author Posted December 18, 2002 I must have been unclear! I meant a small city. Not so big. And the garrisson thing. You won't garrisson like a huge amount of units. 10 troopers could be enough. And by some ressources I mean 300+ of something. The trading thing is also time consuming and it only gets you nova.
SE_Vader_536 Posted December 19, 2002 Posted December 19, 2002 yeah i mean if you trade with other people why do you only get nova? i think you should get other recs too..
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 19, 2002 Author Posted December 19, 2002 Well that's why tributing exist. Although I almost never tribute anything. You absolutely have to trade 100 ressources. why not 50? Allright tributing 50 is kinda stupid. You should be able to trade(through those trade thingies) other ressources.
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 20, 2002 Posted December 20, 2002 OK, I voted yes for cities, but i want to point out that I'm for altering the idea signifigantly. I think that "cities" should grant pop only, and function like the starting building/base
CorranSec Posted December 20, 2002 Posted December 20, 2002 Of course, that's what I meant. In Gb 2, all resources should be able to be traded- and not only by simply sending hovercrafts and taking resources away, but the 'crafts could function like the 'trade' buttons on the current spaceport. Kinda like in AoE 1. That was actually fun and realistic. Sith's 'small city/settlement' thing is anti-turtling, and thus, I don't like it. Not because I support turtling, but because anything that disables a strategy is bad. The trading thing would be a better way to get resources than the 'garrison city' thing, and thus, I'm sticking with it.
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 20, 2002 Posted December 20, 2002 AoE's trading was annoying as hell. My idea is anti-passive turtling, the form of the strat that isn't very well recieved. Active turtling benefits quite a lot from this strat (steal a city, then wall it up, rinse and repeat)
SE_Vader_536 Posted December 20, 2002 Posted December 20, 2002 who needs a city all thats needed is all rec trading. and drop the idea where the traders go "trade" each time u buy recs at the spaceport. tooo time-consuming. then wed be spendin the whole game waitin for the traders... another thing. why use nova as the currency. why cant u directly trade or with food or food with carbon etc.?
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 20, 2002 Posted December 20, 2002 I agree. I think that you should be able to trade food for carbon and vise versa, and ore for food/carbon and vise versa. The the spaceport would look like: Buy..../Sell.... OOOO/OOOO OOOO/OOOO OOOO/OOOO OOOO/OOOO instead of Buy: OOOO Sell: OOOO
CorranSec Posted December 21, 2002 Posted December 21, 2002 Se_vader, what is this 'rec trading'? Have I missed something? And have you all missed something? You will be able to trade things! All types of things! Yay, go trading. You could even specify exchange rates with your trading partners (eg. you send a trader with 49 wood, you get 36 nova in return, or something). This is all on top of normal resource-gathering, of course. I just think it's a lot better than the current trading or tributing. My 'trade city' thing doesn't exactly work the way you would think, Sith. Are you saying that these turtlers would rush out to every single neutral spaceport town on the map, wall it up and build turrets? Who would bother that much? It should end up like this: each player trades with those neutral people closest to him, and sometimes sends sorties against those further away in the hopes of getting a bigger profit. If someone really cared all that much about trade, what can we do to stop them?
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 21, 2002 Author Posted December 21, 2002 Although I support this trading idea, i think we aere making trading more important then gathering reg ressources...
CorranSec Posted December 21, 2002 Posted December 21, 2002 Not really. You could build mini-forts around normal resources too, except we're not talking about that. There'll still be normal resources aplenty. This is just some advanced trading on the side.
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 21, 2002 Author Posted December 21, 2002 Just making sure that no one over-relies on trading...
CorranSec Posted December 21, 2002 Posted December 21, 2002 Nope. I'm quite sure that some players will choose do no trading whatsoever, and they'll get on quite fine. But, just like with the current trading, it'll give added resources to those who do trade. Oh, and one more thing: My idea also takes away some of the advantages allies have (in that they can trade, and unallied people can't). Is this a bad thing? Should we act to bring it back?
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 21, 2002 Author Posted December 21, 2002 Could you be clearer about what you just said? i didn't get it...
CorranSec Posted December 21, 2002 Posted December 21, 2002 I'm assuming you mean the second bit. So here goes: In the current game, one of the many advantages allies have is that they can trade with each other and thus get more resources. Unallied players can't. With my idea, every player can trade and get more resources, allied or not. Is it bad that allies have lost trading benefits?
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 21, 2002 Author Posted December 21, 2002 No You would still be able to trade with your allies.
CorranSec Posted December 21, 2002 Posted December 21, 2002 No! You're misunderstanding me. The point is that people WITHOUT allies will have a benefit of being allied- trade. This means that those who are allies lose this benefit. Because everyone can trade. Should we put in something to give actual allies a benefit?
Sithmaster_821 Posted December 21, 2002 Posted December 21, 2002 If thats all you want, do it the way AoM does it. You can trade with other tcs/starting building (including your own) and then you can just turn the cities inot those buildingds when you capture them, adding to pop and giving another outlet to your goods
lukeiamyourdad Posted December 22, 2002 Author Posted December 22, 2002 Maybe allies could trade more ressources. Like if you send like 50 carbon to a neutral settlement, you get only like 20 food. With allies it would be 50 carbon 40 food.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.