Admiral Vostok Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 Sorry, Luke's Dad. Getting back on topic, something just occurred to me. It's quite possible that the Republic will look very different in Episode III, probably a cross between both Republic and Empire as we know them now. If this is the case, how do you think this would be best presented? As an entirely new civ, or just incorporated into a later Tech Level of the existing Republic civ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 No. Not another tech level. Not another civ. Rebels are Rebels and Imperials are Imperials. They both never change massively. Rebels use X-wings, NR uses X-wings, Empire uses Tie Ints, Imperial remnant uses Tie Ints. They have a few upgrades, but not enough to make a new civ out of. People will see the mainstay units of both sides and say "Hey...they're the same...wtf. A new civ and only 20% is different?" I mean the main thing you would change would be tactics. Republic can now focus on more show of force, more ships, more men, more everything...and the Imperial Remnant has to be reduced to the hit and run. The shift is there, but it is not enough to base a completely new civ on since they are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Well, it seems I have 1 supporter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Crazy_dog: No, you've said this before, and I still don't like it. NR is a lot different to the Rebels. They don't rely on infantry nearly as much, and capital ships are a lot different to fighters. That'd be like the Old Republic going into Tech Level 4 and magically becoming the Empire. Vostok: Well, the 'existing' Republic civ probably won't be in GB2. But I don't think there should be an Ep II Republic and an Ep III Republic unless there are great changes. We could just incorporate the Ep III features into the Ep II civ, or the other way around. However, I think we should wait until seeing the movie before passing any judgements. Fergie: You're completely right. Rebels are Rebels, Imperials are Imperials. But New Republics are New Republics and Imperial Remnants are Imperial Remnants. Did you completely miss my posts? *sigh* They do change massively. That's like saying the Republic didn't change massively into the Empire. Rebels use T-165 X-Wings, NR use XJ-models and E-Wings. Empire uses TIE Ints, Remnant uses Preybirds. They have heaps of upgrades, plenty enough to make a new civ out of. And, after all, the devs can just make it up, like they did for half the stuff in GB1. People will see they 'mainstay' units of both sides and say "Hey... they're completely different.... they're even different classes!" Tactics is the main thing of all civs. They are not the same, and we have the right to make them more different. If it is possible to make them more different, what do you have against them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 17, 2003 Author Share Posted January 17, 2003 Well If EU is included (which I would prefer it not to be, obviously) I think they should probably include at least the New Republic. In most of the EU I've seen the IR is still fairly similar to the Empire, even if NR is different to the Rebels. In EU campaigns, you'd probably have a New Republic Campaign where they start off fighting the Remnant then go on to fight the Vong. Then you'd also have a Vong campaign. I don't see that an Imperial Remnant Campaign would be that great, so maybe there could be toybox Remnant things to add to the Empire in the Campaigns to make it look more remnantish, but if you want to play IR in multiplayer you'll have to make do with plain old Empire. I think in each era you should get a chance to play good and bad campaigns. So the campaigns would be set up like so: Training Campaign: Wookiees GALACTIC UNREST Good: Royal Naboo and Gungans in one campaign (though separate civs) Evil: Trade Federation THE CLONE WARS Good: Galactic Republic Evil: Confederacy of Independent Systems THE CIVIL WAR Good: Rebel Alliance Evil: Galactic Empire THE NEW JEDI ORDER Good: New Republic Evil: Yuuzhan Vong So that would be ten civs with eight-and-a-bit campaigns. I suppose I could live with that amount of EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 I thought that the Remnant should have the training campaign, but I guess that Wookiees would be far more familiar to any player. Just as long as they don't get a real campaign! And I don't think the Remnant needs a real campaign either, but they still should be a civ. On a side though- they could figure into the NR/YV campaign... Just one thing- would it be okay if the baddies occasionally had the last laugh? It just seems pretty one-way, that's all. I agree about the good/bad campaigns thing. Actually, I've been coming up with a few ideas for campaigns myself. I've even figured out the missions and storyline for the Imps/Rebels one. Here's some stuff that I've come up with: The Galactic Civil War Galactic Empire campaign: Peace and Order Rebel Alliance campaign: Freedom and Right Attack of the Clones Galactic Republic campaign: Defenders of the Galaxy (probably a pretty corny name, I suppose) Separatists campaign: Extinguishing the Flame I haven't come up with an Episode I campaign yet. But having Naboo and Gungans in separate missions (within the same campaign) is a good idea. Battle for Profit Hutt Cartel campaign: Diversifying Interests Smugglers Union campaign: Criminal Intent The New Jedi Order (I'm not sure about this title...) Yuuzhan Vong campaign: Righteous Crusade New Republic campaign: I haven't come up with a name yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 You all realize that LA only owns a couple EU things. They dont have rights to the Vong or Chiss or Hapans. I hope that legal issues close yet another pointless debate. IR and NR are very much like Rebs and Imps. In fact, throughout most of the EU that LA owns (thrawn trilogy, SoE, and couple others), there is little to no difference between the two. Sure the Rebs get a gov change, but they still use the same ships and same trooper uniform. The IR really hasn't become a separate entity yet either. Its just Imp forces doing an about-face. And for anyone hoping for a civ that comes from books solely, forget it. LA is like 100x more likely to use a civ that is either in the movies or part of their EU. Remember, EU isnt just books. The Jedi Knight Series are considered EU. AS are many of LA's other games. The would much more likely turn to those games (i.e. Dark troopers) than use anything that comes from the books. And those are just the "realism" issues Holy Crap. Anyone that says that we need more civs, especially civs that are already in the game (i.e. NR and IR) need to rethink their intelligence. I dont mean to be harsh, but the only somewhat sane person here is Windu (and possibly Crazy Dog). Believe me, a games success relies on its MP capabilities. Its campaigns may be great, but if MP sucks, the game has the lifespan of less than FoComm. BELIEVE ME, >10 CIVS SPELLS MP DISASTER! There are no two ways about it. Thats why I supported the secret civs that werent accessable via MP. That way you Ewok lovers and Hutt idolizers can get your stupid civs without jeopardizing the entire community. AoK, AoE, Cossaks, EE, and very likely RoN, puttered out because of this. If there are more than 10 civs, it is impossible to keep them balance, and unimaginable to make them all viable and balanced as minutely as it is required when there are experst of the game playing. Unless you put less than 10 civs, there will be an equivalent of the Huns/Chinese/Mongols and there will be a Turks/Koreans/Celts. Not to mention that more than even 8 civs severely hampers the differences between civs. That is why SWGB was so good, and you fools are jsut undoing that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Sith: I'm sure LA can cut a deal with whoever owns the rights to the NJO trilogy. Argh! Why, oh why, do people not pay attention to what I've been saying! *copy-pastes from higher in the page* The NR and IR greatly differ from the Rebels and Imperials. While the Rebels were a guerilla movement, using hit-and-run tactics and mobile bases, the New Republic is the established government and therefore posesses far more pure power. They tend to use a lot of Capital Ships with some slow yet powerful Fighters, while the Rebels used lighter versions of everything and focussed on Fighters. The Empire was the established government, with massive invasion power, relying on their heavy Mechs filled with stormtroopers to crush any base. However, while the Empire wielded a blunt instrument, the Remnant is a lot more like the original Rebels. Their strengths are varied, with few yet powerful Capital Ships and light Mechs being prominent. If other games can have 100% EU stuff in them, why can't GB2? As I've said before, the Jedi Knight games themselves (especially JO) use a sizeable quantity of book EU (eg. the New Republic, Imperial Remnant). NR and IR are not in the game. Period. Their predecessors are, but that's like saying that pre-CC the Old Republic was already in the game. Well, WC3's campaigns were the main point. Damn..... it's had a really terrible lifespan. Great reviews.... game of the year, was it? Damn. Much worse than FoComm... But anyway, I don't see how more than 10 civs spell MP disaster. How many civs does AoM have? 9, which is pushing your limits, and it has good MP. How many civs does RoN have? I'm sure Crazy_dog and Windu will assure you that it has wonderful MP. And by no means are there going to be 15 players in a game. Don't get all worried about every different civ being in a single MP game... Why is it impossible to keep them balanced? You must have a very low opinion of game developers everywhere. Don't be so pessimistic. It's not going to turn out like AoE. Period. SWGB was not 'so good' at civs. With its generic units, the one thing it had going for its civ differences was civ-unique artwork. Which really isn't much, considering the graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 17, 2003 Author Share Posted January 17, 2003 Corran, stop copy and pasting. Did you ever stop to think that maybe we just don't agree? Sithmaster, I agree with everything you said (apart from the fact you didn't mention me as being a sane person). Have a look what I said when I started the thread - I believe SWGB got the civ number just right. I would be extremely happy to get a game that just had the civs SWGB had. In fact, I might even be over-joyed because LucasArts didn't waste their time making lesser civs. In the eight civs we have, I think you see enough variation, or at least room for variation, to make each very different. With unique unit sets, which is probably what we will get in SWGB2, I think you could really create different and interesting gameplay in each civ. If LucasArts achieves this, I believe they will have a truly successful game on their hands. As far as I know, the most unique unit sets we've seen in an RTS so far has been four (WC3), so eight unique civs would be enough to tempt just about every RTS gamer and Star Wars gamer into buying it. If for some reason LA decides to make more than eight (which I hope they don't) I may concede to Corran and agree to some EU civs, just to avoid having a lame "Trandoshans civ" or "Kamino Cloners civ" or "Mon Calamari civ". Eight is a very nice and neat number. Let's leave it at eight. It really is more than enough, and definitely more than any other game is offering (in terms of unique unit sets). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Vostok: I copy-paste because people say things like "They're exactly the same, and there's no evidence otherwise." And was talking to Sith. Wouldn't more unique unit civs be better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted January 17, 2003 Author Share Posted January 17, 2003 Apart from the fact that it's really asking too much of the developers, I say no. Do we need more? I don't think so. If we make each civ's style of fighting very different so it reflects the movies, we'll already have a fantastic game, and I believe adding anything more to this will just ruin things for the reasons Sith said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 I dont think they should just have the 8 civs. they need to add 2 more to make it an even 10 at least. Cuz i think the civs now are getting boring. In fact, I've begun to be the gungans jus to make it more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Originally posted by Admiral Vostok more than eight (which I hope they don't) I may concede to Corran and agree to some EU civs, just to avoid having a lame "Trandoshans civ" or "Kamino Cloners civ" or "Mon Calamari civ". Vostok?! What the hell?!! Mon Cal civs have a strong basis in movies, and there is almost as much material on them as there is with the Wookiees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 But the Mon Cals play a large part in the Rebels. Jus like the "Kamino thread" The Kams are part of the Republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 I suppose, but they had thier own infantry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3 Mon Cal civs have a strong basis in movies, and there is almost as much material on them as there is with the Wookiees. Exactly...glad you see my point of view...Wookies, Mon-Cal, all species based civs that are part of another government...GONE! BANG! CABLEWY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Crazy_dog: Mon Calamaris aren't nearly as well known as Wookiees. Or, more simply, Ackbar isn't as well known as Chewbacca. A single-species civ that isn't very important in the movies (Naboo, Gungans) or doesn't have a very important character in the movies (Wookiees) shouldn't be in the game, especially when the species-based civ could be incorporated into a far more prominent civ (New Republic). Would you take the Mon Cals alone above the New Republic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Ground Control proved that you only need two factions if the Gameplay is good. It had the Order and the Crayven, and in the game there were four factions: Early-game: Crayven vs. Order Late-Game: Crayven-Order Alliance vs. Rogue Crayven-Order units. That's four factions, 2 civs. My list: Rebel Alliance. Galactic Empire Confederate Systems Pirate/Civilian, with a lot of toybox units List of possible factions: -Alliance -Old Republic -New Republic -Imperial Remnants -Empire -Confederate systems -Pirates -Traders -Civilians That's 8 civs. With only 4 civs. See, I'm a magician, like the Massive Entertainment peoples ! So yes, you can create varied scenarios and campaigns with them! Look at the adventure/fantasy scenarios for AoK, like Swallowed Realms. They've got everything from Men to Elves to Trolls to Giants. Are there Elves and Trolls in AoK? Hardly. Yet they are in those campaigns. Mon Cal? No, as they are an alliance with the rebels, who supply troopers, fighters, and tanks as long as the Cals supply cruisers. Which means the only "Mon Cal units" are the Calamarian Cruisers. Which means, no, they can't be a civilization . Ewoks? Don't make me start. Catapults versus Rebel Juggernauts... Hutts? Caravels vs. AT-ATs? Naboo? Just another planet with a small planetary SecForce. If you include Naboo, you'd have to include 100's of civs. Tusken raiders, Gungans, Wookies, Naboo, <insert some other small army here>: Nope. You can't compare Gungans to the Empire. Just because they fought the TF doesn't have to mean they can take on all these other civs.. Main point: Give me four varied factions instead of 10+ civs with almost no variation. Face it, in AoK they had too many. The Chinese and Japanese and Koreans were pretty much identical, for example. Why not integrate them and have a Viking Civ, Oriental civ, Latin American civ, and a European Civ? Oh, and drop this whole Stealth system. Make it more like this Ground Control thing: Instead of being either visible or invisible, make some units more visible than others. In Ground Control, for example, a Heavy Tank was extremely easy to spot, while Jæger infiltration squads were extremely stealthy, so that you had to be closer to them to spot them. Let the Rebels have a few fast, lightly armored, stealthy units, and the Empire have som slow-moving, heavy armored mechs. Oh, and add some stuff like high grass and shadow making it easier for units to hide. Just to enhance that stealth bonus of the Alliance/pirates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorranSec Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Dagobahn Eagle: The things that absolutely must be in GB2 are all the important movie civs. Without them, it just falls apart. Unless you're planning to turn the Confederate Systems civ into a Naboo 'faction'... Trying to turn the Rebel Alliance civ into three separate 'factions' is just madness, especially considering all those factions are incredibly different. The same goes for the Empire and the Imperial Remnant..... Pirates, Traders and Civilians... And I just don't get it. Do you want people to actually play as the "Civilians" civ? Or are they just neutral units on the map? Anyway, the Naboo, Gungans, TF and (yes, I accept it...) Wookiees must be in the game. Gameplay>Realism is much more important, as well as the fact that it's a Star Wars game and needs all the canon civs. Why should we resort to this useless-sounding 'factions' system when we can, want to and hopefully will create 10+ unique civs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 I believe 10 civs might be possible but more seems like too big a task... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 So corran, you are saying that you would prefer the New Republic over the Naboo???????????????????? Anyway, i still say for GB2 there should be- 01. Galactic Republic 02. Galactic Empire 03. Royal Naboo 04. Gungans 05. Rebel Alliance 06. Wookiees 07. Trade Federation 08. Confederacy of Independant Systems 09. Hutt Cartel 10. Another civ to make it a nice round number, possible ep3 civ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 OK, fine, let's merge Mon cals with Rebels, but not so as like every 5th Rebel Trooper is a Mon Cal. Dagobahn Eagle- I said Ewoks are underbalanced civ. Hutts control several planets are Fergie with tell u though they are not on his civ list, and realistically speaking, no ground unit in the game besides another AT-AT can match an AT-AT, so gameplay-speaking this arguement is not valid. On ur main point- Oriental factions and European factions fought each other. Thus, this point is not valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 I said Ewoks are underbalanced civ. Hutts control several planets are Fergie with tell u though they are not on his civ list, and realistically speaking, no ground unit in the game besides another AT-AT can match an AT-AT, so gameplay-speaking this arguement is not valid. Oh, please. Instead of being nit-picking you should try to work out what I mean. Okay: Give me one example of an Ewok unit that could count as a Trooper, fighter, or Artillery unit. I think a rock won't do a tenth of the damage those bolts the GB Artillery units blasts do. "Commander, our fortress has been levelled by Ewok rocks!". "TIE Fighter group Alpha, you have several gliders armed with rocks closing on you. You must fall back". "This is the 39th Stormtrooper platoon: Our 50-unit force has encountered a 50-unit force of rock-slinging Ewoks without body armor. We need backup, now!!" That, and I never said anyone mentioned Ewoks or Hutts or anything. I just wanted to make a point. On ur main point- Oriental factions and European factions fought each other. Thus, this point is not valid. Yes it is. You can have one Oriental Civ be the Chinese and one be the Japanese, for example. Just that you don't agree with it doesn't make it invalid. My main point: It worked for Ground Control. The game MUST have all movie-related civs in it Fair enough. Include the Naboo. Neutral: Maybe, maybe not. All these people who want a Tatooine civ might . Every fifth soldier being a Mon Cal: I know you were joking, but the idea is not too retarded. In X-Wing Alliance, your first wingmen is a man, the second a woman, the third and fourth a man, the fifth and sixth a woman, and so on. You could have something like a random gender thing, at least, for your troops. For example, every third or second unit answers with a female voice. Also, have something like 5 or 6 voice banks for every gender of every unit. I know this sounds weird, but hey: How logical is it that every single A-Wing pilot has exactly the same voice, gender, and accent? Are they all clones? Back on topic: Why should we resort to this useless-sounding 'factions' system when we can, want to and hopefully will create 10+ unique civs? Because if we really are to include the Naboo, TF, Wookies, and so on, we'll end up with too many civilizations if we are to include all the stages of the Alliance and Empire. We'd have: 1. Naboo 2. Wookies 3. Gungans (just to add a canon civ, although they're not really space-faring:p) 4-6. Rebels 7-9: Imperials 10: Confederates 11: Trade Federation. See what I mean? Without it we still have 7 civs. If they are diverse enough, then, hey, it'll be just as fun as having 11 civs, right? Alliance: X-Wings, Y-Wings, B-Wings. Hit-and-fade tactics. Small, fast ships. NR: E-Wings and Upgraded X-Wings. All out battle tactics. Bigger cruisers. Empire: TIE Fighters, Interceptors, and Bombers. All out battle tactics. Big starships. Remnants: TIE Advanced, TIE Defender, TIE Droids. All out battle tactics. Big starships. Any other differences? We can possibly have 2 Alliance civs, but there'll hardly be any difference between the Empire and the Remnants. Okay, I agree the New Republic should be in: Less stealth, more firepower. Should be interesting to pit against the Empire. Possibly first debate on the forum where a member has admitted that the opposing part is right.. my proposal: The above list: 7 civs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 *runs into thread pulling out hairs on his head* "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WOOOOOOOOOKIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!" *runs out bashing head* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Devil Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Each civ has a counter civ, so it's always best if there are an even number of civs: 1-2) Naboo 2-1) Trade Federation 3-4) Wookiees 4-3) Gungans 5-6) Rebellion 6-5) Galactic Empire 7-8) Confederacy 8-7) Old Rebpublic My suggestions are going out of the wishes of the started of the thread, but ah well 9-10) New Republic 10-9) Vong (I can't spell the first part, lol) 11-12) The Jedi Order (4000 years ago) 12-11) The Sith Order (4000 years ago) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.