Dagobahn Eagle Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Graphics: 3D. I'm not going to try to justify that as it should already be obvious to everyone. Game engine: The AoK engine is great, but no matter how we look at it, it's outdated. A ton of people still play AoC, yes, but that's not because the engine necessarily rocks today, it's just that hey, it's AoC! It's a classic game. I think we need a new engine that's not only 3D, but which also supports some new features like shadows and hiding. Stats: Seven different stats: Firepower, Stealth, Armor, Health, Speed, Accuracy, and Perception. Firepower is the unit's attack. All units of the Aggressive civs like the Galactic Empire will get a general Firepower bonus. Stealth is how close to the unit the enemy has to be to see the unit. The units of the defensive civs, like the Alliance, get generally higher Stealth stats than other civs' units. Armor is how much firepower is needed to take out a unit's hull. Civilizations with heavy units, such as the Galactic Empire, are all heavily armored, at the cost of mobility. Speed is how fast the unit moves. Civs with light units, like the Gungans and Naboo generally move faster than other civs' units. Accuracy is how accurate the units are. Civilizations with high technology and intensive training, such as the Trade Federation and Empire, produce more accurate units. Perception is the unit's ability to detect stealthy units. A unit with a high perception rating does not need to be as close to a hidden unit as a unit with a low perception rating. Terrain: Terrain should be more interactive. Include a day-night cycle and let night terrain give all units a stealth bonus. Another fun feature would be shadows, which also give stealth bonuses to units hiding in them. Mountains and cliffs cast shadows, so do trees (to a limited degree). At sun-rise/set the sun is low, so shadows are longer, providing a bigger area of hiding. At mid-day, stealth is harder as units are given a stealth penalty and shadows are non-existing. Units can also be hidden by placing them in vegetation (shrubs and high grass). As before, high ground should give units a range bonus, but also a LOS and accuracy bonus. Hiding in holes, craters, and so on would hide small units from units outside of the crater who in real life could not look into the crater and see them. Civs: This has been debated over and over and is not yet agreed upon. What we know for sure is that the Empire, Rebels, and Naboo will have to be in, and that in order for the game to sell, so should civs like the Gungans, Trade Federation, and the Wookies. There is also a theory on "hidden civs", which are, for example, the Ewoks. There should be powerful civs as well as weak civs in order to keep some players from going "I finish the darn game and the only thing I get is some underpowered Ewok civ??";). Civs should have roles that are more extensive than "5% farm bonus" or "+2 attack for bombers". These stats do little to turn the tide, they just dictate to the player what units he should buy. In GB2, civs should get bonuses that affected all units. For example, all Rebel units would generally be more stealthy and fast than the Imperial units, but they would lack firepower and armor. On the other hand, Imperial units would have great firepower, accuracy, and armor, while lacking speed and stealth. This way, instead of "making" players form different armies from each others, it has them use different tactics. Unique units/type of units: I think we should have a system like the GB one, with units divided into air (scout, fighter, assault), tank (scout, light, medium, heavy), assault (anti-air and artillery), infantry (just the infantry unit and possibly UUs), and naval units (scouts, fishing ship, light, medium, heavy, assault, anti-air). What unique units the players would have would depend on the type of player. The militaristic Empire, for example, would get a heavy war-machine like the AT-AT as their unique unit, while the stealthy rebels could get a Commando infantry unit with high stealth, LOS, range, and firepower, but low armor (a sniper, almost). Campaigns: One campaign for each civ. Campaigns should be, on average, 7 or 8 missions long, prefferably 90% non-canon. If you have any other ideas, discuss them here. PS: Will there be a GB2? Frankly, I don't care. I think it's fun to plan for a game even if it doesn't come out (and with the high fever I've got right now, I can't do much else ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Ok, no offense, but if you read around the forums, you will notice lots of threads about GB2, and the fact that DMUK said something about GB2 coming out. So, I believe it will be coming out in the future. Waaay in the future. Just to let you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Stealth/Perception-Go to the sniper thread. Not many people like the idea of stealth, especially if a lot of units have it. Interactive terrian-Day/Night cycling, shadows, weather, ect. are really bad for a game. Not only are they annoying and clearly Realism>Gameplay, they put a little bit much emphisis on luck and less on skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted January 25, 2003 Author Share Posted January 25, 2003 Stealth/Perception-Go to the sniper thread. Not many people like the idea of stealth, especially if a lot of units have it. The "stealth" and "perception" that people are against in the Sniper thread is not nearly the same as the one discussed here. I'm not talking about total invisibility and the ability to detect total invisible units. Interactive terrian-Day/Night cycling, shadows, weather, ect. are really bad for a game. Not only are they annoying and clearly Realism>Gameplay, they put a little bit much emphisis on luck and less on skill. I didn't mean a cycle, I meant some scenarios being night and some being day. If you've played GC, it's clearly not Realism>Gameplay, it's Realism=Gameplay. And those bonuses and penalties do not have to be too exaggerated, either. If you actually think, and hide your artillery in the shadows under a cliff instead of putting them in plain sight when you attack an enemy base so that the enemy needs to be one-three tiles closer to see it, that's not "luck" and being "lucky", it's tactics and being rewarded for being tactical. GB already has a "high ground" range bonus. Is this "focusing on luck", or "realism>Gameplay"? Or does it just encourage the player to take high ground positions, thus offering a tactical option which most people like? Look at Gran Turismo 1 and 2. Their makers made them as realistic as possible. Look at Ground Control. It's also highly realistic. Now, how many reviewers complained that GT focused on Realism and didn't care about gameplay? None. How many said Realism was what made GT so great? About all of them, as well as about everyone who play the games. Same goes for Ground Control, which was made in conjunction with the Armed Forces. Should that create Realism. I'd say, at least as realistic as a sci-fi game can be . Did realism hinder gameplay? Absolutely not. Also, if we include Stealth (my idea of stealth, not the "total invisibility-stealth"), that would work against the high ground thing, meaning players could choose between the different tactics. Hiding in shadow gives you stealth, but as it'll have to be in low terrain, it gives you no LOS/Accuracy/Range bonus. On the other hand, taking position on a cliff gives you a higher LOS, Accuracy, and Range, but leaves you visible to the enemy. Oh, and what if we include EU/non-canon units? GB already has the TIE Defender, Dark Troopers, and Mara Jade, doesn't it? 40% of the SW universe is Non-canon. I think there's a 90% probability there will be invisible units in GB2, but if we include this "gradual stealth" thing, there'd obviously have to be less invisible units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Invisible is bad!!!! We fear invisible!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Invisible? *remembers the Schwarzenegger film Predator* It should be limited to units that could [realistically] do it, like submarines and Jedi's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted January 25, 2003 Author Share Posted January 25, 2003 That's basically what I'm saying. How about making the TIE Phantom a toybox unit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3 Invisible? *remembers the Schwarzenegger film Predator* It should be limited to units that could [realistically] do it, like submarines and Jedi's. Jedis should only be able to do it for a short time and when they attack they should be seen:biggs: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.