Do not know if this has been brought up before.
Bought the game some time ago, but wouldn't help but wonder what it would be like if the game had been modelled after starcraft instead of AOE.
I find that Starcraft's 3 sides have more variety than the 8 sides in SWBG (incl. CC). Playing each side in SC gives a very different feeling. In AOE and SWGB, playing each side is very similar, except for the bonuses and some upgrades not being available etc. But its more like 80% similar and 20% different. Starcraft is 80% different and 20% similar for each side.
Perhaps Lucasarts wanted each sides to have as many units as possible, eg, all sides get Jedi, but this takes some of the uniqueness from the game.
IMHO, perhaps Gunguns should not have jedi, and the droid faction should be purely droid etc.
In addition, x-wing and tie fighters shouldn't hover. They should perhaps model it after Starcraft's Protoss Carriers, with the little X-wing being represented by the Carrier's swift flying, non-hovering aircraft.
What are your views?
I'm looking for an editor (not map editor) to edit the game permanently such that I can remove the option of producing some units for some factions, but have not been able to locate one.
Anyone knows if such an editor exists?
Cheers!
I have thought about that too, but like you said, I think that LucasArts wanted to have more units.
I agree that it would be nice if gungans couldn't have jedi, or at least gungan jedi...
About the editor, I don't think it exists...
I agree! But it would also take alot more time to make 8 totally unique civs. I dont understand y the confederacy's repeater troopers use "cannon" loking guns when they got reapeter on their hands in the movie and y the hell the hail droids r anti air when they fire at the troops too in the movie. I think the hail droids should b able to fire on grounds units too and do alot of damage but their armor should b really weak.
First off, regarding the oft-asked questions of why the races don't have different Jedi; look at the J/S Temples. They are the only structures (apart from Sensor Buoys, post-CC) that look the same for all sides.
The reason for this, I think, is because the races don't train their own Jedi so much as ally with them temporarily; the Temple represents the base of operations for the Jedi on that planet/asteroid.
As to why different civs get different "levels" of Jedi, I guess that depends on the strength of the ties of each civ with the Republic/New Jedi Order/Sith. For example, Naboo was a world represented in the Galactic Senate, and could expect Jedi help, especially following the Battle of Naboo. The New Jedi Order was founded under the auspices of the Rebel Alliance, then the New Republic. The Wookiees, however, were always an independent people and would likely have weaker links with the central governing bodies. The Confederacy of Independent Systems was a splinter group with very clandestine Sith involvement; the Galactic Empire, however, was a galaxy-spanning entity under the direct and very visible rule of a Sith Master and his apprentice.
Second, with regards to the AoK vs. Starcraft engine; I love Starcraft, but surely even the purists must see that AoK allows for slightly greater depth; you're forced to make more choices based on the wider variety of resources, where Starcraft is much more weighted towards straight combat. AoK/GB also encourages the use of mixed arms more than in SC; you simply cannot make an army composed of two different units and hope to win.
I agree that more delineation between civs would have been nice, perhaps, especially in GB where you have different races, as opposed to different human factions in AoK. However, at least the similar civ templates do allow for excellent game balance, which with eight completely different civs would have been almost impossible...
I hope lucasarts release the sourcecode, but they never do stuff like......... :(
Being a long-time fan and player of the C&C series games, i was quite dissapointed with some aspects of SW:GB. I like the game, but i thought that the races would be very different, like C&C, but instead they are all the same with different images. When i was originally thinking about getting the game, i thought that there would be significant differences to force unique gameplay for each side, for example-
Rebels - no assualt mech, other forces cheaper, weaker and faster
Empire - strong, slow, expensive
Trade Fed - give AAT assualt mech weapons, MTT mech destroyer weapons but keep armour, speed, passengers the same
and things like that, just for a bit of variety.
After playing AOK, I was ready for something new. Empire Earth wasn't wroking right back when it was released, so I got SW: GB to replace it and I was really dissapointed. I knew what to expect after looking at the game for abit of time before release and expected different. No wonder why there are little players :(.
Perhaps they could make do with less sides. Actually, the trade federation should form part of the confederacy shouldn't it? And maybe they should remove the wookie altogether. Less factions, but more variety between the factions.
If only they make games as well as they make the movies.
Do not know if Lucasarts listen to players' comments though.
If they have plans for GB 2, hopefully they'll give a bit more variety, and maybe the next engine could be from Blizzard instead of Ensemble.
The reason for this, I think, is because the races don't train their own Jedi so much as ally with them temporarily; the Temple represents the base of operations for the Jedi on that planet/asteroid.
That make sense, I agree.
I was a die-hard SC fan before picking up GB, now the Starcraft disk is collecting dust in my closet. The AOE engine just gives the game more depth, including better storylines more like an RPG. Also the game itself looks much more amazing than the cartoony graphics used by Blizzard. Yet the only downfall of GB is the multiplayer, no rankings or statistics..what the hell. And it is much tougher to find a decent game on the zone unless you wanna play Hero Fest 8 million times in a row. :)
Another thing thats good about the AoK engine is that its more micromanagement in the battles and not like SC where u pump out units and send em into the enemy base (Im an SC too).
Wot i dont like is that basemanagement takes over hand sometimes, u always have to worry about ur workers , look after em if they're farming or not etc.
And another thing, i think its sux that 1 trade fed tank almost cant kill a wookie trooper alone... mech destroyers should b abit more effective.
maybee buldings shouldnt resist so much, but its just me ;)
Well, we all know that Starcraft was (is?) the greatest RTS of all time. So I think that if SWGB was modeled after the best RTS, it would have became the best RTS due to the 8 races, the star wars theme, etc. Anyway, it would have been nice if:
1) transports were more like SC transports: as in you can't fit certain units inside them in large numbers. Why am I able to fit 5 AT-ATs in my transport, but only able to fit 5 troopers in my transport?!?! I know we are fans of the pummel drop, but 5 hvy pummels dropped on your command center... that can be devastating! Pummels should count as "larger" units, so only 2-3 can fit in a transport. Troopers should be "smaller" units, so 10-12 could enter one transport.
2) SPELLS!: Besides conversion, SWGB lacks any kind of spells or even abilities. If Jedi had more spells, this game would be soooo cool :D !! Or maybe abilities (such as in SC, the burrow ability) for certain units. Like if bounties could shoot nets over units or something.
3) Natural advantages: different classes of units should have natural advantages over each other. For example: Empire troopers naturally (you don't have to research it) have a stronger attack than gungan troopers. Each civ currently has over 100 technologies to research (I think). If there were natural advantages for units, then some of those technologies wouldn't be necessary because the units would be born with them (hope that made sense). Less researching = more battling :D
4) Unique UNIT (as in one): It is nice that there are unique units for each civ, but shouldn't every unit in a civ be unique in some way (w/o having to research for it).
Well, thats how SWGB could have been more like SC (could have, because we all know these changes will NEVER happen). Please don't think that I don't like SWGB, because I love it. I just think that if it was more like SC, then it would have more replay value (and in the end, isn't the replay value, what defines a good RTS?).
Well, we all know that Starcraft was (is?) the greatest RTS of all time.
Do we now. Is that right. :)
Starcraft is much less complicated than AOK, especially economically; it's almost pure combat, with some simplistic resource management thrown in. Which is really cool. You can fight till somebody is dead and not worry too much about resources unless you actually get attacked. And if you manage to rush someone, they are almost totally screwed, because there's not a lot that those workers are going to be able to do. Starcraft is a fast, nasty little game, and I love it to bits.
I take issue with some of the points in that last point though.
Spells. Spells are interesting in SC in that they are often overpowered for the cost of the unit (you can Mind Control a Battlecruiser, or Psionic Storm a bunch of Hydralisks, and instantly recoup the cost of the Dark Archon/Templar) but come at the expense of intensive micromanagement. They can be very frustrating, though, both for the player using them and for the recipient. AoK/GB goes the route of having much more complicated interations between fighting units, with a much larger variety of bonuses and more specialised units.
Different units. Interestingly, if GB had been a straight port of the original Age of Empires, you might have found a lot of the units more different off the bat; anyone remember Assyrian chariot archers or Minoan compies? Through three games and three expansions, though, the Age engine has moved away from natural differences and towards unique/restricted researches. I don't know categorically why this is, but I would assume that the answer has something to do with early game balance. Then again I'm not aware that any of the three races in Starcraft are out of balance. Maybe it's just too difficult to balance eight different sides... I don't know.
I'm completely with you as far as the transport issue goes, though. Not as regard balance - a pummel drop is as easy to counter as everything else, just build mounted troopers. It's just that, as you say, it seems a bit silly. This was the case in AOK where you could fit five trebuchets in the same space as five villagers, but now, when you can get an ATAT or R2D2 into the same space, it's even more ridiculous. I really like the Starcraft system for this. Then again, scale in RTS games is always a nightmare - look how tiny the transports themselves actually are, in both games...
I certainly don't think the Age engine has an adverse effect on replay value. If anything, the vast multitude of research and military choices makes the game more involved and adds to the replay. Just my ten yen...
In SWGB there r alot of units that i find totally useless and i still think troopers should b better. In starcraft u can build an army of ur favorite units which u really cant do in swgb and troops r as useful as they should b in SC.
One thing that still bothers me like hell is that Hail droid is anti-air when they fire at the ground units in episode 2.
I agree that the research for Aok/SWGB is nice, but SC has research too, such as faster speed for zerglings, more space for carriers etc. And just like T1 to T4 upgrades in SWGB, the Zerg have to upgrade their hives to build better structures.
What's different abt SC is that only the Zerg does that. The Terran Command centre and the pyramid thingy of the Protoss never requires upgrade. So if you want to upgrade, take the Zerg. It's like getting 3 RTS in one! Each side plays so differently.
Another good thing is that units never gets obsolete or superceded by more powerful creatures. End games still require the humble marine, the Protoss zealot and many a time, i won a game with Zerglings.
But you still need combined arms. If you have a force of just Protoss zealots, you're dead meat when they come up against flyers.
Plus I like Carriers. If only in SWBG they have "carriers" that look like Imperial Star Destroyers and have little TIE fighters zooming around the Star Destroyers destroying everything in its path.
Don't get me wrong. I like SWGB very much. Just thinking that such ideas may make this a better game (should some ppl from Lucasarts be reading this).
Good point about the upgrades!
The Pyramid thingy of protoss is called Nexus ;)
Well, this is turning into an interesting discussion, as opposed to a flame war. Jolly good.
There is research in SC, of course, but less than in GB and none at all for economic upgrades. Of course, this is partly because SC delineates civs much more from the beginning where GB relies mainly on research to push the civs further apart as the game progresses. A fully-upgraded (FU) Wookie repeater is approximately as different from an FU Naboo trooper as an SC Hydralisk is from a Marine; the difference is, of course, that the Wookie Recruit and Naboo Recruit both start out exactly the same (well, almost exactly) while the Hydra and the Marine are different right out of the gate.
Both approaches have their merits, I think. The GB way of doing things means that all players have an entirely equal chance to rush/ rush defend, at least as far as the units go. Within the SC system, early game balance is much more difficult to achieve, but on the other hand the difference in units right from the outset is arguably more satisfying and certainly more realistic. (I find it hard to imagine that a naboo recruit would be able to take on even a freshly-recruited Wookie on even terms; same with Super Battle Droids vs. the regular kind.)
SC places nowhere near the emphasis on combined arms that GB does, IMO. You can't quite get away with armies of a single unit but you certainly can do a lot with two or three. Hydralisks with a little detector support do horrible things to all kinds of troop formations, as do Marine/Medic combos. You can build big forces of two kinds of units in GB but you will get your arse handed to you much faster.
WarteX, I'm curious; what GB units do you find totally useless? The only one I can think of offhand is the Empire Scout, which gets entirely superceded by the Probot; nothing else strikes me as redundant in the game, with the possible exception of the A-wing (poor A-wing). Since you can upgrade most units to stronger versions, nothing really gets left behind.
Troopers are the staple of most T4 games, at least for the civs that get repeaters. They can do most things at a mediocre level for very little expense, and they are an incredibly cost-effective force. Pummels hit buildings harder, destroyers hit mechs harder, strikes do infantry and mounties do HWs - but infantry can do all these things, albeit less well, for a fraction of the cost. They're flexible, quick to make, cheap to upgrade and cheap to train.
Don't ask them to take on an air cruiser though. ;)
Infantry in SC is much more powerful, but then again you will rarely produce it in such huge numbers, or as fast. It's a touch unrealistic, inasmuch as it is possible to talk about realism in science fiction games; look at the size of the battlecruisers in the SC movies, then ask yourself if twelve marines would really be able to take one out?
'Course, you'd probably struggle to get an ATAT into an Assault Shuttle, too...
I think that if troopers could attack air, they'd be even more potent. I hate having a unit around that walks on the ground, but can only attack the air. It would be far more convenient if regular troops could attack air like the marines of SC. They would have to suck at it of course.. 5 troops to take 1 fighter, but you wouldn't have to go scrambling for anti-air. As for anti-air troops, I wish that they had a light ground attack... but thats just me.
Now to buildings, they should less durable to me. In SC, you could level a whole town in minutes (with reavers or seige tanks). Now I know that this isn't SC, but I don't like that you have to resort to cannons in post tech4 (at least I do).
I like the fact that structures are sturdy.
It buys you time and eliminates the problem of 'one unit roaming in your base, blowing everything up while you try to build units to kick him out'.
In SC, you were smoked when your base was run over early on.
Here it's a different story.
D'blee: k not totaly useless, I exaggerated abit :).
this might sound strange but I find bounty hunters abit useless, I rarely use em.
I think buildings should resist less bcoz in some games u make assaults after assaults after assaults with out much progress, the opponent just build new ones in no time, it can get pretty repeative.
Instead of changing all the basic units they could have made more unique fortress units.
Maybee im just abit fastidious. :)
Originally posted by Paragon_Leon
I like the fact that structures are sturdy.
It buys you time and eliminates the problem of 'one unit roaming in your base, blowing everything up while you try to build units to kick him out'.
In SC, you were smoked when your base was run over early on.
Here it's a different story.
Let me elaborate... :rolleyes:
I'm not talking about early on in the game, troop recruits shouldn't be able to level towns.... that wouldn't make sense. I mean in tech3-4, when the serious war begins. In tech-4, workers have the "faster building" upgrade, and there tends to be buildings everywhere (which isn't realistic to actually war, but..). Workers can put up buildings faster than you can knock them down; I think that is a problem. I also think there should be a penalty for building one structure with more than 3 workers at once.
Anyway, war shouldn't be decided on the economic front, it should be decided on the war front, but with so many buildings everywhere and armies incapable of destroying them all quickly enough, you end up waiting for the enemy's econ to dry up while keep your own stable. If buildings were less durable, then you wouldn't be able to just sit back and watch as your fortress kills off the whole opposition. Actually I think that fortresses are a bit chessy, especially when built in or near an enemy's base... they're self-powered, attack air and ground, create units, too durable, and is equal to 4 prefabs.
Making buildings less durable (maybe not as weak as in SC), would make turrets and their upgrades more popular too. Finally, it would add a sense of urgency to game, to kill before being killed, destroy before being destroyed, level his base before he levels yours... that feeling that you get when playing SC.
J-5, there is a penalty for putting lots of workers on a building; with the AoK engine, the law of diminishing returns applies to multi-tasked builders. Which is to say, four builders will not throw up a fortress twice as quickly as two builders.
However, I think I agree to an extent with your point about building destruction. I do hate the fact that in Starcraft you can be completely destroyed if your opponent puts together six units before you get a defence going; then again, buildings in GB by about Tech 4 are very resilient indeed and, as you say, there are very few units that can take them down in any sort of reasonable time.
Through the development of AoK through patches, the expansion etc., there were always fears about the game becoming "Age of Buildings" - especially with oddities like the Teuton town centre, back in the day. What helped a lot in AoK though was that infantry got a bonus vs. buildings - a champion flood in T4 would actually rip down production centres reasonably quickly.
Repeaters, good though they are, take a looooong time to down buildings even en mass. I think it would be good to give them a small bonus vs. structures, making their fast fire rate even more lethal. Of course, that might cause problems for the civs without repeaters... hmmm.
Shield generators alter the dynamic of the game a lot too. Especially now that generators, and perhaps more pertinently power cores, can be reinforced through research. I think it might indeed be nice to weaken buildings slightly in TL 3/4; maybe remove the building upgrades/Presidium research options? Dunno...
One thing; the fact that most military prodcution centres now cost ore or nova in addition to carbon is a nice, though subtle addition. Since on many maps ore is often the scarcest resource, this makes spamming buildings that much harder. Maybe the costs could be increased to 50 ore/nova in addition to the wood? Just a thought...
Don't agree that fortresses are cheesy, though. 550 ore is a hell of a lot. And they go down like, well, a thing that goes down easily if you bring along a couple of pummels. Their anti-air attack sucks quite badly, as well. Doesn't even range aircruisers...