An alternate without borders could be a zone around the starting CC(or any CC as a matter of facts) where you can build but not outside of it. Power Cores would extend that zone. We could find a good excuse for that and it sounds more star wars-y then borders.

I like that idea LIAYD that you can only have buildings in areas that are powered sort of like a pseudo Blight.

They use a similar thing in Dawn of War and it seems to work OK. You can build a CC anywhere there is enough flat land, but you can only build other buildings in a control zone within a certain radius of a CC or a control point that you've captured and built a turret on.

...which is exactly how the Borders system works. Of course you would want to change the name of it, but really it's just the area of land you control and can build on and mine resources in. Because of the latter point, it is really in the interest of the player to expand their borders quickly.

Viceroy - no, i actually dont drink all that much. Just a small spelling error.

I had a different understanding of the Borders system where you captured cities and that increased your sphere of influence.

You may have fixed part of it but don't you mean our RTS not out RTS?

It comes to something when I go and correct spelling and grammar. :D

I think though that it should be tweaked so you can build economic buildings anywhere it just sounds a little restricting early game depending on how much Power Cores or their equivalents use.

Also on another note War Of the Ring uses a similar system for the Forces of evil where you have Slave Masters place War Posts to create an area that's buildable upon.

Windu- No no no...there are key differences. Your border system restricts construction of additional CC. In this system, you would be able to build a CC at the other edge of the map and people would be able to build inside your buildable area as long as they are also under their own.
This isn't too restrictive but discourages constructing turrets in an enemy's base. If you wanted that you would have to create a network of power cores extending from one of your CC up to the enemy's base which is a waste of time.
The best example of this would be how the Zerg in StarCraft function. They could never roach with buildings.

Besides, I don't understand how one can look at building roaching as a plague that needs a big solution. If I somehow manage to rebuild a forward base into a full base after my original one was destroyed and kick your ass, then you deserve the ass kicking...

Yeah I will say that the only Building Roaching problem conceivable could on the off Chance be Gungan Underwater Prefabs but I don't think houses count towards saving your butt.

Not that it matters since Gungans arn't that popular and their doesn't seem to be a roaching problem since it doesn't take much effort to get rid of the roaching units the Forumites who've played games with Nitro know what I mean.

See, i prefer the Borders system. There is no good reason why someone who isnt an ally should be able to build in your territory.

It will be an entire different game anyway, no CC massing and pumping out workers for the boom.

The problem I see with that though is whether Territory would automatically become neutral if you don't have buildings near it.

Command centers should be buildable anywhere realistically some people set up bases behind enemy lines to maximise suprise.

Windu's just pissed because he got beaten by someone who built a forward base and wiped him out :D

It's going to be a different game right, but it doesn't mean we're not going to have some kind of similar problem.

See borders make no sense. There's no neutral terrritory, you HAVE to build within your borders which is indeed, very annoying to an extent. This is not RoN, it will not work the same. No other RTS has a similar border system. No other RTS has problems without one. Denying a useful startegy is destroying a strategic side of the game.

I don't even understand what the hell is the problem. If you're incompetent enough to let them setup a huge forward base a build a fortress directly in the middle of your base, you deserve it.

You should propably add one thing to that statement just before you dserve it.

It should be to the effect that if you let them build the forward base and you can't destroy said forward base then you deserve it.

Now we at least know why Windu doesn't like the game, Because he's a noob at it. :p

We don't really have any major problem with Roaching at all in GB there don't seem to be many GAMEPLAY problems at all really.

I have yet to see vet of any other RTS complain about forward bases. The new RTS do not have the TownCenter spamming ability of AoK so there's nothing to worry. Even so, trying to build a fortress in the middle of an enemy's base is a waste of both ressources and valuable troops to defend the construction site. Then again, if you've succesfully defended you built site in the middle of an enemy's base, you've basically won.


Unless there is a single very strong bulding left(ie fortress) and the map is drained out of ressources(which has never really happened) and you don't have any ressources left yourelf, we never have a building roaching problem. Hiding a big stationary target isn't the best roaching tactic.

Well LIAYD it has happened before ask the participants of the Ice Lake Epic during a conflict like that a map can get drained of resources very fast If I remeber rightly nothing natural was left apart from a tiny bit of Carbon in the hotly contested warzone between me and Nitro.

I mean absolutely zero ressources left. You still had each other meaning there is trading left. That is still a ressource.

Well true but when you have trading left a lot of juggling is required and that then slows you down when food carbon and ore rise to something like 500 a shot.

That's why the Confederacy is better built for the long haul.

My point was about zero trading, zero ally, zero ressource.

oh then if your at that point your screwed.

Actually, i have never been beaten by anyone, so cut the bull. I dont have a problem with forward bases, and they are necessary in RoN.

With the Borders system, yes, there is neutral territory. Your borders dont just go on and on until they reach the territory of someone else. You only have a small amount of territory to start off with and must expand to survive and conquer.

Is a borders system necessary? Yes. With the example you two used, why didnt the Empire just build a forward base right next to Echo Base on Hoth? Why didnt the Rebels construct a fortress next to the Endor Shield Generator? The whole point here is that you are using ARMED UNITS to win the game, not buildings. Allowing people of place any structures next to someone else's base hurts gameplay and realism all at the same time.

If you drain a whole map of its resources your not playing the game right.....

Originally posted by Darth Windu
Actually, i have never been beaten by anyone, so cut the bull. I dont have a problem with forward bases, and they are necessary in RoN.

You said you don't play multiplayer...so right you've technically never have been beaten by anyone. If you did play multiplayer, a few games does not give a good experience.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
Is a borders system necessary? Yes. With the example you two used, why didnt the Empire just build a forward base right next to Echo Base on Hoth? Why didnt the Rebels construct a fortress next to the Endor Shield Generator? The whole point here is that you are using ARMED UNITS to win the game, not buildings. Allowing people of place any structures next to someone else's base hurts gameplay and realism all at the same time.

Because the Empire on Hoth had SO much time to build a forward base, because the Rebels on Endor brought a fleet with them transporting all the materials to build one. Look, in RoN sometimes, city would get very close(about a few hundred meters on the map). That's exactly the same thing as a forward base except you need to expand your "territory".

Now with a zone surrounding your CC, you do not have the problem. Basically, to set up a forward base you would need a new CC or link many many many power cores. This would be a waste of time and ressources. If you can't be on the look-out for what is surrounding your base, big deal. You have plenty of neutral territory so you're not hampered by any stupid un-Star Wars-y Border system.

I would like a system where you start off with a walled area/base with metal gates and you can only build within that base. You expand to other bases outside of that one once you have run out of build space.

I think LIAYD's system sounds the best and most realistic plus it seems the one that's more true to Star Wars the rest just woudn't fit correctly.

Forward Base building is never a problem if you didn't know they built a forward base you should find it because you should still be scouting and when you find it you should be able to destroy it or else your not playing the game right.

Froz I'd love to hear you say that to PBGuy since we were playing right there were just a lot of stalemates.

luke - that is exactly my point though. The Empire couldnt build a base on Hoth, and the Rebels couldnt build a base on Endor. The whole concept here is that the FIGHTING SHOULD BE DONE BY UNITS. Combat becomes laughable when it is done mostly between buildings, because then you have lost all sense of realism.

In addition, having a borders system restricts turtling and stops tactics like building structures in the enemy base, which luke pointed out is anti-Star Wars. In addition, the player must expand to survive, so there will likely be more combat around various areas where borders clash, much like real life.

Look at it this way, without something like the borders system, it would be like the Republic coming down to assault Geonosis and instead of launching Gunships and Clone Troopers, instead building Defensive Turrets next to the Trade Federation Battleshi Cores.

Windu Turtling isn't a problem yes it slows your attacker down but unless your turtling to build up your strength then you will loose.

we don't have a problem with people doing things like that Windu it's called Tactics and if you can't use them then you shouldn't be playing any Real Time STRATEGY since STRATEGY implies TACTICS.

There's no need to add something in that does nothing for gameplay or realism.

Windu-For the love of God read man. READ.
You've never seen what a forward base is do you? What do you think it is? A cluster of turrets?
I don't see how my idea isn't viable. I told you already that to build a forward base, you would need to build a brand new CC or link up many power cores. The process is costly and in such a dangerous territory, it might not become a viable option but more of a special feat from a good player.

Let me remind you that forward bases are made to churn out units close to the enemy base. I have never seen anyone actually trying to build "offensive turrets". They're defensive structures and very well balanced to that effect. Let me also say that being a victim and builder of many forward bases, I rarely see any turrets being built there.
Hell, if you consider building barracks and factories as "fighting with buildings" why the hell don't we turn it into an RTT?


much like real life.

BS. It's a game. Every RTS involves building units and sending them into combat. You're not going to tell me that in 2 hours, someone can set up a base, churn out 200 well trained and well equipped infantry soldiers.



Endor-It was a bloody commando. Commandoes are not made for base building.

Hoth-And lose the element of surprise? Again, it's a game and if you'll see a Hoth map in the campaign, I can assure you it won't involve base building. This is about multiplayer and single player skirmish.

Geonosis-Look at Hoth and at the rest of the post.

I love hearing people who can't rush, harass or boom telling people how to play the game. *cough* Viceroy

If Pbguy was here I'd tell him If you drain a map of all its resources your not playing the game right. Should have been over long before you reach that point.

luke - but then as i was saying, the borders wouldnt stop - they would actually promote - forward bases. By creating a forward base, you would be extending your borders giving you a larger area to control. What i'm saying is that using borders prevents things like building turrets in the enemy base.

Viceroy - there is a difference between Strategy and Tactics. Strategy looks at the big picture, so that would basically involve setting up your base, getting resource collection and trading set up etc. Tactics however are small-scale - the actual battle.

Jesus...

Have you ever, ever seen somebody successfully putting a turret in someone's base? I'm sure that tactic has done HUGE damage to you and is not both a waste of time and ressources.

I say it again, having a buildable area around the CC and extended by power core sounds a lot better then borders.

You're impossible, I've explained several times how you do not need borders to counter this incredibly rare and somehow very annoying to you tactic of bulding turrets uin someone's base.

Then again, this revolves around multiplayer and I don't see how someone who does not play multiplayer can understand another human player's strategies. I have not seen the AI doing that, I have not seen humans doing that. The greatest thing that comes remotely close to your "offensive-defensive buildings is the AoK waste of ressource Castle push. Again, power cores make more sense then borders.

Power cores and CC are not going to be in this game..... Its a new engine backed with a new company lets drift away from the old GB.

A turret push is a fairly common T2 strat. Not used as often as the good old trooper rush, but it happens. The idea is to get a turret overlooking the enemy's carbon or nova centre so their workers can't get near it, then they have to waste res building a new centre somwehere else or building more mounties to knock out the turret.

IMO it's a perfectly legitimate strat and adds an extra dimension to trooper wars. If you limit the areas where players can build it limits the strats they can carry out and risks making the game more boring. I think the RTS genre seems to be moving away from the hardcore gamers and targetting the more mainstream, casual gamers. This is way they're getting simpler: less res management, or none at all, limits on booming and forward building. It all makes it easier for players of low ability who can't or don't want to improve, but it gets boring if all you have to do is sit back and watch the eye candy (I suspect BFME is one of those kind of games).

BFME is targeted at casual gamers but so was generals and I feel that the new RA game will be the same. Small eco managment and they also drifted away from scissors paper rock style.

I just use the terms CC and power cores to make an example. It doesn't exactly have to be a CC and a power core.


The RTS market has become a niche market. The casual gamer is now looking for a much more cinematic feel when he plays a game and the RTS genre doesn't give that as much as an RPG or an FPS can.

This is what Mark Birnbaum, reviewer at IGN says in one of his review of an RTS:

The real time strategy genre has seemingly reached its plateau. Save the rare intuitive masterpiece, most of today's RTS games are uninspired, generic, and sometimes just plain sloppy.

I feel just like him.

Well they still do have a limited version of the rock paper scissor style with Pikeman countering Cavalary and crossbowmen countering the infantry and the cavalry countering the crossbowman.

The counters in BFME are not that apparent it takes alot of pikemen to take out charging horseback. Over the course of the first few months EA will be making alot of balance patches.

I've said it elsewhere not nessacerily here but I predicted that EA would have to patch this game every day to make it live up to expectations.

Of course the lack of directional armour will have to be addressed.

luke - I never said the tactic was a waste of time and resources, I said that it hurts gameplay and realism. Realism, because we would NEVER see anything like that in a 'real' Star Wars battle, and it hurts gameplay because then, as i mentioned before, you just have buildings doing the fighting when it should be the units.

All the borders system does is prevent tactics like that, and get you to expand to increase your ability to gather resources. Your borders would automatically be extended by research and by building CC's or the equivalent near the edge of your borders.

Agree with Windu completely units do the fighting not the buildings. But in the case of WC3 Night Elves we can make an exception. :p

For those of us who havent played WC3, what is a Night Elf?

Originally posted by Darth Windu
luke - I never said the tactic was a waste of time and resources, I said that it hurts gameplay and realism. Realism, because we would NEVER see anything like that in a 'real' Star Wars battle, and it hurts gameplay because then, as i mentioned before, you just have buildings doing the fighting when it should be the units.

Arguing against a brick wall would be easier...

Never did you claim it was a waste of time and ressource, I claimed that. I think nobody disagrees with the fact that it should be units who dot he fighting.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
All the borders system does is prevent tactics like that, and get you to expand to increase your ability to gather resources. Your borders would automatically be extended by research and by building CC's or the equivalent near the edge of your borders.

You still haven't refuted against my power core/CC buildable area a single time. Why would that not work?

The border system makes sense in a civ building game like RoN. However, in a game where the basis is to whack the opponent, borders become somewhat of an oddity.
Look at all of the modern RTS that has the same goal, which is build up and go beat the crap out of the opponent. Which has a border system? Warhammer:40K Dawn of War does not, C&C does not, WC3 does not, AoM does not, BFME does not(though with this plot system it is arguable), etc. Yet none of them has tons of people whining about turret pushes.

I get the impression that DoW is balanced so that bolter turret pushes are a waste of resources, but I'll have to look into it more when I get the full version as I've only played the demo so far. In any case, the SWGB style turret push is redundant because there are no workers gathering resources. otoh capturing control points is a huge part of the game, and you can secure them with a special kind of turret which can only be built there, so in that sense turret pushes are an integral part of the game.

luke - do you even know how borders work? In RoN, building cities or forts extends your borders further, as does a certain type of research. Therefore, basically you are saying that you want the borders system as well.

People don't whine about turrent pushes because its a strategy everyone has to except eventually. I agree that I've never heard of a war being won by turrenting. I don't agree with borders either so a better solution has to be somewhere.

BTW not all C&C games can build all over the map red alert 2 as an example.

But what im saying is that turret pushes shouldnt be a viable tactic. As i said before, they really hurt realism, and they arent good for gameplay either. As an aside, at the very least removing this tactic would make the game more unique compared to most other RTS' out there.

though Windyu the system your proposing does nothing for Gameplay or Realism so there's no point in putting it in.

If it doesn't do anything for gameplay or realism then it shouldn't be in. Ever.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
luke - do you even know how borders work? In RoN, building cities or forts extends your borders further, as does a certain type of research. Therefore, basically you are saying that you want the borders system as well.

I know how the hell borders work. I'm not retarted and I've played RoN.
The borders get extented very fast and on a large map with a normal amount of players for it, territory is filled up quickly.

Again, you've not refuted as to why a power core/CC less restrictive system would not work.
I compare it as a mix of the Protoss Pylons system and the Zerg Creep.
The Zerg Hatchery(CC) would have an certain creeped area where you could build basic units until you can build more Creep Colonies(power cores) which extend the creep for you. The difference here is I want the power cores to work like the Protoss Pylon because the enemy can build in a Pylon powered area.
The difference here would be power cores and CC not giving a huge amount of territory. In StarCraft it was almost impossible for the Zerg to do the turret push tactic.
They had to build a hatchery in front of someone's base and start building creep colonies very slowly into the enemy's base. The process took a lot of time and, unless your enemy is totally retarded, was not at all a viable tactic. Defending a position like that was too costly for nothing.
You could also link up many creep colonies from your starting base all the way up to the enemy's base but that also is not a viable strategy.
My system would differ from yours because:
a) No invisible line telling you who's territory it is.
b) No restriction on a strategy but hampering its use.
c) More realistic in the context.

luke - i dont see how your system would be any different. Incidently, i have never heard of a 'zerg' so that went straight over my head.

viceroy - i have already explained how it is beneficial to realism and gameplay. Perhaps you should go back and actually read those posts.

And I have just explained to you how the Zerg Creep functions in StarCraft...
The Creep being the area that the Zerg build on.

That was pretty obvious I suppose.

Again, my system does not totally nullify the possibility to do a turret push, it hampers it. In this case, if you want to put a CC in neutral territory, you can. In your system, people cannot do so.

If I was you, I would not dare to tell others to read your posts since all you seem to do is read a few words in it and then post a half-arsed reply.

I hate power cores so I hope they don't have them in the next game. Maybe power stations like generals but I just hate cores.

Windu your reasoning doesn't make sense so until you come up with valid reasons I will still think your system is un-nessacery and un-star warsy.

Froz what you just had was a stroke of Genius power cores could extend it a small to medium area while Power Generation Stations could extend it to a large to huge area.