Ummmm No.........

I don't like the idea of having power radius power stations should just provide power and the more buildings you place the more power is needed to sustain them. I would be happy if power was not a factor at all.....

luke - look at it this way. I have never played StarCraft, so explain this system to me in non-specific terms if you could. However, if your system doesnt eliminate turret pushes, then it simply isnt good enough.

FroZ - i completely agree with you. I have always prefered the system of having a global power meter rather than the power core system in GBG. Thats probably why i used a global system in my template.

Viceroy - okay then, how does my reasoning not make sense? Tell me what you do not understand and i will explain it to you.

Originally posted by FroZticles
The counters in BFME are not that apparent it takes alot of pikemen to take out charging horseback.

What game are you playing? I can build a couple of battalions of pikemen and own the horsemen If anything, the pikemen are too strong, but then that's what the rohhirim archer is for.

Windu what your saying makes sense your just not putting a strong enough case forward since Turret pushing is a strategy not a particularly common one but still a strategy anything that restricts any kind of strategy hurts gameplay and since they didn't have a borders system in real life in Star wars it hurts Realism anyway.

Geamplay + Realism > Windu's "Idea"

It doesn't matter if I explain everything to you. All you want is SW: noobfest.

I'm through arguing with you. In the time you've spent here, you haven't changed one bit.

You contradict yourself at every turn. You don't want a civ building game but you manage to turn your template into a civ building game.

The power cores in GB stopped players to just build a troop center at the entrance of an enemy's base like how people did that in AoK. That's why it existed and it did its job damn well.

I really don't know why we try to argue with him in a civilised manner since all he seems to do is think everyone should follow his Idea and template even though the new RTS has made them all useless so any template especially Winu's Frankenstein are useless.

I think he wants a RoNified version of Star Wars.

if he played on the zone with SWGB hs faveourite scenario would be City Build:rolleyes:

The thing is he wants me to explain how the Zerg Creep works in StarCraft without using the word Zerg or Creep.

Nice. He's just trying to ignore the arguments.

Has he ever actually listend to sensible arguments?

luke - if you cant explain that system to me without using all the Starcraft-specific mumbojumbo, how are you going to explain it to the average gamer? The borders system can easily be explained without using RoN-specific terms, im sure this could as well.

I am prepared to listen to any sensible arguments you put forward, the problem here is that i simply do not understand how your system works, because i have never played Starcraft. Aside from that, i really dont think a system that allows turret pushes to occur is good enough.

Also, the addition of power cores did NOT stop players building Troop Center's near the entrance of the enemy base, it mearly slowed the production speed of the infantry. Again, that sort of tactic is what should be stopped.

In addition, had you actually read my template properly would would have seen that it doesnt even resemble RoN, not is it a civ-building game. As for condradicting myself, exactly how do i contradict myself?

Viceroy -
Has he ever actually listend to sensible arguments?
That's rich coming from you.

Also, not every strategy that works is good for gameplay. As i have stated before, and will again, THE UNITS SHOULD DO THE FIGHTING, NOT THE BUILDINGS! To destroy an enemy base, you should have to build an army suitable for that purpose and destroy the enemy through superior tactics. Putting a BASE-DEFENCE turret into your enemy's base just hurts gameplay, much as putting unit-production structures near an enemy base as luke said hurts gameplay.

In terms of realism, which of these two senario's is more realistic in the Star Wars universe?

1. Republic invades Geonosis and can only build in a small area until they expand. Lots of Clone Troopers are produced, and with Gunships and AT-TE's they attack the Confederacy base and landed Starships.

2. Republic invades Geonosis and starts building defensive turret next to the landed Federation Starships.

I mean, come on. To allow strategies like a turret push hurts gameplay and almost completely ruins realism.


I dont know about anyone else, but i want to play a STAR WARS RTS, not some generic rip-off RTS that uses the same system and has the same tactics but with Star Wars-based units. Games like GBG are for those who refuse to, or cannot, accept and deal with change. The next SW RTS needs to be different and fix some of the things wrong with the current generation of RTS'. The biggest change though needs to be that UNITS DO THE FIGHTING, not the buildings like luke and Viceroy's dream generic RTS.

You must be pretty stupid to run through 2 batallions of pikemen with your horses in the 1st place.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
luke - if you cant explain that system to me without using all the Starcraft-specific mumbojumbo, how are you going to explain it to the average gamer? The borders system can easily be explained without using RoN-specific terms, im sure this could as well.

Because borders system are a fairly common thing and any RoN term is non fictional. Let me ask you this, can you explain how borders work without mentionning the word "border"? Same thing, I can't explain how the Zerg Creep functions without mentionning the more technical terms.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
I am prepared to listen to any sensible arguments you put forward, the problem here is that i simply do not understand how your system works, because i have never played Starcraft. Aside from that, i really dont think a system that allows turret pushes to occur is good enough.

For the last time, it does NOT stop the turret pushes BUT MAKES IT A FEAT WORTHY OF THE GUINESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS. A system that makes it something bery hard to accomplish is good enough. Besides, turret pushes in post-AoK/SWGB RTS are very rare thus trying to focus on such a small matter seems ridiculous.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
Also, the addition of power cores did NOT stop players building Troop Center's near the entrance of the enemy base, it mearly slowed the production speed of the infantry. Again, that sort of tactic is what should be stopped.

Again, my system stops this. As a matter of fact, if in early game, in SWGB, an enemy managed to build a power core and a troop center that close to your main base, you deserved it for not paying attention.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
In addition, had you actually read my template properly would would have seen that it doesnt even resemble RoN, not is it a civ-building game. As for condradicting myself, exactly how do i contradict myself?

You said you don't want civ building yet your research system is the same as every civ building game.




Originally posted by Darth Windu
Also, not every strategy that works is good for gameplay. As i have stated before, and will again, THE UNITS SHOULD DO THE FIGHTING, NOT THE BUILDINGS! To destroy an enemy base, you should have to build an army suitable for that purpose and destroy the enemy through superior tactics. Putting a BASE-DEFENCE turret into your enemy's base just hurts gameplay, much as putting unit-production structures near an enemy base as luke said hurts gameplay.

And we have stated several times that this is a fairly uncommon strategy to do turret pushes. I have NEVER seen a victory done solely on a turret push strategy. You are irrelevant as you have ignore this very fact since the beginning. It is NOT a good strategy and players understand that.
What is better? Trying to poke you enemy with a turret or spending time preparing a real attack force? Every single non-retarded player knows that preparing a decent assault force is better then wasting time trying to pull off a turret push.
And again, nobody is disagreeing with the fact that unit should do the fighting. We just know for a fact that the average player does not waste time on useless strategies that gives them nothing.


Originally posted by Darth Windu
In terms of realism, which of these two senario's is more realistic in the Star Wars universe?

1. Republic invades Geonosis and can only build in a small area until they expand. Lots of Clone Troopers are produced, and with Gunships and AT-TE's they attack the Confederacy base and landed Starships.

2. Republic invades Geonosis and starts building defensive turret next to the landed Federation Starships.

I mean, come on. To allow strategies like a turret push hurts gameplay and almost completely ruins realism.

Damn. Turret pushes are an uncommon strategy, players of any RTS know this. Nobody is going to go build a turret in a somebody's T4 main base(in SWGB) and in newer RTS, turret pushes are even rarer.





Originally posted by Darth Windu
I dont know about anyone else, but i want to play a STAR WARS RTS, not some generic rip-off RTS that uses the same system and has the same tactics but with Star Wars-based units. Games like GBG are for those who refuse to, or cannot, accept and deal with change. The next SW RTS needs to be different and fix some of the things wrong with the current generation of RTS'. The biggest change though needs to be that UNITS DO THE FIGHTING, not the buildings like luke and Viceroy's dream generic RTS.

I hope one day, I won't have to repeat myself several times in the same post.
Nobody wants the buildings to do the fighting, we all understand that. We all know a turret push is possible, yet again, an uncommon and not very beneficial strategy. Players know this. Players are not stupid Windu. If you would play online, you would see that only a small number of players attempt that.

Seriously, I do not understand what makes you so angry about turret pushes. It's uncommon in newer RTS. Is it a problem? Not really. You're the first person who seems so violent against turret pushes. It's the first time since AoK that I hear of it as such a "plague to gameplay".
We all accept change. We know that things have changed since SWGB and AoK in the world of RTS games. It is inevitable to accept change. However, I cannot see how you can seriously consider people who like SWGB as people who cannot accept "change". It's a 3 year old RTS.
Things change in 3 years. Things have changed since Dune II, since the first C&C. Hell, I like Dune II does that mean I want to roll back in time and have an RTS made with 1992 graphics, ancient gameplay? Absolutely not and this assumption of yours if totally flawed.

I would now like you to list everything you find wrong with the current generation of RTS. Perhaps it shall be clearer for us.

Windu, you just don't approve of people playing games, do you? You seem to want to ban every strat other than slowly build up a large army and attack head on. You sound like some deranged right-wing politician going on about banning things. A good RTS game should have as many viable strats as possible to add to variety and replayability, but it should also be balanced so that each strat has a viable counter, stopping people from getting a lock-on victory with just one strat, provided that their opponent is competent. And that's the key: you actually have to play the game and learn to improve. It shouldn't be easy for you, it should be challenging. If you're automatically protected from rushes/pushes then there's no incentive to improve your game, and it will always turn into the equivalent of a rook game of SWGB where no-one attacks until T4. And that is very, very dull.

I had that kind of attitude back when I was a rook. Everything had to be slow and I hated people who rushed me. Once you start learning strats it becomes more apparent that all those strategies are apart of the game and not just a sit there until both players mass huge armies and watching them go at it.

There are actually two sides to this. It is epic and fun to see two large armies go at it but it is a short fun. With rushes and raids, there is plenty of action from beginning to end.

luke - its not about being 'violent' againt turret pushes, i am against any strategy that hurts realism to a great extent, which turret pushes do. After all, we're looking at playing a Star Wars game, and if it doesnt 'feel' like Star Wars, what's the point?

saber - of course i approve of people playing games. As i said to luke, its about maintaining realism at an acceptable level. Besides, if people cant win using any strategy other than a turret push, they have really big problems. Incidently, i would it rather amusing that you called me a right-wing politician, mainly because im a left-wing politician :)

As i have said, im not against people using different strategies - after all, the Republic rushed the Confederacy on Geonosis. What i am against is strategies which completely ignore realism and hurt gameplay, such as a turret push - hence the desire for a borders or borders-style system.

For god's sakes Windu read the f*cking posts. Turret pushes are not a common strategy, they're merely used for annoying the enemy.

I'm gonna show you this:

This is what a turret push is:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/lukeiamyourdad/scr000.bmp)

As you can see, it only stops the enemy from harvesting carbon in his territory, something that can be easily dealt with.

This is what you, in your dreamland, think a turret push is:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/lukeiamyourdad/scr001.bmp)

As you can see and as people have stated several times, this is not common, if not so uncommon it never happened. Of course, this is not preferable as it is indeed, stopping gameplay. However, the red player here is obviously extremely retarded since he allowed the enemy to build a substancial number of turrets so close to his base. This amount of turret can actually do damage against enemy buildings but normally, a single turret has never been a problem.

Also, as Froz pointed out earlier and as you obviously have ignore is the fact that there are better the ways to counter what happens in screenshot 2 or what happens in screenshot 1.

I will post on how the Zerg in StarCraft work later and explain my cross between that system and mine.

luke - I have never claimed that the turret push is a common strategy, you simply assumed that that's what I was saying. What I was saying is that it should be eliminated.

The fort push happens in basically everygame in a 3v3 or 4v4 even in 1v1, 2v2. Which pushes the enemy back because the fort lasers will kill his army until he gets pummels or cannons. So Windu you should dispute that more then the turrent push which I have never seen happen in the screenies Luke has.

FroZ - my 'complaint' is not limited to a turret push, but any tactic that destroys realism, such as a turret or fort push.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
The biggest change though needs to be that UNITS DO THE FIGHTING, not the buildings like luke and Viceroy's dream generic RTS.

So by saying that there needs to be a change here mean that at the moment, there is a lot of building pushes and buildings fighting buildings.

I assumed through a logical reasoning from the words you chose.


You speak of it as if it was like screenshot 2 which it is not.
I say it again, it is a minor problem that does NOT need borders to solve.



I'm with Froz on this one. Fort pushes are more damaging then turret pushes. But I suppose that because of realism, forts shouldn't be in SWGB 2.

Now as for realism, should the Rebels be allowed to attack an enemy head-on? Should the Confederacy be allowed to sneak around? Should the Republic try a slow ponderous attack strategy with very slow vehicles? Should the Empire try to attack with only lightning fast vehicles?

If we are here to destroy tactics for the sake of realism, let's insta-kill Rebel troopers who don't act like they should, let's do that to the Confederacy, to the Republic and the Empire, since a particular tactic isn't what they would use in Star Wars.

R.I.P Star Wars RTS's.

That's what will happen if ANY of Windu's ideas happen he obviously doesn't want anyone else but himself to enjoy the game and even if he got his own way he propably wouldn't actually play it.

Borders arn't needed and everyone has already argued that until thy're cobalt blue in the face. Windu is obsessed with thinking about an SWGB 2 when it most likely won't be, Age of Titans doesn't have Turret pushing because of Seige Myth units being avialible early game.

Warcraft 3 doesn't have much of it either because they're too expensive early on and the Undead require Blight which is similar to Zerg creep to build on.

I'll explain the idea of Blight/Creep

Every time you build/summon a building it creates a circular area around it with Blight on and on the blight you can summon more buildings expanding the area further. Only Town Centers or as the undead Necroplis can be built where there is no blight, Gold Mines can be haunted to create an area of blight, There is also an item which creates Blight but in a nutshell Blight?creep is needed to build nearly all buildings on with few exceptions.

luke-
Now as for realism, (1) should the Rebels be allowed to attack an enemy head-on? (2) Should the Confederacy be allowed to sneak around? (3) Should the Republic try a slow ponderous attack strategy with very slow vehicles? (4) Should the Empire try to attack with only lightning fast vehicles?

1. Sure. There is no reason why the Rebels shouldnt be allowed to, even if it would probably fail.

2. No. The very nature of Confederacy (droid) armies is that they are loud and attack in large numbers - hardly the right conditions for sneaking around.

3. If you want to go slow, there is nothing to stop them, much like the ability of any side to attack slowly.

4. If you mean Speeder Bikes, sure. They would be easily defeated, but they can try. As for anything else, the very nature of the Empire is the use of large, slow, very heavily armoured ground vehicles, so apart from the Bikes they wouldnt have any fast vehicles.

But those tactics are totally unrealistic for the particular civ. You claim we must only use realistic tactics thus those tactics would be unallowed.

Secondly, you claim that these tactics would fail to do any decent damage to enemy just like a real turret push damages enemies. Therefore, you cannot dismiss one strategy over another since technically, the players will understand their crappiness after they use it once or maybe twice.

The whole point of the game is to decide the tactics, if we want to sneak around or mass huge armies and attack we can. Its just the game design that limits us hence we can't really mass huge in the beginning of the game forcing us to rush or just sneak around and harass economy.

Here of course we have a problem. You can choose to allow the Confederacy to sneak around, and for the Empire to attack with fast vehicles, but then they stop being the Confederacy and the Empire.

The idea here is to play as the different sides, and the films clearly show us that the sides play very differently to each other. For example, if you are a fan of sneaking around and a good air force, you would play as the Rebels. If you love armoured vehicles, you would play as the Empire and so on. While certainly we wouldnt want to prevent players trying out different ways of attacking, they would quickly learn not to use the same tactics with two or more sides.

Turret and Fort pushing though and completely seperate, as they do not really have anything to do with the nature of the sides. They are built specifically for defence, and were never intended to be used as offensive weapons, and it should stay as such.

Windu you really need to experience games online to get the full concept on the matter. Things like limiting tactics to sides would be a balancing nightmare.

FroZ - and here we have a problem. Do you want an easily balanced game with four generic civs, or a more difficult game to balance with four unique civs?

The Rebellion, Republic, Confederacy and Empire are very different to each other, and they should play that way. If they dont, there is no point in even bothering with the game, because there will only be one civ. Therefore, to have uniqueness you must have different playing styles. As i said, the Confederacy and even the Empire simply do not sneak around. The way they are portrayed in the films confirms this, and if you think about it, guys in bright white suits with huge vehicles really dont go well with being stealthy, nor do loud droids.

That is not the point. Uniqueness does not kill tactics.
If people want to use any particular tactic, they can with any civ. They will have a hard time pulling it off due to the civ's playstyle thus undermining attempts at doing so.

The player understand this, thus will not use a tactic he considers as too hard to pull off or simply useless.

luke - certainly they could try, what i'm saying though is that they shouldnt be effective. Hence, they would not be used, hence that civ would not have that tactic.

Hence turret push is inneffective, hence tactic is inneffective, hence they wouldn't use it.

Balancing unit sets is one thing but balanacing the limited tactics each side is given is a whole different matter. I see where this is going. In BfME they sort of captured what your after, all they had to do was give isengard and mordor 400 pop to show the forces of good they are outnumbered but the good sides got castles.

So....

Empire,Confed ,Republic, Rebels could have different pop limits Confed having like 800 Empire 600, Republic 550, Rebels 500 as an example. But I still have no idea how they could limit rebels to sneak attacks unless they really lowered there pop to like 300.

FroZ - thats basically what i'm talking about. As for the Rebels, a wayto get them to use sneak attacks would be to githem cloaking units, like Sniper's, and also deny them Vehicles and the ability to go head-to-head in ground battles.

I really don't like the idea of different pops for different sides BFME has it and it can be pretty difficult for the Good Side to beat the Evil side when they're both at full pop since the evil side gets a full 200 pop more.

Windu they should always have the option to do those tactics because was Hoth not a head to head battle?

That's why you have to use the faster Rohirrim to pick off the enemy's troops slowly. I do admit Mordor is hell to beat since they can spawn so many Orcs.

I play Isengard and Gondor those two take more skill and Isengard FU Uruk's do not go down easily, then again neither do Gondor Fully Upgraded Tower Guards in Defence formation.

Mordor is the hardest to master rohan is the easiest so you can see pop limit means nothing if the units are balanced right.

Rebels can have vehicles but rebels are not just hit and run they also use strategic air strikes and hit the heart of the enemy. Giving them light armored vehicles would also stop them from head on assults on ground because they would be no match for the other sides powerful mechs.

Viceroy - no, it wasn't. The mission of the Rebel infantry was simply to hold off the Imperial forces long enough to get the transports into the air - they did not go head-to-head with the Imps.

So the AT-AT attacking the Rebel defense lines wasn't a head-on attack?
So technically, the Rebels used hit-and-run tactics by...staying in their trenches...yes...

Luke said it Perfectly what more is there to say

LIAYD = Right

Windu = Wrong AGAIN

The Imperials used a head on assult but the Rebels sort of countered with a head on air attack. It was all in defensive measures.

It was still a head-to-head battle.

Yeah it just had different area where one is defending the othering is attacking

Imperials = ground

Rebels = air

luke-
So the AT-AT attacking the Rebel defense lines wasn't a head-on attack?
Correct. You have to remember that the Rebels weren't attempting to win the battle, they knew they couldn't. Instead, their ground forces and some combat pilots fought a delaying action which really never had a chance anyway.

The whole point of going head-to-head with an enemy is to defeat them on the field of battle, to break their army. The Empire was certainly trying to do that in ESB, but the Rebels were not. Instead of going head-to-head with the Imps, in which they knew they would lose, they chose to flee instead.

Incidently, while the Battle of Hoth was not head-to-head, the Battles of Yavin and Endor were.

You're just trying to justify that you're wrong. Once again, you make no sense. It was a head-to-head battle, whether or not the intentions of the rebels were to win or buy some time.

It shows how much you actually know, calling the Battle of Yavin a head-on attack, fighters trying to pass through enemy defenses to strike a small exhaust port.

luke - why would I want to justify myself if I was wrong? The point is moot regardless considering i'm right.

The Battle of Yavin was a sizeable Rebel force going up against the Death Star with the objective of destroying it - gaining a military victory.

The Battle of Endor was a Rebel fleet attacking the 2nd Death Star with the objective of destroying it - gaining a military victory.

The Battle of Hoth was a Rebel attempt to hold off Imperial forces long enough to let the largest number of Rebels to escape. Notice here that the objective was not a military one.

Yavin and Endor were head-to-head because the Imperials and Rebels directly engaged each other, whereas at Hoth the Rebel ground forces did not engage. Basically luke, you cannot go head-to-head with an enemy if you dont attack them. If you knew anything about how military forces operate, you would have known that.

Endor was a sneak attack to secure the shield and blow it up. Head-to-head is 2 armies engaging each other directly like Battle of Geonosis but Endor where stealth tactics were used.

So basically, the Snowspeeders hovered sround, waiting for the AT-AT to attack them?

4.7.4.2 Charges. If a unit is charging a stationary unit, then move it straight ahead to its point of impact. If two units are charging each other then move each equal distances straight ahead to the point of impact. The result will be either a flank charge, head to head charge, or charge to the rear. Which of these occurs depends on the orientation of the two units prior to charge movement. See Figure 6 for illustrations of some possibilities

The Snowspeeder charged up against the AT-AT.

Like Froz said, the ground forces on Endor used stealth to destroy the bunker and so did the two squadrons of Starfighters that striked the first Death Star.If they had actually fought a head-to-head battle against the Death Star, they wouldn't have been trying to sneak past the defenses.

FroZ - i was actually referring to the space battle, not the ground battle.

luke - no. But again, their attack was a delaying tactic. They would outnumbered and could not win, which is why the Rebellion sacrificed a few pilots to get the rest of the Rebels away.

I agree that the Endor ground battle used stealth, not head-to-head. However, how did you come to the conclusion that the Rebels used stealth for destroying the 1st Death Star? The whole point of an attack is not to engage every enemy unit or destroy all defences. The idea is to achieve your objective, which in this case was the destruction of the DS. As for stealth, how could there be anything stealthy about attacking a moon with 30 fighters??? The Empire clearly knew the Rebels were attacking, the lack of opposition was due to the Imperial overconfidence.

luke, you really need to accept that I am right here. On Endor, the Rebels used stealth and on Hoth they fought a delaying action. They have gone head-to-head with the Empire, but only above Yavin and Endor.

30 fighters is a rather small force. Their goal was to have their fighters sneak past the defenses all the way to the exhaust port.

As a matter of facts, through your logic, the Endor ground battle was a head-to-head battle because the Empire knew that the Rebel would attack and were in fact waiting for them.

Again, on Hoth, the Snowspeeders met the AT-AT head-on. The objective IS military. Gee, ever heard of tactical retreat? They saved their troops so they can regroup and restrike the Empire later on. Not every move you make must end in immediate victory.


Why the hell are we arguing about this anyway? This should be about tactics in SW RTS2 and there's only one person here who wants a limit on possible tactics.

I'll double post because this is on a different matter.

We cannot possibly consider a Rebel civ that relies on stealth. They should rely on quick strikes, hit-and-fade tactics but not stealth. It would be possible to have stealth in the campaign or in scenarios but in MP, it makes for very boring gameplay and un-epic battles.