This is the poll for my thread with the same name (except the poll bit). Here we can show Lucasarts the amount of support for making the Republic Gunship the second unique unit, assuming it can be done without unbalancing anything. I was also thinking about the proposition that the Jedi Starfighter should be a little more expensive or take a little longer to build, but have normal fighter weapons.

so the questions are-
"Should the Republic Gunship be made the second Republic unique unit?"
"Should the Jedi Starfighter have normal fighter weapons with a longer build time and/or larger cost?"

When you vote, please vote yes or no to BOTH questions.

I voted no for both, but seeing that only three people voted, being the only one isnt so bad. Its like I said on your other thread, there is no point to the gunship UU idea.:p

starfighter: normal fighter weapons, but 1/2 of the rate of fire (in other words 2X the reload time)

gunship: NO NO NO NO NO and.... NO!!!

It does fire at about half the rate. I didnt see much of a difference between the two so I voted no. (Is all you want to get rid of the blue missile thingy, cause that is just cosmetic, why would you pay more for that?)

People who are suggesting this things don't care about the game, they only want it to look as in the movie. Just leave it as it is.

Thats what I've been saying all along. I think it was Greg Street who said, "Anything that gets in the way of gameplay should be blindfolded and shot". Darth, no offense, but your two ideas (separate repeater troopers and gunships as UU) deserve this treatment.

Originally posted by Sithmaster_821
It does fire at about half the rate. I didnt see much of a difference between the two so I voted no. (Is all you want to get rid of the blue missile thingy, cause that is just cosmetic, why would you pay more for that?)

Well actually i kind of like the blue missile, but i think it should not have that firing delay. So i guess what i want is fighter weapon with higher attack, different graphics and longer reload. But the delay seems pointless because as someone already said in another thread there are plenty of detector units.

"People who are suggesting this things don't care about the game, they only want it to look as in the movie. Just leave it as it is."

Well people who are suggesting that there should be more races in another expansion dont care about the game, they only want it to look cosmetically different. Just leave it as it is.

Sithmaster - this Jedi starfighter change would give it the weapons of an advanced fighter.

Everyone - remember that when voting, it is for the inclusion of the Repbulic gunship as the second republic unique unit 'AS LONG AS IT CAN BE BALANCED'.

The Republic Gunship should be the UU and the Jedi Starfighter should be something like the A-wing, where you have to research that first. I voted yes to Gunship! I wan the Gunship, it should be faster than an air cruiser have about half the firepower of an Air Cruiser.

Originally posted by Sithmaster_821
Darth, no offense, but your two ideas (separate repeater troopers and gunships as UU) deserve this treatment.

I don't know about the gunships as UU idea, but the seperate Rpt. Troopers is a good idea. They're a tad too powerful and cheap (as in cost), in my opinion

Plus, Hvy. Troops look a whole ton cooler than repeaters!

I'd give a go ahead on the gunship if it's balanced out as discussed in the earlier thread (ie no shields but armourable, low carrying capacity, slower than fighter, decent hps, decent ground attack but little or no AA, etc). The whole upper end version where the gunship is viewed as a less-powerful version of the air cruiser though is just silly. That's what the air cruiser is for! :P

Kryllith

The gunship would be just an Adv Fighter with a faster firing rate and more guns. No,no,no, nice try

Revan - no, you have the wrong idea. The Gunship would have speed and range inbetween the fighter and bomber, have the armour of a bomber, be able to carry 2 infantry units, and would have a fairly good attack. It would also have a VERY limited anti-air capability. In other words, it would be very different from any existing air unit.

Then it wouldn't fit the movies that you've used as the basis of your arguement. They didn't need fighter support to take out air units. Read my post in your other thread about individual purpose for air units, and how gunships are very much like fighters with different weapons

Also stopspammingthe board with threads about the same thing but guised as something different. I count three on the gunship and two on the trooper idea. Try to contain your thoughts to one thread per idea.

sithmatser - i am not 'spamming'. I opened up the gunship thread as a discussion, then decided that due to the amount of replies, i would have a vote on it. That is the only reason this thread exists.

Just keeping the thread fresh.

It seems your plethora of threads has drained this moronic idea of all followers (thats why you are desperately trying to bump it). All your poll proves is that you can work multiple logins. And you are spamming. You could have used the amount of positive posts as a judge of how popular/unpopular your idea was. No need for three threads.

"All your poll proves is that you can work multiple logins" - i do not appreciate being the victim of slander here or anywhere else. I have one identity on this board, and i would never rig a poll to get what i want. The community has voted in support of this idea, get over it and get on with your life.

It would be good to have a armed transport!

The community has voted in support of this idea
You are aware that the community doesnt equal 14 people who bothered going into a thread named "Gunship UU: the poll expansion". Only people who are in support of such an idea would enter a thread like this, thus the majority in support of the idea. If you put the question to the true community, then it is doubtful that the idea would get more votes than it already has. Also, people who aren't in support of this idea and do enter this thread may not be willing to waste their time loading the results of the thread, and not vote. These sort of polls have a huge margin of error.
i do not appreciate being the victim of slander
Nor does anyone else so if you cant take it, dont dish it out.

sithmaster - i have never committed slander against anyone else. Also, it would be impossible to tell what the entire community would vote for, since the entire community isnt going to vote. The only thing we can go by are the current results, and from them it would seem that the gunship idea currently has the support of 81% of the people whom have voted.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
The only thing we can go by are the current results, and from them it would seem that the gunship idea currently has the support of 81% of the people whom have voted.

So assuming we were to go by what we kniw from this poll AND from people's posts, then there are results highly different from your poll. Although until recently only 3 people actually voted no, in this thread alone there are 4 definate no's. Then another person recently voted no, which I am assuming is not one of the people who posted no long ago or they would have voted then. So now it's 5 for no. Then we must take posts from the second of your several threads. D'blee says that he originally was in support of your idea but changed his mind. So (assuming he voted) take one off yes and put it on no. Now it ends up as 12 to 6 without even counting the vocal minority concept that I have been trying to get into your head throughout the Before posting-check thread. J-5 Also posted against this idea in your other thread, so there are a total of (at least) 7 people who bothered to come into your threads and vote or say no. I say at least because I am assuming that all 3 original votes for no were accompanied by a post for no, therefore getting only 2 more no posts and 1 converting sides post. If they weren't, then of course there would be even more people against this idea.

It is 12 to 7, 12/19, 63%, from what we can gather from these threads which are very likely still skewed in your favor. Remember vocal minorities?

And it is incredibly amusing how you cry to the mods that you are being slandered.
"So sithmatser, you cant win an argument, and the community obviously disagrees with you on both of these issues, so you go running to daddy to get them deleted?"
Look familiar? You have no problem accusing others of "running to daddy" but now that you are getting stuff said back to you, you make repeated cries of "stop slandering me" and "leave the insults off the board" in the hopes that DMUK will see it. Let me guess, it was you who went "running to daddy" about my signature? And no, the other posters do not see you as the mature person against the mean cruel kiddies, because you are not an innocent victim. You can hardly be innocent when you started the insulting in the first place, bringing every insult you get upon yourself. Like D'blee said, you are being a hypocrite when you freely insult others and whine when insults are used on you. But you, of course, not knowing what the word means, made a reply that made no sense whatsoever and finished by admitting that you had no idea what he was talking about. You do not "fail to see" that you are being a hypocrite, you fail to see what hypocrisy means and you make a fool out of yourself. Perhaps you should keep a Kindergarten Dictionary handy when you post in these forums.

All quotes from Webster's New Word Dictionary
hypocrite-one who pretends to be pious, virtuous, ect., without really being so
recon(short for reconnaissance)-the survey of a region, esp. for obtaining military information about an enemy
slander-the utterance of a falsehood that damages another's reputation.
'Nuff said

"recon(short for reconnaissance)-the survey of a region, esp. for obtaining military information about an enemy"

lol, I hope he looked it up as soon as he realised it wasn't the same thing as attacking.

Simwiz, Windu, just an FYI, when you quote try to use the vB code([qoute][/quote]) instead of "and". Also, most people use italics for the person who is being quoted and bold for the quote. A typical quote looks like:

Originally posted by username
This is a quote

Windu, please dont say that i spelled "quote" wrong. If i spelled it right, a quote box would appear when I was just giving an example of correct vB code

Originally posted by Sithmaster_821
Simwiz, Windu, just an FYI, when you quote try to use the vB code([qoute][/qote]) instead of "and". Also, most people use italics for the person who is being quoted and bold for the quote. A typical quote looks like:



Windu, please dont say that i spelled "quote" wrong. If i spelled it right, a quote box would appear when I was just giving an example of correct vB code

When I am writing my posts I will write them however I want to. I know how to use vB Code but it takes longer and sometimes I am lazy and would rather just use qoutation marks.

What's so long about hitting a button on the interface? And it looks tons better on the board and is easier to see.
qote
i believe i spelled it quote;) ;) ;)

I knew you could quote people correctly (if you look you've done it before). Just reminding you (and getting on your nerves).:D :D
Windu is a different story.

sithmaster - your definitions seem to be correct, and i would like to point out a few things about them. With the slander issue, what i posted as the 'running to daddy' was an opinion that seemed to fit the action that you were taking. The 'sslander' occured when you posted things like 'darth windu=stupid' which is an attack on my character. Simwiz has made a similar comment.
As for recon, there are different sorts. Take a look at the Chenowth FAV/LSV and the M-3A2. The FAV/LSV is small, fast and has a good range, but has small weapons and little/no armour. The M-3 on the other hand has excellent armour/weapons, carry 2 infantry and a motorcycle, but is slower and has a smaller range than the FAV/LSV, and its much bigger.

Windu, read the definition again. Recon is spying, not bringing motorcycles or troops in for a covert opperation. We call that a covert opperation, not recon. Reconn is that unmanned CIA plane that goes i forget how high up and spies on the enemy: find weapons/troops, locate targets for bombing runs etc.

Oh, yeah. I forgot this and dont feel like editing.
what i posted as the 'running to daddy' was an opinion that seemed to fit the action that you were taking
What I posted as the "you are stupid" was an opinion that seemed to fit the things you were saying. And please dont ask what you said to merit this flame, you currently own quite a few pearls of idiocity that i could very easily unearth.

sithmaster - the term 'recon' is used to describe the action of gathering information. In this respect you can have spying, COMINT, ELINT, SIGINT and of course battlefield recon by vehicles such as the FAV/LSV, M-3, OH-58 etc. They all have different attributes, but all perform recon.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
sithmaster - the term 'recon' is used to describe the action of gathering information. In this respect you can have spying, COMINT, ELINT, SIGINT and of course battlefield recon by vehicles such as the FAV/LSV, M-3, OH-58 etc. They all have different attributes, but all perform recon.

No matter how you manipulate the words to make yourself sound less foolish, in the post that is now being discussed you said a unit was a RECON asset and then talked about how its ability to POP OUT TROOPS AND ATTACK would enhance its RECON abilities.

No, i didnt, i said it could be used for recon. Also, if your read my post properly, you would've seen that i said if a Gunship encountered AA, it could drop off one or 2 troops, and they could continue scouting.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
No, i didnt, i said it could be used for recon. Also, if your read my post properly, you would've seen that i said if a Gunship encountered AA, it could drop off one or 2 troops, and they could continue scouting.

And how long do you expect your 2 troopers to remain alive to continue scouting while your opponent can see them in their LOS and can send a strike mech or 2 to take them out? Or how about a laser turret that would likely be nearby the AA turret so they can guard the base together? If you can actually walk 2 troopers around your opponent's base (as I assume they wouldn't have an AA turret in the middle of nowhere and if they do then your gathering recon on it is rather pointless) then you would be better off invading them and winning the game already, since you ovbiously have the upper hand.

And you said, "fly around, crush any opposition" and mentioned popping out troops when you come to AA. That doesn't sound like recon to me...

Why don't we have a little poll: which unit is the best for recon:
-Starfighter
-Gunship
-Trooper
-Scout mech


I would think the starfighter and the scout mech would usually beat the gunship and troopers for recon ability. Scouts are a tiny bit faster than troopers IIRC :rolleyes: and Starfighters are invisible and faster than fighters which would be faster than gunships from what you have said.

edit: reworded the quote, ooops i said "destroy all" instead of "crush any", please forgive me windu i have quoted you wrong. :rolleyes:

Simwiz - i dont care if you think it would be recon or not. All i was saying is that it COULD be used for recon, of course it would be primarily a combat aircraft, but could perform recon.

And a captured bantha could perform recon, but it would be a rather stupid decision don't you think? Why would anyone in their right mind choose a bantha when they have a scout mech? And why would ANYONE in their right mind choose the gunship for recon when they have an invisible, fast, long-LoS starfighter.

I didnt say they HAD to use it for recon, i said they COULD use it for recon.

Stupid... trying to back out. Okay I will post this last comment on recon and then stop trying to back out, it is too obvious, just drop it. You lost.

You called it "a recon asset" and are now saying "All i was saying is that it COULD be used for recon". That is quite a large change of argument. Just please, please, answer me one question: why is the gunship good, or even average, for recon? Is a scout mech a T4 attack asset? Well, it CAN attack units in T4, so you should start making entire armies of scout mechs and go try to stomp the enemy. Just because a unit moves and has a 1 tile LoS does not mean it is a recon asset. And if you are dumb enough to regularly use such a unit for recon, then I really pity you.

Before i answer, i would suggest you go back and re-read my posts. You are obviously getting what i posted mixed up with what you would have wanted me to post. I have already said that it would be an assault transport, and it would also be able to be used for recon, just like almost every other unit in the game.

both ships would be cool but life doesnt go that way why dont lucasarts bring out exspansions with over 500 difrent items on

Is that what you say to everything? That you were misquoted and didn't really say that? Do you have a memory problem? Would you like me to quote the whole post to refresh your memory? Well anyway it's on the second page of your second thread about the gunship (The Gunship without the poll).

A good question, and obviously one which must be answered before consideration is given to go ahead with my idea. Now as i have said, the basic specs of the Gunship would probably be a speed/range between the fighter and bomber, good firepower (but almost useless against workers, ships, air) and the ability to carry about 2 infantry units. So what would its use be? First of all, it could be used, obviously, as an assualt transport. They could fly in, drop off the troops and then procede to provide covering fire for them. They would also be faster than air transports, just to give them an edge in that. They could also be used as a recon asset, much like the current US Army M-3 Bradley is. Fly around, crush any oposition, and if you come to an area with good AA, drop off your infantry.

I was also thinking that looking at its primary role as an assualt transport, it would further enhance the Republics strenth in Troops. Think about it. You could create a group of gunships, then create a group of troops really fast, and send them anywhere, a self-contained task-force. Also, due to its unique nature, it would serve to define the Republic even more from the other civs, particually the rebels.

I didnt say they HAD to use it for recon, i said they COULD use it for recon.
...Which is essentially backing out of your "recon asset" and saying that the unit could be used for recon. Well like i said before a captured bantha could be used for recon. Your change of wording is an incredibly pitiful attempt to back out now that you realise a slow air unit and 2 troopers cannot possibly be GOOD at recon. Just give it up already.

Simwiz - in the quote of me that you posted first, in the highlighted section in shows that i said it COULD be used for recon, and that i was not saying it was a recon unit.

Well obviously it's not just a recon unit. But when you call a unit "a recon asset" then it ought to have good recon abilities. Are scouts lategame attack assets? By calling the gunship "a recon asset" you imply that it would somehow be good at recon, which it is obvoiusly not. Did you try out the starfighter yet? IT is a recon asset, no, we don't need a slow expensive recon unit in the game. You are completely missing my point: THE GUNSHIP IS NOT A GOOD UNIT FOR RECON, THEREFORE IT IS NOT "A RECON ASSET"!! No. No. I'm sorry Windu, it's really not. Okay. Now that that is settled, stop trying to back out and claim that you did not think it would be a good recon unit. Your posts say otherwise. And as it has been stated many times, Lucasarts will not change it. You may as well just drop it.

*sigh* this really is getting tedious simwiz. Even in the quote's of me that you posted, i said it could be used for recon, not that it was a recon asset. From the beginning of this thread i have started that it woud be an armed assault transport for infantry, you just seem unable, or unwilling, to accept that. As for the 'lucasarts wont change it' statement, i would like to see the exact quote from a lucasarts employee that specifically states that the Republic Gunship will not be changed.

wow i didnt mean to anger you i didnt read all the posts i just skimmed them.sorry ill read them all in the future

No, no, no, NO!! You are completely missing my point.

Saying "it could concievably be used for recon" and "it could be a recon asset" are two completely different things. A unit that could concievably be used for recon is a unit that can move and has a minimal LoS, as I have said already. A captured bantha could concievably be used for recon, as I have also said several times. A unit that could be a recon asset is a unit, that at some point during the game, a player might consider an "asset" for a recon mission, in other words, a good unit to choose for that mission. I am completely baffled at how any player could, at any point in any game on any map type, be compelled to choose a slow (compared to starfighter), expensive, nonstealth POS for a recon mission. Being capable of doing a certain action does not make a unit good (or an "asset") at that action. You still have not commented on whether or not you consider the scout to be a T4 attack asset. And even as you called the gunship a recon asset, you proceeded to back up your claim with descriptions of the gunship attacking and crushing any opposition. Your apparent lack of understanding of the English language kills your arguments every time.

Stormtroop I think he was yelling at me, not you, about Lucasarts not changing it. He cannot accept reality it seems, and he expects them to ruin their game balance, infuriate experts and waste their time to jam a useless unit in a patch.