That would be pretty cool, as i have
earth 2150. But the only prob is units. In Earth there are only tanks and mechs.

The Moon Project and WWIII Black Gold fully support airborne units as well as naval units (surface and submarine).

Although note that neither Moon Project nor Earth 2150 have infantry type units. I dont know wether the newer games that use Reality Pump have infantry. The WWIII Black Gold demo didn't have infantry either, could be a limitation of the engine...

Although note that neither Moon Project nor Earth 2150 have infantry type units
Thats what i meant.

If you can do mechs, you can do infantry. There is no fundamental difference (as far as a game engine is concerned) between mechs and troops. All it takes is some nice scripting, and bam, you've turned a robot into a human. That's exactly what Star Wars: Total Annihilation did, and it looks great.

OgRe engine should be used... and hey it is on something

flu.... you promoting us wel..

people here just play SWTA and you will understand

I stilll cant believe this thread is still going.... Its like the energizer bunny it keeps going and going and going.

Originally posted by Influenza
Honestly, how many of you would complain if the aircraft in SWGB engaged in dogfighting?

Personally, I would not complain if the aircraft in SWGB engaged in dogfighting. The point is that the dogfighting feature appears way to few of the popular RTS engines that at this point in time I don't consider it worth complaining about the features absence especially in light of LA ineptness in building thier own engines.

Honestly though, I think the Homeworld engine would have been a better choice than either the AOK or TA engines, esp. in light of how poorly it preformed in TA: K.

Hey, man, once I had a YR air battle, a 3-way battle, in fact, between Yuri's UFOs, and and 2 other players (including me's) Siege Choppers which can attack other air units. They where all in the same place. No dogfights isn't really a RTS issue.

EFIT: Me pointing out something already said.:rolleyes:

Here, I'll cut a deal with anyone here who thinks that dogfighting is pointless in an RTS. PM me your address (or a nearby postal box, if you don't trust me [which I couldn't blame you for]), and I will burn you a copy of Total Annihilation and SWTA for you to play. All you have to do is play the game, build some A-Wings, and go cruisin' around hunting TIE's. Then you come back and tell me how much fun it is.

Ok? Is that a deal?

The point is that the dogfighting feature appears way to few of the popular RTS engines that at this point in time I don't consider it worth complaining about the features absence especially in light of LA ineptness in building thier own engines.

Ground Control. That engine has it all, though since it isn't resource based it might not fit...

The TA engine surely would work better than the AoK, I've just played the demo, and it wasn't exactly enjoyable. Sure, the infantry and most other units (except the flying THINGS) looks quite good when they're standig still. When the animations start it just doesn't appeal to me anyomore. The AT-ST's stood out of the crowd with the absolutely worst animations in the game. Those mounted units that shot fire looked kinda cool until the fire first showed up. It needs to be redone. Badly.

Positive things with the demo include Darth Vader (he's always cool) and infantry in general. They look pretty good at least. The AoK mission scripting system will surely add alot to the game too. Overall, I think that single player will save this game and make it enjoyable for a while. Multiplayer however really seems like a step backwards from AoK though, since there isn't really any melee unit in SW and there aren't any new features to make up for it.

Do yourself a favor, when you've completed SW:GB singleplayer, go play SWTA instead and never look back.

Still waiting to hear from EndSub....:confused:

Personally, I would not complain if the aircraft in SWGB engaged in dogfighting. The point is that the dogfighting feature appears way to few of the popular RTS engines that at this point in time I don't consider it worth complaining about the features absence especially in light of LA ineptness in building thier own engines. I'll say it again. This is Star Wars. LucasArts owes it to the movies and fans to make this an outstanding game, far beyond all competition. If they really cared about making this a fantastic game, one that would be remembered for a long time for a reason other than having the words "Star Wars" in its title, they would have packed all the Star-Wars-esque features into the game they could have. But LA again seems content to make a good game, not a great game. Hell, as long as SW junkies keep shelling out the $$$ for every game they produce, why should they take the time and effor to make a great game?

I don't know about you guys, but I'm tired of "good" Star Wars games. I can count on one hand the number of great SW games: Tie Fighter (with addon), Super Return of the Jedi (SNES), Dark Forces, and Rebellion (ok, just kidding on Rebellion ;)).

Take into consideration LucasArts' other great games: Full Throttle, Zombies Ate My Neighbors, Grim Fandango, and Day of the Tentacle. Isn't it sad, that LA can create more great games out of original material than they can with Star Wars material?

Just something to think about.

Originally posted by Influenza
But LA again seems content to make a good game, not a great game.

I'll be happy if they can make a good game. *cough*Force Commander*cough*

Hell, as long as SW junkies keep shelling out the $$$ for every game they produce, why should they take the time and effor to make a great game?

At this point I'll be satisfied if they make an apology on the scale of what Westwood did for Tiberian Sun.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm tired of "good" Star Wars games. I can count on one hand the number of great SW games: Tie Fighter (with addon),

I count these as more the work of Totally Games than LA. Just like I refuse to give Havas Interactive credit for any of Blizzard's games.

Originally posted by Influenza
I don't know about you guys, but I'm tired of "good" Star Wars games. I can count on one hand the number of great SW games: Tie Fighter (with addon), Super Return of the Jedi (SNES), Dark Forces, and Rebellion (ok, just kidding on Rebellion ;)).


Flu, you forgot Dark Forces 2... now THAT is a good game...

Whoops....heh, heh...:eek:

Influenza,

If you have noticed, this is a GALACTIC BATTLEGROUND forum, not an ANTI-galactic battleground forum. Your mod sounds cool and maybe we'll check it out, but 99% of the people here are here to talk about Galactic Battlegrounds. If you want to promote your mod, fine, but don't knock GB.

BTW- Will your Jedi have force powers, that'd be cool

SWTA is fun, however the AI kinda sucks. They sent in their Commadner/Consturction vehicle UNDEFENDED into my base full of E-Webs and powerful stuff..

Heh, that tends to happen some times when the AI routines crap out... In general, the AI can hold its own if the right settings are used (1k/1k starting resoures). And if you give it 10 minutes to build up its base, you'll be in for a nice surprise :).

I've never palyed TA before Flu but you convinced me to try it, I ordered TA and am Downloading now your Mod, the screenshots look pretty cool

So what did you people think of SWTA, and how does it compare to SWGB?

Wow, this thread will never end....

Influenza, i admire a person with such creative ability to actually make a mod. I for one have never played your mod, and never will because of my location :rolleyes:

Any way, regardless of how good your is. TA was rubbish compared to AOK. And now the AOK engine is at an end. It is unlikely that we will ever see it again.

So lets not bring the glory of a antique engine down, let it have it last dance in peace.

Btw, The Ground control engine would have been great

I think engine choice is all matter of PC market.
AoK engine run on slow PCs and limitations helps to skin it faster than a complex 3D engine.
It allow more time do add modifications, work on gameplay balance and hit the market faster.

I think that almost all engines would have result differently and so could multiply StarWars Games.
Comparison would be a matter of personal preferences.

If we talk number of units on screen,
Cossak is blasting. Unit moves and options are also better than AoK from my viewpoint. Yeah Cossak got bad points also :(

If we talk 3D nice looking,
last Dune 3D engine would have been also a good choice, but would have request more powerfull PCs.

What about using Myth II engine?
This would have result in limited units but interesting close up on missions.

Now let me Dream about an ultimate version...
using a Black&White engine adapted for battlefield...
Would be Awesome no?
Yep forgot about Creatures, jut think enhanced units, buildings etc. Why not terraforming.
ex. An ATAT that walk in snow, hit and fall grabbing a full bench of snow....

Sounds good no?

Good Point Frogspit,

they chose the engine that could run on all systems. And while it would be nice to have a ground control engine. It would require the user to buy a good pc.

Black and white eh?... hrm not bad. I hated the game, but the graphics would have adapted to an rts nicely..

Wow, I gave up on this thread a long time ago. The reason? No one seems to read what I say. It's like I'm talking, but everything I say just gets ignored.

Darth_Nixon: TA is twice the game AoK is, and its engine is three times as powerful as AoK's.

Also, what do you mean by "location"? I see you live in Australia, but what does that have to do with anything? In fact, one of your game magazines, PC Powerplay, included the SWTA Starter and Fighter packs in their most recent issue. Try finding it at a news-stand...it's on their CD.

And you can buy TA for $7 US, which includes the original game and its two expansion packs. Go here (http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categories/products/product.asp?pf_id=154344&mscssid=R0KK7DU9WPHQ8H1MSSSNBBENRUPH92RD&ref=1&PromoCode=&site=&siteID=) if you're interested, which I doubt, considering your tone of voice.

Frogspit, and Nixon: I ran Total Annihilation on a P133 with 32 MB of RAM. That's lower than AoK's minimum requirements.

I played TA a while ago and enjoyed it very much but that was then this is now. (I hear there are still places you can play online)

I think the Dark Reign 2 engine would have been great as far as 3D goes. The problem you run into with any StarWars game are the diverse amount of and size of mechs, buildings, troops etc. Otherwise At-Ats would be no bigger than a trooper. Everyone would need at least 20" flat screen monitors and 64mb video cards as the maps would be HUGE and the amount of troops on a field at any given time would be monstrous. Then you start to get into all the different camera angels/views, line of sight.

You would have to 86 alot of crap out of the game to make a smooth running 3D Star Wars RTS.

I'm sure all of this has been said but I'm new to these boards and dont have time to read everything...sorry If I repeated.

Not to sound rude, but you are making judgements about the AOK engine and graphics before you have even tried the game.

I own TA and I hate the resourses, the graphics are tacky, and the engine has never beat me on any senario. The gameplay is kind of boring because there isn't much depth to the game like there is in AOK. SW: Galactic Battlegrounds would have been a cheap ripoff if Cavedog would have made the game. Ensemble studios has the top of the line RTS graphics, and AI systems.

TA has a third class AI. Even Blizzard Entertainment and Westwood have second class AIs. AOK has the best damn AI you will ever find. If you don't believe me try playing two computers on a random map, with 200 pop on the hardest AI. The comp still beats on that level and I've had the game for a year and a half.

As for the graphics... The graphics are great. They aren't cartoony. The ACTUAL game looks a lot smoother in person then from a screen-shot. Force Commander was 3D, but the graphics sucked in my opinion. SWGB is just right.

I have SWGB. The graphics are cartoony. I'm sorry, but I can't take half the animations in SWGB seriously. Have YOU played the game? If so, how can you call Darth Vader's (and all the Jedi/Sith's) attack not-cartoony? He flings himself up in the air, does a little dance, and then lands again. WTF is that?

Not to mention the horribly animated AT-ST. They may call it a "chicken walker", but that doesn't mean it has to walk like a chicken! I really want to cry every time I see the AT-ST walking. The AT-AT looks great; why couldn't the same be done for its little cousin?

You call AoK's AI the best in the genre? I'll call your bluff. I've never been beat by this AI, even on Hardest. It's simple, really... just hole up and wait for it to run out of resouces. Granted, it takes a while, but it isn't too hard to do. And on a similar note, 3rd party designers can design their own AI's for TA. Try playing against a Bloodthirsty AI...I guarantee, it WILL kick your ass. BAI is definitely the hardest AI I have ever played for ANY RTS.

And what do you mean by "boring gameplay"? TA is far faster-paced than AoK, by several degrees. You will never see a serious attack in AoK until Tech3, whereas in TA the action is nonstop from the beginning. Trust me, I've played both games for a while, both against the AI and online. SWGB is rather slow...wait 'till you've got a mass of aircraft, assault mechs, and mech destroyers, and you're set. Of course, that takes around an hour or so, and all the while you're just sitting there really, building defenses and harvesting resources.

By contrast, TA attacks can happen from the get-go. We use this same style in SWTA, and it's much more enjoyable (and that's an honest opinion, all biases set aside). The potential for tactical maneuvers and strategic genius is still there (probably more so, because of the ability to fire-while-moving), but the fast pace makes things much more fun. It's hard to explain...it's one of those things that you just know, yet can't put into words.

Just try SWTA. Please. You can't argue with me until you do. And not against the AI, against a player, like me. If you're actually willing enough to give it a try, PM me and I'll work things out. This goes to everyone here...if you're a true Star Wars fan, I think you owe it to yourself to try SWTA out.

I really don't give a **** about Animations or engines or "When the Action Starts".. My main thing is: Is it fun

SWTA and GB are both very fun games to play.. But my verdict goes to GB because I find that it has more depth than TA and that its more addicting to me..

Don't get me wrong TA is a great game and SWTA makes it better.. I just find GB more fun...

I think that TA was a great game for it's time. It's problem was that the ARM and CORE were too similar. I have never played SWTA, but it looks cool. Yes, it's not as "in depth" as SWGB, but it doesn't have lucasarts developing it either. I loved the absolute carnage that was produced from TA battles, with heaps of dead units littering the map. This made for some interesting shifts b/c your rear units had to go around the dead front units, not just over them. And then your workers could come and collect the carbon from the dead units...that was an excellent idea on cavedog's behalf. The air - sorry, but the aok, aoe, starcraft, dark reign, earth 2150, dune, c&c, c&c red alert, etc engines have nothing on the way that cavedog did the air. Your air units actually flew and landed and flew and turned around and did another strafing or bombing run (w/ the exception of my fav unit the brawler, they were VTOL airplanes). It looked realistic and the air was air, not just units that hovered really high off the ground.

Sure, when it boils down to it the enjoyment of the game is the major factor and we all enjoy swgb. I just wished that they incorporated some of the better aspects of TA - firing on the run or in midflight, the carnage left behind after a raging battle, and some other features. And TA:Kingdoms, don't even mention it. Cavedog had it's Kingdoms, Lucasarts has it's force commander. The end.

Now Dark Reign - that had some good points (not DR2, but the original). You could tell your units to go scout and they just went everywhere searching stuff. THAT WAS A BLOODY COOL FEATURE!!!!! Then there was the Rift Generators.... "Templar disturbance detected." You feared when you heard that.

Don't understand much of programming, but could the 'firing-when-moving' be implemented in a patch or add-on? or its something to do with the engine?

Granted,

Dog fights would be great fun, and i agree that they should have implamented it into the SWGB game.

But TA is still has NOTHING on the AOK engine. The point was made that the AI within TA was pretty ordinary, and i would have to agree. It just dosn't compare

No disraspect for you infuenza, but when i had my craptop (laptop), yes i could run TA, but it was up there with some of the chopiest and horrible graphics I had ever seen.

Where as i AOK ran perfectly.

Lambda: not without getting the source code to the engine. That feature is hard-coded into the engine, and the only way to fix it would for LA to get their hands on the source. And that isn't likely to happen without a large sum of money on the table ;).

Nixon: again, please read my posts. Specifically, the reasons why the TA engine is superior to the AoK engine (it was my first post in this thread). I've said it before, but since I doubt you'll read it, I'll say it again: anything the AoK engine can do, the TA engine can do too, and better. And there are tons more things that the TA engine can do, that the AoK engine cannot. I really suggest you learn the engines of the two games before making comments on them.

Just play SWTA...it's that simple. Play, and you will see the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free...

I am surprised that no other rts games have the search and destroy mode that dark reign had. that was cool

The Thread That Will Never Die.........

Danm, who the hell bumped it this time!?!?!?! ;)

My two arguments against TA were:

A) Bland Landscapes.
B) Unit Detail Lacking Because Of Top Down View.

And I was wrong about A....very wrong......the landscapes in TA can be VERY detailed.....

But B is where I am right, and where suggesting that the TA should have been used for GB is absurd.

Unit detail in TA is very lacking because you can only see the top of them. Now this is fine in games like TA where you have never seen the unit in all its glory, but I can you imagen watching that last jedi battle in E1 from a birds eye view? no? me neither.

The TA engine had some sweet bonus, the things people keep bringing up are units fireing while moving. This allows unit speed to actully matter as they can dodge attacks and such. It is one of the coolest features of the TA engine and I am surprised that it hasn't been put in other games.

but the 'waiting around' and that TA's gameplay is better because it is Go-Go-Go right from the start is bull**!t........

Personally I will take Aok's gameplay over TA's ANY DAY. in Aok you have to manage your resources carefully, In TA just plonk down some Moho Mines, build zillions of builder bots, build zillions of factories, then build zillions of guys then attack........works particularly well on metal maps....

feel free to challenge me on this one, you would no better than I: Aok has ALOT more battle field tactics than TA.....in TA I just grab my big ass army and send them over. In Aok you have mange your army ALOT more......

TA has its good points.....Aok has its good points......I like Aoks better....some like TA's.....where all intitled to our opinions, and there all on this thread....so before anyone new bumps this thread, READ IT! because all your questions will be answered.....and some of your arguments will be de-railed......then, if it hasn't been said once, twice, twenty times before, post it. :)

Hehe, I love this topic. I might actually get SWGB, it seems like fun. The demo was ok and since most people say it's been improved on a whole lot it might be good. The AoK engine is horrible technically, but pretty good pure gameplay wise. The best feature of the AoK engine has to be the formations, how are they implemented in SWGB?

Now over to SWTA, I think it's better because it has more action and still has room for lots of tactics. IMO, the actaul battlefield tactics are better too because of the superior TA physics engine. It works a whole lot better than the AoK engine on ranged weapons.

Anyway, I think I'll play both games, SWGB seems fun and SWTA's awesome.

Ok, you say that the battle feild tactics are better because of the 'the superior TA physics engine'.

What is that suppossed to mean?

In TA its about what you build (and since you never run out or resources.....) not how you fight your battles.....

christ somebody just end this thing, its already made and we can't change anything about it so nobody complain.

jediaoe, why debate anything since "it's already made". It's an interesting topic and a good and friendly debate, so just SHUT THE **** UP WILL YOU ;)

EndSub: TA uses a realistic 3d physics engine while AoK uses an unrealistic 2d one. This makes TA battles more interesting and the outcome more uncertain. A good example is melee units in the AoK engine, when the animation starts, it has already hit. Ballistic weapons suffer from the same problem, but not nearly as much. TA ballistic weapons on the other hand are much more realistic.

I think that, despite its virtues, TA:K is a huge strike against the use of the TA engine in any other retail game.

Can we end this horrible thread yet?

No, we cannot. Because unlike you, some people actually have things to contribute to the conversation. This topic has evolved into a debate over the TA and AoK engines. Since you don't seem to know anything about the two, leave the debating to those who do. Because every time someone says "can't we close this?" or anything like that, it just bumps the topic up to the top. And then even more people start their ignorant TA bashing, and I am forced to defend it again :cool:.

Wettis is right: AoK does not have a physics engine. Ranged units simply shoot their weapons, and the engine draws the pixels in a line towards the target. Things like elevation, obstacles, etc are not taken into account because the weapons are simply drawn on the screen; there are no calculations after the weapon is fired. Since the only ranged units in AoK are archers and artillery, this isn't very noticeable.

TA, on the other hand, doesn't stop with simply drawing a weapon's path. It constantly calculates speed, trajectory, and position through the entire flight, and is always checking for collisions. If a weapon's flight intersects a harmless tree, that weapon stops right there and detonates. It doesn't magically pass through the tree like in AoK/SWGB. Same thing for rocks, walls, mountains, and even other units. I don't like the way units in SWGB can shoot through walls AND other units. If there's a line of ATST's in front of an ATAT, a Rebel Trooper should not be able to shoot through the ST's at the ATAT.

So you see, AoK doesn't have a physics engine. Things just happen without much explanation or "reality" checking. That's a direct contradiction to the definition of a game engine: a set of rules and behaviours that define and regulate the way objects behave and interact in a game. AoK definitely has an engine, but not a physics engine.

As for why this matters: read safire's post about fire-while-moving, unit speeds vs. weapon speeds, and dogfights. These things are only possible in a game with a physics engine. And all these things add infinite possibilities and tactics to the game.

EndSub: many of the things you say about TA's strategies and tactics reveal that you aren't a very good TA player. Because if you tried 99% of the things you describe against a competant player (or even the Bloodthirsty AI I mentioned earlier), you'd see that they aren't the truth. Simply massing units and throwing them at the enemy is not how you win TA games. You win them through efficient production, unit control, and proper use of use-specific units. You might have pseudo-infinite resources (you actually can run out of them, you know), but how you spend them and balance your intake and outtake largely determines how you fare on the battlefield.

I could express the same complaints you have about TA with regards to AoK. In AoK, all I have to do is build 10 Assault Mechs and 20 Advanced Fighters, then slowly march them through my enemy's base. Where is the strategy in that?

Now, I realize that this wouldn't work against a competant, competetive player. Maybe it's time you realized that all the complaints you have about TA strategy simply dissolve when you play against another player instead of the (admittedly) lame Cavedog AI.

From my last post in this LONG thread, you might think that I am a TA fan and hate swgb or AoK or AoE... Not true - I own all of them (own, no CD rips). I even own TA:K and Dark Reign. I love swgb - the tie fighers screeching noise, the AT-AT walkers and laser sounds just bring a smirk to my face everytime. So, not all of us that think highly of the TA engine are anti-swgb. I love it, play it when time permits.

As someone mentioned, TA Kingdoms did hurt the TA engine being used by others. I can't deny that, it had bugs, ran slow with many units, and just didn't work well.

Someone else mentioned that the game has been created an put an end to this thread. True, but we are still allowed to discuss. Why not strive for a possible SWGB II where you see the wonderful features from all rts games. Every engine has something to offer - though I am not a huge fan of the Myth, Dark Reign II, Shogun 3d rts engines. It doesn't make for quick fun IMHO. But that is a perfect example of my next point -

Everybody has different tastes and it will always be the case. I though Dark Reign was an awesome game when the AoE, TA, DR rts battle started. Look at movies - everyone is yelling about Harry Potter or Anakin Skywalker or Frodo and who is best. All I can say is that Lord of the Rings is going to be awesome. But I digress.

Think of the good in everything and maybe with enough word from consumers a newer RTS game will be even more spectacular.

In defense of AoK - I love the resource management compared to almost all other rts games. This brings an aspect to the game that has no equal (well, considering most, not all rts games). To progress through the tech levels or ages like that is cool, it's great actually. Spaceports or Trading - a concept that is sweet. TA didn't have that (can the engine do it - don't know, not an expert on manipulating engines). A need for houses/prefab shelters is a good concept, it makes sense that you need places to house your people. I guess Starcraft and Warcraft II had the same thing. I also like the formation abilities that are integrated into the AoK engine. But this engine has it's flaws, especially pathfinding.

TA engine brings a lot to the plate. One thing that TA:K did well was the options you had with units. Take the archers - you had three options of what to shoot. Lots of peeps on this board are requesting "force abilities" for the Jedi. How force pull/push/jump etc works into an rts beats me, but the TA engine has a good system for it. At least it is better than the way that Jedi/Monks convert. Air - hover vs real moving air units, even the brawlers would float back and forth in their vtol state. The air of TA is implemented better by far. Even water units seemed to move more realistic than AoK. Yes, I agree the view of TA wasn't the best angle. Oh, TA's patrol was also awesome. You took a worker, set him to repair and told him patrol this area - anything inside of there would get repaired by him. Believe me - this rocks the pants off how swgb does it. Tell your medic/worker/repairer to patrol an area and all your units get healed/repaired. In battle, this was so incredibly helpful instead of taking droids and clicking R on everything one by one. The physics engine for projectiles that influenza refers to is better than AoK's non existant physics engine. The projectiles from your heavy ships and artillery looked so much cooler than the artillery/cruiser/cannon/bomber shots. You actually did BOMBING RUNS, not just send bombers to hover over a building. It was cool. The building queue system has no equal - take your commander and build 3 solar panels, mine, cannon, etc all over the map and he'd walk there and do each thing. swgb has a queue system but the buildings have to be practically next to each other. Imagine this, game starts and you click on your worker, hold down shift and queue one prefab shelter, scroll to the other side of your base and queue an animal nursery, scroll next to the command center and queue a power core, then scroll to another place on the map and queue a food processing center, scroll next to some trees and queue a carbon collecting center, and lastly click on a tree and let go of shift. Your worker is already busy building the first building and will do everything else in turn. Now you can manage the other stuff you need, it's beautiful.

Dark Reign has some amazing features that has not been shown in any recent game. Click on a scout and tell him to go roam the map and he did. The aggressive states were also handled better than most games I've played. Yes, AoK has a good aggressive/defensive/stand ground system, but Dark Reign had some sweet settings. I remember that one option was that when hurt too bad in a fight, it would fly that unit back and go repair. Same with ground units going to a "hospital."

Starcraft - wasn't the best engine ever built or the best graphics, but the game was incredibly well done.

Someone commented on there being no tactics in TA - whatever. You can hit your enemy's base from your own with big bertha artillery guns... you can send a big nuke bomb. You can build anti-nuke counter measures. And that doesn't even hit your mechs or tanks or air... the game required lots of tactics. Same person said there are just more options in swgb then swta...well, duh.. swgb was created by lucasarts, swta by some fans. Take all the swgb units and races and put it in the TA engine, then compare.

Ok, that's enough from me.... just remember that you voice your opinion and in turn others are allowed to voice theirs. So those who like a different engine or features specific to that engine are allowed to speak. This isn't a Taliban controlled world where different opinions aren't allowed.

Laters....

Shall I start a new thread on why the Dark Reign engine should have been chosen???? Kidding.

Those are alot of good points about why the engine should have
been used. especially about the planes. I cringe everytime I see those bombers stop.

But I am going to stick to my guns and say that there are more battle field tactics. Now I admit it, I have only played Cavedogs bullsh!t AI. But you can't say that big berthas and nukes require tactics. Nukes are point and click and Big Bertha's are even worse, just build them and the enemy gets soar. What I am talking about is when robot meets robot. Now I have said it once, you would know better than I, to me it seems that there is not alot of unit countering and that one unit can take another on pretty much as good as the next. Sure there are AA bots, but how much better can they shoot down air than all other bots? and I still don't see what the physics engine has got less to do with battle feild tactics than you say. OK units can strife shots, thats cool, but they automatically do it. And the line of AT-ST's plus AT-AT....how close do you think an AT-ST's can stand? close enough to have no gaps? Now shooting threw walls.....THAT is cr@p. but the point still stand. shooting through units isn't really that bad. Sure it could have been handeled better, but It doesn't really take away from 'battle feild tactics'.

Resources: I have NEVER ran out or resources on metal heck. and sometimes I go abit short at the beggining on non-metal maps, but once I get some metal storage up, and have more moho mines, I don't go short. But like I say, maybe its because the AI sucks and can't stop me.

Maybe one day I'll play one of you guys. then we can see if my tactics suck, and all my Mines get blown up. :)

EndSub - great post. I'm not here to say TA is the ultimate of rts engines. I just think that some are arguing when they are totally clueless about what is being said (no, not referring to you). I love swgb and the whole counter-unit is great, it makes for an awesome game. I don't really want to compare swgb to swta as it is currently, that's not fair. You have lucasarts going against a few ta fans. Take the units/races from swgb and put it into a TA engine. You'll still have bounties counter jedi, mech destroyers countering mechs - etc. Having the ARM and CORE in TA was sort of lame b/c 85% of the units were almost exactly the same, except the brawlers (can you tell I like brawlers).

True the berthas and nukes require little else then a single mouse click and that was a dumb reference for tactics - my bad. But I think if you take units/civ like in swgb and place in a TA engine, you'd have similar tactics.

Resource management - I already agreed that AoE had/has the best resource scheme. Makes the game so different. Dark Reign, Starcraft, C&C series are all the same - dumb. TA is somewhat similar, but needing to have energy and metal depots to keep more of each was a cool concept, no?

The battlefield - it was awesome when after a battle, you saw the wreckage of mechs, tanks, and stuff... all littering the battlefield forcing your units to go around - sheer beauty. Then, you could go collect the metal from dead units - sheer brilliance. I liked that part of the epic battles in TA, it seemed like a massive scale battle - not just 100's of units facing against each other. Wouldn't it be cool if after an epic battle in swgb you were able to send a few workers to collect carbon/ore from the AT-AT wreckage? Now, recovering food or nova from dead troopers and jedi would be lame, but you get my point.

Physics engine is important... should you be able to shoot over a wall with storm troopers? No, unless it is a pathetically low wall. Should you be able to lob your artillery over? Hell yeah. And the air thing is part of that, the bombing runs.

Shooting while moving can have a major role in battlefield tactics... think about your faster strike mechs firing while circling some AT-ATs real fast... AT-ATs are too slow to really shoot and hit everytime...makes the speed of units a major factor in fights... Right now your strike mechs or faster units run, stop, fire... rinse and repeat. That's lame - ever had a group of PeeWee's running around some enemy tanks, beatiful. PeeWees are weak armor but if used properly could lay into some heavy weapons... tactics right there. Cheap units can last longer than just being mauled.

The AT-ATs behind AT-ST - don't know what to say there...I didn't understand from the beginning... Why can't you hit someone in the second line of attack... You ought to be able to, AT-ATs stand a bit higher than AT-STs and it's not like there is a wall of them. So, no clue what to say.

The drawback to TA is the non-uniqueness of races, TA:K did show that you could have unique races.

All I want is for the next SWGB to have flying units like TA, scouting like Dark Reign, and resource management like AoK. Is that too much to ask for?

Just realized that the whole research thing doesn't exactly exist in the TA games - hmm, I'd miss that. Is something like that a possibility influenza????

Excellent points all around. Glad to see some intelligent debating, instead of the mindless "TA SUCKS!!" that started this topic.

(And on a side note...is it just me, or has this site been really slow lately?)

Let's start by saying that I, too, do not believe that the TA engine is the ultimate RTS engine. Things like upgrades (which can be done, but it is VERY hack-y and doesn't play very well), class-specific damages (TA allows unit-specific, but not class-specific damage), restricting unit fire-arcs to straight-ahead only (again, can be done, but it's ugly), and distinguishing repairing from healing are things that TA does lack. But I do believe that, as a computer science student who fully understands the capabilities and roles of game engines, the TA engine is pound-for-pound the best RTS engine out there.

Also, let me clarify the rather bad ATAT/ST example. What I meant to say is this: if there is a line of units, solidly packed, in front of another line of units of the same height which does not extend further outwards than the first line, how should a blaster be able to travel through the first line to hit the second line? In TA, such a situation would result in weapons hitting the first line (provided they are line-of-sight weapons, not ballistic) instead of the second line as intended. This isn't a major issue, but I meant it to show another example of the TA physics engine.

safire: very good posts :).

To expand on the whole nuke/bertha idea: sure, creating 5 nuclear silos, stockpiling warheads, and watching the ensuing nuclear winter doesn't take much skill. But you're playing against an AI. Here are some statistics to show you that actually using a Bertha/Nuke takes incredible skill:
One nuclear silo, unassisted, takes around 5-6 minutes on the fastest game speed. Since most MP games are not played on +10 speed, silos can take as long as 10-12 minutes to construct. And that's provided you have the required income to be constantly working on it. Berthas, on the other hand, take around 4-5 minutes in a typical game to construct. Once you construct your silo, it's still another 90-120 seconds to build an actual nuke. And once you get that nuke, you have to go scouting your enemy's base for vital structures, because any good player will set up radar jammers to block you from scanning. Same thing goes for scouting for Bertha targets. You'll need a good handful of air scouts to see far into your enemy's base, since they are very fragile and easily shot down by AA. And these scouts will show up on your opponent's screen and radar, giving away the fact that you're planning something big. Only the best players scout the enemy often enough for the act to seem inconspicuous, so chances are your enemy will KNOW something is coming. Let's say you find a nice, juicy target. You tell your nuke to fire away, and grin as the little X moves across the radar. But suddenly: it disappears well short of its target! Crap, that must mean the enemy has an anti-nuke system, which is cheaper, builds faster, and produces anti-nukes faster than your silo! What to do? Well, chances are you'll scout for their anti-nuke and hopefully take it out with some long-range bombers. All the while praying that your opponent isn't pissed off that you're trying to hit him with nuclear weapons and trying to find YOUR silo to destroy it with HIS bombers. Now, for the Bertha. Berthas are very inaccurate. Once you find a target, chances are it'll be around 15-20 seconds before it's destroyed (right away if you're VERY lucky). All this time your enemy will be seeing Flying Plasma Shells of Doom spraying over his buildings, and since he can use the shells' trajectory to calculate where they're coming from, rallying his bombers to take out your Bertha. Or, if you're lucky, he'll have a Bertha of his one that he'll use to fire at yours. Lucky, because it will be a while before his hits yours, so you'll have a chance to bomb his first :). If you're lucky, your nuke/Bertha will hit its target before the enemy has a chance to realize what's going on. In that case, good job, you at most just destroyed a unit lab, or a fusion power plant, or maybe the enemy commander himself! But since no smart player actually puts more than one fusion plant, unit lab, or other important structure on the same screen, you just spent a hell of a lot of resources to destroy something worth 1/10 the cost.So you see, using nukes and berthas effectively against a good player is far more difficult and strategy-needy than anything you do in SWGB.

And BTW...no one EVER plays Metal Heck, or any other metal map. So it's pointless to use that as an example. It would be like judging the gameplay of StarCraft when all you ever play is Big Game Hunters. It's just stupid.

IS THIS TOPIC STILL GOING!!!!
i saw this topic back in october
look i never played ta but it's too late now to wish for
it to be made like it ok

:lsduel:

drake - maybe you should read the posts before commenting on them. You'd see that we aren't asking them to remake swgb.
Or if this thread bothers you so much - IGNORE it and read other ones.

:o
soory but i am right about the length of the topic

True, it is a long thread.