19 replies to this topic

[feld]

Might be a good way to simulate SW's recurring facination with killing the enemy leadership...might also change the way that Imperial players play.

Rebellion did this to what I thought was good effect and it made using Pappa Palpatine and the Big V a matter of some concern. The Imperial player had to think. And both of those characters were particularly powerful and useful in influencing neutral systems to join you. While the diplomatic functionality does not exist in EAW/FOC, those two do have substantial bonuses to Imperial production and their loss would be painful to the Imperial game.

Anyway, I'm not even sure that it's a possible to make killing either one of them a victory condition.

v/r
feld

[Kitkun]

Wasn't there something broken with that condition?
Anyways, the Empire did fight on without them, even if it was amongst themselves half the time.

[feld]

Wasn't there something broken with that condition?
Anyways, the Empire did fight on without them, even if it was amongst themselves half the time.

Agreed...but there's another way to do this if the engine won't make a victory condition possible. In fact, this way would be better.

Give Vader and/or the Emperor even bigger bonuses to Imperial production or military performance across the Empire (or just local ones). This would make them better targets for the Rebel player (thus simulating the Rebel desire to kill Palpatine in RotJ and the several attempts on Vader's life).

V/R
feld

[Kitkun]

That I can get behind.

[Phoenix Rising]

Wasn't there something broken with that condition?

I think I found a workaround in the compiled source.

Still, I'm not sure about the idea. I mean, it makes enough sense on paper, but I'm worried about the gameplay implications. Would you want to win a campaign by killing two heroes that the AI was too stupid to move? I think it would be somewhat unsatisfying. I have a feeling that once Force bonuses come into effect, those guys will be powerful enough where losing them would be a big blow to your faction - without making them super-powered or causing the campaign to end.

[feld]

Wasn't there something broken with that condition?

I think I found a workaround in the compiled source.

Still, I'm not sure about the idea. I mean, it makes enough sense on paper, but I'm worried about the gameplay implications. Would you want to win a campaign by killing two heroes that the AI was too stupid to move? I think it would be somewhat unsatisfying. I have a feeling that once Force bonuses come into effect, those guys will be powerful enough where losing them would be a big blow to your faction - without making them super-powered or causing the campaign to end.

Sounds good to me. That's perhaps the best way to implement the idea. This brings us closer to a discussion on heroes that I've wanted to have since PR put out that

About "super-powered"...um...PR?...we're talking about the two most powerful Sith of their time or possibly of any time. I mean, Anakin (on screen at least) takes out heavy armor with nothing more than his lightsaber and latent Force powers and (according to Zahn) the Emperor can knit together thousands or millions of minds into a cohesive fighting force across an entire star system (possibly even an entire galaxy). How else would you describe them except "super-powered?"

More to the point, I want them to have those powers. I think to accurately simulate Vader or the Emperor (or Luke post knighthood for that matter) they need to have "super-powers". I originally resurrected the "victory condition" thing as an attempt to curtail the uses of those powers. As in Rebellion, the Imperial player would have to risk these two powerful characters in order to use them. There is a delicious symmetry there and makes for some fun (and very Star Wars) gameplay decisions for the Imperial player. The Imperial either needs to make sure that the Rebel player doesn't know where Vader or Palpatine are or that their security is impregnable.

v/r
feld

[Phoenix Rising]

I don't have a problem with the Force powers being nasty if appropriate, but global production bonuses are somewhat of an issue. Hero bonuses you can always combine together in a battle to locally counter one really powerful enemy hero; having a build cost/time advantage across the galaxy means that, all else equal, the Rebels will always be outnumbered and out-researched.

Coruscant will retain its global 10% price discount thanks to the Senate, but I don't plan on doing anything similar elsewhere - and I'm going to be careful how those bonuses stack going forward. The time bonuses (as a percentage) are multiplicative, which is fine since you can never reach zero, but the cost ones are additive, so it's quite possible to pay next to nothing for units if you know what you're doing. I was able to get build costs reduced by 93% under certain circumstances in v1.1, which is absurd, so that's what I'm trying to avoid in v1.2.

Edited by Phoenix Rising, 25 October 2009 - 06:31 PM.

[feld]

I don't have a problem with the Force powers being nasty if appropriate, but global production bonuses are somewhat of an issue. Hero bonuses you can always combine together in a battle to locally counter one really powerful enemy hero; having a build cost/time advantage across the galaxy means that, all else equal, the Rebels will always be outnumbered and out-researched.

Coruscant will retain its global 10% price discount thanks to the Senate, but I don't plan on doing anything similar elsewhere - and I'm going to be careful how those bonuses stack going forward. The time bonuses (as a percentage) are multiplicative, which is fine since you can never reach zero, but the cost ones are additive, so it's quite possible to pay next to nothing for units if you know what you're doing. I was able to get build costs reduced by 93% under certain circumstances in v1.1, which is absurd, so that's what I'm trying to avoid in v1.2.

oh.

didn't think of that...

righto then.


v/r
feld

[jdk002]

I've been wondering, would it be a good idea to have them be lose conditions instead? Like in GFFA, if you lose Darth Vader or Palpatine you lose. Same goes for the Thrawn Campaign with Thrawn himself maybe?

Edited by jdk002, 09 November 2009 - 03:34 AM.

[Phoenix Rising]

What would you do about bounty hunters?

[Tropical Bob]

And the AI throwing them away, of course. But then again, it could be a condition solely for a player controlling the Imperials. That way, the AI could suicide them to its heart's desire.

As far as bounty hunters go, pay them more. That's how the Empire usually does it, anyway. Or they just kill them.

[feld]

As far as bounty hunters go, pay them more. That's how the Empire usually does it, anyway. Or they just kill them.

Or just give Palpatine and Vader very high amounts of whatever "guard" bonuses the Noghri and Wookies get so that they're nearly immune to hero-killing. Does that work?

v/r
feld

[Phoenix Rising]

As far as bounty hunters go, pay them more. That's how the Empire usually does it, anyway.

That's not a bad idea ...

[Kitkun]

Only one Bounty Hunter managed to succeed against a major character, for a while at least. The most major BH, too.

[jdk002]

I'm thinking any auto-lose heroes should be immune, seeing as it's highly unlikely that a single BH could take down Darth Vader, Luke only did it in his prime (at least, his prime during the trilogy era) and the Emperor basically wtfpwned him afterwards anyway. I find it very unlikely that Boba Fett could best either of them. Also, if you recall it wasn't even BF himself who managed to take down Han Solo, it was none other than Vader himself though Boba Fett did play a huge part he merely supplied Vader with intel if you think about it. BHs should be more like spies if you ask me. My personal opinion though. :]

[Phoenix Rising]

Specifics aside, I do like the option that bounty hunters provide in being able to remove heroes without a fight. Remember, there are a lot of heroes running around in the game now, so it may be more prudent to counter them with alternative methods. I don't think "major" heroes should be immune, but maybe Force-sensitive ones. Or at least a bounty cost penalty based on Force mastery.

Edited by Phoenix Rising, 10 November 2009 - 03:34 AM.

[feld]

Specifics aside, I do like the option that bounty hunters provide in being able to remove heroes without a fight. Remember, there are a lot of heroes running around in the game now, so it may be more prudent to counter them with alternative methods. I don't think "major" heroes should be immune, but maybe Force-sensitive ones. Or at least a bounty cost penalty based on Force mastery.

I'd rather argue for a bounty cost penalty based on your estimate of:
1. Force mastery (e.g. Vader's a viscous precognitive and telekinetic Force user)
2. Personal combat skills (e.g Vader's one of the premier lightsabermen of his time)
3. The effectiveness of personal security measures that could reasonbly assumed to "always be around" a given character (e.g. Vader's almost always surrounded by the 501st or some equivalent unit)

These assessments could form yet another way for you to give the heroes more differentiation and "flavor" as time goes on. For instance, Luke in his "early Rebellion" days was just an great pilot (low bounty penalty). Later, he trains his force skills and joins up with a band of Rebels meaning he's got a little bit of backup around sometimes (higher bounty penalty). Then he becomes a Jedi Knight, a leader of the rebellion, and founds an academy where he's always surrounded by a bunch of force sensitive trainees (much harder target - big ol' bounty penalty). Sure, it's an abstraction. But what isnt?

v/r
feld

Edited by feld, 10 November 2009 - 03:53 AM.

[Phoenix Rising]

Well, you already get cost protection as base levels increase, plus any hero transports add cost. I'm not sure combat skills should apply though if you're looking at someone through a scope or lobbing a thermal detonator in their general direction. I'm pretty sure Luke or someone said that had the Noghri not wanted them alive, they would've been dead. It just seems like you could make the same argument for diplomacy mattering.

[jdk002]

Well, you already get cost protection as base levels increase, plus any hero transports add cost. I'm not sure combat skills should apply though if you're looking at someone through a scope or lobbing a thermal detonator in their general direction. I'm pretty sure Luke or someone said that had the Noghri not wanted them alive, they would've been dead. It just seems like you could make the same argument for diplomacy mattering.

Well the only reason you would make them immune is if you added instant-lose scenarios which would only apply to the human player anyway, I'm pretty sure the AI doesn't have the ability to use bounty hunters? Correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen one of my heroes sniped by the AI since.. well ever.

I'm entirely behind the idea of cost protection though. It definitely makes it a lot more interesting and makes a player wonder if it's better to kill him in RTS-mode or snipe him with a bounty hunter. Strategy is always good.

[Phoenix Rising]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen one of my heroes sniped by the AI since.. well ever.

I broke bounty hunters when heroes were made buildable, but I'm trying to get them working again. The only real problem is trying to script the respawn.