Galactic War "Metagame"

I hope that the systems you own wont just be "systems you own" but actually have stuff in them, for you to allow to create a defending army. And in that case it would be ridiculous if stellar objects respawned.

I think it would really be boring if you could pick starting positions on a planet that you're invading just like you do when the game starts. Not having any way of defending against the incoming commander until he has landed is a bit unfair in my opinion.

Why? If there is no enemy in the system until they land, why would you be there?

Because you currently own that system. Maybe you are creating an army to invade another one right now.
I'm not talking about empty systems, but being able to warp into an empty system and not into an inhabited one seems just as wrong.

You don't create army's to invade, as only your commander can go from system to system.

Thats the entire premise of the game.

Anything you leave behind will likely be self destructed to prevent an enemy from assuming control over a fully functional army.

When you are defending a previously conquered army you are going there from space, as players can engage on any front they choose and so won't be sitting somewhere where they will have to again build a transport to leave.

You assume that you can take armies with you.

So far, everything we've been told says that won't happen.

[EDIT:] Damn. I got ninja'ed.

I'm currently reading the confirmed features list 2.0 and especially this post about galactic war on kickstarter, which tells me that you have to conquer a galaxy, and you can't do that if you don't keep the systems after you got them. I think galactic war isn't like the games you currently play, its not entirely about killing your opponent's commander.

Technically a System you've conquered is yours until someone else goes to conquer it, and the only way you can conquer it is to use your commander, so killing commanders is still very important as they are the one thing you can't "mass" produce.

If I had to guess, part of the idea is that you have a 'Squad' of Commanders(or in the case of "co-op" and "clan wars" a squad of players with a commander each) with the goal of killing the commanders.

Mike

I think we should just wait until they implement it and discuss their system then. Because everyone bringing up a completely different idea of how it should work wont get us anywhere.

I basically agree with the gist of what the OP was saying- there should be some strategic importance to the systems beyond 'beat all the dots'.

During the kickstater they discussed this a bit in one of the live streams (can't remember which one or I would link). JM commented on the fact that (approximate paraphrase from memory so apologies if I get this wrong...) 'maybe your enemy has a big system with 2 gas giants in it, you would need to conquer some smaller surrounding systems so you can launch a larger assault to take it'

This is exactly what I'm hoping for. I agree with other posts that exactly HOW that advantage would be implemented is unclear. One thing that occurs to me would be linking the galaxy up with Wing Commander style warp gates- each system contains gates to at least one other system, and the paths could vary in length. Systems with allot of gates would automatically become strategically important, whilst systems with only a single path in / out would be lower priority. If this is coupled with some strategic benefit based on resources in a system- or perhaps the ability to call in support from an adjacent friendly system it would make for a fantastic game. I think this is particularity important to the single player campaign.

Also with respect to game modes, from what I remember they also mentioned that co-op play with multiple players against AI controlled system was going to be an option (e.g. you could get your friends / clan mates to assist in your own 'single' player campaign).

That was never said in the Kickstarter video (which is pretty much the most information we've gotten from Uber on the Galactic War). In that video, which had a similar comment from John Comes, was about organic storytelling... about how fighting over a 'really memorable system configuration' and how it would be a talking point, not how you were limited to taking surrounding systems before you were allowed to assault it.



And I'm going through the livestreams now. Still haven't found anything that comments to that effect.
Would you mind quoting your source, rather than just a vague "Jon Mavor said this once... I think..."

I've been listening and watching for GW features like a hawk. Details are still extremely vague. The trailer above and the discussion at this link are the most in-depth descriptions we've had so far.

Your paraphrase about the two gas giants has been taken completely out of context - and there was no mention of conquering neighbouring systems alongside it.

There have so far been no details released on how defenders'/attackers' advantages will come in to play, if at all.

Glad to see people have had a chat about what they'd like to see.

I think persistent games maps are a pretty cool idea. Going back to the shattered remains of a solar system you fought over weeks ago would be awesome.
I would be worried about how much reclaimable mass would be left behind by bases, however assuming it isn't a total washout, there should be enough left over on both sides of the planet. Perhaps something to calculate how much reclaimable mass there is per square whatever, and if this goes over the threshold, buildings will be replaced with battle-damage like artillery shells. Realistic spawn balancing xD

Just my 2 cents here, but when I heard of Galactic war, I thought it would be just like the trailer, only bigger.

Let me clarify:

In the trailer, you can send to and simultaneously control systems on, moons, and asteroids.

Presumably you would be able to do the same for the entire solar system.

Galactic War, to me, is exactly like that - only bigger. Instead of controlling multiple planets in the same solar system at the same time, your controlling multiple solar systems over a GALAXY at the same time.

I don't know where you guys are getting this 'select dot for skirmish and takeover these systems' types of gameplay, or Tribal wars type 'Attack incoming in 40 hours' style of gameplay. Where would be the fun in that?

There are plenty of comments and even the Video that presented the Stretch Goal was really clear that it would be a Meta game akin to TA's Boneyards or Dawn of War: Dark Crusade's Campaign.

Otherwise exact details of how it will work are scarce, but expecting it to be just a big game across multiple systems when nothing has indicated as such is just, wrong. Especially considering there are concerns that even a game across a handful of planets in a single system is going to be too much to process in real time, trying to do that across multiple systems would be pretty insane.

Mike

In response to Nanolathe and Cwarner, yeah sorry I was really pressed for time so couldn't really go through all the videos for links. I bow down to your superior knowledge on the subject!

Quotes aside I still maintain that for the metagame to be of any interest for a SINGLE player campaign (which is one of the things it is intended for), there will need to be some strategic significance to systems, so that it adds some additional strategy to it. If not then we may as well just stick with the skirmish mode.

For a multiplayer / clan match system it will be fine as a simple map (which is what we had for TA with the PhoenixWorx client).

Ok so GW is basicaly a persistant world of sorts I'm getting from that trailer Nanolathe posted as you'll be annihilating galaxy's!!! and gas giants? sounds awesome. If would depend on how or what you do to capture/control these planets to progress through the systems and the galaxy's that you "claim" as your own. I dont think simply just enabling the commander unit to warp back and forth between planets is the ideal way to do this.
Not saying that it needs to be some sort of capture-the-flag hashed mechanic but you dont want to be having to warp your commander back and forth all over the galaxy's from one planet to the next, and of course not starting with only just the commander either, an entire planet filled with ones units against a lonesome commander would be devastatingly un-playable.

Unless its not a persistent universe where its just completely non stop, and you fight 1 system skirmish at a time and what have you, and fight that way and the galaxy is the actual map, sort like how the Total War games are with the conquest map but not literately the same if you get my meaning?

I think a persistent galaxy is actually the best way to go from a gameplay standpoint, but I think the logistical element of what that involves in planetary destruction and asteroids with engines would be a nightmare to create really unless that is what they meant by Galaxy Annihilation. In the end it would just be a fight to who can control the most asteroids/planets to crash into the most planets to win, leaving no planets left? lol

Obviously, you won't have your own standing endgame army when you fight a system. One attacking commander against an entire team that just won a game? That's literally no fun at all, it's completely unfair and unbalanced. The defender may get a small advantage, such as a few factories or something, but I'd even be a bit against that :\.

I do love the idea of leaving your mark on the system. That planet you made a bunch of giant asteroid-shaped holes in last time? It's a lava planet now, since all the lava flew everywhere. Or that planet that was blown apart? It's an asteroid belt orbiting the sun now. Or just, that small moon that you flew over to the enemy planet? Yeah, it's still orbiting to this day. Or even, those metal storages you built on the moon? The storages are gone, but there are metal spots in their place now!

Something like that would basically mean that replay-abiliy of a familiar system is conceivably exciting, because it's different from the game you've already played.

Actually you would have to simulate the systems where there's a battle anyways and the other systems are empty and it doesn't matter if they are not simulated or nothing happens (Because that is kinda the same). In the end you will not get any more performance usage by having every system active at once.
Even if the planets where someone is living are active even though there's no opponent on it (which you said is wrong but anyways) you wont get an additional performance drain because it would still have to be loaded.
And networking wont be impacted either because of the same reason as above. Besides you COULD just send a packet saying "there's nothing there" (e.g. data length = -1).

No. What michael7050 was talking about is simulating multiple system at once and playing a large single game within those multiple system, pretty much everything you meantion doesn;t apply in that case.

Mike

I'm talking about having multiple systems simulated at the same time. What I'm saying is that there's literally no difference in performance usage between having all systems loaded at once or only those which are needed. Except if there's only one battle at a time, but you just said there will be multiple.