Galactic warfare

meh or not, that is the very concept that Uber means when they talk about GW. The concept has been around since TA. It's basically a fun matchmaking system. Ofc matchmaking systems are more like turn based. I dont think the GW concept can be clearly described as turn based or real time. I mean you dont have to wait for your turn or stuff like that.

You believe no other tech could be used to make GW? Does it have to be the exact same as TA? Has it been said by any of the devs that GW is going to be the way you said?

It has nothing to do with tech. It's about gameplay concepts. GW is not supposed to be a gigantic real time thing. In a way GW actually is real time, when you have multiple players playing multiple games over multiple planets at the same time.
I don't know of any posts by devs that directly state what I said, but I've been around in this forums since PA started on KS and so far I have seen nothing that conflicts with my understanding of what GW is supposed to be.

This is how it works.

It's a combination of turn based and RTS. Each turn is choosing which galaxy to fight on.

Then you play a game of PA.

Also think about it like a traditional RTS campaign. You choose which mission you want to play in the galaxy view, then you play that game.

That makes sense. And there's going to be a multiplayer version yes? Or a singleplayer? I forget which one they said is going to be in.

You can host a game for either single player locally or for MP.

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/galactic-war.50862/

well so you know what GW is supposed to be. I don't understand you.

i want it to be at least as good as FAF's. if not better and introducing more things.

You see them working on the lore now saying there's going to be different factions.

they should use these factions to do the same thing. a thing where there's teleport points and you can aid the ones of your faction. It creates cohesion, allied effort, a sence of belonging.

I dunno. maybe that's the way it's heading. I think its better we voice what we want then just kinda let it happen.

I threw galactic in there as a keyword too. I think that's what mucked it up. But Cola Colins search didn't reveal anything that was relevant.

And you still don't cite the post by Brad.

Ah well. Thanks for your valid information. Problem solved, back to learning about tempering steel.

What about if you could fortify a world before and then be attacked by someone else? Same concept as toy rush...

It would be a game in which I am the first person to be Annihilated that's for sure XD

I haven't actually played against another person yet because I'm worried I'd just get flattened immediately.

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/psa-what-galactic-war-actually-is.53312/

Mike

So basically we've gone from the Galactic War is a Real Time conflict, where you can fight across many different fronts

to the Galactic War is a turn based strategy game.

To the Galactic War is a matchmaking tool for you to have repeated games in the same tournament against the same opponent.


in the course of one thread.

I'm not entirely sure I would describe that with the terminology of awesome, or would have presented it as that amazing a feature/a replacement for a single player campaign. It has to make a substantial improvements to distinguish it from a single player campaign, not just be a series of skirmishes.

Hard to say because we don't have those details yet.

Mike

I am because all of these metagame implementations are similar to Boneyards. I doubt the Galactic War will have the same matchmaking mechanics or system control mechanics as any previous implementation. There are lots different ways to implement the details of the system but they broadly do the same thing. Here is a one line summary of what I think it is reasonable to expect from Galactic War.

Player will play (mostly) ordinary PA games against people (or bots) who are not allied with them in the meta-game, winning in these games will help their faction in the meta-game.

I say mostly ordinary PA games because the game could change a bit. There could be changes which flow from the meta-game to PA such as a retinue for attackers or some prebuilt base for defenders. There could also be changes which flow from the PA game to affect the meta-game. For example there could be ingame objectives which don't change the game at all but their completion affects the meta-game in some way. I dislike the first type of change but the discussion is a bit pointless until we get more information. I think there are larger things to worry about than the minute details of Galactic War.

I'm chucking your other post in here. Keeping your PSA clean.

I generally spend a lot of time playing offline strategy games. I prefer playing a challenging CPU, making checkpoints, and seeing the range of decisions that the CPU makes OR just playing a game through from the beginning,and getting the accomplishment out of beating the CPU. I spent a lot of time playing "tower defence" as Rebel raid invasions in Star Wars Empire at War. (I think the AI there would rush all of his troops at you at once)

So basically, I'm probably going to be the one playing the game mode a lot. I just don't see the great attraction. Chaining battles together seems like it's really no different from singleplayer, and not worthy of its own stretchgoal. Rise of Nations did this, in its conquer the world Risk mode. Star Wars Empire at War did the same as well, to the extent that the mode seemed more integral to the game than skirmish, unlike RoN where quick battles were equally enjoyable.

I just don't get it. It seems like the coding behind it is simple.


I mostly don't get it because they said something about the idea of a minimap not fitting in with PA. . . that made sense when I believed they intended to have several battles being fought simultaneously on several different planets. Now I'm not so sure.

It also seems like it restricts the scope of the game.

You can still play games on multiple planets. Playing games over multiple planets is currently implemented in alpha. It is likely that the PA games in Galactic War will only encompass one start system but this system could include multiple planets.

Honestly, one of the problems with Galactic War that I will be most interested to see Uber tackle is that of timezones and participation, particularly in the 'clan' field.

What happens when a primarily Oceanic clan tries to take a system from a primarily European clan, and there are no players from the European clan to respond to the threat? Or, in an even broader scope, what happens if clan A plans ahead for all its members to be online for an attack at a certain time and clan B has no-one available to respond? What if one has significantly larger or smaller numbers than the other?

If anyone here has played Planetside 2, you will know that these sorts of imbalances have the potential to make the game either extremely boring and grind-y if you're on the dominant team, or incredibly frustrating and stressful if you're on the underdog team.

Somehow, we need to be able to have the right people in the right place at the right time.

We're fine - we have a pretty strong communication infrastructure and several different channels to issue a call to arms at any time, but there are other clans who might not have that, and I do think it's a bit unfair to rely on out-of-game facilities to co-ordinate that sort of thing.

I have a few ideas in mind on this, but I'm going to wait until Uber invite a discussion on this topic before I really start making my (strong) views on this known.