PSA - What Galactic War actually is.

Yeah because obviously TA/SupCom didn't have a story and missions. *sarcasm*

I wish there was a commander commander that built and controlled other (less advanced) commanders from afar. Then the skirmisih are just played out with the little commanders not the main one. And then there could be strategy about where to place your King commander and trying to find the enemies King commander etc.

@v4skunk84 I don't think you understand my comment. Single-player GW is a replacement for a campaign. The lineage that PA comes from included campaigns that allowed you to re-attempt failures without having to start all the way back at the beginning.

I claim, that by your own logic, that in single-player GW when you lose your commander you should not loose the war.

Think of it as a game of Risk. If you lose a battle and lose a country, you don't lose the game.

Think of it as Rise of Nations conquer the world campaign. If you lost a battle that didn't matter.

I wish the GW was like Cortex Command's campaign, it was a good compromise, if we take the Multiplayer part of GW you cant have only one comm, it doesnt make sense.

I kind of wish it was real-time instead of meta game.
...
No, screw you CPU, it would be awesome.

The big thing that's been bugging me about GW in PA... How is it any different than a futuristic Rise of Nations?

...you say that like it's a bad thing...

Mike

Not a bad thing, that was a fun as hell game to play but I was hoping for something a little richer out of PA... Rise of Nations was an amazing game but the gameplay that got stale was the first ten minutes, steamrolling the computer and reaching a point where your economy was so big it was impossible to manage efficiently. It's roughly the same problem games like Star Conflict and Sins of a Solar Empire reach when the scale is large enough and the focal points are relatively uninteresting...

Honestly, I'd really like to see GW be more PVP/Clan v Clan with a ladder system, a real time points system, and a "round" that lasts weeks to months to indefinitely - not just a quick metagame that is entertaining up to a point.

Imagine if you had 10 members of your 50 man clan on at 9pm EST, and you see a competitive outfit start getting online. You call a few of your guys to warn them that you're about to get raided, and suddenly you see incoming events. Your Scathis-Prime system is wiped out. They killed two in that sector. You're down to three commanders in the surrounding area so you skype the **** out of your boys until they get the **** on and start fighting back. Meanwhile, you organize an insertion into the enemy's territory to try and get them to focus on their own territory while you try and destroy it... At the end of the night, a dozen of you either side are dead and you're aiding your dead ones back up to full strength while your enemy does the same. You earned some kills, some points and are set back some territory...

Would be cool. Just a pipe dream!

To me that just sounds liek an argument FOR the current GW proposed setup, in what amounts to literally just a super huge singular system you'd just build up and start squashing singular planets like they were nothing. By forcing you to play each system as it's own game you can never guarantee you'll have an overwhelming force, except by played well.

As far as the AI, I wouldn't worry too much, Sorian has been able to make lots of great improvements to FA's and SupCom2's AI even when being limited but working on it after the initial design phases, this time around he's doing all the AI from scratch. It might still not be much for good human players but it'll be in all likely hood better than most RTS AIs.

That is one of the goals for a facet of GW.

Mike

Id love to see in GW the addition of gimmick systems as well, like a solar system where players can't use a part of the arsenal, like say, bots, a system of marches and swamps that bots have been disabled.

It could mix up the galactic map a bit, and give some more interesting situations and 'scenarios' to a otherwise player driven experience.

You should update this mentioning that Uber is working on the Galactic war and they already have a working play test. (source, latest live stream)

What are you talking about?

The Conquer the World Campaign in Rise of Nations meant that you got to compstomp the AI 10 times in a row, but in cases gave it more survivability because it started the AI off with the stuff it needs so that your 3 minute rush didnt work?

Especially on maps where it started you off behind the AI, or having to manage some scenario like a field battle or barbarian raid?

Brian the fact that it's being working on should really be a given no?

Mike

Don't overestimate people on the Internet.

Well, admittedly, the Search sucks a little.

Sounds reasonable to me, and it would be a good fun to play.

Being a metagame, I don't see why it couldn't allow rooms for more than 40 players at the same time. It should be possible to have way more people involved.

I'm very curious to see how it will be implemented in the final release, and I'm looking forward to it.

Technically possible but perhaps not very good to use. Designing it with a max. of 40 players in mind will give a system nicely geared towards the eventual actual use of it.

Dear ladies and gentlemen,
this is my first post and I hope I am sending it in the right place : ) It regards some suggestions, wishes and opinions about the galactic war. Reading these forums I have seen many interesting and constructive ideas and speculations about the galactic war. Since Uber has not released it yet I think there is still some room for more suggestions.

Apart from the actual rts part of the game I enjoy very much the strategic part of games like risk and total war series...and I am really looking forward for this part in PA. In the following text my suggestions will be more focused on the single player than the multiplayer.

From what I understand this meta game will be turned based or it could be something like the strategic metagame in star wars empire at war....

I think that the galactic war should start with one commander and a first fight for a system. After you conquer the first system you get (activate) one more commander. This new commander has to remain in that system in order to control it and defend it while the first commander can be used to attack adjacent systems. Basically for every system that you control you receive a commander unit and in order to control the system that commander should be stationed there. When you control for example 5 systems you should receive an extra commander. This extra commander can be used to launch a simultaneous attack together with your first commander. This means that after you fulfill the previous requirements you can play a game if you decide to with 2 or more commanders on your side when you attack (and when you defend as well). So with more systems this can be implemented further (to a balanced level). I think that this would change the variety and the dynamic of the game...in this way conquering a galaxy would not just be a collection of equal skirmishes (1 vs 1 commander) for the control of systems but it changes as the conquest progresses.

It would be nice if there would be also a possibility to construct some upgrades on the systems you control like some gates connecting all the planets, some basic defenses and some basic economic or production facilities. The AI should be able to do it too on its systems. Some of you will say that this is not balanced and I agree, but sometimes it is fun to play a bit unbalanced game against the AI, especially if the AI has the advantage. For this reason in some situations you could attack the AI in one system with 2 or more commanders while they have their defenses and infrastructure on and vice-versa. There could be also the situation where an AI with 2 or 3 commanders attacks you in a system which is not yet upgraded where you stacked 2 or 3 of your offensive commanders... I mean there can be a wide spectrum of situations that could make the game more interesting. During the combat it could be your choice if you want to control directly these commanders or give them to an allied AI.

In this context there should be as well some galactic resources that are produced by the systems you control and which are spent for the upgrades. For example some systems could yield a more energy, some others more metal...in this way you can make strategic choices based on what you need for you expansion. Some people suggested to have destroyed or partially destroyed systems and I think it is a great idea, so that the choice of annihilating some planets has some consequences on the galactic gameplay. Damaged systems should give less resources...and if they are completely destroyed they should give no resources and have no owner (you could use them just for travelling through them).
The objective of the galactic conquest should be the annihilation of all the opposing commanders.

Well, these are just some ideas that I wanted to share with the community hoping that if they if they are acceptable they may be seen by the developers. If you have constructive ideas and criticism it will be very welcome! In the end we are all here because we want to participate in the creation of a great game!

Thank you and best regards!

blacksword13, keep in mind that this is an informative thread based on Dev comments, it's not really the berst place to propose ideas.

Mike