PSA - What Galactic War actually is.

Ignore the nay-sayers.
Having a thread with established facts is way better and easier than running around the forum reading or spouting fiction.

Has it been confirmed or denied if holding certain territories would give you buffs?
For instance, having control of a specific system would let you start skirmishes with extra units.

Not specifically. How reasonable something is different on a case by case basis, for example if you're 'attacking' and enemy planet it doesn't really make sense that you can bring other units because
A] Stuff like that has a domino effect that affects the entire match
B] The whole point of the Commanders is that they're sent alone to build up an army on site and bringing along other units clashes with that.

Also as I've said, there could be different sub-types of GW and there will doubtless be many many mods to change how a GW will work at some point so even if the 'Official' version is missing something you'd want to have it won't be massively hard to get it at some point.

Mike

It could be as simple as starting with a single MEX near your spawn already taken or an extra engineer for the attacking player. Just some small benefit to help swing the match in favor of the player with the 'advantage'.

Even small stuff can cause a large Domino effect over the course of a game, Imagine a Zerg player in Starcraft 2 that starts with an extra Drone, that'd result in a much earlier 6pool type play to the poitn where it can't be defended against fairly at all.

Also given the context it's very difficult to define and assign any kind of advantage really. The Point of commanders is that they arrive alone and leave when the battle is over(assuming they've won/survived) and anything left behind is basically worthless without a commander.

It might work in the smaller scale GWs where it's only a handful of people and you can track commanders to the point that someone can be 'defending' a system from attack, but it's not as easily done in something like the main 'official' GW with thousands upon thousands of players.

Mike

I think it could be done. Maybe only on a defending player's planet(Since you would locially have defenses built on a planet you already control) but at the same time given the nature of PA at the moment, it would have to be a very small advantage.

I suppose holding more territory could give you a kind of 'commander cap'

As more commanders isn't a defiant advantage.

Yep we (I) needed that.

Sorry

This should be stickied.

This. The only bonuses anyone should receive are neutral bonuses (like: the defending side get's to choose it's starting planet/location first or something similar.)

GALATIC WAR.

I wish to join the Core.. flesh is for the weak.

@KNight
This is the wikipedia paragraph which confuses everyone. It's stated pretty explicitly there that the map will consist of hundreds of worlds, ala the Galactic War. Not that map size would be restricted. And there's no implication that it's a separate meta game.

And as we all know, Wikipedia is a great source to cite when you're constructing an argument.


Wikipedia is wrong in this instance. The lesson to learn here is that Wikipedia is a rubbish source for game facts...
and sometimes facts in general.

---

Great stuff Knight. Always good to have more PSA's around.

As for the 1v1. I am curious how Uber plans to make it more compelling than a series of random map generated games. Dawn of War had a single player meta game that involved upgrades and home fortresses. I think having unlocks could be really fun, but also may or may not fit. Maybe the AI difficulty will ramp up as you get closer to victory.

Someone could spend some serious time working on a single player meta game.

That's my ENTIRE point. I'm not constructing an argument. I remember seeing him reply to another thread about it recently. It's an explanation of why the common interpretation by most players is wrong.

Firstly, Wikipedia is a great source to cite when you're constructing an argument, because most of the time some expert on the subject has edited the page so that the information is correct. Errors are corrected very fast on average, and it generally gives you a reputable list of sources, so if you need it for a proper research project you can just use it as a quick library to get yourself orientated. (Which is an important skill as of itself)

Wikipedia is a representation of the communities knowledge about Planetary Annihilation. So, yes, Wikipedia is wrong in this instance

As a Molecular Biologist I can tell you; Wikipedia is not a good source to cite.

Since we're off subject, I agree that Wikipedia is a bad source to cite here because it uses public mass knowledge, and as this game is very new, not well known, and partially in the dark to the main crowds even following the game, Wikipedia doesn't know any more than the collective knowledge of it's visitors.

However, research 10 random topics on Wikipedia. Research celestial bodies and the solar system and even other star systems, and then proofread it. You will find more than likely find most whole pages of Wikipedia on deep topics actually contain no errors at all.

Obviously research Wikipedia and then double check the info, and also don't use Wikipedia on hard-to-find and up-to-date-changing facts. That being said it really is hard to argue that Wikipedia is mostly wrong. It is a stretch to say it is "often" wrong, more correct to say it is occasionally wrong but it isn't rare if something is wrong.

NEVER cite Wikipedia.... Dude... That's not what I'm saying.

You read Wikipedia to get the general gist of what's going on about a subject. If you're going to cite anything, you go to the articles sources, you go to a university library, etc. You actually do the research properly. You go to wikipedia first and foremost to get the general idea of what questions to ask.

You don't go to the Wikipedia page for engineering, read the opening paragraph and say "Engineering is the study of the creation of genies", and you don't expect to follow any of those sources cited and find that actually, engineering is the study of the creation of genies, it's entirely fictional and has nothing to do with science or economics.

It should be correct to read that article and say "the galactic war is the gametype where I fight interstellar battles".

It's not explicitly stated. But common knowledge says that our solar system only has 8 planets. so logically, any map with hundreds of worlds where you can change between conquering individual planets and individual systems dynamically "MUST" contain multiple solar systems.

Hence the confusion about the galactic war. You can't say they are wrong because they are stupid and they trusted wikipedia. The wikipedia information is wrong because no one has gone in there, changed the information so its correct, and cited the multiple sources where it is said that you play one system at a time, the galactic war is a metagame.

Our solar system has only 8 planets, but contains hundreds of thousands of planetoids, not to mention asteroids.

'Worlds' is not necessarily an accurate descriptor of a planet. In fact it seems to have so many different definitions that it's completely context sensitive AND subjective at the same time... so it's possible that the 'Hundreds of Worlds' in a single battle may still come true. It just won't be around more than one star (or perhaps binary star system)...

and most of them would be so tiny that you'd be unable to utilise them for anything.

Stormingkiwi, considering there was enough confusion over what Galactic War is to warrant this PSA and it uses all Dev comments/communications going way back to the Kickstarter even, I'd say this is more accurate than Wikipedia.

Mike