Entertainment
 

Talk:Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds

From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.

Contents

[edit] Galactic Battlegrounds Stubs

I suggest that the weaponry and apperance of the vehicles described in the stubs should be put into the articles. I will help.--Lord Zack 16:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DOes anyone here

participate in GB Heaven mods? if so, leave me a messageJustinGann 13:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Responses" section:

It seems very opinionated. This should be changed.

Thank you. Totema1

[edit] Holocron/relic

I should be noted that, in this game holocrons esencially play the role of the Relic from AOE(being strored in temples, generating nova crystasls/gold) shoulnden´t it? Hominid 19:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • If it doesn't, then it should, yeah Enochf 19:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC) just remember to spell check
    • Actually I copied all the AOE Wikipedia article here. I just replaced 'relic' with 'holocron' plus other changes MoffRebus 21:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Since we have articles for both Empire at War and its expansion, Forces of Corruption, I think the same should be done with GB and CC - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 17:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aurebesh Translations

I have translated the Aurebesh from the briefing/debriefing screens, most are gibberish but some are humorous. Should these be integrated into the GBG article, and if so, how?A knight shall come 04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I think this is interesting - if I might suggest something, maybe the creation of an alltogether new section ("aurebesh texts" or something like that), with a brief explanation of your discovery and then a list of the non-gibberish texts. - Skippy Farlstendoiro 08:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ugh, but they're so filled with typos. Are all the typos in the original Aurebesh? Enochf 00:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's how they translated, I didn't clean them up any.A knight shall come 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion sections

Per Talk:Star_Wars:_Galaxies#Expansion_sections and EaW and FoC, shouldn't the article be split into the two different products (main and expansion)? Jorrel Fraajic 17:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faction advantages

Unless I missed it, I don't see the advantages and disadvantages of each faction, would this be an appropriate addition to this page?--MIS Tau 1 23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

--MIS Tau 1 01:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)==Unit listing== Should units that aren't permitted by faction use unless "full tech tree" is enabled be removed from the unit listing?--MIS Tau 1 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd say no, keep 'em there Enochf 04:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It doesn't make sense to me to have IN-universe page about units that should not exist. The only time that you can have those units is when you select "full tech tree", on the same page you could pit the Republic against the Rebellion, or the Galactic Empire for that matter. In campaign mode the full tech tree isn't possible, moreover that's the only canon source of info. From scenario mode we could make up all kinds of fanon battles, meanwhile have a full tech tree. Does that make sense?--MIS Tau 1 04:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree. These are non-canon. MoffRebus 07:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm inclined to agree as well, although, rather than remove them from the list I would prefer marking them as ambiguously canon both in the list and the article. Of course, this would fall to all other games with unit systems like this. It would have to be a blanket policy. Jorrel Fraajic 12:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree, that is the best course, they're canon as in derived from LFL, but they only exist for the sake of gameplay, and aren't included in the plot. Naturally I've been working on the page for a few days now, how would you suggest that I label these units ambigously cannon? On each individual page perhaps?--MIS Tau 1 22:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but which units fall in this category? MoffRebus 22:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The Imperial Heavy Cruiser for instance. This vessel can only be built by the Empire if "full tech tree" is enabled during "standard" gameplay, not campaign mode. The purpose of the limited tech tree was to give each race certain advantages, i.e. The Trade Federation doesn't require Prefab shelters, however if you enable the full tech tree, you must build them. Racial pros/cons is another section I would like added to the page.--MIS Tau 1 00:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Then I am sorry but I have to recall. If they are peculiar to each civilization (I thought they were something like 'common' to all civilizations) then perhaps they are canon and deserve a reference. It just meant that they didn't exist in the timeframe of the campaigns. MoffRebus 07:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That may be true, but now you are speculating. We cannnot consider scenario play as "canon" because we can pit the empire against the republic and things like that. Campaign mode is the only true canon. Now scenario mode may be ambiguously canon, so it deserves mention, but they should be segregated in some form from other units like AT-ATs and whatnot.
        • I see them as background scenario elements and this tends to be canon. What are not canon are gameplay and game mechanics (like stats) MoffRebus 07:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I see a circular pattern in this arguement here. This is the bottom line, whatever is done, the (full tech tree) only units need to be labeled in some fashion, that's all I demand.--MIS Tau 1 23:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canonicity of Battlegrounds Weapons

Here's a question that's been on my mind for a while. Battlegrounds has tons of weapons in it that have been "made up" for the sake of gameplay. For example, the Galactic Empire has access to the AT-PT and the AT-ST, which are both featured in the movies. However, earlier in the game, you have access to the "Light AT-PT" and the "Light AT-ST", which are not featured in the movies. Almost every unit in the game that is from the movies has either weaker or more powerful incarnations such as these. In addition, there are tons of completely new weapons such as cannons and pummels and such. What I'm wondering is if these weapons are considered to be canon. Some, such as the TIE Interdictor are featured in artices, while others are not. 75.67.142.56 03:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • These are for the sake of upgrading as AOE2 did. But logically, these would have existed, because it's unlikely they get the ST and TIEs right the first go. But as far as canon (BOOM!) goes, these things probably didn't exist. Giga Hertz 03:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yah, they're canon. They're IU elements. Not just game mechanics. The things like the "Light AT-PT" are just new, EU vehicles, that's all. Actually, GB uses a few existing EU weapons and vehicles. Thefourdotelipsis 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking of the Geonosian Starfighter

The Geonosian Fighter link leads to a stub about the Geonosian Fighter in Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds. Should I link it to lead to the article on the Nantex-class territorial defense starfighter - the actual Geonosian Starfighter? Blackwire1127 16:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Nope. It's the Fast Geonosian Fighter that's the actual Nantex from the films. It follows the SWGB progression. Stage I fighter is a weak form, Stage II is the form taken from the films, and Stage III is a theoretical stronger form of the same. Enochf 16:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Didn't know that, thanks. Though the stub says it is predacessor of the better-known Geonosian Fast Fighter. Should I explain this is the Geonosian starfighter? Blackwire1127 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • cont'd: explain that the Geonsian Fighter is the predacessor of the better-known Geonosian Fast Fighter or Nantex-class territorial defense starfighter? Blackwire1127 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure, makes sense Enochf 17:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

Shouldn't someone add a speceis list(nerf,rancor,etc.)?--63.3.13.4 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Good idea. It should go under the Units section, say, subsection "Creatures." (Can't do it myself. My SWGB crashes every time I try to run it.) Enochf 22:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would do it myself but I had to give back my rental SWGB and don't want to give an incomplete list.--63.3.13.4 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

Some parts of the criticism strike me as unwarented. Firstly it claims that the Hailfire Droid is improperly labled an anti-air unit. However, I believe that more than one LAAT Gunship was destroyed by hailfire missiles in Attack of the Clones. And this is a function of the game's mechanics. Also the claim that the NR-N99 is over-powered and the B1/B2 capabilities are game balance and mechanics; something I generally feel you can't criticize a game for. Finaly, the part about the AT-AT inconsistency is unreasonable (at least in the criticism Section) because this game came out before Republic 55 and therefore can't be blamed. And in any case the much more recent Empire at War, if not claiming that the AT-AT was developed during the Galactic Civil War, at least strongly implies this. I feel that some of the items in criticism could be moved to just behind the scenes. 64.235.77.3 23:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  • yes the hailfire droid did destroy several LAATs however in the game (i believe) they can only attack air. the article doesn't criticize the game for mechanics it's just saying where the game has come into confict with canon. Maybe the inconsistencies should have their own section? Random1 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This may not be the appropriate venue...

But does anyone here still play Galactic Battlegrounds?

Leave a response if so. Wavebossa 09:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I had to rebuy the game since I damaged a cd, but I do. Admiral Paul 11:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars:_Galactic_Battlegrounds"