Character Sabotage Troop Mission -get rid of it?

[Slocket]

I can see characters and spec op forces sabotaging a single facility such as a mine, planet laser, shield, construction yard, etc, but how can they take on a whole Troop Regiment?

 

I have a hard time justifying allowing minor characters or spec ops just easily taking out a Troop regiment for a remake. Of course a Jedi could do it.

 

I guess you can say you are destroying their barracks (which is possible of course) but you cannot just kill off hundreds of soldiers across the planet in real life. I wonder if there is a decent gameplay balance around this.

 

I have a decent 2D interface and it goes into a basic 3D battle simulator so far for a very alpha tech demo to see if this Dark Basic engine project is going to run under others computers (resolutions, and Vista/XP it must be Windows ).

 

Thanks for any input. If it causes more trouble gameplay wise than it worth, but I figured if you can get those shields and planetary batteries down, you must use your own troop regiments to attack the defending troops on the ground, plus with space bombardment. The characters can be a General and enhance your attacking troops effectiveness so they can play an important part in the invasion. This is what I want to change it to, so it is a more real and interestingly tougher tactical game.

 

No more "one man Rambo" character taking out four troop regiments on a planet before an invasion.

[Evaders99]

I don't know if I can see one character even taking out a facility... heck, it took a squad of Rebels and a lot of Ewoks to destroy the Death Star Shield.

Still, I consider a gameplay trade-off. What would characters do if not being able to sabotage? And if they can sabotage facilities, why not troops?

[Slocket]

That is true it took alot of Rebels and Ewoks only because Palpatine anticipated the raid on the Death Star Shield and had Troop regiments waiting there to defend it.

 

So if there was say a few troops on patrol, and they have not been alerted to an impending attack, maybe a group of Spec Op forces with a character to enhance their chances maybe can sneak in a blow a facility up. I would give the troops defending on patrol a chance to detect the infiltraiters, even a bonus to detection and foil the mission if a failed attempt was made prior, and the troop guards are on heightened alert status for a time.

 

I think I would make it so the spec op forces are going to be much more important and must play a decent part in any mission if you want success, and not let your character to get caught.

 

But as for destroying a troop regiment like a facility is a bit over the top. I can see the saboteers gaining access to a facility and then planting high explosive blowing it up then escaping past any troop guards, though they may loose a few 'red shirts' in the process.

 

I think the only way to eliminate troop regiments defending a planet would have to be by direct space bombardment (which could cause collateral damage ruining popularity as is in the game but a higher chance), direct assault with troopers but loses due to planetary shield and laser fire. Or troops getting killed off by uprising due to being unpopular. A random act of violence if the planet does not support very much and has a high garrison requirement. The game does that, but not very much so.

 

One other new way to kill off troopers on a planet would be Blockade Effect. If the system supports one side over the other, maybe that support will grow over time and cause the planet to go into uprising, causing troops to be destroyed by the planets populace. And/or having a blockade over a planet that can not support human life so to speak could starve the troops out and cause a slow attrition detrimental to any defending troops on the ground. Ala Castle Seige like in the old days. That maybe unpopular to the planets civilians (and hurt your popularity), but the enemy military troops would suffer.

 

Just no more character sneaking down to the planet and destroying a whole Dark Trooper regiment by himself. Maybe Vader or Luke could do that as a Jedi, but not a minor character.

 

So the change would be "no Sabotage on a Troop regiment by a minor character."

 

Sabotaging one single facility is more realistic than sabotaging a thousand man army of troop regiment spread out all over the city. That is my reasoning for why a single facility but not an army regiment. The target is a huge multitude for an army regiment, and a single target for the other a facility (blowing up its power core).

 

Characters can enhance greatly the success of sabotage missions upon facility by supporting the spec op forces. (and for your character to get away if foiled).

 

Characters can enhance greatly the assaulting troops (or defending) leading as a General upon a planetary assault.

[DarthTex]

I can see characters and spec op forces sabotaging a single facility such as a mine, planet laser, shield, construction yard, etc, but how can they take on a whole Troop Regiment?

 

I have a hard time justifying allowing minor characters or spec ops just easily taking out a Troop regiment for a remake. Of course a Jedi could do it.

 

I guess you can say you are destroying their barracks (which is possible of course) but you cannot just kill off hundreds of soldiers across the planet in real life. I wonder if there is a decent gameplay balance around this.

What if they were using several Class-A thermal detonators?

[MrPhildevil]

A starfighter infiltration might be possible too. What about an X-Wing droping proton torpedoes on a troop regiment. That must hurt!

[Ceorl]

I've thought about this myself and the problem I have with removing Character Sabotage Troop Mission is that it eliminates one of the few ways Character can prevent your opponent from accmulating too much detection rating.

 

If a player lacks the military forces (say bombardment ability) to attack a planet or does not want to risk the dice rolling implications of bombardment or invasion he will send in characters to accomplish the mission. The opposing player's response is to assign a general and add more troops. By removing the ability to sabotage troops, you remove a player's best counter to his opponent's response. In other words, beyond the, I believe, riskier option of abducting the General to reduce the risk, a player will run a constant, and likely increasing, risk of detection for every operation conducted without a corresponding way to improve his odds; the military option having already been considered impratical.

 

Now in terms of theorycrafting there are still dozens of options/factors to consider in Rebellion, but I wanted to try and boil this down to the key issue and not spend hours writing up a response

 

Finally in terms of fluff, if a Character can destroy a SD that houses ten of thousands of people it doesn't seem such a stretch to eliminate a regiment of troops.

[Slocket]

Good points. Maybe it is best to leave it as it is for gameplay sake. Even if it is abit over the top in real life.

 

I do remember many developers that tried to remake XCOM game. Of course they tried to improve too much upon its original gameplay, but in the end it failed.

 

Almost like a special work of art, you really do not want to mess around too much within reason with the original piece, or else risk losing that magic something that makes the game unique and fun to play.

[Ceorl]

Oh I don't know if I'd go that far, I mean every game is a system with rules that work and don't work. The only problem is that fixes can cause as many problems as they solve.

 

In Rebellion's case, the best change would involve being able to edit the source code, which we can't do. Lord knows I'd love to cut down on all the window pop-ups.