Talk: Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds

The title of the game

In the game documents, I've found no traces of the that the game title is Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds. Everywhere in the readmes it is titled as Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds, without ":". Maybe the article should be renamed and bad(?) titles rewritten?

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)

DOes anyone here

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

The "Responses" section:

It seems very opinionated. This should be changed.

• Removed it. -- I need a name 02:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Totema1

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)

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)

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)
  • These damn things continue to be a problem. New users correct the spellings because they aren't marked [sic]. Enochf 02:49, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
• maybe? surely. exactly. Nisi Caloponis 00:16, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

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)

• This talk page is not a place for discussing such things. QuiGonJinn^{There's always a bigger fish.} 11:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Annoying Color Glitch

Sometimes when I play the game, the colors randomly glitch up, and then the game is (literally) unplayable. Anyone know the problem?

• Probably compatibility issues with newer operating systems. Some of these problems occur with older games, especially RTS games like StarCraft. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is the truth)} 03:08, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

well i don't know the problem, but i got the solution, copy the following text "taskkill /F /IM Explorer.exe battlegrounds_x1 Start explorer.exe"

(without the double quote) and paste them in a text document and save it as Windows7 fix.bat.once done run the .bat file instead of the game icon to get it working. Note: this will only work for windows 7 Os. hope this helps us. cheers from: wookie Lord

Clone Campaigns

There are absolutely zero sections concerning the expansion pack and all links to the expansion redirect here, There just has to be a section about it or the redirect links to the vanilla game should be fixed. Kenzo V 23:19, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

• We have a separate article for Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds: Clone Campaigns. Links to the expansion don't redirect here. I'm not sure what you mean. Enochf 23:38, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a bunch of [[Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds#Expansion pack: Clone Campaigns|Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds: Clone Campaigns]] links in some articles that a bot or something should probably fix. -- I need a name (Complain here) 23:49, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • Sev'rance Tann's Appearance link was one in particular that redirects here, there are several others though they're names escape me. Kenzo V 00:05, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
      • I've gone and fixed a bunch that I found, although there's probably still some more. -- I need a name (Complain here) 02:06, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Stormtrooper Rifles

Does anybody know which is the name of the rifle used by stormtroopers in the game? Many rifles were invented for the soldiers in the game, but this very rifle appeared also in the promo image and on the menu. I'm working on a game modification and want to include it, so any help would be appreciated (any info, extra pics or whatever). Look, it's on this image: http://www.miswallpapers.net/2008-2009Walls/juegos/thumb/TNG_wallpaper_star_wars_galactic_battlegrounds_02_1600.jpg

--Revan-Shan 16 October 2010

Easter eggs and picture

In the Easter eggs, several of them are confusing, as it says senator instead of queen and so on. Ae some of these in the expansion? Also, the picture of the Imperial Monument, is it in the expansion pack as well?Youdead00 16:34, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph should be deleted

"Another problem is the artificial intelligence used on the game: most of the time, the AI controlled units only focus on building walls and multiple buildings, rendering enemies extremely predictable, and allies unhelpful. Additionally, as it happens in Age of Empires (whose engine this game uses), computer controlled opponents will resign almost immediately after their home base has been attacked."

This is completeley nonsense, anyone who knows this game exhaustively (me), can tell all sentence is stupidness. The AI controlled units doesn't focus on building walls at all, allies are not unhelpful at all, and the last sentence is complete stupidness. CP's in Age of Empires II (Age of King) sometimes battles for their life for ages, even when their whole town is destroyed; in SWGB, AI is not as good as in AoK, but try to attack an enemy homebase in moderate difficulty with a wookie ally, and your home will be annihilated soon by the wookie airforce. Maybe "critics" are cited nameless tried the game only in easiest :-(. As I just can repeat myself, this paragraph is fully handicapped. Nisi Caloponis 18:28, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

I can't say how the game itself plays, but that sentence itself rather strikes me as either unneeded information or wholly biased, AKA subjective, and either way not encyclopedic. User: Barren167 ^{Darth Caedus: Childhood fan-character ruined.} 02:03, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether any information of the kind of this is unneeded, problems and critics can be summarized in an Wikipedia article. But not without sources; and critics must be objective and factually true; while the above paragraph is incorrect, from an author who obviously does not know the game. I agree it is biased. Nisi Caloponis 22:51, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

I could also say the guy above me is biased, but otherwise I think I agree with your point. User: Barren167 ^{Darth Caedus: Childhood fan-character ruined.} 17:13, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Appearances section

Should a proper appearance section be implemented? Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 04:46, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

I may sound dumb but what's that mean? Commander Code-8 (talk) 06:52, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

• Wookieepedia uses a standard template for a list of Appearances in a source, sorting them by Character, Species, Location, Vehicle, etc. As an example, see Splinter of the Mind's Eye. Click on "Show" to see the entire listing. Enochf (talk) 07:03, July 9, 2012 (UTC)
  • And for the record I did put one in; it's at the bottom of the page. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 21:50, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

"Old Republic Era?"

I'm wondering why both in the Chronological information on the SW:GB page and under the "Old Republic Era" timeline page it lists this game as being set in the Old Republic Era, which takes place between 25,053 BBY and 1,000 BBY. Surely this is some kind of mistake given that the events in the video game shadow the timeline of the 6 live-action movies. If I may have overlooked something in the game, please let me know. I don't have the ability to edit the SW:GB page. --Lildyo (talk) 13:58, October 7, 2014 (UTC)

• In the "Boss Nass campaign," you control Nass' ancestor Gallo, whose story took place in 3000 BBY. --Lelal Mekha ^{(Audience Room)} 14:11, October 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, I must have forgotten about that mission. It's been a few years since I played SW:GB. Thanks for clarifying that for me. Cheers. --Lildyo (talk) 14:25, October 7, 2014 (UTC)

Misspelling

The word "Neimoidian" is misspelled "Neimodian" once in this article. Can someone with authorization fix that? Thanks. Geek'ari (talk) 04:03, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

• Done! Overlordjeff (talk) 04:28, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

Reception

I feel that the reception list contains some unneeded statements. For example, they say that the game putting down that ATATs were made in the Galactic Civil War is wrong because they were made during the Clone Wars; However, it is unfair to say this, because this game came out a long time before that fact became true. --{{SUBST:User:sawpog46/Sig|20:14,7/25/2016}} 20:14, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Unit Renders

I discovered that MobyGames has a gallery of 3d unit renders from the old LucasArts site. Some are missing, like the Royal Crusader, but the ones that were saved could be cropped and used as images in their respective articles. If anyone has access to Heavengames.com's renders gallery (I can only see it using the Wayback Machine) they might be able to get some building renders as well.--Valiran (talk) 00:48, May 28, 2020 (UTC)

Expanding Fronts

There's a huge and profesionally mod called Expanding Fronts that adds the Zann Consortium, the Geonosians, the First Order and the Resistance to the game with buildsets and unit rosters, together with countless new units and technologies, bug fixes and graphics and game mechanic updates. Even though it's technically "fan content", what it contains is to a large degree legends/canon material. I really think it should be at least mentioned in the article.
I thought of adding: "In March, 2016 the first full version of the mod Expanding Fronts was published which since has added four new complete civilizations with unique buildsets and unit rosters, four additional new shared units (and countless more for the in-game editor), and twenty-four new technologies to the game along with many bug fixes and gameplay tweaks."
And maybe, if possible, a section below with some more details about the basic changes and additions. To be clear, I have been helping the EF team with bug fixing. Andskar (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but we do not cover fanmade content, except when official channels take interest in it. -- NanoLuuke^{Cloning facility} 21:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Not even a small single-sentence mention of its existence? It seems relevant and useful information for people reading this article.Andskar (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

Has anyone found this same Easter egg with Mara Jade? Because I couldn’t even find a mention on the Internet that such an Easter egg exists. DarthOcclus1977 (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• I personally recall catching this easter egg, even if I admit this was a long time ago. If my memory serves, you need to reveal the map and clear the fog of war with cheat codes, and she was in a corner of the map, and would "flee" when the camera reach her spot. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 18:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)