Will gas giants get balanced?

i asked YOU which are missing ..
constantly dodging the question instead of answering it will not prove your point ...
and supcom is a horrible example with it´s multiple roleoverlaping units ..

i also didn´t say ALL roles are in it but all of what you listened up ...
i made a thread of what i consider missing in this game already ...
and aside from a subunit for naval i don´t see t1 lacking at all ...

no, it goes on what should be in in order to not invalidate groundcombat mid to late game ...
orbital bombartment goes already against that and would turn lategame even more into orbital/antiorbitalwarfare ...
the ssx is limited for a purpose it is expensive for a purpose ... if you just go and throw in units that are orbital antiground eventualy cheaper/more efficint costwise or for are broader bombardment you would invalidate the ssx and its usefullness in specialisation ...
seriously what happened to starshiptroopers like invasions all of the sudden ... why are people so eager to turn this game into starwars so much?
i tell you if you add too many orbital antiground units to the game you will ruin it ...
and you don´t need more antiorbital units either but maybe 2 at best ...

Have you not read what I've been saying?

People only really use 2-4 different combat units – Bolo, Dox, Hummingbird, and Bumblebee. And the aircraft are barely used and only slightly count. Just because there is a unit that technically fulfills the role of base bombardment on paper, doesn't mean it actually fills that role.

None of the roles have been filled because no one uses those units. We have two units. A general all purpose unit and a faster general all purpose unit. All of the other units are almost completely irrelevant since they aren't used.

The entire balance needs an overhaul.

And then for the new units, well, the need for new units would be reduced if we could have better balance. Reducing the cost of T2 to make it actually useable is a great start. But I shouldn't start talking about specifics since you don't seem to realize that we have serious balance issues. We need to establish the need before we start talking about details.

People only really using 2 units is bad. There is little strategic depth or required skill to such a binary mechanic. It'd be like trying to play Chess with only two kinds of pieces.

We need greater unit diversity and more validity to other units.

basicly what i take from your post is we can´t have generalists or multipurposeunits (which RCBM is guilty of too by a order of magnitude)
but just straight out specialists ... and even then i can tell you you won´t get many units with that ... just go and trow the idea of t2 units out of the window
and just think about what kind of units you want to have overall ... what shall cover what ...

personaly i disagree with your opinion ..

No. We definitely can have general multipurpose units. However, specialized units need to be viable.

Generalist units need to be able to do all things kinda ok. Units with a specific role need to be able to do one or two things really well.

Throw T2 units out the window? Hell no.

You keep in disagreeing with something – but you're not disagreeing with what I'm saying.

You keep on taking what I'm saying and adding new things to what I'm saying which I most definitely did not say.

I disagree with your arguements about t2 units; I see them arrive in almost all but the smallest and shortest of games. ts

And generally, I disagree about the current LAND unit rosta; I regularly see lots of major attacks that use exclusively 1 or maybe 2 types of unit, yet in my experience they feel feeble when set against a smaller force made of more diverse units. Dox, in particular, fall to pieces at the seams when they have to fight something that isn't another straight-Dox army. I have regularly, and regularly have been, steam rolled when fighting/using a dox-only army vs a mixed unit army. Dox "spam" is not the be all and end all of the equation, particularly when it's not a straight 1 vs 1.

The balance is not anywhere near as bad as it seems; it's a bit of a push to get to t2, but it's very feasible to achieve quite early.

The only problem, and I will stick by this, is simply a matter of t1 power generation/usage. Better power generation/usage (pick one) would allow for greater expansion earlier on and more inclination to reach t2

On a different note, the balance for t1 vs t2 is WAY off for because of 2 main reasons
the t2 power gen is 5000 energy generated for 2700 metal; 2.7mt per 5e
the t1 power gen is 600 energy generated for 450metal : 3.75mt per 5e

now inefficiency at lower tech is fine except when you have hidden "bonuses" on top

the fabricators work approximately as:
t1 has 10 build power for 1000 energy expenditure
t2 has 80 build power for 3000 energy expenditure

the moment you hit t2 and have a handful of t2 fabbers, you might as well ctrl+k all your t1 fabbers on the spot because it's massively cheaper to run t2, including metal cost to produce the equivalent build power in fabbers to begin with

I've digressed somewhat from the main point of OP; I've pretty much said all I want to on that note anyway, but I'll add one more

Anchors are not nearly as effective as ground denial as most people think; they'll stop your Dox rush, sure, but then so would a couple-dozen tanks for much cheaper.

I feel the generalist-specialist problem has more to do with symmetry than anything else.

Using Starcraft as an example, playing as one race, a given unit performs differently against either of the other two races. Some, you might say, are "specialists" against one race. The units used by each race create a new problem that requires a specialist solution to solvr efficiently, or overwhelming numbers to solve inefficiently.

The most likely scenario to warrant using specialists is at T2, when your opponent has invested in one type and you've invested in a different one. Gil-Es outrange Leveller/Bolo comps but are useless in mountainous terrain, while Shellers crack through hardened defenses and fire over obstacles but get butchered on open fields.

Or at least that's how it works on paper before you drown the enemy in units. And if you're on a featureless moon, well, good luck getting past T1.

Returning to the Orbital/Gas Giant issue, the problem is that all Orbital battlefields are the same - featureless expanses just like moons - and therefore never call for new approaches. If there were differentiators, such as planetary rings or gas swirls or anything, we could have some intriguing factors to work around.

Terrain? ehhh...... I dunno, terrain could be made by the jigs themselves, and neutral zones between each others anchors.

Like some real iss structures for the gas giants, unique to them for the purposes of making the gas balls have new buildings and units to really mix them up.

Throw in a Orion battleship or two, and we are golden.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns.php#id--Project_Orion_Battleship

i wouldn´t say symmetry but just the general structure of what can beat what and how good
so there needs to be a propper relationship between unittypes/roles ... a bit RPS needs to be there though that still doesn´t have to be full on hardcountery ... personaly i think that relationship is there ... imo the unitpool in PA is one of the better structured .. i like it better than TA or FA .. it´s not perfect by any means but it is getting there
it however needs its flaws ironed out and the missing stuff to make the unitpool the most usefull it can get for multiplanetmatches ...

agreed with orbital ... it basicly is another airlayer just with its own rules ..
not sure about adding features on it though ...

In world war 2, no invasion of enemy territory happened without the navy.

All this never ending talk about "late game invasions are impossible" a space navy would do nicely in aiding an invasion.....

this is not WW2 nor RL ... full on spacenaval is not needed ....