Commanders do we really need then in open field?

I will be quick since i dont want to waste your guys time but playing planetary anihilation has raised a question why not just target the commander? to be fair thats one of the biggest problems i´ve been wandering about dosent matter having a galatic empire if your enemy can send all his nukes to your base and bombers to destroy your commander and make you lose the game, now i know that the commander suppose to be you but i´m just wondering about that problem the best solution should be making a shielded bunker for your commander only that actually needs ground units to disable and invade.
This would make harder for the enemy to destroy you since he would have to face your orbital defences, your ground defences and your local troops that would make the game more fair since your commander wouldnt have a big target on his back waiting to be nuked, surely you can always build antinukes and anti air however an entire galaxy empire shooting nukes against you? can you really defend your commander against that?
Anyway this is my first thread and i hope you guys agreed with me fell free to comment your opnion.
Good day to everyone

Commanders are supposed to be vulnerable as the game goes on. Build an Army and defenses to protect him or just remove him from danger by putting him on another planet/moon/asteroid.

Mike

Bunkers have been discussed many times in previous months. It really doesn't work. Bunkers don't protect a Commander from asteroids, and Supcom 2 hunker was terrible. They only serve to waste money and delay the inevitable.

The best defense for a Commander is to not be a target.

Commander vulnerability is a necessity. I already shudder at the prospect of a non-commander-death mode, if only because scouring multiple planets for every last building/unit would be a massive pain, moreso than finding just one commander among those planets is already.

I think commanders should be able to be upgraded, like in SupCom. Like maybe have an upgrade that makes the commander more resistant to nukes. There should also be a commander upgrade that allows him to shoot down T2 bombers easier, because 10 or 20 T2 bombers on your commander spells death, even without a nuke.

Why is there this obsession with upgrades ..do you realy think a commflak will save you against a bomberswarm when a amount of towers and Interceptors couldnt? ... ... there is a good reason why you build units
to let your enemies units NOT get through your comm ... those are what income should go towannnrds to ...

I like the idea of commander upgrades too although I think its been said it wont happen. I loved in supcom how you could make your commander a war machine or a construction juggernaut

I used to like games in TA that did not end when the commander died. On some massive maps you could make a very effective counter attack.

In PA this would not be realistic being able to hide a single unit on a moon somewhere. I still like the idea of commanderless combat though. With the size of armies in PA you could well win after your commander dies.

Perhaps we could do something like this in a game type where commander death is not a game ender.
If a players commander is dead AND that player has less than 5% of the units in the system then they lose.

The best defence is a good offence... Rather than wasting resources making your "com bunker" impenetrable, you NEED to have scouting intel. Anticipate enemy moves, scout, use orbital radar when you can, it works brilliantly... If they build a nuke, don't build and anti-nuke, nuke their nuke first! If you have the resources to build a really effective "com bunker" you would only need the com bunker if you build it. Spending those resources on defending your own com takes resources away from plotting the demise of the enemy's com. If you put all your resources into destroying the enemy's com or; "winning the game" you won't even need a com bunker. To keep your com safe from sneaky attacks or all out attacks if you have a smaller economy you need to know what's coming for you and move units or the com accordingly. Remember, the enemy team has to defend their com too! don't be afraid to try said sneaky attacks and generally make their day harder. It will tempt them to turtle up and build a com bunker, a good player would never do this. Keep pushing your offensive, destroy their economy and although it may be a slow road, you will win (assuming they don't outplay you because they have a greater understanding of the above)... If you both thwart any sneaky com snipes then the person with the largest economy will win.

Yeah, if I remember correctly, TA allowed you to keep playing the game even after commander was killed, but your eco suffered significantly from it. I like the idea of at least having that option in PA. Maybe have some other interesting win conditions as well.

I would however like the option of a conquest game setting, requiring the anihilation of all units, not just commander...

The TA Commander produced 1 Metal/s and 25 Energy/s.
Your economy suffered not one jot by his death, but your build capacity did. The TA Commander was a builder first and foremost with a build power of 300. By contrast the fastest building contemporary was the Adv. Construction Vehicle for either ARM or CORE or the ARM F.A.R.K. at 180.
(Technically the Adv. Construction Sub was better at 210 but had the problem of being confined to the ocean.).

The Commander from TA was just the number one best option when it came to building something fast since he was at minimum 30% more powerful at construction... 40% when considering land-only options...
and he could turn invisible to escape!

The PA Commanders, by contrast, are merely more efficient at building, not more powerful.
This is a problem.
---

Sorry, bit of a tangent. In any case; Commander fragility is by design. Nothing more to see here people.

Agreed but can you defend him against nukes from an entire galaxy? thats the question
thanks for the opnion

I agree thanks for seeing my point of view commanders are just way too weak and way too important a natural target for anyone
thanks for the reply

Galaxy? I think you have some false assumptions about What Galactic War Actually Is.

Mike

I like the idea this would make commanders less vunerable and make the game more fair

Commanders are supposed to be vulnerable. Mechanics to make them less vulnerable are counter to design. The game falls apart when you start removing the key point about the entire sub-genre

if the commander is vunerable whats the point of conquering planets if you can just nuke him or send bombers get it? it makes the game too fast

lets say planets then your enemy has like 10 planets each with 2 nukes can you really defend your commander against 20 nukes?
and yes thanks for the tip about galatic war i had a false assumption

It makes the game tend toward conclusion. Nothing more.

If you attempt to mitigate that simple game design goal then all you're doing is delaying the game. Games that drag on for hours because the Commander is too difficult to pin-down and kill is game breaking. As Commander offensive ability increases and fragility decreases the game get's closer and closer to being broken and unfinishable except by more and more desperate and drastic means.

You take the focus away from the meat of the game (commanding large multifaceted unit armies on the ground, sea and air) and more and more focus on asteroids and nukes (a small subset of flashy, but ultimately boring units) in an attempt to overcome the Commander's ability to either escape or survive being attacked.

Making the Commander stronger as a combat unit is a detriment to the goal of the game.
The commander should never be in the open field of battle. He should be behind the lines building things.