Height Range beyond 100

Were you talking about 100+ height ranges, or parabolic projectile ranges here?

I find they look that way already. I think it's more a problem with the mountain props themselves.

Parabolic ranges.

I agree, I think the Mesas are about right but could be wider, but mountains are very small.

Well then, I'd like you to explain how on earth parabolic range would have an adverse effect on 'actual balance'. Spherical range leads to a reduced horizontal range for both high and low ground. If spherical ranges are used, building a pelter on a mesa is actually a bad idea because of this (although the difference it makes is negligible due to the mesas being particularly short). It takes away most of the impact high ground could have on the game, to the point where it's almost irrelevant (as it is right now). Parabolic range, if it is/can be implemented, resolves this problem.

A sphere range is predictable.

Parabolic range isn't, and screws with the balancing of weapons that are designed to have a set range.

Spherical range is predictable, yes, but is that necessarily a good thing? Parabolic range isn't random, it's calculated and can be rendered just as easily for visualizations.
The difference is that one is so predictable that terrain makes no difference. The other actually leads to terrain providing some strategic depth. Simplifying this kind of mechanic to "not predictable enough = bad" is not a valid point. The game has simulated projectiles for a reason, and that is not to be as predictable as possible for the sake of perfect unit balance, which should be done in respect to the mechanics. Units balanced for parabolic range are not 'less balanced' than ones balanced for spherical range, the mechanics governing balance are just more involved.
A simulated projectiles system is (presumably) used to add strategic depth to unit movements and positioning, and with spherical ranges on everything, a good part of that is negated.

Predictable mechanics are essential to having a game people can actually get good at.

And really the only true advantages for a parabolic system are for the units who can actually use it, artillery, and that's a bag of cats that is hard enough to balance.

its ironic isnt it. suddenly plants actually looks fun and interesting, no more just a round boring ball

Ive been enjoying these wacky shaped planets as well. Hopefully these planets will become the norm, instead of 100% round planets.

I think I should clarify something here; parabolic range is not strictly unpredictable, it's just harder to predict, and the only reason for that is because you have to take the terrain into account. That's strategic depth. Again, harder to predict does not translate to bad. It can be bad if overdone to ridiculous complexity, but in this case the change would only give terrain a greater role in combat, something I believe is lacking in the game.

As for artillery being particularly hard to balance, I disagree, but there isn't really a good way to argue on how difficult something is to balance. I think bombers, tanks, naval and orbital units will probably be more difficult, but it's not something I can say concretely.

I can't say I am sold.

k

Pretty sure there was a thread about this a while back where people would compete for largest height value, believe I recall someone getting to 6000 with a pretty awesome rig.

damnit i keep trying to spin the planets XD

interesting, I never saw units walk into the ground before, is this a new thing?

Do you actually understand what you are arguing for? If range is a sphere, then artillery placed on higher ground shoots less far? That is totally unintuitive, unrealistic, and removes strategic value from the game. I could see arguing for a circular range, but spherical would just be weird.

No need to be condensing, I understand the implications.

I however still prefer spherical range.

I wasn't trying to be condescending, I really wondered if you understood the implications. Personally, my first thought on seeing plateaus was "I want to put artillery up there!", but that doesn't do you any good in a spherically ranged world.
Now, making a joke about "condensing", that would be condescending, but I wouldn't want this forum to get all steamy!

That is my thought too. plateaus should give a range and height advantage but not true they don't. Would add more strategic depth to the game. Mountains would become contested territory due to their strategic advantage.

Even fairly mild height ranges tend to break units' ability to see and attack each other. 'Flat' RTSs have generally had a convention of relying on flat terrain separated in height by levels, to make it more apparent where height variations exist.

If unit line of sight could be made visible to the player and restricted by height variations, that would make it more apparent. Unfortunately, I think the dev team has put that in the "more trouble than it's worth" category.

why

?