I hate water maps & the navy

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by Quitch, March 7, 2014.

  1. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    Id like it if the naval fabber was either the quickest builder, or the most economical.
    stuart98 likes this.
  2. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    I disagree. The balance between turrets and land units is rather nice. The issues are the balance between t1 units and a fully powered commander, t1 & t2, t2 & the comm. You can quite easily eat a large number of t1 units with a fully powered commander and once you've got shellers/gunships/hornets, it's lights out.If your tech base is small enough, the free expand is negated - they can't attack the core of your economy without being attacked themselves. You just don't have to build military in this game.

    My issue is the harassment feature. There's not really any point building t1 units that are bad at harass (t1 tanks, bomb bots, anti-air), when you can just build their upgraded units.

    There's no point building t1 units when we are given interplanetary starts/on very large planets (proportional to number of players).

    Asymmetric starts in Galactic War battles will result in person with access to higher tech first wins. There isn't further strategy in a system where t2 is outclassed by t1.



    Edit:

    Lol, I didn't realise the cost change.
    Last edited: March 9, 2014
    Quitch likes this.
  3. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    Umm, do we actually have confirmation on this?
  4. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    No, we don't, but not having such a feature makes the galactic war inferior to RoNations conquer the world game, Risk (board game) and Star Wars EaWs Galactic Civil War gamemode.

    It makes no sense to be invading the enemies homeworld to find that all they have on that planet is a single commander chilling out, or that their base is as large as yours.
  5. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    It depends on a lot of specifics of lore and mechanics to have stuff like that.

    As the commanders are strictly a mobile force.

    You cannot assume something, and state it as fact without having proof.
  6. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    I'm not stating it as fact. The current mechanics invalidate asymmetric starts.

    As for my assumption:

    PSA - What GW actually is:

    There's nothing "exciting" about being attacked in the system you just captured to find you have to start again.
    Many of the other RTS metagames that have been around have strategic bonuses to capturing systems, and have a system where areas under your control gradually upgrade the starting infrastructure as you hold them.
    vyolin likes this.

Share This Page