Colored Base Borders

What's a base? Wait, those things in Red Alert 2?

I haven't been playing like that, I have just kind of built anywhere I could walk, up around and over included. How do you tell what is a base or not in this game, besides wanting to know what an enemy turret max range is, which still isn't a base persay because they don't build one in one place or they lose one in one place, the units pour through the created hole and dissolve everything behind the turret like acid while the turrets are left up to defend the scorched earth they used to defend.

to me this would be rather disrupting then cool or helpfull ... i would rather not have further filled up my view with more color as my units and structures already do that ...

Well, I think it would be rather helpful instead of annoying, if there were only some thin lines for borders, instead of shading the whole area in that color.

We'd have to have a mod to be able to program that, before we can judge whether that's true or not.

So like in O AD?

I like that. But in that game you can't put buildings in the enemy borders... it would look weird if you could. But at the same time it would be lame in PA if you couldn't put a turret in an undefended enemy base.

If it's pure for base visibility, than I would rather wait for the fog of war icons first and see if the game still needs something like this afterwards.

Could use the current Line of Sight radius?

should be definitevly toggleable

I think it would be most interesting to try some variations of this.

Id love to see it in the orbital layer however, your colour where your stuff is, and enemy colours wherever they have their stuff, spotted before or a live feed.

Giving a priority to the enemy colour over yours so you can see raiding forces in your bases, so you only see purely your colour where there is no enemy's at all.

None of that single dox being hidden by the strategic colour of your mega power base.

I don't know - it gives the game tools for enforcing various gameplay conditions.

And using fabbers as the basic shock troop is a bit lame currently.

good you came in here before me and linked your own thread.

really that thread should be revived. it was better
but the basic idea is base naming should probably be a 1.0 feature. dunno, just sayin'

I like that.
Hell, it could open the game up for tools such as Voice Acted Commands (VAC: http://www.dwvac.com/), making some of the game work like that older game, EndWars. You could simply say "group 1, attack, enemy base 1" or if you could use that entry point as well, it would be something like "group 1, attack, enemy base 1, entry A". You could issue a rapid amount of attacks without having to scour the planet for your armies.

start playing on BIG planets there you will have multiple Bases

Well based on what people like Meta think, having asked them directly to look at that thread, which is fair to assume isn't far from what the team thinks since I assume they don't work in isolation internally (based on what was said), I assume my ideas in that thread, while maybe not against their ideas are not compatible with their backlog of features—I would say it's fair to say they're too sophisticated for "their vision".

At the moment I only hope they're compatible with their modding ideas; as mentioned in other threads I don't buy into all-encompassing/generic/ambiguous promises such as "we'll have the greatest modding tools" until I see an actual implementation. I've yet to see even a description of one. When the development/modding tools come out for it with 1.0 I plan on trying to get most of the concepts as a mod, though somehow I expect it will take something like "modding 15.0" until the toolset is usable enough to be able to do it.

It would be interesting how they implement the more advanced modding features, I assume it's going to be something along the lines of how Endless Space does it where the mods are essentially like independent divergent expansions that you switch to (eg. http://forums.amplitude-studios.com/showthread.php?17287-A-Galaxy-of-Endless-Diversity), but since it doesn't appear they followed the way of "implenting everything they can in the game as a mod" understandably I have low expectations. The main issue is that Uber seems to have already written on stone tablets about how the way you interact with the game from a command and control stand point is like the only legitimate way to do it or something; similarly how they set in stone the units/tiers in the game. So a lot of your ideas, and a lot of my concepts are essentially incompatible given how the concept of orders as first class entities has been brushed aside in favor of click-unit-click-order with area commands (and from what I got from Meta what appears to be an very crude emulation of orders as first class entities using click-unit-click-order methodology as a reusable rally point system).

"Assualt One, Siege Three, Assult Nine, multiprong attack on Resource Base One"

That being said not the biggest fan of voice commands.

Really? It's too sophisticated?
StarDrive, a one man project, implemented the same thing.

With the sizes and stuff of armies, with the unit compositions in mixed armies, it's a necessity of convenience.

This is the way I envisioned it however - you would create an army (say 10 Alleged Tanks, 5 Spinners, and a combat fabber)

You'd save the army as a template

Then later you'd place the army where you wanted it, and those units would be requisitioned.

See: Distributed Rally Points and Reinforce machanic

Essentially same idea, only I suggested you would be able to get them as "Squads" that would have a unique single strategic icon for all the units together and would be selectable as a unit; you would be able to dissolve if you ever wished to. I didn't really title the section squads since the ability of squads to replenish themselves by generating orders to idle factories (ie. reinforce) and other considerations were more important to what I was suggesting there.

[read above quote first if you haven't]

Essentially it's not a problem of any one system existing but the cohesive design of the entire game. For example they have heavily focused on assisting as a required homage to previous games so (outside of introducing even more mechanics) something like the above ideas we both had are essentially flawd in the sense that they're not a piece that fits in the puzzle they setup; looking how the game is heavily biased towards assisting efficiently, over macro play.

Maybe my wording of "too sophisticated" isn't really fair to Uber's position in this case.

Probably a good analogy would be to a game of Carcasone. The first piece you start dictates what the other pieces have to look like and every piece has to fit with every other piece. If you, me or someone suggests a piece that only sorta-kinda fits on one side but doesn't naturally fit on the other sides, especially when as far as they're concerned the other pieces are now permanently on the board, they obviously naturally have little to no interest in it.

There are other considerations as well. It's fairly obvious that development is not about making the best strategy game [for everyone] but rather make the best "spiritual successor to Total Annihilation" for the die hard TA fans, if you like it or not. If TA didn't have it or the idea changes the feel of the game enough it doesn't feel like TA then it's very unlikely to get much of attention; at least from what I've noticed. Oh and please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not really referring to devs exclusively here, this is more or less what the community opinion stands as well; pretty aggressively from what I've observed. =P

And of course I'm referring to changes to the based game with the above; not modding.
Though modding is somewhat affected by the attitude as well.

it would cool to see such in the galactic war

Yeah, but they're also trying to make a game of large scale scope.


And well, when I'm playing, I don't feel that stuffing around with unnecessary logistics are really necessary.

I guess I'll agree to disagree, bu