Discussion: PA vs SupCom FA vs TA - Economy and Production effecting Gameplay

So recently watched a couple of videos of each game and noticed the differend economies in some detail ...
which led me to the question how good PA´s implementation of the streaming economy is compared to the other 2 ... i find PA is quite straightforward with it and as such imo probably the most playerfriendly implementation
but does it make it the best there is of the 3? is there something you would like to be changed or added to how the economy works?



what are the general differences?

TA: uses powerplants that are buildable on land and produce energy, uses metalextractors that need to be build on deposits and require energy in order to produce metal, constructors also produce metal and energy also add storage, uses thermalplants on geysirs, uses windgenerators on land that produce energy depending on windspeed and tidalwavegenrators on water, uses metalfabricators that require large amounts of energy, silos add storage, factories add storage, uses submersed metalextractors and powerplants

SupCom FA : uses powerplants that are buildable on land to produce energy ,uses metalextractors that require energy, uses metalfabricators that require large amounts of energy, uses hydrocarbonplants on hydrocarbondeposits, silos add storage, factories add storage, uses adjancecybonuses to reduce either metal or energycost on factories, or raises the output of plants and extractors/metalfabricators

PA: uses powerplants that are buildable on both land and water to produce energy, uses metalextractors that don´t require energy, silos add storage, uses jigs on gasplanets to produce power and energy, uses orbital solararays that function as moving powerplants



so there is that
the other things that mattes are productionspeed in other words how fast your constructors and factories aswell as the output of extractors and plants
but i don´t know the details

as far as i can tell
TA´s extractoroutput is pretty small and rather favors producing metalmakers and constructers
SupCom in that regard has fairish metaloutput imo and encourages expansion but also gives you the option of metalfarms ... however somehow the varius productionspeeds feel weird to me ... and personally i am not a fan of throwing 30+ engineers at one t3 factory ...
PA seems to fully favor expansion and territorial control since it refrains from using metalmakers but gives fair metaloutput ... productionspeed feels generaly fair aswell


So my general question is which games economy do you like best?
do you think any of the 3 games gameplay would benefit importing changes from each other or would it be rather harmfull? examples being adding metalmakers to PA or getting rid of them in the other 2, adjusting buildspeed and powerusage or extractoroutput etc.

I definitely like PA's the best. It's simple, it's concise, it doesn't require ridiculous mex upgrading calculations like supcom, and it doesn't involve the RNG wind energy generation of TA.

I think PA is overly simplified and it's my least favorite. I liked how in TA metal deposits varied in metal extracted. I also thought the geothermic plants added a little interesting map control as it was a cheap good alternative energy source. I miss a lot of TA's underwater buildings that added an extra layer of depth.

I'd like to see a third resource, crystals or something, that are a lot more rare than metal and used for some T2 units and buildings. This would force players to fight over certain areas of the map and create tension.

thx ... but absolutly not ...
fighting over resourses can be easily done with either limiting mexxes enough or adding a fair ammount on specific places that are meant to be controlled ...

personaly i hated the rngoutput on deposits ... to me consistent outputs are a must ...
as for underwaterbuildings we have orbital instead and i rather think it would be fairly difficult to read and control that stuff on planets .. so i am not sure ..

this i can actualy see being a thing certainly intresting for early game ...

I agree that geothermal vents should be introduced... As well as the "metal planet modules" that were proposed a while back, where there are certain specialized non-game-ending buildings that you could potentially place on the metal planet's "crossy bits".

I prefer PA's model, it's simple and easy-to-read. Also, SupCom FA had that wierd thing where structures had a power cost too, that really threw me off trying to understand what was going on. I like how PA encourages more expansion and is simple. Production speed could go a bit slower, but I don't have too much of an issue with it. As for more resource spot types (geothermal gysers and such) I guess it could be ok, as long as it's not overly complicated...

PA's economy has been done so many times now (TA, Supreme Commander, Supreme Commander 2, PA) I am ready for a new alteration on it, or something different and more meaningful. In it's current form it's very simplistic, boring and spamy.

Just because TA did it doesn't mean it has to be in this game. Same goes for a lot of the units that are basically clones.

Collection economy has been done so much more? And PA's economy and fabricator usage of said economy is actually very different from TA and supcom.

Though I must say- @MrTBSC TA did not have RNG for metal extractor count for metal being extracted, it was the same for every one of that same type, and you can memorize how much metal each metal deposit can give to you AFAIK.

BUT @blightedmythos much of the simplicity in PA is due to Uber's dedication to a philosophy know as "what you see is what you get" in that every single unit of one type will never be different from others Of the same type. Ex: My dox will never get a health buff because of some random research I had done.

However variable metal could be introduced and fit WYSIWYG if the model and icon change in some way to represent the change in production, and same goes for any unit that may change. (Though uber is against upgrades, veterancy, and special abilities outside of the commanders Uber Cannon)

Though I'd absolutely love to see some geothermal spots.

Which is a bummer because upgrades add so many interesting layers to a game.
1. No game plays the same
2. Progression for a player to unlock and work towards
3. Adds an extra layer of strategy
4. Lets you tailor units towards a players playstyle throughout a game.

I had no idea was against upgrades...So many bad development decisions.

For reference, TA had, economy-wise:
- Fixed energy generation from solar. There was actually a map parameter for it, but I don't think it was actually hooked up to the engine to cause it to change.
- Variable wind generation. Each map had a min & max wind generation amount, and the amount (and direction) of the wind changed at intervals. A nice visual touch was that smoke from missiles & wreckage was affected by the wind strength & direction.
- Tidal power. Constant, but varied on a map-to-map basis
- Geothermal power. High constant output, but fixed locations on the map
- Metal (surface). A small amount of metal could be gained from anywhere on the map. This was a large amount on metal planets.
- Metal (metal spot). Constant, but varied based on the spot. The visuals of the metal spot reflected how valuable it was, and so did the speed at which the metal extractors' blades turned.
- Metal making. Converted Energy into Metal. T2 Metal maker was considered largely broken balance wise.
- Wreckages: Reclaimable for metal
- Trees: reclaimable for energy (a few gave some metal on Lush tilesets)
- Rocks/structures (metal worlds): Reclaimable for metal.

Also, construction units all produced a small amount of metal & energy. Most mobile units produced energy too, but used the same amount constantly for no net effect. Radars were self sufficient (and therefore actually gained you energy if you turned the radar off). Factories also provided additional storage.

Supreme Commander 2 showed just how bad a design decision upgrades are in an RTS that isn't about small-scale tactical battles.

Having land units suddenly & magically gain AA just as your aircraft are heading towards them in not a good design decision. It's not strategy, because you cannot detect or control it in any form; it's far closer to pure luck. These sorts of things make upgrades bad in a game that isn't about small scale tactical engagements. Passive upgrades are just as bad - you can't look at a group of tanks and make a judgement call about how powerful it is, because it depends on what upgrades they have. And unlocking buildings/units via research is just terrible. Oh, they've gone nukes. Too bad I've automatically lost, since I didn't go anti-nukes and had no way of telling I should have.

OP, forgot to mention that the commanders from each of the games produce resources and storage. In SupCom, the ACU's and SCU's can be upgraded to produce more resources which is important because it allows for mobile resource generation (PA's Solar Array as well). This allows for a base to very much be mobile or at least have the ability to set up shop elsewhere relatively easy. Add in mobile factory experimentals and T3 aircraft carriers from SupCom and you can basically have a mobile-ish base (mobile factories and carriers could not build on the move).

With Jig's, PA has a unique resource generation where it produces both mass and energy on gas giants. Sort of equivalent to hydrocarbon and geo-thermal vents found in SupCom and TA, respectively, but without the mass.

SupCom's Paragon is also a nice structure; basically unlimited resource production. Very handy for doing unit testing or spamming Colossus.

Let us not also forget reclaim, which is more prevalent in SupCom and TA, that can allow for a more pseudo- mobile resource production.

I feel PA's economy for gameplay is definitely the easiest to grasp. Just wish the UI had some features that showed the top 5 metal and energy consumption , that was present with UI mods in SupCom.

I do prefer SupCom's economy though. Not sure if it's just because I am accustomed to it, but I do like all the options that are available to you. Yes it did lead to optimized build patterns that you just had to follow, but I think that could have been fleshed out better if GPG had the time (money and permission from the publisher) where there could have been multiple avenues to create your economy that were more or less equally viable.

I do hope unit wrecks come back though, in the way SupCom had them (did not block shots or movement), but at a reduced reclaim amount (SupCom had around 80% of the mass value in the wreck, should be brought down significantly).

Edit*
Completely forgot about TA's metal maps, so much fun.

Actually it's very easy to tell from one unit to the next if there is a visual indicator. For example upgrading your guns on a tank would show larger caliber barrels (or more of them!). If you wanted to add AA to ships for example, you'd see a new AA battery on a ship. A lot of your arguments I'll agree are maybe bad in multiplayer, but passive upgrades and active ones are VERY fun and interesting in a single player environment. Especially if it's progressively done over a series of missions. Also, there are many ways to do upgrades, I'll agree the Supreme Commander 2 didn't necessarily handle them the best way. I also hated the building unlocks via research. But just because one game handled them poorly doesn't mean all games do. I can list examples if needed.

Also, interesting quirk about reclaim & storage in TA - You got the full amount of metal from a reclaimed object at once, at the very end of reclaiming the object. That made storage very important on some maps, like the urban ones, where there were lots of very high metal reclaimable objects.

That's true, but the thing with Uber's design philosophy on WYSIWYG is that it doesn't actually rule out some of the good ways of doing them, as long as there are visible differences. The key rule of thumb is that two units that look the same should act the same in every way. As long as you don't violate that, then they are ok from a WYSIWYG perspective. There are other design considerations too though, but they depend on the specific style of upgrades you are implementing.

Raevn, you definitely provide some interesting thoughts to the discussion. I'm glad you are open to some change if done right. I am curious to see what Uber has in store. I'm surprised they haven' considered an expansion pack or something.

you hit the nail on the head good sir.

for a veteran TA/FA player, the economy in PA is nonexistant.

you won't have to worry much about ballancing them nor will you ever worry much about whether the bar is full or empty.

Zhaphod has demonstrated well enough that playing with an empty bar (or empty bars) is the same thing as full.

so if economy doesn't matter, that's half the gameplay out the window for you there.

I think the gas giant could fill this role. The only problem for now is, that you can build anywhere there, but only fight for it with one single unit (+ one defense structure). If either there would be a soild planet having some special eco boost resources spots, or some more variety in orbital combat it would be a good step in your suggested direction.

I think maybe a good change would to have mex require energy to work at full capacity with a reduced capacity at low energy.... maybe = to your current build rate % this would lead to interesting choices on sniping power plants to gain the economic advantage rather than just being able to build 15% faster than the guy on now low power
I think we would see more solar satellites as people try and keep power in more than one singular easily raid able spot

Actually your right, and that's a good solution.

Tommybananas you also have an interesting idea. Sort of reminds me of old C&C without as bad of a penalty haha.

we have variable metal in the form of wreckage and reclaim already .. adding varrieng depositions of metal or varieing output dependant on energy makes it more and more difficult for players to reliably produce units and stuff .. i would not want to have the basemethod of gaining resources be messed around with ... especialy not in a streaming economy

I like PA's economy and I don't really agree with @tatsujb that the economy doesn't matter. It's less punishing than the previous games, but you will still have less stuff if you have less economy. Playing with empty bars kinda makes sense as it means you are spending your resources as opposed to wasting, but if you play too much in the negative then everything produces really slowly. At the end of the day, more metal = more units, which I think is good.