Construction units

TA dealt with construction units in a particular way, and Supcom tried to correct some of the problems with TA's method and possibly went too far. So what should PA do?

In TA, the system was complicated. There were five or six different types of vehicle, and each type had two construction vehicles. So there was Construction Land Vehicle which came from the tank factory, and an Advanced Construction Land Vehicle that came from the advanced tank factory. The only unit in the game that could build the advanced tank factory was the standard Construction Land Vehicle. The Advanced Construction Land vehicle could build advanced buildings and also the standard tank factory (but not the advanced tank factory).

A similar story was repeated across K-bots, planes, boats, and hovercraft.

Supcom did away with all that entirely. A tech 1 engineer can be made from any factory, regardless of the factory's tech level, and can build any T1 structures. A tech 2 engineer can be built from any T2 or higher factory, and can build any T2 or lower structures. All engineers in Supcom are amphibious, and none can fly.

Flying construction units are therefore an area which Supcom ignored (except for one faction that could make engineering drones - these could assist and reclaim but they could not initiate a build), and I think that this was to the game's detriment.

TA's construction planes had very poor build speed to offset their mobility, and compared to fighter planes they were very slow, which made them more vulnerable.

Which elements were better in TA, and which did Supcom do better?

Is it better to have an all-purpose engineer as in Supcom, or does having more limited build menus as in TA promote more tactical thinking?

Didn't TA also have boat engineers? Personally I think TA was a little too complex in this manner, whereas SupCom did it well, but could have done with some changes.

I think having two seperate land factories is overkill, so seperate walking/driving engineers is out. Boat engineers could be fun, but only if a noticable proportion of the maps have realistic sized oceans (ie. 2/3 of the world covered in water), or if there were whole water worlds (I'm starting to think this could be an expansion pack/DLC, preferably free...). Air engineers would be okay, but I found the method of shoving standard engineers in transports to build in funky places worked quite well in SupCom, and stopped people like me creating sneaky missile bases for comm-sniping too easily.

I think engineers should be able to build lower teir structres, at a higher speed than their lower teired counterparts.

Most importantly, I think that engineers need to be very easily recognisable. SupCom did this quite well in that T1 stuff had 1 "building nozzle", T2 had 2, etc. TA was a bit "meh" in this regard because although the engineers looked different, there were so many different designs it was a bit tricky to know what did what (for yourself and the enemy).

Oh also, engineers MUST be able to team up to build stuff quicker. Not quite 1:1 (so 2 engineers build stuff twice as quickly), because that encourages using 999 engineers on a single nuke launcher, rather than building several nuke launchers with smaller clusters of engineers, which would obviously be cooler.

That's reminded me of something I meant to put in the original post. Identifying the tech level of a factory at a glance can be tricky in Supcom, so rather than just an extra tower on top of the factory there should be some clear way of seeing that a factory is a particular level. Maybe use a different secondary colour to denote tech level?

Well we already know there is planned to be airborne Engineers, seems they can be built normally and are also used to transition from moons to asteroids(using a launch and transport vehicle I'm assuming can only be used form moons due to the lower gravity)

I didn't play much TA, and just a smidge more of TA Spring, but in SupCom I never really wished to have flying engies. If you really needed to get to secluded areas you had easy access to Transports.

All that being said I don't mind if they bring back Air Engies, I just thinkto make sure they fill a solid role you need to land lock Land Engies, they shouldn't be amphibious. This gives the Air Engies a full, distinct role when dealing with oceans and such, even without any Naval units they'd still play a big role in expanding your territory where water or even just large distances come into play.

Ehh, Maybe for a new player, but over time the differences become more apparent. I'd say it's easiest to identify Aeon and UEF, Sreaphim are just so weird they came more getting used too and Cybran are fairly dark so it can be hard to tell, but with Cybran the Facs tend to get a lot "denser" as they get upgraded.

Also speaking of Factories, don't forget that in TA you didn't upgrade Facs, just built the advanced versions separately, while in SupCom you had to build T1 Facs and Upgrade them, you couldn't. A small change that lead to lots of different changes in gameplay you might not have expected.

Mike

I am not sure if the engeneer we saw used from moon to asteroid is a Engeneer in the Classical way. Despite the small size of a asteroid and the way they showed it how it would look, it seemed more for me that it is some kind of deployable base unit that launches to a asteroid, depoys itself and then construct from this deployed mode the needed reactors and engines to make itself to a weapon.

And they did only 4-5 models for units in the video. Actually we simply dont know how they plan to do the Asteroid buildstuff. And i am not sure if they will reveal it allready, or do they? *looks to the Dev´s* >.>

No, if you look at the Video carefully you can see Air Engies on the planet (0:12) and you see them a bit on the Moon as well(0:50) and here you see them on the Asteroid (1:12), if you look at them closely its pretty clear they are the same Air Engies fro the Planet and Moon. The Landing Module used to get them from the Moon to the Asteroids is just a basic transport, I doubt it does anything once it lands on the asteroid. It's possibly those Lander units could be special build with the Air Engies included, but so far it doesn't look like it's any kind of Kennel type unit/building.

Mike

Yes but at Moon to Asteroid this "Things" , Transporter or whatever, dont unload cargo. No Drone, no Robot, they land themself and seem to dissepear after they landed, cause when the asteroid is in build/finished building, you dont see any units whatsoever on the asteroid itself. Just Buildings on the surface and the drive building.

You see also in the first Launch Planet->Earth that it is Commander Loading, with this Transport/Engeneer unit, and in the moon->asteroid, it is only "Engeneer Deployment" and except for the _mostly_ same appearances of the unit, the Moon->Asteroid Units dont have 4 big thruster, 1 each side, and they dont got 4 big thruster at the bottom. They are designed like Lunar Landers and seem to have no Cargospace at all.

Its not the same Unit, check the Models carefully. I think they only used the same basemodel but these two units from Planet Launch and Moonland to the Units from Moon to Asteroid are deffinitly 2 kind of Units.

Edit: The 2 smaller planes, if you mean them, i think they are more like construction drones that are a part of the buildup from the Landerunit to a Structure.

Honestly, I'd like to try both options - a generic builder unit, and a more diverse palette of builders with specialized construction options. I always had problems trying to find the specific construction units I needed - It can get silly in a hurry. Most games in TA, I'd just spam out T1 and T2 construction aircraft.

No offense, but I don't think you really looked at the video. Let me show you.

So here we see a bunch of Air Engies on the Planet;

Note ALL the unique aspects, the little wing-a-lings extending beyond the thrusters, how the thrusters remain level while the main Hull rotates itself, the 'Loaf" shape of the Main Hull and the 2 Nanolathes that hand down underneath.

Now look at the Engies on the Moon;


All the same features are still present.

And now to look at the "Landers"


Still the same features as from the planet and moon engineers


It's a bit harder to see them on the Landers because they're all folded up, but if you look at the second pic you can see the little wing-a-lings folded up in the inside of the wings, then you look at them when they reach the asteroid;



And here we see they are the same Air Engineers, the Lander is more likely than not just a fancy transport specifically for getting from Moons to Asteroids.

Or they just evacuated all the units prior to activation the thrusters, or they were on the other, we shouldn't be trying to draw conclusion from what we DON'T see, but rather what we DO see.

Mike

Maybe there could be an engineering base unit, like a 'micro-commander', unarmed and capable of building things on land and maneuvering in zero-g... but it can enter into and control 'engineering rigs' specific to certain terrain types, e.g., a vehicular one, a naval one, or an aero one.

Or just upgrade the individual engineering units with capabilities (and update the 3d model accordingly)...

I did like how SupCom changed the engineering system overall, but I also missed the aerial engineers. Maybe engineers could have jetpacks that consume energy and reduce build speed when they're active?

Edit: Just saw the new post -- so if they use air engineers as default... looks awesome?

From the looks of things in that trailer, Uber are interested in bringing back the humble Flying Engineer, in TA they were very useful as you could put a turret on top of a Mesa and surrounded with walls for cover.

But from the looks of things, though I know its just a pre-visualisation of their direction, the planet in the trailer itself was very flat with grey rocky outcrops, their were very little in the ways of hills, mesa, buttes (I think there was a very exagerated mountain in the video), so it calls into question on the Flying Engis usefulness.

Yeah actually I noticed too that there didn't seem to be any land base engineer units, doesn't mean there won't be mind you, just that we haven't seen them yet, but I kinda like the idea of all Air engies, gives you good mobility and solves the "bumper Cars issue" many had in SupCom:FA(too many engineers crowding around build projects and such)

And so long as the Commander is a better builder than the air engies he'll still be valuable for setting up new bases much faster......

Mike

Or it is some kind of construction drone, no offense but did you read my answer Orange? There are no Drones of that kind to see in the construction of a asteroid, atm more points to somekind of a module build on a asteroid without involving units then to a constructer that is transporter to the Moon.

What we do see is that they are 2 drones deattaching from the Unit send to the asteroid, and what we do see is no actuall units in the construction from the asteroid to a flying bomb.

Also you forget the Menue that shows the launch of the asteroid that shows the "Transport" unit how you would call it as a engeneer unit itself.

You see here the Commander as the Unit that get Transported to the Moon:


And here you see the Unit that looks similiar to the Transportunit that had the Commander loaded, but it isnt the same Unit. The Menue show it as a Engineer:


So i would assume the flying units detaching are support building drones for the Unit itself so it can construct itself to a base of some kind on the Asteroid. Because we also dont see any of the flying "Drone Builders" when the Asteroid is shown in 2 builded stages.

Btw. you also draw conclusions couse you saw units similiar to this flying around on the Planet and Moon. But when they builded a building they seemed more like a part of the Building itself in the construction process. So there is no way to tell from that if this unit will actually the standalone builder. Thats a conclusion. If we would see that a Unit gets selected and gets a buildorder we would know it for sure.

Remember that “engineer” is the word in Supcom for what was called a construction unit in TA. “Engineer” might have an entirely different meaning in this game.

In TA the construction units were identified by having yellow and black stripes, exactly the same as the flying nanolathe units in the PA concept video.

But still i am not convinced that they are as a standalone unit on the asteroid itself in the construction process. There isnt enough data to confirm that.

Maybe Neutrino wanna write somethin in that matter?

BASE 01: MAVOR PRIME

I like this.

I prefer different types of engineer. There are more choices to be made if you have to pick which type of engineer to use. For example air constructors would more quickly capture all the mexes in jagged terrain but there is a risk due to fighter flyovers.

Because we don't see the full construction period of the asteroid, it's only a 2 stage fade-in-fade-out time lapse, and the asteroid is round, it's entirely possible the units just weren't where we could see them or they were simply forgotten, this is only a visualization so it could be just a plot hole.

I don't find that to be conclusive at all, either the Commander Icon or the Engineer Lander could be wrong, the commander should be shown loaded into the Lander Module. Frankly I'd argue those Icons are superfluous anyways, it doesn't make sense from a gameplay UI perspective to tell the player what he just did, he knows he's loading up his commander to fly it to the moon because he JUST gave that order.

Except they aren't "similar" they are the same, as you said, "did you even read my post?" Study those pics and you'll see they are clearly the Same Units.

Also study the video and during the first 20 seconds you'll see 3 separate instances of the Air Builders flying in a straight line, moving from one project to the next one I'd assume, so I doubt they're just drones that appear out of nowhere because the commander started a building project.

Mike

Still it is conclusiv to assume the drones that the lander on the asteroid has with it, are units of its own. And why they should forget it to show them on the asteroid if they had made sutch great detail in the Planet and Moon phase? That makes no sense. The only way to get a straight answer how the Asteorid Buildprocess works can come from the devs.

And it is a assumtion from you to assume the 2 loaded flying dronelike units are builders of there own on the asteroid, as it is that i assume it is somekind of deployable commandpost for asteroid building.

And why the Icons should be wrong? Dont get me wrong, but you simply say all indications that could point in a other way are wrong, mistake by the designer in the video or else. Do we act now on what we see in the video or do we just say 50% are wrong and only 1 version of interpretation fits?

Ofc they seems to be Air-based engineers, no doubt about that, on there own on a Planet and the Moon, but they dont appear to be a unit on there own on a asteroid and the indications doesnt point to a pure transport like ship that only transport 2 air engineers on the asteroid.

Still a little explenation how the asteroid buildprocess works could be help, specially what we see there in the video.

The possibility of them being on the other side of the moon is quite high or they might have moved on to another asteroid. If the asteroid is going to be destroyed it would make no sense to let them die.

They look exactly like the construction units earlier in the video, i say that is supporting evidence for OrangeKnight.

Why would a construction unit be stand alone on a planet or moon but not be stand alone anymore when on an asteroid? That just seems strange to me.
I do not understand where you get "dont appear to be a unit on there own", i clearly see them flying away from the "transport" which in my eyes make them there own unit.

But lets not forget that it is only a gameplay visualisation so much may change during development.