Commander upgrades

I think that in general the addition of commander upgrades in Supreme Commander was a good thing, what is Uber's view? Will we see them in PA?

The main reason I like them is one of utility: an unupgraded commander cannot risk being on the battlefield past a certain point in the game, so he is forced to retreat into a safe area (usually the main base). Effectively his role goes from a powerful builder and battle support unit to a valuable ming vase that will lose you the game if he gets cracked. Mid to late game units historically have been powerful enough to kill a commander very quickly.

Of the upgrades in SupCom, the ones I think should definitely make a comeback are the gun upgrade (increasing DPS and/or range), and the engineering upgrade (allowing him to build higher-tech structures than standard). In SupCom the engineering upgrade also increased health, and this is a feature I would also like to see return as it promotes using the commander aggressively.

I'm unsure about the other upgrades, some are not geared towards promoting combat (e.g. RAS - an upgrade that increases the mass and energy generated by the commander), and some others are so expensive and/or force the game to an end, for example a teleporting Cybran ACU with microwave laser.

What upgrades would be good to have back? Which should be abandoned? And are there any new upgrades that could be good, and why would they be good?

EDIT: Jetpack upgrade? This would fit within the overall game world and could allow a commander to get around quickly without needing a transport. The benefit of using this over a transport would be that it would be easier to ground the commander with enemy fighters inbound. There are several different ways this could work, either ten-second bursts that need time to recharge, or a toggle that effectively turns the commander into an aircraft until it's toggled off. Alternately you might have to select the landing point before he takes off, to avoid him being used as a high-HP gunship.

I liked the commander upgraded in Supcom1 and I definitely think they should make a come back. The commander is you and you are meant to be a dominating on the battlefield. Even though the commander D-Gun is already confirmed (one **** kill gun that uses alot of energy) i think there should be some other upgrades to go along with player Styles. I like to use my commander aggressively especially in early game, but upgrades are expensive i think there should be several tiers of upgrades that either add increased fire rate and stuff. Along with others to like i said go along with the players play style.

We might be using the most efficient mechanisms of war but people should be able to customise there commander to how they want to play, If that means making him a tank or or just a mobile Resource generator i think that they should allow it

Not a fan of upgrades in general.
Particularly ones that are not clearly visually discernible.

I could get behind the idea of commander upgrades, but they should be modest in number, and immediately apparent at a first glance.

There's a big difference between Supcom2-style nonsense upgrades and individual upgrades for the king of the chessboard.

In SupCom (the first one), the gun upgrade is very obvious on the UEF commander, less so on the others. It should be easy enough to make the upgrades obvious if they are limited in number and do something tangible (I couldn't tell you what any of the RAS upgrades look like in SupCom for instance).

What upgrades would be useful in the long run that wouldn't be better to have on the commander right off the bat?

I really liked commander upgrades in supcom and wish I could have got all of them instead of just 3 of them. I can see why they only allowed 3 though.

I don't even like MEX upgrades, but as your Commander is a unique, you never build another one so the upgrade process isn't as tedious.

Funny you should mention the Resource Allocation upgrade, that was one I particularly didn't like, I would like to able to raid any significant elements of an enemy's economy.

I'd like to see any commander upgrades kept simple and not increase micro.
That kinda rules out jump-packs and teleporters unless you turn them in to some sort of automatic emergency retreat system.

So what do I like?
Increased firepower from the addition of massive gun with a drastically different look and firing effect (e.g. basic laser -> monkeylord-esque sweeping beam),
Increased defense from a personal shield bubble,
Increased build power from a swarm of engineering drones that follow the commander around like a bad smell,
And probably anything else that adheres to the above.

If you give the commander a gun that is useful against mid-game units at the start, he will be overpowered. Likewise if he can build advanced structures right away.

If his guns and engineering skills are obsolete by the ten-minute mark, then he is an underpowered liability.

It's less tedious than the way TA did it. Replacing Mexes with Moho Mines involved an engineer and either a reclaim or a self-destruct command. Worse was that Moho Mines had a larger footprint than mexxes, so it sometimes meant clearing additional space as well.

Commander upgrades serve an essential utility in the game- keeping the Commander viable throughout. The original SupCom didn't have much in the way of genuinely useful ACU upgrades, and it was really painful as by the end, he was a giant "PLEASE SHOOT ME BECAUSE I SUCK". In FA, though, an upgraded and veteran Commander was something you could count on.

I much think that Commander upgrades- even just to boost his basic stats- are important. Even better if he can be upgraded to serve extra purposes- for example, stealth/maser/super engineer/artillery/etc.

I generally hate "hero unit" design in games. Largely for reasons already mentioned. That said, the commander is very clearly a hero unit and likely should have some aspects that enhance the "you only have one, can only get one, and out right lose when it is dead."

Specifically, I could envision something simple like a short range damage boost. Say 5% or something. This might make it worth someone risking the commander standing near a defensive line or a line of big guns, but it obviously makes him a nice juicy target too.

Similarly, late in the game for TA it becomes pretty wise to cloak him and hide him somewhere to prevent him from getting sniped. In PA, their should always be something to use the commander for, be it an off planet acquisition or assist trains, etc. In this regard, upgrading what the commander's build commands makes sense for off world expansions. No, I don't think he should be able to build T2 plants. But certainly T1 and maybe certain T2 base structures.

Lastly, weapons/defensive. One of the silliest strats in TA is to Peewee rush an enemy commander with 10 peewees. As weak as they were, 10 peewees will eat a commander. I don't really think of the commander as a unit that should be capable of being quick killed like that. A stronger point defense weapon, other then the Dgun is necessary. Peewees surround the commander and the Dgun costs too much to kill them all. Try it, its a guaranteed kill on a smaller map.

Similarly, Triple A. Commanders should have a very limited ability to deal with AAA. Are you seriously telling me that as the commander of this amazing force, with all the best tech, you thought to include a Dgun-of-awesomeness, but didn't think that a simple rocket launcher might help against a Air transport that picks your commander up and holds him next to your own laser tower which promptly kills both? Or that one irritating bomber that "that guy" built to slow you down?

Big thing is, in most games few of these changes will make any difference. It is unlikely on large scale games even offering a sight of an enemy early enough to make these changes over powering, but on smaller games it helps ensure you don't get 6-pooled. He doesn't need to start like a Krogoth, or even ever get near that powerful, but 10 peewees? Come on.

Primewar, have you played SupCom? The commander is much tougher, it takes 20+ tech 1 tanks to overwhelm him assuming no overcharge. His main gun is much more useful than the abysmal pea-shooter on the TA commander.

Standard Supcom gun does 100dps (kills tech 1 tank in three shots, tech 1 artillery in two), and can be upgraded to 200dps (still not very useful against T2 units, but will kill a lot more T1 than you'd think just from the numbers). I think that this should be a good starting point for the PA commander. Total Annihilation is great and all but the commander is made of flimsy paper.

But the D-Gun is much better than overcharge. Much more satisfying too, so I would hope that the PA equivalent is closer to TA in that respect.

I really did not like SupCom 2. Their commander upgrade system to try to keep your ACU as a viable combat unit was incredibly shortsighted, and created no end of problems.

The way the commander should be designed is that early game, he's tough enough to stop cheese from ending the game (although it can give the cheeser an advantage) by being unable to outright kill the commander.

Beyond that, there is no reason to have the commander scale. Mid game, the commander becomes a liability which needs to be protected at all costs, not an asset which can decide the game in your favor. And late game, the commander's only real defense is to have his position concealed from the enemy.

I could get behind a very select few upgrades which are visually obvious. I could see some merit to upgrading the commander's chassis to something interestingly different, such as having a bigger walker type, a ship version, or a spacecraft version, or perhaps even a structure version, each with their tradeoffs, and maybe having different functions and special abilities you can't get any other way.

I'm going to say right out that I liked the SupCom 2 upgrade trees. Now, with half of this forum grabbing their pitchforks and torches, I also know that there won't be any significant tech tree implementation.

That said, I would like to see some basic commander upgrades. Obvious ones; +health, +damage, +range, etc. Perhaps like this:

Commander has 2 upgrade slots, one is internal and one is "external". After slotting a module, you can upgrade it as many times as you want but for increased cost on each level upgrade. You can pick from several modules to stick in each slot:

--Internal--
Offense Package - +10% health, +25% damage, +30% fire rate, +10% range; each level gets you +5% health, +15% damage, +5% range

Defense Package - +30% health, +15 vision radius, commander gets a 2000 health shield; each level gets you +10% health, +5 vision radius, +750 shield

Engineer Package - +10% damage, +10% fire rate, +50% construction speed; each level gets you +5% damage, +5% fire rate, +10% construction speed

--External--
Flyer Commander - Makes commander a flying unit, +10% speed, +10% construction speed; each level gets you +4% speed and +4% construction rate

Sniper Gun - Gives commander long range sniper gun instead of regular weapon; each level gets you +10% damage and +5% range on sniper weapon

Army Support - Gives commander antiair guns and aura which boosts allied units attack damage by 10%; upgrade increases AA guns damage and aura boost by 4%


(specific suggestions are examples but get the point across)

That might be a bit elaborate but I think the idea of one or two purchasable, upgradable module slots is the right balance between flexibility and simplicity.

I really don't think this is fun. It lends way too much to "lol i just snipe ur commander" strats. And come on. I'm in a freaking commander suit here! I wanna go blast stuff, not cower behind shields/AA/antiartillery/whatever and be afraid of a tier 2 breeze blowing my way, much less anything that could be mustered lategame. If it's a hero unit, then let me be a hero please.

So thinking some more on Commander upgrades, the need to keep them relevant as the game progresses, and I thought of two simple options:

Level 2
A simple upgrade that buffs the Commander in all areas incl. access to T2 buildings.

Specialisations
Define some roles, and a package of upgrades that go along with it, you choose one and roll with it.
Like the above they get boost in all areas but it is biased in some direction.

For example:
Assault - Big incr. in DPS and Health.
Support - Big incr. in Build speed, T2 Buildings, some Health.

Keep in mind the need for these to be visually distinct so you can tell at a glance on the battlefield just what a Commander is packing.

That's a whole other discussion I'd happily engage with you in. But not in this thread.

The really stupid thing about spending resources to make your commander a better fighter, or however else you want to customize it, is that we absolutely do not want the commander to be a powerful piece.

The commander is like the king in a chess game. The king is a very weak and vulnerable piece. If the king in chess could be upgraded to be a powerful piece, the dynamic of "protect this piece" changes completely, and in a negative way.

The king in chess is not a powerful piece. And this is completely, totally, 100% intentional.

The only reason why the commander has any durability and combat power at all is so that it is relevant as an early game combatant, preventing cheese from being the way it is in, say, Starcraft. The cheeser might get some mexes, maybe energy, maybe even a factory, and this could give the other player a huge advantage. But you need a minimum of combat strength to actually kill the commander, which guarantees the game goes on for at least a certain duration, with some amount of interplay.

The lead dev of this game disagrees:

http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/pla...view-when-strategy-worlds-collide-with-moons/

I think Commanders should definitely scale with the game. I never really liked it that my commander became a liability in SupCom. Granted, the engineering powers of the commander got to be incredible, but it was still a liability from T2 on. Especially with the beautiful nuclear explosion The only commander that had any merit was a Cybran upgraded with stealth, cloaking, and a Monkeylord laser

I like the idea of packages, and the ability to scale those packages to match the game. However, A good way to differentiate with visual effects would be to take the approach of FA: upgrades for each arm separately, and an upgrade for the chassis. You could easily tell if the commander had an upgrade or not in this regard. And there's plenty of ways to theorycraft how to improve the commander, thankfully. The number of slots can be balanced in regard to how many packages the community/Uber thinks would be fair to have.

Why is this a good model? In chess, there's a tightly clustered army all around the King directly protecting it; in most RTSes (and presumably this one) your army is out fighting and it's impossible to afford really good defenses AND a good army unless you are ahead of your enemy by a wide margin. Thus leading to cheese (mainly commander snipes) which while within the letter of the game circumvents the spirit of "lets take 2 armies and fight each other".

(plus, what ooshr32 said)

Please also stop saying we when you mean I. We all have the ability to post our opinions. We don't need you to do it for us.

When it comes to the commander, I would like to see it remain a useful combat piece for early and middle game. By late game there is no way to make it durable enough to survive without seriously imbalancing other areas of the game.