No more: 100 engineers around a factory

This image is misleading because it's obstructed by shield graphics. Still, Zordon is correct, it's still easy to see that the lower factory has more build power allocated to it.

Even if that's not good enough for you, there are solutions to these problems, even if a lot of people here don't even think it's an issue.

I think a lot of people are arguing from different directions. They then disagree because everyone has a personal ideal game which puts different weights on features. As in someone says "I want X because X->Y and I want Y". Then other people argue by saying they don't want Y. Nobody will be convinced of anything in this situation.

There are also cases where the opposition does not want X and suggests a different way to implement Y. Unfortunately there seems to be some confusion at this point separating X from Y. But even if we agree on some Z for Z->Y there will be people that don't like Z and the process starts again.

So how about instead of wandering around this implication space we put our opinions aside for a while and try to map it out? Then people could just identify where they stand and figure out if they necessarily disagree with someone else. Of course we'd have to agree on the map but that sounds relatively easy.

I am going to try and start this. Who agrees with these advantages?

Advantages of factories
If you only assume factories are static buildings which create units in a single build queue then I think there are the following reasons to produce them

Provide a build queue. Say you have a factory which can build a very expensive unit as well as some cheap AA. If you are mid way building an expensive unit but quickly want cheap AA you would have to cancel the expensive unit if you only have one factory.

Access to new units. Adding a factory of a type which you do not own gives you access to more types of units.

Advantages of engineers (or cons if you want)
Engineers can assist factories and each other. They may have build options, they may have the ability to move.

Speed up linear unit construction. Additional factories will not decrease the time it takes to build an individual unit. Sometimes it is important that you have 1 one as fast as possible instead of 2 units in twice the time.

Flexible assisting. Engineer power can be move to different tasks to quickly change what is being built (unit types as well as structures). This requires planning to do with static engineers.

Constructing structures. If you have engineers which can build structures they can expand. At least one is needed at a base to start structures.


Additional advantages can be added to either of these units such as good BP/cost or high HP. My point is they are independent.

We're going in circles.

The supposed flexibility-argument is invalid because it's a consequence of the disproportionate construction capacity of engis compared to factories.

The only reason why you would have so many engineers compared to factories is their cost/production ratio.

Ledarsi got that completely in his post about his idea and it has been mentioned before.

And as shollosx points out, a swarm of engineers can be completely balanced. But that doesn't justify the visual clutter, the physical clutter with pathfinding problems, delays on asists, creating a ton of engis chiefly for assist and a weak centralized economy.

That is ridiculous and unreasonable. And so is thinking of factories with a decent factory-like output as a constraint. You might as well think of having to build a factory to gain access to unit construction a constraint because you just want to use a mass of sprawling engis. Industry and factory implies high output.

Being unable to assist unit construction or whatever the hell with engis would be an immense unwanted constraint. But why would you assist factories that output for example 50 times as fast if you might as well use your engi's to build other factories with 50 times their output? By the time your assisted factory reaches a reasonable number of units, the new factory has been built and churned out the double amount of that.

Do you really like constructing enormous amounts of engis just to sit by the side of a single factory? Or would you rather have them do more interesting stuff, like building cannons on the front lines, repairing your units, and leave unit construction to (what's in a name) construction plants?

Opinions are like assholes we all have one and no one really cares about anyone else's.

As mush as I liked several of the ideas proposed, to tidy up things i would be very surprised if anything is changed from TA, also this is not a game by consensus i think the best we can hope for on the forum is to inspire, may be offer a sample group for reception of new ideas.

Sorry, but it's really not. Factories lock your buildpower to a specific list of units, engineers are able to assist any kind of construction, giving you buildpower that can be redirected as needed. If you nerf engineers buildpower so much that they are useless to assist that is functionally equivalent to removing assist entirely. Gameplay trumps realism, I literally could not possibly care any less about whether it offends your sensibilities that 'engineers' build at 1/4 the rate of 'factories'. That ratio gives better gameplay than some ridiculously high number that renders assisting useless.

Wrong again. Let me repeat - being able to redirect buildpower is extremely important. You could reasonably argue that the mass/buildpower ratio should be worse for engineers so that flexible buildpower is a conscious decision you have to make vs factories higher efficiency, but claiming it's entirely about mass/buildpower betrays a deep lack of understanding of the mechanics of TA/supcom style games.

All these things are at best matters of opinion, and in one case completely irrelevant (TA/supcom pathfinding was bad, PA is confirmed to be using something at least as powerful as flow field which eliminates the issue).

Once again, you are appealing to realism. Ok, so you don't like the idea of a mobile constructor called an 'engineer' producing at 1/4 the rate of a stationary constructor called a 'factory' because factories in the real world are vastly more productive than anything that can be described as an engineer. I don't care. The gameplay is what matters - and engineer assistance providing a significant proportion of your total buildpower works. We have three games so far built around this model, they all work and work well. Throwing it away because you think the world 'factory' implies vastly higher productivity would be a terrible decision. Flexible buildpower lets you react to new intelligence, whether that is 'oh god, they're building an <insert weapon here> I need to build <insert counter here> as fast as possible!' or "ooooh, they're missing <insert defence here> if I build <insert unit/weapon here> I can screw them!' It makes for faster paced, more dynamic gameplay with fewer situations where you discover your opponent's plan and are left with no possible way to evenm attempt to counter it. Sitting around waiting to die/realising that you could have won if only you'd psychically known to build the right factory so you could build unit X is crappy gameplay.

I completely agree. Factories lock your buildpower to a specific list of units. Let every engineer be able to build anything so you're not constained by these arbitrary gameplay limitations!

Or maybe we could let construction plants have a construction capacity worthy of mention as well, instead of mainly providing a list of units which in fact is what the "100 engi assist"-approach implies.

And you're right again! I like to use my engis to build a base and defences at the front and repair damaged units while the factories churn out the required amount units. You like to build a beehive of engis to be sitting around factories most of the time, and that's great, because people should have that choice. However, now we don't have a choice because a construction plant cannot compete to engis.

No opinion, just facts.

Heh, nice work, you have completely failed to debate any of my points. You've tried to use sarcasm and hyperbole to replace actual valid argument. Teching up in any of the TA/supcom/FA games is a major decision which has significant strategic implications. And you know what? The massive engineer swarm only actually exists once you've reached the highest tech level.

Let me repeat, just because a structure is called a 'factory' that doesn't mean it should have vastly more production capacity than a mobile unit called an 'engineer' if that leads to bad gameplay. This is a game, fun beat the hell out of realism.

I hate to tell you this, but saying 'no argument just facts' doesn't mystically transmute your opinion into indubitable fact. You have yet to even come close to addressing the central concern here - flexible buildpower vs fixed buildpower. Your whining about aesthetics is irrelevant - gameplay consequences are so much more important that the aesthetic side is utterly worthless in comparison.

It's not only for 'realism' or 'look'. But for me to be able to quickly make a huge army you have to plan it. It's important to have a strategy and not only "oh I didn't think of that nor did I scout.. whatever, I just put all my engineer on what I need".
It's important to be able to scoot you oponnent and gather information about their plan.
Has he got more tank factories? more air factories? It adds a lot of "intel gathering" on top of the strategy.

Btw, I'm not against 4-5 engineer helping, I'm against instabuild of units.

This.

This is why it's important. PA is going to be larger scale than Supcom / TA, so addressing game mechanics that are issues in the late game can only help the overall game.

Engineering assist is a great feature, I don't want it removed, but I WOULD like to see options for all the points I've raised above (base clutter, engineer management, etc etc). If it's as basic as just an option to 'garrison' engineers in a factory, that'd be fine too. All I'd like is a way to see how much mass/ energy a particular factory is using, and remove base clutter because it makes it hard to gather the information you need in a glance. Less time staring at your base trying to figure out which engineer isn't working = more time to go blow stuff up.

Can you please quit being arrogant and only denigrate whatever I say, but instead read what I actually say?

Construction plants cannot construct units in a considerable way. You will lose without engiswarms.

You have to build a lot of additional engis you wouldn't need if the factories had decent output in the first place, then let them sit around a factory for most of their lifetime. Otherwise you will lose in the end.

How can you seriously call this awesome flexible gameplay without a true alternative? Even if you do, the difference with real construction plants is that the latter is actually clean and simple. No clutter, no UI issues, no delays, all is obvious. Yet somehow you seem to like that... Doesn't bug me, but it would be very nice to have a clean and simple alternative like many here have asked.

Something just got my attention. Engineers are opposed to factories because they allow flexibility. That is true, they can emphasize one construction or one production instead of another one and I think this is a good tool.

However I don't agree that factories just have a fixed buildpower. Factories can be turned on and off, here is the flexibility. Let's say I have 8 factories pumping out tanks but I suddenly want to build a costly thing. I can cut off the production of 4 factories to get more income for my construction.


I was playing SupCom recently and I think I understood why so much engineers are used in this game. The base construction rate of factories is boringly slow. Way to much slow compared to the pace of battles. You takes minutes to build a unit destroyed in one or two shots. In my opinion it seems logical that if units die fast, they should be builded fast. With a faster base construction rate, a lot less of engineers would be used.

I agree that with a low construction rate, having multiple factories is just painfull. We prefer to have one units each minute than having 5 units after five minutes. Again the base production have to follow the pace of battles. I think this is the most important thing in this whole story. If the base construction rate is fast enough to keep up with the battles raging up the front, no need to have tons of engineers.

Here is my idea. Factories are you base construction line and engineers are here to adjust the production. Give them the power to increase construction rate to x2 at max. If things are balanced, it should be more than enough. Of course, factory should not be too costly.


As for the flexibility, I would also oppose anticipation. If you need to insta-build counters in order to survive, then you badly anticipated your opponent move. The factories builded represent your commitment to a specific strategy, this is a choice. Choices have consequences that should not be as easy to rectify than just rerooting a swarm engineers from one factory to another.

If you want to change your production, you just have to turn off some factories and activate others (if you have a backup plan). As long as the base production rate is enough to follow the pace of battles, it should be enough. And of course spy on your enemy to know what you have to build soon enough.


In my opinion, it all comes down to a question of balance between speed of units, pace of battle and construction rate.

I want it just like Supcom. Supcom 2 screwed this up horribly. I want to be able to have the control of speeding things up at the added cost of building more constructicons to help the factories. I don't understand at all why this wouldn't be an option. If you don't like that then don't do it. I want the option. That's what rocked about Supcom's economy, you can have 100 constructicons help build stuff really fast but you'll pay for it in your economy. Please give us as much freedom as you can, I thought that's what PA was shooting for.


Also, first post!

I personally like the engineering towers of SC:FA. They were very helpful in repairing/helping build and did not restrict units movement.

EDIT: Actually thinking back that might have been a mod unit not stock.

No, FA had engineering towers by default (the Cybran did, at least, can't remember if the others did); it was also previously implemented in many SupCom 1 mods, though.

So I'm somehow denigrating what you say without reading it? That'd be a neat trick.

Once again, engineer swarms have two important attributes that explain why they are so important. One of those is buildpower/mass. Reasonable arguments can be made that this ratio should be worse than factories. This is what actually matters, not the ratio of factory build power to engineer buildpower. The second, which you seem incapable of understanding, is that it allows you to redirect some portion of your buildpower to any project. This is vitally important as it allows you to change your focus based on evolving circumstances. Your whining that it's not 'clean' and is 'cluttered' is irrelevant - it produces good gameplay. And before you cry about how 'many here have asked', check the poll. 79% of votes cast want assistance.

Don't see anything wrong with assist, as long as the cost ratio between lab and con is balanced so that you shouldn't just stick to one or two labs.

This is of course due to the fact that there's always a delay between completing a unit and beginning the building of the next, and during that period the constructors sit idle.

2 things -

There should be a tradeoff between redirectable engineering and non-redirectable engineering. Always one or the other is boring and results in either engineer spam or factory spam at all times.

Why not work to make stuff less cluttered/hard to see? Resource drains are a problem but what's wrong with the "carpark" idea and/or modular factories?

After 14 pages of replies, I'm pretty sure this wont be seen. But anyway, I think TA-style should be allowed. Your ability to build that fast is quite practically limited by your economy. I've you've built an economy to support it, go for it.

I have a custom TA unit that is a tower engineer. Build it, set to patrol, and it helps everything in a radius. Awesome. FA had this too, with Kennels on UEF and Hives on Cybran.

It's one of my favorite mechanics.

I could be wrong, but I think the general opinion over the last 14 pages is that assisting is good, the only change necessary is slightly tweaked numbers to make factories more appealing sources of build power.

And that assisting factories in Supcom/ TA is clunky and could be improved without removing features.