Rushing, TA, FA, and PA

The 2nd reason is that in FA you need mapcontrol to get resources, spamming t1 mass-facs wont work, cause they are t2 in fa and are rather expensive.
Mobile units are far better at controlling large areas than stationary defenses.

The OP is so wrong it hurts. Here is the latest game from the immortals cup.
small map, 2v2, huge amount of resources, and t1 spam doesn't win the game...
You can find examples of this over and over. I understand that if you are a noob you will get played off the map by a good t1 spam every time, but T1 pd is an incredibly powerful weapon if you learn to use it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym4ASGDuigM

Most of what you are discussing here is irrelevant with regard to PA.

I think it is widely accepted that T1 units will not be superseded by T2 units. This will be done by carefully defining the difference between T1 and T2 and not making T2 stronger than T1. The whole premise that the kickstarter video laid out is against experimentals as they are talking about technology at it's apex. There is no experimental tier in PA. Therefore:

T1 should be a pool of units who are non-specialised and therefore effective and versatile combat units with no outstanding strengths and weaknesses. The staple of the battlefield.

T2 should be a pool of units who are fulfil specialised roles on the battlefield and have larger strengths and weaknesses. Such units would include things like snipers for example.

As laid out above, it can be seen that T1 and T2 units do not overlap. T1 would naturally come first. However, a player choosing to play only T1 should not lose out to a player choosing T2 only.
In fact, it would be reasonable to assume that players fielding equally sized forces of T1 vs T2, the outcome of the battle would be down to the player and how he utilised the units according to the situation.

Personally I think this gives the game a lot more scope. It means that because players have the same units and structures available it means that how players utilise them will play a much larger part in the game.

A rush would still be a viable tactic as part of the opening game, but it eliminates the necessity to choose between spamming basic units and 'teching up' in order to get more powerful units. Additionally, rushing is only an opening tactic that will play a relatively small part in a game that can last up to 12 or 24 hours.

Regarding the small maps thing. I think that's more to do with the player's time restraints and game length preference than anything else. I didn't see many 8 player games that were over in 15-20 mins. The size of the maps are obviously going to determine how far up the tech tree players get in a game like SupCom. I think that PA will be different somehow, as I think the different layers in the game will act more like tech levels. This is just me thinking out loud, but I imagine something like T1 -> T2 -> Orbital ->... and possibly interplanetary if we listen to people talking about planet to planet super weapons.

At any rate, the size of the game will be tailored to the players' preference. If a short 1v1 game is desired it could be limited to a single planet, or perhaps a planet with each player starting on separate moons or some similar configuration. Larger games could accommodate 2v2 on a single planet, all players on separate moons, 2 planets with 2 rival players per planet or even 2 planets with 2 allied players per planet, creating a planet vs planet style game. The options are endless, such is the scope of the game.

agree

I still feel like we shouldn't close off other possibility's in terms of dealing with such tactics.

Even if that's the way it worked in FA is that the way we want it to happen in PA?

It might be good to at least explore other interesting possibility's in the hopes of extending the strategy's available to the player at such a point in the game.


I proposed earlier in the thread that energy economy dependent turrets available to the player might allow someone to hold their position against a larger foe while still leaving the vulnerability of being dependent of your economy.

That is more a problem with map design. Small maps work if defenders can take a sufficient defenders advantage. In SC2 this is done by putting carefully controlled choke points where bunkers, forcefields, spines, etc can be much more cost effective than just out in the general field.

OTOH it avoids turtling because you cannot just advance a line of bunkers towards the enemy.

I'm not sure how to make this viable in PA though.

There is one other thing SC2 does well. Synergy between T1 and T2. Marines are good units. Marines with medivacs are so much better. If you go with T1 and the opponent goes for medivacs behind a FE and bunkers then your opponent will come out ahead. The medivacs will super charge his comparative small number of units as you move into the mid game.

Maybe PA needs something like that. A T2 support unit that buffs units within its control zone with a passive repair, armour, attack, etc. That way you can gain a significant advantage if you push hard on tech early. Because a few T2 can super charge your basic T1. Then the rushing player has to gain a significant econ advantage to make it worthwhile.

I couldn't handle T1 spam either, which is why i almost only played on 10x10 and 20x20 maps, preferably big FFAs. Plenty of people liked the T1 small scale gameplay though, let them have their fun.

For PA, devs have already said they want the game scalable which i think means something similar to SupCom.

In regards to the Immortals tourney, i find that the units move way to fast for my liking! It looks ok when you are zoomed out. But up close and personal it seems like the units (espesially the small ones) fly over the ground like zerglings on speed!

Please have the unit movement close to the speed in the kickstarter video ;p

I feel that might be a problem with RTS games in general these days, the older games played at a much slower pace.