we are going to be able to build a commander right?

im thinking of galactic conquest here when i say it. if you lose your commander you can still build forces from your factories, but wont that nip you in the bud when it comes to the next system (however we are getting there).

When was it stated that if u lose ur commander ur units still produce and stay functional?

I dont know if it was. i am using supcom as a reffrence and generally played with rules that said losing the commander was not game ending, i went for complete distruction.

i mean these are robots, yes some hard to build or replace parts, but oviously somthing is building commander ai platforms, requesisition the homeworld or somthing.

I believe the idea was that this war between two identical forces has been raging for a long time, and the commanders somehow ended up in a completely fresh solar system. The machinery that was used to create the commanders has long since disappeared and been destroyed.

Also your commander is probably going to be in a pretty well fortified spot, and if he dies, you've already lost.

For galactic war there will probably be some sort of escape system so when you die in a skirmish its a "lose the battle, not the war" thing.

There is propaby gonna an option where you can set that the game continues even when the commander is lost.
Default and ranked are propably gonna be that the game ends when the commander dies.

If you look at SupCom that is rarely the case. If the commander is on the frontline in firebase that is the most fortified place on the map, the player might still be able to win even if he lose the commander and that frontline position.
We will have to see how easy it will be to perform a comsnipe in PA because the cheapest way to keep him safe might be to send the commander off planet on a moon or asteroid because then you don't have to waste so much units to keep the commander safe on the planet.

in all previous renditions of this game; if you lose the Commander, you lose the game.

The other game settings, as best as i can remember them are:
Annihilation: where you must kill absolutely everything.
???????????: where you must kill all Commanders / Engineers.
Sandbox: where the game never ends.

For all of these gametypes, the only consequence i can remember is the loss of what resources the commander provided. ie: 1000 Energy / 20 metal (er w/e)

i would expect a few other possible consequences that they could conjour up but i for one would perfer that the game ends when the commander dies, and only the option to recall a savegame.

I wouldnt mind an escape pod... perhaps, as long as it doesnt get stupid. My thoughts are that when the planet youre standing on is obliterated by a moon on a collision course, you shouldnt be saved by an ejection pod... you should have left that planet long ago. So maybe only for close battles to save yourself from sticky situations during phase1 of the game. But be mindful of letting this game become the mother of all Cat'n'Mouse games. I wanna be able to kill the dude when i find him. >=]

I think it is time to invent a new gameplay mode,
as I suggested before there should be the option
to create ACUs who are capable of taking over if the main ACU dies.

This was called "Supremacy" but I did not like it cause finding and killing all ACU/engineers and factories was not funny.

I would prefer an Assassination mode where you only have to find all ACUs and kill them to win the game for skirmish.

Hopefully this will be considered by neutrino,
but I do not want that the old Assassination mode is replaced because sometimes even against (many many) AIs it is a challenge itself to destroy one ACU (one by one) to win the game.