The Case for a Command Center

I think what ledarsi is suggesting is something that helps avoid the whole "build some mexes, leave, and then be forced to go back and rebuild them when they get destroyed by raiders."

The thing is, I still don't see what functions the CC would accomplish that couldn't be accomplished more effectively by putting up a radar and some turrets, aside from (maybe) convenience? So you're sacrificing all-around efficiency for multipurpose convenience?

Why not have some kind of drone kennel that is set to rebuild lost buildings in it's range?

Have it only apply to basic buildings, and that way it could function as a kind of outpose building.

Hmm. When i read the title i was completely against it xD. But after reading further i find that it might be a good idea.

If i understand it correctly its basicly exactly the same as a factory + turret + radar but weaker and cheaper (and with the advantage that they cant make a quick raid to get, for example, the radar down since all buildings are in one)?

Why not.

The building isent realy usefull on a small supcom map, but on the bigger supcom maps it would be usefull and in PA were we will have multiple maps i assume it would also be usefull.

Since you dont often spend the resources on a factory + turret + radar to defend out of the way mexes (in supcom atleast, way to expensive), if they get raided you often need to send a engineer a LOOONG way to rebuild them (or actively use air transports, but who does that?).

This building would help with that (Since its cheaper then said factory + turret + radar but not as powerfull).

While they might ignore your CC and go straight for the mexes, the CC would still allow you to rebuild said mexes faster (By either constructing them itself or constructing engineers as suggested) and it would also prevent the enemies engineers from taking the mexes.

It would be nice to have a suitable investment option against mex hunters (mex hunters can often be a very small group of units, sometimes just one, that runs around and takes down your mexes and engineers) and this idea is just that.

The ability to temporarily shelter units such as engineers from raids also seems worthy of exploration.

What stops raiders from blowing up this drone kennel as well as the structures it is supposed to rebuild?

If you take this drone kennel, and give it basic weapons, that's a CC.

Personally I think this idea would have a lot more legs if the game implemented logistics and the CC became the hub for supplies & logistics in far flung outposts.

Apart from that though I think you'll have a lot of difficulty balancing it just right - the only incentive I have to build it is that I don't have to send an engineer back out to rebuild. But that is offset by the additional time it will take me to build the structure in the first place, so it's doubtful I'd build it on the first expansion wave - it would be smarter for me to send out several engineers and spread them out so I have something nearby in case of raids. So you're looking at a second wave of construction, at which point it's like, why not build the specialty structures that give me better bang for the buck.

Or you could build two CC's have the engineer retreat back to base building some MEX on the way. CC's build their own engie who expands the base around the CC a little before venturing further and building two new CC's slowly expanding with hardy little engineer bases/outposts, that will expand into mini zones of production.

It was never my intention to limit players' decision-making with the introduction of a structure like the CC. Some players will find it an essential part of a flexible, durable expansion style. Other players are going to prefer a greedier naked mex expand-as-fast-as-possible style. And still others are going to prefer fewer bases with more infrastructure at each base.

None of these is wrong. It is my thinking that having this kind of diversity of play is a good thing.

I see no reason why this is needed. I also see no reason why it shouldn't be added.

There is a problem though. Scope. Why add unnecessary units? If we do that, we'll just end up with hundreds of relatively useless units.

IMO, better to just keep it simple and avoid these 'in-between' units. Much easier to balance. I'd rather have as few units as possible just to get a sense of what the baseline of unit variety 'needs' to be. If something is missing, add it in.

If people decide that they need an omni-functional base replacement structure that is less useful in every regard compared to it's alternative individual structures, then yes, this is a great addition to have.

As for my own opinion, I dislike the idea of having a single unit fill multiple roles. Making something intentionally underpowered is a difficult thing to accomplish. It still needs to be useful, but determining where the fine line between OP and UP is quite a challenge. Even more so with so many different roles the Command Center would provide.

Point defense, repairs, damage sink, detection, resources, protection, production... far too many roles for a single unit to have. Also, I like having lots of stuff to destroy. It's no fun when an entire base consists of one unit.

I keep reading the same fallacy about balance being a "fine line" when it is simply not the case. There is a huge realm in between the polar extremes of overpowered and underpowered, within which units can range from strategically critical to not relevant. Strong units will prompt counterplay from the opponent, and certain options being stronger than others doesn't make them overpowered; it just makes their counterplay more prevalent. Certain types of features might just be more important in a particular game's design. I would do a post on the subject, but I strongly suspect it would be academic to most everyone on this forum.

The word "overpowered" is commonly used in two different, unrelated senses- firstly that a particular option is strictly dominant, meaning there is no reason for a player to ever do anything else from their own internal perspective. And secondly, "overpowered" is more commonly used to mean non-mitigable meaning the opposing player lacks the tools to respond effectively, or for some other reason that strategy is effective and excessively difficult or expensive to counteract, from the other player's (objective) standpoint. Balance, overpowered, underpowered, none of this is relevant unless you are actually playing the game, and have complete information about the game.

It is ridiculous to even talk about game balance when there isn't even a beta yet. It only makes sense to discuss mechanics and design, not balance. It is surprising how people don't realize the ridiculous nature of their assertions about PA's "balance." The game is months away from even being in beta, and we have absolutely zero information about its mechanics and units with which to infer anything would even be strategically relevant, much less anything as extreme as being overpowered.

My concerns are perfectly valid, and balance is just one of them. I shouldn't have focused on it in my post (not that I really did), since it is the one thing that is absolutely unknown right now.

What isn't unknown is how 'I' feel about introducing units which condense the functions of an entire base. Balanced or not, it's an idea I don't often support.

Note, build templates can already accomplish what this aims to do.

I have no problems with this idea beyond its potential lack of usefulness. I'd love to have thousands of units to choose from. The only issue there is that it takes time to make and test them. In this case though, a single unit probably wouldn't hurt.

If anything, the one great point I see here is using this as a disposable fringe structure. Sometimes you just need a base somewhere, but can't really afford to put anything useful there. If this could be built quickly and provide some level of control, it may have a place in the game.

I do think the scope of the unit needs to be reduced though. At most it should just be detection / damage sink / light weapons. If you want to build a factory or anything more complicated, you're going to need more buildings.

*Cuts into the discussion*

That would be kinda the point wouldent it (unless im mistaken)?

Considering the expense of a turret + factory + radar build, templates cannot do what this aims to do. You dont want to use that much resources to protect out of the way mexes.

However if the CC is balanced right (A cheaper less powerfull alternative) you would want to (sometimes) use it to protect out of the way mexes.

Mex hunter units are often just 2-3 units (sometimes even 1). You dont want to spend aloot of money to defend against them.

While holding the mexes for a little while longer (overall, even if you have to rebuild them) will most likely end up paying for the CC making it worth it.

Consider the alternative we have today in supcom: You would have to hold them for a long (relatively speaking) time to pay for a factory + radar + turret & the time spent building them combined with the heavy drain on early economy (Since early economy makes such a huge difference) makes it very infeasible. While the cc could be feasible if they balance it right, and i dont belive it would be that hard.

(Sorry for the double post, but its a new argument so it didnt fit in my previous post).

After thinking about this for a while, i have to say that the CC would be kinda useless in PA for one reason alone.

Flying engineers.

It dosent take forever to reach out of the way mexes if you have flying engineers, so having a cc there to help wouldent realy speed things up much.

... well unless the enemy has air superiority i guess.

But then the enemy could likely send enof air units to destroy the CC, since air units are so fast that using them for such things dosent make them unavilable for other things (the main reason you wouldent send a land army to out of the way mexes).

In the end the CC as a land grab unit for out of the way mexes dosent work with flying engineers...

Offcourse it could still be usable for other things discussed, but my previous main argument for a cc isent realy valid after i remebered the flying engineers in the kickstarter video.

The flying constructor issue has already been raised. It's a relevant point, as aircons with unlimited independent mobility do in fact allow your build power to be anywhere.

However fast, totally independent air constructors are uninteresting for all the same reasons as fast, independent combat air units, precisely because they can be anywhere. For air cons, this means you have no disadvantage to creating a "build power singularity" and focusing all your aircons on a single project at a time. The possibility of doing this then reduces the build power that such a constructor is allowed to have, because of its unlimited independent mobility.

Engineer + transport = flying engineer.
Drone station = flying engineer.

You don't really need a specific flying constructor. An orbital constructor might be useful though.

Thought aircraft no longer stacking was going to be a thing to try and prevent mass air engineer stacking?