Am I The Only One Who...

Here's something I definitely agree with.

So just start on different planets.
Performing a rush on another planet than your own is probably gonna be really hard.

Give me one example of a real game of TA or FA in which a commander was sniped with an initial rush.

In FA you need 20+ tanks to surround and kill a commander, or ~35 T1 bombers to kill a commander in one pass. Neither of these are possible within what could realistically be called a “rush” timeframe.

Do you understand what a straw man argument is? I answered both of your arguments and you responded by misrepresenting what I said (“well if bombers aren't that deadly then I suppose it's ok [sarcasm]).

I think that both your arguments, for no tank rushes and for no bomber rushes, are really a cover for your real opinion, which is that you don't like having to play efficiently and you don't think it's fun to play against somebody who does.

Fine, play noob-only games, play no rush games. But don't selfishly try to screw up the entire game just because you don't want to play it properly.

The ultra boring rush debate!
Its simple if you've got a pea shooter rig then 5 to 10 km maps played on multplayer games with no ai will lead to highly tuned rushing skills (great).
If you've have a mans rig then you play much larger maps which means strategy and planning come into the game alot more, and rushing is a less effective and initally impossible. Also two human teams and a third team of super sorian adaptives 2.1.1 will add a random enjoyable factor that i've not seen in other games of forged alliance.

I think it's important to point out the difference between a Zerg rush in StarCraft and a “rush” in games with a flow economy.

In StarCraft the Zerg rush is an all-in tactic; if you fail to win with it then you will lose the game due to overstretching.

In TA etc, the “rush” does not mean you will lose if it fails, in fact the game will progress to the next level of complexity. All a “rush” in these games needs to counter it is an opponent who is equally skilled at producing units, and so it is more accurate to refer to it as a normal part of the game.

If it turns out that there is an overpowered and unfair way to win, it will be patched out.

If there are tactics that you can't figure out how to beat (but are not inherently OP), I guarantee that somebody on the forum will post some sort of guide that you can learn from.

Remind me again what the problem is?

Because your argument was flawed, and had no basis in countering mine so I responded by changing the argument from bombers to tanks showing you that it is the exact same situation.

Are we doing conspiracy's now?

You are beyond ridicule now, That you would thank that I am even talking about rushes any-more, when I have clearly stated that I am not.

You have now started to pull excuses out of your *** because you don't like the idea of things changing.

And finally proving that you never had a proper argument to begin with, that in reality you just didn't want the situation to change at all and are now attempting to bash me as selfish because I want to change the game.

You are a child, and I pity you.

It comes down to the same point really
Some people want to sit and build a massive base
So when they get attacked early and have been too busy just trying to build a big base they get annoyed, because thats not how they wanted to play the game
No rush timers are good because they mean people who want to play that way want to play that way

In the end however, RTS games are called RTS for a reason. Its all in real-time. Meaning if your opponent is smarter with his resource allocation in a smaller amount of time, then they win.
So rush will never not be a part of RTS and should NEVER not be a part.

However, turtling is fun. And that should always be a part to.

Now lets not have this discussion again cause it gets silly :L

I am not arguing against rushing.

Why can't people get that into their heads? I am not out to destroy your strategy!

The commander is that 'can do all' unit that has an Uber Canon, can buld whole armies and is generally a badass but can't shoot down one plane? It feels kinda off... so give him a rocket launcher so he can defend against one scout plane and everybody is happy

The idea of what can and can't be effective in the early game is a matter of taste. There will always be disagreement on the issue.

You are arguing for the commander to have an AA gun? For what reason? What situation in TA/FA requires this? What game-breaking exploit does this counter?

When has a game ever been decided by a single bomber? At what point does it become acceptable to attack your enemy's economy? I really am not sure what your argument is or what it hopes to achieve.

And yet no one is arguing to have the commanders anti-ground weapon removed.

So basing your argument on the idea that there is no reason for it because a single bomber cannot decide a battle go's the same for saying that a single tank can't either.

But yet we have one, so why not an AA weapon? Nothing will be lost at the addition of one, so your argument makes no sense.

In all honesty does the commander truly need an AA weapon? In supcom 2 I know he didn't, and he got one anyway later in the game. Not really sure about other games but it seems like you can take down a bomber pretty easily with a few cheap AA.

Edit: agree with igncom on eukanuba. A single bomber CAN change the game.

And you can also do the same with ground forces.

But that doesn't prevent a commander having a weapon.

So why not?

Look. An AA weapon is on the table. There's going to be game testing. Players are going to try different things. If an air unit ends up OP for rushing, lots of things could be done. It could be moved deeper in the tech tree. It could be nerfed, affecting its viability for the whole game. The defense turrets could be buffed. Or the Comm could get some extra firepower in the form of AA. It's not set in stone.

My only concern is that no-Comm is going to be a likely game mode. How will a pile of engineers defend against air? If they have an air turret like in TA, I guess it won't be an issue. Engies need it, but the TA Comm didn't have it. Maybe the PA Comm won't need it, either.

Bombers are expensive and take long to build. Ground units are cheap and quick to build. Without the commander, there isn't much to prevent a single scout or assault bit from wiping out all the engineers in an enemy base in under a minute. Bombers just can't do that die to their rate of fire and build time.

Change the game? Yes. Destroy the commander? No.

This sort of game is about making the most of your opponent's errors. If he is so unable to counter an early bomber that he loses, then he has lost.

In FA one solitary light assault bot could be game-changing if it killed the right engineer. Is this an inherently wrong mechanic? Should players not be able to do whatever is in their power to weaken their opponent?

To be honest I'd give the Commander AA capabilities for the simple reason that he's the ultimate weapon of war and it's stupid for him not to have one. I mean; you have this super expensive device that's designed to lead assaults on entire worlds, equipped with an anti-ground weapon that can pulverize just about anything, the sweetest tech in existance and it just has nothing to deal with even a single fighter jet?

That seems like a very peculiar design decision. (I'd call it a flaw, even. You can rely on your commander to fight alongside any kind of ground assault, but when your opponent opens air you have only the stuff you've built to work with.)

The main reason that the commander is the ultimate weapon is the fact that It can create and entire army within minutes. That is its most devastating feature. The fight for anti air on commanders is really a gameplay argument, not one that should be decided by the lore and what makes sense. Does it make sense that units have unlimited ammo? Not really
Does it make sense that you can infinitely gain metal resources? Of course not. If you designed a game based on what would be realistic, the result would be a very borin game with multiple broken and overpowered units.