What does a commander do?

Question for you all: What, exactly, is the commander's gameplay role? And how does it change throughout the game? (NOT lore/tone)

Using a chess metaphor: the commander is the King, and your goal is to kill the king.

At the very least, the mere presence of the commander is a conflict-driver.


Can (or should) the commander do more? I'd like to think so.

Early: building your base equipment. Fighting a bit.

Later: Lookin' pretty I guess, helping with some buildings. Try not to be killed in assassination?

Expound on that a bit, perhaps?

Sure. But beforehand I'd like to mention that I am/was a casual SupCom player, just playing for some fun with my friends.

After I had my basic economy, my commander was more of a support. I didn't really want to use him in my army, because his death was my defeat (and in casual games I'm too lazy to micro him). At the biginning he was kind of a mobile turret, but that was it.
I upgraded him a bit (nukes for example). But most time he was standing in my base, helping to build units structures and enjoying the sunlight.

I guess that wouldn't be much different in PA (for my casual me). But I think in this game I'm gonna try to play him more aggressive. Outpost on new planets and so on. Depends on mobility.

This actually links in with my earlier suggestion to do small commander-only maps in the 'campaign'.

Right now, in all previous iterations, the commander is a powerful construction unit. To start, it kicks some ***, but as the game progresses, it becomes the king in chess that needs to be hidden away at the back and protected.

In supcom2, you can seeeeeriously boost it's combat potential, by upgrading him into a kickass combat unit (AND make it possible to "eject" allowing you to rebuild once destroyed) and I quite liked that.

I'd like to see the commander remain relevant. After all, it's "you", it's the leading role.
I hope the commander will be the ONLY unit capable of starting a new base on new planets, (or the only one that's any good at it) and have him be capable enough to at least blow up a few tanks on his own. This'll keep him relevant as the game progresses.

Having the odd commander-only mission also helps get the player to link the commander as the leading character.

If we continue like that, we can start posting in this topic:
Making the Commander Late Game Viable

So anyway, the specific point I was driving at, is that commanders serve as a weakness past early game to offer a way to break stalemates. Is this a reasonable assessment?

I would sign that.

Agreed also, but it's slightly more than just that-
it must not FEEL like it's just your weak spot. It must have an added sense of importance.

So to fully answer your question- it serves as the weakness past early game to offer a way to break stalemates,(well put btw) and as the focal point for player immersion. The commander IS the player. The player must feel good with being the commander. You'd not like being the weak spot, you want to be the important spot, preferrably also later in the game.

And that takes us to the other forum post you linked- what actions to take, to make the commander feel more than just the weak spot, I suppose. Does that make any sense?

The Commander is the first unit to land on a new planet. Its primary role is to conquer that planet as fast as possible. If the Commander dies, you die. The best way to win is not to die.

That gives us two good roles, more than enough to establish a solid basis for the Comm:
1) Conquer worlds.
2) Don't die.

rcix, I see you're putting our conversation to use already.

stealin' all ma' eye-deers!

:lol:
---

<Long post incoming>

I was more referring to the what and why of a commander's existence than his individual function as seen in past games. I.E. what gameplay is he adding? What is the point of commanders as a concept existing?

THANK YOU!

What is the point of commanders as a concept existing?

When you seriously boil it down it's a stalemate breaker. If defences had nothing worth defending and offensive units, nothing worth attacking you would have a very generic RTS without such a strong focusing point to the battle.

Your Commander is a Focal Point for the Battle to rotate around.

---

I know I'm walking into your trap rcix, but since you beat me to the post, I'll let you reap the glory of "figuring it out" so to speak

The Commander adds a quick game start. The streaming economy depends on a strong reserve of resources before anything can happen. The Comm starts with that reserve. It also has the strong build power needed to get infrastructure up quickly, so that robots can fight ASAP.

The Commander adds a quick win condition. As amazing as 50 hour games are, some people want their game to end in mortal lengths of time. Kill the Commander, and the game ends. It's a clear cut victory, and you can go to the next game.

The Commander adds a powerful planetary expansion role that surpasses all other units. It excels at building bases because its first priority is to build (and defend) a base. On a galactic scale, the Comm is the best option possible for attacking new sectors.

Commanders add a personal touch that players can connect to. In a world of faceless, soulless robots, there is at least one unit out there that capable of personal goals and desires. Don't underestimate the H factor.

I love this part of the commander, but isn't it a shame that the commander doesn't continue to have this impact across an entire game?

Ah, but why do games last for "50 hours" without them? Because historically, TA and supcom have been slanted in favor of the defender to some degree. Simply, it's been too easy to build a base that is infeasible to crack by most means, save surprise TML/SML launches (which are a failure on the part of the defender to scout). So the solution applied? Make the commander fall off in power like a brick off a cliff while simultaneously making killing it the victory condition.

Boom, now there is virtually guaranteed to be SOME means to instantly kill a vastly outscaled unit even under shields or behind a crapload of AA/PD/TMD, even if by sheer zerging. This does fix the problem, but it kind of sucks as it's no longer a game of being a superior general strategist as someone who can sneak enough units by the enemy to kill off the soft weak spot core. I'm not advocating that we completely get rid of that paradigm, but this leads me to the reason why it's a rather poor design:

Exactly. And I don't think that "run and hide because your commander is effectively 3 engineers that cause you to lose the game if they die" is something many people want to project themselves into. Some might want a more offensive commander, like me (see sig), and some might prefer a more expansionary or defensive commander use (keep him as a combat hardened rapid constructor on the front line), but I think most would like to see the commander be a positive focus on the field throughout the game instead of something you feel like you have to protect as a chore.

What? Killing the leaders has been a staple of war since the beginning of war. It is one of the strongest strategies there is- kill the guy starting the war, and you don't have to fight one.

Play supremacy mode. There is no way to avoid this while the Commander ends the game.

The Comm is one unit. The enemy is legion. At some point, the Comm simply can not compete on the field. His viability MUST be found in a different way.

The commander must remain something the player wants to identify with.
As mentioned in the other ongoing thread, making the commander the best solution to start a foothold base on the next planet (as he should be) would keep him viable all the way through.

bobucles I respect you a lot, your posts are always very well thought out and are almost always good plain English, enough for anyone and everyone to read.

But this... this rather simple sentence has some merit, don't you agree?

dreadnought808 has used the correct language there... especially the use of the word "wants"
I am interested enough in that sentence alone to explore it further.