Rushing

Rushing wouldn't work because of the power the commander should have(If it follows in steps of TA/supcom like it is.) so why spend money on rushing when a commander will destroy your rush entirely.

if a rush kills 2 mexes and a power gen, that can be nough to swing the entire rest of the game in your favour.

It's not necessarily about winning so much as crippling or even hindering.

Rushing is all about having something to do in the early game that doesn't involve sitting on your butt waiting for the fun to happen.

One of the most important things to remember is that while the Commander can be powerful, he can't be everywhere at once. That alone creates ample opportunity to fight over the rest of the map.

Every rush I have heard of is either "My rush failed, game is lost for me!" or "Well that was a fun 5th 5-10 minute game. Time for the next one."

For me, rushing has never been fun and always been a more "easy" way to win rather then thew more tactical drawn out plays.

that sounds like a starcraft way of thinking for those rushes GGs.

I've played a lot of sup com free for all and the one thing i absolutely love about them is that no matter how baddly you get destroyed, if you save your commander you can almost always still win the game. In fact in some circles my strategy became to create a backup base and let my main base be destroyed so that i could quietly tech while everyone else wastes resources on fighting. Then, nuclear launch detected. I think once i had more nuke launchers than everyone else combined had anti nuke missiles... so needless to say i wiped the map clean.

It's still possible to "rush" if you put your own commander to the task also.

That's an all in, and only tends to work on smaller maps, Honestly this isn't much of a problem at all in SupComFA, even on smaller maps.

It is a problem in SupCom2, but that's arguably more so the fault of the entire research system.

Mike

A rush that is not an all in is a waste of resources. Rushing is and should well be a do or die strategy.

If you look at it as a Black or White type thing then yeah, but this is the real world and there are a lot of shades of gray to consider as well.

Mike

Well either you want your rush to succeed or you are throwing away resources that you could be using on something else. There isn't a lot of middle ground here.

the middle ground is where about 8 metal extractors are, destroying them will halve your opponents build capacity at least. if you then hit his power it doesn't matter if the commander is still alive because by the time he has rebuilt you dominate the entire map.

Like in starcraft, when rushing don't go for the kill, go for the mineral line. rushes that deal ecenomic damage are FAR more dangerous than an all in.

Based on your limited definition ye, but what if rushing just means faster than average and not as quickly as possible? What about Tech Rushes? What about securing a vital location or resources before your opponents? These are all technicality rushes as well, but they aren't all binary Win/Lose conditions either.

Mike

I'm hoping they cut off this one by making the Commander explode on death, which means any kind of game that involves Commander vs Commander is automatically a draw. Any other type of rush / early attack / early raid is fine with me. It's a case of picking your targets and setting a reasonable goal for yourself.

I for instance never liked rushing, it mostly implies a very early attack with a low number of units as fast as possible either cripling or compleetly destroy the enemy. The commander does prevent this, untill we find out how many units we need to kill the commander, but not only does the commander (prevent) it but also a larger map makes it harder to rush, it's more wise to expand then rush, due to travel time of the units. It's all cat and mouse and finding your (or most efficient) way of annihilating the enemy. We will have to see what works and what doesn't

As has kind of been mentioned so far, travel distance does more to aid the defender in a game of this scale than most people might realise.
Even the smallest planets are going to be quite large. We won't see the 3 minute cheese games of Starcraft II poisoning the waters here, so to speak.
The amount of time it takes to get get your units to your enemy will grant them that amount of time in addition to the time you've had to build your offense. Defenders Advantage isn't nullified on this type of scale, unlike smaller and simpler RTS games.

And then there are units which... if gotten fast enough, nullify that "Defenders Advantage" by rendering distance effectively meaningless. Like the Unit-Cannon.

I can see the Unit-Cannon as a high priority for rushers who want a near constant stream of units hitting the front line in no time at all, regardless of distance. Depending on how its balanced... we might even see one starting construction as a first priority.

I can say this with absolutely zero confidence but i don't think pa will follow zero k's example of having only economic restrictions on tech.

I can say with absolute confidence that there are 2 "tiers" of tech... and that the only thing you need to make it to T2 is a T1 MCU to build the advanced K-bot Lab and then a T2 MCU to build the Unit-Cannon.

How long that takes to all process through is up to Uber. But Unit-Cannon rush was a favourite "rush" for me in SupCom2

(MCU, Mobile Construction Unit)

touche.

However this will also be hampered by the possibility of unit cannons being a low gravity only structure, so requiring you to go into space and then build one. while the kickstarter video is not gospel it does seem to make that low gravity / full planet differentiation (mostly the space engineers).

ITT: people talking at completely cross-purposes and exaggerating and/or inventing things to the point of absurdity.