Especially in Team Armies, many users send their Commander to suicide, so that the explosion of Commander itself, destroy the enemy base (including units). I hope the producers solve this problem as soon as possible (perhaps making the explosion of the Commander neutral to all enemy units and structures).
Technically if you build some storage and extra resources you can send in one commander to the enemy base to slow their growth. It's not a bad tactic if you actually plan it properly. All players are still in the game after a commander dies and in the end, you only need one to win. :geek:
It's an example of "emergent gameplay" FFA games don't have this, since losing your commander loses the game. However for team games, since it is a valid tactic, it's going to get used as a tactic. The only way to "fix" this would be to implement team loss on single commander loss, which is overkill in my opinion. One weak or incautious player should not be an automatic loss for a team, as far as I am concerned. Especially since I am likely to be that player myself
ralith that is a bit ignorant. The attack speed and damage of a commander's auto attack can destroy 3+ turrets without dying. More than anyone builds in time before a com bomb.
I think in team games each commander needs to be locked to a player. No sharing of control (this is annoying in itself). When that commander dies that player is defeated and no longer able to control his teams units.
Nah, that's the entire point of those mode of team games that units are shared. What you want is team game with allies ie. multiple armies allied together. What we have now is a single army with multiple commanders. The game mode you want will come eventually. No worries. :mrgreen:
Not so. I realize those other game modes will come. I like the idea of shared armies and resources as a mode of play. But I think the commander unit needs to be excluded from this. He is you on the battlefield, his control should not be shared, and his death should end your game.
This reminds me of what someone else was saying, is that a good base in TA or FA is like a rash that lightly covers everything. Course, a problem with this is keeping tabs on your huge rash on a round planet where you cant see it easily....
I think its is a valid tactic and that it doesn't need to be fixed or balanced in anyway, at least not yet. The fact is that the commander is the most efficient builder, as well as a power and metal source. Giving one up actually is a huge loss, even if some people who use this tactic don't understand how huge it is. If you are a good player you can combat this....either by using your own commander to negate it or moving your base. I don't think it is as big a deal as people make it sound. Best def. is to throw your commander at the suciding one, and have repair bots assisting your commander. keep clicking attack and you will get one or so blue bolts off and take him out fairly quickly. Also in the latest builds commanders are a lot slower. So you have more time to react to this kind of thing.
Its a problem right now but im sure they will find a good solution for behind the sphere intel. As well as a wireframe planet model, maybe a key that you can press to make the planet translucent while held for quick intel checks.
Since they fixed the Commanders speed in the latest patch, I do not see this as a big issue anymore. The commander is slow enough that if you have an army, you should be able to take it out before it reaches your full base. (they used to be so fast, that they would be in the on the side of your base, before you realize, and then in the middle of your base by the time your army gets to them) The commander has much more become your main assault weapon in the latest patch (if you haven't figured out why, go play the game more)
I think it's a nice stratagy considering that it's just a REALLY expensive nuke that the enemy can intercept relitively easily. People just don't like there bases exploding I guess, I wonder what people will be saying once nukes (and asteroids) are implemented properly?
I think you should not be allowed to control units anymore after your commander gets destroyed. Obviously the commander isn't a human like in supcom, but he is still the main AI unit on the field, so when he is dead he shouldn't be able to assist any more.
Met totally loves the Nukes with 1 damage, besides just being annoying... There is not much they do... But yea nukes having the effect commanders currently have... Gonna have to build loads of anti-nuke missiles... Either way, if the Commander is currently handled properly, it can take out an early enemy base easily, without having to blow itself up. (its way to valuable for both the fast building speed, the resource generation, and late game tactics where you want every commander you can have) While on one side I would love to be able to rebuild destroyed Commanders... I would feel the abuse of go to enemy base and self-destruct would be so much worse... That I don't really want it.... Note, if you have one of your regular constructors heal your commander while he is fighting the other one, he has a 99% chance of winning... effectively negating the kamikaze effect. (You of course have to pay attention to your base, and spread build early on as much as you can, to discourage kamikazes, fixed metal spots really help on this)
i believe the combomb was meant as a cinematic feature when a player is defeated, and a game ends, i think the damage should be removed, or nerfed heavily for team games, think about it, here are some possible tactics to avoid it *spread -this is'nt too valid, my strength is being able to package up all my stuff, having less surface area to defend, if i spread out alot, especially at the start, it's just as easy for the commander to just attack vulnerable areas untill he has a chance to combomb, so spreading may do more damage than good -defences seriously? you can cripple the enemies base at the start of a game with just a commander, lvl 1 turrets and units wont do **** against it, if someone wants to combomb, they are going to. -use your commander this isn't a very fair defence for it, think about it one person is already willing to die to do economic damage to you, if you engage that commander with your own, it's quite likely that his will die first, all the while each commander taking almost equal damage, his commander blows up, then blows yours up- though a single t2 unit will change this fate, that won't happen that early on the other hand, you might think, well they are losing a commander, right, they will be crippled not exactly, all they need to do is get their first factory up and some resources, and they will be virtually identical, considering at that point you are often negative on resources anyway. problem: commbomb solution: disable EDIT: also i've very nearly lost games due to the following happening send in large portion of army to take out player player is taken out, but in doing so, large amount of army is destroyed next player attacks me i have no army it's a stupid price to pay for taking out an enemy, the goal is to improve your odds by killing enemy commanders, not cripple yourself, the only reason i have been able to survive these situations is because i'm usually far ahead of enemy players in production, they would take a chunk out of my base, i would have to take it whilst building a force to deal with them game's in alpha, i'm sure they'll fix it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrXLxNcsDKc watch this before complaining about com-bombs or sniping. They make the game more intresting than "Who has the most eco"
