Progressive penalization for overbuilding defences

This is Arbitrary and Bad.

If a given unit is a problem, balance it so it isn't. Don't add non-intuitive complexity in a misguided attempt to paper over the cracks.

I think a big part of the current "pelter problem" is that many players dont scout properly. For whatever reasons. If you can get up artillery in a key position you have a huge advantage and are more likely to win.
However if that isnt the case one should first rework the pelter stats. If the problem persists the best option would be to somehow limit the artillery dmg per area. A viable way would be some sort of consuption mechanic, an artillery is only effective if 4 energy plants are nearby.

^^^ These solutions are also entirely arbitrary and so should not be considered.

I have yet to experience any problem with Pelters, I don't want to sound like an arrogant arse but maybe the problem is players not knowing how to play the game properly yet? I'm not saying I'm some sort of expert, but the easy way not to get ambushed by static buildings is to keep a degree of situational awareness with scouting and radar.

Well,
the whole idea was meant to be balanced for people who expand - if you expand, your production is bigger and you will not feel the change in increased costs, that was the whole idea. If you spread, you should simply need to continue building more energy plants to maintain your structures - I mean, wouldnt that even make sence? That structures consume some energy? At least, a stable amount, if not progressive?

But I agree with people saying, that the game is not finished and once we really play more in space and not only on one planet, the turtles will likely have no chance anyway, because they will be annihilated from space.

Turtling is "punishment" in itself..no need to make things unnecessarily complicated. Like some pointed out, it's actually fun to break a good turtle. And I don't agree that it just becomes a waiting game if one player decides to turtle and not expand aggressively. There is always the possibility of a commander snipe, turtle or no. Currently a bigger problem that keeps games going on forever is escaping with the commander to another planet, but that will probably all change eventually as orbital becomes more fleshed out.

You could just balance the defensive structures and units so that stationary artillery wasn't all powerful compared to the artillery units...

I have a solution to this problem!

Wait until the units necessary to overcome turtlers get implemented and the game is balanced!

An increase in cost will always be felt if it happens regardless of other units cost. While the initial Pelter will only cost the equivalent of 6-7 Ant tanks, once the cost have doubled that will be equivalent of 13-14 Ant tanks. The Pelter will also compete with the Catapult(6750 metal) and the Holkins(9000 metal) which at some point will be a cheaper alternative than the production of additional Pelters.

A stable amount of energy drain on structures is similar as raising the price of the structure. If a Pelter drains the output of 1 basic power plant then you need to build one additional power plant for every Pelter you make. It is a little bit different as you can turn off other energy draining sources to make more Pelters, it is cheaper to replace a Pelter if it gets destroyed as you don't need to rebuild the power plant which probably is safely further inside your base and energy production might be cheaper with different power plants but it is still quite similar to just raising the price of the Pelter.

Rise of Nations did this. It encouraged you to build a diverse unit roster, because the cost of additional structures/units was increasingly more expensive.

That was the point. It meant that it simply wasn't sensible to spam an army of a single unit type. Plus you would get eaten by a small number of the counter units.



I don't think cost is at all related to the pelter problem however.

The only thing I really miss from TA when it comes to defenses is that some of them used energy, as in, if you didn't have enough energy in storage, the gun wouldn't shoot. Someone who built a ton of defense but ran a deficit in energy would have to shut down some construction projects in order to get enough power to fire all his guns.

You could really give him trouble if you could bomb off enough of his energy production to slow down his guns, thereby letting your tanks make better progress.

I think pelters are supposed to work something like that, but they presently don't appear to.

Yep TA did this right, I think the only defensive structure that could fire without energy were some of the lower end plasma cannons. Heck it wasn't just defenses that used energy, almost all buildings consumed some, even metal extractors used a tiny bit and you ran out, you'd lose metal production as well.

I know that Rise of Nations did this and I think it can work just fine but I agree, as others have already said, that it feels arbitrary and doesn't make sense for PA.

While changing cost is not always the most elegant or the best solution, you can pretty much always address an imbalance by changing the cost.

Well... no.

All you do in PA is change the time at which defensive artillery spam becomes viable.

You haven't addressed the imbalance at all.

Cost is relevant throughout the whole game no matter the income.

If you increase the price of the Pelter you change the effectiveness of its' counters.
For cost; you can suicide more bombers against one, you can rush out Holkins or Catapults to outrange them or simply run them down with Doxes more easily.

Your post is massively ignorant as turtling and teching is both a valid strategy and play style. There for it is not the developers responsibility to deal with it. It is your responsibility as a player to to develop and deploy an effective counter strategy. If you can't do so maybe RTS isn't the right genre for you.

I couldn't disagree more here.
Turtlers are already hard-pressed for resources enough, given the fact that expansion is sacrificed for defense, adding in this would just make it a non-viable strategy, which it isn't.

There's a difference between turtling and fortifying. And I still have to lose to a turtle. They don't play to win.

What do you mean "They don't play to win"?
I've never actually played against a turtler, and I only turtle against the AI for the hell of it, but I'd assume people who do use the turtle online do it to at least eventually win.

Exactly as I said. You put pressure on them and they don't have the resources to maintain their defences and go for a snipe attempt. And they don't have the production to win the land war against you.

"Playing to win" refers to a specific mindset generally, popularised by a Street Fighter champion named Sirlin. It involves doing absolutely everything you can to put yourself ahead and secure a victory as swiftly as possible.

Here's his online book, some very interesting points in there and it will generally help you improve your game, whatever game that is. Of course some people fundamentally disagree with his way of playing, but that's another long and pointless argument.