PA will never be balanced

As much as i love timetravel into the future and all the cool powerful toy`s. what i don`t like is back in time useing walkman`s and bricks as cellphones Did people forget that u can move body`s into another orbit? Or is that not athing anymore? I woulde hate too see something as beautiful, looking soo powerful be used to jump shoot unit`s to another planet when u allrdy have a tech from year 3000! (the teleporter) ho can do that 100 time`s better.
It`s like moveing back to the stoneage!

LOL i gone done did it now i messed it up, cant even properly quote

Anchors can no longer move now in the latest internal testing apparently so that wont work. But even if you take out every single land building or unit with a laser sat, You got nothing to take out the patrolling bombers that will instantly kill a telegate before you can send AA units through. A better idea is to allow orbital fighters to do limited space to air kill missions and take out the air force bit by bit in till you can place a gate down.

You know what i woulde do.
I woulde say f that hard work and send my whole planet into orbit, lanuching my 20 nuke`s or soo, watch the bombardment take place and then.... Only then, if anything is alive down there ,think about building a teleporter.

You can edit posts you know

The funny thing about technology is you go for the cheap and reliable solution.

Humanity uses similar tools to those we used in the stone age today. We have used them for millions of years. And probably even before that, when we used sticks.

On topic, you haven't really thought this through at all. Your teleporter is beautiful technology. But without an end gate, it doesn't do its job. It's beautifully complex and ultimately a gorgeous ornament, because you simply don't have a way to get land control to build a teleporter.

A planet to orbit mechanic is reliable. You can do it in current build with Astraeus, but the UI and implementation is a pain in the neck to do

Old tech is reliable. There is a reason soldiers are still trained to use clubs and knives. Neither of them jams.

You know
Really dont think we will be useing hammers in the year 3000, That woulde be a disaster. Year 2000 or whatever, we use tomemachins and such. That`s faraway from hammers and shovels. But let`s not go there because of one line. "Yeyeye i know we still need hammers but plz get my point!"

Anyway question for u: "Woulde u rather die quick and painless or slooow and painful? because in the end i still have 100 time`s better eco then u do! And i woulde like to be abel to end u fast and quick without thinking about clearning a landing zone on someone else`s planet! Sooo, the funny thing about technology is you go for the cheap and reliable solution no?

I wouldn't forget about older technology made with todays technology either.

Modern Bows and arrows have a quality unlike previous generations, and can now be made en mass in numbers that would make a Mongol cry.

Its much the same with PA, 20th century war-fair, with 41st century technology, experience and manufacturing capacity.

How do you know you're not just playing people who are worse than you?

You being good does not mean the game has lots of viable strategies.

I'm confident I can beat someone who has no mouse with any unit I like. Does that mean the game has lots of viable strategies? No. It certainly doesn't.

And that's why you're a poor judge. It's why I'm a poor judge. It's why KNight is a poor judge (sorry bro).

The only good judge is a person who has mountains of objective data. How much data do you have?

Some one used Magic The Gathering as an example of balance because there are an unlimited variety of mix and match strategies that can win the game for a player. This is exactly what a balanced PA would play like, IMHO. It would simply have a nearly unlimited variety of approaches to each game. Magic The Gathering has endured for years because of the base concept of Letting the player choose how they want to win the game. I think this should be a "Best Practices" for any strategic game.

Not to be cynical, but I really think a lot of the people in this thread don't know what "balance" means. Folks need to define their terms a little more rigorously. I can think of at least 2 (possibly 3) interpretations of the word "balance", all of which have been brought up here and then argued over at cross purpose.

There might be a lot of ways to build your deck in Magic the Gathering but I'd say that there isn't that many ways to actually play the game. Deckbuilding can rather be considered the metagame than the actual game. Once you and your opponent actually play the game you might have already lost because some decks are simply worse than others or his deck might simply counter your deck.

Now if you could actually define how to make decks or asymmetrical strategies that actually gives both players an equal shot at winning then that would be interesting to hear.

Yes, it's tiresome. One person would say that equal access gives perfect balance by definition and then another person would disagree and say that perfect balance means that every strategy is equally viable, then yet another person would say that perfect balance is not desirable because it's "boring" because it would imply the game is figured out. This is not real disagreement! This is just an inability to realize that one word can mean different things. I think it's also related to basing your definition on the common usage in different communities. In Magic: The Gathering the word will have a different meaning than in the Starcraft community, and there might be some latent hostility about this that would impede any productive discussion.

Actually, many aspects of game design have to be subject to balance. You have to balance things like map size, research times and unit speeds in order to create desirable pacing for your game. You also have to balance relative unit strength and the relative importance of various strategic themes and such in order to have a game that in common parlance is said to be balanced. I think you can usefully look as balance as a word that describes a very broad sort of method with many narrow applications. And at that point it can be like expecting two scientists to agree to the exact definition of a word like normalize. It simply means different things to different people and to avoid becoming mired in a swamp of futile debate you have to specify.

I think it's all very trivial, but it's a very common problem in any sort of discussion, whether it's a debate between presidential candidates or a dispute about some random issue online. I thought this was a good article on the topic. (lesswrong is always good at exhaustively explaining trivial things)

For my understanding, the Unit Cannon in PA has been thought as a tool for Planetary Invasions, not for base harassment, as it works on a flat single map, like in Supreme Commander 2.

In fact, if you notice, the art for the Unit Cannon does not allow it to rotate. It might be an important detail.

The unit cannon can be used for a lot more then base harassment in supcom 2.

Too me the "unit cannon" looks like a badass, im power in structure kind of thing. Jesus it looks like it coulde fire something that say`s "too hell with everything"! Looks super awesome u know!

my understanding of ballance units/structures having strength as well as weaknesses ... and/or every strategy you want to try having a propper risk for its reward ...

By definition, I do that a lot.

I would rather die quick and painless.

Unfortunately for you, I've holed up on my planet with enough defences that you won't make your beachhead using teleporters and orbital fabbers for at least twenty minutes.

I don't mind if you don't think about clearing a landing zone. But you have to do that to invade my planet

Your to late dude, You`re allrdy dead. Remember i had like 100 time`s the eco. I had a planet witch btw i named "Superkillerbase machine ball" with 20 nuke`s. and that`s only 1 of my 4 planets. soo i nuked all ur stuff and went on. The end

That's a really flawed argument mate. I can counter it by saying "I own the only movable object in the solar system". And now you don't have a leg to stand on.


Can we get back on topic please? The unit cannon is to fill a niche aimed at making planetary invasions easier for the user and possible without a foothold on the target planet.

Well cheating aint geting u nowhere!

And frankly i dont care about the unit cannon, looks super, yes! but shooting some unit`s to another planet mean`s nothing to me. this is just imo dude. i woulde rather clear that landingzone with nuke`s then unit i woulde not mind a unit cannon, i woulde not mine a orbital sheller. i just favor the one over the other. I see no real problem in clearing a landing zone in agame. I dont think i have ever encounter that problem.
Wrong! I have.
But then again the system was like not even in orbit of one another and there were only 2 planet`s. The new patch shoulde fix that problem of not been abel of makeing a landingzone.
from what i`v read.( If anhcors or whatever the flying saucer unit. If it shoot`s air)