More units in general?

but we HAVE antiorbital units already ... i don´t see a reason to make an extratier of basicly the same to justify the inclusion of orbital antigroundunits or structures ... i can see a vehicle or shipversion of antiorbital maybe but not just at another tier ... but my opinion on orbital antigroundbombardmentcraft still aplies ...

Sorry, I didn't state it clear. I just mean some sort of mobile anti-orbit units. Then there is not much difference between orbit and air in a single planet map(just the orbit can build turrets). Personally, I prefer to treat the map differently says some is really like the map in other RTS. If there is only one planet, we need some reasons to put our resource into orbit rather than ground units. I just can't come up with a really good reason if orbit can't attack the ground(I think we already have orbit bombardment in some form, SXX, laser platform).

we currently have 2 antigroundoptions being aside from the ssx the anchor aswell ... thing is i don´t consider
the ssx a bombardmentweapon but more a sniping one and anchors are stationary defense and areacontroll even though they can be used in a towercreep offensive manner ...
when i say bombardmend i had orbital versions like the leviathan or orca in mind as they take broader areas under fire ... ... if there should be another option for orbital bombardment one unit i would suggest is a SupCom FA mercytype orbital missile that could be both used against orbital factories or instalations and mainly against anything on surface but being limited to one planet where the orbital factory is located the missile is build from ... this would be the orbital nuke people asked for but without being a nuke yet still a decent AOE high damage oneoff weapon ...

the thing with resources is that the more important one of the 2 being metal is only accessible directly trough a planetoids surface be it a moon a earthtype planet or a mere asteroid you always are forced to land on it to build mexxes ...
the other being energy you can put up in orbit already with solar arrays ... one simple reason in doing so would be spreading out your resources so your enemy can´t damage you too much for when he breaks somewhere through
you then just need propper orbital coverage when groundbattles are getting hot
one other aspect of having recourses in orbit will be gasgiants likely being energyfocused but that remains yet to be seen how it will work ...

First not every map have a moon, and if you put solar arrays, you will put an army to defend why just put this resource in to better defense or expand more(there are not much difference for me?. I agree with you that this game should not have some big ship that can bombard large area. As I only want satellites in orbits(some mobile factories should be ok, I state this before). So what in my mind is something like bomber just like T2 bomber we already have but fly in the orbit. Same reason with more units, I don't want have lots of similar units but a stronger version. So I can't see why this will change the force point of battle.

Yeah! hover units ftw!

The Statera balance mod already has quite a few more units than vanilla ATM BTW. I'd recommend trying it out sometime.

Still feel the game gets slow and lame once orbital is it the picture. Air seems too powerful and navy is pitiful.

I agree with you on the naval point. Honestly so far I have not even bothered to touch naval unless im screwing around and even then they don't even feel half done. I know this is still Beta (Gamma) so I won't start raging about it yet.

Totally agree about orbital. It just feels like such a tedious thing to worry about yet the game gets so slow once orbital is involved. Air 2.0. I personally hope it stays more separate with just a few attack crossovers. Not relevant to the thread but darn it is hard to differentiate between orbital and surface icons... waaaay to chaotic

Tedious is the word I was looking for! And I also agree it becomes way to chaotic I can't tell one unit from another.. I just feel something huge is missing from the game but can't put my finger on it..maybe its the whole seesaw of battles that always happend in sup com? I honestly have zero fun on systems with more than 3 planets.. I only have had fun on smaller planets with less systems and very no orbital. Navy gets owned by air which makes it pointless and ships move like snails still.

will come post 1.0

Link to The Statera balance mod?

Right here!: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/wip-server-mod-statera-balance-mod.60342/

I have read this post a few times now trying to understand the point that you are making.
Are you saying that the best way to add more units and ease direct counters is to build a different type of air factory? That is cool, I wouldn't mind having some sort of bots on jet packs (land-air) or air-orbital units.
But that doesn't get rid of the direct counters between different layers, it just turns the old units into specialists.

My point is that if we are OK with having direct counter units, why not have more of them in the naval and ground war? A bot that eats up vehicles and a vehicle that chews up bots immediately come to mind. Subs, torpedo planes, orbital dive bombers, and other hard countering units can help spice things up.

If we are NOT OK with direct counter units, then make every unit be able to target every other unit in a layer directly above and below them. For example, IRL a RPG is an anti-vehicle weapon but is often used to shoot down helicopters. It has a high miss rate against air but will sometimes hit its target and ruin your day.

if you ask me they shoud work on all pools also structures orbital is my favorit pole and i liked to see more there

Anyone else feel like t1bots are to weak? T2 bomber is very strange now to..they need to let it fire its load and keep moving instead of stopping during then sitting there lol

I do think having a Separate Gunship Factory would be a neat thing, I'm not sure off hand if it's strictly "Better" than having a single Air Factory, it depends on a lot of things but it is something we want to look at as a an add on to the Realm Mod Family in time and I have designed a could gunships for PA in the past.

My point was more so that I don't consider something like AA to be a direct counter by default. I agree that it could easily be viewed that way if your options are limited by say only having a single AA unit in the entire game but ideally we would have many options available to us, my old AA Trinity idea comes to mind. The Anti-Air Trinity of Weapons is such that Basic Direct Fire is usable in most situations. Flak is an Advanced weapon that trades some raw damage and maybe overall range in favor of doing AOE damage and being very effective against clumps/swarms of Air units. Missiles are an Advanced Weapon due to it's potential for hit Hit Chance(Tracking), long range and high damage leaves it unable to completely replace the other AA weapons but complements them nicely.

In the end something like this is ultimately more of a guide than strict rules but you can see how there really isn't a single "Counter" unit there. I will admit that AA and similar stuff are a bit more binary compared to Land units vs land units but I think that when comparing Land to Air there are some clear differences that need to be account for like Air's overall flexibility simply because it can easily and quickly get anywhere while land can't, you can easily group up your Air units and move them around as needed but land units you generally need to split up if you need them in several areas for example. Taking that kind of stuff into account I don't overtly mind the idea that AA weapons are a bit specialized against Air units given the circumstances.

SupCom:FA showed us what happens when AA weapons aren't really an option with Tier 3 not having a Mobile AA unit thus forcing you to rely on ASFs, which I'd argue is far more "Counter-y" then having a decent mobile option at your disposal even if it's simply because you have options instead of a single option.

Mike

What? There were more units in TA than the Flash?

My opinion is that the harder and more direct a counter becomes the more vulnerable it should become to every other enemy type. More specialized units can be better at their job at the expense of being more vulnerable elsewhere. My only issue against direct counters is when the relationship becomes binary, like with nukes and anti-nukes. Nukes are effective against pretty much everything except anti-nukes, while anti-nukes counter only nukes. This is binary, and I dislike it... it's the opposite of what I'm suggesting.

No unit should have a single counter, however I accept a unit having only 1 role. My problem with the nuke-anti-nuke lies more on the nuke side than the anti-nuke.

All of that said, unit specialization vs unit flexibility is a great candidate for differentiating T1 and T2. An example implementation would be making all T1 bots extremely specialized while allowing T2 bots to be generalists, while reversing the roles with vehicles, making T1 vehicles more generalized and T2 vehicles becoming specialists. This is only a potential example, not what is in place now, nor the only viable option.


If we further differentiated vehicles and bots into roles more similar to tanks vs infantry in other RTS games there will be more room for specialized counters and generalists will also become more valuable as there are more unique target types to engage. In Zerohour for example you could have a tank that was strong vs tanks and infantry and another that is strong against tanks and planes, or a third against planes and infantry. OR you could have a specialist that dominated tanks, but was weak vs both infantry and planes. This approach in PA would help breed many opportunities for new units. Vanilla PA may not take this path, but I know many mods will.

>INB4 Samson and Slashers.