Road Map or Upcoming Features?

I can see where they want to do with this game?, ie as you want your final version or an estimate of it.

when it´s done, which will be SOON!

i still don´t understand the first part of your question ....

This is the closest thing we have to a roadmap: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/confirmed-features-list-2-0.44950/

Picture, massive armies, lots of explosions, and lots of players. 40 man FFAs here we come!

As for when,

sorry for the google translation.
i request a list of upcoming features or a roadmap of this game.

Perhaps rather than a roadmap, we get a prority list? Basically, an order of prefered features?

seriusly?
[WILL NOT BE PRESENT] Research tree/tech tree:
why?
I think it is very necessary to rebalance the quality of the units and advanced structures.

Needz moar WYSIWYG.

Because this game is based around What you see is what you get, if I had a dox and it did a set amount of damage, it should always do that.

BTW,

Y U NO GET WITH THE TIMES?

Sometimes I like to stick with the classics.

I'm a rebel.

\m/ \m/

Uber had talked with the Planetary Vanguards about putting out a roadmap of sorts but they decided against it I guess, they never really provided a reason.

Mike

Then the strategy of this game is:
Do 20 million units, attack and win.
Is that strategy?
Without technology this game comes up short.
Game start, make a factory, then make another advanced and immediately create a nuke launcher. Game won, GG.
From my point of view the technology limits the speed at which the player progresses, making the game longer, entertaining and tense, as if you win the game you have to earn it.

The CS: GO has more strategy that this game.

(Google Translate)

Tell me have you ever played TA?

Or even Supcom FA?

I would assume with the lack of tech upgrades and unit veterancy means you have to work harder to earn a win?

I know the game is not as I have described, but in most games so, comes the IA in the first 2 minutes with 100 units and destroys you.

I come from strategy games that are infinitely more complete than this game. I know that this game is still in development, but according to the list provided to me before (https://forums.uberent.com/threads/confirmed-features-list-2-0.44950/)this game will not have even half of things I expect from a strategy game.

Right.
One way to make the most long games, and you do not end in 5 minutes.
I've seen games that have 10 people ended in less than 3 minutes to be dedicated to that, make and send troops.

WINNER OF BEST GIF POST OF THE WEEK GOES TO ... Geers!

Geers wins that contest every single week.

Your issue is probably because you have been playing too many fake strategy games like starcraft (a tactics game).

Rather than be bound by silly technological requirements, this game is bound by economics and logistics. These form natural stages in the game when different things become viable. This forms a loose tier system (basic, orbital, advanced), where your choices will form a loose tree of viable tactics depending on previous choices (going vehicle, air, pelter creep etc).

The idea that you can go nuke right off the bat and hope to win the game is ludicrous, you'd be dead before you even finished the advanced factory.

What a distinct tech tree does is in fact LIMIT strategy in a game. Take starcraft for example, since it's so easy to beat up on. You start down a specific build path, typically arbitrarily chosen at game start unless scouting reveals what your opponent is doing (not always easy early game). You start research tech for path, then oh ****, you find out your opponent went with a counter. You would then likely have to completely change trees, researching new tech, building new buildings, and otherwise approaching your pop cap with a bunch of stuff you don't want. There is no strategy, there is barely any tactics. The economic side of the game has been pared down to a pointless ritual that if even a 1 second delay on getting workers to the mineral line at start of game can wreck with build orders. Build orders are not strategy, they are in fact, the exact same thing as a tech tree, a series of pre-determined decisions to be distinctly followed. Honestly I can't wait for some university to make a starcraft AI that can defeat pretty much any human player.

PA on the other hand, allows for a great deal of responsiveness. If you see your opponent putting a heavier emphasis on air, just mix a few extra spinners into your tank horde. If you see them building a nuke, make sure you have anti-nukes, and try to hit that nice expensive launcher and missile. Plus the sheer size of bases makes recovery much easier. The "tech tree" for PA is very shallow, so switching strategies to fit the situation is pretty easy. In PA, you must adapt to changing circumstances. If you fail to do this, you will die. This is how a strategy game should be.

Other strategy games suffer the same problem of starcraft (AoE, C&C, EE etc), you cannot adapt even if you want too, because you'll be crippled or dead by the time you do.

If you treat PA as a "build units, send units, win" type game, you will be seriously limited in how well you will play it, and will get creamed by any of the better players here. It may work against lower level players, but will cripple you in the long run.

Also remember, the reason for all factions having the same unit set is all technology as been refined into optimal destruction, so everyone uses it. It doesn't make sense to have to re-research things every new battle, as the technology used is already the best as the commander AI brains can manage.

ok, I'm done my rant now...