A Way of Adding Tech to Default Units.

Get this. What if, instead of there being any new tiered units beyond the default ones, if you could just modify default units?

This idea, involves the "next level of tech" being in the form of a building that doesn't create units or give the player ability to create units. This building instead realistically fits upgrades onto the original existing units. You could even have a way when building default units to set it to get the armament you want automatically upon building, so it gets built and goes to get upgraded on its own before going to it's rally point or do it's job.

You can buy the tech seperately this way. Stealth tech, damaging tech, armor tech, self-repair tech... all their own armament bays, which apply this tech to the unit that enters it.

You would have a use for default units since they can be used vanilla or upgraded at any time.

You could customize tech on a unit.

It could be balanced by tech giving nerfs with buffs, or by limiting what tech can go with certain other tech or units.

It would also apply "custom factionization" by the order the player decides to start fabricating certain tech. They can specialize in some areas first, but it would always be flexible.

Wrong forums trophy.

>.< o ****.

Okay... how do I fix this?

I already reported myself asking for it. Let's hope...

No. Tech. Tree. No. Upgrading. Units.

It was terrible in supcom2 and it will be terrible in PA. It's bad when you don't know what the capabilities of the units you will be fighting are until you fight them.

Actually it works very well in SC2, once you learn the tech tree and the uses of the units.

But it would be a little inappropriate for PA.

Why don't we just make every enemy unit a black square, regardless of ability or purpose. Because that is how useful identifying different unit types will become...

Just remembering an old concept which was common in games before that simplified "build building to unlock tech", I'm talking about the "training" approach.

Every unit you produce has no special abilities, it's just a basic chassis without heavy armor or alike. But you could send the units into further, specialized factories which add further upgrades to the unit, but only to a single unit at a time and it costs additional resources to do so. You could basically turn every T1 unit into T3-equivalent by sending it through all factories, but it makes the final unit very (resource and time) expensive so you will rather only apply a few selected upgrades, not all. (Applying upgrades changes the appearance of the unit, of course!)

Not sure if that would fit PA, but hey, this forum is all about collecting ideas, isn't it?

as in most cases my poll choice would be: "it depends"

if the upgrading is another way to produce stronger units, which are distinctive in their upgraded state, then why not. If you create variations in function without visual difference then better not.

the build chains of for different units become just a bit different:
Factory X -> Unit A -> Upgrade building Y -> Unit B
instead
Factory X -> Unit A ; (some prerequisite->) Factory Y -> Unit B

In that case the "to be upgraded" units just become a resource for building an upgraded unit. As long as it is balanced resource wise, that could be an interesting alternative (or partial addition) to build chains and a way to make use of early units in the later game.

I would much rather have default/vanilla units be balanced so that they remain useful at all times in the game.

Tech progression should enable more possibilities,

• ...it should not enable stronger possibilities.

Sounds like Battle Realms to me.

In any case, on top of the already mentioned flaws of an upgrade system, it also adds to the cruft of focusing on individual units, which would not fit the planetary scope of PA well. What's wrong with TA's model of each unit having a specific role? What's so hard about having a couple of factories where you can build these units?
I'm sure there are other solutions that may be even better, but to keep returning to upgrades/add on buildings and the like just seems like a step backward.

Oh wow. I forgot about Battlerealms. One of the complaints of Battlerealms was that it was too micromanagement heavy (the other major complaint was that it was too perfectly RPS).

Intresting idea
If balanced right you make your own facion as you play

But.....I see it could be very macro in making units
Also i think would complicate things in design of unit (assuming the upgrade is visulised some how on the unit).

I just don't think it fits in to the PA sort of game play but maybe a diffrent rts if pulled off in a not so micro heavy way?!?!?

I think the core behind this is something that's been brought up in pretty much any RTS with teching - how to stop units becoming obsolete after a point in the game.

In SupCom, once you reached tech 3, tech 1 was essentially pointless. Not entirely, but more or less. tech 2 tended to contain a couple of units that weren't given higher tier versions in T3 - cybran stealth, uef/aeon shields, etc.

In SupCom2, they made units upgradable via tech. This was interesting, but had some flaws - namely that you could engage a fight, and suddenly the enemy gets stronger for no apparent reason. But at least those units you built at the start aren't wasted mass.

I think the idea of an upgrade system could work - you can't just make units on the field magically stronger, they have to return to base. Perhaps you can choose to send a few units into the upgrade factory, and have say, tanks turned into assault bots, using the cost of the tanks (or perhaps a % of the cost), and allow the new units to keep their veterancy.

I don't think being able to customise units is a great idea though. As someone said already, it'd be hard to tell what your enemies units can do if they can be built to do anything. Becomes even more rock/paper/scissor that way.

Here's one solution that works out quite well using the tiered system:
http://twilight.tauniverse.com/

Yeah, somehow it all works out without the need for an upgrade system.

Uhm... You could see most of the upgrades on the units in SupCom 2...

So if you wished to know what his tanks could do (before a engagment) all you hade to do was to get a visual and zoom in on one (Suicide spy run, bot or plane, tends to work).

Hovewer i do agree with you on some upgrades that didnt give you a visual difference, but if they just added a visual difference to every upgrade in PA it would work fine.

The OP's idea and the in general idea of upgrades on units being done through a building is a little too micro-intensive for a game like PA. And garatgh, I've not played SupCom 2 much, and certainly not against other players, but I can say right off the bat that visually inspecting enemy units is very micro-intensive as well. It basically removes the point of the icons that units have.

Honestly, the problem of lower tech units being phased out by higher tech units is (in theory) pretty easy to solve. Just make it so that higher tech units have more diverse abilities than lower tech units but have some sort of trade-off. For example, tech 1 is full of quick, mobile raiding units, and tech 2 is full of slow riot units, snipers, supporting units, and long range anti-building solutions.

The point of the icons is being able to differ units when zoomed out. Its not meant to keep you from zooming in. However adding some kind of upgrade to the icon too (When units are upgraded) could be a good idea.

But even without a icon upgrade, its not like you have to visually inspect enemy units all the time, just once in a while.


Btw im defending upgrades in general and not the OP's view of them. I like being able to get more powerfull things as the game progresses, and to get more powerfull things you either need to upgrade the existing ones or replace them (tech tiers). Offcourse as you have mentioned, if tech tiers is done correctly (Not as easy as it sounds) then the lower tier units will still be usefull.

This is sort of like how I meant, except "robots can't learn", so it is pretty much rearming.

It would have to cost resources. For the re-arming bay. For the unit to be rearmed, in time and resources. For additional re-arming bays to rearm more units faster.

And THAT idea would even fit the shoe of "steaming economy".

ALSO, in case of tech trees via buildings and simply making better units, even if lower units are still useful, it would be nice to have recycling bays to reclaim most the value in resources from your own units.

I agree with this. I feel several games do things to make t1 units somewhat useful. Making them the only ones that can occupy buildings in mass. Making them faster except for maybe 1 other unit. Making their cost still give them quadruple firepower for price at the cost of their armor still being cheap.

I would like to point out that in some special cases stronger possibilities are okey if they negate them in some way (Offcourse its debatable if they are still considered stronger possibilities). Il give you a very simple example (Simple as in, most of the game removed, no air, no naval, only 3 units).


Leets say the game has one t1 bot (Direct fire, meat sheild), one t1 artillery (Small splash) and one t2 bot (Same as t1 bot only stronger).

The t2 bot has more hp, longer range and more damage then the t1 bot. But its not at all as cost effective as the t1 bot. Meaning if both side has the same income and one side only build t1 bots and one side builds only t2 bots the t1 side will win rather easily.

You can still make the t2 bot usefull, for example if you change its unit behavior alittle to target t1 artellery over t1 bots, if tweaked correctly this would result in the t2 bot making a army stronger if you have some of them in it (even if it means having less t1 bots), since they would target those death dealing splash artillery targets easily (Longer range, more damage) while your t1 bot and artillery targets the enemies t1 bots. In the end, since your army picks off those artillery fast and easy you will end up in a advantage (If tweaked and balanced correctly).

The t2 bot could also be used in special situations, leets say that you want to raid your enemies base but your t1 bots and artellery dies just before they can reach the target building, the t2 bot has more hp then the t1 bot and allmost the same range as the artellery so it might succeed were the t1 bots fail.

The t2 bot would also be usefull at choke points were the t1 bots are weakened by not being able to attack with there full numbers at once.


So the result would be a t2 bot thats stonger then the t1 bot, but much less cost effective. But usefull in special situations and when mixed into a t1 bot army (Think special forces, expensive as hell but usefull in some situations).