Close Combat Revisited

In SupCom weapons were pretty much equally effective at any distance to target within the weapon's maximum range. This means the combat "math" works out to unit DPS and target HP, regardless of positioning. Enemy units can charge into point-blank range, even literally bumping into enemy units, and there is no combat effect whatsoever. Especially as unit ranges increase, this is a boring exercise of time-within-area. There is also no real disadvantage or risk for an attacker with a large army to immediately close range and end the confrontation as quickly as possible. I think PA can improve upon this system by having a different combat dynamic apply at close ranges.

There are good gameplay reasons to have close combat which is much more lethal than using units' primary weapons- it creates a defender's advantage for occupying space, and creates the idea of an "assault" to push the enemy out of that space by force. However, it is impractical to have actual melee interaction between units. I believe I have a good solution to having close combat battle function differently from standard ranged battle by introducing a new type of weapon shared by a variety of units.


Close Combat Gameplay

The primary reason to implement highly lethal close combat is to create positional play for defending territory. A group of units should be a more or less hard" object with respect to enemy unit movement. Where you position your groups should control that space. It is my assertion that small forces should be able to inflict large casualties on a superior force at close range, if that force just masses up and A-moves into them. This dynamic should not require special units- it should be a fact of the PA battlefield for practically every unit type.

Close combat takes place at very short ranges compared to normal combat. Normal weapon ranges need to make sense for combat in the field, for base defenses, etc. etc. Close combat ranges are completely independent of this entire dynamic, and would be better scaled with respect to unit sizes. Implementing a close combat game mechanic discourages certain movements directly into the enemy, and adds significance to occupying territory with your own units. It also creates the concept of an assault, or deliberately getting into close combat.

Note that players will adjust their gameplay to accommodate this system. Even though a small force can fight efficiently at close range against a large force, a small force cannot force an engagement. The large force will prefer to fight it out with their primary weapons and easily win. They also may have support assets like artillery or air support. As a result small forces will tend to get "pushed" away from larger ones. However it remains an option for the defender to hold out to the last unit, and it remains an option for the attacker to assault and end it decisively.


Assault Units

Secondly, this also creates an actual function for assault units. In most RTS games an "assault" unit is simply a normal fighter, simplifying the game by removing roles. While simplicity is good, I think separating the main combat role from the assault role adds far more depth than it does complexity.

Instead of having an "assault-generalist" unit monoculture, a completely vanilla style army is going to need a mix of mostly main combat fighters, with some assault elements. Even if there are no special or support units on either side, the interactions between the main combat and the assault units can create an interesting positional dynamic. Assault units can deny space to enemy main combat units, and create the possibility of charging into close combat from wherever they are positioned. The presence of assault units discourages main combat units from just massing up and charging in. And the presence of the main combat units discourages massing assault units; they will just chew the assault units up with their superior range.


Assault Gameplay

Generally speaking, the decision to enter an enemy unit's occupied space should be carefully considered. You should use armor, assault units, artillery, air support, or other units to more efficiently deal with an entrenched enemy. However you need those assets, or you need time, in order for these to work. If that's not an option, you should need greatly superior numbers to ensure success.

You shouldn't just A-move into an enemy position with a bigger force, knowing you will win efficiently no matter what. You have to respect your enemy's forces at all times, especially if you outnumber or outgun them, or risk losing a lot of units for only a few kills. Higher quality units are strong, but should be a liability for being destroyed as well. And while it is good to have more units, it also means an inefficient battle, well-targeted artillery bombardment, or ambush costs you more.

Committing to a large-scale direct assault should be a major tactical decision. Typically, you should destroy the enemy units at range to clear that space and consequently allow your units to occupy it, and deny it to the enemy.

To get this result, close combat should be more brutal, more lethal, and quicker than more protracted engagements at range. Many unit types should have the ability to switch to high-lethality close combat against enemies at point-blank range. One possible system would be to give bots close combat weapons, but not vehicles.


The Particle Beam

The conceptual addition to PA which I propose is to create a new weapon type which is very short-range and very high damage, and which is so cheap that a variety of units essentially have it for free. The name I am working with for the moment is a particle beam weapon, a very bright, hard laser similar to the Monkeylord's beam, possibly in the unit's teamcolor. This is just one possible idea for how to implement a close combat weapon- there are many possible implementations.

I propose that the particle beam be a solid beam at a fixed range that damages all units it touches, which can be on continuously, and deals very high damage. This means that an enemy at point-blank might have the beam go right through it, and other enemies behind it might be hit as well. Units could even fire through friendlies to hit an enemy, but probably should be intelligent enough not to damage nearby friendly units.

Your standard issue main combat bot will have its normal weapon, and a particle beam as well. Assault units will have the same particle beams, but also shorter-range higher damage primary weapons which can be used in conjunction with their particle beams. Units with particle beams will automatically use them against any enemy in range, but the particle beam's range is so short that under most circumstances the bot's primary weapon will be used. The particle beam's range would only be a few unit radii.

Although it is a beam ranged weapon, I do imagine it behaving like a unique new stylistic implementation of a light saber.

I don't think you make a good argument for an advantage to the defender. As soon as the attacker brings up bots equipped with this particle beam, the battlefield is equalized again. So it becomes purely a 'short range weapons generally do more damage than long range' type issue, which is pretty standard fare.

Much more interesting ideas would be to give the defender a 'dig in' option which fixes them in place but gives them a bonus to armor, or to have units that require set-up time in order to have a high dps in a limited arc - both these options give you the advantage of being in the location before the enemy arrives.

While I applaud the thought you're putting towards the idea, I don't think it would work. It gives me this mental image of a jumpjet bot leaping into the middle of a bunch of peewees, and then ducking as they all turn and shoot themselves in the face with this particle beam.

I have accounted for this. Most bots would have a particle beam, so virtually in all cases where one side is using a particle beam to attack, so is the other. It's not a question of one side having them, and the other not. Some units- perhaps tanks- might not have particle beams, instead opting for speed, armor, and a main cannon, possibly with a secondary autocannon or machine gun. And some units may be able to use their primary weapons in conjunction with their particle beams (i.e. assault units) instead of choosing one or the other at a time.

However the range of particle beams is very short- only few unit-lengths. The inability to shoot through friendlies turns the effective use of the particle beam into a surface-area dynamic. The very short range, linear splash damage, and high lethality of the weapon means a small group can perform quite well, but being surrounded is very bad.

It makes sense for some units to deploy, such as artillery where the player might want to leave it in one place for a while. Giving mobile units the ability to dig in is also an interesting mechanic for increasing the defender's advantage. That's an entirely different approach to create positional control, presumably using asymmetrical unit durability instead of more deadly, effectively splashing weapons on both sides.

I would like to see the idea of entrenching or digging in expanded upon, and otherwise making normally mobile units more effective in a defensive posture. Defender's advantage needs to be a major factor, and I am interested in any avenue that may work to create robust positional play. Pure static assets should exist, but have huge limitations in practice. The ability to use mobile units, even normally offensive units, to reinforce locations defensively is hugely under-explored in RTS games.

The bot jumping into the group would be dead before it hit the ground. The group would aim their particle beams up, and massively overkill the jumpjet bot instantly with overlapping beams.

Even if it did land, the beams overlap on the jumpjet bot, and are less densely concentrated around it to all sides, meaning the nearby bots will be damaged, but not nearly as badly as the bot in the middle of the enemy troops. The bots would also be spaced, and the beams' range is actually very short even within the context of a unit formation. And even if they are killed by their friendly fire, that is entirely acceptable. Alternatively, give these units the ability to extrude their particle beams out to a variable length so they can avoid shooting through enemies and hitting friendlies.

While I see the point for close range combat and position control. I believe the example in the initial post is problematic to game play for one straightforward reason. It forces trench warfare. Trench warfare is tedious and uninteresting.

A later post did mention deploying units as an option. I can think of one game off hand that used this mechanic and I think it was done quite well. The game was Dark Reign. Nearly every unit had two modes of operation. Defensive deployment which extended effective range and the hardness of the target at the cost of DPS. It created some very interesting tactical options without bogging down game play. I feel I would enjoy this approach over a "you get bonus damage at short range" approach.

Trench warfare was the result of two things- artillery, and the invention of the machine gun- a long range, high rate of fire weapon that allowed a defensive emplaced gun to mow down hundreds of infantry in its kill zone. And both sides had them. Which created this situation where neither side was able to attack or they would be cut down before they could do any damage. Add to this the fact that since Napoleon began making extensive use of cannon, battle doctrine tended to rely upon them as the primary damage dealers at range. The best defense against artillery is to be in a foxhole, or better yet, a trench.

The ubiquity of high-quality artillery, and the inability for infantry to actually assault because of machine guns meant both sides were stuck in a defensive posture in their trenches. Add to the equation mustard gas shells and you have a very nasty war.

The invention of the tank ended trench warfare. Tanks are a highly mobile offensive asset which doesn't give a damn about your machine guns, and was too mobile for artillery of the day to target reliably. Together with motorized infantry (mechanized was much later) the German army was almost unbeatable in the early part of WWII.


The point of the above is that a point-blank high lethality weapon is like neither artillery nor a machine gun, purely because of its very short range. If anything, Pawz' suggestion about being able to dig in, and having limited arcs of fire leads to trench warfare if such weapons are powerful enough to break a large attack, and cheap enough to have in quantity. However even then, PA will almost certainly have fast, durable units which can break a defensive line at a point, and surge through the enemy lines Blitzkrieg style.

My idea would be, beside close combat weapons: Units have Modes: Charge Normal [some other Name]
Charge: Units move the same speed in combat, decrease their DPS(due to Accuracy), but increase their resistence against some ranged weapons(Misses).
Normal: Units move slower when encountering enemy, slighly less DPS, slighly less dmg from slow projectiles.
[some other Name]: Units stop at full range, and shoot at enemy, dealing full dps, receiving full dps(will still try to avoid shots between own).

You make close combat more lethal by buffing short range units, utilizing short range AoE (shotty/flamey/glaivey/line em up-ey), creating explosive death, allowing constructors to fight (reclaim/capture battles ahoy!), dropping/jumping units into battle, placing traps(land mines, blockers, etc.), limiting long range vision(to bring units closer together), utilizing mobility advantages (steep hills, flat land, etc.), simply going fast, creating disabling weapons(tasers/stun guns/EMP), and all around NOT SUCKING as a game designer.

And guess what? No matter how powerful a short range unit is, it can ALWAYS be d-gunned out of existence. There are no Comm issues whatsoever.

Beam weapons don't really make sense as a short range tool.

Short range weapons might include lightning, fire, sonic, scatter, lathe, or straight up bladed death. For example, a short range unit might fire a lethal fusion blast that melts things in a cone. It is further improved by being unstable, blowing up in its opponent's face when it dies.

You can change the name or appearance to whatever suits you. And it is similarly a minor detail whether it is a cone or a line. I would also be in favor of pretty much everything you list, especially limiting vision and giving players mobile offensive capability, but they are not the subject of the OP, which has to do specifically with high lethality close combat. I don't care about the lore.

The key difference seems to be you think specialized close combat units will suffice, whereas I suspect it would be better to put close combat weapons on multiple other units. The depth of the charge-into-melee specialist role is very limited, and unless that specialist has some quite strange properties players will not bother with them, much less make them an integral part of their army. You can get ranged main combat units instead.

However if we give multiple units close combat capabilities in addition to their normal behavior, it makes them play in a more complicated manner. It creates decisions about how you use your main combat units that take into account the fact that charging into close combat leads to a bloodbath. It both prevents you from doing so without adequate preparation, and allows you to position your own forces knowing the enemy will be prevented from doing so.

I also don't see what the commander has to do with any of this.

Why would you put melee behavior into a unit not designed for melee combat? It's a waste of effort and resources. Don't go over designing units. It's easy enough to get complexity from simple things.

If something gets close, just shoot it. No special melee is required.

*sigh* Of course not.

The TA d-gun was short range, to counteract its extremely high power. Short range units will always be d-gun fodder, no matter how strong they are. A similar design on the Uber gun will do the same thing. A powerful short range unit gets blasted by ubergun spam, making it a great front line unit but terrible for assassination.

This is important because short range units are typically more powerful than average.

I guess this is what threw me - if both sides have these short range shotgun cannons, there will be NO disadvantage or risk for the attack to close as quickly as possible - the faster he closes the faster his high dps and greater numbers could win the battle.

Additionally you polarise the attack/defense balance by adding a 0/1 effect. Has shotgun? Move close and engage at minimum range for maximum effect. Doesn't have shotgun? Stay far away. I don't see why this should be anything other than a specific unit - something short range, high damage. If you want an 'assault' role I suggest something we did with Titans in ATW - give them a slow overal speed, short range, high damage, but add the ability to execute a charge - a short boost of speed in a straight line.

But that may stray too much into unit ability territory for some.

I can see that the way in which a weapon of this type favors the smaller group is unclear. I have made some hasty vector diagrams to illustrate. The purpose of close combat weapons is to discourage walking into close quarters with enemy forces, even if you have a numerical or strength advantage.


Ranged Combat

The below diagram is what a normal long-range primary weapon engagement looks like with two groups of greatly different strengths. Each square represents an identical unit, with blue and red representing different player ownership. Each of these square-units has two weapons; a long-range primary weapon, and a close-range high damage particle beam.



I neglected to draw every range circle for the red group because you get the idea very easily with only a few range circles. The entire blue group can fire, and the majority of the red group can fire simultaneously. Because these units are identical, red has more firepower and more total HP because they have more units, and will easily win.

Furthermore, the fact that they have 50 units as opposed to blue's 10 units means they will start killing blue's units five times more rapidly, reducing blue's damage output. In fact it is highly likely red will annihilate blue with no casualties. Battles of this kind tip exponentially- having twice as many units mean you are far more than twice as strong, and will suffer dramatically fewer losses due to your additional firepower, preserving your force strength.

Long story short, red is obviously going to crush blue very efficiently from range.


Particle Beams

Compare the above situation with the following case, using particle beams at close range. In this case blue's beams are in light blue, and red's beams are in orange. These beams are very short range- only a bit longer than two ranks- and deal very high damage. These units are intelligent enough to aim on a diagonal to avoid hitting a friendly unit.



Note that both sides' front units are firing straight forward, and each is hitting two enemy units (well, only some of red's front units are). The units in range on the second rank are hitting one enemy unit.

In this case, all of blue's units are firing particle beams. However the majority of red's units are out of particle beam range, and will just use their primary weapon, which has much more range but far less DPS.

This diagram is a bit confusing, but the point is to illustrate that the larger group is far less efficient. Blue has 10 units and is hitting the enemy with particle beams 15 times, because every member of blue's group is firing, and some are hitting two enemies. Red's group has 50 units, and is only landing 21 hits on blue's group of 10 units. Blue is being vastly more efficient, even though they are going to lose.


Conclusion

Compare the second situation with the first. Red would in most cases prefer to shoot at blue from range. It will take longer for red to kill blue, but they will suffer fewer losses. Charging into close range will cause red to win more quickly, but they will lose many more units fighting the same opposition.

The gameplay that results from these units having a ranged weapon and a close combat weapon is that in general fighting at range is more efficient for the attacker, who should bring enough force to win a fight. Having more units obviously also helps in close combat, but it is not as efficient.

You're still not making a case for units to generally have a close combat weapon or how that increases Yes, it's clear that if you have a close range, high damage unit, you're likely to want to get to close range. If you have a large amount of long range units, you want to kite the enemy. RTS 101.

Who's pushing whom here? In your example, the defender must move out of his occupied space and attack the attacker. And even worse, it would be literal suicide because the attacker just has to back his units up (they both move at the same speed). Not to mention that if the particle beam needs to fire more than once to kill the enemy, the overkill from the larger force would obliterate the smaller one without any losses. So you're right back into long range / short range combat scenarios, with nothing added in that gives us any kind of gameplay benefit.

Does having a unit with multiple weapon types expand the roles it can fill? Sure, no argument there. I don't see how giving half (or more)of the units the same weapon would make for interesting gameplay though.

Instead of a short range secondary weapon, why not have a short range quick assault unit instead..? Fast, in your face shotgun style, good for quick raids but weak armor - the defender could use them to break up an attacking ranged force. No point if all the ranged units had secondary weapons that let them obliterate anything that comes at them short range. You're taking the short range, high damage role and giving it to lots of units, making it pointless to make a unit that specializes in short range high damage.

You answered your own question. If only the defender (blue) wants to engage in close combat, it won't happen because the attacker (red) will simply back up. However if the attacker advances into close combat and the defender retreats, then the attacker has the best of both worlds. They control the area as quickly as during an assault, and they kill the defender efficiently as though they had stayed at range.

The larger force has the initiative because, all else being equal, they will win. They get to decide how to handle this engagement. There is no reason for the defender, blue, to fall back regardless of what the attacker does, because the attacker can advance and keep pace, since they move at identical speed and have identical range.

If you will read back to the OP, I completely agree that there should be assault units that are specialized to be exceptionally good at close combat. Their main advantage could be that they have high damage at a range that is considerably greater than the particle beam's range, but still quite short. Alternately, their damage might be even higher, or their splash even better, or any number of other reasons why the assault specialists would be better than units that aren't built for it, but which deal higher damage at point-blank than their lower-dps main weapons. I also suggest assault specialists might be able to use their particle beams and primary close-range weapons simultaneously.

I don't expect particle beams to see much use. However their existence would change the way units move around the map. The immediate space around your units is much harder for the enemy to occupy than the much larger space within your normal weapon ranges. Particle beams don't make units "good" at close combat; they make them able to fight in close combat differently than using their primary weapons designed for use at range. The particle beam should be the lowest common denominator of close combat weapon. Its existence changes the standard of what "good" at close combat means. Other weapons can exist that make units much better at close quarters fighting, and units with those weapons will be very strong at close range against units with just particle beams.

Hmm, well, it seems like you're just trying to redefine close combat. Now we have particle beams, and then close combat, and then ranged warfare.

Trying to understand what you're hoping to accomplish here.

You want me to worry about moving through ANY enemy force, long or short ranged, as it may cost me units, by default.


I'm just saying this seems to be removing roles & options from the game - If you manage to flank a number of rocket ATGW on a hill with some shotgun toting assault bots, why would it be tactically interesting to require you stay just out of 'melee' range with those assault bots? Shouldn't you by the very nature of that situation, be able to sweep straight through the enemy line and blast them all to bits, thanks to your superior unit matchup?

In your proposal, the answer would be No. (as far as I can tell). Getting close would negate my superior unit matchup.

Finally, imagine mixing your proposal with intelligent pathfinding. Now all your units you just attack moved into the enemy are smart enough to stay just outside of particle beam range as they move past. How has this improved gameplay?

The point is to have units occupy space in a more robust way than their longer-range low-dps weapon would otherwise allow. For a normal weapon any target within that unit's range sustains equal damage regardless of distance. This means as long as the enemy is within range, unit position and distribution do not really matter.

However if the presence of a unit group restricts the movement of other units because close combat is especially lethal, then where you put your unit groups matters. Putting a unit group on a particular spot means the enemy cannot go there. Even if you lack the firepower to deny the entire area of your range circle, the immediate space around your units becomes a physical barrier that discourages the enemy from traveling through that area without overwhelming force. You can use your units to block the enemy's movements, even if they have a larger force.


Controlling Space & Encirclement

In the previous vector diagrams blue has been outnumbered 5 to 1. Suppose blue actually has constructed those units, but has them arranged differently from red. These are the same units as before, with both a ranged weapon and a particle beam.


Blue and red have exactly the same number of units. However blue's units are arranged in five groups around red's one larger group. Everybody can shoot everybody (I just know some fool is going to bring up concaves with zero understanding of what that actually means- in this example every unit can already shoot every other unit).


The key difference the close combat weapon introduces is that red is actually at a positional disadvantage in this position. Both sides have an equivalent amount of identical units. However in close combat blue's smaller groups will perform better individually, just like in the second diagram earlier.

Red actually cannot just A-move into blue with a big ball of units. The fight will be inefficient for red, and unlike before blue now has an equal number of units; the four remaining groups after red kills one of them inefficiently in close combat. Blue will win if red charges into close combat with one of the groups.

Blue has more mobility, more tactical options, and is in a much better position. In fact, blue is actually controlling red's movements by positioning his forces like this. Red cannot easily move left or right, but blue can. Blue can choose to charge into close combat, or can use his troops to limit red's mobility and fight at range.


Formations Instead of Blobs

SupCom battles look like two blobs marching towards each other. With a close combat dimension added, one side can split up their blob and gain a positional combat advantage. This will prompt the other side to do the same, at least unless they have so many troops in the vicinity it just doesn't matter.

The possibility of close combat creating problems for large groups fighting smaller groups in the presence of other units will cause both players to play smarter. Red will split up their big 5x group into suitably small groups. These groups will move independently and will not commit together like a deathball would.

Both sides' anticipation of the other's maneuver to try and create an encirclement positional advantage restricting the enemy's movement will cause them to create a battle line. It would look something like this:



In this situation it may not be the case that everyone can shoot everyone. It also may mean that electing to charge forward has an uncertain outcome since both sides will be fighting relatively efficiently in close combat. These groups can advance or retreat individually, and can try to maneuver to exploit the enemy's disposition, since the line has weaknesses on its flanks that a blob does not have.

A line of battle is a much more interesting dynamic than just having two large blobs smash into each other. The battle line takes up space, it can have a variety of shapes, it can be interacted with by other units in a variety of ways. It might break in the center, or red might bunch up the line on the right. Blue might bring in an extra group flanking on the left side of red's line, causing red's leftmost group to be greatly outnumbered locally.

Not all of these groups need to be the same size, or have the same units in them. Weaker groups will fill more space less robustly. Breaking through weak groups, or trying to encircle strong groups become possible even if you have exactly identical type and quantity of units.


Conclusion

Blobs are boring. It is a good idea to create close combat dynamics that means a big blob trying to move into space controlled by a smaller blob will end badly. It will encourage both sides to break up their blobs and try and fill and control space with their forces. Instead of having a single stack with an absolute strength value, this creates a strength distribution over space, which creates maneuver and tactics.

The whole range debacle played a big role in screwing up naval warfare. More range means that a vastly increased number of units can engage. More firepower equals more power, and a coast line barrier denies direct engagement to even the odds. Who would'a thunk.

There's a LOT of words going down for a system that basically defines short, medium, and long range units. Lining up units by range is nothing new in warfare but hasn't been seen very often in RTS. Making these layers of units work together in battle will depend on strong pathing and formations more than anything else.

Stop calling it a particle beam. You want a SHORT range weapon. It doesn't matter WHAT it looks like. It could very well be a beam sword given its short range. Or a flame thrower, or a melta, or a fusion gun, or a spear, or a lathe, or a shotgun, or a goo cannon, or any other dozen sci fi weapons designed for short range combat.

Giving a unit more weapons and options makes it more expensive. Needlessly expensive units will not be effective at their primary role. That's perfectly fine if the situation calls for a general purpose unit. Units that can fire ALL their weapons at the same time turn into heavy fire support specialists, offering extreme DPS in the thickest of battles. They can become very death blobby if one isn't careful.

I don't care what you call it, but it is quicker to coin a name than to constantly refer to "that weapon with those properties I described earlier." They are actually fairly particular properties; very short range, linear, splashes through enemies, inexpensive/bundled with main combat units, and high DPS.

A flamethrower or other normal splash weapon could also work, but behaves differently. I would be concerned about such a weapon being more effective for the force with a greater quantity of them than for the smaller force.

So you want something with a Hellion gun. Or a Lurker gun, if you want to be picky about firepower. The D-gun especially qualifies as a short range, linear, high damage weapon. The sonic cannon gun from CnC3 also worked in a similar way.

The linear splash mechanic is nothing new. It's one possible design out of many. Honestly, you'd be better off just listing all the ways units can draw lines, curves, and AoEs for their weapons. That's not even getting into every other option like chain lightning, DoT burning, special powers(the lathe itself has a huge selection of toys), and so on and so forth.

The devs will be busy for quite a while.

If the lurker had about 0.5 range (by Starcraft range metrics) instead of 6 range then sure, that would sort of qualify. But a lurker's attack is its primary weapon, and has range suited to attack using its spines against ranged enemies like marines. Its DPS is alright, but would need to be higher, perhaps much higher. And considering the slow speed of its attack it should probably do much more damage in order to qualify as the sort of close combat weapon I am talking about. Furthermore, lurkers can't move and fire.

Actually, I have to analyze that image, and come to the conclusion that the very opposite is true. Blue is at a significant disadvantage. He has no way to block the enemy, who can punch out in any direction against a smaller force, and as Red moves through one of the blocks of Blue, he will create a gap between his main 'blob' and the the scattered remnants of blue. If you assume a 1:1 ratio of kills at close range, Red is still ahead at the end of punching through the middle - Red makes it through the defensive line, both parties have lost equal numbers of units, and now blue needs to chase Red.

I think the mistake you're making is to say that because in your original scenario, it is more efficient for Red to stand off and attack blue (no casualties), that the effect is magnified when you have equal numbers, but smaller groups. It is not - as long as Red kills the entire 10 unit group and loses less than 10 units, Red comes out ahead. And by massing fire against 10 instead of 50, Red gains the advantage.


What I'm trying to say is that without ANY change in the game, all you need is a close combat shotgun unit to execute exactly the same effect. By changing the composition of your army, you implement ground control. If blue has 10 assault bots and 40 ranged bots, Red will be forced to move around the assault bots, because they will cause a disproportionate amount of damage. If Red has 10 assault bots and 40 ranged, in a giant blob, Blue's assault bots could THEN take advantage of positioning and punch holes in Red's blob, while Red struggles to get his assault bots in the right spot in the blob to be effective.