Combat Engineers, UNIT idea

Why not give the 'Combat Engineer' the ability to construct light versions of defensive structures, to make forward outposts without requiring as much time and resources as a normal base, and the ability to repair units?

What's with all these suggestions for 'special abilities' just to justify a unit's existence?

I like my units to do exactly what they say on the tin, thank you.

My bad about the slow thing, I wrote a little bit too fast ^^

I like what I'm reading tho, having abilities to protect stuff while you are building would be great, I would use that unit if it was made properly.

It's been implied that all PA engineers will be flying. With this in mind how about an emergency retreat option? Press a button to make the engineer supercharge it's engines and fly straight up, well out of the range of any guns. It would then coast back to base, slowly losing height and being unselectable until it was back at normal flight height.

It would be a nice way to avoid losing an attacked engineer whilst still making the attack useful for the attacker, and it would also help against the tendency for fighter planes to be OP.

Link? (Please)

Some people like units that come with some extra options. Keeps them interesting.

I suppose you could have a tank armored engineer designed to be attacked while on duity, but at a greater cost.

But not weapons please, that's not its purpose.

Don't forget TA, which had a wide variety of construction vehicles, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. This included combat engineers which were actually pretty useful. The mods added even more useful engineer concepts.

TA had combat engineers?

Not from what I recall, just an engineer type for each factory.

The obvious issue with the Sparky was that it was T2, and by the time you've hit T2 protecting lone engineers from land-based raiders is a non-issue, and that's not anything an extra 310hp and a 30dps gun is going to fix.

In general the concept is only viable at the very beginning of the game where players are dealing in single units. Even if one could be balanced to not be useless and not completely replace either tanks or engineers is if it became like the LAB: a unit that will not be built after the first couple of minutes.

I always found it sad that LAB's were balanced that way.

You're suggesting that the ability to balance a unit like a main battle tank is easier, because it has a fairly flat function, a wide range of values which make it more or less effective, but not "useless" or "OP" but that to do the same for a multi-function unit is too hard.
Yes, I get it, I just don't agree.

The combat Engineer would repair units all by itself that it is in formation with, NO micro necessary.

I'm sorry, but doesn't a "Pro" player beat 95% of the population in ANY CASE, or are "pro" players NOT the ones who live near the top of the leader board, well above the 95th percentile? Not sure what point you're making, that a Pro player can use intense micro to win, and so NO unit that benefits from micro should be included...isn't recalling damaged units back and pushing fresh units forward a micro-intensive strategy that works with ANY combat unit, so we should stop that somehow?

Sorry Bullet, I just don't see why you are so hostile to the mere CONCEPT of a combat engineer, without even seeing it in a beta release, and trying it out.

I think that's the basic issue with hybrid units, whose functions can be provided completely by a combination of different units (in particular when you are able to use relative low level alternatives). When getting to the point of multiple units per operating group, which is relatively fast in any RTS, you can always mix your forces to supply the wished functions in more or less any given ratio.
(all under the assumption, that such a unit can be balanced in general, which in theory shouldn't be a problem using building costs and relative strengths)

that doesn't mean that any multiple role unit is useless, but you have to consider if you aren't adding an unit which isn't used because of a surplus of that role combination.

Yep, that's one of the ideas I suggested that would give the 'combat engineer' a special unique role. Giving it a regen field would make it a brilliant support unit throughout the game. The only problem then is that it starts to overlap with mobile shield units. Though seeing as we probably won't get stationary shields, we probably won't get mobile shields either, so a regen field unit would be lovely to have.

The idea of a combat engineer protecting anything it constructs is also an excellent idea.

But...but...it's NOT a "hybrid" unit, it an ENGINEER, with a bit more armour.

They're a rare case where multiple factions are easier to balance than one. If a faction has a multirole unit instead of one or both of the roles said unit performs, you don't have to balance that unit against its alternatives because there are no alternatives, and its ability to perform both roles is either a strength or drawback (depending on if it's better or worse than combined arms or mono-unit spam) of the faction as a whole which can be offset by a strength or weakness in some other area. The Selen is a good example here, because it's an okay scout with its stealth but a fairly crappy LAB, but it doesn't matter because a Seraphim player doesn't have a choice, it's the Selen or nothing*. If it actually had to be balanced against both a LAB and a Scout at least one of the three would probably be rendered useless.

*There's still the chance of a balance screw up here if 'nothing' actually becomes the most popular choice, but it's easier to avoid than it would be to make the Sparky good.

Armour alone doesn't protect it from being killed by raiders, which turns a potentially interesting unit into a boring 'buff' unit which adds no strategic decisions. Mobile shields were a fairly dull unit, but at least they gave players a few tricks they could use to make combat more interesting. Shields reduced the effectiveness of AoE and reduced the drawbacks of inaccurate weapons, and gave an advantage to a force that could close to knife-fight range, so combat with shields plays out differently to combat without shields. Field engineers don't change a fight, they just make it take longer (or force players to focus-fire down engies, something the AI should do automatically if it's optimal). If they're good it also gives a considerable advantage to front-loaded DPS, which doesn't actually add anything because front-loaded DPS already has considerable advantages. Shields also added the occasional exciting moments when a player's ACU gets caught off guard and has to rush under a shield which may or may not be out of reach to avoid a snipe. The same can't be said of field engineers because unlike a shield they don't immediately put several thousand HP between you and the gg. "They're like mobile shields, but less interesting" isn't a good position to be in.

Hmm, it would be slightly intressting if they added a combat engineer that has a weak personal sheild and a speed buff, but costs aloot more = aloot less cost effective (So that they wont replace the normal engineer in your base but can be usefull for taking mass points and stuff far from it, the sheild and speed may make it able to survive suprise attacks and flee attackers).

What does a field engineer do that can't already be done in game?

Code:

more hp
pathetic gun
more cost

So just send TWO engineers? Or an engineer and some bots? Or just give the default engi enough HP to do its job?

All these buffs and upgrades forget that sometimes the simplest solutions are best. Throw more men at it. Done.

The real difference between engineers comes when they are acting upon different layers of the game. A standard engi can always use a transport, so a flying variant is fairly redundant. However, a space capable engi has potential to move across worlds, deal with the orbital layer, and capture extra resources. These extra perks justify having a new unit with the cost and tools needed for its enhanced role. Likewise, a deep sea engi might have access to resources that standard engineers can't reach.

An engi with a gun and more numbers just doesn't add anything of interest. It will complicate the economic and construction model, but is that going to help anything at all?

Oh for Pet's sake, I never suggested that they should be armed!