Economics needs more complexity

it only increases the numbers of t1 units, t2 would be so expensive that it would make no sence to build them. an ant costs like 225 metal now, a leveler 1575. this is an increase by exactly factor 7. so without increased production you get the leveler 7-times slower than the ant. since we have an actual increase by 4 in metal, you still get the leveler 1,75 times slower (excluding the factory fabrication speed, with that the right time would be 2 1/3). but you also could build 4 times the ants at the same eco. whitch gets us to

the strategic choice here is building a smaller number t2 units or a larger number t1. and 7 ants can kill a leveler without great problems, also you can split the firepower more to attack from several directions, or use a tactic to attack the blow from 2 sides or have more tanks at enemy base when he has catapults witch are way less effective against ants than to levelers because only destroing 1/7 of mass with every shot and so on... i dont see any reduction of strategic choices only because we get more eco.

also for the logistic thoughts...they are way reduced compared to supcom for example, since every builder has a fixed buildspeed regardless of what he builds. but in a streaming economy you allways have some more to think than in the classic c&c-eco where you collect and then build paying all at once.

number and generation are not finished yet in alpha, but making them more worthwile would players lead to not expand and turtle even more. since nukes are in now turtling becomes way more effective, because 2 other players could fight each other, using their resources for units, while the turtle can sit there, build its nuke and shoot it. and because of anti-nukes also are damn expansive mostly the fighting party won't have it.

Why keep balistic nukes but not the quantum facilities, I though quantum travel was meant to be awesome.

carnilion you are misunderstanding the difference between tactical choice and strategic choice. You can't use the two words interchangeably, as you are doing; they mean totally different things. I'll address your other points soon, but that point jumped out at me.

---

T1 Ants don't win against T2 levelers. plural... that's important. A T2 leveler deathball beats any mobile units sent against it, for the same "cost".
*Sigh* again you are a believer in the delusional "truth" that levelers are able to be balanced for cost. As I've already pointed out in previous posts, cost is NOT a reliable way to balance any unit in this game. Because of the streaming Economy, infinite resources and fixed build rates the numeric Metal Cost of a unit is irrelevant. Time is all that matters. If you don't understand why, please reread my posts where I address it.

---

I am not inclined to ditch the streaming economy, so I don't know why you even brought it up.

---

There must be a language barrier, because what you're arguing is the antithesis of strategic choice.
We've already had like... fifteen pages of boring semantic debate. I don't want to take part in any more.

Care to give examples, reasons why the game needs them, and how it becomes more fun because of it?

maybe you are right nanolathe, im not a natural english speaker and the language is a problem. but for me the point is you either dont understand the streaming eco (mostly you do understand it, but its the way you argue that you dont) or you just dont want to be economically beaten by someone who owns less territory by teching up and therefore it should not be allowed what hassnt to be allowed

anyhow cost and time strongly correlate, thats whats a streaming eco is all about, so deniying that cost does play a role in balacing is a basically misunderstanding of a streming eco.

also wanting to have units differ more is mostly very tactical. on strategic layer the single unit doesnt matter, its how fast u produce them and how strong in relation of cost they are. and thats basically what i'm arguing all the time.

it is true that a deathball of levelers at some point will be better than any deathball of ants, but to reach that level you need again MUTCH more time (and resources^^) than the ant-builder needs to overroll you (if you dont beliefe me play the alpha and build only levelers). if it wassnt that way there would NEVER be any reason to build the leveler thus making it useless.

A Mutiny resulted.
I never shall forget the way
That Blood upon this awful day
Preserved us all from death.
He stood upon a little mound,
Cast his lethargic eyes around,
And said beneath his breath:

"Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not."

He marked them in their rude advance,
He hushed their rebel cheers;
With one extremely vulgar glance
He broke the Mutineers.

- Hilaire Belloc, The Modern Traveller (1898)

I know your philosophy to war carnilion. It is one and the same with that of the English Empire's against the African subcontinent.

I fundamentally disagree that, in the setting of Planetary Annihilation where all technology has been refined to brutal efficiency in all ways, that T1 and T2 should be as different as Sticks and Stones against the Maxim Gun.

I agree that Levelers replace Ant deathballs. There isn't much mechanics discouraging deathballs currently.
Carnillion mentioned catapults as a way of discouraging expensive units but for me that doesn't seem to be enough to discourage Leveler deathballs.

I strongly disagree. If something is expensive enough it will be discouraged from seeing use as the it will be very costly to get a deathball rolling consisting of these units. Of course I don't think a direct upgrade of a another unit only meant for creating a deathball is that exciting.

The point at which a Leveler deathball outperforms an Ant deathball for cost doesn't come that late. As Ants engage Levelers they will have to close the distance before they can fire and at that point 2 or even three lines of Levelers will be returning fire and the Ants will be destroyed in 1 shot while the rest of the cannon balls continue and destroy the Second rank of Ants.
Not to mention that the Levelers got similar speed as the Ant tank so they could probably just kite the Ants to death which the Ant tanks can only counter by attacking from several angles. Something that becomes increasingly difficult to do as the battlefront gets crammed with more and more tanks.

If you disagree with the fine details godde that's all ok with me, as long as the broad strokes are something we agree on.
T2 should not be something you race for, just to make the Maxim Gun.

ah ok...your right that i didnt calc in the micromanagement. if you kite and do other stuff with your levelers it is true that they are way overpowerd, but uber mentioned at several points they want to eliminate as mutch micro as possible, so this is basicaly an alpha problem. as for now micro gives you an advantage of at least 300% (meaning you kill 3 times the stuff you have, 100% is no micro)... with perfect micro maybe mutch more (500% - 600%).

the cost values i mentioned above, with same resources and same time you get 7 ants for 1 leveler so if you have 3 rows a 10 levelers in your deathball you fight against 210 ants. thats the exact same production time and the exact same resource costs. i would still asume the ants win if you count micromanagement out of the situation, but to be shure it should be testet ingame

nanolathe>the maxim gun is the nuke, the asteroid whatever else we have as game ender but if you take a look in the json files the orbital stuff will mostly be even more expansive then t2 we have now (oh and also i found something in there called Tech3!!)

but if you meant units being just better than others....its a question of cost (sry to point it out that way again).

also im not english im german, so its more like 3. reich against soviet union.....but there the better technologie didnt win...doesnt matter that cccp lost somehting between 13 and 27 million (<- highest number told from russian source i found, dunno how accurate it is) soldiers and germany only something around 2,5 million, germans were still rushed over.

The Nuke is counterable by Anti-Nukes. An asteroid is counterable by disabling its engines.

Neither the Nuke nor the Asteroid is a Maxim Gun.

The only thing that beats the Maxim Gun is fighting in the forest... and that is a strategic choice. You "win" by not being pulled into open-field battles.

Strategy Carnilion. If strategy were to work the way YOU think it should, then you're doing it wrong.

Oh yay... Leaked T3 files and orbital units that are more expensive.

while this:
hope = hope - 1

wut? i'd say fighting in the forrest is a tactical decision, except you do it ALL the time, then it becomes strategie, tactical is the single battle, so for example 1 deathball of tanks against another, strategie is the complete war with all its aspects like reinforcements and economy, where and when to upgrade etc.... but if im wrong here tell me, i have to think over then again.



leaked? its in normal pa-installation.....mostly its unifinished stuffso its not final in any way, just telling whats in the files everyone can look at with random text editors....

Tactics are not what a single battle is. You have some very warped views and ideas on the definition of words Carnilion.

Military strategy is the planning and execution of the contest between groups of armed adversaries. Strategy, which is a subdiscipline of warfare and of foreign policy, is a principal tool to secure national interests. It is larger in perspective than military tactics, which involves the disposition and maneuver of units on a particular sea or battlefield.


extractet from wikipedia, tell me where i misstranslatet

Ok Carnilion. Get back to me when, instead of having a Commander and a few hundred tanks, you're conducting a war to secure national interests.

Strategy has never meant what you've pulled from wikipedia in the context of an RTS game, because to effectively manage such a war, you'd have to have several years worth of "War" happening in REAL TIME. If you feel like applying strategy in an RTS as-defined-by-wikipedia then you're going to be playing one single match over years.

Please don't pretend to be smart by quoting wikipedia out of context, because it has the opposite effect.

out of context? well ok, then if wikipedia is wrong plz CLEARLY define what strategie and tactics is in a rts. now i'm interestet.

General rule of thumb:

It's strategic if you're getting reports of shots fired
It's operational if you're hearing shots fired
It's tactical if you're getting shot at

Take that how you will.

if i understand that correct its the same i said :

hiding in the wood where you get shot at is tactics...

geting report from it copying that and order to do it allways is strategie.

I like conducting operations. It makes me feel safer than tactically appraising a sector within a strategic operation.

- said every guy responsible for a field op, ever.

Interesting though Wikipedia undoubtedly is, the English Oxford Dictionary on my shelf disagrees;

Strategy; n. generalship, the art of war; (lit. or fig.) Management of an army or armies in a campaign, art of so moving or disposing of troops or ships or aircraft as to impose upon the enemy the place and time preferred by oneself.

[cf. tactics] instance of, or plan formed according to and to facilitate the above.

---

So, deciding to hide in the woods is a strategy. You are imposing upon your enemy (by virtue of your troop movement) an unfavourable place to conduct war.
Planning exactly how to get you units into the wood, and the exact place to conceal your troops within the foliage, is tactics.

If you appeal to Wikipedia's authority on the definition of English words, I appeal to a higher authority.