End-Game Mega Units

As a sidenote;

One megaunit will be in the game: the asteroid. Uber is working on allowing the change of orbits, and with things like unit cannons the direct siege of worlds from orbit will be possible.

I made it my goal to prove you wrong. Mega units do NOT have to be the same as in Supcom. I'll get together with some experienced people and bring you a modded Megabot or three as soon as we have the necessary modding tools.

Megaunits are cool. Even if they were like in SupCom I would like them

They just should not replace normal units. I kinda liked some of the ideas in SupCom 2, although the mechanisms werent always working great.

Magnetron was funny for example, or also loyality gun^^ The ideas werent bad.

Megaunits that deals tons of damage ? Meh. Mega units that can be sent as a -giant- walking factory to invade well protected planets ? Much more plausible.

Kind of like the Monolith in DoW1.... Except it's from space.

That's already planned, though. An asteroid with a gate, Halleys, and a unit cannon is a mobile invasion point.

I hope we don't get anything like the Magnetron again, at least, not implemented the same way. Most people only used the attract function, but 2 magnetrons could keep a 100% uptime on the repulsion effect, which rendered you immune to things that walk and can't hunker (everything but coms, loyalists, pulinsmashes, and exp. uef mobile arty). Which was just silly.

So, what would be the way to defend yourself against such a mobile base? Nuking it should work, but one anti-nuke could probably cover a lot of a single asteroid, and you can't unit cannon to it from the ground. Perhaps your own orbital staging area could unit cannon to it, and obviously any sort of orbital weapons could attack it pretty easily.

This also raises the question - if nukes can split an asteroid that's about to impact into chunks, can they split an asteroid that's NOT into chunks? Are asteroids destructable by other ways than planet-smashing? We don't know the answers yet, but these are some considerations we should think about.

Nah, I am with megaunits, just not literally buildable giant robots.

I plan on making a campaign. With it, the "asteroid" will make an appearance as forbidden technology at the end. The player will be unaware of it until it the enemy uses it against him, and when sides shift and his enemy becomes his ally against a bigger threat, the enemy authorizes use of the "Planetary Annihilation Protocol" and passes the blueprints for the halley to use to end the fight once and for all.

Sounds epic. I have always been interested in the planetary part of the game, with cool mechanical concepts. It doesn't have to be advanced planet sized robotics, it can simply be units shot across the cosmos, units that multiply based on reclaiming wreckage thus acting as a form of stack overflow of physical matter, a sentient who has been conscious literally many trillions of years, many races of crazy types of lifeforms, a young prodigy who learned complex nano-fabrication technology at the age of 8, and that one balanced faction actually being formed of assimilated technology of the many sentient races.

mega units needs to be scaled mega and have huge benefits at the cost of time and resources but should be less... Supcommy..... If its experimental maybe it doesn't always work as intended... Mainly is should not take an experimental or 1000 units to kill an experimental....

Take this for example.. Since we like stargate so much....


Knock away the Lantean buildings and put factories on each pier and remove the shield and give IP capabilities and there you go.. Something like a landing platform.. exp transport factory whatever... But.... It is not so OP that it can't be dealt with, factories produce at standard speeds etc.. A unit like Atlantis or like the space meteor carrier deal should be strong when used correctly. Think of it like this... The Uber gate is weak defenseless and nothing that can't be stopped by any unit.. but it conjunction with say your enemies lack of scouting it can mean instant beachhead....
All about use and not hard counters exp vs exp..

...I was just going to put a really strong and unique named unit in every t2 technology role in my mod. That way there are supers, just not experimentals, and uniques, just not giants.

For instance, like I said up ahead, it would be interesting to have basic dox, that when they destroy units they can automatically reclaim anything nearby while still in combat (automatically reclaim with one hand and shoots with other like current commander) and reheal with reclaim as they fight. If they reclaim so much on a full life bar, they simply start building a duplicate of themselves, supported with a tank army, and you will have an exponential growth sustainable foot soldier. Or with formations, have a walking wall type unit and behind it fastish moving frequency-blade melee units, walk them up close and their ridiculous dps cuts down tanks. What about units that deploy like landmines and when enemies walk inside their perimeter they pop up and fire from all around them.

Things with signature, unique style, but not all gigantic.

It is funny how polarized people are on this topic. I still can't understand why all the people who are against larger units just assume that they replace armies.

Seriously. Why can't they be balanced?

Just because they weren't properly balanced in other games doesn't mean that it would happen again. I mean, look at air units in supcom. They were stupid good, and look at what is happening again. Where are all you people who complain about unbalanced units?

It seems like so many people have made large robots taboo for some strange reason.

Well, the reason they can't be balanced is because their very reason for existence is contrary to the nature (or perhaps spirit) of PA. MEGAbots are intended to be mega in some particular way. In the most general sense, they are very expensive but very powerful. That is obviously balanced in a number of ways, but it is not balanced against lower tier units. You reach a point where you must make the megabot stronger and more resilient at the cost of time/metal/energy or else it fails at being a MEGAbot.

Suddenly, you have stretches where all you do is make expensive units. Imagine if all the end game of PA was only nukes. That would be dull. The issue it had in Forged Alliance was that they forced turtling. That is a problem with the nature of MEGAbots. Thus, megabots, colossi, leviathans and game-enders are game-breakers.

I think the best way to have experimental units (I'm against them) would be to have them actually be.... experimental.

What does this mean?
Well experimental things don't always work as expected. Sometimes they goof up, break, etc. Sometimes this can be good (leg failing causes bot to fall over and crush enemies; cannon overcharges), sometimes this can be bad (guns not working, AI glitches). It's an EXPERIMENTAL. You know the risks going in.

Again, you are making assumptions here. Large robots DO NOT need to be massive battle weapons. Mobile factories, walking aircraft carriers, mass-transport types (think Trade Federation ATT from Star Wars Ep. I)...

Don't get me wrong, I don't want some big stompy bot that just destroys everything in it's path. That doesn't add to gameplay. But just saying "No. It is a big robot and thus will be imbalanced--leave them out" is very limited.

@zurginator-- how would that be anywhere near fun? I spent Xmillion metal on this robot and it broke down in my base and is now useless. Sounds great. Might as well have random lightning bolts that take out commanders in one strike too.

@broadsideet - How is a mobile factory or transport interesting? The strategic decisions from placing buildings is what makes RTS games interesting. You want to undo that with a simple, drastic, ridiculous change. Planning would suddenly be meaningless, or at least less important than it was before walking factories.

Mass Transport exists, and it is called the Star Gate, the Unit Cannon and the other units that as-of-now do not exist.

Mega is bad for RTS. I don't care if it's a megafactory, a megaplane, a megaaircrafcarrier or a mega-metropolis-that-spews-forth-robots. I will reiterate:

> Megabots, colossi, leviathans and game-enders are game-breakers.

The mega is the bad part, like I said. It doesn't matter what it does, it's the amount of doing that is game-breaking. Let's partake in a thought-experiment. How would you personally balance a walking factory?


EDIT.

That's really what you took away from my post? Come now. That's myopic. Mega is bad for RTS, for a plethora of reasons explored in numerous RTS games prior to PA. I'm ok with 'large' or even 'huge', but mega is entering game-breaking territory. We're splitting hairs though. I consider a MEGABOT a unit that fundamentally changes the outcome of a game or battle if gifted to a losing player. Scathis, Yolona Oss, Mavor and Paragon were all non-direct combat units that were game-enders intentionally. It was a factor of FA that I didn't care for personally because I think they were poorly implemented, but it was a design choice the devs made that I just don't agree with.

Playing Sim City is what makes RTS games interesting? I completely disagree. Plenty of factors make RTS games interesting; building placement can definitely be one of those factors but is in no way a major component.

As for balancing mobile factories? IDK, allow them to build and store, say, 10 or 20 units as they move but need to deploy to let them out. Or maybe give them lower efficiencies than stationary factories. Or give them a smaller set of units that they can build... You see, there are tons of things that could be done to make using them a strategic choice that would counterbalance their mobility. Ideally you should see them in some matches/situations but not in others, and that is completely within the realm of possibilities.

Mega is NOT bad for RTS. You are basing it on flawed logic. If building a mega factory that can pump out 10 times as many units per minute as a normal factory, but costs 10 times as much, then what is the difference? What is wrong with that mega factory (other than the obvious having full production capability until destroyed, which is a relatively simple problem to solve).

The 3 things you mention there did not have interesting roles. They were just giant gunships/bombers/resource-generators. They were large versions of something that exists on a smaller scale.
What I am trying to say is that there are roles that cannot be filled by smaller things and I listed a few things. You say that mass transit is the teleporter, and I agree under certain circumstances. But if I want to get a large amount of small units very close to the enemy base without being touched, I cannot do that with the teleporter. However, a trojan style mass transport unit that holds a good number of ground units that would bite the bullets as it moved forward would fill a different ROLE than the teleporter.

You are wrong. If the cost is greater than an equivalently capable sum of smaller options, then it isn't game-breaking. But the point is not even about "mega-X vs regular-X" because I am talking specifically about things that can't have a regular-X form.

Also, if you seriously think that mobile factories are not interesting to gameplay, then you are severely opinionated and in the minority (not a bad thing, but you shouldn't be making arguments based on that).

> building placement can definitely be one of those factors but is in no way a major component.

You didn't understand the point I was making - mobile factories make strategic placement of bases irrelevant. That is a bad thing. It doesn't mean I want to play sim city, it means I want to be rewarded for planning better than my opponent. You are aware how build orders affect a match down the line, yes?
> If building a mega factory that can pump out 10 times as many units per minute as a normal factory, but costs 10 times as much, then what is the difference?

I'm literally shaking my head. If you can't see the difference in the prolonged use of that 10x unit factory, there's no point arguing with you. 10,000metal vs. 1,000 metal is a one time cost, for a permanent "tech" bonus of 10x the units per minute.

> The 3 things you mention there did not have interesting roles. They were just giant gunships/bombers/resource-generators. They were large versions of something that exists on a smaller scale.

You don't have any clue what they were. Artillery god-mode, god-mode nuke, another god-mode artillery, resource god-mode. They were all non-direct fire megabots that seriously broke the game even more than the direct fire megabots did! I didn't think we needed to even clarify that the reason direct-fire megabots are fundamentally flawed is because they force lower HP units into uselessness and stagnate gameplay, or do you not think that's the case?

> What I am trying to say is that there are roles that cannot be filled by smaller things and I listed a few things.

You listed exactly three things. "Mobile factories, walking aircraft carriers, mass-transport types". Mobile factories are stupid, sorry. Walking aircraft carriers are even more meaningless in PA, unless you mean mass-transport for aircraft (which is sillier still, seeing as they can fly...). So you've essentially had one novel idea, and identified mass transport as a type of megabot. Well, hate to break it to you but transportation isn't a megabot, but has similar game-changing ramifications. Perhaps that is why you keep classifying troop transport as a megabot...

> However, a trojan style mass transport unit that holds a good number of ground units that would bite the bullets as it moved forward would fill a different ROLE than the teleporter.

Those are called "tanks". Use your commander, better unit composition, or play supcom. PA is about MASSES OF UNITS, it isn't SC for a reason. You keep on suggesting these things that are literally completely contrary to the spirit of PA - small numbers of expensive, hardy units. That sounds... boring. And it's been done. I don't think the devs are interested in doing the same old **** with a game like PA.

> If the cost is greater than an equivalently capable sum of smaller options, then it isn't game-breaking.

Asinine. Why would you build a higher-cost unit when an equivalently capable sum of smaller options is available? So you can be caught building half of a high-cost unit when half of an equivalently capable sum of smaller options raids you? That's exactly what a huge issue with SupCom was before FA was released.

> Also, if you seriously think that mobile factories are not interesting to gameplay, then you are severely opinionated and in the minority.

No, it sounds like I'm opinionated because I understand how these mechanics work. Your ideas are bland and not clever - they have been done in MANY other RTS games that I suggest you play because it sounds like you would enjoy them. Furthermore, I think that if you sink as many hours into FA as I have you will come to realize that megabots were an easy bandaid for a septic problem present in the genre that PA is doing a really good job avoiding so far...


edit: I'm sorry this is so snarky, I just feel like you seriously have never faced the exasperation of megabots that ruined almost every RTS to date. Seriously, name five RTS games and I can tell you the units that ruined them, and every single one was a titan, colossus, megabot or superbeing.

1) The Original Sins of a Solar Empire
2) Starcraft(Not II, not Brood War, the original)
3) Warcraft III
4) Empire Earth: Age of Conquest
5) Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun

I did miss your point, but that is unimportant in the scheme of things. Mobile factories do not make building placement irrelevant; they add a choice (assuming that they are balanced properly) to be used in a separate situation. Obviously, they should have some characteristics that make them less desirable than ordinary factories for static building as a cost of their mobility. Balanced choices = interesting strategic play.

"You don't have any clue what they were."
I was mistaken on what scathis and yolona oss was (it has been a while since I have played) but you still don't get it. Those were giant-*** versions of units that existed in smaller forms. That is something that we agree on in having no place in the game, but you seem to be convinced that I am trying to push for those things. Stop bringing them up. They were, are, and always will be bad for gameplay.

"Mobile factories are stupid, sorry. Walking aircraft carriers are even more meaningless in PA, unless you mean mass-transport for aircraft (which is sillier still, seeing as they can fly...). So you've essentially had one novel idea, and identified mass transport as a type of megabot. Well, hate to break it to you but transportation isn't a megabot, but has similar game-changing ramifications. Perhaps that is why you keep classifying troop transport as a megabot..."
Again, that is your opinion. I am quite confident that many people would agree that mobile factories could be potentially cool (if done right). Transporting air when your opponent has stupidly good air superiority with fighters? Would be hard to do unless you had some form of non-air based transport for your air units. This is something that I have always hated about SupCom and now PA. The air implementation is just ridiculous. I stopped playing multiplayer in SupCom because of how air units worked. I personally see untethered air units as a severely broken mechanic, but these are all tangent arguments. A "Megabot" to me would be a much larger than average unit. So any unit that holds large quantities of smaller units is a megabot to me. As for me only listing 3, those were 3 off the top of my head. I am sure I could come up with more, but I am not trying to be novel. All I am trying to do is dismantle this hatred for large units.

"PA is about MASSES OF UNITS, it isn't SC for a reason. You keep on suggesting these things that are literally completely contrary to the spirit of PA - small numbers of expensive, hardy units. That sounds... boring. And it's been done. I don't think the devs are interested in doing the same old **** with a game like PA."
I completely agree. Point out one thing in my post that suggests I would like it to be different. Notice that all 3 of my suggestions COMPLEMENT or PRODUCE large groups of units? Come on, man.

"Asinine"
Says the person who defines a megabot as something that if "gifted" to a losing player could make them win. When does anyone get gifted anything in a fair game? Never. So leave that useless definition out.

"No, it sounds like I'm opinionated because I understand how these mechanics work."
On the contrary. You don't seem to understand that strategy games are designed around costs and returns. You are basing your opinions on your observations and previous implementations, not understanding the mechanics; hence why you are opinionated.

As for experimentals in supcom, I agree that they were poorly implemented (as I feel that I have stated a good number of times, and you continue to ignore) but so was air, and PA seems to be doing the exact same thing. If air isn't fixed, I will most likely stop playing it very quickly like I did with SupCom, and Starcraft 2 (MMM is practically all I ever saw)

I don't mind snark; I dish a fair amount out myself.
But you are still falling under my original blanket statement of "I still can't understand why all the people who are against larger units just assume that they replace armies."
Just because I am suggesting large units to fill roles that would add to gameplay without breaking it doesn't mean you should get your panties in a bunch and start referencing how other games failed at implementing large units. It doesn't need to happen here. The devs have been rather smart about how they are implementing things (except for air, sadly) and I think that this game has room for large scale units that would not be game breaking. Stop being so megaphobic and look at it from a different angle. Stop assuming that large units are inherently imbalanced. Your direct quote that started with "Asinine" explained perfectly that a large unit can be useless to build, and if it can be either useless or game-breaking, it can also be somewhere in between.

Now I am done with all these text walls. Feel free to throw more assumptions and criticisms at me--I have said my piece and will not weigh in any more (unless some clarifications are needed).

Nobody would actually put experimental equipment into the field and use it in anger.

There's always mountains and mountains of trials and testing before anything new sees combat.

One would expect that if something is used, it's been tested enough to be sure that it won't accidentally fall to bits.


On the topic of mega-units in FA, I think the Paragon was game breaking because it gave infinite resources everywhere on the map. Infinite resources in a very small location is another matter entirely. The Super-Nuke was game breaking because it was a massive nuke that needed two SMD to defend against that you could fuel on a T1 economy.

I've only had experience with 2, 3, and 5, but from memory, none of those games had anything I'd consider a mega-unit. Why do I say that? Because the price difference between the cheapest unit and most expensive unit is less than one order of magnitude.

Actually. That might be a good definition of a mega-unit: a mega-unit is any unit/structure that costs more than 10x of the cheapest unit available.

By that definition, most of them actually have "mega-units." lol

He said name five RTS', thats what I did.