Engineers and constructor types.

The suggestion for homogeneous constructors is built on a false premise; that having separate land and naval bound constructors based on their traction "is too much for players to manage!". Discriminating constructor types is just as much a tool for adjusting the pace of the game, and of all the things that can make a game a micro-inducing hastle, differing constructors wasn't anywhere near offensive.

I never had a problem with TA engineers either.

The commander was the universal builder, and the other ones were the more specilised builders.

SupComs engineers seemed to easy, universal but never really that special untill in number.

I would much rather have bigger and better specilised engineers then small jack of all trades master of none engineers.

So the issue with having a plethora of engineer types is simply that you potentially have different costs and differing amounts of build power. This means that one type of engineer is simply going to be the best cost per build power unit. Furthermore, these units may have other properties, such as mobility, which when factored into the cost per buildpower analysis may make them outright better choices for buildpower.

Now, if you fix the cost per buildpower rate of all engineers, then why have multiple types of engineers? The smart way to do this is to have a single engineer type that establishes this rate of exchange, and then utilize other units that transport or protect engineers, or do whatever else, which cost based on the functionality they add to the engineer.

Err, well in cmparison of Engineer Kbots to Engineer Vehicles:

Engineer Kbots are cheaper and faster over rough terrain with moderate build power, and are generally quite small.

Engineer Vehicles offer more build power but are cumbersome, while faster over a longer strech are slow to turn, cost more and are rather large.

If the terrain is flat, I am going for vehicles, if there are hills then Kbots are much more useful, and are eaiser to replace when lost.


Really it's not about build power, but the unit it's self.

But you aren't just paying for raw build power. You're paying for mobility, access to tech, field work, and ability to make new bases. All of these features are worth paying for, but they are not worth new engineers. They belong on existing ones.

For example, a 2 tier engi list might look like this:
Basic- slow, all purpose hover unit. Builds first tier. High efficiency.
Adv. land- tougher, average speed vehicle with active stealth. Builds advanced land. Medium efficiency.
Adv. water - meaner, average speed sub with active stealth. Builds advanced water. Medium efficiency.
Basic Air - fast, gunship style FARK. Can not start projects. Medium efficiency.
Adv. air - super fast, all purpose VTOL. Builds first tier. Excellent for long distance expansion. Low efficiency.
Stationary- maintains a few drones that can only reclaim or repair. Large patrol range.

That's 6 units, less than TotalA's 10+ and Zero-K's 9+. The basic variant is flexible and efficient. The advanced variants can better hide expensive construction projects. Flying ones allow fast expansion and powerful assisting. Unless there's something I missed?

Is there any circumstance where an engineer is going to be more effective at combat than an equal value of tanks? I don't think that will really happen.

The difference between "losing" and "losing horribly" doesn't count as a real distinction between two units.

That's stupid. Why can't I just build a construction ship, kbot, vehicle or plane if either one of those is what I really want. I want my units to do what they say on the tin, not follow some convoluted set of game rules.

Also do you really care for engineer archetypes being worth it as 'abilities' but not as new units? Since when did more units instinctively become a bad thing anyway? Just think of your narrative from a marketing perspective:

"Here is your omni-purpose engineering unit. It can be upgraded to carry special abilities." = Boooring

"Literal flying construction cranes." = AWESOME!

Sometimes I wonder if some people here have ever played TA.
I don't seem to recall the engineer system in that game having such a bevy of problems that it needed to be radically overhauled. I must be getting old and forgetful.

I for one found aircon spam in TA to be pathological in terms of gameplay. Effective, without a doubt, but less interesting than having slower ground constructors or positional buildpower in the form of nanotowers.

Other than that, the TA construction system was fine- however there were essentially only two types; bots and vehicles. And let's be honest, the differences between them are purely cosmetic under virtually all circumstances.

Zero K created more types with much more differentiation, and standardized build power's resource consumption, greatly simplifying constructors' behavior across the board. I would be quite alright with a ZK style approach to constructors in PA, but it is very different from going a modified SupCom route based on a universal engineer type.

Ahh but that's not the point my dear sir, a combat unit that can also reclaim resources needs only win 1 battle to begin replicating.

Your combat units might and indeed are better then my combat engineers, but if I win a single battle all resources from the destroed units become mine very quickly, and my force can quickly repair and even rebuild on the spot.

The idea isn't to be better directly, but to simply be more.....virilant then a convential unit, leading to the comparrison to say, a zergling. Not good on it's own but as a part of the swarm and in numbers, can even overpower the mighty thor once the ball gets rolling.

And just like in SupCom2, you could always rush me before the ball does get rolling and win, so really it's just a fun stratigy type that I think might be fun to replicte in PA.

No. Kbots and vehicles did not behave the same.

Igncom you really should make a thread about how you would design a supplementary gameplay paradigm of a replicator or "machine swarm" gameplay.

I think having a single combat engineer is not a very interesting way to implement it, though it might work. What about splitting the unit up into several pieces which might be used separately as a part of other strategies without going all-out replicator swarm? An assault unit that can be mass-produced cheaply using a mobile unit would be a critical component. A longer-ranged, squishier skirmisher unit that can reclaim would allow you to get resourcing when you advance a force that is weak in close combat onto a position where there was recently a battle (presumably you won). You need some mobile unit that produces energy also- I suppose this type of unit should probably be unarmed, and force the player to protect them. The ability to produce units independently in the field would be quite important to grow the swarm without using a factory, and the same unit might also be able to repair.

Roll all of these things together and the player is perfectly capable of playing an entire game without a base at all.

The roles may need some mixing and matching to produce best results. For example, if the skirmisher is the reclaimer there might not be enough reclamation power. This might be solved by moving the abillity to reclaim to the cheap, mass-produced attack unit, and giving the skirmishers something else- making them the energy-generators, perhaps.

In my opinion I would rather see a universal engineer, with amphibious capabilities to assist in mobility, and obvious capable of being transported in the air by transport enabled units.

When it comes to tech, they get everything you have, and tech 2 construction options unlock when you clear the requirements for tech 2.

Some may find this boring, they would rather put on nifty cool abilities however then that creates either redundant situational useless versions or balance issues.

Ok, Although beyond the single unit I wouldn't really know where to go, as my experince has been with a single combat engineer unit and the results from there indicate that you really don't need much else once you get going.

Building units on the battle field is cetrainly possibly, hell we could even just make the units you have devide for the appropriate cost in resources.

As for the other unit types, I am not too sure, but I will save it for the thread.

I could go either way, a non base army is nice but even the trynids and zerg need static positions to leech resources from the ground and to produce the stronger forces at their disposal.

Unless you just reclaim all of the vegitaion on the planet for energy > But generally the assualt unit is the reclaimer, uining the reclaiming weapon to actually kill.

I don't believe it is a problem at all. I think the only engineer I disliked was the boat engineer because the hovercraft engineer could already do everything the boat could.

Indeed. One was fast and one was slow. One could traverse more types of terrain than the other, and they unlocked different batches of advanced units. Any other difference is strictly cosmetic and nostalgic.

I believe I got this distinction covered pretty well, in addition to allowing other niches.

What do you mean, "any other difference is cosmetic"!? Those aforementioned traits -hell, even just the two first ones alone- are a very big deal.

No you haven't.

Okay. Which features did I miss? Tell me how those differences matter to a game that won't have pathing issues.

There are certainly a wide range of mobility traits that can have different and meaningful contributions to the game. But they are traits, and not every trait matters to every unit. Constructors do not need every single set of legs to excel at every single nuanced piece of terrain. They are not combat units. They don't storm beaches or buggy across deserts or assault across metal worlds or snipe from the mountain peaks. Constructors need to get from point A to point B and start lathing. That's it.

I already covered every type of terrain an engineer needs to cover. You got the standard one, the specialists, the support guy, and the anywhere guy. Constructors don't need a variant that excels in every biome, unless the things they build are somehow biome specific.

Dedicated transports exist so that a dozen chassis configurations don't have to.

If you think old pathfinding technology was the only factor that made mobility types relevant, that's just dumb.

If you think terrain shouldn't be an factor to anything other than pure combat units, because you think the only strategy in games is 'smashing units', that's also dumb.

And where's the chutzpah?...how does your suggestion to do things get me enthusiastic about your product? "Load engineers onto a transport" doesn't sound anywhere close to endearing like "construction planes you can actually build!". That's why I stated this:

ACM, the differences you are talking about are biome specific. There is no functional difference between an engineer that goes faster in a forest, or an engineer that goes faster on a plain. A fast engineer does BOTH.

Ohhhhh. So you stated something that wasn't relevant, as there are no upgrades in sight and literal flying construction cranes still exist.

Okay. Thanks for setting me straight.

So I guess when I'm rapidly expanding to capture metal over open fields with a construction kbot, or trying to maneuver a construction vehicle through hills and valleys, while my opponent does vice versa, I'm NOT putting myself in strategic disadvantages; those were all just in my head. The kbot/vehicle/hover distinction is another tool in adjusting the balance of a strategy game, but I guess that doesn't matter because 'they're all land units', 'they all serve the same function, which is to go from point A to B!'.

I also guess real world militaries should remove the distinction between tanks and foot soldiers too. After all, they're both ground traversing units. Their job is to get from point A to B. (In before "they're all robots!". In gameplay terms, the kbots of Total Annihilation were clearly made to the likeness of foot soldiers.)

You want to homogenise engineer mobility archetypes then make some convoluted distinctions which make no sense in a practical world. You also admit mobility archetypes can have meaningful contributions to the game, yet think they shouldn't be represented as new units(so what else then?...unit upgrades?). Then you went on to state dedicated transports exist(so flying constructors don't have to). This is all supposed to address percieved 'problems', which are built on false premises from the start.