First Copy Costs & Production Cycles

Just exploring/brainstorming design concepts here really.

RTS mechanic based on the Principle of First Copy Costs & Production Cycles

"The principle of First Copy Costs states that the cost of producing the first copy of something is much higher than the cost of the second or any sub-sequent copy."

I was reading about this the other day, so I got to thinking...

So I was wondering if there should be a focus on production cycles. A strong example of this mechanic is the Terran faction in StarCraft 2. They can generally only produce in great waves or cycles of units. (Protoss can warp in large armies instantly, and Zerg can hatch hundreds in seconds). Now, taking production cycles further, what if the cost per unit went down proportionately to how many units you chose to produce on the production line? E.g. efficiency of scale. I ran with this thought and realised it could introduce a curious game mechanic both around timing and tech choices. If you produce hundreds of a given unit, this is a large investment, a risk. You need to know the unit will work as it's hard to go back on the investment, and production of a new cycle takes time. However, the costs of scale are reduced proportionately as an incentive. Then again, your production cycle and associated tech choice for that cycle is then openly revealed to your enemy upon scouting, thus your window of effective opportunity to use a new army may be narrow: they might adapt to you quickly on their own tech tree. Or, you might be faced with someone sneaky, with clever tech choices and specialised units; but your gameplay choice itself is pure brute force of production numbers, slowly wearing enemies down with attrition and unit control.

It also emphasizes the sought-after mechanic of a kind of last-ditch, high-risk attempt at turning the game around, which as we all know can be a lot of fun. The best games to play and most exciting to watch in TA, StarCraft and SupCom 1 & 2 (SupCom 1 sadly diminished this mechanic IMO) were ones in which a genius idea or super high-risk strategy, often pooling all of a player's resources into one basket and "going for it", pays off just in time. Epic comebacks and so forth. I think the production cycle concept might lend to this mechanic nicely. And it lends to the idea of PA's Super Massive Scale.

Example: I produce just 10 Tanks and march them towards my opponent. My opponent produces 100 Tanks in response, not yet quite ready for such a fast, small-scale production of aggressive units. Little time to adapt, he chooses for far greater numbers of generic old-tech units, using the efficiency of scale. I watch closely the investment and tech choice he makes here, and, knowing I'll lose the battle of numbers but not by much, engage anyway, gathering intel on his Tanks. I then suddenly ramp up production on 20 Anti-Tank Kbots I was researching after seeing his move. I have responded to him with a superior TECH choice. I need fewer units, but my choices are more efficient, so even without a production efficiency bonus of large-scale I know I have the superior force. I can keep trading, even losing battles and still win the resource war of attrition. I am certain of victory. Then, oh s**t, I realise it's a ruse! He's preempted my initial switch to Kbots, producing, with the very last of his resources, one last small cycle of Specialised Kbot Hunters (e.g. Spider Units). He's bankrupted us both and with his last great effort put his eggs into one epic basket and out-foxed me right at the end...

This is the kind of play I'd personally like to experience. Since you could build a few units, or thousands, and your choices would be weighted accordingly. And you can fit the production, as well as tech choices, to your preferred style of play. It's not about micro vs macro, it's about which one would you prefer to use? Well, then build and tech accordingly. Scale your production and become a big sprawling empire; or play like the rebels – fast, specialised and sneaky, with far fewer units and more efficient choices.

This its into my tech tree ideas, which if anyone's interested I'll go into here or elsewhere.

I'm not so sure about this mechanic. People should have to run their economy well enough to pay for the full price of a large amount of units (In metal and energy; I'm assuming you meant that) rather than getting a discount based on how many you buy.

Also, I know you didn't suggest this, but no research-please.

I'm just wary myself of getting into a SupCom 1 (Vanilla) situation where the game is too sit-back-and-tech-right-up situation (heavy turtling) and basically not fun to watch. Especially if you prefer to play a less eco-heavy style.

Yeah man I hear ya. Didn't like the separate SupCom 2 research overlay. I think tech paths should be visible entities on the map. From the sounds of things so far, and listening to the last live vid, it's going our way.

From what I gather on your idea - your post makes it kind of vague - you are looking for a mechanic that makes the user tie themselves into a production cycle. So that by choosing to produce a larger batch of something, I get each unit effectively cheaper, but I am stuck producing those units until they are done.

Please, do correct me if I'm missing the point here.

Firstly - what you start out by mentioning, the economy of scale, I don't think really applies to the TA universe, where units are constructed with nano-lathes. If it were a case of having to set up specific machinery to manufacture each unit, it would make more sense, but then you'd just build a factory for each kind of unit you want to produce, instead of creating a new cost for switching production. It's an unnecessary complication to the economy.