Making the Commander Late Game Viable

So we may as well make him die to anything more than a light raiding force? That's boring and frustrating, and I'm sick of having to run away from everything because "that's how its SUPPOSED to be played". Let me fight, dammit!

Yes. You have carefully avoided both the intent and meaning behind my words, and discovered the secret hypnotic code I was using to brainwash the Uber team into turning the Commander into a wet tissue. Bravo.

Okay, then what's wrong with making the commander offensively useful past early game? I'm fine with the commander eventually dying, not fine with the only realistic option being "start an army then sit around on the farthest planet behind ALL the defenses". Let me put him on the front line, yes i understand the risk, i still want to do it.

Then do it. Why does the game need to make that easier for you?

The King in Chess. Is it the strongest piece?

No, that would be the Queen (super unit), a queen can take on any other single piece solo. A King is most assuredly stronger than a pawn (first units produced), but the first units produced eventually come full bloom and make larger units if their progress is allowed to continue, called promotion (or gathering resources). A King is even directly more powerful than a Knight (indirect damage specialization unit), the knight alone cannot really take anyone on unless amist a confusing full-scale battlefield (ambush units which are obvious unless placed while the opponent is distracted taking care of other things in the field). The King is arguably weak against a Rook (artillery) or Bishop (strategic missiles) as long as a clear line of sight is present.

After reading all that, what is the king's value then? He is a flexible and balancedly strong unit in every facet of mobility and combat, yet he requires his army of pawns to progress to better units and capture land, he requires his bishops and rooks to put longrange raw firepower out to target the enemy king and enemy king-defences, and he requires his knights to powerhouse-landcapture and weave through enemies to target priority targets and vunerable-only-to-the-knight targets.

The Commander literally starts with base units and pushes them out to get progress, literally pushes out raw firepower cannons and missiles to target the enemy commander and the base defences defending the enemy commander, and literally builds specialized units to wiggle through enemy territory and strike priority and vunerable targets from within like stealth units, and specialized units to win battles over land and leverage enemy unit masses off of it like high-burst units or damage-soaking units.

And that is how you play Chess. Or literally, RTS games.

Sometimes I like Red Alert series. Those games made it obvious that the King, the unit that starts creation, is not the Queen, the frontline assault unit.

+1 That analogy was fantastic. There's not much else to say after that...

Good Chess analogy.

I was going to use the analogy of an actual commander. There is no way any real commander would go on the front lines unless it was the bitter end.

Commander Worf always had Ensign 'Ricky' go in a die first.

In Command and Conquer you are the commander watching from so far away that you don't even get a piece on the battlefield.

In Stargate, Hammond, Landry and O'Neill (once promoted) never stepped through the Stargate unless forced by ultimatum.

Commanding is the Commander's role, not fighting.

Because there's a visible and present difference between risky and "lol you want to lose don't you".

How you think it will work and how it will actually work are two very separate things. It will not be easy to make them both line up. That's a problem with throwing huge monster units on the field in general. It looks great until you realize that units actually have to be built around strengths AND weaknesses. The weakness is that the bot HAS to be mortal in some way, and when it dies YOU die. GG. It's dangerously binary gameplay- if it doesn't win, you lose.

And surprise surprise, A binary choice does not equal deep strategy. There are lots of things my Commander can do, except fighting. Fighting is what he builds other robots for so he can stay waaaaaay far away from where he might die to a stray laser bolt.

The more you try to justify why the Commander should be late-game combat-viable, the less viable the idea sounds.

And no choice equals no strategy.

And as I said before, the option for me to put my commander on the front lines does not devalue the choice for you not to do so yourself. =/

But it does devalue the tone of the game

Not letting this go rcix.

If you're determined to try and get your idea in the game, I'm just as determined to stop it. Nothing personal. I just think the idea is not the direction PA should head in.

I just want to point out the very valid point that abilities are already planned and have a very big possibility to let the commander be combat-viable past early game. Other than that there's really nothing to say without getting official clarification, while you may have a point it's never been said that your vision is canon.

Have to say I loved reading that chess analogy thetrophysystem, very in depth and interesting +1

Suppose the economy is local to the planet; give the commander a decent resource output and he'll always have a use in spearheading invasions.

A localized economy is as much of a blessing as it is a curse. It's a good idea to allow full access to your economy to make planet invasions possible. It's also a good idea to make a base vulnerable to local resource shortages.

It's possible to have both.

The flaw with the chess King analogy is that the King become more and more a fighting piece as the game progress.
Hiding your king in the late game would be a waste of power.
People liking the analogy are arguing the contrary for PA.

Unfortunately making comparisons to C&C or other RTS titles is that some people haven't experienced them.

Chess is near universal in that everyone understands the mechanics. It has the closest "Rule" of a single unit that is essential no matter what happens. No matter what other pieces are brought to bare the King must take priority over everything else.

We like the analogy because it is by far the simplest game that every single person here has heard of and has familiarity with.
It's a comparison of convenience, not one of perfect analogy across all game mechanics.

If you want a better analogy then look no further than the games short description on the main page:
Total Annihilation-inspired gameplay on a planetary scale.

It's TA, in space, with planets... pretty much the best analogy you have there... and that game had no commander scaling... and is heralded as a classic.

With problems, perhaps... but we still call it a classic.

So, if the analogy fail at the mechanics "viability of the king/commander end game" why even mention it in the "Making the Commander Late Game Viable" thread?
It's not just any game mechanics, it's exactly the point of the thread.

*rolls eyes*

Do you really need me to explain why Chess is being referenced in regards to the importance of the King piece in comparison to the Commander unit?

King must stay alive to win game.
Commander must stay alive to win game.

There, it's THAT simple.

Designing the game so the King "scales" to become more powerful is NOT how chess works. He becomes more powerful relative to the remaining pieces on the table. He is still the King. Not designed for power, not designed to get "better" at combat. The King does not become "tougher" to kill. The King does not gain extra move types or powers that help him survive. The King is ALWAYS more powerful than a Pawn, but NEVER as powerful as a Rook, Queen, Bishop or Knight... and he can get "swarmed" by even Pawns.

The only difference between Total Annihilation and Chess is that in Total Annihilation you must MAKE the pieces you play with. In Chess you start with a full army. Other than the "real-time" vs "turn-based" part... that's pretty much it.

You are asking a Total Annihilation inspired game, to do away with one of Total Annihilations' most fundamental design elements.

It's like playing chess, and saying... Hey, I'll take away my King-side Knight and Bishop... but now he moves as if he were a Queen. Why is that tactically interesting? You HAVE a Queen already.

If you say you'll trade your Queen for the chance to make your King act like a Queen then you've swapped out a maneuverable but disposable piece for a maneuverable but CRITICAL piece. You haven't added tactical depth to Chess by doing that. You've added in a "Rambo". That's not tactical! That's not deep! That's not strategic! That's just reckless!

And you've defeated the POINT of the game; to defend a relatively powerless but essential piece of your army.