Map design philosophy

Any theater can be effective if it has overpowered units and the map forces it. But that's not the issue.

A place with no resources has nothing worth fighting over. It is doubly worthless if it does not provide a terrain advantage. Water found at least some use in Supcom because the entire theater was a direct terrain advantage. It was practically high ground.

But an area with no resources might provide a useful space to build something in secret, or an alternate path to the enemy base, or, well, considering we haven't yet seen any gameplay, some other possibility which we have yet to conceive.

Those were just simple examples where territory without resources can still be important for the battle. Navy is important on Eye of the Storm, Haven reef and to some extension even on Finns Revenge. T1 navy strength and weight is somewhere between t2 and t3 land units. T2 Navy can outrange t2 PDs and are a league above land t3 in terms of range and weight. T3 navy comes close to experimentals in price. In terms of their ability to project power onto land t1 navy can only fire at targets close to the coast and have trouble even with the smallest cliffs. T2 Navy can fire further inland and fire above higher cliffs. The high cliffs on Eye of the storm are in many times too high for t2 boats without cruise missiles. T3 navy gives all navies the ability to fight t2 artillery on equal terms and might even outrange them. If sea is larger than the range of a t2 artillery there is little a player can do to prevent the ships from roaming freely and kiting all hovers that come their way.

I don't claim that every area of the planet has to have the same significance. Some areas are high priority. Some areas are low priority. If controlling high ground gives advantages and allows you to project bigger power with a smaller force then you might grab it just because of that. In the game NOTA on the spring engine hills are so important that rather than securing expansion first you try to secure the hills because controlling the hills allows you to project force much easier and defend with smaller amounts of troops.

Before Open Palms had resources in the mountains people still used them for stealthed firebases for TMLs and such. Controlling the mountains also allowed you to deny the mexes inside t1 artillery range for a cheap price while making it costly for the enemy to deal with that.
Give players space and they will find a way to use it to their advantage.

If you look at SupCom navies they usually require a serious investment before they pay off. Even if you look at Finns Revenge, an island surrounded by water and where t2 navy can reach almost everything from the sea, ships don't show up in every game. For the cost of getting 1 t2 ship you can tech up get, get an ACU upgrade, get 2 TMLs, upgrade 3 mexes or get 50 tanks.
I don't think that you can say that ships simply are overpowered in SupCom. They require a serious investment and your shipyard might even get raided by hovers when you try to go for t2 ships.

Before Open Palms had resources in the mountains people still used them for stealthed firebases for TMLs and such. Controlling the mountains also allowed you to deny the mexes inside t1 artillery range for a cheap price while making it costly for the enemy to deal with that.
Give players space and they will find a way to use it to their advantage.[/quote]
They were TMLs to take out resources, again.
When you're talking about areas with nothing in, I think you need to clarify how much nothing. If they're within weapons range of areas with resources, I wouldn't class them as areas with nothing in.
As before, they could be choke points, etc, or just areas on the way to other resources. Outside of that they don't see much use.
Yes EoTS sees some navy (less so these days) but that's, again, because it's a route between your resources and theirs because, in the end, that's what you're trying to do: Starve your opponent out of the game.

I should ("should") be able to demonstrate this in Starcraft soon. Supcom doesn't have the same outputting abilities as Starcraft does, so I won't be able to give the same level of detail.

They'll make it a resource worth fighting over. It doesn't need to be a metal spot to be a valuable resource. A mountain that's hard to enter and easy to defend is a valuable resource. A large, flat area that gives you room to build bulky bases, is a resource. A high peak that makes your radar work better is a valuable resource.
Hell, a small island in the middle of an ocean containing the only bit of room in a mile around where you can even build a rader, would be a valuable resource.

The terrain needs something that can give the player an advantage, not neccesarily a metal spot. Players are very good at finding these spots, usually. Especially if you let them play for a few months.

I don't need to specify how much nothing. The importance of different areas of the map can change during different stages of the game. SupCom t1 naval have very limited ability to strike at land targets but you might go for early ships to gain superiority on the sea and later take advantage of that with t2 naval units.
TMLs have huge range and just making it somewhere where the enemy can't reach it with land forces mean it is easier to defend while the enemy might be forced to make more TMDs than you spent on that TML.

Again you would only use the navy in the end to take out the resources (once you have control of the sea). If there was only sea out of range of any resources then nobody would make sea units, except in a situation where the sea was at a chokepoint.

With regards to TMLs/TMD. There is no point at which you can make someone build more TMD that you've spent on TMLs. In reality you have to do damage with your TMLs or you're behind. Your opponent can built 4 TMDs for the cost of one TML and one Missile. They can build 1 more TMD for every ~1.5 Missiles you build on top of that.
Considering you can protect all of your Mexes on Finns with 3 or 4 TMDs and each part of Open palms with 2, the chances of you ever forcing your opponent into spamming that many TMDs are nil (this goes out of the window if you are Cybran as your Missiles are stupid and I hate you).

But then there are the ocean corners in Seton's. When have those ever been used for anything apart from commander hiding? And no, the fact that they can be used for commander hiding is only because they are basically useless for anything else, so one can't exactly hold that up as an example.

Again. If you don't counter my navy you can't prevent me from taking out the resources in the end. My navy might not be able to cause significant damage at t1 but at t2 defending against it is expensive. You would have to punish me for making expensive t2 ships in order to keep up if I got the sea.
Again. I don't claim that every piece of the map or planet or planetary system have to be of the same significance.
If there is a planet with no resources far away from the rest of the planets, it will probably not be fought over. However that doesn't prevent you from going there and making a game ender on that planet in a position which is unlikely to be scouted by the opponent and gives you ample of time to counter whatever units the enemy might try to send there.

The rest is offtopic:
I were using a stealthed firebase as an example on Open Palms. Which faction is the best at setting up stealthed firebases?

Anyway. If you can get X amounts of TMDs for the price of 1 TML and 1 missile you can defend X spots from TMLs. If there are more than X viable targets it will be more expensive to defend against a TML than making one.
However in order to counter the TMLs you need t2 buildpower near viable targets. If you make the TMDs before the TML it can be unnecessary if the enemy doesn't make TMLs.
When you build the TML you only need 1 source of t2 buildpower while defending against it without making preemptive TMDs might require more sources of t2 buildpower.

You can also reclaim the TML for an 81% refund. If the other player reclaims his TMDs he would need to have t2 buildpower near all viable targets if the other player make TMLs again.

If you can make TMLs at places where only air can reach it, that means that it is easier to defend and that you likely can make it there regardless of how the frontline battles is going.

A few points:
- That kind of stealth relies on people not scouting, which rarely happens due to the relative low cost of t1 air. If you have control of the skies you don't really need TML, anyway.
- You can't reclaim the missiles
- I can't think of a single map where you would need more than 4 TMD to defend against one TML.
- Resource cost isn't the only issue. The time it takes to build the TML and Missile and then reclaim if it doesn't work is pretty high. You have to be sure that the 20+ t1 tanks that it costs isn't going to hurt your main army fight.

That isn't to say I've not done similar things, mind you. I've done drops on Setons where I then make t1 land factories and spam artillery. It's surprisingly effective. However, that's a super cheesey aggressive strategy. Building a nuke there would be a disaster.

We are going more off topic but whatever.

People won't scout everywhere everytime. If a transport goes undetected because the enemy lack radar coverage or because you got a Deciever in the transport it is likely that it will take several minutes before the enemy spot it. You don't need air superiority to do that.

Usually you fire the missiles as soon as you can and stop once there aren't any viable targets outside TMD range.

It really depends on how many viable targets there are. If the enemy is using Aeon TMDs you can also fire above and beyond them.

If you are building the TML in the enemies Line of Sight it is problem. However depending on how much buildpower you got there and how often the enemy scouts the area you are likely to finish the TML and launch a missile before the enemy can scout it and make TMDs of his own. Why are you comparing it to tanks? If I make a TML it is obvious that I consider it to be worth to spend resources on a TML and if the enemy wants to counter it he needs to spend resources on TMDs if he can't destroy it in other ways. Depending on the situation 20 tanks might not even reach the frontline before I have missiles inbound at the enemy.

Trying to build a nuke on the enemies side sounds kinda stupid. Luckily it wasn't my idea so I won't argue about it.

Well, it was more a comment on building an important building outside of your "main" protected area. Generally what you gain from stealth you lose in protection should it be discovered. A good player will be able to analyse what they can see and think "This is odd. They're missing 10,000 mass worth of stuff, here" and then go looking for it. You're banking on an opponent not looking around.
Now, in Supcom I am of the opinion that there was too much information to be gained from scouting an opponent. You could see what level the buildings were, etc, which allowed you to do the calculations required to know what an opponent had. If it's possible to limit what an opponent can see through scouting then, yes, the idea of hiding a building off somewhere is much more viable.

I would love to be proved wrong. I like the idea of Proxy buildings, but they are generally, rightly, not used often.

In general, though, resourced area, or path to resourced area = more travelled area.
This will be improved by having more, smaller resourced areas. Depends on the size of the map.

PA will play on spherical planets, which means you can attack the enemy from an angle you'd like barring terrain obstacles. Asteroids and maybe even other planets are likely to be relatively safe places where you can work on whatever project you'd like.

Scouting was rather easy and cheap in SupCom. I'm not sure how cheap scouting should be in PA. Planets are spherical and it might be hard to access enemy maneuvers when they can attack from any direction. Cheap scouting might be necessary to make the importance of guessing where the enemy is, less important. We will see.

The alternative to scouting is forcing which, if it is viable, can force the enemy to engage you without being able to surprise you with a large force as long as the game is stay even between you and the opponent.

Having areas with little or no resources can be interesting. Naturally you wanna expand and control the areas that contain resources.
That might leave your back door open for attacks from another angle where the there are little or no resources.
Spherical planets might change a lot.

Yes, and More.

Have a process that analyzes the map and makes sure that each start area is balanced. Taking into account whole planets and systems i.e. totally scalable.


Would like to see my vertical elements like multi leveled raised bit like in the desert biome. The segments 'floating' maps in Supreme Commander 2 seem like a good argument to take this to an extreme.
Would like the variety of plains to be made more dynamic (I know one image doesn't represent the full capabilities of the generator). big planet looks cool though.

Want an option for random or player chosen or generator/designer chosen start location.
want the option in player created games and as a 'global' option in the server (the one available for private LANs etc).

What about different forms other than planets like Halos and flat panels. etc?

For Balanced Matches(1v1 2v2 3v3 etc) pls mirrored.

You whot m8?

Since when were these going to be in the game? Have I just not been paying any attention at all, ever?

Hasn't been confirmed, but the engine is capable of seemingly arbitrary shaped "maps".