Modular Factories

Great idea, BTW, but why not make whole base management in same way? In SC it was possible to build a generator near factory to make factory less power-hungry.

Here we can integrate generator into our complex, which will reduce cost of overall construction. AI may suggest what auxiliary resources supplies (like mass storages, energy storages or power generators) you need to build to make this complex more autonomous.

I'd rather see this as "base management UI" - you may still build sole factories or sole power generators whenever you want, without any C&C module, but as soon as you build one any structure within it's reach became connected into single base, with single UI and single resource flow.

Than your "air module" is just same old "land factory" that you may build manually into enemy's back, your "launchpad" is same old "launchpad" you may build manually on your front-line, "high-tech module" - is just "advanced factory". And you may build any amount of this modules to pump more build/resource/whatever power to particular flow. AI may even suggest where to build AA, ground turrets, shields and stealth modules to make whole complex more and more defensed. I.e. make a guided main-base construction fast and easy, without making Command&Conquer =)

Yes, this will tamper your brilliant idea of separating tech modules from construction modules (to pump more build power you just need to build more construction modules, while you don't need more than one "(high-tech) air/ground/sea module" if you already have on in this complex), but this will somewhat make factories different from anything else in terms of building and I dunno if it's good idea.

But i definitely love the concept, it's worth playing around with to see if it's really good.

That level of adjacency did nothing useful in Supcom, and it's not coming back.

There was some mention of "build templates" a while back:

Code:

qoga: Any chance of saving a pattern of structures, so it's easier to simply designate complex building patterns for the construction unit?

uber_neutrino: Sure there's always a chance.

Even if it doesn't make it directly into the game, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a day 1 mod.

Base composition would be a better description of what nightnord is describing rather then adjacency.

With bases working in unison as a macro-facility in order to perform better, production facility's auto assisting with production, power facility's giving priority access to needed energy for things like defense over production.

Really lots of little things that will help a players bases function as a single entity, and be able to be commanded as such.

Theoretical stuff yes, but at least worth considering.

What's so wrong with build a factory, click it to set its build order? What you've proposed is an overly complicated mess that distracts from the actual gameplay.

Wow, went to bed, woke up and had three pages of discussion already.
Is anyone else having difficulty seeing the image?

Before I tackle the questions, here's an example of a base setup that may help clear things up. There are no 'upgrades', simply additional buildings you can build. Each building acts just like regular buildings, except they're smart enough to work together under a single interface, and it gives us a way to eliminate factory clutter - units bumping into each other, engineers blocking the exits, and so on.




To answer the questions:

Yes, the numbers indicate the number of modules you have in your base. The idea being that you build your base in a very similar manner to any RTS, but the factories link together and are managed through a common interface.

This is essentially the idea, except this is more localized. There are some interface issues surrounding a pure Orders as First Entity system, such as assignment of engineering assist and communicating the resource drain to the player.

I deliberately have left out the resource side of things since A) there are just too many questions at the moment on how resources are going to be implemented, and B) apart from building more buildings, you don't need to 'manage' your resource production.

I think I've answered your questions as to why I suggested the modules in the image.
The goal isn't to speed up the game, it's to:
A) Reduce the number of clicks to manage your production (reduce micro) especially in terms of managing large numbers of factories.
B) Give the user a clear unified interface to see what his factories are doing
C) Clear up some of the issues surrounding assisting, (unit clutter, pathing, obscured resource usage)

I like the idea of a centralised UI for managing unit production, much better then selecting and assigning queues to factories individually.

What about remote sites, forward bases, heck, OTHER PLANETS? do we get a 2nd UI for each area, how far apart do factories have to be to be considered a second production facility?

It might also help if you show how the assembly progresses, with step by step diagrams, and how these additions effect the UI.

Nice to see some thought and effort put in a post!

I also like seeing that you put so much effort into this. I think it's a great idea and I'd like it if it was in the game. I think this will indeed reduce base pollution.
However, it might be difficult to make it behave in such a way that having a small part destroyed will not disrupt the entire system.

It might also be something that could be modded in, but we won't be able to tell until Uber releases more information on the subject of modding.

I'd think each factory complex would have to be hooked up to a CNC building and each complex that's connected to a different CNC would be a different production facility..

I really like the concept of this, at least the way I understand it. xD
The problem I see, is that the mechanic, while being very interesting, could be too much when combined with all the other features PA is supposed to have.

The simplicity of the standard RTS factory imo looks like the better choice for PA. Which is kind of sad, since I like this idea :/

Wow Pawz that second image helps a ton. I love the idea even more now.

I especially love the disembarkation point concept. I didn't understand that the first time I read it.

Congratulations, you have earned all my kudos.

Two concerns/questions I have:
1. Why not just have each factory module be a gantry in it's own right? What is the benefit of the separate gantries?
2. Would the unit being constructed still be visible, and would engineers be able to assist without the engineering station? What's the benefit of having an engineering station over just having a module that increases build speed?

What if I only have enough room for one factory?

The only thing I don't like are the construction bays. Just let each module be a factory in its own right. That way, if the CNC gets destroyed, you end up just with unlinked factories, rather than useless buildings that aren't connected to the construction bays.

And disembark points still don't make sense to me. Could someone explain?

Well, as I may see, we already have two different concepts:

1. Just make single command point for overall production base management - mostly UI part, doesn't affect game mechanics much.

2. More complex/uniq thing - each factory consists from three parts: "design-bureau" which know how to produce parts, "universal production complex" which produces parts using info provided by DB module and "assembly hangar/dock/launchpad".
You want to build air units in your land factory? Install air-DB module and at least one air launchpad!
You want to build faster? Install additional production module!
You are producing parts very fast, but units leaving factory blocking it from producting even faster? Build additional hangar/launchpad/dock!

OP also suggests to add engi parking place, but I dunno why this is required - why you would build parking slots if you can bulid another production module or assembly module?

I'd rather see conventional engi assist for specific part - assisting production module means faster parts production, assisting assembly module means faster assembly. If you'll add some storage modules, you may even first fast-produce many-many parts without producing single unit and then start assembling them when they needed most.

Second design is uniq and cool, but it may sidetrack a little into some kind of industrial management adding unnecessary level-of-detail to production task. You need to balance assembly and production...

OP suggesting some kind of mix between this, but I don't understand how it will work then.

Eh? But wait, if each "factory module" is just like normal factory, then why you need "production complex" to build more units simulationaly?

I agree on the factories.

If you have a disembarkation point built the finished unit would appear there instead of at the construction bay door. It's to help get units to the rally point faster and avoid traffic jams in the base.


Can I make a suggestion that the command module be an advanced, late structure instead of a starting structure? So it would look like this:

1. Factories: Starting out you build factories like normal. A factory is a factory and works just like in TA/Supcom.

2. Engineer Modules Let's say there are too many engies crowded around your factories getting in the way, or you hit the cap (if there's a limit on how many engies can assist a single factory) so you build an engineer dock and link it to the factory. The engies crowd around that instead. The engy dock can only link to one structure.

3. Disembarkation ports: Despite getting the engies out of the way, there's still traffic issues with units moving out of the factories, and it takes them a while to roll off. So you build a disembarkation port and link it to your factory, and finished units appear there, out of the way. The disembarkation port can also only link to one thing.

4. Control Center: Finally, you build a control center. The control center places a base icon on the solar system map, and can link to as many other structures as you want. So now every structure/module in your base is linked together via the control center, and it gives you a universal production interface which you can access at any time, even from space. It links everything. Not only the structures mentioned above, but also missile silos, turrets, repair/refuel pads, etc.

Does that make sense? I was thinking I would draw pictures, but I'm pressed for time.

Why not just remove the concept of different build power contributors and have a generic "factory boost" module? Tie the tech requirements to the pads instead.

They're called "engineers". Welcome back to square one.

More like an engineering station, not that the idea is bad overall.

Kinda like the Caretaker from Zero-K, which actually works fairly well. But then so does engineer-support in that game.

I don't see the problem with at least investigating this, as I recall there was commotion on the SupCom forums from TA vets about some of the changes they made.

Honestly after I read the OP I expected a much bigger lashback from the vets than there was. Only a couple naysayers is quite an accomplishment.

I think the thing I like about this idea is that it turns your base into a sort of computer where the command center is the CPU. There aren't many RTS's that stray from the normal base building formula and the few who have did things that only made it a pain (like forcing you to build on roads or within a boundary or some such crap) I would be really excited to see this done well.

Well, it's hard to tell anything at current point. But PA hopefully would be one perfect platform for testing new ideas and concepts with modding capability promised by Uber. So, now we are collecting ideas and as soon as alpha will hit the stage mod production could began. Then all this ideas will get some more or less proof-of-concept implementation (or will die in process) - then it would be much more to talk about.