No more: 100 engineers around a factory

I for one remain unconvinced. 80% support for assisting from the poll...

The Poll says "should factories be assistable"

I can assume from the 80% (I would be in that 80%) that yes, people want to be able to do so.


All that has nothing to do with making assist better though.

Making assist better? All the posts I've seen have been discussing whether PA should make assisting worse. The obvious assumption is that the 80% like assist as it is. Assist range + space + fixed minimum time (the time it takes for units to roll off the factory) naturally limit assistance without arbitrary limits. Sorta like in TA and supcom.

You're using "better" in a different context than "all the posts" I think. I think everyone else wants assisting but they also want more factory use. The two options aren't mutually exclusive. (opinion)The pic that's been going around in this thread with 2 factories and I-don't-know-how-many engineers is a bit extreme. (/opinion).

Ok, so I've had a few to drink so maybe I'm misinterpreting you here. But the general rule I've been posting in favour of is that flexible build power is awesome, if it's either nerfed to hell or eliminated entirely that eliminates an enormously important factor in your ability to react to your opponents actions. If a significant proportion of your total buildpower is in engineers you can refocus that buildpower on a different target at any time. This gives you a window of opportunity to react to your opponent's behaviour. Whether that is going 'oh ****, he's building a <insert powerful offensive unit here> I need a <insert appropriate defence here>' or going 'hmmmm, he doesn't have any <insert defence here> so If I build <insert unit here> I can kill him!'

Lets put some thought in to a more intelligent set of poll options...

To get things started I can think of:

• Unlimited linear assisting at approx. SC:FA balance (e.g. 4x T1 Eng = 1x T1 Factory)
• Unlimited linear assisting rebalanced in favour of Factories (e.g. 8x T1 Eng = 1x T1 Factory)
• Unlimited linear assisting rebalanced in favour of Engineers (e.g. 2x T1 Eng = 1x T1 Factory)
• Unlimited diminishing returns assisting (e.g. SC2)
• Limited linear assisting up to a certain max at approx. SC:FA balance
• Limited linear assisting up to a certain max rebalanced in favour of Factories
• Limited linear assisting up to a certain max rebalanced in favour of Engineers
• Limited diminishing returns assisting up to a certain max

One of the central principals that made TA/supcom/FA so awesome was that wherever possible they avoided arbitrary limits. Generally speaking if the physical simulation supported it, it worked. Arbitrary limits on assisting violates this basic principal.

By 'Better' I meant, fix the issues that large groups of engineers create (base clutter, hard to determine who's building, hard to select etc etc). The issue of engineer vs factory balance (bp / mass ratio etc) is a different one entirely.

I don't believe a cluster of engineers around a factory is the best solution to allow for flexible build options, and I also believe there are model and UI improvements (as already been discussed) to make things better without necessarily 'nerfing' engineers.

I would like prominent build assist towers because it provides the most ways to implement specific choices without overlap. If you just have factories and engineers then some things will do both roles.

Below are some choices which can be independent. By independent I mean that it is possible to have a game with ways to implement each desire without adding towards either of the other desires.

I want more unit types
Response: Add more factories of different types. Factories would be costed with their main purpose as unlocking new tech.

I want to build units faster
Response: Add assist towers near factories. These would have the best BP/cost as they do not increase your unit type options and cannot move.

I want to do stuff outside the base
Response: Build engineers. They move around.

Ideally a game would have a way to implement a reasonably extreme version of each of these desires. If you are only able to build factories and engineers you can only choose two responses to three problems. Choice is effectively removed because the solution to 'I want to build units faster' is also covered by the solution to either of the other two problems.

In practise the solutions to each of these desires would overlap. You could add factories with unit types in mind but your BP is also increased. Engineers might be primarily for external use but they can still assist factories. Assist Towers could help out other base construction and repair nearby things. Some overlap in solutions is a good thing because there are a lot of nuances to be covered. Of course there can also be different types of engineers with different abilities which make them better or worse for base building vs expansion.

In short I want a which system creates many important decisions by providing solutions with varying effectiveness over a range of situations. Not just one answer which is right 90% of the time 'spam engineers' or 'spam factories'.

If you can't discuss something without having to keep repeating someone else "is whining, unable to understand" and "can't make an argument" and all that nonsense totally irrelevant to the topic, then keep away from discussions.

Your main argument is flexibility and not creating arbitrary limitations, but instead have a choice. In fact, the so-called flexibility is only possible due to arbitrary limitations, namely the way engineers are way more powerful than construction plants.

And you don't have a choice at all, because it is the only way to survive.

As someone pointed out, if you have to pull off those engis because you have to build something in 2 seconds, then you've made a strategical mistake and should learn from that. Presenting your engi's as a deus ex machina isn't adding to gameplay, it's giving bad planners a bail-out.

But you really want to restrict a whole group of engi's to construct units most of the time so when you need to build something in 2 seconds, you have the flexibility to immediately rectify that. That's no awesome gameplay.

If unit construction is handled by unit construction plants instead of engineers, then your engineers can do something useful instead of sitting by your plant.

If you want to use engis like that, that's great and perfectly possible when factories have a mentionable output in relation to their cost contrary to engis. Hower, some people here don't like to be forced to manage a beehive in order to survive and prefer a clean and simple base with a clear view on consumption and production.

That's what I was thinking: what about making higher tier engineers have more build capacity than a certain number of less technological engineers? Like, make it better to build several T2 engineers instead of swarms of T1. Give something to T2 that T1 lacks yet without making T1 obsolete nor T2 too situational.

There should be trade-offs for using both types of engies for assisting constuction, besides breaching pop cap and individual engineer health (the difference between tech level access is nil since every serious SupCom player just builds a single T2/T3 engie ever).


The limited assist slot would also make using T2 engineers worthwhile over T1 in most situations.

That's bettter, but you would just be delaying the problem.

Just imagine a late game base: you have a huge amount of unused resources. The best way to improve your unit output is creating additional high tier engis. You'll just end up with the same problem eventually, it will only go slower.

If construction plants would be at least as efficient, you would just end up with more contruction plants. Seems pretty logical, since you need more unit contruction capacity.

"I need to construct more units" => "build more engis" is pretty strange compared to:
"I need to construct more units" => "build more construction plants".

And should you be able to choose between a clean late game base with a lot of factories instead of one with tons of sprawling engis, I wouldn't know why you'd choose the latter. Unless you realize you forgot to build anti nuke 10 seconds before impact, forgot to scout and build ships when an armada is in front of you, etc. and need instabuild. If you really want to, you can, of course, but I prefer clean and simple.

Some people want to be able to be really flexible in spending, some think the engiswarms are way to good compared to factories.

Things like this have been suggested I think, but I'll try:

Change the BP/cost ratios so factories are better, maybe not by a lot, maybe by a lot, I duno. (They can be more 'specialized' than the engies and so are better at what they do?) Assist is only limited by things getting close enough, if your unit can't get out cuz of all the engies, that's your problem.

You want efficient unit production, build factories, you want to be able to redirect your construction build engies. You can speed up production all you want, but it will cost you slightly more in infrastructure than going parallel which is less flexible. Yes the exact ratios would need to be tweaked but this I think gives people options, because instead of everyone getting flexible+cost, you make players chose one to optimize for, or if they want a mix.

So I have nothing against engineer swarms, but there's this idea of reacting to an enemy attack that I don't really like, and the extreme examples that are presented. A big point of strategy is to capitalize on your enemies weakness (Inefficient resource spending is a weakness btw). So while engineering assist is good to have to account for some excess resources, being able to switch gears completely is anathema to strategy. Where's the decision? This is especially important in the late game where resources are effectively infinite and timing is the only thing that can swing the outcome. We should be very careful about reducing windows of opportunity.

(EDIT: Ninja'd by mench, but putting it anyway)
With that in mind, we should balance engies and factories based on their strengths and weaknesses. The flexibility and mobility of engies should be taken into account when coming them to large stationary factories. I personally like the suggestion of factory build power being more than engie build power; maybe taking 6-8 engies to double build time on a factory. The idea is, in your main base, you'd probably opt to build more factories, but for your fire base (or maybe your sneaky stealthy superbot factory near the enemies base) you'd opt for a swarm of engineers since they can run away if you get caught.

Personally, I would go with engineering towers like in FA. Those things were an immense help in construction while keeping base clutter to a minimum.


Then again, I also loved using them during the campaign to enable me to build mass experimentals after unlocking and building the resource generator experimental. Thanks to having every faction ACU type for the mission.

That actually sounds pretty nice! Sneaky engi surprise attack behind a mountain!

Only if "Near" includes you being several kilometers away from the actual base so as not to get caught on radar, and loads of praying a scout plane doesn't stumble upon you.

Depends if there's stealth of any sort. It was one way to missile snipe and enemy acu in FA.

Are people just over polls or were my options perfect and no one felt the need to comment?

See, here's the thing. I have explained this to you like 3 times now and every single time you miss the point.

Nope, wrong again. Repeat after me: The ratio of engineer build power to factory buildpower is irrelevant. The important ratio is buildpower to mass cost. If your factory builds 50 times as fast as an engineer but costs 100 times as much engineer swarms are still the optimal choice. It isn't insane to argue this ratio should be changed to favour factories. Your ideas are particularly bad because they won't even have the effect you want, ignoring the question of whether the effect you want is actually something that would be good for the game.

Nice straw man. No one is saying you should be able to build any counter you need in 2 seconds. Even massive amounts of engineer buildpower won't let you do that anyway thanks to these two minor details called 'metal' and 'energy'. What you should have is a window of opportunity to react to your opponent. You can't know what he is going to do before he starts building it, if scouting reveals either a new threat or a new opportunity you should have some chance to change your plans in order to accommodate the new intel. You know, sorta like you can in TA or supcom. If you can't do that there is no point scouting, you might as well pick a plan at the start and robotically implement it hoping your plan happens to beat their plan.

You have this weird obsession with the names of units. As I keep saying, names don't define roles, they give you a rough hint. The behaviour of engineer assisting in TA and supcom demonstrably did lead to awesome gameplay, as those games are awesome.