Poll: Do you feel that the commander we have seen since TA improves the game?

The point is not to put it somewhere it can't be killed, but to put it somewhere that makes it awkward for the opponent. The nice thing about sending your commander off is that it kinda "resets" the game state for the commander, it puts him back into a position where he won't be dealing with giant armies it can't deal with single handedly, much like the early game play for the commander. Not to mention that the commander isn't really hiding after all, it's claiming more territory and economy and factories and units, all the things that can win you the game.

The Commander's Role is to build the Army, then it's the Army's role to fight for the Commander. That's kinda the whole point of the Commander, it's too expensive to fly around armies large enough to conquer systems(never mind the logistics for replenishing losses across a galaxy) when you can just send the lone Commander that is capable of building the army on-site.

Mike

I assume that this is wrong assumption. But I don't have any metrics either.

Maybe it makes sense to create a poll to check this?

I still think in competitive games we are going to see Tech2 workers sent to other planets so tech1 can be skipped to save metal unless the tech tree is per planet or you just cant send them. Because if your running low metal efficacy in metal use is going to be what you want, unless the commanders nano-lath upgrades with the tech level I don't think that's what people are going to send unless its to save it from assassination and with interplanetary nuke the first thing your going to need is nuke defense without it a late game commander will just get nuked or be forced to run an evasion pattern and that's not that good for building bases.

And in non-assassination games I think its going to be build Factory + Mex + Power commander rush to do as much damage as possible to slow your opponent then out economy him. unless the commander has more value like he produced a lot of power so losing him in a raid early game is really bad for your economy or he is so powerful in combat that if yours survives with 1hp you can fix him and it gives you the advantage.

If that were the case we'd have the same tier issues we had with SupCom. If Basic/Advanced are balanced properlly the only reason you'd need to send an Advanced Fabber is if you needed to execute a specific strategy that hinged upon Advanced units. If Basic units are always viable then being 'limited' to Basic structures on the Commander is not a bad thing. And even if you NEED and Advanced Factory you just need to build a Basic Factory and right away build a Fabber to build the Advanced Factory, your Commander can still assist throughout and currently it builds as fast as an Advanced Fabber, but only with half the Energy upkeep.

Keep in mind that basically no serious balancing has happened at all yet.

Mike

Why not have the commander be like a transformer and turn into a ship or a jet or a semi?

All of you, stop thinking, all of it is disgusting to read.

Commander needs improvement instead of nerfs. Its the ******* commander and the ubercannon is ****, not a terrible amount of dmg, no range, no real aoe, except that it looks cool. His hp makes up a littlebit for his lack of power, and the commnuke is too weak. Since there is no upgrading a commander, i am sure improving/fixxing his ubercannon is important because lowrange ubercannon leads to bullshit-battles.