SACU taking over if ACU is destroyed-new Assassination Mode?

---------
EDIT:
Just to be sure everybody understands it right:

I do not want that the Assassination game mode is replaced by this idea.
I want that a new game mode is added which is like Assassination,
but where you have to kill all (S)ACUs making it more interesting play against AIs for example.
I do not want to have an Assassination game mode where you can use use escape pods (which is pretty much the same insurance) but I want a game mode where this kind of insurance is playable without having to destroy even small engineers like in the supremacy game mode in SC:FA.
------------

SACU are expensive and normally are used in late game for resource generation (SupCom, FA), but it still is a commander and therefore should be able to take over command of the army if the main ACU is destroyed.

I would suggest to add a new type of Assassination Mode, where you have to assassinate all ACUs (even SACUs) to win the game. It would be able to give the SACUs more meaning in the strategy game.
It is really annoying if you do not want to play Assassination and have to find and destroy even the least important engineers.

If you transfer command to another SACU if the ACU is destroyed you do not lose the game. It will allow you to really have to battle at different fronts protecting key stations and sacrificing others for the greater good. Probably another chosen SACU gets the upgrades or do not get the upgrades which is only detail. Of course I think it is best that the last (S)ACU (when you loose) goes nuke to prevent sure big damage teleport kamikaze actions to hopefully taking the other ACU with you and so win the game.

Fore example in FA Cybrens could not protect there base (and so the ACU) like the UEF therefore the ACU was always hidden (the upgrades are suggesting that too). With this game mode you do not have to hide them at all costs, even be able to use them offensive but still taking risk cause they are expensive and taking a long time to build.
To determine the costs and creation time for such a back up Commander will change game playing essential but probably you can choose how many commanders max, how many you can build max or if you start with more than one commander (probably of different factions) or if there is limitless commander build which would be very interesting too.

Last but not least: It would be a very good compromise between kill 1 Unit of the enemy to Destroy everything of the enemy.

Re: SACU taking over if ACU is destroyed-new Assassination M

I kinda like the idea, but I feel it could be abused.

I still think ACU escape pods are a good idea, if somewhat hilarious to see.

Re: SACU taking over if ACU is destroyed-new Assassination M

I think having an expendable builder unit is useful. I would like to have it not be the "main" one though. Actually, both ideas sound good.

Maybe have a sub-builder with limits, and a setting that allows you to duplicate for high cost your main builder. I don't think if the price was set right that having multiple commanders would be exploitable.

Re: SACU taking over if ACU is destroyed-new Assassination M

I personally do not like the idea that one building has to be in place that you can use the escape pod, although I really like the idea of seeing an escape pod flying away. I would choose that if it is escaping to another SAcu or upgraded to be a backup ACU but I think it is vital that the escape destination is mobile.

I hate (I use this world rarely) Hero units but I think battle should not be over in a planetary wide game if you loose one Unit placed on the wrong side of a moon and likewise I disagree with having to destroy everything to get the "Victory" sign at the end, although I do not want to miss this game mode.

Re: SACU taking over if ACU is destroyed-new Assassination M

How about just using your SACU instead if there's a risk of being isolated and destroyed?

There needs to be a reason to defend your ACU otherwise what's the point in there being a difference? They might as well all be ACUs.

You're basically walking a mid-point between assassination and annihilation game modes here as far as I can see. Once I've eliminated all your ACUs I win. Maybe it's viable, but I don't know how popular it would be. I'd like think that once I got your ACU I've won.

After all, the ACU is basically the player's avatar in the game world. I destroy that, there's nothing left to command his units. That's why assassination is used for ladder games. I don't mind annihilation for casual games against skirmish AI and so on.

Re: SACU taking over if ACU is destroyed-new Assassination M

I'm in favor of this idea. It is like purchasing an insurance policy. Support commanders should be fairly expensive, yet fairly capable, like the commander. A sneak attack on an unwary com needs to have a counter, and this counter could be the ability to build multiple commanders, so if the first one is eliminated, you have a backup. Make it expensive enough so that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to build more than 1 or 2.

Personally I would be in favor of a system where at least one commander or support commander per planet is needed to control your forces on that planet. Without a commander present, units on a planet would simply stand idle (though they would shoot at enemies nearby), and perhaps be extra vulnerable to capture. So if you are sending an assault force to an enemy held planet, one of the first units to send would be your commander, or support commander.

Re: SACU taking over if ACU is destroyed-new Assassination M

Re: SACU taking over if ACU is destroyed-new Assassination M

You mean, scouting?

Re: SACU taking over if ACU is destroyed-new Assassination M

It just makes sense to me that if you want to spend the large amounts of mass necessary to get a support commander, then as a bonus the support commander could have the ability to take over should the primary commander die. Scouting is one thing, but in SupCom, even with scouting a sufficiently large number of strat bombers could take out your heavily shielded com with tons of SAMs in his base, especially when you have lost air superiority but can build lots of SAMs in your base. The strat bombers may all die on the first pass, but not before they have had a chance to drop their bombs, break through the shields, and kill the com. Even though most bombers die after the first pass, if it was sufficient to take down the one com, it was game over. If you built a support commander that could act as a backup, though, then all of a sudden they need their mass of bombers to not only survive killing the first ACU, but also have enough to take out the sACU as well.

Re: SACU taking over if ACU is destroyed-new Assassination M

Let's just make it so the game never ends, despite how bad any player is.

Re: SACU taking over if ACU is destroyed-new Assassination M

I don't think it does. There should be consistences for not being aware of what is happening near your ACU. Likewise the attacking commander should be presented with a benefit for sneaking up on something as important as the ACU. If you need commander like influence in a contested region with risk attached to it that is what a SACU is for.

This summarises where I stand on the issue.

Re: SACU taking over if ACU is destroyed-new Assassination M

this was always a toggle-able option in TA, multiplayer games, you could choose to continue after your commander was destroyed relying on construction bots, but mostly it was a losing battle after that cause the commander usually takes out a huge chunk o base when he dies, mostly out o spite i think.