Should Commanders have a veterancy/upgrade system?

The lets change it!

While it was not done before, is it not a good idea to do now?

Wait what?
Contrary to veterancy, economy cost prevents you to build as many units while upgrading your Commander, so your actual firepower is balanced. Economy also allows you to upgrade your Commander for defence or support, while veterancy don't allow you to do anything else than either hide or play it aggressively. And either veterancy is really good and hiding is then a losing strategy, or it isn't and Commander fighting is a losing strategy (due to the risks). So we're still with one dominant strategy anyway.
Also, veterancy works only if you are aggressive early on, because a non-upgraded Commander would stand in a later-game conflict. Meaning that you can't choose it later in the game, and that players arriving later-on can't choose it at all.
And veterancy makes no damn sense for an aeons-old war machine.
So no, they are not the same at all.

^ Thorneel has it pretty spot on.

One can argue against the inclusion of both mechanics for a variety of reasons, (Having a micro heavy unit, making people focus on the commander when perhaps they should be more focused on building more units, upgrade system feels a bit like a tech tree) but suggesting veterancy and upgrades are the same thing is too simplistic an argument. There are no trade offs the player has to make if a veterancy system is implimented. Units are produced at the same rate, and it encourages a commander rush situation. Thorneel has a good point, mentioning that Veterancy only works in the early game. If the player decides to bring the commander to bear in any combat later they will be swamped, vs a commander that fought earlier stands a better chance all things being equal.

Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I see this differently. An upgrade system is a strategic economic choice to make your commander a more active participant in your army whilst impacting the development of your war machine; vetrancy has no such pros/cons and thus does not require a player to weigh options. Upgrades would be an economic decision the same way that striking a balance between developing an economy/base/producing sufficient units to defend/attack is a series of economic decisions.

It is a flawed argument to suggest that the reason not to have either system is because recently joined players will be at a disadvantage. A fact of joining an existing game rather than join at the start is that they will be on the backfoot. They will be at a disadvantage no matter WHAT angle you view it from. They have less resources, less military, less presence and positioning across planets and the solar system. The resource issue might be mitigated if resources can be shared and you have helpful allies with a strong economy but if that is the case there are still the other disadvantages and it is the players perogative to spend their gifted resources where they see fit (again for reasons listed above there ARE reasons that upgrades may not be a good idea, but not the reasons you have listed).

A commander upgrade system wouldnt make this situation any worse or better. Unless an ally with a strong economy supplied the funds to make the newcomers commander more survivable until their economy and army started (admittedly not something I think would be seen often or prove effective.)

[Edited for clarity]

There is significant difference between saying two different mechanics are the same, and that the impact of two different mechanics is the same, the latter being what I had attempted to submit for consideration.

Whether an economic or combat cost, both require that you spend more than 0 seconds in the game for the effects to manifest. It is irrelevant how the mechanic works or the specific player activities required to achieve that effect, because whether the unit grows in efficacy because of a veterancy or upgrade mechanic, both will cause an imbalance compared to the same unit of a player who has spent less time in the game.

If the improved efficacy has any significant impact on the game, then it should be removed. Otherwise, there will be no incentive to join a game that has already started, because it will be impossible to "catch up" the lost time. Attempting to balance the game to allow players to come and go would then take on new levels of complexity, because from what I have seen, the intent with PA is not in defeating your enemy by having better tools, but using the same tools better.

This may mean changing the definition of what it means for players to "come and go", in that the number of opponents in combat cannot ever change, so if you start the game with two "colors", then there can't ever be a third. That would be the most simple way to balance a system that works on time, as the only argument then would be how well the players used the time, not that they didn't have it in the first place.

See above point on the difference between saying a mechanic is the same, and the effect of the mechanic is the same.

Attempting to improve veterancy invokes the risk of losing the unit outright, which would mean trading off the chance of an improved unit with the resources and time it took to create that unit. Veterancy also requires considerable micro-management to preserve the units that do achieve a veteran status, which means that it would be impossible to then also be managing your unit production to the same level as only focusing on economics if we are talking about only one person controlling a specific color.

It is then arguable that the cost-benefit for a veterancy system is actually a worse bet than upgrades, because upgrades are a sure thing, where veterancy depends on the skills of the player and some luck as well.

Also, where has uber stated that a Commander rush would be a bad idea?

Why do you assert the Commander won't be powerful later in the game without upgrades, when nothing uber has said indicates that to be the case?

If anything, uber has stated that the Commander will be useful and critical throughout the game, when neutrino compared it to being like a "King and Queen".

Why force a system of upgrades in the first place, and not have the Commander be just as powerful from the get go? What benefit is there to gating or restricting that capability if not to benefit players who have spent more time in the game?

And I've already stated why this is wrong. Just because you did not consider the costs, or do not recognize them as a cost, does not mean they aren't there.

It is never a flawed argument to state that an advertised feature will not work because of game mechanics. When an advertised feature is broken by a game mechanic, that's usually called a problem, and folks are expected to fix it.

The "fix" would then either be removing the feature, or changing the game mechanics to allow the feature to become useful again.

So I already noted that we find it acceptable that economic development was an acceptable disparity for new players. There's a difference between having the same tools without the time to set them up, and having less effective tools in addition to not having the time to set them up.

This goes back to my earlier point with respect to what it means to have players coming and going. If a new color can be added to the system being played, it means very different things than just changing ownership of the same color.

Which is wrong, because it takes time for the upgrade system to be used, so the mechanic inherently gives advantage to players who have been in the game longer.

If a new color can't be added, then it does become a moot point, as stated earlier, because it goes from "I haven't had time to obtain those upgrades" to "I haven't used my time effectively so that I could obtain those upgrades."

Again, this would hinge on what it means to be a newcomer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, the root of the confusion between us could be demonstrated by a car analogy:

The majority of the discussion so far has been on the cost of preferred material options for the interior of the car you want to buy. I am talking about whether it would be better to have a car or just ride the bus, because the cost comparison of bus vs. car is more significant to the overall investment than hard plastic vs wood trimmed leather.

In this case, the decision of whether there should be game mechanics that specifically give advantages to players who have spent more time in the game or not, especially when they will cause an imbalance when comparing two units side-by-side.

I don't see a reason why, if the intent is to have new colors be able to start into an existing game, any of the new color's units, including the Commander, should not be equivalent in capability to the players who have been in the game for some time. This would limit the inherent imbalance for starting new to the factors that folks are willing to accept, that existing players will be more entrenched.

It's then worth noting that being entrenched on a planet that can be completely destroyed, and being forced into a Commander vs. Commander battle is not an insurmountable gap for the new color. Uber has said that type of situation is a realistic and reasonable possibility, so as long as each player's tools have the same efficacy, time spent in the game may not end up being as significant a factor as how the time was spent.

Again I don’t see how this is different to how a new player would be behind in terms of economy, area of influence and size of army. The same argument you are using here against veterancy or upgrade mechanics can be used for any aspect of the game when someone joins a match part way through, regardless of whether it is a FFA match or an allied match (I’m assuming this is what you mean when you are talking about colours and what it means to be a new comer)

Okay I accept the distinction, on the same page now in relation to this.

I agree. Most people seem to agree that unit micro is something that people do not want to see as a focus in the game play which is one of the reasons why I think veterancy would be a bad idea.

I definitely don’t mean to say that a commander rush is a bad idea, but perhaps I was unclear. What I mean is that having a veterancy system that encourages a player to rush into battle with their commander to make it more powerful makes it a very shallow system with only two strategies.
1) Risk commander but gain more power if not lost
2) Hide commander to mitigate risk, later on players which did take the risk do better in combat whilst hiding commander is relegated to that for the rest of the match.
[Note: this becomes more important in assassination type game modes where losing the commander means losing everything]
Compare this with wanting a more powerful commander with the upgrade system. There are many things you can draw resources away from in order to make this happen. There are costs to placing the upgrades as those resources did not go towards making more defences/units/economy expansion/more factories. There is much more to consider if someone wants to go down the commander upgrade path as an aspect of their strategy.

I’d have thought that would be pretty self-explanatory. A commander early game might encounter a small amount of units. Later game they will encounter more offensive force. They will always be a powerful unit when compared with any other unit but you have to consider that a combat active commander is going to see an increasing amount of opposition and be less effective as an offensive/defensive option. Currently I see upgrades as a method of maintaining them in that "King and Queen" position in the mid to late game, although I remain open to have my mind changed if relevant issues inherent in the concept make the system undesireable.

Because with upgrades the Commander scales with the conflict more. Were a Commander just "more powerful" then its ability in relation to the escalating conflict would not be balanced. You are just shifting the endpoint for when the commander ceases to be relevant and increasing the period of time during the early/midgame during which it can be a one unit army.

Okay I should have been clearer here. What I intended to get across which is an economic cost, of which there is none in a veterancy system. What you are talking about is risk, which is different.

I fail to see the distinction here, you either spend your resources on getting better defences/economy/more units, or you spend those resources on making your commander hardier. It was a decision from the player, and that idea is the same with or without commander upgrades for a newcomer to a game.

Upgrades exist: New player comes into game with x resources. They can spend them on commander, or units or base building. Other players in the match are further along, possessing more of everything.

Upgrades don’t exist: New player comes into game with x resources. They can spend them on units or base building Other players in the match are further along, possessing more of everything.

Either way the new player winds up in the same position. They arent prevented from having an equally powerful commander compared to the other players, any more or less than they are prevented from having an equally powerful army and economy. If they are allied up then the alllies can help out with that disparity. If it is a free for all then they are still in the same position with or without the upgrade mechanic.

hence the appeal of videogames, dickhead.

"It doesn't have to make sense because it is a video game" is an overused dial-a-excuse.

It really has to make sense SOMEWHERE. I mean, if I pee on the toilet seat in a public restroom and walk out, nobody knows who did it so I can do it even though it doesn't make sense, right?

I'd hope not.

Making GOOD things that break the concept of sense is ok, if they have a purpose to improve the function of the game.

Bit of an odd analogy...haha but yes absolutely. It is important to be consistant with tone and for the game to make sense in the context of the fictional world it realises.

For example, you can't have a scifi suddenly break out magic out of the blue, it shatters the suspension of disbelief that has players emersed. If tech and fantasy are included with in context of the realised world (shadowrun for instance) then that is fine, it is consistent with the world that was generated.

So when gamers complain about realism or something doesnt make sense, yes, sometimes people are just whinging. Games dont all have to tie to the real world in every aspect and allowances of course should be made for gameplay and poetic licence. But ofttimes it can be because the aspect of the game strays too far outside what would be believable within that world.

Anyway that is probably getting away from the topic, but people need to realise that it isnt about "absolute realism" and "anything goes", it is about the contextual nature of the suspension of disbelief.

So I think my best attempt was to draw a distinction between PA and other RTS'. In PA the economics, area of influence, and size of army, can be impacted by the KEW's and other WMD's, and therein lies the major flaw in this premise:

We don't know how expensive or not asteroid and other massive weapons will be.

If they would be prohibitively expensive such that without an existing vibrant economy, they cannot be constructed, then your point would stand. If they are affordable on a "this is all I am doing" payment plan, then it would mean that the new player could still have a dramatic effect on the game - so much so that people would request the option to prevent people from joining to prevent having to deal with yet another layer of strategic complexity.

As for the colors, I intended to try and describe the two basic conditions where players could join mid-game:
1) The number of unique factions/colors remains the same after the game is initiated. This assumes that actual players coming and going are sharing and changing ownership of the pre-defined factions/colors.

2) The number of unique factions/colors does not remain the same after the game is initiated. This assumes that actual players coming and going have the option of generating new factions/colors, in addition to being able to share and change ownership of pre-defined factions/colors.

I guess for me, I see option one and two being similar to the choice between spending resources on upgrades for the Commander versus using the same resources to build units.

It would hinge on how they balanced the cost of the upgrades correlated to producing standard units with the same resources.

A "defense" upgrade couldn't come directly from anything but the upgrade, but offensive capability is something that could either come from the Commander or the equivalent number of units which would cost the same resources.

If the cost-benefit for upgrades was less effective, then it'd be a waste to ever take them, because the economic efficiency of standard units would quickly outpace the single Commander.

If the cost-benefit was the same, then it does appear on the surface that it would be balanced compared to the prior...except that it would be preferred to build basic units instead of upgrade the Commander because:

Upgraded Commander = Handful of Units
Upgraded Commander < Handful of Units + Basic Commander

Spending equally, it would not be possible for the upped Commander's forces to get ahead by the numbers.

Taking the final route, where cost-benefit is more effective, it becomes a requirement. Just like with veterancy, it's a risk to spend the resources on upgrading the Commander instead of building units, but one which has a higher chance of paying off for taking the risk. It becomes analogous to the classic "Prisoner's Dilemma" where at worst you're just on equal ground, and at best you're steps ahead in survival capability because your opponent didn't select that option.

So it becomes a requirement, and the strategy is no longer in choosing it, but in how to develop the resources to allow you to choose it. Forcing economic development does not promote players to finding their own balance.

How can a conflict with two units of equal strength involved be unbalanced? Is it unbalanced when someone plays chess better than me?

Taking the below pseudo-math:

Commander = Commander
Commander < Commander + Handful of Units

Sure, you could focus-fire down the extra units, but the Commander with the extra units will still be winning the DPS war of attrition. The Commander alone then never becomes a wise offensive choice for a blatant assault, because attacking a base containing any additional offensive force to the Commander with just your Commander would be outright suicide.

If your opponent is using their Commander alone, then you know that the powerful resource-building capability the Commander brings isn't being used...so all you need to do is survive and the war of attrition will benefit the more conservative investment in offensive force.

On top of that, because we're on spheres, you could even send a small band of units the opposite direction and attack what base there is, and possibly destroy a lot of stuff because the Commander isn't there to protect it.

Risk is inherent to economics as well, and is a parent factor to both mechanisms, not just a child factor to veterancy. Opportunity cost is a pretty common phenomenon that can be applied to choices of many kinds, not just monetary. It is the primary mechanic behind the thought processes in "min-maxing" build sequences, talent trees, and so on. It's the reason that matches in Starcraft can often be predicted just on how finely tuned the choices the player makes with their economics, because the game is also balanced via a rock-paper-scissors mindset.

Attention is the parent resource that determines everything in the game. Paying zero attention is a surefire way to fail. Paying full attention does not guarantee success, but it does increase the capability to alter the context of the game in your favor, and gives you more attention budget for tasks inside the game.

Going in one level, the balance of economics and combat is another which eats at our attention, as a subset of paying attention to the game itself. Full focus on either alone will not likely lead to success, as it takes some blend of the two.

So as veteran mechanics bias combat efficacy in favor of those who are better at combat, upgrade systems tilt the bias in favor of those who are better at economics. I don't think that we should have mechanics that are creating biases which only increase in magnitude as game time increases, because they force a specific type of gameplay.

Not sure if intentional or not, but you don't seem to be taking game time expired into account. I'll explain with your two conditions below:

Build and research are not "free" in the resources of both game time and the raw materials, and upgrades require a finite amount of both. Existing players' Commanders have had the capability to be upgraded, with the actuality of that occurrence being tied to the skill of the player. Until the new player has survived enough game time to accomplish the same tasks, they will be dealing with players that have not just further developed presence, but also more effective units.

Existing players' Commanders are identical. The new player must now only deal with players that have further developed presence.

Only if the upgrades are not significant. If an upgraded Commander is capable of dealing with significantly larger armies, then the existing players will not require much effort to eliminate a weaker Commander that is only capable of handling much smaller forces. Diverting 10 of an army of 1000 isn't a hard decision to make, and thus has no strategic significance.

This is not true, because as I started in this post, PA has a mechanic which may allow that new player to neutralize or reset the development of existing entrenched players. If so, then the presumption that an existing army and economy is an imbalance disappears, and then we're left with only the upgrade mechanic as causing any semblance of imbalance. Development for anything that relies on physical presence in the game world could be set back to zero - except for things like research or upgrades.

As above, this would only be true if the upgrades were not of significant impact to the efficacy of the Commander, which would negate the purpose of having them.

If the goal is that it should be possible for a brand new player/faction/color to succeed, then we must eliminate mechanics that would rely on the previously expired game time to determine efficacy of the tools being used by those players. If the tools are just as effective when you start new, then you can be strategically significant immediately, instead of an annoyance that can be easily wiped out by a small handful of T2 units because your basic Commander is only balanced to handle a handful of T1.

That is one big reason why I believe that the Commander has to be balanced with "late-game" offensive capability in the first place, that anything that would be accessed via an upgrade system should be there from the get-go.

points for stupidest attempt at analogy ever.

there are a million things in videogames we accept as a given, even though they don't make any sense. it's not a "dial-aN-excuse", its a perfectly reasonable response to idiots that use some arbitrary measure in order to discard an idea under the banners of "realism", "making sense" or "fluff".

whether somebody thinks a robot gaining veterancy bonuses "make sense" or not is irrelevant. how that mechanic works, and whether it makes a better/worse game is what matters.

I would like either a modular upgrade system (FA/SupCom 2 style) or something like the ZK system, where users create commanders based on selecting a chassis, weapons, and modules, for each of 5 levels. The commander can then be upgraded from level 1-5 in game, and gains the preselected modules/weapons. The cost of each level depends on the modules.

Veterancy for commanders is a really bad idea in my opinion, even worse than for other units. Veterancy has already been confirmed to not exist in this game anyway as far as I'm aware.

I can’t see KEW’s or equivalent level weaponry being a cheap enterprise or something that is possible from the start (or for a new player joining a match), otherwise it is all people would throw at each other. The resources required to shift an asteroid both in the material construction of the rocket engines and the amount of power to drive said engines I can’t see being anything but massive, making it a reward for having gained a strong enough economy to fund such a project, and keeping it a balanced item. Although I would admit that were it as the alternative you stated then my point would be a lot less relevant. I think you say it best, if a new player could rapidly fund a KEW and people are preventing new players joining for that very reason, then it doesn’t sound like a good feature.

Similar in that there are 2 choices, but if a commander is using a veterancy system it does make an impact on your ability to make a fighting force, whereas the upgrade system does. You are right it would hinge on what upgrades would cost. I would want them to be quite high costs in order to make sure it was a hard choice to sink resources into the upgrades (so you saw more horses for courses commanders in each match over having fully upgraded commanders)

Late game you are right, once the economy got up and running then players would be upgrading to suit their style of play. But there is strategy in deciding where your resources go while you are limited by said resources.

Because most of the time it isn’t commander vs commander directly, it is attacking force vs commander. I wouldn’t want to see the commander just made more powerful as an alternative to veterancy/upgrades. The Commander could just wear whatever early attacks are sent their way regardless of whether they had appropriate levels of defence. They wouldn’t have consequences till mid/late game for sloppy defences.

All the stuff preceding and including this statement was really interesting to read, just thought I’d mention that; : ) I kind of see your point regarding combat vs economics, but RTS IS going to favour a player who is good at economy Vs someone who isn’t. Whether it is putting resources into a commander or an army they WILL gain an advantage. Saying that you don’t want upgrades because they introduce bias towards good economy players is like saying you don’t want larger units to cost resources because they are bias towards good economy players.

If you are referring to KEWs, it is moot. If the new player can do it, the existing players sure as hell can, and would stomp out a new player with them before they were able to build one. Thus KEWs are the same as armies and economy from the perspective of a new player entering a match, the existing players will be better off.
In addition, in your situation where a new player can somehow afford a KEW project from the outset are you also assuming a situation where a new player could afford a KEW but not any upgrades? It strikes me that KEWs should be one of the most resource heavy projects in the game considering the destruction they can bring, and well outside of the reach the player from the outset. Anything else would be woefully unbalanced.

I don’t see a situation where a player joining late will be able to face up to the existing players. Assume no veterancy/upgrades and a player joins a map that has been going on for 15 – 30 mins. Regardless of whether they are someone’s ally, or in a FFA match they are simply not going to be able to assault an existing player. Any system that bootstrapped a joining player in these games to be just as effective as a player who has been in the game longer, I think would be a terrible idea. Suggesting that a new commander be powerful enough to fight off pre-existing players armies should they launch an assault also sounds very broken. That is the same as saying that a player sitting around doing nothing to develop a fighting force and economy for 15 – 30 minutes should still be able to fend off an attack at that point so long as the enemy commander is not in that attacking group.
The only situation I can see where a new player might be on the fast track to competing on par with existing players is a situation where allies fund them to get cracking fast, or they are the same colour and have shared resources. In which case it is their choice what to spend said resources on.
This is not to say I don’t see reasons for not having an upgrade/veterancy system. For example not having veterancy would reduce focus on commander micro gameplay and not having upgrades would reduce complexity/streamlining gameplay and encourage the development of army/economy rather than thinking about the commander. However I do not think that players joining games late is a reason to not have one of these features. A player joining late will have to accept that they WILL be behind the ball.

That sounds really interesting! Certainly a unique take on the upgrade idea. I have seen ZK mentioned a lot in these forums, I'll have to play it so I have a better idea of the features people mention in relation to it.

I think the commander vs commander battle argument is moot. Mostly it is suicide for a commander to directly engage another commander. Regardless of who gets the kill, the resulting nuclear explosion usually destroys the 'victorious' commander anyway.

Regarding the veterancy vs upgrades argument, my feeling is that having selected veterancy throughout the game - by which I mean for the commander and not for other units - is a bad thing. Even though veterancy bonuses for small units is basically negligible, it seems like an all or nothing kind of option to me. Since SC:FA had both systems and one was only really apparent when high value units were concerned, I think it is clear to me that if it were a choice between the two then I would rather upgrades.

My personal preference would be that the player customises the commander to reflect his play style. Much like in SC:FA. The upgrades also played a tactical part in the game, the resource allocation upgrades in particular. Which produces as much as a T3 power generator and T3 mass extractor combined. Some ACUs could perform an advanced resource allocation upgrade to further enhance the ability. At a certain stage in the game this is a critical upgrade that you will see some top players performing.

The thing with veterancy is that the player himself hasn't got absolute control over how quickly a unit can level up. It's based on destroying enemy units after all. Or in some cases like in SC2, constructing buildings and such like which is a bit different. When compared to upgrades, where the player has absolute control over how his commander is developed and when, the idea that it can be used to keep a commander relevant late game makes much more sense to me. Upgrades can add new abilities to an ACU or enhance it's existing abilities.

Awesome, not realistic.

That's part of the problem when a mechanic relies on the existence and affordability of other elements of the game to balance against, and the game is overall not yet developed to the point where they have even begun toying with the implementation, let alone tweaking it.

Makes it interesting to then have to insert qualifiers to identify the assumptions going into a topic of discussion. And whether interesting actually means interesting or just annoying may depend on the individual's desire to have an intensely thorough, yet polite and civil, discussion. I must say I have rather enjoyed this, and greatly appreciate your contributions.

Did you intend to say that the “upgrade system does as well?” At first glace, there doesn't seem to be a contrast of results as may have been intended, so can you clarify what you did intend?

A game time of sufficient length will introduce additional obstacles for the new player/faction/color to overcome. Much like chess or checkers, I don't think that any units will be changing in efficacy for the course of the entire game. From what I've interpreted uber wants how you use the units they give you to reflect your play style, because they then don't have to balance for different toolboxes being viable, only that the tools are viable in their use compared to each other. It's still not easy, just easier.

Why is it attacking force vs Commander most of the time?

Hehe, I've been enjoying myself, is it coming through?

One could have the most powerful economics in the game, but unless they can use the forces they produce in combat effectively, the actual power becomes irrelevant. One could have the most effective strategies to use their forces, but unless they can produce those forces, their strategy becomes irrelevant.

Both veteran and upgrade mechanics seek to tilt the balance of the attention the player invests toward either economics or combat to then influence the other. Stronger competence in economics or combat alone does create a predisposition of superiority, but predisposition is not predetermination.

Existing players sacrificing their ability to fight each other is a strategically significant decision, and I think that's perfectly fine. If the existing players already have the KEW's, why aren't they using them against each other? If there is Fog of War, it'd require significant effort invested in scouting just to find the new guy, which the player not be able to afford while fighting their current opponent.

In the trailer, one of the early structures is the same one which then allows the Commander to leave the planet. If the “orbital launch tower” is easily constructed, that allows players to move their Commander if KEW's are directed at them, so part of the early game strategy for a any player might be ensuring that when you land on a new planet or moon that doesn't already have a player presence, you can pack up quick and move on if your opponent decides to remove that playing field altogether.

On the other hand, if they land on a planet with an existing presence, then the use of KEW's to outright destroy the new guy won't necessarily work because the planet may already have KEW defenses from the existing player holding off their enemy.

Or the new guy serves as the catalyst to force small-scale endgame battles because rocks fall, everyone's resources die.

The difference being that a KEW has the capability to destroy the available space and resources for all players, where upgrades only impact combat efficacy for the single unit. The KEW then becomes like the weapons in the Worms games that destroy terrain in addition to doing damage. Sure, they do damage, but the impact to the terrain also has significance in changing the strategies the players have available to them.

I don't think they'll need to be expensive, because destroying a planet does impact everyone, and it'd be like taking rows or columns out of the proverbial chessboard. Grouping your pieces to avoid being taken out by your own KEW just makes them more susceptible to being taken out by your opponent's KEW, so the counter is to spread out and not be centralized in just one place, or invest in defenses to counter the impact of the KEW's.

It's balanced because everyone has as much to gain or lose with rampant bombardment, and the decisions being made are all strategically significant.

If there are two factions/colors, and a third joins, it should strategically significant for the existing players to divert resources to deal with the new player. It becomes a game of chicken, where the first player to divert too much may open up themselves to weaknesses against the existing foe. Do they cease-fire? Do they trust their enemy?

This leaves the new player/faction/color to attack in places where the other two players are not already engaged fully, so they don't have to deal with the full force of the existing players. Sure, if the new guy helps wipe out one player too quickly and the remaining existing player brings their full force to bear on the new player, then they will be crushed. So there is a strategically significant decision even for the new player in getting involved and attacking either of the existing players instead of focusing on developing their economy to be ready to stand against whoever survives.

This also assumes that the existing player/faction/color has done a perfect job protecting themselves from any form of attack, not just the kind their existing opponents are using. If your defenses are adapted to the attacks of your existing opponent, then any difference in the strategy of the new player will upset the balance of how you've invested.

No, it's not the same, because there is a difference between your Commander surviving, and all of your buildings and resources surviving. A handful of T1 units may not square off against the Commander alone, but spread out it would take time for the Commander to destroy them, and during that time they can still enact a healthy amount of damage to infrastructure. Even when a handful of T2 units struggle to destroy a Commander, they would certainly do a lot more collateral damage because the Commander is just one unit. Even if it could destroy one unit per second with impunity, an army of a thousand would still take sixteen minutes for the Commander to destroy all of them. I'd then find it extremely hard to believe that it will be difficult to balance the Commander to be both very powerful on an individual level, but not play as significant a role in the larger scale compared to the armies themselves as a whole.

Even in you example, if Player 1 was idle and Player 2 was busy, then:

Commander > Handful of Units
P1 Commander = P2 Commanders
P1 Commander < P2 Commander + Handful of Units

In an assassination game, P1 loses in attrition, and then whether it is a “tie” depends on whether a Commander can survive the explosion of another one. In a non-assassination game type, P2 wins outright.

I do not disagree that a player will be behind the ball, but existing players dealing with them should require a strategically significant decision, and the new player is given the same ability to make decisions of significant impact. Mechanics like veterancy and upgrades reduce the significance of decisions on how to deal with them.

I like to refer back to Moonbase Commander for how this plays out, where the tools are the same, and the one who wins is the one that uses them the best.

(1/3)I would like to maintain the suspension of disbelief and not have planet ending weapons an easy thing to achieve. It is about the gameplay balance more than realism. Players need to not have frustration in having a world of expensive infrastructure ended and a permanent change to the playing field pushed upon them by an easily constructed KEW. Were they easily built there would be no consideration on where to place your resources, a player could field their army whilst throwing KEWs around. I see a KEW as a way to end a stalemate on a planet between well-established forces, a way of escalating the conflict. Why should the ability to cause that level of destruction be more accessible than upgrades for the commander? It stands to reason that most of the time the ability to cause more destruction should require more resources.
(2)I can’t think of anything in an RTS that isn’t dependant on the existence and affordability of economy development (unless a veterancy system was implemented).
(4) That is my point, if they were cheap to produce they more than likely would be. However there are reasons I can see existing players not using them. If they are engaged on a planet and have enough invested in the planet that they want to win conventionally rather than deny themselves it. Asteroids could be rare/used up. Usable asteroids might be in contested enough areas that they are not left alone long enough to construct engines on. Also in a running game, continuous scouting would be happening anyway to watch for new enemy developments even if a new player hadn’t come into game.
Maybe we should leave the discussion of KEW cost…seems a bit tangential to the thread topic :?

Thanks Yeah I am trying to keep the wall of texts manageable and still address everything but I have enjoyed this.

Sorry, typo corrected now (in bold).

In most cases I have experienced in Supcom1/FA/2 an attacking force doesn’t include the commander, it strikes me as a rare tactic to send them to assault the other commander. As wolfdogg said above, generally sending a commander to face another commander is paramount to suicide, even with a fighting force as there is the nuke that goes off upon destroying them. You wind up more often than not in a mutually assured destruction.

I don’t see it that way because all other forces in the game hinge on the economics. You might be good at tactics but you need economy to pump out units. It is an inseparable part of gameplay. Spending on your commander is a perk of good economy (or bad decisions if you cant afford it haha). But so is a larger army. Commander upgrades would not be unique in rewarding good economy as every aspect of army construction rewards good economy. Better economy = better fighting force. What you then do with it is down to combat tactics. You could screw up managing a commander in the same way as you could screw up managing an army. [/quote]

I see this becoming tangential to the thread topic too, but regardless of how the new player approaches the game, even assuming they do not engage or are engaged, I don’t see them catching up on any front. If an enemy wins their fight against their opponent, they are going to have what is left of their army, the economy which has been running the whole game plus what their infrastructure has been pumping out continuously. If an established player defeats an established player I can’t see them losing to a newcomer.

I agree, I just think that upgrading a commander helps it balance with conflict better than just making it more powerful from the start. I think the ACU from prior games were plenty powerful enough for the start of games.

Sorry I’ve never played that game so I can’t comment there : )

At the very least I want a kill counter(for all units), so I know who the heroes of my armies are

It's already confirmed that unit stats will be tracked but there will be no veterancy. I think it's a safe bet that this will be true for the commander also.

Commander upgrades are a different matter, I haven't heard any official comments on whether commanders will be upgradeable or the system that will be used for that yet.