I am playing the Alpha and building some powerplants. And I thought "Those buildings look like they can be stacked". So, what do you think about the idea? Stacking buildings or not?
I've seen many alpha screenshots of radars on top of radars on top of radars, but I think it's a bug. It's quite comical. Also, I think a T2 power plant looks like two T1 power plants stacked on top of each other... so being able to stack them might cause readability problems.
I belive hes suggesting making power plants stackable (on top of each other, not inside each other) as a real planned game mechanic.
Stacking can be dangerous because it can quickly become an optimal play, why try to defend a huge sprawling base when you can stack a bunch of stuff to make it smaller? It ends up very similar to how NOT building storage around Extractors in SupCom/FA left you at such a huge disadvantage against someone who did. I wouldn't hold your breath to be honest, the only place I can see it working is to replace extractor upgrades, instead of destroying/reclaiming/whatever your T1 Extractor you just build the T2 Extractor right over top and be done with it. Mike
Stacking would be interesting on Turrets x Walls combo. Now... with power plants or other buildings that influence your economy more directly. that might be a slippery slope. You would get more power from less space which would devalue terrain control. I can be wrong, but I think real estate is some sort of invisible third resource. basically the bigger your armies grow, the more space you need to sustain your economy. By stacking power plants for example, the problem is avoided. Of course you can't (technically) stack metal extractors...So I really don't know. Sounds like an interesting idea but an idea that the game doesn't need.
Don't think it will make it into the game. But the ability to put a turret on top of a powerplant would be nice.. even more if it will give the turret a bigger view range.. 2 power plants on top of each other would make a great wall against incomming arty shells. Downside of stacking buildings is that destroying one will kill the other also.
I think you could balance it by making the rsulting explosion when the "stack" gets destroyed scale exponentially. You would think twice before towering up all your t2 pgens if a lucky volley from from bomber could wreck your entire base. I believe this would be a super elegant solution for the Mex upgrade problem that is currently being discussed. Want to upgrade your mex to T2 without having to reclaim the old mex and without making mexes upgradable? Build a "T2 hat" on top of it!
That isn't really address the problem, or rather it's more like an arbitrary work around that tries to fix the issue by ignoring the actual issue. The fact remains thats stacking reduces the overall space required, but you don't NEED to build them close to anything else but they still save space by being stacked. So just like I said basically? Mike
I played a game called 'Earth 2160' that let you build buildings on top of each other to make bigger buildings and it worked very nicely. If the base of a tall building is destroyed, then what should happen? Would everything just be destroyed? Or should it fall over and damage or destroy anything it hits on the way down? Would each segment of the building have its own HP or would it have combined hp and be treated as a single unit?
Haha, yes, I didn't even see that you suggested that already. Well I don't think you should be able to stack buildings indefinitely and not all of them. I think it just makes sense for mexes and maybe pgens. And, depending on the final balance of those buildings, it might be nice to be able to stack 2-3 of them resulting in less huge fields of resource fabrication buildings. A "stacked" base would be more compact and therefore easier to defend but at the same time much easier to destroy. Or we could apply the mechanic just to mexes which always occupy the same amount of space anyway.
