Unit Depth/Variety

Folks -

I just watched a SupComm battle last night on Setor or whatever its called. Whoa.
The number of options available to each side seemed staggering compared to PA's current build.

Are there more variety of units on the way? Like, say, laser frigates for naval or shields for bases, or even shield land units? What about, say, an AOE damage unit that has low damage? etc etc

What do ya'll think? Heck, what does Uber think?

HA! Thats a good joke you got there.

.....You do realize that there is only like, 2, maybe 3 actually good/useful units from each Tier right?

Each Faction might have had 100+ units or whatever, but you only ever used a subsection of those at any given time and many were created in triplicate.

Mike

Well there are almost certainly more units coming - however shields are a confirmed no.
We also won't have 'classical' space ships like frigates/destroyers etc..

I figured as much. The players from each team seemed to use a build that was pretty straightforward - Higher tier, volleying DPS ships, or lower tier, faster frigates in naval combat, while ASFs seemed to be the primary AA fighter.

There were some other units, but you are correct, there weren't many.

Oh, and another idea: What about point defense guns, that can take down catapult and LR Mobile Artillery fire? It would be balanced by a low rate of fire, so that it can be overwhelmed without drastic measures being taken.

I really like this idea from SupCom, it mitigates the effects of a turtle base to some extent, and makes ground units more efficient and effective at attacking such bases.....or offering them some hope of getting close lol

huh? Only some are useful?

Example: UEF T2 Land.

• Sparky
  
• Mongoose - jousting at longer ranges
  
• Pillar - main line bruiser
  
• Riptide - DPS vs lights, amphibious to surprise frigates
  
• SkyBanger - anti-air
  
• Flapjack - super long range to lay seige, break a turtle and force the enemy to build tactical defense.
  
• Parashield - shield your commander, and units and experimentals as they close.

Each one of these fills a unique role.
I see them used all the time (except the Sparky).

I'm not talking about Potential or intended Usefulness, I'm talking about the ACTUAL Usefulness. The only units out of T2 that are actually used are Mongooses and maybe SkyBangers and Parashields. So all told at most 3 units, out of 15 Land units, are useful at the T2 stage of the game.

Mike

1. "Actual usefulness" is a game balance issue.
There was a good enough variety in art style, unit variety and even unit purpose.
"Actual usefulness" as you call it, can be fixed to addressing balance (Unit HP, DPS, Range, Accuracy and Cost).

2. Intended usefulness IS important, it let's each unit fill a unique role.

X% of units at a specific stage of a game...
Well duh not everything will be useful at each stage.

It sounds like you have a real issue with the meta of SupCom and how the meta is based around "tech-progression".
That's a game design choice. It sounds like you have a real issue with the meta of SupCom and how the meta is based around "tech-progression" and old units are discarded, fair point.
But that doesn't make them bad units, or even bad game design.
Not everything is meant to be viable at each stage...

You make it sound like nobody used T1 in the late game and I think that's false.
The purpose for those units change late game. T1 isn't so much for flooding the enemy base or even crushing firebases anymore, but their role shifts to map control and area denial.



Let's bring this back to other TA.
There is still an early, mid and a late game.

Trying to build a geothermal at the onset will stall your econ.
Putting a bertha on a tiny map is a waste.
Rushing Krogoth is just plain dumb.
Expecting your Light Laser Towers to defend your base will get you killed.
Spending resources building Freedom fighters in the late game is a waste of time.


Not every unit is viable at every stage of a game.

PA doesn't have to copy its predecessors. The goal should be for every unit to be viable at late game and every unit to be viable as soon as the factory that makes it is up.

I support that sentiment.

I do have to admit that in a lot of rts games there are a few units that just seem to be the ONLY ones used. However, I do have to agree with Culverin and say that most all units have a very specific job. If we go back to TA, there is one unit in specific that I have in mind as a good example...the Zipper. In most peoples eyes this is the most useless bot in the game. But when my buddy uses it, it is amazing for the job it has. My friend uses Zippers to probe your base away from the main battlefield looking for a weak spot, when he has found the weakest spot in your defense he will send about 20-30 mavericks with one radar jammer to test it. Very devastating results when he punches through.

So yes flashes, peewees, rockos, samsons, fidos, mavericks, zeuses, merls, and the core equivalent are the most used. Its the small things like the Zipper, or Roach can be very effective and devastating if you know how to use them for the correct job.

Even though it's a war game, not every unit is meant to be a 100% on the battlefield all the time.
Not every units needs to, or should be a front-line unit slugging it out.
Special case and niche units are cool and when you pull things off with them, it's amazing and fun.


Nukes in TA and SupCom aren't supposed to be part of your main arsenal.
It's more of a last ditch effort, or a sneaky long term investment.
When's the last time you've seen a SupCom ladder match end in a sucessful nuke?

Nobody really ever intends to seriously build a telemazer com (teleporting microwave laser commander) in a truly competitive game.
But in a 4v4 on Seton's, the enemy is entrenched, has air superiority sometimes you need a hail mary.
It's dangerous as heck and if you fail, it's a nail in the coffin for your team.
But when you pull it off, man it feels good.


Or when you're on your last legs, and you build a Stealth Generator. Or use it for a sneaky proxy tac missile base.
Nobody really uses those in competitive ladder, but the options are there.

I don't care that a tac missile isn't viable 5 minutes into the game.
I don't care if 99% of a TA game you never get to build a Vulcan cannon.


In fact, more depth and variety comes from more units that fulfill only niche roles.

While the fact that your definition of variety is insane has already been addressed, it's worth pointing out that just because the Mantis, the Aurora and the Striker (the Thaam less so because the Seraphim basically had a 'our units are all kind of dull and just good' theme going on) are more similar than the Zergling, the Zealot and the Marine doesn't mean they're not qualitatively different units that are used optimally in different ways.

This is a pretty impossible goal. To meet Knight's criteria, every unit has to be used in every game. The difference in the strategies one needs to employ in a 1v1 on a Size 5 planet and in a 5 player FFA on a Size 2 planet means this isn't really plausible.

I have to agree with both parties. Obviously we would like to have more unit diversity, but we would also like a balanced game. Right now we have unit diversity. Other than Rockos and Thuds I don't see anything missing from T1 Total Annihilation. Considering we are just getting started, that's quite good.

Keep in mind the kbot lab is not going to be a 90% ginger bread copy of the vehicle lab like it was in TA.

Right now I kind of feel like the Zipper/Mongoose role is taken by the Slammer. Am I wrong?

What I am REALLY looking for is a wide enough unit variety too choose from, such that I can have a sufficiently wide range of options to defeat my enemy with. As my superiors say all the time: Flexibility is the key to air power.
All I am looking for is more room to be flexible IN. Is it useful? Not unless you do THIS, which is rare. Ok, I'll do THIS, which is something my opponent won't be ready for.

Anyway, YEAH BRING ON THE UNITS

I think a lot of people are reading into this way too far and making assumptions about my intent. I never defined anything, merly showed why the SupCom setup has little variety in the long haul.

I never said that Every unit needs to be used every game, it's more-so that every unit needs to have a use/purpose and that it can't be replaced by another unit straight up. Like you can't just Flat Balance an entire faction in SupCom without having to go in an just cut some units out they cause their Role is the same as another unit, prime example with UEF, the Striker and Pillar, both are basically Identical once you get rid of the power Gap between tiers.

Mike

You're pointing at an exception and calling it a rule. The Aurora and the Obsidian aren't just scaled versions of each other, the Mantis and the Rhino aren't either, and the Thaam and the Ilshavoh are also pretty different. Also you'll note that the Stumpy/Bulldog and Ant/Leveller pairs exist, so both PA and TA are guilty of exactly the same thing (and worse, since there's already a lot of role duplication between bots and tanks in both cases).

No, I was pointing out an example. An Example from Aeon is the Aurora/Blaze which are both rather similar, sure if you tweak stats you can get it so that you can keep both, but otherwise my point still stands.

Also when comparing bots and Tanks the hope is that they have enough differences in the foundation()bots being more maneuverable/better at hill climbing for example) such that given if they share the same role there will still be different circumstances such that you will have a reason to use one or the other and ultimately it would be nice too if for example Tanks were better Artillery platforms overall, Bots are still viable for thier Artillery roles in different circumstances due to thier higher overall mobility or something.

Mike

The Aurora and the Blaze are pretty similar, but the Aurora and the Riptide, however, are not. The Riptide and the Blaze are similar to each other, but there are so many units across all four factions and three tiers that there's bound to be some overlap simply because the whole "Factional diversity" thing lets changes that would normally be too minor to implement in a single faction be included. The Aurora has a relatively long range and shoots relatively slowly. The Blaze has okay range for its tier, and would probably get a range nerf if you were flattening SupCom's tech tree because of the general upward trend in range, but basically has a machine gun. The Riptide also has a machine gun, but has pretty bad range for its tier. So there's actually two distinct direct fire hover tanks in the game, the slow-firing kiting one (Aurora, Seraphim hover tank) and the rapid firing close range flanker (Blaze, Riptide), the tiers they appear at just get mixed up between factions.

You actually find this if you look at most of the unit groups, that you have to throw away some of the units if you were creating one "super faction", but actually for every role there are two different types of unit which approach things differently. You can always pick pairs of units which are similar to each other, but if you look at the unit pool as a whole you only have to poke relatively few holes in the tech tree to create a lot more distinct units than just Tank, AA, Arty repeated across every movement type.

People like to talk about bots and their hill-climbing and mobility, but the maps we're getting generally don't seem to care about that. The generator doesn't really produce very aggressive hills except when it's stamping down pre-cast mesa and mountain pieces which are impassible, and fields of pathfinding clutter tend not to show up either. Even the way units tend to clump when they're in combat means wrecks fall in dense clumps not sparse fields in which greater mobility would be handy. In principle there's room for the distinction to be made, but the map generator needs to generate maps where the distinction matters first.

Jurg, that's the kind of thing I've been saying all along in countless threads.

My point in this thread is that in terms of regular gameplay SupCom is NOT a good example of unit variety because you're only ever using a small selection of units(Tier based) and even within a tier you do not always use all units and even if you DO it's because there is only ever 1 Unit available to do what you want.

Now if you wer to combine all the factions together, Flat Balanced the lot and pull out the obvious overlaps, then yeah, I'd say you 'd have a pretty good example of unit variety for the most part.

Mike

Assault unit, Anti air unit, Artillery unit, Missile unit, Commander, SACUS, Mobile shield unit,

Air scout, Fighter, Bomber, Transporter, Gunship,

Cruiser, Battleship, Destroyer, Submarine, Frigate, Nuke Submarine,

What else do you need really?