Unit diversity in PA

Hello!
I'd like to talk a little bit about the topic that has arised in my mind just recently. Again, I really love PA and I'm excited to be a part of community, so these concerns are only supposed to improve the game even more.

I have a feeling like options in the game are pretty limited. Yes, I realize it's beta but anyway some things will not change. We will have just 1 real faction. I don't mind it but It's definitely factor that influences the depth/fun of game. Most of other RTS revolve around differences in races and this is usually good because some races are stronger in early game, some in midgame and some in lategame which all leads to dynamic and interesting gameplay. I don't think I really need to go indepth why unique races make RTS interesting. Different units, different economy mechanics, different strategies, different approaches to game, this is all pretty good. In PA there are supposed to be offsets to lack of different races like planet smashing, orbital play, commanders and a lot of unit types. Right now I don't think current units are designed diversely enough to justify having only 1 race.

1. Roles and design of units
Leveller is basically T2 pounder, slammer is T2 dox, peregrin is T2 hummingbird. So you tech in order to basically get stronger versions of t1 play. Once you get t2 you play it very similiarly to t1 but with units that just have better stats. This is a bit dull. Most of unit interactions in all 4 dimensions of war in PA (land naval orbital air) are basically - mass shitton of stuff and hope you have more of it or better tech of them and just send them to the opponent. This is especially painful in orbital fighters vs orbital fighter and air fighter vs air fighter but it's basically everywhere. If we don't plan to introduce other factions we need to fix interactions between war dimensions and between units. We should create units that complement each other. The key to create interesting units is to have their stats heavily diversified.

There are two kind of stats
1A. Stats that influence unit interactions - DPS, range, speed, hp, rate of fire, sight, splash damage
1B. Stats that don't influence unit interactions - Build time, cost, tech availability

To create interesting unit design it's usually good to take 2-3 1A stats and make them very low, and then take 2-3 and make them in middle ground and then take another 2-3 and make them very high. In Starcraft, the most interesting units in the game are those who meet those criteria. Reaver - high dps, very low speed, high range, very low hp. Mutalisk - mid dps, very high speed, low hp. Siege tank - very low hp, low speed, very high dmg, high splash. In Starcraft 2, Blizzard introduced some units with all around mid-high stats, like roach, collosus or void ray. Those are the units that people generally don't like and they call them boring because they are just "mass them, then a-move" units. Most of PA units are right now in this stage as well. 1B stats are pretty important in terms of balance and build orders but in the battlefield they don't change anything, maybe just number of the units that is there.
In situation when we have diversified 1A stats, then there appears a necessity to make interesting unit compositions and game definitely gains much more depth.

First it would be awesome to introduce any kind of unit compositions. Even the most standard 2 unit compositon with 1 unit having high hp, low dmg and low range and 2nd unit having high damage, high range, very low hp. This adds a lot of options, it would allow flanking, surrounding, positioning, terrain abuse etc.

Then it would be interesting to diversify unit compositions so everyone can pick their favourite. Wanna play heavy hp and heavy dps style? Sure, but your units are slow. Wanna play fast and high dps units? Sure but they will have very little hp. Wanna give up air play and rely on orbital and land? Here, take some mobile ground and orbital Anti-air but your mobility is worse.
Adding more interdimensional play would be absolutely sick as well. If Orbital received some anti-ground(i know there is one but its basically siege unit) and anti-air it could take unit compositions to absolutely new level. In normal RTS it's usually air and land, here it would be orbital land and air with some naval, could be awesome.

2. Mass-Micromanagement
A lot of people here want to remove micromanagement from the game. I am huge fan of big focus on strategy and macro but I believe it's wrong to remove all kinds of micro.
Again, there are 2 types of micro.
2A. Micromanagement - managing one or very few units with some spells or microing it to dodge bullets - in general babysitting with serious zoom-in.
2B. Mass-micromanagement - Positioning or managing big group of units to make a flank or managing them in order to have certain type of units in front and other behind or using terrain - possible to execute when zoomed out.

I think when people say they want to remove micro from game they usually mean mostly 2A type of micro. I agree, when game gets big with hundreds of units, forcing player to micro single units and spells is not the best idea. But Mass-micro adds a lot of depth to the game and I believe this would greatly benefit PA. Right now you have a blob of 30 doxes, then you face blob of your opponent and blobs meet and whoever has more wins. This isn't exciting.
If, on the other hand you were able to sneak 10 doxes behind his army to cut his retreat while you have 10 pounders to tank and 10 slammers with big range to deal dps - hell yeah, this would create some sick battles. Managing your units correctly should be another way that the good player can differentiate himself from worse players. Judging how many of some kind of unit you need for certain situation would also require skill.
Land mass-micro right now is still in relatively good shape when your compare it with air mass-micro. Air domination fights are even worse. T1 fighters literally send 1 missile and they trade one for one and it's greatest example of how blob vs blob works in PA. The same rule could apply to air - make t2 fighters in some kind more unique than t1 fighters. Give them more missiles, machine gun, splash damage, instant turn in the air, anything.

I think, If there is more mass-micro added and units are designed in more unique way, the game will become more complex.

༼ つ ◕_◕༽つ UBERENT PLEASE ༼ つ ◕_◕༽つ

PS. I think air transports would be very cool in case we decide to go with some slow but heavy dps units. Transports and dropping really make RTS games more intense

Considering this is all basically balance related, we shoudl probably wait until balance has matured to a point where we can properly judge this kind of stuff.

On top of that we KNOW that the unit Roster isn't complete, and will more or less never be complete due to Post Release Support.

Mike

I disagree. The changes made to the Leveler Pea Shooter clearly point towards this being a potential problem. We had more unit diversity before the recent patch (bots being faster and cheaper, good for throw away harass, tanks for main armies), now bots are just better because they fill literally every niche.

We definitely can't say the game doomed, but it's a discussion we should be having because right now is when they are working on unit roles.

Anyway, my personal feeling is that bots should be unique because of their speed and mobility, and tanks should be the brute force behind an army. It shouldn't be pure tanks > bots, but bots should need to sue their cheapness and mobility to outflank whoever is using tanks.

My point still applies;

Mike

And with the next patch, everything is going to change again. Infernos protecting pounder groups are going to decimate bots that try a frontal assault, and will need to leverage their speed to be wherever the tanks aren't.

tbh. we dont have the full unit roster yet.

If Uber turned around tomorrow and released a patch with bomb bugs and a couple of balance/ bug fixes and said here ya go! RELEASED!....then it would be an issue.

But for now, just keep rushing that t2

It's still worth discussing in case some things haven't been thought or completely considered. I agree with everything the OP is talking about. especially the part when blobs meet blobs. There needs to be something people can do that means blobbing isn't the best approach.

Flanking should be a powerful thing. It's the most basic military strategy that has existed since the dawn of time and is still useful today. I'm not sure how to implement this without complicated directional commands like in Company of Hero's. You can then also make some units more susceptible to flanking than others and some better and creating flanking opportunities than others.

I've seen some of the new play test videos and the new formation stuff. I can't help think that I'm going to want more control over that. Wide and flat formations to maximise dps, or deep with a tonne of hp up front to bust through a fortified area. Spread to minimise artillery or bomber splash or to maximise visibility when harassing expansions. Bunched up for a high risk high reward move to to minimise aimless area command artillery fire or avoid being seen by patrolling enemies.

More thinking, less spam.

Good thinking should be as equal as higher economy or high APM.

You said it yourself. Flanking gives this advantage. In the best scenario, all your units fire at one of the enemy unit so you can kill the enemies one by one with maximum firepower.
Also if you manage to spread out and surround or flank the enemy you have a greater surface area than enemy which means that you can maximize your firepower more as you can spread out your units in a longer line and engage the enemies shorter line.
Of course, you need powerful formation tools to do this effectively.

But if I surround a blob with a two flanking groups there is no advantage, the blob's surface area dictates my maximum surface area that can engaged. Yes, if I manage to micro into a perfect circle around a blob then I'll win, but that's not flanking, that's a situation that doesn't happen. I feel like units should take more damage if they are hit by something that hits them from a direction they're not focusing on (aiming at).

Problem is that this wont make much difference. Units attacks units closest to them. So this wouldn't really make much difference until you have killed most of the enemy blob and are starting to attack single units from 2 directions which is likely to mean that the enemy blob have now been reduced to a single line, sandwiched between your 2 flanking groups.
There is another advantage to flanking and that is intercepting the enemy. By dividing up your superior force you can surround the enemy and when they try to retreat you close in from 2 different directions and as the enemies retreats less and less of their units will be in range of your units and you will be able focus fire down the retreating enemies.

The natural way to maximize firepower is to spread out on a line and lines are always susceptible to flanking. Players just needs to be given powerful formation tools like Custom Formations in Zero-K. Add some units with AoE weapons and bunched up blobs will be heavily punished by flanking attacks.

Another game mechanic that heavily increases the importance of flanking is if units obstruct each others Line of Fire. In a blob, units will block each others Line of Fire, while a surrounding force can spread out freely to maintain maximum firepower.

... Classic knight.

My current issue with the unit diversity is the bot and vehicle anti-air are very similar, and I think that that's really boring. Honestly, IMO, the anti-air bot should be able to shoot dumbfire rockets at ground targets as well, and the anti-air vehicle should be some sort of long range SAM carrier, with a low firerate.

I'll be happy when either one of starts being useful. But I do really like your ideas.

don't worry, the micro's not going anywhere, micro spawns itself into games, you don't ever need to do anything for it to appear. To replace it with macro, however requires tenfolds of work creativity originality.

you can't just go "abracadabra vanishio micro!"

with the current roll of things, you need not worry, micro's not running anywhere.

My post is about unit roles and interactions which are independant from balance. I mean yeah you can balance how strong is certain interaction but interaction itself is design thing. So it's only a little bit balance related. In starcraft 2 there were constant complaints for 3 years about protoss design even though the race wasn't overpowered.
I realize we have to wait, I'm just pointing out the direction we should be heading and right now we are not heading there. (or we do but only partially)

I would argue that knight didn't just read all your comment but seen balance and pasted his standard balance related post.

These aren't the same thing. OP is talking about unit diversity in the roster which is about design. Balance is about making units already in the design work together. OP has a very valid point about holes in the design currently and this is the perfect time (maybe even a little late) to be discussing this topic.

I'm really tired of seeing peoples design ideas get shot down by people saying "herp derp balance isn't finished". No ****. It's never too early to discuss possible design changes and the earlier these things get thrown into the balance blender the better IMO.

good point there are a bunch of missing unit types. and we may want to create units that offset things alot more before we end up with starcraft III

Don't worry guys, this discussion has been beaten to death since the start of the kickstarter (and even before). What we have determined over long and hard years is that:

Fighters > Bombers
Bombers > Ground
but bombers are super scary so flak > bombers
Fighter missiles can't accidentally hurt tanks
boats will never be used. ever.
and artillery > all.

Game design is SO easy.

Don't forget T2>T1