What's the point of energy?

This:

Is hilarious.
Allow me to rebutle against your original concern using your current level of discussion.

Fabrication Bot
Cost: 180 metal
Fabrication rate: 10 metal
Energy consumption: 1000

I hope you see the implications of how this supports the current state of storage units.

Back to the topic here:

Using energy to keep things running has been a staple of RTS games since.....like dune I think?

And it has proven to be a very good way of capping the overuse of structures and energy using units (Like in TA) to prevent people from creating concrete blocks for bases due to the power of defensive elements or economy buildings.

SupCom didn't do this with defences and what it got was the need for experimentals to counter blocks of defences, which is kinda weird, and that is how we counter players trying to turtle, be making defences require power to work, thus requiring space for storage and power plants, thus requiring more defences to cover them.....and so on.

Power in a streaming economy like PA is more efficient then a game like CNC, because you can store it for emergency situations, where as poweplants in CNC was quite binary with its power being on or off.

Power hasn't fully been integrated into this game with structures or units requiring a significant amount to properly function. I'm not sure eliminating it will properly simplify the game, it might even confuse people.

The building of power is basically dual resource of timing, that someone mentioned earlier with starcraft and vespene gas. Its a ratio resource to time people and build units at the right time and not inflating the cost of expensive units. Timing is important in RTS's since it determines how games flow and prevents tech jumps from happening to quickly unintendedly. If there was no vespene gas in SC.. someone can build a lot of high level tech structures with relative ease and not use any of the early game units if they manage their resources correctly. Or build anything at any time since there is no defining time factor that makes you commit to certain strategies or units.

There has been no significant structure or unit in this game that requires a bit of power to run. Satellites require a bit but the power generation at Advanced and Orbital levels make it look incredibly minimal.

I like to think a two resource system balances the pace of the game so it flows at a certain rate. One resource seems to lean toward build whatever you want because you can with no pace to stop you. As much as that sounds fun it also sounds really disorganized.

That's a good point, it would be interesting to have storage apply to powering your base in cases of temporary power loss. I've never really thought of what that might be like before.

I'd imagine storage would be then become far more relative to your base size. As it is now, you can get away with only a few storages, with most focus being on economy balance.
With base size increasing, you'd have to continually add more and more storage to ensure that your base stays operational for a enough time to rebuild generators. Small bases could get away with only one or two storages, while huge mega bases in late game would need in the realm 100's depending on what kind of drain is expected.

That would allow for optional flexibility as well...where in C&C it was generally a rule to always build power plants first, otherwise guaranteed negative effects. In PA, as it would be if with this economy system, you could even use your storage strategically. I'd imagine someone who see's a large force coming, could attempt to build more defenses than they would normally be able to support, but with the intent that they be temporary enough to hold of the enemy force before storage runs out. Then power could be stabilized either through loss of buildings because of the engagement, or through construction of power after engagement.

I can see it even becoming a viable 3rd option for harass. Being just as crippling as targeting metal and power itself. As right now, targeting storage doesn't really hinder your opponent unless you somehow know they are relying on it at that moment in time.

I was leaning toward leaving power as it, thinking it being more dynamic... But after all the post's I've read, I'm really liking this idea now. Not that I expect it to change at this point in development

It'll be a straight forward mod that I'll make if it doesn't make it into the game.

Very true. But to do so would require a full explanation of the underlying fundamental axioms of game design, how they interact with the desired game elements, and how those game elements translate back into the core math that comprises any game. But why write up a 2+ page dissertation of all the ways you would be wrong, when the average rebuttal level is going to a heartily defiant "well nuh uh"? Whatevs, man, I'm not paid for this.

If you're really interested, first figure out what the purpose of energy is, and how energy storage plays into that. Then see how the current storage values change that dynamic. Work it out for yourself, and maybe I will get to have an argument that isn't against crickets or imitating monkeys for once (not to slam the guys that make some good rebuttals, they're hard to find and a lot of fun).

Simply put:It is not obvious.

There is not one simple reason for energy. There are many reasons. I have played TA, SupCom and many games on the Spring engine where energy usage have been very different from game to game. Examples:
Slowing down economic growth.
Decrease the slippery slope of territory advantage.
Powering weapons.
Powering metal makers or mass fabricators.
Unlocking commander abilities.
Unlocking abilities in general.
Punishing players for mismanaging their economy.
Teching requirement.

It is not exactly clear what PA means to use energy for although if I understand it correctly they have ruled out metal makers and want weapon drainage to be something to be concerned about for example.
If you have an opinion of what the usage of energy in PA should be then spell it out. We can't read your mind and what your thinking of might just not be selfevident at all. It might simply be your subjective opinion.

I understand where your coming from, and I'm sure you have a good grasp of how the game economics function. But that isn't the point, if you feel you don't have the time to explain your reasoning or even your what your standing is, on a forum dedicated to the discussion of this game. Then you shouldn't be making comments in the first place, it defeats the purpose. Just having the opinions of an audience is a good thing, but a better game can't be made without knowing the reasons for those opinions. We see the "Effect", but we can't change the "Effect" without knowing what it's "Cause" is first.
A good discussion is made up of:
-Listening
-Participation
-Asking questions for clarification
-Supporting opinions with evidence

If you'd like a more intelligent and thorough discussion of the mechanics of the game, you can help by starting it. Intelligent discussions attract people who wish to give intelligent responses. Arguments that are set well in layers of evidence and written clearly won't be dismissed so easily with a "Well, nuh uh".

With this post:

I infer that you believe that energy storage is flawed in some way. But I don't know in what way you are thinking, and therefore can't really disagree or agree with you. I have a good understanding of the current mechanics and don't see how this a clearly negative thing.
I'd really appreciate if you could enlighten me, as I would learn something new. However I won't be able to pay you for your time.

You won't be the only one. I have a mind to overhaul the Energy flow and Storage system... or rather, place some rather serious emphasis on its interaction with the rest of your army.

Energy will be just as much a factor in your battlefield performance as the units you build.

Looking forward to them