Yeah, I remember... but as it currently is, it does suck quite good. If I have to spend more resources than a fatboy to snipe anything that isnt under a tech 2 shield or kill tech 2 armys and lower... it isnt worth it.

Position it over a nuke launcher. Alternatively, it's a Game Ender Ender. It Ends Game Enders.

That's its only job. For everything else, it's useless.

This is a huge derail, but I think we've pretty much covered the original topic.

Is it ever an effective strategy to ctrl-k a Novax above some extremely-defended game-ender?

I realize that it builds faster than something like a Yolona Oss, but it only does 3k crash damage to the launcher's 12k HP, so you'd have to start building the platform at exactly the same time with equal or greater build power assuming something like a 10x10 map. On a 20x20, it would take it so long to travel that the Yolona would probably be >3000hp by the time it got there, and doing damage to an in-progress unit doesn't actually delay its finish time.

Wait, does it actually block nukes? That's.. really stupid.

When it comes to the Oss - you don't CTRL-K. You fire and forget. IIRC, the missile will collide with the satellite and mess up his own launcher and surrounding stuff.

Please for the love of god do NOT implement this. Armor types are a cop out for balance designers. Seriously check out Sins of a solar empire, there are 8+ armor types. And what you end up with is unnecessary unit abilities and good players having to command units individually to attack just that other unit so it causes a 25% extra damage. This is not fun or interesting gameplay.

That's because Sins completely ****** up, not because armour types suck. Armour types exist for tweaking, not the core of a balance system.

Starcraft 2 has armor types, and I cant say the balance for that game sucks. There are some thing about the gameplay I absolutely dont like, but that doesnt mean this is a bad system. Its easier to tweak balance if you can just give "bonus damage vs armored" than having to find a perfect value to make rock paper scissors work without it. Very easy example would be crossbows - they have lower RoF than bows, but theyre useful because they penetrate armor. Now you can either make it deal huge overkill to show that, or give it a bonus vs armored knights. Overkill would only work if it would instakill normal units - if it doesnt, the unit with the best DPS is the most useful in the end. And if it instakills, battles will be quite short. So, just dealing extra damage against armoured/getting less of a damage deduction for attacking armored is a simple solution.

Company of heroes uses armour types and differing damage and accuracy values at various ranges. Honestly, I find this works quite well especially as the better armour types are more vulnerable to fire based weapons. The system used in that game really forces me to think about where my units are, how far they are away from my opponent's units and whether they are moving or standing still.

I personally think armour types are fine as long as you don't have too many and its clear what the counters are.

Sins is not messed up!,

on the other hand, the game just needs balance to the fact that it does not matter much of what you have in the army if you are on flat land, fighting any two army compos, should both end up with 0-0 units in the end.
So that unless you are in a certain situation, (shooting over cliffs, AA, Launching at distant buildings) no two armies will ever be stronger than the other in a normal flat scenario (if same unit count, or total cost.)

(wow i dont make much sense with my posts, my idea that makes sense is in there somewhere, ill let you people try and find it!)

Indeed your point makes no sense at all, whatsoever. From what I understand, you are saying that without terrain effects, all army compositions should be equal. That sounds stupid because that means there are no hard counters for units.

you have a point there, a little flawed logic for ya, well it really depends how you want to play. microing what you build is annoying, (for me at least)

There is no "microing what you build". It is called MACRO. Its the most important thing in RTS games. Dont want to macro? Play call of duty. No macro around whatsoever.

More similar comparison: play a DOTA clone.

Also, macro is not the most important thing in every game, check dow2 (Yes there is some but Good micro>>Good macro in that game)

That terminology comes mostly from Starcraft (it seems?), and is somewhat different from everyday usage (and its usage in SupCom.)

In SupCom: Micromanagement = manually doing things yourself rather than delegating. Focusing on petty tasks rather than overall strategy.

So dragging lines of templated powerfarm/shield/massfab combinations would be laying down structures in a macro way. Doing each structure one by one is doing it the micro way.

The former is quicker and easier. The latter allows you to be more precise about placement.

People who hate being forced to do the latter, will resent game mechanics that incentivise it in any way.

As an extreme example, biomerl might be talking about some game without structure micro, where you capture points on the map, factories automatically build there, and auto-generate a mixed army of fixed composition.
Winning or losing depends on your choice of which points to take, and how it improves your economy. So there's still "macro"... just no "micro" in your "macro"... to mix up my definitions :P

Still, while building placement itself might be considered micro, building units counts as macro. Marco is just a lot easier in supcom.

I meant microing build ques for units, id rather just inf que my tanks and be good for a while, untill i need AA or arty or something

i dont like micro placing buildings in precarious positions either, good bye adjacency bonus, i may miss flow eco, scale, and even the tiers (yea mass tiers also) but ill never miss you!

I like building placement strategies, I just feel that the adjacency bonus was a bit arbitrary, forcing you into certain building patterns. I like building placement in supcom2, where you have to think about where to place your factories and turrets.

And radars, Spuddy. Think about your damn radars.

You're still not quite getting it, I think. In "everyday usage", micro vs. not-micro (the term "macro" doesnt ever get used much normally) simply refers to the amount of detailed attention you have to give. (with the implied tone that its unnecessary.)

Sure, you can talk using the Starcraft meanings if you want. But its a bit pointless to argue about semantics in that case when refuting someone - you're simply talking different languages by then.

eg.
"I hate the amount of micro I have to do when building an economy."
"Economy is macro not micro, you are stupid."

I guess.. I kinda got used to CnC/Starcraft vocabulary. If you want an objective comment on micro/macro in supcom, it is that I like how they keep removing time consuming APM and allow you to focus on using it for important stuff. When comparing supcom to CnC or SC, these things come to mind, mostly good:

- removed unit queueing (compared to other RTS)
- removed structure placement and upgrading that didnt really add to the game (supcom 1) and replaced it with better structure placement (factory shields/AA, PDs, Radars when considering attack / bombing angles
- Removed sight limitation with zoom (compared to other RTS)
- Added ctrl-move unit blobbing (in supcom2 - lack of firing randomness or low splash on tanks makes moving without formation stronger than using formation - results in nescessity for arbitrary APM )
- compared to other games, easier upgrading (no need to jump between tech structures, techs immediatly researched)
- bad hotkey system, needing to press 2 buttons to use 1 ability. Not really nescessary and maybe customizable, never tried, but has more potential than it shows.

My preferred hotkey system (if there are too many hotkeys to fit on one keyboard easily) is key sequences.

Similar to build mode, press B->X for mex, B->P for PGen, etc.
So F->1 for "Form group 1", G->1 for "Add units to group 1", etc.

I find pressing two keys in quick succession to be much more comfortable than Ctrl/Alt/Shift key combinations, or modal hotkeys. (ie. if in this mode = these hotkeys, if that unit selected = those hotkeys, etc.)

Could be just me though. The best UI is a fully configurable one.

I prefer having my hotkeys close together, so my hand doesnt need to cross huge distances. And customizability is nice as well.

Yeah, but if you're going to cluster all your hotkeys on one side of the keyboard, AND avoid modal hotkeys, then you're defnitely going to run out of keys unless you do something like what I said.

not nescessarily - you can recycle buttons. For example, in Starcraft 2, i have the first upgrade for every structure on A, the second on S and the third on D. Ling speed: A. Baneling speed: A. Melee attack: A.

Similarly, in supcom2, you can put all abilities on S, or use mutiple buttons for unit abilities and recycle them for structure abilities. Or like in CnC, the first build option for units or structures on F1, second on F2, etc. So you use the same layout for every factory type.

Moral of the story: Get creative.

That makes the hotkeys modal though, (you might not have understood what I meant when I used the term.).

Might work for some units in some games, but often doesnt - eg. If you use the same hotkey for Dive and Deploy in SCom2, what happens when you improbably select a group of Subs and Jackhammers? etc.

Probably a bad example, but you see what I mean. Some games get around it by having an "active subset" of your currently selected group where the hotkeys apply, but that's not a wonderful solution either.