That wall of text was awesome. It described a nearly perfect game.

The only problem I have with it is the lack of flow economy, that made the new players. New to RTS. understand that you have to balance your spending with your expenses, now the UI could use a lot of improvements to it, to warn players far in advance if there economy will stall. Mex upgrades should be gone away with, but as neph said expansion needs to be promoted in that case.

I always loved the FLOW eco, where everything was build with mass and energy like that it just seemed to fit...

Both. The risk-reward ratio is BAD.
- Cost is prohibitive
- Not enough mass spots to keep expanding throughtout the game, youre done after 5 minutes. With lower prices, youll be done even sooner.
- Mass spots are in bad locations: Hard to defend / easy to bomb with figbombs, and very spread out

Additionally, The scale of maps could be increased if you could keep expanding because you could actually make more stuff, and defend everywhere. For example, Waystation Zeta 1v1 - You simply get more mexes because theyre more clustered (easier to defend), closer to your base (easier for transferring defensive units between outposts), and there are simply more of them. As opposed to simple 1v1 maps.



Solved? I just told you how I solved it: Simply removing it. I dont see how keeping it a nuisance, but simply making it smaller helps. Its not helpful in any ways, why keep it in?

Also, Your idea would give both players more economy and more units. The ratios are still the same, and if you still lose stuff by the same ratio, the advantage of the winner is still relatively exactly equal.

And why get RP for both killing and losing units? Again, if you give a smaller amount of RP for losing units, youre marginalizing but not removing the problem. Giving the same amount of RP would simply boost tech speed in close fought games, to which I do not see the point. A rush build can now end up with the same tech as a tech build simply by killing mexes, and with your change it would even end up even by just losing his stuff... Tech should be a seperate investment from RP. If you want tech, I'd prefer tech with mass/energy cost, possibly upgrade time, but if you REALLY REALLY want RP, use research stations only. Possibly even on limited locations on the map, like mass.

I really dont see the advantage of the flow economy. It sacrifices ease of use to make it more complicated, not more complex. As I said, intentionally making the game harder is bad, everything should be as easy as possible, as long as there is enough to do to still make it challenging. Having to spend as much attention on your eco as in FA (I found the eco very confusing), especially but not limited to upgrading mexes, is completely unnescessary. The SC2 economy has all the advantages but none of the drawbacks. The only drawback compared directly to FA is the need to save up mass for big investments like experimentals, which I think is actually a good thing (this last point is personal preference).

I'd rather have you macro by allocating engineers between production structures, to emphasize build speed on a particular needed unit, as well as the need to keep expanding, and knowing when to pause production to save up for bigger investments.

On comparing the rate*time economy to the bank-withdrawal economy...

Rate*time is better when you want to start producing something and never stop (or not stop for a very long time). The withdrawal economy works better when you want a once-off item, especially when you want it right at that moment.

It should be obvious to everyone that you should never stop building an army of some kind (granted that you may decide to change what army you build as time progresses). I see that as one solid reason why the rate*time economy is better for armies.

Situations such as an ACU's overcharge, or building an anti-nuke, make more sense to buy upfront...

...that is, until the enemy starts raining consecutive nukes down on you.

The thing is, The price of units is so low that you can keep constructing them constantly in supcom2. In FA, when short on resources, theyll build more slowly while in supcom2, youll have fewer factories active at the same time, but the result is the same output, so its really not that much of a plus. Keep in mind that the economy now is different than it was on launch, factories do not automatically pause anymore, they just wait for the resources and then instantly restart production.

Edit: supcom2 includes a lot of 1-off abilities - jumpjets, teleport, mega armor, etc. Some of them could be drained, some others really couldnt. But putting them together in one economic system would, again, be needlessly complicating.

All in all, the added simplicity in SC2 outweighs the FA spending flow/accuracy IMO..
But, its not too important, I guess its preference as well, and its DEFINATELY not the focus of my WOT (wall of text)

One thing you missed, Neph, is the intel system in SupCom2. Radar range is way too big, scouting is way too easy, and there's no stealth. There's no hiding what you're doing outside of the opening minutes, and thus no mind games.

Honestly, my quick and dirty way of fixing SupCom2: 50% mex cost and output decrease, 50% radar range decrease, 50% map size increase, 100% mex number increase (so map control actually means something), no radar range upgrades (or significantly more expensive ones), no rp from battle, and stealth units/structures for at least one faction. Basically, FA with SupCom2 pathfinding and research system.

Right, scouting. On my to-do list.

Is it theoretically possible to make a mod that changes the ratio of xp->rp gain to 0?

Another problem having the rest of my friends who played TA for 10 years finally start playing this highlighted is a lot of the researches make very stark changes. Stuff like teleport being a win button in certain circumstances, or minors completely crushing normal land armies, stacked barrels, etc. While not really that much of a problem on its own, not really being able to scout what path they're going down makes it really annoying to try to counter.

im pretty sure changing the experience value of every unit to zero would work..

Added "Intel" to WOT

So the maps’ being too small breaks intel as well ;-(

I’ve just been playing some supcom2 and FA games. Heres what I took away from those games:

The interface looks nicer in supcom2, except for the range rings which are too thick.

Supcom2 maps are too small.
- Because they are small performance is better. Plus they look a bit nicer.
- Because they are small radar sees too far so raiding is hindered and there is no need for scout units
- Because they are small there are less mass points so expansion and raiding is not required.

Supcom2 econ seem to work similar to FA econ just with less mass points and no mass extractor upgrades. Oh and engineer assist is basically gone.

Supcom2 research locks you into a tactic. For example if you focus on fixed artillery you waste RP in that. In FA if you focus on artillery you can always switch the engineer to build and experimental instead. Likewise its hard to flip between air/land/naval in supcom2.

In FA I forget to upgrade mass extractor’s late game. In supcom2 I forget to build research stations late game.

In summary: Supcom2 is less fun because the map scale is smaller and the research system is less flexible. But at least the econ is easier for new player ;-P

Supcom2 reminds me of one of my most favorite, but very old games - M.A.X.

M.A.X. was a turn based game and stood for Mechanized Assault and Exploration. In many ways the grandfather of the modern RTS, this turn based game had it all - research, unit upgrades, flow economy, etc. - the most unique element being the exploration aspect which required the use of a survey unit to locate the various resources. You had to get out and find the resources - and the little survey unit was the only way to do that.

When they released M.A.X. 2 - they did much the same as they did with SupCom2, for almost exactly the same reasons - and with nearly identical results. The exploration aspect was entirely gone, research and upgrades were combined, map sizes were reduced - and well - the rest is simply an echo of recent history. Despite some serious marketing (Interplay) the product died a quick and merciful death.

History always repeats itself.

I see you going on about map scale, but scale really isnt that bad. The size on a map like Zeta is perfect, because you can get everywhere within a reasonable amount of time. I agree the actual 1v1 maps are a bit small for 1v1, and the 2v2 maps are a bit small for 2v2, but a 25% size increase is more than enough, and more is overkill... I think the intel problem is more that radar range is too long than that maps are too small. Ideally, I'd go with radar range as it is now, but let it only detect air units, and force people to use factory intel stations for ground defence, and buff vision range a bit on most units to compensate on the lack of radar.

Yeah I can see that. It's not really map scale that bothers me. If that were the case then just playing larger maps would help.

I guess I'm just trying to work through my thoughts after 2 years.

Today I'm thinking the problem is research points. If research was just upgrades that cost mass and energy then maybe supcom2 works. Although the other issue I have with research compared to supcom1 tech levels is the "paths" you are forced down and it's hard to go back on.

NO NO it IS map scale. I just played setons on both supcom1 and supcom2... the map size alone total changes the game. Intel, mass points, scouting... Even what Neph calls "inflation" wouldnt be so bad with supcom1 map scale.

Research is an issue, but its most just locked into a path issue and Im not sure its anywhere near significant as map scale.

@ Duncane

Yeah, thats because you INSIST on comparing SC2 to FA. Did you forget unit range was halved as well? There are so many huge differences between the game that comparing map size doesnt really make sense. Besides, its not like FA was perfect, I found many maps actually WAY TOO BIG. Especially the team maps.

I like to compare it to Starcraft, just because thats a game that works perfectly in the sense that its got a lot of elements that make it exciting to watch: A lot of possible builds, transitions, manouvres (different on each map), good faction variety, the ability to impact the game with skill by a huge amount, and the ability to stage a comeback. What I do NOT like about starcraft is the feel of epicness and scale that supcom gives. A Thor just isnt as cool as a Fatboy, and a Colossus just sucks compared to a Monkeylord. And Roaches? CREX M*TH*RF*CK*ERS! And of course the UI, which I covered as well.

Actually, now I think about it, Starcraft and Supcom are kindof opposite in a lot of way. Everything I like about starcraft sucks in supcom, and everything I like in supcom sucks in starcraft...

Edit: About the inflation part... Do you simply not understand this.. mechanic? Map size doesnt impact it, because bigger armies mean more RP farming anyways. Bigger scale, more inflation effect, evens out. And removing research removes one of the inflation effects. not a fix, but half a fix. So technically it helps. Although it would be hell to rebalance the entire game, which is why I didnt go that far.

I agree with many points.

Note 1:
If ever Supcom3 is developed: use Supcom1 FA as a starting point.

Note 2:
Supcom2 has a simplistic research tree.
Games like Warzone 2100 (about a decade old or so) had a far more advanced research mechanism.
Nothing innovative there in Supcom2.
Implement it like WZ 2100 (skip the magical 'in the field' upgrades, but recycle with preservation of experience points) or abandon the entire concept.

As much as I love WZ2100, I'd say it's got more magic in-the-field upgrades than Sup2 does.

Hundreds more.

Because I like FA and SC2 while I think starcraft is all about clicks per minute. Yes the unit range is shorter, but the unit size seems about the same. Plus the issue with the smaller maps is less mass points remember.



Now be nice. Yes I understand the inflation part. Once your lose an encounter you are behind, which means you lose the next encounter and are then further behind and so on. I was saying that less mass points (because of smaller maps) means less expansion. More expansion could mean that you could lose an encounter, but because you had been expanding while the enemy was building units you wont as easily lose the next encounter. I'm not saying its right, but it could be yeah?

The other question I have to myself is ... even if RP was removed and research upgrades cost mass/energy would it make me like the supcom2 research system. I think the answer is still no. It locks you into certain paths too much.

Would you say that the problem isn't the implementation, but the fundamental concept of being locked in?

Would refundable skills be good? The way I see it is that FA has the advantage of being able to refund most of the mass from investments.

Theoretically, yes, FA had that. But in anything resembling a decent level 1v1, if you decide you didn't really want that T2 factory/mex and decide to reclaim it, you will be further behind than if you'd just put up with your original bad decision. So FA didn't really have that at all.

Some things in FA didnt make sense to reverse such as factory upgrades or ACU upgrades, but you didnt need to reverse these once they were built - For example T2 factories can still build T1 units, but faster. Also upgrading a land fac to T2 gave you access to a T2 engineer which could build a T2 air factory if you needed to suddenly change to air focus.

A better example is if you are building an experimental in FA and suddenly realise you need nuke defense, you could start reclaiming the exp and build the nuke defense. In supcom2 if you have gone down the research path for an experimental and you suddenly discover you opponent is going for nukes... well you are screwed.

So in answer to BM's question maybe refundables would be good, but in the end the FA system just seems better.

Not sure this is a big deal. I like fast loading and unloading.



I agree. How does 66% rather than 33% sound? Right now 2 assists is too much and that's not much of an assist system.



I am adding 'new' units with the Eternal Conflict Mod. It's harder than it looks, but I think we have a happy niche to fill with heavy tanks.



A map editor would be so great. Even just simply releasing the information how GPG did the maps would be awesome, because we have some amazing modders. We could and would add maps.

Game designers need to spend a greater portion of their creative time developing maps from the perspective of game play first and beauty second. Like Neph said, we need more choke points, ramps, corridors, forest of objects to move through and hide behind. We need corridors that only certain size units can pass through, etc. GPG maps are always pretty, but rarely do provide more than a large flat plane to fight on. GPG I bequest you to get messy. I want clutter. I don't want super chokes or super planes. I want diversity and niches with some plains and mesas too.



I know Neph doesn't like experimentals kiting and RP. I do. However, I think that the kiting is too good and should be adjusted. The RP is just fast and furiously fun and wouldn't change it for the world. Lots of games give advantages to players that make kills or build structures. LoL is my new favorite game and the concept of not feeding yoru opponent adds excellent motives to cause fun scenarios especially in team games. Neph doesn't play LoL so I can see why he doesn't like RP, however MANY of the rest of us do, and we like RP!



I like reduced cost mass extractors, however I have heard complaints from some of the people I most respect who play this game about the small changes Neph made in CBP and that I adopted from him. I believe this has a lot to do with creating a new learning curve with new build orders, etc.



I agree with T3 pgens. I don't like SupCom1 economy. I like SupCom2 economy research, but don't feel it goes far enough to provide for mass late game. Eternal Conflict Mod has more powerful economy research technologies filling this gap.


I agree with everything Neph said about Intel concerning sonar, concerning air dominance, concerning stealth and concerning lack of ability to make a surprise attack.

Eternal Conflict has a much improved sonar balance that makes submarines far more stealthy.

How would you all feel about radar only affecting air units or structure radar only affecting air?

As far as i remember you had to recycle - redesign - reproduce your units (with conservation of 'experience') to get upgrades. Nothing magical here.
Ammo upgrades and such may have been magical though.




Yes, hundreds - magical or not.
In comparison the Supcom2 research tree is undeniably simplistic.

So Supcom2 is good in some ways, but Sucks in more ways. I thought we all knew this after a couple months or so of it being released...