TL;DR now on top!
Introduction:
-The only part of SupCom that's arbitrary is the economy, specifically MEXs
-Mass is renewable and it's all over planets, unlike TA's metal
-Something similar to TA:Spring's metal system makes more sense

MEXs Extract from Areas:
-MEXs should be placeable anywhere there's mass, which is everywhere
-MEXs will extract mass from a designated radial area
-One MEX gives you X Mass, a second MEX next to the first gives you significantly less than the first, but a second MEX built two radii away will give you 2X Mass

MEX UI:
-A neon-green circle should appear around MEXs to indicate the area they cover
-This should only appear, when toggled, or when a MEX is selected
-When building a MEX the neon-green circles of MEXs should appear
-Fill all MEX circles with transparent neon-green to aid in MEX placement

MEXs in the Water?:
-MEXs should be built under water, however that might be OP with current naval issues
-Since we have to wait until the expansion for underwater bases, we should leave it out for now

Tiers are Proportional:
-Obsolete units plague RTSs, to keep lower tier MEXs useful, they will proportionally cover less mass for cost
-Radius Proportion=1:2:4 by tech
-Area Proportion=1:4:16 by tech
-Cost/Time/HP Proportion=1:4:16 by tech
-Mass Output Proportion=1:4:16 by tech

No Obsolete MEXs:
-Lower Tiers are faster, cheaper, and less efficient at covering space
-Higher Tiers are slower, more expensive, and more efficient with space
-MEX placement will be similar to sphere packing
-Lower Tiers can be used to fill gaps in Higher Tier grids, like in alloys
-Upgrading will also take into account the cost of the previous MEX

MEXs are Vulnerable:
-Now map control can't be too important, MEXs need to be fragile and a weakness
-Possibilities are volatile explosions, delay or gradual output, and long build times
-It should be the case that you lay protect down before you make MEXs, not visa versa

Mass Map:
-Old MEXs theoretically allow you to assign map 'hotspots'
-In the same way TA:Spring allows you to with different Metal densities
-Different Mass densities could be a feature in SupCom, but it would require much more calculation
-A Mass Map (like the Cartographic Map) could be toggled to display the different Mass densities (A single button would work better, like TA: Spring's F4)

Three Types of Strategies:
-Expansion/Turtling/Mix VS only Turtling before
-Expansion would be a player simply building MEXs anywhere and everywhere (see: 'MEXs are Vulnerable' for negative)
-Turtling would be highly fortifying themselves and farming their base (see: 'Introduction' for negatives)
-A mix would entail the use of both strategies for a superior strategy
-In use it'd be wise to switch between A&B depending on circumstance

Hydrocarbon Power Plants:
-The HCPP, like the MEX seems arbitrary but less developed
-There's many ways to solve this issue, including upgrading
-One viable solution is making it an Adjacency Enhancer, it could be built anywhere and give 50-150% adjacency, but be very fragile and explosive
-Another solution would be to totally remove it and and replace it's roll with a Repair Tower, it'd repair anything within its range, including vehicles and it'd rebuild buildings, it could also have different tiers

Closing Thoughts:
-This adds importance to expansion without totally deterring turtling
-I'd love to see how the more aggressive nature of this system would play
-I foresee bases covering entire continents in the most well-matched games
-If anyone is interested in making this mod with me, post or PM me.


Although the TL;DR is fairly comprehensive, I recommend reading what you don't understand
Introduction:
Ever since the release of SupCom it seemed there was only one aspect of the game that felt arbitrary and lacking, the economy and specifically MEXs. Those neon-green squares remind me that I'm still just playing a game. While delegating these issues I came up with a solution similar to the TA: Spring MEX system. Mass is a renewable resource, it's also all over planets, instead of artificial MEX squares, why not make the MEXs placeable anywhere. And anywhere gives you mass.

These new MEXs would promote expansion and make simply turtling and farming less viable.

MEXs Extract from Areas:
Well, if everything's extractable and you can build MEXs anywhere. MEXs will need a draw back, they will have a radius and cover a certain (circular) area of land around them, they'll look kind of like neon-green pylons when you click them. For every area unit of land your MEXs cover you get mass. So, you could build 1 MEX and get X Mass, then you could build another MEX right next to it and cover hardly anymore land, of course this means you get significantly less mass. Or you could build a new MEX two radii away from the old one and receive double the mass, 2X Mass.

MEX UI:
Keeping with mass's neon-green theme, a neon-green circle should appear when you select a MEX or press a toggle. That way you can see all the area covered by MEXs. The same goes for when you're selecting a MEX to construct. The circles be filled with a transparent neon-green filling, as to aid in MEX placement. Hence, my aforementioned neon-green pylon comparison.

MEXs in the Water?:
All of this would also apply under water, where MEXs could also be built. However, I'm not sure whether MEXs in water should suffer a penalty or we should just wait for underwater buildings in the expansion. I think that this would fit more nicely when we have underwater buildings, as we could have MEX fields impervious to most attacks then.

Tiers are Proportional:
There are 3 tiers of MEXs and currently the higher tier MEXs make the older obsolete. I suggest we give the T1 MEX a radius of something like the T1 PD and then double it for T2, and double that for T3. This way you end up with a ratio of 1:2:4 for the MEXs' radii and an area ratio of 1:4:16, which looks good to me. This means that if the T1 MEX gives you 2M you get a mass output ratio of 2:8:32, which isn't bad. Build times would be proportional to area, so a ratio of 1:4:16 would work.

No Obsolete MEXs:
The difference between MEXs is that lower tiers are cheaper and faster, but aren't as efficient and give the enemy more targets, which means your defenses are more spread. So, if you're not worried about being attacked you can just build lower tier MEXs, as they're faster, cheaper, and replaceable. However, if you want to be more efficient with space, and would prefer fortifying fewer areas, you can stick with higher tier MEXs and then fill the gaps with lower tier MEXs. A good visual analogy is the sphere stacking of metal alloys. Upgrading would also still be viable, and take into account the price of the originally constructed MEX.

MEXs are Vulnerable:
I'd also like to mention that MEXs need to be vulnerable. It should never be the case that you can spam MEXs across a map and then gain enough of an advantage to defeat your more prudent enemy. Prudence should be important. Your MEXs should always be in danger of attack, and [sic] should be defended. This sort of game play aspect would probably lead to a median between offensive and defensive playing, IMO. MEXs should be very easy to pull hit and runs on (low HP) and should require protection, maybe because of a volatile explosion, delayed or gradual output, or build time.

Mass Map:
TA: Spring uses a similar system, except that the area a MEX covers is only the area it's built upon. Which raises the same issues as farming, however they have Metal Maps. Perhaps something similar could be added if enough are in favor of it. In its simplest forms, its a map mode (activated by F4) that displays the density of metal on maps. The same could be done for mass, if you want to add particular points of contention. Also, when displaying the output of MEXs it should show how much they're extracting and not double count what previous MEXs already counted.

Three Types of Strategies:
This new resource system could lead to a plethora of new economic strategies (some of which already exist but not to a large extent, most people use the same rigid economic strategy).

A) Expansion
The strategy of spreading oneself very thin to cover as much land (area) with MEXs as possible and essentially out macroing and overwhelming their enemies.
B) Turtling
The strategy of become self-sufficient with farms protected by lots of base fortification and which leads to an economic advantage due to a lack of offensive units required.
C)A Mix
The application of both strategies when appropriate. Essentially the perfect medium which could defeat both strategies if done properly.

In Use:
If either A or B are left unchecked they can achieve victory very quickly and effectively. And even though C can defeat A and B individually, on maps like Seton's Clutch players will need to adapt depending on positioning and team strategy. The inland player could expand while the isthmus player turtles. The sea-side players could employ a mix of both. This different mass extraction system leads to a more varied and exciting methods of resource gathering in games and much more strategy (not tactics like farming).

Hydrocarbon Power Plant:
The HCPP feels very much like a neglected aspect, IHMO. There's many solutions, upgrades are certainly an option, but I've been thinking about this a lot. And on further consideration it does suffer from the same issues as the MEX and I have gotten some abstract ideas about what should be done with it. However, I'm not too attached to these. I'm open minded to with what should be done to the HCPP.

Overhaul it, make it an adjacency enhancer:
How about, instead of being upgradeable, the HCPP says useful throughout the game. Well, how to go about accomplishing this? I suggest we make the HCPP an adjacency-farm enhancer. The HCPP could give excellent adjacency, something like 50-150%. This means that the HCPP could be built anywhere and that it'd be a great base or addition to a conservative player's farm. If we keep the HCPP 3x3, then it can fit inside a T3 Farm grid or replace a T2 PGen in a grid. I think this would have a whole new level to the farm construction in bases and depend a lot more on circumstance.

Remove it, replace with Repair Tower:
Instead of keeping its awkward use in the game, how about just replacing it with a repair tower, it could repair anything within a certain radius of itself, maybe TMD or SMD ranges. It'd be a sort of vehicle staging facility and it could possibly repair experimentals, like the CZAR. (Tangent: The CZAR should lower itself to be repaired/assisted by engineers or any other unit.)

Closing Thoughts:
I think this sort of system would introduce slow expansions of firebases and the main base. Players would create MEXs around their main base and slowly fortify the area with PDs and AA, to protect themselves from resource raids. Of course, with empty protected land players are likely to fill the areas up with farms and factories, which means the base as a whole will expand. Coupled with faster build speed on everything we might see 1v1s on Seton's where the entire continents are covered in buildings. With the addition of a Mass Map and different Mass Densities map authors could create a slew of unique and interesting scenarios as well.

If anyone's interested in this mod, PM me or post here. I'm not too good with coding but I'd love to see my mod happen. So, if anyone's interested in helping me mod/learn to mod, I'd love to try and arrange something. I thought hard about these suggestions and I hope I'm met with good criticism. So, let me know what you think about the above ideas!


While I know that a mod like my MEX system will be made primarily off charity, I think that mentioning what else I think would be great is an excellent way of getting someone in perspective.
Some General Additions:
Of course, all of these large, expansive bases would need some maintenance, so I suggest we get a unit that can rebuild and repair buildings (MEXs and farms, mainly), such as a modified SUPPORT SCU (or the Repair Tower). This new SCU would be a very effective T3.5 unit, as it could act as a base maintainer (instead of you) and an effective addition/leader of any fighting force, because it could quickly repair any unit near it. I think the Repair function would need some tweaks though, it'd have to act like it does in TA: Spring. When you click repair you can drag a radius and the engineer will repair anything in the created repair circle (rectangles work too). If done to mobile units, the SCU will repair any damaged unit that was in the circle, until given a new order. Rebuild would act the same way, and if toggled it'll rebuild/repair anything on its route, on top of assisting/reclaiming stuff.

Aircraft should also be given a fuel reduction as to limit their control of the air. This way staging facilities might see play, especially at expanding firebases. And air control would be important in hindering the expansion of your enemy.

Additional UI Functions:
SupCom also seems to lack an Attack Box function. Red Alert 2 even had them. Hell, TA: Spring has it as well, and it works great. Assist and Guard could use a box function too. These would just be a nice addition to the already many options of this great game.

shameless bump after updates

Is all of this even possible with the current game mechanics?

i would really like that :p

I generally like the idea. SupCom lacks a real fight for map coverage.

But if you believe that few T3 extractors are more difficult to destroy than a massive area of T1 extractors, you are mistaken. With your current description, I would only build T1 Extractors even on big maps (in a clicking orgy then) and might never tech up further than T2, maybe not even T1. Even if I have to defend them, the enemy willl have a harder time seeking and destroying 16 small extractors with air units, artillery, drops and the likes than hitting one important target. And there are many maps where the productive area doesn't get into big ground fights too soon.

So I wouldn't abolish the tech level idea. The higher-Tech extractors can have a significantly higher amortization time, but in the long run, they must be significantly more efficient for players to use them.

Well, the idea is that if you have less MEXs you can defend them better than you could more. Of course, I might have to wait 'til testing to actually see what happens. Although, I'll seriously consider the correlation between techs.

ummm whats the mass extraction rate for a mex on a normal terrain spot (usually no mass at all) and does this mean mexes (all of them) will replace mass fabs (at least t1) because of efficiency?

I'm not quite sure. I'd like to keep it near what it is now, like 1 or 2 and give a boost to the ones at the spawn, but nothing's really set in stone. I definitely have no intention of making MFabs obsolete, though, my intention is that they coexist in harmony with MEXs. The trick is making the choice between unprotected expansion and farming lean towards farming.

I love the idea, though i must agree with the problems others have thought of.

I think . . . . . . .

Tech levels should still be important, and Tech 3 shouldn't be far less resource-efficient than a set of T1's that cover the same space; you need a way to address why somebody should upgrade. It may be easier to defend a single Mex heavily, but it's much, much harder to do signifigant damage to production when your production is scattered out, AND heavily defended - even a fleet of nuke bombers would require good reflexes and superb micro skills.

You could, perhaps allow the techs to retain their efficiency (They dig deeper?) while making them much more time-intensive. The T3's would be worth upgrading to, even if the investment would be so much that filling gaps would probably be limited to lower tech levels. Also, if you want fewer mexxes to be more defensible, you may want to think about armoring T3's, since as a single target they are more vulnerable.

I DO think metal spots should remain. You can give a Mex a significant production boost for including one in their territory. This would keep your starting position important, as well as allow mapmakers to continue to designate areas that are worth fighting over.

Also, I don't think you should do the repair station - that would encourage turtling by reducing micromanagement of base defenses, while you seem more interested in encouraging players to adopt a strategy to fit the map or situation. However I agree that the hydrocarbon plant needs to see some love. Perhaps making it upgradable is the answer, though I don't think its' production should exceed or even match the T3 fusion at it's highest tech, even though I do think it needs to outshine T2 power to remain viable in late-stages.

Finally . . . I don't think this idea is quite in harmony with Massfabs. Unless the radii are quite large, yet with only a similar income to what we see now, or mexxes are in some other way unweildy, mex farming will probably be primary, and fab farming only a secondary pursuit, if it's pursued at all.

Well they're more efficient in the send that they leave less gaps than T1 MEXs would bringing in the same amount of mass. I agree thought, there should be more incentive, and you raised a valid issue.



That's a really good suggestion, if I use powers of 3 but keep the cost at a power of 2, then I'm sure it'll work perfectly. Digging deeper would make sense, considering their surface range is larger, so I'll look into that. I'm probably going to keep the HP ratio the same, but add much higher regen to the higher tiers.



Yeah, I thought about this, so I suggested a Mass Map. I like the idea of all land being worth contention, but specific hot spots are important too, the trick is the math.



Personally I think it just needs a total revamp, I'm totally against arbitrary locations, even if it sort of makes sense for a HCPP. My first recommendation was just making it into a conversion/efficiency factory, you could build it anywhere and it'd add lots of adjacency to your buildings, like 75%, which would really get useful when farming. Of course, I also think there's a need for a repair tower, to reduce the micro of base management, while freeing you up and promoting combat management. That's what this mod is half about. Upgrades, to me, are a sort of unimaginative, quick-fix, way to fix the issues.



Well, what I was thinking was making the T1 MEX something like the area of a T1 PD, and then multiply that for the other MEXs. Of course, I might have to make them a little bigger if that doesn't produce the kind of game play I want. I do want farming to be secondary to MEX expansion, but not to the degree that farming isn't viable, I'd prefer something like laying a T3 MEX down and then filling the area being extracted with farms and factories. But I also don't want only one tier MEX being used, the best formation should be a grid of high tier MEXs with their gaps filled up by lower tier MEXs.

I vote yes.