Will there only be 15 unit types per faction?
I think when there are only 15 unit types, the game would loose some of its replay value over time, because the best strategies will be fast achived and you will play them very often. There is only few space to variate your taktics and army build schemes with only 15 and it can result in clashes of armys with only 4 unit types.
I understand that this would help with a fast gameplay but i would like to vary and test some army builds.
One of the great things of Supreme Commander was the wide range of units and that you can vary on many abbilitys of specific units.
(Sorry that i compare AotS with Supreme Commander)
I fully agree with this. Currently it just feels like a slug fest without much strategy involved.
That's about the same number of units as Starcraft has. The strategies involved will depend on making sure these units are substantially different (Which right now, they're not).
As strategies develop, more units will come into play. But it was never a strength to have robotic vs. vehicle versions of the same units in TA/SupCom.
In Total Annihilation, for instance you had a very finite # of actual units:
Then it has tier 2 units that were effectively the same units but bigger and tougher (I used the missile launcher tank massively which was very effective).
Later on, after release, more units were released that started to expand on these. You got flak tanks, radar tanks, radar jamming tanks, actually distinct Kbots, tanks that could go over water, etc. But these aren't part of the game on day 1.
With Ashes, we want to start with a dozen+ differentiated units and then add more as new strategies manifest.
As long as the unit variety is made (as the game develops) strong, alongside defined roles, 15 units is totally fine.
Great to hear .
Will there be a chance that we will see other ground units then hover-tanks? (like Kbots)
And will there be projectile weapons for units?
What would be the specific difference you'd be looking for between a walking unit and a hovering unit?
For me its the same, but i will like to see some more interesting Flying units.
Hover Units need in my opinion much energy to only "hover", but have the advantage of hover over water and other not solid ground types.
The walking unit is cheaper to maintain, produce and can for the same energy consumption as a hover unit, lift heavier weaponry. But they couldn't use every surface like a hover unit.
We're definitely more likely to add more flying units sooner than ground units. We'd need a very specific distinguishing characteristic for the units.
And in fact, you guys will have a lot of say on how we differentiate the units even further.
There's actually a magic number in game theory on the optimal # of units. It's actually 13 (including the "peon" unit).
Lol nice magic number.Right now you have only 3 kind of Flying units: PAN, FURY, HADES (Scout, Fighter, Bomber)
Any chance of shield units? Or at least shields in any form? One thing I loved about SupCom was using shields.
We really are trying to avoid adding the Brawler (or a similar unit) as it ends up being the big "end game swarm" unit.
Incidentally, ~Starcraft 2 has 15 total units per side. That's now why we picked our number. There's a bunch of other units we would like to explore:
But our first objective is to make sure the 15 units we have are very very distinct.
Substrate side has shield stuff.
The world would look like much more "Animated" or "Alive". I may be wrong but it seems like to me that the choice of only hoover units is from a pure technical perspective. In the current release i see no or almost no units animations. In supcom Aeons were really distinct with their hoover units. Here i hardly see a difference from a pure visual perspective. Having animated units obviously brings additional technical challenges. Plus I unfortunately hardly imagine how animated robots could fit the current map design. They all have been made for hooving units. I'm pretty sure unit diversity can be extended to robots, wheeling units without changing the specificity of AOTS.
Good god I would kill for some air transports. You're fighting a planet-wide war but nobody's invented logistics or transportation?
The air transports could be built in platoons like ground units (maybe 5 per group?), and could only pick up a battlegroup if they were together in their own transport "battlegroup", and if you don't have enough they won't pick up any (so as to not splinter the land units into some in air and some on ground). Would also be great to move engineers around, but that's another story (I realize there's a global to provide for that in a way).
Make these really vulnerable to the air-to-air units and then there's more of a reason to patrol your airspace, and you could bring AA fighters as well as cover. Would also lead to air-only battlegroups, which I think is sorely missed and is hindering the airborne play.
EDIT: I realize this may totally screw the balance up, so I'll be waiting to hear how bad an idea it truly is Just a thought though!
Yeah, the idea of giving air units more impact and allowing them to form battlegroups on their own, as well as transport units, is exciting to me. Imagine looking at the strategic view and seeing bands of aircraft moving around accomplishing tasks. Awesome!
I actually really miss artillery - like a lot. I know the Devs didn't want to give players the chance to turtle, but giving players defensive structures doesn't mean that they WILL turtle. The maps are designed in such a way that it forces players to move out and secure the map nodes - which is fun I guess, but I think having stronger defenses would be a good thing. Adding in different tiers of defenses that can be unlocked via Tech points, as well as Shield generators for all factions, and possible artillery that can shoot a pretty good distance. It would make it better to take points on the map and make forwarding operating bases with defenses, then from there you can push out. If your forces are wiped out, then hopefully your defenses can hold.Supreme Commander/Sins of a Solar Empire both give players the ability to build strong defenses - which I love. It's great for consolidating your map control instead of relying on just swarms of units...... I also second Air Transports - I like that idea.
An aircraft that fires air to ground missiles (rockets)... You can call it what ever you want.
and possibly higher tiered versions of them, especially the bomber. I think the one most venerable rule of RTS or even strategy is that you should be punished for neglecting a front.metaphorical and physical front.
I think they should be:
- fighter / bomber - equally decent at shooting at ground and other aircraft - think any modern fighter like F18 or whatever
- dedicated anti- vehicle plane - slower and vulnerable to air, but great at killing ground units - think A10
- air superiory fighter - anti air, think F22 Raptor
- strategic bomber in 2 flavors: high speed one in the mould of B1 or russian Blackjack and slower, but cloaked one like B2 Spirit, both great at killing structures and perhaps clumps of ground units or picking up those dreadnoughts...
- some helicopter like unit / gunship
- some air transport
not all the factions have to have all of these obviously. Or can have their versions of it further differentiated by their own faction specific properties.
all anti-ground / bomber units need to function in the manner of bombers from CnC games, they need to return to the base to replenish ammo. Its the main differentiation between planes and ground units or helicopters, it has to work that way.
my 2 cents.
I really like the idea of the anti missile launcher. This could be the humans defense where the substrate could have the shields.
I would love a transporter or the flying ground unit, but worse performance than the dedicated ground unit.Radar jamming units on big maps sounds like fun. I would imagine that the dedicated AA unit would shoot down the missiles with its laser turrets.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
