> > 1) Make bases larger like the E3 2007 models with walls, but still use the socketed system, just add more sockets. This would give bases a more base like feel, and would make beginning/early rushes much more of a gamble.
>
> I like this idea. Lets say you still have the base sockets around the map like it is now. Except each base gives you an area to build in, not pre placed sockets. Each base will only be able to support 7-10 buildings (and 4-6 turrets) in its area.
I don’t know if that would make much of a difference. If you can’t build everywhere and you just have limited space then you’re really just forcing the player to rotate things. Unless you’re going to have a complex building system to match I think it’s much easier to have preset slots.
However, I also had the idea to put in a lot of slots, but have different buildings take up different amounts. A supply pad is 1, a reactor is one, but when upgraded takes two (it would cost less, but the downside would be that if the one building gets destroyed you lose two reactors).
I think in general it’s best to steer the strategy away from economic and base management and towards units. SC is already the master of the former, so there’s no real point to make a poor imitation. Plus placing and rotating things on a controller would be a little cumbersome. (At least that’s what Ensemble said in the dev blogs, and I’m inclined to agree with them.)
We’re good on #2 I think.
> > 3) Add support structures, (artillery, anti-air, bunkers etc.) that can be free built across the map in certain areas (make them all round or automatically rotational so the player doesn’t have to rotate them). This in combination with #2 would make the game much more about map control.
>
> Im on teh fence about this. I have often thought about how halo wars would be if you could build turrets everywhere. Not sure what i think.
They wouldn’t be turrets. The idea was that the structures can’t operate by themselves, and can actually be captured. They would basically function like the extra stuff currently in Halo Wars (a group of infantry occupies them). They would have their own health, but the infantry would generally die first, so one could also have the opportunity to destroy them once they’re captured if you think you can’t hold the territory. You could even have an option to ‘Scuttle’ once you occupy it, so you could capture an undefended one with just an anti-infantry squad and destroy it, which would keep people from just spamming them.
> > 4) Add branching unit specializations that you can research then switch later. Call these weapon/armament upgrades. They give certain boosts to units (anti-infantry, anti-air, added range, etc.) I think this would drastically increase depth, yet still keep things quite simple. It would also encourage people to combine types of units because of the synergy of their bonuses.
>
> I dont like this. Every unit can become a coutner to another.
No, no, no, no, no. They wouldn’t be equal counters. A squad of marines with the anti-air upgrade wouldn’t be nearly as powerful as a wolverine, but building them would give you the advantage if your enemy has a bunch of cobras and air. But if you’ve upgraded anti-vehicle marines, and your enemy has tanks with canister shell, they’re still going to win. You’ll just do more damage to them than you normally would. In other words, the weapon upgrades would only be slight advantages.
In addition to this, I would make it so existing units would need to have a pelican/spirit drop off a weapons crate in order to receive the bonus, which is a leader power that has a cool down. (The normal upgrades would still apply automatically). This way people couldn’t automatically change large groups of units at once.
Just to clarify, you would have to research these too. Once you’ve researched one, you can choose to research another, but you will lose it and have to research it all over again if you want to change back. This coupled with the field drops would mean that if a player committed to building a large army of something they can’t just switch at the last moment.
> > 5) Add general abilities to units, like ‘Fortify’ (increased damage and defense, but cannot chase enemies/ cannot move until unfortified), ‘Charge’ (go to area with increased speed, but take more damage), ‘Recon Mode’ (for scout units only: do not engage enemy, but remain invisible until units pass within a certain radius, other scouts and leaders can spot them more easily). You get the idea.
>
> I like the general idea. Maybe just give all units 2-3 ‘Y’ abilities, all on the same cooldown.
Well, I think different things would require different cooldowns, but yes.
Here, to give an example: The ‘Recon’ ability really wouldn’t need that much of a cooldown because when the scouts are discovered, they’re probably going to die very quickly. I would however, make it so one can’t put too many scouts in one place. I feel this was implied, but the scouts would lie down and be stationary in recon mode, and they can only move when they come out of it. I think this seems pretty balanced, and would take some of the annoying micromanagement out of scouting. Of course you couldn’t put scouts by bases, but I think that’s a given. However, scouts would have extra range of sight, so if you saw something slow coming, you could go into recon until it passes, and then come back out. Considering you’d have to predict where the enemy is headed, this would be tricky, but fun and suspenseful. I’d just give the cooldown around two to three seconds because the ability isn’t that powerful.
I also think this and other abilities would work better if the terrain system was more dynamic. For instance, scouts would be the fastest infantry unit, and would move equally fast on hills. However, vehicles would move slower on hills and would thus automatically pathfind a route that weaves in-between them. You could also have ‘swamp’ and ‘high grass’ terrains, in which the radius of visibility for scouts in recon mode is drastically reduced or even eliminated, and possibly reduced for all infantry. Vehicles would travel much slower in swamp terrain, and one can’t build tactical buildings there (e.g. no bunkers or artillery).
I’ve been writing these ideas down, and I might post them at some point in a giant thread.