[Concept] Choose start units

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • [Concept] Choose start units

      I am wondering about idea to enable to choose start units after players select countries.

      Reasons:
      1. Early period of the game seems to be monotonous - all to do there is to look for easy capture, skip and wait for real toys, or (like most people do) crazy rush with same starting unit mix over and over.

      Proposition:

      Let's say, at start of the game we all get one Motorized Infantry unit per city, plus 10 points to spare for starting units after country is selected:

      Motorized Infantry - 1
      Mechanized Infantry - 2
      Naval Infantry - 2
      Special forces - 3
      Combat Recon Vehicle - 2
      Armored Fighting Vehicle - 2
      Amphibious Combat Vehicle - 2
      Main Battle Tank - 3
      Tank Destroyer - 2
      Towed Artillery - 2
      Mobile Artillery - 2
      Multiple Rocket Luncher - 3
      Mobile Anti-Air Vehicle - 2
      Mobile Sam Luncher - 2
      Theater Defense System - 3
      Mobile Radar - 2
      Helicopter Gunship - 2
      Attack Helicopter - 2
      ASW Helicopter - 2
      Air Superiority Fighter - 2
      Strike Fighter - 2
      UAV - 2
      Naval Patrol Aircraft - 2
      AWACS - 2
      Heavy Bomber - 3
      Corvette - 2
      Frigate - 2
      Destroyer - 2
      Cruiser - 3
      Attack Submarine - 2

      Not available:
      National Guard
      Naval Air Superiority Fighter
      Stealth Air Superiority Fighter
      Naval Strike Fighter
      Stealth Strike Fighter
      Naval AWACS
      Stealth Bomber
      Carrier
      Ballistic Missile Submarine
      Cruise Missile Luncher
      Ballistic Missile Luncher


      Arguments:
      1. Players will make their early berserk attacks more interesting, more clever, more surprising - what may cause more dynamic beginning overall and avoid players "hibernation" for a few days.
      2. More diversity - less schematic.
      3. Blind attacks could be a suicide mission.
      4. New players can learn faster and try true potential of the game, before they quit. :)

      Thoughts (as a side note):
      1. What if player joins some game lately? Reset units, or disable start units?
      2. What if this idea would be a perfect tool for multi accounts? Mass bombers etc.
      3. What if country hasn't access to the sea? Do not allow choosing naval units?
      4. Where will chosen units show? In a capital city or a random place?

      P.S. Beautiful forum.
      Display Spoiler

      ***

      "We rarely recognize how wonderful it is that a person can traverse an entire lifetime without making a single really serious mistake — like putting a fork in one's eye or using a window instead of a door."
      - Marvin Lee Minsky

      ***



      The post was edited 2 times, last by Efreet: errors, readability ().

    • That would be really overpowered for some people. You will just find yourself against lets say 3 tanks , while you might of chosen gunship helicopters and some anti air. It would be really unfair in my opinion.
      ''The war with Greece proved that nothing is firm in the military and that surprises always await us.'' -Benito Mussolini
      "You fought unarmed and won, small against big. We owe you gratitude, because you gave us time to defend ourselves. As Russians and as people we thank you." -Moscow Radio To Greeks
    • I believe the developers have experimented with starting with a wider variety of units at the beginning of the game back in March-April-May.

      While it wasn't chosen with a point system, each doctrine had a specific mix of starting units (Western got one bomber and one attack helicopter with a artillery battery, Eastern got tanks, SAM's, and gunships, while the European doctrine got Tank Destroyers, Mobile artillery, and mobile AA)

      This did make the early game more interesting. However, this raises several concerns.

      The early game became much too action packed, where geographically disadvantaged countries (USA, China, Myanmar, Iraq, Etc) would be more of at a disadvantage than they would be with the less diverse starting unit composition. With the less diverse unit starting composition, defense against multiple countries ganging up on you would be be infinitesimally easier.

      The Idea of the Very Early Game (1-3 days) is to grab some small countries, build up resources and research, negotiate alliances (joining coalitions) and prepare a general game strategy. If we introduce this point system, there must be compensation in the form of a less developed economy: making brute force strategies less viable in the game, in favor of more tactical game play; an advantage to players that are online almost constantly, and a disadvantage to players who don't come online as often. All out attacks on day 2 would be brutal for the defending player who would be annihilated instantaneously should they not be online.


      I do believe however, this idea does have some merits. The game would be a lot more dynamic and explosive with action at the onset of the game. New players would have more interest in playing, as the game is a dynamic one at the onset.

      However, I believe that the dynamics of the game should be more present towards the middle of the game (day 9-20). That's when true skill with planning and Pvp action would be displayed, as the potential for back stabbings and betrayals would decrease as the time of the game increased as alliances and coalitions solidify, and weaker coalitions either become defunct or nonfunctional. Having a dynamic game early on would make the middle and late game not as dynamic, as what you have proposed would make the game much too fast to my chagrin. Late Game Technologies are one of the greatest things to exploit and use, especially nukes, stealth technology, and massive armies on the field.

      Should this idea be implemented, the point system you have set as an example doesn't value certain units. For example, Choppers, Strike FIghters, and Air Superiority should be worth a lot more than the values you have listed. In all my experience of the game, there is one unit I have seen over and over, with nearly every player implementing it into their troop combination at some point in the game: Strike Fighters, due to their flexibility and convenience in eliminating enemy targets from afar.

      Additionally, Frigates should be worth much more as well. They are the ultimate defense against strike fighters (aside from Air superiority), and can take on enemy littoral vessels, even if not in optimal conditions.

      To Conclude, the idea you have proposed is a creative one and has the potential to create brilliant tactical plays. But I have reservations about a balanced start, and see the idea of creating dynamism early on unfair to players of unfavorable geographic areas, as the early game should be the calm before the storm. With the status quo,defense is favorable to offense, and as new technologies are unlocked with further research, then dynamism could take over. Speaking as an experienced player of the game, I see the status quo preferable to what you have proposed.

      Thank you for posting the idea. Perhaps a manifestation of what you have proposed, but with less of a edge towards early tactical play, would be something I could be on board with.
      The reason why we search for intelligent life outside of Earth is because there isn't any on Earth. :thumbsup:

      Made in America :D
    • What if the player didn't start with the units mobilized but started with the infrastructure and research completed such that they could be produced on day 1?
      That would slow things down a bit (though it'd still be way faster than it is now) and force people to think strategically about what units they want to start out able to produce.
      "The enemy cannot push a button, if you disable his hand."
      Sergeant Zim, Terran Federation
    • @RasczakRough
      Main difference between concept of choosing units and choosing buildings/techs is that if you choose units, you can't rebuild them up to one week if they loose. So we could potentially have dangerous unit mix at the beginning which is both devastating in some cases and delicate as an egg. I feel that this paradox is better approach, because it makes start situation more interesting, not just skip few days in research and infrastructure.

      @Ditesamesk
      I will avoid discussion about balance, and just leave it for experienced players, testers and developers.

      Here is my last proposition, which express how i feel about this ( not how it should be ) :

      Points available - 12
      Max units of same type - 5
      Motorized Infantry 1
      Mechanized Infantry3
      Special Forces4
      Combat Recon Vehicle2
      Armored Fighting Vehicle3
      Amphibious Combat Vehicle3
      Main Battle Tank4
      Tank Destroyer3
      Towed Artillery2
      Mobile Artillery3
      Multiple Rocket Launcher4
      Mobile Anti-Air Vehicle2
      Mobile Sam Launcher3
      Theater Defense System4
      Mobile Radar3
      Helicopter Gunship3
      Attack Helicopter3
      ASW Helicopter3
      Air Superiority Fighter 2
      Strike Fighter3
      UAV 3
      Naval Patrol Aircraft3
      AWACS 3
      Heavy Bomber 4
      Corvette2
      Frigate3
      Destroyer3
      Cruiser 4
      Attack Submarine 3


      _____
      By the way. If this concept ever will be implemented I would rather like to see it as a map rule instead of madatory mechanism.
      Display Spoiler

      ***

      "We rarely recognize how wonderful it is that a person can traverse an entire lifetime without making a single really serious mistake — like putting a fork in one's eye or using a window instead of a door."
      - Marvin Lee Minsky

      ***



    • @efreet

      I think I qualified to say that I am experienced enough to provide input into the balance, as I have been playing this game since January consistently.

      I do not have any qualms about most of the point systems proposed in this discussion, however, there seems to be a commonplace reliance on Strike Fighters by players on all skill levels.

      As a result, a common way to deal with enemy strike fighters would be to employ:

      --> Frigates, where research isn't overly expensive, and is much more cost effective than building a land based Anti-Aircraft system. Additionally, frigates with maximum upgrades are able to target stealth fighters and choppers over a large area and deal large amounts of damage. Land based AA can't target stealth fighters without another assisting AWACs unit with necessary upgrades.

      --> Air Superiority Fighters

      As these three units would be consistently built up due to their long term cost effectiveness for unit production and upgrade cost. In almost every game I play, Frigates, air superiority, and strike fighters would be constantly employed.

      Because these units are highly likely to be chosen by players should the point system be implemented, I say that inflating their value by one or two points would be optimal.

      Other than that, I would say that the point system that @efreet has put up looks solid. Frigates however, should be worth an additional point in my opinion.
      The reason why we search for intelligent life outside of Earth is because there isn't any on Earth. :thumbsup:

      Made in America :D
    • I think it is a great idea.
      But I disagree with your available units and point assignment.
      But the idea itself is a real winner.

      For example: Destroyers, Frigs, and Rocket Launchers cant be on the list. Anything other than infantry needs to be much higher points. Research and extra money should be an option too.

      Allow for some strategy in the starting builds without allowing too much of an advantage to take place.

      Cover the production cost of making the changes by adding a couple of resource packets in the options where for 1k, 5k, 10k you can purchase resources at a discounted rate - one time only per game.
    • @Ditesamesk
      Since January? So am I.
      I feel experienced right now. :saint:

      Remember that frigates are naval units (useless in deep territory, and it takes time to switch to land combat) and they're weak to any other naval unit. It's not so simple.
      Instead of increasing point cost of SF i decided to make cheap anti-air - that direction i prefer.

      @Cyclone46
      I censored only hi-tech toys and accessories for them. I think it's a bad idea to censor more, because it damages variety of choice too much.
      To speed up research i say definitely - no, because of concept - make beginnig more interesting, not to skip few days by research or infrastructure, but extra money sounds acceptable.

      ___

      I'm not so sure, but I guess you're probably right. :)
      Display Spoiler

      ***

      "We rarely recognize how wonderful it is that a person can traverse an entire lifetime without making a single really serious mistake — like putting a fork in one's eye or using a window instead of a door."
      - Marvin Lee Minsky

      ***