StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I just finished playing Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, and I did enjoy the game, but it had several noticable faults. The most glaring and discouraging of them, manifest in the later levels of eac campaign, is the fact that the "super" unit of each faction (the Mammoth tank, Avatar, and Annihilator Tripod) became the only unit worth deploying. Air units, especially Scrin ones, and command powers were still useful, but in terms of ground combat, the dozen or so other infantry and armor types at each faction's dsposal were more or less a waste of resources. Even specialized units, like the commando class, became obsolete; its far more efficient to simply build up a few dozen "super" units and steamroll the opposition. That, to me at least, took a good deal of fun out of the game; by the end, I vastly prefered the levels where the units at your disposal were limited.

I did play the game on 360, and I imagine that has something to do with this flaw, but I can recall similarly overpowered units in numerous PC RTS games as well. Are than any out there that completely lack "super" units, or are balanced enough to mitigate their usefulness somewhat?

A GDI alternative to the Mammoth is Zonetroopers in APCs. Faster moving and cheaper than the Mammoth. Doesn't have the same durability, but you get more, and they aren't much weaker firepower-wise. And with proper microing (not that I do) you can save the zonetroopers before the APCs go boom.

The original ground control didnt have any superwank units. The heaviest tank for each faction wasnt the only thing you wanted in your army. To succeed it was best to use a combined arms force.

Of course this game deviated in a (really good) way from the standard unitspam of most rts games, as you would play with a fixed force and no unlimited reinforcements and no resource management either. There is a mode in multiplayed where you could have unlimited reinforcements but the campaign you have your force and thats it.

Noble Ire wrote:Are than any out there that completely lack "super" units, or are balanced enough to mitigate their usefulness somewhat?

Starcraft is the obvious response (and the only thing I can think of)

the Super Units in DoW (at least most of them) aren't that effective unsupported (it also helped that there was a limit to how many units you could have in the field that the same time(and specially how many certain units you could have at the same time)).

most RTS that don't have unit building generally lack super units also (at least the ones I've played) and rely on combinied arms.

Company of Heroes.

It bears repeating: Company of Heroes. You will be hard-pressed to find a better-designed RTS than that. The balance is near-perfection. The only thing resembling "super" units are the heavy tanks you can call in from off-map in the later stages of a game, but they're far from battlefield-dominating engines of destruction. Without infantry and light armor support, heavy tanks are little more than fodder against a prepared and competent opponent.

EDIT: World in Conflict looks like it will also fulfill the criteria eventually. It's still in beta though, and a lot of the balance is still pretty broken and needs a lot of work.

Noble Ire wrote:I did play the game on 360, and I imagine that has something to do with this flaw, but I can recall similarly overpowered units in numerous PC RTS games as well. Are than any out there that completely lack "super" units, or are balanced enough to mitigate their usefulness somewhat?

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting they changed the unit balance for the 360 version? Consoles = super units?

World in Conflict, since it's not a regular RTS, doesn't have 'super units'. It has retarded teammates instead. The whole idea of 'super units' is really a throwback to the whole vintage CC3 was emulating, and as you say it's not unusual to have such units totally dominate the game.

I agree with BCG - CoH and to a lesser extent DoW don't have this problem.

Super-units would be quite tolerable in RTS games if there were a cap on each player's economy or on the number of super-units that can be built in total. As it is, the super-unit is supposed to be hampered by its enormous cost but player economies can quickly grow to orders of magnitude beyond their starting conditions, thus allowing them to crank out super-units the way they were producing basic units at the start of the game.

The reason that all units are effective in Company of Heroes and as you said, to the same extend, Dawn of war..

The majority of all tier units have a way to counter enemy units. In the likes of Command and conquer 3, there is no such rocks, paper, Scissor setup...it's just biggest is best. What I would like to see for the likes of Command and conquer-esqe games is the following formula :

Infantry > weak and easy to kill but can counter all units with the right weapon upgrades

Tanks > Powerful, durable units that destroy buildings and other tanks utterly, but less powerful against infantry and aircraft

Airpower > Great against tanks and to a lesser extent, Infantry...though once again, flimsy.

I'd just remove super units altogether in favour of more variation on lower/mid/hig tier equipment

Darth Wong wrote:Super-units would be quite tolerable in RTS games if there were a cap on each player's economy or on the number of super-units that can be built in total. As it is, the super-unit is supposed to be hampered by its enormous cost but player economies can quickly grow to orders of magnitude beyond their starting conditions, thus allowing them to crank out super-units the way they were producing basic units at the start of the game.

There are some games that have a 'spend' economy, not a 'stockpile' economy (ie, units cost $20 per minute to maintain and use, not $400 once to build then free). This can easily help the 'econ inflation', as the 'best' units require constant strain and aren't simply linearly 'better' than the others.

Most RTS's are so unsophisticated units-wise that there are obvious 'good' and 'bad' units. If a 'super-unit' is great at a bunch of things and costs what a lategame player makes in a fraction of a second, of course nobody is going to waste their time on a balanced force.

Wait. All you built were Mammoths, Avatars and Tripods?

Mammoths I can get, they're so hideously cost effective... but Tripods and Avatars blew compared to massed standard units of the same cost.

I think Supreme Commander got it right. Superunits (in the form of the Experimentals) are indeed super, but are so costly that they are not practical to field in numbers that can alone win. You must support them with an army of basic units or else.

You mean, they're far too expensive for what they are? Fatman (factory and shield spoilts aside) is outgunned by a BB and far more expensive. The Czar is utterly useless and hugely expensive. I think SupCom went too far the -other- way with many of the experimentals (as of several patches ago, at least), but since RTS desginers are largely too conservative to go beyond 'no unit limit' or 'build more farms' it's not surprising.

Stark wrote:You mean, they're far too expensive for what they are? Fatman (factory and shield spoilts aside) is outgunned by a BB and far more expensive. The Czar is utterly useless and hugely expensive. I think SupCom went too far the -other- way with many of the experimentals (as of several patches ago, at least), but since RTS desginers are largely too conservative to go beyond 'no unit limit' or 'build more farms' it's not surprising.

The Superunits are an absolute steal for what they do though. You don't always have access to water, but a Fatman will be able to get in there and do that. They added on extra bullshit to make them more expensive without making them more useful (like the factories) that are marginally useful at times, but nothing beats the Superunits for a late-game moneysink. Eventually, the speed at which you can build things starts to level off and making superunits becomes a time-effective use of resources. At least, that's how I always felt.

I disagree with the idea of superunits, in general. They never work in real wars, really, so I don't know why people constantly look for them. I'd rather play an army with incredibly effective mid-range units than uber top end ones.

Yeah I agree with you - a far smaller 'Fatman' with just the three-four big turrets and defences, no factory (like a land battleship, but more expensive and slow, etc) would be be just fine 98% of the time. The huge leap between 'lameass little tank' to 'fucking giant motherfucking factory-battleship of awesome' is stupid.

You'd think that someone would have decided "Hey, you know, this thing we got going here with the shields and the battleship turrets? We like that part. That's a good thing. This non-mobile factory element and all this other shit? Not so useful. How about we make these smaller and make, like, hundreds of them?" Ah well. No wonder this war's gone on so long. They're all morons.

Nephtys wrote:Wait. All you built were Mammoths, Avatars and Tripods?

Mammoths I can get, they're so hideously cost effective... but Tripods and Avatars blew compared to massed standard units of the same cost.

You might be right about Avatars, but Tripods, especially shielded ones, were obscenely powerful, even for their cost.

Stark wrote:There are some games that have a 'spend' economy, not a 'stockpile' economy (ie, units cost $20 per minute to maintain and use, not $400 once to build then free). This can easily help the 'econ inflation', as the 'best' units require constant strain and aren't simply linearly 'better' than the others.

That sounds like a really interesting gameplay alternative, actually. Could you name any of the games that have that sort of unit system? I can't recall ever encountering any like that.

Why not have something like Rise of Nations system where unit cost scales with how many of that unit you already have?

Noble Ire wrote:

Stark wrote:There are some games that have a 'spend' economy, not a 'stockpile' economy (ie, units cost $20 per minute to maintain and use, not $400 once to build then free). This can easily help the 'econ inflation', as the 'best' units require constant strain and aren't simply linearly 'better' than the others.

That sounds like a really interesting gameplay alternative, actually. Could you name any of the games that have that sort of unit system? I can't recall ever encountering any like that.

The cossaks series definitely has unit upkeep if i recall, mind you, so do the civ games and that never stopped me having as big an army as i could...

Noble Ire wrote:

Stark wrote:There are some games that have a 'spend' economy, not a 'stockpile' economy (ie, units cost $20 per minute to maintain and use, not $400 once to build then free). This can easily help the 'econ inflation', as the 'best' units require constant strain and aren't simply linearly 'better' than the others.

That sounds like a really interesting gameplay alternative, actually. Could you name any of the games that have that sort of unit system? I can't recall ever encountering any like that.

Ground Control 2 did it as a twist. You gain resource points the smaller your army is, untill your army hits some sort of cap where you can't gain any more points.

World in Conflict has a similar system, you gain resource points from a pool faster if you have less units, if you wait at start, you get more points without an army. Deploy 4-5 medium tanks, watch your income slow.

Act of War, as far as I can recall, had no super-units. Pretty much everything had a legitimate counter. Tanks can take out most other grounds units (including infantry) in one shot, but got raped by aircraft and infantry hiding on rooftops. Infantry were more mobile than tanks (but slower), and can hide in buildings and stuff, but snipers and artillery ripped them up. Aircraft were good, except against infantry and AA. Lots of fun.

Are you familiar with Starcraft? If you are, then I think Starcraft is pretty balanced with regards to "super-units". None of the most powerful units barring lurkers, dark templar, and carriers can stand up or generally mount serious attacks on their own (tanks and reavers, in particular, tend to get wasted by well-co-ordinated Zerg hordes).

Of the three mentioned above, dark templar and lurkers' main effectiveness lies in their secrecy; lurkers get the shit torn out of them when detected or above ground, and DTs, due to their slow attack speed, tend to get the same. Carriers might possibly be the most imbalanced power unit, but they are as expensive as hell (with a continuing high cost, particularly if you use them in large groups), and severely vulnerable to some kinds of what could be best described as "spellcasting".