| 1 |
@mojjj's thought reminded me that a while back I was thinking about a supply line mechanic where units only had a certain amount of ammunition and would need to return to cons or special arming units to retool (which would of course be vulnerable targets to intercept), but you could achieve a similar outcome in a much less fiddly way by having units costing energy to maintain.
|
1 |
@mojjj's thought reminded me that a while back I was thinking about a supply line mechanic where units only had a certain amount of ammunition and would need to return to cons or special arming units to retool (which would of course be vulnerable targets to intercept), but you could achieve a similar outcome in a much less fiddly way by having units costing energy to maintain.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Never mind slowing units down - have them stop firing if you run out of juice. Maybe armoured mode can also cost energy for those units which have it (likewise ALL cloaks).
|
3 |
Never mind slowing units down - have them stop firing if you run out of juice. Maybe armoured mode can also cost energy for those units which have it (likewise ALL cloaks).
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
A lot of balancing work would need to be done on the right e-cost for any given unit but it would certainly shake the game up in a big way. Energy buildings would need to generate more energy though. To keep the numbers as intuitive as possible, I'd suggest whole integers for the e cost (e.g. if a glaive costs 1e I know that if I have 10e, I can sustain 10 glaives). What to do with fleas and darts would be interesting though. On the other hand, e-need of artillery and berthas could be particularly high to offset the fact that they otherwise have the ability to pummel at will. Constant cost rather than per shot cost means all the time they're not shooting they're burning a lot of energy to no purpose. This might change behaviours.
|
5 |
A lot of balancing work would need to be done on the right e-cost for any given unit but it would certainly shake the game up in a big way. Energy buildings would need to generate more energy though. To keep the numbers as intuitive as possible, I'd suggest whole integers for the e cost (e.g. if a glaive costs 1e I know that if I have 10e, I can sustain 10 glaives). What to do with fleas and darts would be interesting though. On the other hand, e-need of artillery and berthas could be particularly high to offset the fact that they otherwise have the ability to pummel at will. Constant cost rather than per shot cost means all the time they're not shooting they're burning a lot of energy to no purpose. This might change behaviours.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
My thoughts on the consequences of doing this:
|
7 |
My thoughts on the consequences of doing this:
|
| 8 |
The early game would be slower burning which might tilt the game too much towards porc creep vs raiders, but that relationship can be tailored by increased energy consumption from porc. The slower start might be less intimidating to newbies as well (I know I've had them rage when I've been raiding their base within a few minutes of game start).
|
8 |
The early game would be slower burning which might tilt the game too much towards porc creep vs raiders, but that relationship can be tailored by increased energy consumption from porc. The slower start might be less intimidating to newbies as well (I know I've had them rage when I've been raiding their base within a few minutes of game start).
|
| 9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 10 |
Rushes might be discouraged as there might not be e to sustain the big boy (or if you do build the energy in advance, you increase the chance of being spotted).
|
10 |
Rushes might be discouraged as there might not be e to sustain the big boy (or if you do build the energy in advance, you increase the chance of being spotted).
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
|
|
12 |
Hitting eco would now directly, rather than indirectly affect your opponent's front line capabilities. If you destroy enough energy, their front line forces might be shut down entirely. Early game raiding might be a bit more awkward - but late game raiding could have a much bigger impact. This would also incentivise the use of defensible point energy sources like fusions and singus vs space inefficient wind (especially) and solar.
|
|
|
13 |
\n
|
| 12 |
The mechanic could be developed such that the e cost is only taken when units are fighting (not on a per shot basis, but on whether they are engaged or not). If this were done, depending on the numbers, one might not be able to freely throw units at the enemy and have them fight at full effectiveness. If you have more troops than your economy can sustain, then you can't use them. On the other hand, storage could be weaponised as a strategic energy reserve. At a critical moment, you could use your stored energy to push reserve forces into the fray, powered for a while by stored energy to turn the tide. I think this could be a very interesting change to the flow of the game.
|
14 |
The mechanic could be developed such that the e cost is only taken when units are fighting (not on a per shot basis, but on whether they are engaged or not). If this were done, depending on the numbers, one might not be able to freely throw units at the enemy and have them fight at full effectiveness. If you have more troops than your economy can sustain, then you can't use them. On the other hand, storage could be weaponised as a strategic energy reserve. At a critical moment, you could use your stored energy to push reserve forces into the fray, powered for a while by stored energy to turn the tide. I think this could be a very interesting change to the flow of the game.
|
Musings about energy balance