@funkoff If we are just concerned about rebalancing engineers, or providing faction diversity to engineers like stealth for cybran, then yes this would work too.
I also thought that having expansion be more expensive would be interesting.
With even higher modifiers than x2 you could have battles over expanding engineers. They are a huge investment, and cannot be focused down quickly, so your escort battles it out with the raiders.
It could be an interesting idea and perhaps would be healthy for the game to increase just the engineer hp so that in 1 engie + 1 tank + 1 scout vs 1 tank + 1 scout the engie doesn't die 100% of the time due to advanced target priorities, since that engie kill has such a massive ripple effect on the rest of the game. Sometimes 1 engie kill will flip your chance of winning from a position from 50/50 to like 70/30 or more if you can't get the same counterdamage, and it does quite often feel like luck whether or not you get those important engie snipes.
The last balance patch buffed labs/bombers and had minor t1 tanks nerfs. So we are moving in the opposite direction.
@sinforosa said in What if... Engineers were 2x hp, cost, buildpower:
The last balance patch buffed labs/bombers and had minor t1 tanks nerfs. So we are moving in the opposite direction.
I love those buffs.
However, as @archsimkat said it might need some counterplay. Bombers also more easily get multiple passes on expansion engineers so a hp buff does not shut down bombers.
I mean it's debatable whether volatility in matchups is desirable or not—if I'm playing ladder, sure, it probably feels terrible when my expanding engie that just got to the 4 mex expo on open palms is sniped even though I guarded it and the next closest one is in my base; but, on the other hand, if defensive gameplay is more optimal then players may just sit defensively with their units and interact less with their opponent, making the matchup more boring to watch and potentially play, even though it may feel less bs or unfair. That's the thing with balance—it's very difficult to do and even small changes have huge effects on how the game as a whole plays out.
@advena said in What if... Engineers were 2x hp, cost, buildpower:
Same question for T2 and T3 engineers.
What if we 2x them instead of T1?
T2 and T3 engineers are not relevant to early game expansion.
But for consistency they should get the same relative buff
Vanilla supcom had the mass fab at t1 and you could turtle off it easily, when far was brought in changed it to t2 so you had to expand because it was cheaper, and made for better games. If you make expending more expensive you risk for more turtling
@veteranashe said in What if... Engineers were 2x hp, cost, buildpower:
Vanilla supcom had the mass fab at t1 and you could turtle off it easily, when far was brought in changed it to t2 so you had to expand because it was cheaper, and made for better games. If you make expending more expensive you risk for more turtling
At x2 more expensive I don't think you push people into turtling. However, you cannot afford to go on more than 2 expansion paths I think, and escorting the engineer and possibly fighting around it could increase (= interaction 
).
But @archsimkat is correct that merely a hp buff could lead to this.
It should be understood why they were T1:
On a basic level mex points, provide often an average 1 mass a second. Also things costed more, like alot more so. (About 50%-66% more raw mass. And almost triple raw energy costs).
Also I’d need to double check, but the other aspect of Fabricators in Supcom Vanilla like TA they costed 0 mass.
I’m a shitty 1k Global. Any balance or gameplay suggestions should be understood or taken as such.
Project Head and current Owner/Manager of SCTA Project
I can't remember but I think it was 60-100 mass, I remember building a ton of them with 4 t1 pgens
Fun times
@tagada This game is now 14 years old. I strongly question whether your premise would actually be a bad thing.