So late game land, suffers issues of deployment of units to relevant positions in the front in a reasonable time frame. This is due to a variety of reasons, time invested of well moving from point a to point b for example notably.
Before I get into that I want to bring something else up:
When building T2 Support Factories (Land, Air and Sea) your better off building T1 Factories then upgrading them to support vs just building T2 Support directly.
T1 Engies building T1 Land then upgrading is maybe a secondish slower than T2 Engi building T2 Land Support directly.
A T2 Engi building a T1 Land then supporting to T2 Land Support is notably faster (and similar eco drain per second) vs T2 Engi building T2 Land Support directly.
A T2 Commander builds a T2 Support faster than either prior example (and as you'll notice a pattern building T1 factory then upgrading is faster than straight building T2 for economic cost).
A T2 Engi building T1 Navy then upgrading to T2 Support is notably faster T2 Engi directly building T2 Navy Support. However for when T1 Naval Factory is built, the T2 Engi drains significantly more mass per second so take that for what it is.
Additionally for only minor increase in overall eco drain per second, a T1 Engi building T1 Navy then upgrading the factory to T2 Navy is notably faster than the T2 Engi building T2 Navy directly.
The same relationship is not true for T2 vs T1 Commanders however
Notably T2 Air is of T2 Support is only one faster to build directly as T2 Engineer vs T1 Engineer direct building then upgrading.
However for an increase in per second eco drain a T2 Engi building, T1 Factory upgrading to T2 Support is faster than building T2 Directly with T2 Engineer, this same relationship also applies to commanders.
T3 In General:
T2 Support to T3 Support in general its faster to build T3 Support directly. I could go specific examples but generally unlike T2 its better to build the T3 Supports, takes similar eco drain, and is faster.
Some cases building down then assisting up, is slower or about the same (Air and Land) which argueably is better because it means if Engi snipe the factory will finish its production first.
These tests were done with:
UEF, Aeon and Cybran Engineers
UEF and Aeon ACU's (T1, T2 and T3 Upgrades)
Is the intention that building T2 Supports (directly) meant to be 'worse' than building lower tech and upgrading? If so curious on why?
Armies Eco Drain Relationships:
One aspect of teching and deploying tech is you need to economy to support said deployment. Notably as a soft rule of thumb, T3 Factories require a T3 Mex (for Land), and T2 Factories require a T2 Mex (for Land). A T1 Land factory takes 3-6 mass so on average 2 T1 Mexes to maintain and support.
T2 Land eco drain per second of energy, is double roughly speaking of T1 Land (jeez I wonder as if we are doubling build power. Like you know 20 x 2 = 40. Madness). Meaning can maintain or build T2 Land (unassisted) with mostly T1 Power Generators. As you need only 2 T1 PGens for T2 Land factory. This relationship is change to needing atleast 1 T2 PGen per T3 Factory on T3.
T1 Navy has same net drain per second of T1 Land is as land (3-6 mass) while 6x the cost in actual spent money. T2 Navy is costing per second the same T3 Land (and same actual cost). T2 Navy however is looking around 250 energy drain a second (or half T2 PGen so like air below 1 T2 PGen supports 2 T2 Naval).
T3 Navy mass drain is twice that of T3 Land/T2 Navy. With cost of 1/3 to half that of T4. Its energy drain moves to being closer to 300 then 250 so its really 1 T2 PGen per factory.
Air being a weird case here in that while mass drain is 1-3 per second needing only 1 T1 Mex to support your looking around 3-5 Power Generators to support (unassisted once again). Then at T2 you have similar economic drain of T2 Land for Mass (6-8). But 1 power generator of same tech level can support 2 Air factories (unassisted).
This relationship is more or less maintain at T3 Air. With 1 T3 PGen Supporting 2 (unassisted) T3 Air factories. While now costing T3 Mass Eco in drain per a second.
So what this all means? Is that teching up factories increases the cost of economic drain per second. But it also forces economic infrastructure to support. Once I get T3 Land I need a T3 Mex (often times ringed) to support stable production atleast. Or 4 T2 Mexes. Take this for T3 Land Factory and cost of producing one (roughly speaking if curious a Percy, Brick or otherwise) then deployment time to well deploy those units where they'll do something.
T3 Land becomes largely speaking a defensive tool. Espacially in case of land (less so navy and air due to a variety of reasons however). Now take this as shitty 1k global player, I feel the following:
T2 Support BT should be evaluate and mass/energy cost by extension should be looked at. Right now especially land, and lesser extent navy, T2 Supports are garbage at least when built directly. Taking same time to build when upgrading T1 Land to support. And not even really better to build than upassist to T3. Just kinda uselessly garbage. And a noob trap.
Overall, to make there less 'baggage' attached to deployment of T3 Support Factories (and lesser extent T2 Support Factories), in that your essentially forced to have T3 Eco or atleast 1 T3 Mex (4 T2 Mexes, or 12 T1 Mexes). Reasonably speaking around 3000-5000 mass invested per T3 factory worth of production (unassisted).
I'd reduce BP of T3 Support Factories by halfish (reduce mass and energy cost as appropriate) so economic drain of these factories are supportable on prior teir eco. This means instead of enemy having T3 eco and positions more cemented your looking at deployment of T3 Mobile Land in Mid to Late 2. Making the T3 Support factories cheaper and otherwise means building upper level field factories more viable.
If current situation is not considered a desirable one with T3 Land being more defensive then offensive tool my two cents as worthless 1k global.