Support Factories: Costs, Build Power and Build Time

0

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.

Land T2
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).

Navy T2
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

T2Air
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.

2

1st the reason for T3 land being "more defensive" is that each dead T3 land unit on enemy territory is a T2 mex in reclaim.
2nd raducing fac bp as you suggest would result in more units in production at once->making engie assist more of a requirement early on and thereby even making T3 support facs less usefull. the reason they exist is that they are nice, easy to get bp (just upgrade your t2 facs) without getting your T3 stuck in some clusterfuck of assisting engies.
Economic drain is a no argument, since you just need to upgrade less facs, untill oyu have the eco to support it (it would only result in having to build double the facs later on having double stuck in production).
Also you dont need T3 eco for T3 spam, and usually get it way before.
also how does every fac cost 3-5k mass? 1 T3 supportfac is 1440 mass (~800 for the upgrade from t2). only the HQ is that expensive

0

@HoujouSatoko said in Support Factories: Costs, Build Power and Build Time:

1st the reason for T3 land being "more defensive" is that each dead T3 land unit on enemy territory is a T2 mex in reclaim.
2nd raducing fac bp as you suggest would result in more units in production at once->making engie assist more of a requirement early on and thereby even making T3 support facs less usefull. the reason they exist is that they are nice, easy to get bp (just upgrade your t2 facs) without getting your T3 stuck in some clusterfuck of assisting engies.
Economic drain is a no argument, since you just need to upgrade less facs, untill oyu have the eco to support it (it would only result in having to build double the facs later on having double stuck in production).
Also you dont need T3 eco for T3 spam, and usually get it way before.
also how does every fac cost 3-5k mass? 1 T3 supportfac is 1440 mass (~800 for the upgrade from t2). only the HQ is that expensive

Because to maintain the production/eco drain per second of a factory is 16 mass (unassisted) so looking at 1 T3 Mex (4000ish Mass) or 4 T2 Mex (900 x 4) mass.

But other question/thing curious: regardless of actual BP of factories et all.

Is Net BT of T2 Supports supposed to be same speed/slower when building them directly vs building T1 Factory and upgrading said factory to a T2 Support.

0

i think thats a non issue 99% anyways )), because for yoour main production ou upgrade t1 facs anyways and if you want production at the front or expansions you want to assist with a lot of bp there anyways (else the units walking from your base will still be faster, since it takes so long to build), and then the little additional bp from the T1 fac doesnt matter much.

0

Houjou, not sure if you understood I was talking about; T2 Engi Building T2 Support directly is slower than a T1 Engi building a T1 Factory which then upgrades itself to T2 Support (unassisted by said T1 Engi). With the exception of Air weirdly enough. That feels....backward to me?

Like shouldn't a T2 Engi building a T2 Support Factory be faster than a T1 Engi building T1 Factory that then said factory upgrades itself to a T2 Support Factory.

0

the reason for support fac bts is how fast tech transitions are supposed to happen and balanced around that. the effect you desribed is just a (for balance rather irrelevant) sideeffect.

0

Dragun I am not sure what you want to say with this thread. I feel like the main concern is that on t2/t3 stage you will have a lot less factories in your base than at late t1 stage. It doesn't matter how many factories there are. The issue is that you want to switch all of your production into the higher tech as fast as possible after you got your tech upgrade. So within a couple of minutes you are supposed to nearly stop t1 production. For obvious reasons you want to have more buildpower on the t2 factories and your eco usually doesn't increase at all during a tech switch. That is the reason why you have less factories running after a tech switch.
The in all regards cheaper support factory upgrade than building from scratch just makes the t2 switch faster. Therefore being an indirect buff to switching tech.
I can see that it would be easier for a beginner if the number of factories would roughly stay constant from one point on in the game. He doesn't have to think about how many factories he needs to ctrl k when he switches to higher tech. But I don't see an easy way to do that and I would consider getting an intuition about build power in different tech stages is just a part of becoming good at the game.
Also I mostly wrote what Turin wrote in other words. Just to be clear 🙂

0

Fair fair, the BP thing is properly a dumb idea on my end. But I still find it exceedingly strange that direct building T2 (Land and Naval) Support with T2 Engi’s is not faster than T1 Engi building T1 Land then upgrading to (unassisted) T2 Support.

Also main concern is that my understanding is that post EngiMod was supporting having multiple higher tech factories. But I see (espacially T3) having - HQ then mass supporting Engies.

0

The fact that each t3 unit is a t2 mex in reclaim is one of the reasons the game devolves so much. I think at that point your punishing attack too much at late game.

2

Making Reclain like 20% of the original unit cost or even lower will make gameplay 100x better honestly you'll get a lot more action, lot more risk, but overtime you can still lose from reclaim war. This also fights turtling and not only that you dont have to worry about losing the game so fast due to one battle, also slows the pace of the game especially late game where shit tons of reclaim that causes the game to slog.

@HoujouSatoko

1

You kind of want the game to end though. The huge mass cost in t3 armies/ experimentals makes the game quite unstable/ unforgiving towards the end. Otherwise you would just throw experimentals around for the next half an hour.

0

@harzer99 said in Support Factories: Costs, Build Power and Build Time:

You kind of want the game to end though. The huge mass cost in t3 armies/ experimentals makes the game quite unstable/ unforgiving towards the end. Otherwise you would just throw experimentals around for the next half an hour.

Strawman's Argument,

This is what Supreme Commander is all about large armies and huge experimental wars. Its something you have to face when turning this game into a competitive Atmosphere. This game could still very competitive and if you want to end it early game you'll just have to work harder.

The Original Developers of Supcom intended this game for huge long matches of Huge T3 Armies and Experimentals. You can't be scared to embrace that even in a competitive Environment. Though sadly this has been linked to "Noobs and Turtles" but i assure you even some better players would like longer games. I cant help to feel that FAF is stuck on an endless loop of trying to beat what the game was meant to be, you cant hold the games ideal back, you can embrace it and it still be extremely competitive.

0

Supreme Commander will always be advertised as a game about the clash of Huge Armies of epic proportional. You can not escape this no matter how you balance the game. You can still micro and macro even with these Huge Armies; you can still have all the skill you have right now. The game can not always be t1 or t2 if your scared to go late game because of Simspeed or because of the slog. You have to live up the fact, that you'll have to eventually fix these issues with radical balance changes and rewriting lots of code and more, This is my only wisdom i give as a person who already witness what fixing these issues can create, like we did over at LOUD, over at LOUD. We try to satisfy everyone's needs and wants. We've rewritten most of the code of the entire game for better Simspeed, we've allowed new units into our balance and we've balanced around really expanding Supreme Commander, the general idea of what Supreme Commander is suppose to be is the idea of LOUD as a whole.

❤

4

cool story

3

ive decided to become a professional loud player

1

I would say my thread has turned into a meme now but that would imply it was anything but a meme from the start

1

Its only a meme if its Moses.

1

She’s off the rails mate

Log in to reply