Greetings,
I have some thoughts on the Novak, regarding its role other than as a precise alternative to artillery...

The Novax is essentially artillery, hence its simple spam use in the late game. Since the Novax is incredibly accurate, this unit is more effective for the incidental destruction of small groups of targets, such as isolated Mex units.

It is proposed to rework the Novax into a cannon firing a charge that effectively knocks down shields, while dealing little damage to structures and units. This way, the Novax will become a support for artillery builds.

Additionally, make the satellite vulnerable to strategic missile defenses; for example, three missiles are needed to destroy a satellite... this would make the satellite an expensive way to defuse strategic missile defenses.

I see... The association's position is stated very clearly.

I have absolutely no information about Sanctuary, other than publicly available Steam and YouTube videos.
I believe someone started the project with their own funds, then something went wrong (possibly a planning error or something else).
It doesn't matter whether Sanctuary manages to attract an investor or absorb them by implementing something else.

Here, I propose developing a project that describes the desired outcome in sufficient detail.
Including costs, payback, timeframe, etc.
With this ready-made project/business plan, it should be easier to find an investor or interest a studio.

Since I'm not qualified to fully describe the steps for implementing this idea, I'm asking for help from enthusiasts.

Greetings to everyone, from those who became a Commander 20 years ago to those just beginning to master Supreme Commander.

I suspect most players have at some point wondered why the game only offers 4 levels and whether it's possible to add more levels and vehicles of various types. Time marches on, and games that were masterpieces 20 years ago now seem like rarities.

Of course, Supreme Commander still holds its own thanks to enthusiasts creating mods and the FAF association making improvements. But the industry, having advanced in 20 years, is reducing the number of people willing to master Supreme Commander. The lack of source code and the ability to modify the engine... don't add to the possibilities over time.

A conditional successor to Sanctuary – which has seen very little addition in four years, and the questionable likelihood of its release adds to the sadness.

Apparently, only a new game can fulfill the wishes and aspirations of players.
Therefore, it is proposed to formulate the wishes of modification enthusiasts and the association more specifically in the form of a document describing both the desired form of the new project inheriting the immersive/soul/experience, as well as the desired new expansions and additions.
It is proposed to supplement and/or revise the proposed early concept.

I believe that a developed, detailed proposal is, at a minimum, better for finding investors and a studio than simply "I want," even from a large number of interested parties. At best, I will be able to find several investors and organize my own studio...
I am attaching a link to the materials where I have formulated a draft suitable for my skills.

P.S. 1. It is highly advisable to implement a version and edit tracking system to avoid creating multiple versions with discrepancies in edits...

P.S. 2. It is also desirable to have an artist draw a complete row of one factory across the tech levels, along with examples of individual buildings and units from T1 to T6, and a view of two or three experimental units.
(Please note: AutoCAD is used, which is not suitable for working with a large number of inserted image links... To develop a detailed proposal, it is advisable to use more suitable tools...)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qOBcPBYC4y3mp8RDi1cO_hLypRpCn7ZS/view?usp=drive_link

More details:

We propose introducing some realism by reducing the main stats of units and structures based on their remaining hull durability. This is based on the HP/efficiency scale of units in Dune 2.

The reduction is non-linear, becoming especially significant at low unit durability. At high unit durability, the loss in effectiveness is minimal.

For example:

1. A scale with five linear durability ranges: 0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-80%, 80-100%.
   Within these ranges, the reduction in selected unit stats will be: 50%, 37%, 25%, 15%, 7%.
2. A more detailed solution, a scale with seven non-linear durability ranges, roughly:
   0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-35%, 35-50%, 50-75%, 75-100%. This is a very rough breakdown; a more precise distribution would be desirable.
   The efficiency reduction will be: 85%, 65%, 45%, 30%, 23%, 11%, 5%. The general idea is that the ranges are smaller, with less remaining durability. With good durability, the efficiency reduction is small.

Additionally
With almost full hull durability at 80-85%, the reduction in performance is not necessary. It can be assumed that the unit has not suffered significant damage that would affect its combat performance.

Next:
It is proposed to reduce stats such as damage for lasers, rate of fire for others, speed, construction power, and view range.

This change will improve the situation with experimental units, which have approximately 10% durability remaining but still retain the same destructive power. This will allow them to destroy remaining objects and units as if they were brand new, in some cases taking minimal damage and even replenishing durability by receiving veterancy upgrades.

Furthermore, it makes sense to repair experimental units, preventing significant damage accumulation and maintaining their effectiveness.

Please join the discussion.

@Sprouto said:

There was a mod, many years back, called Total Veterancy - that extended the concept pretty much along the lines described above. It was quite popular, balance issues aside.

The primary drawback of this method is performance. Unit buffs are very memory intensive - especially when considering stacking multiple unique buffs, and even moreso when you consider that buffs are stored per unit - this adds up VERY quickly, not just for adding and removing the buffs, but the amount of memory consumed by each buff, for each unit, grows very quickly and will grow to a point where it will lead to memory cap crashes.

The mechanics for doing this work are pretty sound, but fairly code heavy.

Total Veterancy now includes veterancy for literally everything that works.
All extractors, generators, and factories level up simply by existing. Acu and construction engineers, and even units produced by factories, had a % of the factory's veterancy.
Hence the memory issues.

This version offers a very limited version, which eliminates the madness and chaos of crowds of upgraded units.

Like an acu upgraded at level 100 on a construction site, which can detonate everything at a huge distance with one shot.

I am sure that everything should work out correctly here, distortions are possible (acu seraphim), but they can be compensated for separately.

@Nuggets said:

This is not really something to be approved or denied by the moderation team, but balance team.
For something like this to uave any chance it would have to exist as a mod first. Me and AI could look into this but there will always be something not balanced right or declined, so i dont have any big hopes.

Regardless, the main issue will be the strong singular units will become even more powerful. Take tele-laser acu for example. It teleports into a base and gets vet like crazy, same for almost any experimental or billy nuke. I wouldnt even know how to balance this

Interesting.
I suspect that fears that the tele-laser and billy nuke will become greatly unbalanced are greatly exaggerated.
The proposed experience accumulation here is nonlinear, just like the gain decreases with level.
Here, fewer experience levels could be made for the acu... As a last resort.

On the other hand, if the Experimental has reached the base, it only means someone has already lost. And it makes no difference whether the Kolos left the base at level 5 or 16.

If you can find the time, do it. The main thing is to ensure the main part is balanced. Rare imbalances can be identified and corrected individually.

@Saver said:

I don't think the idea is bad. That would give the veterans more weight and also make them somewhat more robust.

@Nuggets said:

While i would love something like this, the problem is that any buff is way more powerful for some units than others. Kiting units getting speed is an example for that.
To balance this you would have to adjust the buffs based on the unit and then it becomes inconsistent and hard to track.
Maybe a way to fix that is to have a tooltip of what vet does for this unit but have fun balancing that, as that would require tons of effort.
Of course you could also just ignore that vet impacts some units more than others (it basically already does that, because health is more relevant to some than others).

Okay, we're waiting for the moderators' opinion on this idea... I really hope that it will be implemented, in the proposed form or in some other form.
.

@cychwa_klaymberg said:

In this case, the Seraphim will have a greater advantage due to their passive regeneration system on the commander, as it's easier to heal and level up damaged units with the Seraphim faction. Other factions won't have such capabilities.

I'm almost certain that everything can be further adjusted for the Seraphim; if a decision is made, additional balancing will still be required.
.

@cychwa_klaymberg said:

Secondly, i think, it will... ...to upgrade.

Moreover, this may reduce the players' desire to build regular units, because experimental units will be upgraded on them.

There aren't many experimental units, and you can set up personal veterancy gain trajectories for them.

Expansion of the veterans system.

An expansion of the experience bar cap is proposed, along with an adjustment to the required amount of mass to reach subsequent levels of progress.

The proposal is based on ideas and their implementations in various projects. Much of this comes from the veterancy reward concept for destroyed mass from the FAF developers, another part from the modification in Total Veterancy (by Eni's), and others from other strategy games like C&C, Company of Heroes, etc.
The excessive buffing occurring in Total Veterancy (by Eni's) is proposed to be avoided by reducing the buff effect received with leveling. The effect is reduced every 3 levels.

The experience cap is proposed to be significantly expanded. However, restrictions on the maximum possible unit level should be introduced depending on the tech level.
For example: for T1 – 7 levels, for T2 – 10 levels, for T3 – 13 levels, and for T4 – 16 levels.

For example:
Every subsequent 3 levels, the veterancy effect is 1/3, 1/4, or 1/5 less than the previous 3-level scale step. (Every 3 levels, the veterancy effect is 1/4 or 1/5 less, counting from the previous 3-level scale step.) (These values ​​are approximate.)

Additionally.
In addition to the standard progression, an additional line of buffs is offered for each unit type: land, water, and air. Additional buffs are introduced at a certain level and increase the unit's effectiveness.

For example, for ground units:

• every level, speed increases by 1%.
• every 2 levels...
• every 3 levels, damage and range of all the unit's weapons increases by 3%.
• every 5 levels, the unit's defensive field is created or increased by 15% of its durability.
  Additionally, for each specific progression level, larger one-time bonuses can be assigned that strengthen the unit that has reached that level.
• at level 7... 9, etc...

This change is intended to diversify the gameplay, where there may be a desire to give units as much veterancy as possible. The introduction of individual buffed units will have little effect on the balance. But with a large number of units with high veterancy levels, an unexpected advantage may appear, all other things being equal.

The idea combines well with the "experience fabricator" presented earlier.

@IndexLibrorum said:

Ideas such as these are best worked out as a mod. It is exceedingly unlikely any such changes will be made to the default game.

I suspect I don't have much time left before FAF ends up on the "undesirables list"; the EA and Ubisoft launchers were recently "isolated."

So I'll slowly lay out all my thoughts. If you like anything, I'll be happy.