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.

There was little confidence that the balance team would agree to the integration in its original form.
Perhaps some enthusiasts will like it, with the subsequent creation of a separate mod partially implementing the idea.

T2 and T3 extractors increase the capacity of attached storage units.

Inverted adjacency bonus for extractors and storage units.
This proposal is based on reversing the idea of ​​T2-T3 storage unit modifications.

More details
1.1 Balanced capacities for T2 and T3 mass storage units are determined.
1.2 Potential upgrade costs for four T2 and T3 mass storage units are determined.
2.1 The cost of upgrading the storage units is added to the cost of upgrading the extractor.
2.2 An adjacency bonus is added to the extractor, increasing the storage unit's capacity.
Result: When upgrading extractors, storage units automatically increase their capacity according to their tech level.

Additionally, adjacency can be implemented similarly for energy storage units.

Why
Storage unit modifications that increase their tech level consume a lot of player attention. This is corrected here: storage units will always match the extractor's tech level.

I hope that with sufficient development and balancing it will be included in the game...

@FtXCommando said:

Wonder open

It will always be easier to skip t2 when there’s 7 acus walking around because ACU counter units basically only exist at t3 stage. If you want t2 stage to exist for 8 minutes on a 7v7 it will be completely oppressive in a 2v2, game isn’t built for 7v7 lobbies.

Well... 2v2 is a fast, small map where tactics decide everything, and a couple of three extractors are favored.
I'm saying everything can be effectively adjusted.

(Interesting... for example, it's possible to nerf the ACU - in the "new balance," where units became "slower," the changes barely affected the ACU.)

Maximum version.

A structure being constructed. Generates experience for a certain amount of mass and energy. Accumulates experience on an internal counter. It can be on or off.

To grant experience to units, press the experience dose button. For example, there are buttons with values ​​of 500, 1500, or 5000 experience.

Next, aim the targeting reticle (similar to a T3 strategic missile reticle or the "eye" effect) at the units. Then, "launch" the effect (possibly in the form of a fast missile, which upon arrival visually splits into beams for each unit within the targeting area).
Each unit within the targeting area will receive the selected experience dose.

Clarifications and expansions:

• The experience accumulation limit and production speed are increased by upgrading a building to the next tech level. Accordingly, the experience doses on the buttons increase. It is still possible to switch to the previous version, with lower experience doses, using the tech level buttons.
• Adjacency bonuses from Mass Fabricators, Energy Generators, and Extractors significantly increase the amount of experience produced, proportionally increasing resource consumption.
• Adjacency bonuses from Storage Facilities significantly increase the experience accumulation limit.
• For balance, the range of the effects should be limited to a certain value with a relatively large radius. As the tech level increases, the radius of the effects increases.
• For balance, the experience accumulation limit on the counter should be limited to a relatively large value. This will require the construction of an additional building for further accumulation – an additional increase in the limit is provided by the adjacency bonus of two Experience Fabricators.
• For multiple Experience Fabricators, the accumulation limit is cumulative.
• The adjacency bonus with unit factories grants a certain amount of experience to the units produced.

Additional possible functions:
Extraction: Within a small radius of a structure, pressing a special button recycles/siphons existing experience from units. For balance, the extracted experience is reduced by 25%. The experience gained is added to the counter in the Fabricator.
Observation: Effect within the experience distribution radius (limited in time, e.g., 30 seconds, and consumes energy): pressing a button requires aiming a small-radius crosshair at a unit (player or ally).

A unit within the area of ​​effect receives two effects: 1 - If the unit attacks enemies, the same amount of experience gained by the unit is transferred to the Fabricator. 2 - If other units (including allies) within the unit's vision radius attack enemies, 75% (50%) of the experience they gained is transferred to the Fabricator (units receive experience as usual, with an additional 75%).

Why.
With a surplus of resources, it will allow you to quickly increase your advantage.
Or it will improve your chances of success in a defensive situation.
Or it will allow you to quickly strengthen your units to guarantee victory even when you're behind.

I invite you to discuss this.

@Nuggets said:

I'd say it could do the opposite. With this you can get more mass income without having to do a t3 mex, making a transition to t3 easier.

Also dual gap is such a bad example for this. Its a very static map, because most of your mex are in your base and not able to be raided. Not being able to raid economy means that defending and teching will always be more efficient, so i'd actually guess that for this scenario you make t2 even more irrelevant with the increased adjacency options.

Okay, are there any good examples of maps (5/5 - 7/7) where T2 is used for relatively long periods?
If it's more beneficial to skip T2, then there's a flaw in the balance itself that the proposed modification will make more visible.

@Deribus said:

None of this explains what problem you're actually trying to solve. This seems to greatly change the eco balance at T2 and especially T3 for no gain

Well... what other arguments are there...

The basic idea is to give more mass to T2 units to build more units. And to slow down the transition to T3.
The T2 unit phase is almost completely ignored, which isn't very good.

For role players, the "economy" during the transition to T3 will force them to build power generators between extractor upgrades.

Firstly, this will slightly slow down the transition to artillery/exp. strategic missile construction.
Secondly, air players will have the opportunity to counterattack by bombing several generators.

In most cases, the gap map looks like this, in a significant number of cases.

If the enetusiasts liked the proposal, we would like to see it as a separate modification, in case integration is deemed undesirable.

The proposal is strange; the priorities in your idea completely obliterate all other areas.
Perhaps any kind of upgrade besides extractors?
However, if it requires little effort, it's a useful idea.

What form should it take, in your opinion? A four-way switch?
Where should there be a separate panel or a clickable button that displays the set priorities?

Hello again, here's another idea.

Brief proposal:

1. Changes to the conditions for receiving the adjacency bonus for storages. In the new version, adjacency of half a storage side to an extractor or fabricator should be sufficient.

2. Additional mass from adjacency between a storage and an extractor requires additional energy. The increase in energy costs is not linear; the cost increases progressively for each unit of mass. This also affects the standard construction of an extractor with four storages.

3. Adding an adjacency effect between storages, increasing bonuses. The adjacency bonus multiplier between storage and extractor is increased. The additional bonus from storage-to-storage adjacency increases the maximum capacity of storages. This entails an increase in energy costs for extraction, as per point 2.

Explanation:

1. Modernization of the storage adjacency method. In the new version, a 0.5-side portion of a storage should be sufficient to obtain the extraction bonus.

2. Additional mass obtained from extractors/fabricators costs energy; each additional unit of mass requires more energy, with non-linear growth (for fabricators, the energy cost increase is less than for extractors).

3. Add interaction between storages; adjacency increases available capacity. It also significantly increases the adjacency bonus to an extractor or fabricator.
   For example: at T2, to obtain the same mass influx from an extractor, the old method required four storages and a small amount of energy. With the new method, three storages and slightly more energy are required. However, the capacity of three storages will be almost the same. This still leaves two free sides of the extractor, which can be used to add factories.

Why:
This modification will allow for a configuration of Extractor + 6 Storages, providing a significant resource boost at the cost of a moderate increase in energy consumption. This also reduces the time and space required to build up the base with Fabricators. This is especially important in the final stages of the game.

It will require the construction of Generators, which will correct the odd situation where a base has two T2 Generators, a scattering of T1 Generators, and all Extractors are already at T3 and fully equipped.

An additional improvement: this change will make building Storages for T3 Fabricators more profitable. This will add four Storages to the configuration and moderately increase the cost for a significant additional mass gain.

Hello again, I propose to consider the following original idea.

Relatively quick dismantling of a structure, performed by a commander, engineer, or support upon a "Reclaim" command.

We propose adding a structure dismantling mechanic to the gameplay, specifically to simplify base reorganization. We propose a method similar to selling buildings in C&C.
The proposal is based on the idea and mechanics created by Balthassar in BrewLAN. Instead of a separate button in the interface for each structure, as in BrewLAN, we propose a command to initiate the dismantling process from any selected engineer.

For example, here's how it should look in the game:

Select an engineer, press the "Reclaim" button, aim at the building, and press it. Instead of driving to the building and cutting it down, the building's dismantling is simply initiated. This process can be sped up by sending engineers to assist.

• After the "Reclaim" command, the building is completely disabled (replaced with an object that plays the role of the building being scrapped); the scrapping cannot be canceled.

• Opponents still have the opportunity to destroy it. If the building is attacked, resource recovery is temporarily stopped, and the durability decrease reduces resource yield.

• Next, a "charge" bar is displayed, preferably going in the opposite direction, indicating the percentage of progress.

• A mass influx appears as a percentage of the "Reclaim" structure and the dismantling time.

• During the process, the object's durability decreases as it is demolished.

• A reverse construction animation plays, or a filter and/or "dismantling" texture is applied.

For example, by initiating the dismantling process on the Aeon building, a "silver coating" appears, the structure "floats" like wax, and "flows" into a "puddle" around the structure.

Hmm... During the process, the vertical scale of the model changes, or the building "sinks" underground, or some other... more professional solution...
When the process is complete, the object disappears, leaving no debris. For the Aeon, the remaining puddle quickly "shrinks and evaporates," possibly leaving an "imprint" on the surface...

Why:
Adding a dismantling mechanic will greatly simplify base reorganization. It will also allow for relatively quick mass recovery from buildings that would inevitably be destroyed in the event of an enemy attack in remote areas (extractors and factories located far from the base).

I invite you to discuss this.

Okay, I realized this isn't what I need.
At least, it's not suitable for the main part of the sessions.