Dang, Mach really fought the good fight in this thread. I feel like no one who responded to him addressed the core point that ground-firing is super unintuitive and doesn't really add anything to the game. As he pointed out, if it makes sense and is intentional for battleships to shoot subs, why don't they do it automatically without this very odd groundfire + drag the order mechanic? Every other unit in the game attacks whatever it can when things are in range, why would this one behavior work differently?

It absolutely makes it unintuitive for new players, and like Mach said, 80%+ of the playerbase probably doesn't really know how this system works. There are things that add depth, but you have to recognize the difference between adding depth in a reasonable way that "feels" good for players, is intuitive, and makes sense, and ways to add depth that do not.

A good test is, "if this wasn't already in the game, and someone suggested it, would you think it's a good idea?" It may be too hard for some people to consider that hypothetical.

Along the same lines, we could add cool micro tricks. T1 mobile arty deal double damage if you control+k them before the shell lands, just like Age of Empires. Sounds super fun, way more skill! How about ASF/Inties can target a plane that's far away, then you hit the stop button, they'll fire their missles at targets on the ground near them?

No matter what, if you think battleships, fobos, and bombers should be able to hit subs, why would you not just allow them to target them? If you think having more micro "skill" is a good feature, why not have other units be unable to target things unless you groundfire? Maybe t1 mobile arty can't shoot units unless you groundfire+ shift-click?

It feels to me like Mach is being so reasonable and clear here and people want to find the most convoluted/semantic ways to defend this behavior, when it's obviously extremely unintuitive and doesn't fit in the logic of the game at all.

I'm not saying you should necessarily get rid of it, maybe it is too big an undertaking, and I'm no expert in naval balancing. But acting like it makes sense the way it is is just silly.

@FtXCommando said in Reclaim:

So since no interesting pushback against reclaim reduction I think I’ll do one.

TL;DR: As an attacker, you can/should get some/most reclaim for yourself. Your analysis ignored the lost mass while the mex didn't exist, and the time/focus/opportunity cost to do the reclaiming/rebuilding. I'm a really aggressive, semi-high rated player who sucks at every skill in the game except for understanding this mechanic and I should have credibility on this issue.

Full post:

This is pretty unfair and you totally ignored my post. In all your posts about the value of a t3 percie raid etc., you also totally ignored the possibility of the attacking player getting some of the reclaim for themselves. I know it's possible because it's an aspect of my play I've worked on developing, grabbing some of the reclaim as the attacker by giving engie orders to an area I know I will attack with enough strength. If an attacker can hold a specific area they are attacking for even 25-30 seconds, they can get back a lot of the reclaim of the battle they just won. And, as the attacker, you have the big advantage of knowing exactly where and when you will attack! Utilizing this advantage is key to being a successful attacking player, and grabbing some/all of the reclaim is a big part of that.

Again, just because people don't play well and don't take advantage of something doesn't mean it's a problem.

And if you're talking super late game, combat SCUs could make this super easy.

Further, Your analysis of the t2 mexes a percie would need to kill etc. totally ignored build-time, lost mass income while the mex is being built, and opportunity cost/attention for the engineers doing the reclaiming. If you launch a percie at me, suicide into my base, kill one t2 mex, and die, surrounded by idle engies who are happy to reclaim the percie, the mex, and rebuild it asap, that sounds like a bad raid. No reason it should be a good value.

In real games, in my experience, often it isn't so trivial for the defender to snap up all the reclaim, as there is reclaim all over the map and it's not easy to get. Further, if "raiding", it might be better to go for a more isolated mex that isn't so easy to rebuild. If you deny your opponent a minute or two of a t3-capped mex existing, use his attention to rebuild, and then a minute or two later he gets a percie wreck, it's honestly a good raid.

Not to mention, percies seem like a bizarre "raiding" unit to pick off a random mex, probably a loyalist/harb would make more sense, or if it's a defended position and really late game, SCUs that can pick up reclaim (heck you could be cute and do a little with a few harbs).

The bigger reason why there is more raiding early and less late is because early there are a lot more undefended or lightly defended positions. The nature of firebases and defense being so strong in sup com, and the exponential economy, means that by the t3 phase most important positions are very well-defended.

If you really wanted to alter this, again as has been said, map design would go a long way. Since I try to play so aggressively every game, I can say from personal experience that the maps where all the bases are clustered together, with a ton of mexes in the bases, are brutal for aggressive play, and those maps are super popular (hilly plateau, canis, etc.). Fewer really safe mexes, and not having the bases so on top of each other would make a big difference (Badlands, Open Palms, Lush NA all are way better for this).

If you really really wanted to push this, buffing aggressive options (mmls? titans? harbs? combat engineers? t1 arty?) or nerfing tmds or t2/t3 pd would make an impact. But, again I don't think any of that is really necessary.

I don't know what rating you are these days, but last time I saw your rating we were around the same. And I am genuinely awful at micro, managing the battle, and generally all RTS skills. The only thing I have going for me is good strategic decision-making on raiding, unit-composition, etc. Understanding this sort of situation is actually my only strength as a Forged Alliance player.

Further, as far as I can tell, I play way, way, more aggressively than the vast majority of the player base and always try to push them hard while they are teching. When I win in a team game, it's because I've pushed successfully enough and reclaimed enough to overwhelm an enemy, and when I lose it's because I fail to do so, and I refuse to ever get a t3 mex. I know if it comes to a nuke/t3 arty game I'll lose, so I do whatever I can to avoid it coming to that. I'm telling you it's absolutely possible right now to take advantage of players teching too hard, because it's the only thing I do well.

I've got to be one of the most aggressive, semi-highly rated players out there and understanding strategic decisions is my only strength as a player. I have to have some credibility when I say lowering reclaim isn't necessary to achieve the intended effect, and might actually be counterproductive (because attackers should be getting a lot of the reclaim from a successful attack). You don't see me weighing in passionately on t3 land balance, or destroyer balance, or SCU ras or whatever, but this one change is in the one area where I really have some expertise.

Lastly, reclaim is one of the unique/interesting mechanics of these games dating back to TA. It'd be such a shame to see it diminished like this as a result, in my opinion, of poorly executed/decided late game attacks.

Appreciate the response and you engaging with me on this!

@FtXCommando said in Reclaim:

You don't bring engies with you on tiny raids. They are slow. Raids are fast. You bring engies with you on risky, more thought out attacks into expansions so you can scoop up either battlefield mass or build up a base to sit on. Didn't ignore this element at all, in fact I assume it's a given in competent play. I didn't consider it because it's irrelevant to the topic. The rest of your first paragraphs are just saying what I said before, well, for the most part.

Hmm, if you're really focused on isolated attacks with one or two units, then I'd reeemphasize how the maps and exponential economy do make a big impact on that. As the game progresses, most areas are just really well defended. Mantis can pick off early engies because early on there are unprotected engies, but the maps tend not to have significant enough mexes that are far enough away to have there be anything of note that is far away and unprotected late game.

Also, I'd point out that this sort of early game raiding involves 2 mantises, say, in the first 5 minutes, when you may only have 15-20 mantis total. So that's like 12% of your army, and isn't an insignificant investment. By the late game, I'd consider calculated big pushes on semi-defended positions with 10-20% of your army to sort of be the equivalent, and you can def bring a few engies along for the ride (or queue some up with an alt-move).

The scale is so much bigger in the late game that an equivalent raid is more units, so it's a bit odd to expect 1 or 2 units to be able to raid super effectively.

Percy is just a unit to pick because it's what gains the most extreme benefit from the reclaim reduction. Raiding parties of loya/titan can be used too. I don't really care. By the way, I do think loya/titan raiding groups are viable as they are now. This reclaim reduction will make them MORE viable but the reduction in mass left isn't extreme enough to expect some meta shift. Unless of course a bunch of high rated dudes start doing it because of the reclaim nerf and now everyone has to go do it.

The unit difference is more than just academic, because of course loyas cost significantly less, so it's easier for the raid to pay for itself. Also, they're designed for raiding, so if you can kill the isolated mex with 1 or 2 loyas, they're fast so you can maybe get out without giving them the reclaim! Or get them halfway out and make them harder to reclaim.

And I appreciate you acknowledging they are viable as they are now, but of course light buffs to speed/shields would help them be more viable and better at this job. But not as much as maps where a higher percentage of mexes are difficult to defend.

Bringing up aspects of opportunity cost and delay are muddying the discussion to pointlessness and begs a specific replay. No one can tell you what any of that would be without seeing specific game conditions. I generally don't think the loss in mass income is that significant, often you can just use the dead t2 mex reclaim to go boost safer t3 mexes instead. Like are you saying 1 percy killing 1 t2 mex is worthwhile or what? You can make an argument for 2 I guess, that's still a massive ask.

I'm saying it depends a lot on where the mex is and how hard you make it to reclaim for your opponent. If you kill a mex where it is completely trivial to reclaim your percie and the mex, then I don't see why that should be a "successful" raid. If you can kill an isolatedish t2-capped mex, or at least t3-capped mex, and make it so your opponent cannot get the reclaim within a minute or two, then I think that perhaps should be successful, and also it is more successful as is.

Ignoring this as simple "muddying" is ignoring one of the main aspects that should make for a more successful raid. If you deny a t3-mex from being rebuilt and capped for 2 minutes (which might just be engineers walking over to it and rebuilding it from the main base?), that's 27 *120 = 3240 mass denied. It's a big number relative to the things you're talking about. If they can immediately reclaim everything, it sounds like a bad raid (and maps with mexes too close together and too easily defended).

I agree with you that it's not ideal if raiding just allows your opponent to easily reclaim all the stuff and upgrade a mex to t3. But if you didn't have 6-8 mexes in a super well-protected base surrounded by teammates, then you might not have another mex to take to t3 easily, and if the mex that was raided weren't super close and easy to reach, it would take more time to do the reclaiming. I'd say it again comes back to map design and the strategy in the late game. I agree as is, on most maps, it's hard to make it worth bringing a couple of units to hit a random mex, but I'm not sure it's much of a problem. Bring a more decisive force, bring a combat engie or scu to reclaim, bring fast enough units to get in and get out, use t1 bombers to bomb the engies they send to reclaim it, it's just a different stage of the game.

And maps with fewer core mexes and more expansion mexes that are difficult to defend help!

Exponential economy doesn't really matter. If it required exponential ground to cover, then t3 raids should be totally viable all the time. It doesn't. Exponential economy in fact seems to cover less ground than the initial ground you need to maintain relevancy in the t1/t2 stage. No one cares about losing your t1 mexes at front when you have 8 t3 mexes at home.

I don't 100% follow here. I think my main point with the exponential economy was it makes it easy for people to defend everywhere on the maps we have, and also means that you need to commit an equivalent percentage of your total economy ( a bigger force) in the late game to contest a position.

I'm totally with you, 8 mexes "at home" that are super easily defendable and techable to t3 is lame.

Firebases are basically what I covered. You have concentrated bp around the relevant areas of your current economy and will have streams of units going to the fronts that should be able to stop or cut off raids. If they can't, you always have air. If air takes too long, emergency pd can come up and finish up the raiding units or force them to stop for your units to finish them off.

Hmm, I wonder if we're talking past each other a bit here/I don't know what bit you're responding to. I'd say a good mid/late raid on the maps we have involves seeing 3ish mexes protected by a little firebase, seeing your opponent with some defense/presence there, but surprising him with a bigger push than he's expecting, knocking down the base, having some engies running in at the same time and grabbing as much reclaim as possible.

Of course, defenders have some advantages too, that you outlined. But as the attacker you know the time and place of your attack, so you have to use that to your advantage. If they have upgraded a mex to t3 in the last minute, and you haven't, you have a nice 2.7k mass advantage, and you can try to counter what they are defending with, concentrate your forces etc.

Defense is strong because reclaim is high and you are guaranteed good returns from enemy units. Lower returns and defense gets the range of snowball reduced. Assuming attack failure. I still don't think a reclaim nerf means you will see more risky attacks that do fail, just as you do not see more risky navy fights because reclaim is 40% in water. Instead you might see some more abuse of titan/loya early on.

I mean, obviously this is one advantage of defense. The ones that I mentioned are relevant because they help the defender secure the reclaim.

Badlands is a bad teamgame map beyond 2v2, it's the definition of 1 note. It's the anti-astro as a 4v4 map. Open palms also sucks above 2v2 because the entire bo is built around cheesing a crush by min 2 since you're basically as close to the enemy as you are on winter duel. The other maps you mentioned as super popular also are meh for 4v4, but they're certainly better than these two.

Honestly, I haven't played badlands or open palms enough to have much intelligent to say about those specific details. The point was more that they are examples of maps where you're far enough away from your teammates that aggressive play is more effective, I'm not saying they're perfect or even good maps.

The only one I can comment on more intelligently is lush 4v4 NA, which I have played more lately, and compared to, say, hilly, dunes of arracis, and canis, does seem to allow for a lot more raiding because the mexes are more spread out. From the corner spot, on Lush, I have had good success sneaking units around and taking out 3ish mexes and causing problems in the late game. And, if you can threaten your opponent's base, the other players cannot defend them as easily, and there is no air player with 1.5x everyone else's eco basically deciding the game. More maps taking after these elements would help a ton in allowing raiding to be more effective is my point, not that open palms is a good team map specifically.

Also, shout out to selke island which I just tried a few times for the first time, where raiding seems very legit, and to crash site, which has pretty meaningful expansions. I'm no map expert on the maps that are out there, just saying the percentage of mexes that are far away, and how far away teammates' bases are from each other are key! Which it sounds like you agree with.

It's great that you're my rating. Maybe join a high rated teamgame then.

If this is a specific subtweet that I am in a lot of low-rated games, I kind of love it haha. I play a lot with friends who are a bit lower rated, and play at odd times of night where i'll take whatever players I can get. Also, if I try to be aggressive in high-rated games, sometimes people get mad that I'm doing so and not just ecoing harder, and that's annoying. Sometimes not.

Don't really understand all these paragraphs about aggro stuff. The value of raids as an aggressive player typically revolve around the structures left behind by the defending player (pd, mexes, factories, whatever). This change really influences nothing on the all in push that you seem to be basing your post on here. The entire point is making minor jabs with t3 land viable.

Fair enough, it's been beaten to death here, but a "minor jab" needs to be more units in the late game because there is way more mass on the field, and it'll be more effective if we play more on maps with fewer core mexes, and where mexes are less defensible.

On the maps we play, I consider "late game raiding" to be bringing a solid force, taking a big chunk of map control without being able to threaten your opponent's core base/life. It could be, to me, an attack where you don't plan to hold the position, but if so, given how late it is, and how many units there are, it's not unreasonable to suggest that you should have some engies queued to that area.

And I don't think such an attack is an all-in or anywhere close to it. It's just a... solid attack. You can have a partial success, take out some of the stuff, grab a little of the reclaim, get repelled, and it can be effective.

Some of the value is in PD left behind, some is in the t2/t3 units who die there. So, of course the discussion here in has an impact on that sort of attack, a negative impact on whichever player is able to grab the reclaim, which, if the attacker is successful at all, should be him. If A built a t3 mex in their base, but B took their expansion with a few mexes and the reclaim from the ensuing battle, you've hurt B, the aggressor!

There is a chance the conversation is muddled because we are talking about different types of attacks as "raiding." If you strictly are saying a few t3 units suiciding into enemy territory to attack a position, then yeah, better maps and, if you'd like, better raiding units would help! Titans that can get in and get out would be more fun, utilize their shields to juke in, grab 3 engies and a mex, and at least attempt to run away would be cool for raiding. It'd require a map where there are a relevant # of mexes that are vulnerable to raiding.

But if you are focused on that specific type of attack, then you could take my point more broadly as, although your proposed change might buff that sort of aggressive play, it would actually nerf the sort of attacking play I consider "raiding," aka bigger attacks, call them whatever you will. So be careful about unintended consequences. If your goal is to buff isolated tiny attacks late-game, I think there are more focused ways to do so that won't nerf other aggressive play.

Ultimately, I think we are on the same side here of wanting to promote aggression and lessen t3 artyfests. Let's get people to play better maps, but don't kill my medium-sized mid-late game pushes :).

You mentioned replays, happy to provide some replays of higher-level team games if you actually are willing to hear more from me.

End of the day, you're gonna do what you're gonna do, but I hope you don't inadvertently hurt aggressive play while trying to help it! Figured I'd at least do my best to explain as well as I can the benefits of reclaim for aggressive play in general, even if they aren't there as much for isolated percie attacks (?).

@Dragun101 said in Reclaim:

Can we not point to TA as a reference here? TA and Supcom reclaim, are vastly different and work in vastly different ways. [...]

This is a total straw-man. At no point did I say that reclaim functioned the same in the two games. I said it's a big feature/mechanic of this series of games that makes them unique from other RTS, and it'd be a shame to lessen its impact as a means to a certain end when I feel there are better ways to achieve that end. The details of how it works in the two are irrelevant to my point.

And, as to the maps, that you mentioned in the end from TA, that's pretty much one of my main points! Maps that are more like that would help promote raiding/aggression, like you said. More spread out mexes would be better!!

@FtXCommando

Nice thanks! Good job with the casting and organization, really cool to have this tournament.

Would anyone mind a nice list of links to watch vods from the final day tourney? If not, no big deal I'll figure it out!

Dang, Mach really fought the good fight in this thread. I feel like no one who responded to him addressed the core point that ground-firing is super unintuitive and doesn't really add anything to the game. As he pointed out, if it makes sense and is intentional for battleships to shoot subs, why don't they do it automatically without this very odd groundfire + drag the order mechanic? Every other unit in the game attacks whatever it can when things are in range, why would this one behavior work differently?

It absolutely makes it unintuitive for new players, and like Mach said, 80%+ of the playerbase probably doesn't really know how this system works. There are things that add depth, but you have to recognize the difference between adding depth in a reasonable way that "feels" good for players, is intuitive, and makes sense, and ways to add depth that do not.

A good test is, "if this wasn't already in the game, and someone suggested it, would you think it's a good idea?" It may be too hard for some people to consider that hypothetical.

Along the same lines, we could add cool micro tricks. T1 mobile arty deal double damage if you control+k them before the shell lands, just like Age of Empires. Sounds super fun, way more skill! How about ASF/Inties can target a plane that's far away, then you hit the stop button, they'll fire their missles at targets on the ground near them?

No matter what, if you think battleships, fobos, and bombers should be able to hit subs, why would you not just allow them to target them? If you think having more micro "skill" is a good feature, why not have other units be unable to target things unless you groundfire? Maybe t1 mobile arty can't shoot units unless you groundfire+ shift-click?

It feels to me like Mach is being so reasonable and clear here and people want to find the most convoluted/semantic ways to defend this behavior, when it's obviously extremely unintuitive and doesn't fit in the logic of the game at all.

I'm not saying you should necessarily get rid of it, maybe it is too big an undertaking, and I'm no expert in naval balancing. But acting like it makes sense the way it is is just silly.

@Dragun101 said in Reclaim:

Can we not point to TA as a reference here? TA and Supcom reclaim, are vastly different and work in vastly different ways. [...]

This is a total straw-man. At no point did I say that reclaim functioned the same in the two games. I said it's a big feature/mechanic of this series of games that makes them unique from other RTS, and it'd be a shame to lessen its impact as a means to a certain end when I feel there are better ways to achieve that end. The details of how it works in the two are irrelevant to my point.

And, as to the maps, that you mentioned in the end from TA, that's pretty much one of my main points! Maps that are more like that would help promote raiding/aggression, like you said. More spread out mexes would be better!!

Appreciate the response and you engaging with me on this!

@FtXCommando said in Reclaim:

You don't bring engies with you on tiny raids. They are slow. Raids are fast. You bring engies with you on risky, more thought out attacks into expansions so you can scoop up either battlefield mass or build up a base to sit on. Didn't ignore this element at all, in fact I assume it's a given in competent play. I didn't consider it because it's irrelevant to the topic. The rest of your first paragraphs are just saying what I said before, well, for the most part.

Hmm, if you're really focused on isolated attacks with one or two units, then I'd reeemphasize how the maps and exponential economy do make a big impact on that. As the game progresses, most areas are just really well defended. Mantis can pick off early engies because early on there are unprotected engies, but the maps tend not to have significant enough mexes that are far enough away to have there be anything of note that is far away and unprotected late game.

Also, I'd point out that this sort of early game raiding involves 2 mantises, say, in the first 5 minutes, when you may only have 15-20 mantis total. So that's like 12% of your army, and isn't an insignificant investment. By the late game, I'd consider calculated big pushes on semi-defended positions with 10-20% of your army to sort of be the equivalent, and you can def bring a few engies along for the ride (or queue some up with an alt-move).

The scale is so much bigger in the late game that an equivalent raid is more units, so it's a bit odd to expect 1 or 2 units to be able to raid super effectively.

Percy is just a unit to pick because it's what gains the most extreme benefit from the reclaim reduction. Raiding parties of loya/titan can be used too. I don't really care. By the way, I do think loya/titan raiding groups are viable as they are now. This reclaim reduction will make them MORE viable but the reduction in mass left isn't extreme enough to expect some meta shift. Unless of course a bunch of high rated dudes start doing it because of the reclaim nerf and now everyone has to go do it.

The unit difference is more than just academic, because of course loyas cost significantly less, so it's easier for the raid to pay for itself. Also, they're designed for raiding, so if you can kill the isolated mex with 1 or 2 loyas, they're fast so you can maybe get out without giving them the reclaim! Or get them halfway out and make them harder to reclaim.

And I appreciate you acknowledging they are viable as they are now, but of course light buffs to speed/shields would help them be more viable and better at this job. But not as much as maps where a higher percentage of mexes are difficult to defend.

Bringing up aspects of opportunity cost and delay are muddying the discussion to pointlessness and begs a specific replay. No one can tell you what any of that would be without seeing specific game conditions. I generally don't think the loss in mass income is that significant, often you can just use the dead t2 mex reclaim to go boost safer t3 mexes instead. Like are you saying 1 percy killing 1 t2 mex is worthwhile or what? You can make an argument for 2 I guess, that's still a massive ask.

I'm saying it depends a lot on where the mex is and how hard you make it to reclaim for your opponent. If you kill a mex where it is completely trivial to reclaim your percie and the mex, then I don't see why that should be a "successful" raid. If you can kill an isolatedish t2-capped mex, or at least t3-capped mex, and make it so your opponent cannot get the reclaim within a minute or two, then I think that perhaps should be successful, and also it is more successful as is.

Ignoring this as simple "muddying" is ignoring one of the main aspects that should make for a more successful raid. If you deny a t3-mex from being rebuilt and capped for 2 minutes (which might just be engineers walking over to it and rebuilding it from the main base?), that's 27 *120 = 3240 mass denied. It's a big number relative to the things you're talking about. If they can immediately reclaim everything, it sounds like a bad raid (and maps with mexes too close together and too easily defended).

I agree with you that it's not ideal if raiding just allows your opponent to easily reclaim all the stuff and upgrade a mex to t3. But if you didn't have 6-8 mexes in a super well-protected base surrounded by teammates, then you might not have another mex to take to t3 easily, and if the mex that was raided weren't super close and easy to reach, it would take more time to do the reclaiming. I'd say it again comes back to map design and the strategy in the late game. I agree as is, on most maps, it's hard to make it worth bringing a couple of units to hit a random mex, but I'm not sure it's much of a problem. Bring a more decisive force, bring a combat engie or scu to reclaim, bring fast enough units to get in and get out, use t1 bombers to bomb the engies they send to reclaim it, it's just a different stage of the game.

And maps with fewer core mexes and more expansion mexes that are difficult to defend help!

Exponential economy doesn't really matter. If it required exponential ground to cover, then t3 raids should be totally viable all the time. It doesn't. Exponential economy in fact seems to cover less ground than the initial ground you need to maintain relevancy in the t1/t2 stage. No one cares about losing your t1 mexes at front when you have 8 t3 mexes at home.

I don't 100% follow here. I think my main point with the exponential economy was it makes it easy for people to defend everywhere on the maps we have, and also means that you need to commit an equivalent percentage of your total economy ( a bigger force) in the late game to contest a position.

I'm totally with you, 8 mexes "at home" that are super easily defendable and techable to t3 is lame.

Firebases are basically what I covered. You have concentrated bp around the relevant areas of your current economy and will have streams of units going to the fronts that should be able to stop or cut off raids. If they can't, you always have air. If air takes too long, emergency pd can come up and finish up the raiding units or force them to stop for your units to finish them off.

Hmm, I wonder if we're talking past each other a bit here/I don't know what bit you're responding to. I'd say a good mid/late raid on the maps we have involves seeing 3ish mexes protected by a little firebase, seeing your opponent with some defense/presence there, but surprising him with a bigger push than he's expecting, knocking down the base, having some engies running in at the same time and grabbing as much reclaim as possible.

Of course, defenders have some advantages too, that you outlined. But as the attacker you know the time and place of your attack, so you have to use that to your advantage. If they have upgraded a mex to t3 in the last minute, and you haven't, you have a nice 2.7k mass advantage, and you can try to counter what they are defending with, concentrate your forces etc.

Defense is strong because reclaim is high and you are guaranteed good returns from enemy units. Lower returns and defense gets the range of snowball reduced. Assuming attack failure. I still don't think a reclaim nerf means you will see more risky attacks that do fail, just as you do not see more risky navy fights because reclaim is 40% in water. Instead you might see some more abuse of titan/loya early on.

I mean, obviously this is one advantage of defense. The ones that I mentioned are relevant because they help the defender secure the reclaim.

Badlands is a bad teamgame map beyond 2v2, it's the definition of 1 note. It's the anti-astro as a 4v4 map. Open palms also sucks above 2v2 because the entire bo is built around cheesing a crush by min 2 since you're basically as close to the enemy as you are on winter duel. The other maps you mentioned as super popular also are meh for 4v4, but they're certainly better than these two.

Honestly, I haven't played badlands or open palms enough to have much intelligent to say about those specific details. The point was more that they are examples of maps where you're far enough away from your teammates that aggressive play is more effective, I'm not saying they're perfect or even good maps.

The only one I can comment on more intelligently is lush 4v4 NA, which I have played more lately, and compared to, say, hilly, dunes of arracis, and canis, does seem to allow for a lot more raiding because the mexes are more spread out. From the corner spot, on Lush, I have had good success sneaking units around and taking out 3ish mexes and causing problems in the late game. And, if you can threaten your opponent's base, the other players cannot defend them as easily, and there is no air player with 1.5x everyone else's eco basically deciding the game. More maps taking after these elements would help a ton in allowing raiding to be more effective is my point, not that open palms is a good team map specifically.

Also, shout out to selke island which I just tried a few times for the first time, where raiding seems very legit, and to crash site, which has pretty meaningful expansions. I'm no map expert on the maps that are out there, just saying the percentage of mexes that are far away, and how far away teammates' bases are from each other are key! Which it sounds like you agree with.

It's great that you're my rating. Maybe join a high rated teamgame then.

If this is a specific subtweet that I am in a lot of low-rated games, I kind of love it haha. I play a lot with friends who are a bit lower rated, and play at odd times of night where i'll take whatever players I can get. Also, if I try to be aggressive in high-rated games, sometimes people get mad that I'm doing so and not just ecoing harder, and that's annoying. Sometimes not.

Don't really understand all these paragraphs about aggro stuff. The value of raids as an aggressive player typically revolve around the structures left behind by the defending player (pd, mexes, factories, whatever). This change really influences nothing on the all in push that you seem to be basing your post on here. The entire point is making minor jabs with t3 land viable.

Fair enough, it's been beaten to death here, but a "minor jab" needs to be more units in the late game because there is way more mass on the field, and it'll be more effective if we play more on maps with fewer core mexes, and where mexes are less defensible.

On the maps we play, I consider "late game raiding" to be bringing a solid force, taking a big chunk of map control without being able to threaten your opponent's core base/life. It could be, to me, an attack where you don't plan to hold the position, but if so, given how late it is, and how many units there are, it's not unreasonable to suggest that you should have some engies queued to that area.

And I don't think such an attack is an all-in or anywhere close to it. It's just a... solid attack. You can have a partial success, take out some of the stuff, grab a little of the reclaim, get repelled, and it can be effective.

Some of the value is in PD left behind, some is in the t2/t3 units who die there. So, of course the discussion here in has an impact on that sort of attack, a negative impact on whichever player is able to grab the reclaim, which, if the attacker is successful at all, should be him. If A built a t3 mex in their base, but B took their expansion with a few mexes and the reclaim from the ensuing battle, you've hurt B, the aggressor!

There is a chance the conversation is muddled because we are talking about different types of attacks as "raiding." If you strictly are saying a few t3 units suiciding into enemy territory to attack a position, then yeah, better maps and, if you'd like, better raiding units would help! Titans that can get in and get out would be more fun, utilize their shields to juke in, grab 3 engies and a mex, and at least attempt to run away would be cool for raiding. It'd require a map where there are a relevant # of mexes that are vulnerable to raiding.

But if you are focused on that specific type of attack, then you could take my point more broadly as, although your proposed change might buff that sort of aggressive play, it would actually nerf the sort of attacking play I consider "raiding," aka bigger attacks, call them whatever you will. So be careful about unintended consequences. If your goal is to buff isolated tiny attacks late-game, I think there are more focused ways to do so that won't nerf other aggressive play.

Ultimately, I think we are on the same side here of wanting to promote aggression and lessen t3 artyfests. Let's get people to play better maps, but don't kill my medium-sized mid-late game pushes :).

You mentioned replays, happy to provide some replays of higher-level team games if you actually are willing to hear more from me.

End of the day, you're gonna do what you're gonna do, but I hope you don't inadvertently hurt aggressive play while trying to help it! Figured I'd at least do my best to explain as well as I can the benefits of reclaim for aggressive play in general, even if they aren't there as much for isolated percie attacks (?).

@FtXCommando said in Reclaim:

So since no interesting pushback against reclaim reduction I think I’ll do one.

TL;DR: As an attacker, you can/should get some/most reclaim for yourself. Your analysis ignored the lost mass while the mex didn't exist, and the time/focus/opportunity cost to do the reclaiming/rebuilding. I'm a really aggressive, semi-high rated player who sucks at every skill in the game except for understanding this mechanic and I should have credibility on this issue.

Full post:

This is pretty unfair and you totally ignored my post. In all your posts about the value of a t3 percie raid etc., you also totally ignored the possibility of the attacking player getting some of the reclaim for themselves. I know it's possible because it's an aspect of my play I've worked on developing, grabbing some of the reclaim as the attacker by giving engie orders to an area I know I will attack with enough strength. If an attacker can hold a specific area they are attacking for even 25-30 seconds, they can get back a lot of the reclaim of the battle they just won. And, as the attacker, you have the big advantage of knowing exactly where and when you will attack! Utilizing this advantage is key to being a successful attacking player, and grabbing some/all of the reclaim is a big part of that.

Again, just because people don't play well and don't take advantage of something doesn't mean it's a problem.

And if you're talking super late game, combat SCUs could make this super easy.

Further, Your analysis of the t2 mexes a percie would need to kill etc. totally ignored build-time, lost mass income while the mex is being built, and opportunity cost/attention for the engineers doing the reclaiming. If you launch a percie at me, suicide into my base, kill one t2 mex, and die, surrounded by idle engies who are happy to reclaim the percie, the mex, and rebuild it asap, that sounds like a bad raid. No reason it should be a good value.

In real games, in my experience, often it isn't so trivial for the defender to snap up all the reclaim, as there is reclaim all over the map and it's not easy to get. Further, if "raiding", it might be better to go for a more isolated mex that isn't so easy to rebuild. If you deny your opponent a minute or two of a t3-capped mex existing, use his attention to rebuild, and then a minute or two later he gets a percie wreck, it's honestly a good raid.

Not to mention, percies seem like a bizarre "raiding" unit to pick off a random mex, probably a loyalist/harb would make more sense, or if it's a defended position and really late game, SCUs that can pick up reclaim (heck you could be cute and do a little with a few harbs).

The bigger reason why there is more raiding early and less late is because early there are a lot more undefended or lightly defended positions. The nature of firebases and defense being so strong in sup com, and the exponential economy, means that by the t3 phase most important positions are very well-defended.

If you really wanted to alter this, again as has been said, map design would go a long way. Since I try to play so aggressively every game, I can say from personal experience that the maps where all the bases are clustered together, with a ton of mexes in the bases, are brutal for aggressive play, and those maps are super popular (hilly plateau, canis, etc.). Fewer really safe mexes, and not having the bases so on top of each other would make a big difference (Badlands, Open Palms, Lush NA all are way better for this).

If you really really wanted to push this, buffing aggressive options (mmls? titans? harbs? combat engineers? t1 arty?) or nerfing tmds or t2/t3 pd would make an impact. But, again I don't think any of that is really necessary.

I don't know what rating you are these days, but last time I saw your rating we were around the same. And I am genuinely awful at micro, managing the battle, and generally all RTS skills. The only thing I have going for me is good strategic decision-making on raiding, unit-composition, etc. Understanding this sort of situation is actually my only strength as a Forged Alliance player.

Further, as far as I can tell, I play way, way, more aggressively than the vast majority of the player base and always try to push them hard while they are teching. When I win in a team game, it's because I've pushed successfully enough and reclaimed enough to overwhelm an enemy, and when I lose it's because I fail to do so, and I refuse to ever get a t3 mex. I know if it comes to a nuke/t3 arty game I'll lose, so I do whatever I can to avoid it coming to that. I'm telling you it's absolutely possible right now to take advantage of players teching too hard, because it's the only thing I do well.

I've got to be one of the most aggressive, semi-highly rated players out there and understanding strategic decisions is my only strength as a player. I have to have some credibility when I say lowering reclaim isn't necessary to achieve the intended effect, and might actually be counterproductive (because attackers should be getting a lot of the reclaim from a successful attack). You don't see me weighing in passionately on t3 land balance, or destroyer balance, or SCU ras or whatever, but this one change is in the one area where I really have some expertise.

Lastly, reclaim is one of the unique/interesting mechanics of these games dating back to TA. It'd be such a shame to see it diminished like this as a result, in my opinion, of poorly executed/decided late game attacks.

@Psions said in Reclaim:

I don't think reclaim is the problem. If you want to push bases at little or no risk you just build megalith or shielded mobile artillery. People that complain about mass gifts are those who look at poor late game decision making and then say its bad.

The number one reason T4 units die on push is because of 0 air control and getting bombed.

The number one reason T3 Spam dies on push is that they walk into shielded T4.

As it stands for a defensive base the only broken thing is the T2 artillery as that counters mobile artillery significantly. T2 artillery is already very expensive though.

I'd suggest decreasing T2 artillery fire rate, increasing its dmg so the dps is the same, and making it more accurate. That way T2 artillery is still useful, as a firebase unit and defense against fatty, but its not so broken as to render Mobile artillery useless.

Buffing t2 mobile shields would also greatly assisting sieges.

Also if you are truly spamming t3 armies then why is it so hard to send t1 engi at the back of it to pick up the reclaim?

What happens is people (especially high rated players) are complaining cause they'rein a team game where some random unknown 1000 builds monkeys and feeds 20k mass at a time. The reason they want to remove reclaim is so they don't have to deal with unknown randomers making their life hard.

It has nothing to do with balance.

Reclaim massively rewards aggression as it means you get to reclaim some of the mass you spent on units to win an area, therefore recouping the investment cost. Without it, then to take map control is significantly more costly than it otherwise would be, and this actually favours turtling.

Could not agree with this more. This seems like an idea for a change in response to bad play. You should easily be able to be sending engies while you're on offense to pick up reclaim along the way. People not doing that is just a weird mistake/oversight.

People also shouldn't just faceplant their T4s directly into the enemy, which you see all the time, at least in ratings 1200-1900. Using T4s badly isn't a reason to nerf reclaim, it's a reason to use them better. It's also more interesting if T4s actually stay involved around the map for a while rather than being suicide attackers.

Lastly, the premise that t3/t4 reclaim is fundamentally different than t1 seems flawed to me. If t1 reclaim is healthy, then I'd argue it's the same basic situation. On t1 if you faceplant your whole army into your opponents base and fail at an assault, leaving him all of the reclaim, you likely just lost the game on that play as well. It may be more blatant and feel worse on t4, but 2-3k mass at t1 is just as important as 20k mass on t3/t4.

I think this is an idea to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

So do people like the bomber changes? In my games so far I've seen sooo many bombers spammed, it's kind of nuts.