@IndexLibrorum So instead of thinking about what I wrote, you just looked at list of my games? Constructively. It's probably just a habit that helps save time.

@Sainse It seems like people have forgotten how to read.

@Razana With vanilla balance you can't have good balanced gameplay on large (20-40 km) maps. That's why the percentage of games played on them is very small. If players could play on such maps, they wouldn't crowd into tiny squares of 10-16 people. You can't have good battles because spamming megaliths, stationary artillery, nukes and shields is not gameplay. You can and do get "turtle" gameplay because game-enders and shields are imba in relation to all other units. I can't claim to have solved these problems, but I am trying to solve them.

@TheWeakie Are you sure you understood correctly what I am suggesting? I am suggesting not to increase bp, but to increase build time. The construction time of everything on the contrary increases several times with the same bp.

@IndexLibrorum Theweakie got my idea the wrong way around. Sainse simply didn't read it and saw something of his own.

This seems like a joke. It feels like a bunch of people read my post the other way around. I'm not suggesting increasing build power. I'm suggesting INCREASING BUILD TIME. That is, I suggest TO NERF ENGINEER. Engineer is the main imbalance in the game. And it seems like no one has even tried to consider this problem. Engineer is imbalanced in relation to other units, and even in relation to factories, since it uses resources much faster. It is the engineer that makes the game so linear and predictable. It is the engineer that sets the trend of the game, which cannot be fought with any strategies, any moves. In FAF nerfed bombers, nerfed other units. And you did the right thing. So consider this too.

I learned about this game a few years ago. My first impression was very strong. I thought this game had the potential to be way ahead of everything I had seen. But over time, I began to notice that the game had serious problems, primarily related to the linearity and monotony of the gameplay, as well as the dominance of economics over war (actually, this is one of the main reasons for the linearity, but more on that later), when everything comes down to upgrading extractors and creating super units. But at the same time, I still had a feeling that the potential of this game is much, much higher. For about two years, I tried to find and solve the problems limiting the capabilities of this game through modding. And today I have a more or less complete understanding of the problems of global balance, the main one of which I want to explain here. So...

Build Time.
In my opinion, this is the main problem of the game. This problem literally DESTROYS the gameplay. What's the matter? The Build Time for different branches of the military is different, but the most important thing is that the Build Time of buildings, including economic ones, is several times less than the Build Time of units. This creates a huge imbalance between the economy and the war. The prices of units and buildings themselves are quite balanced, but the fact that with a comparable price for a T2 extractor and T3 mobile artillery, the latter takes more than 4 times longer to build with the same Build Power, leads to the fact that investing in the economy is much more profitable, simply because it is faster. This is what leads to linearity and monotony, because war cannot compete with the economy, and the economy is always the same. As a possible solution, in the "Advanced Bases" mod (available in the FAF repository), the Build Time increased: fleet - by 1.5 times, air - by 2.5 - 6 times, buildings - by 5 times, and the Build Time of some individual categories of units additionally adjusted. Moreover, the adjustment was made taking into account mass cost and energy cost.

Remember that the most important resource in game is TIME. I suspect that if this problem is solved, Supreme Commander can become better than Starcraft 2. I am not exaggerating at all.

@cychwa_klaymberg Therefore, the damage of artillery and ships was reduced by 2 times. And as the range increases, the dispersion of the projectiles increases.

@cychwa_klaymberg Hordes of units aren't necessary for the most intense and massive battles. On the contrary, they add problems with control, pathfinding, lag, and just create a mess.
It's much cooler when a battleship with double range can shoot through almost all of Seton.

@cychwa_klaymberg In faf also was an interesting attempt to change the gameplay with the "Wars of Glory" mod. Unfortunately, it nerfed not only the economy (which is a good thing), but also the combat system. Unit damage was reduced several times, turning the game into a dull wall-to-wall battle.

@cychwa_klaymberg I've read your posts, and I think my mod is exactly what you're looking for. I've gone further in changing the base balance. I've tried to maintain the FAF balance as much as possible, making only necessary adjustments. I haven't added any new units, as they're secondary, but each new unit would have significantly complicated the balance.

I need testers to work on the mod. I tried to create lobbies before, but it was unproductive because my mod changes the gameplay so much, and people didn't understand a lot of the things I did. Besides, I experimented a lot and tweaked the balance many times in search of the right path. So it wasn't interesting to casual players.

@cychwa_klaymberg
It's precisely for the reason you described that I cut mass fabricators from the game. Resources out of thin air and without the need to control the map is anti-gameplay. Units have truly become fewer; in a normal game, there are somewhere around 150-250 per player at a time. That's why I nerfed the ACU. ACU is very strong even in vanilla balance in the first half of the game.

The enemy can be destroyed even at T1. True, I played with people a long time ago, and there was a different version of the mod (quite similar). But still, I got destroyed even at T1. Lately, I've been using AI for development and testing.

@cychwa_klaymberg By nerfing engineers (who spend mass four times faster than factories, the cause of the "snowball") and increasing costs of generators sixfold. This evens out the economy and balances out the overly strong air, but has little impact on land units. They are built at almost the same speed and require little energy.

"Next Generation of Strategy Games" mod is my attempt to create a deep, strategic, diverse gameplay experience that isn't stuffy or stale. No "turtle game". No spamming of game enders, experimentals, or nukes. No absolute air superiority. No "snowball" and no emphasis on microcontrol or "build orders." NO META. With gradual gameplay development at all tiers. With gameplay that allows all units to showcase their best qualities, such as T2 hovers and bots, T1 bombers and submarines, T2 fighters/bombers. With more pronounced differences in the use of different types of units. With an emphasis on warfare, not economics. A pleasant pace even on ladder, so you can enjoy the game rather than feel stressed, and keep track of everything happening on the map. Everything should explode, move, and be fun. And all this on maps from 20 to 80 km without any lag. For example, 15-20 km maps are suitable for 1v1 games. You reach T2 at 20-25 minutes, and T3 at 40-55 minutes.

Slowed economy. Doubled ranges (except water vision, sonar, omni, and anti-navy). Halved speed for non-air units. Stealth for all submarines. Sonar and torpedo tubes are placed underwater. Bomber damage is increased by 2-4 times while maintaining DPS. Decreased gunship speed (similar to helicopters). Not hundreds of air units per match, but dozens. Mechanics reducing the speed and damage when ground units fire while moving. Increased reclaim time. Reducing repair time and cost by up to 40%. And other changes. Some of them are listed in the readme.txt file in the mod folder. Other changes are visible in the unit stats.

The M28AI adaptation is decent, but not complete. I can say I had to make it much, much more aggressive and less focused on economy. Although even so, it's not as aggressive as it should be. So it's better to play with a 2.0 cheating AI. Or one-on-two. It's not a great fighter, but it handles economy quite well.

Available in repository.

This seems like a joke. It feels like a bunch of people read my post the other way around. I'm not suggesting increasing build power. I'm suggesting INCREASING BUILD TIME. That is, I suggest TO NERF ENGINEER. Engineer is the main imbalance in the game. And it seems like no one has even tried to consider this problem. Engineer is imbalanced in relation to other units, and even in relation to factories, since it uses resources much faster. It is the engineer that makes the game so linear and predictable. It is the engineer that sets the trend of the game, which cannot be fought with any strategies, any moves. In FAF nerfed bombers, nerfed other units. And you did the right thing. So consider this too.

@maudlin27 For balanced gameplay on large maps, I created another mod - "Gameplay Scaling". It increases the time and cost of building everything by 2 or 4 times. This helps to get good gameplay on maps 2 or 4 times larger, respectively. But we pay for this by increasing the duration of games. I tested M28AI on the 81 km Debris map with 4x increasing, and got the same game logic as when playing on a 20 km map, only the game develops 4 times slower. The same number of units on the map, so there are no brakes.

The increase in build time described in this topic has a different purpose. For example, if in this case a T3 generator (or anything) is destroyed, then it will take 5 times more time to restore it, which will lead to the loss of much more energy income. Or you must have 5 times more build power, but this is an additional expense. That is, battles will affect the outcome of the game much more strongly. This is what I meant when I wrote about "dominance of economy over war". In vanilla balance, the economy is too strong, because the one who has gained an economic advantage, in the vast majority of cases, simply "crushes with mass" his opponent. The game develops like a snowball. And the one who is lagging behind has almost no opportunity, from a strategic point of view, to stop this avalanche. And in the vast majority of games, everything happens according to almost the same scenario. Linearity and monotony. And my assumption is that it is the build time that is the reason for this. The linearity of the gameplay was discussed, for example, here: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/5552/title-a-time-for-change-faf-community-balance-team

@Deribus I only consider the second type of maps. And what I propose will make economic development even more difficult.