Engineers and constructor types.

What sort of engineers are you looking for in PA?

In TotalA, constructors acted as a form of tech barrier. Basic factories built basic constructors, which built advanced factories, which built advanced constructors. The big thing is that every unit type had its own tech path. A basic k-bot was needed to get advanced kbots, and basic aircraft were needed before advanced air was available.

In Supcom, engineers were a single variety. Tech barriers were locked in the factory, while a new engi merely brought new options to the field. Supcom engineers had hover ability, and transports could move them across the map fairly easily.

There were tons of other engineer variants to pop up, and I tried to get as many options as possible in the poll. Pick the ones you liked or want, and don't forget to comment on it.

I think there is a considerable amount of flexibility available for engineer design. One approach that I think would be good is to keep the engineer system simple and limited, but having powerful engineers with a construction limitation, such as using supplies to limit their production, but having high effective build power.

The two major issues I would be against would be very flexible universally-mobile constructors of any kind, and having constructors that supersede other constructors.

Universally mobile constructors would be TA-style aircons, or any type of orbital constructor that has incredible range or mobility, etc. These are bad for gameplay because they allow a player to build them in large numbers and gives them access to their full build power reserves everywhere. Being limited by local availability means different areas will have different production abilities.

And I would be against having constructors that strictly supersede other constructors like tech level engineers in SupCom. While lower-tech engineers do cost less, for most purposes you will only use the most advanced constructor available.

Zero-K does an excellent job having multiple types of interestingly different constructor units, and this approach could certainly work well. I would also support a minimalist approach using only a single type of constructor like a SupCom engineer, possibly with a static variant.

Once again, very great care must be taken with respect to highly mobile constructors, such as those that fly, to prevent a player from using them en masse to produce constructions serially at high speed wherever they want. It is much more interesting to have many sites of production in parallel across the map.

While combat engineers in SupCom2 are herlarious (The cybran ones) becuse they start to devour the map like tyranids/zerg/xenomorths.

It isn't really conduceive to robots going pew pew.

I liked the way TA did engineers, though in PA I think that the naval contructors can be thrown away and replaced with amphibious land engineers. Having to build a transport to take an engineer somewhere is SupCom was a pain, I would've much rather had a flying engineer. Not to mention flying engineers can escape more quickly from a failed fire base.

igncom, you should figure out a way to make that tyranid/zerg "consuming" style of gameplay work with a few additions and make a thread about it. It would be quite different from the typical expansion and combat style, and would be fun to play against as well as to utilize.

I think the basic requirements would be a combat unit that can reclaim, and the ability to produce mobile economy. Some more refinement and details are required, but the basic idea sounds quite fun.

You say that like it's a good thing. Good for the player using the aircons, sure, but it seems undesirable from a gameplay perspective to have non-positional build power that can go out there and just escape like this.

I personally like keeping things very minimalistic with engineers. A few great ways to pass obstacles works better than a dozen very minor methods. It makes engineer management simple, which helps base management stay simple.

It doesn't take too many tools to cover every real construction angle:

Engineer + Transport = flying engineer
Engineer + Hover = naval engineer
Engineer + dive = sub engineer
Engineer + active stealth = combat engineer

All of these things could very well work with one engineer. It's not like they can be 2 places at once, and there's no reason they can't lathe everything they need! If treads don't work on water, then scrap it for a water engine. EZPZ.

An engineer's build rate already represents its access to supplies. The system you're describing will create "burst" construction on a cooldown. Is there any particular reason for it, or is it just some kind of expansion tax?

Aeon had a "sacrifice" ability that allowed engineers to provide burst construction. It could end up an amazing way to build a firebase fast, especially in hostile territory.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is some desire to have contructors that are used explicitly for long range reclaim and repair duty. Drones offer a great way to do this without making them combat units. A long range lathe would be effective for reclaim sniping. Drones can be given short range to pull them into danger. As units, they would simply get shot down in combat and waste resources. They would not have instant speed like a tower, and the drone can have a fairly good tether range. They do not need any real construction power or offense, and it would likely only hurt their patrolling duties.

Basically, a drone tower explicitly gives a couple of special repair+reclaim drones for base maintenance.

Well with SC2 cybran engineers could clump together with their little pop guns to overpower normal tanks and the like, but they could shoot while reclaming as well, repiring too meaning that even experimentals were no match for the shooting/reclaiming combo.

If you win the battle the spoils of war can be reclaimed, giving you more mass/energy to rebuild the engineers.
So really the mobile economy part would be winning battles for mass and energy, that is if you are not just stripping away the land for it (Unlike SC2), and could lead to a mechanical tryanidification, turing green worlds into barren wastelands.

To turn SupCom:FA engineers into this you would need to equip them with a medium ranged weapon, low damage while retaining a fairly decent range on repairing and reclaiming (Unless their reclaiming weapon gets a short buff to make it a credible weapon)
things in SC2 that helped this stratigy was that the cybran had a upgrade that made repairing 100% faster, making the engineers really quick at regenerating when out of combat, and repairing the front when in combat.

Would this type of unit be a fun idea in PA? I like it, and using it for the first time was really fun, espically when I figured out that the counter was aircraft, and then proceded to build AA turrets as I advanced, due to a lack of grmlins in the air.

Why should a constructor need a gun? The engineering lathe is a weapon. Just fix the AI so the lathe works like any other gun.

Yep that's what I was thinking.

Even if this just end's up as a mod this will be sweet.

Start another thread for this idea?

I think bobucles has a good idea regarding a simple way to have different types of engineers with only a single fundamental engineer building block.

Suppose there is only one engineer unit, rather like the basic SupCom engineer. However there are certain units that can affix engineers and acquire varying amounts of build power by using the lathes of mounted engineers.

For example, a ship that has slots where engineers can be mounted, and they are still able to use their lathes. More engineers loaded means the ship effectively has more lathes, and consequently more build power. A ship frame that can carry six engineers would obviously have six times the buildpower of a single engineer, provided it has six of them on board.

A nano tower might simply be an engineer that builds a static tower frame around itself, or perhaps reversibly deploys into a static structure with a lathe. Or it might be a larger nano-tower frame that can mount multiple engineers, with its build power depending on how many engineers it has, up to some maximum number.

I think a flying version could work- an aircraft that can pick up engineers, and can build while flying. However if implemented, the mobility of aircraft (including this aircon frame) should be limited, ideally using fuel.

As a result of this simplified engineer structure, all build power other than the commander is derived from a single unit; the engineer. This uniform build power source can be designed independently, and its properties are reflected in all other build power sources, including ships or aircons which mount this engineer. And each engineer-carrying frame can also be designed separately of the properties of the engineers it loads.


Regarding the supply limitation for engineers, this will make production faster when performed near supply sources unless more engineers are used to accelerate the process. This creates an incentive to build supply sources outwards from a single base, to enable construction at a higher rate out on the map with fewer engineers. It creates a new type of strategically significant asset- the supply source- and makes construction positional with respect to this type of asset.

the problem i' d see with your implementation is that, even though you have just one type of engineer, you' d need an unit for every mobility type ( static, naval, aerial...) that has the main if not only purpose to be a frame for engineers. you annihilate (no pun intended) the concept of having just an engineering unit, and furthermore you end with n units or structures that without one or more engineers backing it is pretty useless.

i think that the TA system for engineers was a good handling of the problem, and it could be expanded. I don' t know how the unit factories will be handled, but we could speculate this: every tech1 factory has the blueprint for an amphibious tech1 engineer.

this engineer has the ability to build a subset or all the structures that the ACU can build.
it has the ability to upgrade itself to tech2, with a mobility upgrade ( amphibious, spider-ish, aerial, stealth, etc). if there is just one tech2 factory kind that builds all types of tech2 units, the tech2 eng can build it. if there are as much factories as there are units types , the tech2 eng can build the factory relatedto him (tech2 naval eng can build tech1 and tech2 naval factories, as an example).

Furthermore, i agree with ledarsi about universal engineers. So, we can suppose that the mobility of an engineer is inversely proportional to his building power. the game Lore could explain it with a matter of weight of the nanolathe instruments.

This way, high mobility bots ( like air crafts) , could become inefficient , due also to a relative high cost in time and resources . link this to the fact that neutrino doesn't like units clipping, and so the numbers of engicrafts on the same structures would be limited, and there you have it: engicrafts are not viable for mass construction, while they still are useful for strategic and stealth outposts.

EDIT: corrected some explaination miswritings

What about build lists? A hover engineer has the ability to build on land and water. This means it has a naturally larger list of things it can build. Add too many items, and the build menu can become cluttered with stuff.

Splitting up engineers can help trim down build menu options and allow more clear tech paths where needed. For example, an advanced submersible constructor can have access to all the cool water stuff, while a generic hover engineer only gets the basics. An advanced land engi might not hover at all, instead having all the advanced land stuff.

An aircraft doesn't really add new build features. It only makes engineers easier to move. Smart transports can take care of this pretty well. Plus they work with any engineering type, so that you can still do island/lake hopping with the more restricted construction vehicles. If the engineers can still work while mounted on the transport, then you have a getto flying construction vehicle.

The TotalA FARK sacrificed a build list to gain high speed movement for assisting other bots and performing field duties. It's all spelled out in the name (Fast Assist Repair K-bot). A flying constructor might be similar, moving build power quickly between locations and acting as a field medic, with no ability to start its own projects.

Repair and reclaim duty doesn't necessarily demand any build power at all, but they do seem to go hand in hand. Simple drones can work purely as maintenance bots without trampling on construction duties.

Just some things to ponder.

I don't want to mod the game to hit r(e)claim. It's an important way of getting resources.

However it goes it needs to be simple. Build an engineer than build stuff with that engineer. Having a couple different types would be a good idea I think. A plane producing factory that builds a single ground unit feels odd to me, kinda breaks the focus somehow. Guess that's why I still like the TA system, each factor type builds an engineer of it's unit type. The usability flows organically from there as the engineer follows the logic of those units. Hover tanks are amphibious, Aircraft are fast and mobile, though less output than land units which are restricted by terrain. Everything makes sense.

Keep in mind, what ever system goes in place needs to be intuitive, manuals are a thing of the past, and most people expect to pick the game up from a tutorial or two, or just by playing. I can't count the number of reddit posts for games I've seen where someone figures out some hidden or poorly communicated functionality. So hover or amphibious functionality needs to be clear, flight needs to be clear, and expected limitations need to be clear. And it all needs to be readable at a glance for Real Time decision making.

Where things can get complicated/interesting is orbital warfare and the other more exotic planet types like gas giants, lava and asteroids.

I will never comprehend the people who keep trying to poke holes in how Total Annihilation handled constructors, when it was a damn solid system. Stop trying to fix what wasn't broken.

well yeah, for those all we know is little if not just speculation. i am a bit concerned about how fun could be orbital warfare( if there' s orbital warfare, that is ) given the fact that units aside the space is empty. and even if orbital units were just utilities ( planetary weapons, radars, solar panels, gas extractors and the sort) how would you realisticaly defend them?

But let' s return to the topic:

you are right about the couterintuitiveness of an air factory making a land unit. i am tempted to say that a factory dedicated just for engineers would be the solution, but then i think it could be bad design, and there could be better solutions. it would be cool to read the point of view of Uber ot the matter

EDIT: i corretted something on the second row.
and yeah, i wouldn' t really mind to use the full TA system anyway xD

I did mean for the combvat engineer unit, but I appologize for the confusion.

I'll never understand people who look at a case-by-case analysis and consider it an attack, then respond to it with passive aggression. :mrgreen: Engineers are not simple units. They define the nature of the tech tree, have a major interaction with the UI, attack enemies, recover resources, build bases and maintain them. Each of these factors are worth considering in detail, as each one is a different contribution to the game.

TotalA, Supcom, and Zero K did many different things with constructors, revealing a great many details available to the single role. Not every single attribute demands a new unit. However, you can combine them in clever ways to cover a lot of thematic ground, and hit every niche without many real units.

What does a combat engineer do that a standard engineer can't do?

Kill tanks at a justifiable range, and possibly have armor thats worth somthing.

Think of it as a tank with a reclaming cannon.

Could make for some interesting combat situations when you diliberatly turn enemy tanks into more combat engineers.

Between TA, SupCom and Zero-K systems, the one which works the best is Zero-K.

First, all engineers have access to all buildings. In SupCom and Total-A, choosing which engineer to begin the construction of an advanced building is an unnecessary pain. Even more if the building can then be assisted/built by other engineers, meaning that the damned special engineer is only needed to begin it.
Costs and specialized roles are enough to prevent advanced units in the early game, and this avoids the needless pain of having to pay attention to which engineer is needed to begin which building.

Then, having varied engineers for varied roles works well. Flying but with low buildpower, to access to unique places, submarine/stealth and speed to build advanced/secret bases, armed and tough to fend off small raiding forces without escort...
Those are easy to understand and open many game options, choosing the right tool for a job or the right job for a tool.

Keep it the way TA did it except for naval. Leave submarine engineers but remove boat engineers.