SUPER UNITS

[Assault Gunner]

Aaaaand there is the biggest problem with any super unit concept. But the QFT link has been disabled, so I am wondering where it lead. I do think that maybe a mobile VTOL base would be nice, though.

[DTSX]

That is what I mean when I say "Super Units" tend to be the type that can only be brought onto the battlefield at one at a time. Our current/future versions of "Super" units are things like the AC-130 that brings hell from the skies or the Boeing 747 Refitted with a Laser Cannon (actually in development)

These are weapons that aren't necessarily strong in the sense of battle (i.e. a fighter plane or well positions AAA/Stinger would be able to take one of these down) but they do bring a sense of shock and fear into the battle, rallying the men behind it. They are power weapons platforms in of themselves. Look at history, the Bismark or the Yamato Battleships. They weren't entirely useful (DEFINITELY NOT) but they were the pride of a nation and their sheer presence caused panic on the other side.

[Corporal Punishment]

And on their destruction they brought fear and panic to the men on their own side, rallying the opponents. Actually, the concept of super units, at least in a historical context, sank to the bottom of the ocean with the Bismark. So did the concept of Fleet-in-being when the Tirpitz was destroyed.
Comparing the AC-130 to these Naval behemoths is not a valid argument. This aircraft undoubtedly exhibits enormous firepower for an airborne vehicle, but it is not intended to carry forth an attack on it's own, as were the "classic" super units like battleships or Landkreuzer. Speaking of super unit and psychological warfare in relation to the AC-130 is a bit far fetched. It is a highly specialized support unit that does nothing a regular artillery battery can't do. It's advantage is that it can operate over terrain unsuitable for ground-based artillery. I highly doubt that such a high level of specialization is good in a computer game. When it comes to the point players need real military inside knowledge to effectively use the game features, it becomes absurd.

[DTSX]

What I meant when I compared the naval titans and the AC-130 is that by themselves, they have no real power-> both the Yamato and the Bismark were heavily susceptible to aircraft and the AC-130 again is weak without support. Both battleships had a name for themselves, that they were unsinkable and deadly. While the battleship's reputation preceded them, when the AC-130 enters the battlefield, the soldiers are given a sense of relief that they can just paint a target and know that it will be demolished within a few seconds, along with the entire building. What this means is that though more units of weaker power could definitely do much more in terms of power, being able to pack it all in one resource made the enemy fear it more. Since we can't actually exhibit fear, what we can do is offer experimental units like Supreme Commander. Another example, though not "super" in terms of power or statistics was the V2 rocket or Paris Gun.

[Corporal Punishment]

Only the Bismark and the Yamato were meant to project power by them self. The point is, that concept became obsolete with the advent of aircraft carriers. German and japanese high command just did not foresee this. As far as experimental technologies are called upon in the SupCom sense I can only stress that the WZ background is one of mankind struggling to regain a status of the 21st century. Experimental super units with classic science-fiction armament just don't suit this. More importantly, WZ maps are at a much smaller scale than SupCom maps. The Tech4 units from SubCom would not be able to project their advantage over conventional units on this scale.

[Zarel]

Well, I mean, Plasmite Dragon VTOLs. That'll project plenty of fear.

Or if you're just looking for the ability to paint a target and watch it go bye-bye, Scourge Retrib VTOLs are good for that.

[DTSX]

See that is why I offered those choices above. Neither one of those are enormous or overpowered in of themselves. They're just extremely specialized units only capable of serving one purpose.

[Corporal Punishment]

I highly doubt that such a high level of specialization is good in a computer game. When it comes to the point players need real military inside knowledge to effectively use the game features, it becomes absurd.

[DTSX]

Erm... each one serves a purpose, but it's pretty blatantly obvious what they do. An almighty destroyer with a laser beam, a giant artillery platform, an army destroyer, an early version of the map revealer, etc. Its not necessary to have real military knowledge, just use it right.

[Rman Virgil]

.

Erm... each one serves a purpose, but it's pretty blatantly obvious what they do. An almighty destroyer with a laser beam, a giant artillery platform, an army destroyer, an early version of the map revealer, etc. Its not necessary to have real military knowledge, just use it right.

I agree.

I highly doubt that such a high level of specialization is good in a computer game. When it comes to the point players need real military inside knowledge to effectively use the game features, it becomes absurd.

Hmmm. In a game high levels of specialization are usually embedded within Special Abilities which in an RTS are Systems A.I. - which in-turn are auto triggered along a variable achievement-reward continuum that is also dependent on the contextual switch-tasking mechanics-UI designed to maximize fun challenge and minimize frustration.

- RV

.

[Corporal Punishment]

An almighty destroyer with a laser beam, a giant artillery platform, an army destroyer, an early version of the map revealer.

What are those good for? Won't do anything conventional armies can't do plus they'll cost you one hell of a fortune which you loose with the destruction of a single vehicle. They'll be Tank-Killer-magnets. While you will need your mobile forces to protect these assets, your opponent may run a sneak attack on your flank. If you send your mobile forces ahead to clear the path, the slow super unit will be harrased by VTOLs. Once it comes in range of Ripple Rockets or, worse, Archangel missiles it's scrap metal anyway. Where's the point in building them in the first place? And don't come up with "We will make it tough enough to stand all this!" That would not be a super unit but simply unbalanced.

[Roux Le Corps]

prehaps consider them as buildings but movile? so anti tank weapons are ineffective?

[DTSX]

prehaps consider them as buildings but movile? so anti tank weapons are ineffective?

That's counter to what I imagine a superweapon would be, unless that's their main purpose -> a super weapon is a very powerful weapon, but the strongest sword never makes the strongest shield.

[Roux Le Corps]

but depending on size it could very well be considered a structure, like the elephant from halo 3, its a garage with wheels

[Assault Gunner]

Actually... its only a garage with wheels in HALO Wars. In HALO 3, it holds 1 mongoose, so its really just a armored support vehicle. It cant even properly protect the Mongoose it holds. In other words, low on usefulness.

Also, the idea of a naval transport allowing you to use tracked vehicles on island maps without having a factory on every island was put forth, I think. So that takes care of the "Transport super unit" idea right off the bat. As to the others.... I have to agree. Massive wastes of power, and artillery (both stationary and mobile) magnets.