I created this tree to illustrate the shortsightedness of those who think that there will ever be a complete solution to the commander's problems. Because for every solution, there emerge new problems which themselves need solutions, and so on. I am not a fan of the commander unit, but I realize that there are those who enjoy having a general to represent the top of their army.

Commander Tree

Commander

DGun (Purpose: Early defense)

Problem: Overpowered defense
Problem: Overpowered offense

Partial solution: Nerf DGun
Partial solution: Increase DGun cost based on distance from base.

Problem: This ultimate weapon is unbuildable and goes against RTS spirit.

Blast (Purpose: Deter commander use among your troops?)

Problem: Use of own commander to commbomb.

Solution: Comm ends.

Problem: Lucky shot can determine outcome of game.
Problem: Game becomes centered around killing commander.
Problem: Ruins game for teammates of someone whose comm is assassinated.
Problem: Widget can share all units right before comm dies giving huge advantage to those who use it.

Solution: Lineage mode

Problem: Unit lineage can be hard to track, can ruin a game.

Partial Solution: Team comm ends (destroy allianceteam only if all comms die).

Problem: Does not deter combomb as much as standard comm ends.
Problems: Similar to those under combomb but to a lesser extent.

Problem: Enemy commanders get comnapped and used as commbomb.

Solution: Prevent enemy transport.

Problem: Devs balance gameplay around commander.

-

No Commander Tree

No commander

Problem: No early defense.

Saktoth: The problem with the commander really comes down to the use of its defensive and constructive power in an offensive fashion, downplaying the importance of unit use and choice, and making the game focused primarily on the use of a single, invariable, starting unit.

Google Frog: With range falloff commbom isn't much of a problem

Neddie: Interesting gesture from one who is notoriously shortsighted in development. Good to see that you're at least investigating development responsibility. There are, however, unmentioned orders of potential pitfalls which arise from the No Commander direction as well, both in balance when you stem from a commander model, and in player interactions. The real argument is one of design and mass entertainment, it isn't one of balance. Balance is never perfect, but no matter what the developers decide to do, they will beat balance from left to right until they feel it is balanced. Stating that balancing play around the commander is just an argumentative cop-out; play is balanced around problem areas as they arise, but responsibly in relation to everything else in the game. @Sak: True, but that represents a different mode of play with a different intended play state - Commander Ends. The true discomfort with the current commander is in Continues where the ultimate risk is removed. Anyway, this "demonstration" is unnecessary. I'll consider using Jr. / Constructors / or some mid-level in Continues and stick with El Comm in Ends. No great drama here.

ScarySquirrel?: I agree with Neddie. Balance works around the answers to questions of design and mass entertainment. However, I have to say that despite any shortsightedness, CarRepairer seems to know the zany innovation that makes CA superior to other mods. Frankly, I would rather deal with the consequences of occasional foolhardy changes than have to egg modders on.

Saktoth: Its not about ends-or-not-ends. It is about a game with 300 units and the ability to start any of 10 labs with 9 units each. It is about a game with robust and dynamic counter mechanics. It is about a game with innovative, adaptive and creative strategies, unit selections and builds. Then you give players an incredibly powerful, very specifically armed unit with a very narrow purpose, around which their entire play must be focused and around which their whole strategy must rely, in defeating their opponents counterpart of this unit. The commander makes defense pushes more viable, he makes skirmishers necessary to counter him, he dictates how and when you expand, he invalidates the use of certain units in his proximity and encourages other, practically mandating the use of skirmishers and nullifying the effect of assaults. I want to see really creative, really innovative strategies, dozens of them, all capable of playing off oneanother. Not just variants on the compush.

(Back to GameOptions)