Overlord mode

Team mode between normal teams and one shared commander.

Principles:

* One player is the overlord (choosen at start by vote, or directly in the lobby if possible).

* The overlord starts with the com, other players don't have anything at start.

* The overlord can then delegate units to other players of his team.

* The overlord can always control the units of the other team members.

* The other players can share units normally.

* Units have different colors according to the player they are controlled by (like in normal team mode).

Additionnal features required or wished:

* Better share system.

* Anticipated share to future (or currently) built units.

* Lobby option to determine the overlord.

Saktoth: We can already do this or very close, with backup players and comshare. Neither of which are very popular (which i think should clue you in to how popular this feature would be).

Individual units suggestions

* Corsair ship

Small capture boat unit Fast, cheap, efficient against bombardment ships without close combat weaponry, (could also be useful against unprotected eco or AA buildings)

* Shielded sea laser turret

Makes sea attack by bombardment ships much less easy - can be an alternative to long range laser turrets

Saktoth: Capture doesnt work very well, and remember that all sea structures can be built on land with some terraforming. Why would we want to make sea attack by bombardment ships harder, anyway?

Tendancy: 1 factory=1 role

!! This is a personal opinion that i want to share, but not to impose !!

I am not sure if the current tendency to give one role to one factory (especially for gunship only/aircraft only/amphi+hover factories) is good. It drastically reduce the number of strategies you can make with one factory: if you dont have amphibious complex, ennemy knows that you cannot cross a deep river anyhow - if you have a gunship factory, you can't hurt air at all with you units, this also means that once the ennemy has an aircraft factory, your gunship factory is almost useless until you have heavy anti-air from another source.

More generally, it makes the strategic options very "squared" and single goal oriented. This is not very problematic in 8 vs 8 games but can reduce subtility of the games with few players: until you have a second factory, your options are quite limited.

I therefore would suggest to have more polyvalent set of troops in each factory. Of course, each factory would keep it's strong point (more efficient AA, more speed, amphi capacity, cheaper units...). To make strategic options evolve in a more smooth way, i would suggest to add some techbuildings that allow some more build options in each factory (amphi, hover, emp, shield, cloack... - that doesn't mean that these technologies wouldn't be accessible at all without the special building). Perhaps, very small and cheap auxilliary factories with quite bad units in terms of efficiency/cost would allow some flexibility (basic air transport+hunter/basic eco and scout/basic sea...).

Saktoth: I think factory choice being a really meaningful descision is great. I wasnt sure about how gunships/fixed wing was working out but i think now you REALLY have to make a decision about what units and capacities you want. Before, it was mostly broken down to 'do i want big or little versions of these units?'. Now, the facs are really different and which you pick really changes how it plays. That being said I do think that gunships need some sort of decent AA though.

I agree with you on amph/hovers though. Amph/hovers should be in different facs to eachother, probably in kbot/vech. There is the valid argument, though, that you should have to invest to get the amph/hover capacity, which we should still try and be aware of.

In summary, while all facs really should be distinct and different, they should also have a broad sweep of options and not be 'gimped' vs any other one fac (RPS shouldnt exist, so much, between fac choice).

Hope you dont mind me discussing these with you on your page...