I agree with applies to Sins, but not as much in SupCom. Even if the initial battle is relatively decisive. Read on and I will explain more inline.



It is important to note that investing into defenses is usually a very situational. It is usually not recommended since a mobile force is so much more useful and most players don't do this unless they absolutely have to.

So, instead of using your economy to build defensive structures, you will ALREADY be pumping out your replacement force BEFORE you have even lost, or even engaged in, that initial battle (remember the infinite build model we talked about? All your factories will be continuously building more units). So by the time the winner's attacking force meets up with your lost retreating force AND your re-enforcements, you will be nearly on equal ground. And if for some reason you are not on equal ground a your Commander is more than enough to put you back on equal footing. You have to remember that don't NEED to use your Commander on the front line right away. He often is part of it, but he is usually trailing . So he will likely be back in your base, or on his way to front lines, when that first battle takes place.

So replacing your units happens much more slowly Sins which can give someone a chance to get deeper into your territory.

And even if the winner does not push deep into your territory and simply decides to take one of your outside planets, this still spells ultimate doom for you. Now not only are you dealing with a superior fleet, but you are also dealing with a superior economy. Not to mention your opponent has the advantage of increasing his unit cap further than you. In SupCom both players are subject to the exact same unit cap throughout the entire game.



Here you are making a very dangerous assumption that you have already invested a ton of resources into defense at your choke point before the first battle has even happened. If this is the case it becomes even more likely that an aggressive person will win that first battle and overwhelm you with units (since he invested everything into a fleet). Further, I was being kind when I even stated that the aggressor would have to target the inhibitor to get past your front line. The first battle usually happens before either player has this technology and the aggressor can simply walk through.

But again, lets have this discussion again a few months after release. I suspect there will be some balance changes in this regard. If not, I would like to see if you have the same view point at that time.



True, but careful about lumping SupCom into that bucket. Units are constantly coming out of your factories. The first units involved in the first confrontation is usually a very small fraction of the actual force that both sides have under their command.



If they actually get into my base. There is a lot between them and my base though.

You also have to consider air tactics. One popular tactic is to load up an air transport, fly it past your enemy front lines to the back of his base and start to build a factory of your own there. Because you are not limited by a concept like phase lanes, such strategies are possible.

SupCom has a plethora of tactics that can be employed. There is also something called the "Ghetto Gunship" which you could use early to get a leg up. This also takes advantage of air units.

This kind of thinking doesn't even apply in Sins due to the restrictions imposed by phase lanes.



As is the time it takes you to build a reactionary force since you can't set your factories to build continuously AND you generally don't build multiple factories to help you churn out units AND you can't assign engineers to assist a factory to churn out units more quickly. There are a lot of factors here you are not mentioning.



All these points I agree with.



Well, as I tried to point out before, SupCom isn't your typical RTS. If you were referring to any other RTS I would agree with you.

Again, I am reserving judgment on this particular point. There are a lot of facts you are not including in your analysis when comparing to SupCom. My personal feeling right now is that in a competitive game between two relatively equally skilled players, slippery slope with be very apparent.



Not if you consider all the facts.



The key word you use here is "can". Sure, you can kill someone's commander in his base while in Supremacy mode. But how did those units get to your base in the first place? You are incorrectly making the assumption that after that first battle, they can just walk in. Many battles would need to take place for that to happen. Further, if for some reason the guy didn't noticed he was getting attacked and just sat there, well perhaps he really is the lesser player and should lose. But realistically I would like to think he will have enough insight to move away from his base. And if there is water nearby, walk into the water so the land units no longer have access to him and he survives AND he lures the units from his base.

But the fact remains that in SupCom your commander is NOT your most "precious" unit as you so put it. His potency on the battlefield becomes far less pronounced on the battlefield as the higher tech units start coming into play, which does not take very long. This is not like a losing your flagship in Sins.



I would rather rely on facts myself .



I am honestly not trying to be cynical, but with all due respect, your arguments with respect to SupCom's economy are so off the wall that I can only conclude that is because of lack of knowledge. And that is fine. No worries there. Heck, who the heck want to play such a bass ackwards game anyway . But without that knowledge, I am afraid your debate really falls apart.

huh? Is anyone else out there able to explain the difference in an easier to understand way? It is clear he is not understanding how the models are fundamentally different. Perhaps I am just very poor at wording things.

It is not just that the two systems are a different magnitude. It is that you can have ANY magnitude of economy in SupCom on ANY map without having to extend your control over the map.

It is not that resources continually increase, it is that the rate of increase continually increases.

These are the fundamental differences. You never ever ever at any moment in the game ask yourself "should I stop investing in my economy?" cause the answer to that is ALWAYS no.

Does phrasing it this way make any more sense?

You are saying true statements but you are missing important facts and not representing the whole picture.

My last attempt to explain what you're not understanding, after that I can't word it in any other way and I'll be done

You are not understanding that the models are fundamentally the same. In Supreme Commander, every mass extractor and every power plant you build increase your rate of resource acquisition, and the object cap is set high enough that you can have a crazy amount of these structures, therefore creating a massive economy while not needing a lot of room because the rate of increase per structure built is in itself very considerable.

Correct?

In Sins, instead of mass extractors and power plants, you build trade posts and refineries. While they don't offer a direct rate of increase, essentially it is the same effect because you'll continuously have trade/refinery ships docking and unloading resources, and the more buildings you have the greater this rate of increase will be. Same idea, bit different implementation.

Correct?

So now let me show you how the two games have the same basic system/model/whatever you want to call it. The ability to create such a great thriving economy in Supreme Commander is due mainly to two distinct numbers: 1) High object cap, allowing many economic structures, 2) High rates of resource increase per building. Combined, you get a grand economy while using little space. In Sins, the ability to create the economy (in a limited space, thus I'll discount asteroids) is also due mainly to two distinct numbers: 1) Logistic upgrades cap on a planet, 2) the number of ships each structure produces and/or the amount of cargo each of those ships carries. Essentially, both 1)s are caps, and both 2)s are rates of increase.

If you decrease the object cap in Supreme Commander, you limit your economy. If you decrease the income rates from the economic structures, you limit your economy. Setting the negligible amount of land aside, both decreases would cause the magnitude of your economy to change. You would be able to place fewer buildings, and each buildings would increase your gains at a lower rate. On the other hand, if you increase the logistics cap on a planet, you are able to place more trade posts and refineries. If you increase the number of ships each of those buildings produces, as well as the amount of cargo each of those ships carries, all of a sudden in the same space of 2 planets (minimum needed for refinery/trade) you are able to increase the magnitude of your economy.

In both examples, large changes of numbers result in large differences of magnitude of the two economies, while for all practical purposes keeping space constant - maps in SupCom are large enough that needing room for buildings isn't a big deal, and in Sins you need more room in the grav well, but still only control of 2 planets.

In the end, changing the same types of variables in both systems achieves the exact same effect. The only difference between the two is that in Supreme Commander, the default variables are already extremely high, while in Sins by default those numbers are much lower. But that's all they are, just variables that can be changed. And changing them does not change the overall system, that always remains the same.

And thus, the underlying economic principle in both games is the same. Increasing the cap/cargo in Sins can bring the magnitude of its economy closer to Supreme Commander while maintaining the same physical space, and decreasing cap/rates in Supreme Commander can bring it closer to default Sins while also keeping the same physical space.

Basically, you're effectively trying to argue that y=x+1000 is a different type of function from y=x+10 because the first increases faster in the same amount of space (x). But even though their magnitudes are different, it's still the same type of function



Almost forgot to address this, but it goes well with my loose function example above. Each building adds a set rate of increase to your economy. It's a linear function. I think a t3 mass extractor is what, +23 or something? Each one you build adds +23 to your economy, same with every power plant, every mass fabricator. They're always flat rate (linear) increases of large magnitude. The same in Sins, each trade post produces the same amount of ships, and each ship carries the same amount of cargo. Therefore, each trade post you construct adds the same flat rate of increase to your economy than the previous, only at a different overall magnitude.

I'd really appreciate that. I would like to move back to the slippery slope discussion. It is obvious we can't communicate rationally. No need to bring this up again.

Ultimately, I wanted to make another suggestion to combat slippery slope. One has been discussed a couple times and that is to improve the value of planet's upgrades. Another has been already tried in mods and that is to removedthe fleet capacity cap.

We have already covered at length that slippery slope is affected by your economy being tied to having control over the map. The other factor here is that geographic control also controls how large of a fleet you can support. This is part of the snowball affect against the player losing that first battle making a come back very difficult.

So what if there was no fleet cap?

Discuss.

In what way? Planet upgrades are sort of a double edged sword, the bigger the bonuses you get by upgrading them, the more you lose if your opponent takes the planet. Beta 4 made it more necessary to upgrade planets before getting a return out of them, I don't know if you've gotten the chance to play it yet. But, basically, now freshly colonized planets actually detract from your credit income until you do population upgrades. Asteroids don't give any fleet points until you upgrade them. That's probably not what you meant though. Do you have an example in mind?



You mean that ships wouldn't use fleet points at all, and just cost credits? Or that planets would simply give more? The top fleet cap itself of 2000 FPs is rarely reached, so you probably weren't referring to it..