New supply source mechanics.

[dantes12]

Description

I suggest the following:
Remove at all field supply sources. In stead of those lets have building supply resources. This gets as real as possible. You can be able to build up to 2 or 3 resource buildings until an event each triggered after which you can produce more then 3. This event can be tech search, game time, unit count, required building witch can be tier 3 for example. It would be a good idea to build a structure like supply drop zone where every x minutes some plane, or whatever comes and brink resources. Anyway no one in generals/zh build more then 2, at maximum 3 supply during early, and mid game.

Positive Effects
1. More near to real world
2. Players are forced to scout more often to see how many resource buildings the enemy has.
3. You can build this type of buildings in place were the player at least expect it

Negative Effects
1. It takes much effort and testing time to get a good balance.
2. Players are not forced to go out of their base for new resources.
3. Map control is less relevant.

[dantes12]

I was thinking: in order to avoid too many Supply Provider Buldings in a small area maybe it is better to limit the number of them for a given area space. For example you can not be allowed to build another SPB in a certain distance from another one.
Another thing that I suggest is that you can buld units out of these buildings in order to rise the income. For example you can have chinooks to collect the supply that is droped but aeroplanes. Maybe 3 or 4 or x number shuld be the optimal number.
A more real example is a supply drop zone, larger then the generals/zh one, but able to produce chinooks in order to collect the supply droped by planes and bring them to the collection center of the bulding. Also you can not buld them too close with each other. Thats why you need map control.
What do you think about this?

[Golan2781]

I hope I understand your idea correctly, it's a bit difficult to make out what you actually mean to say. Anyways, the negative effects really kill this idea. It'd pretty much replace the good part of Gen's resource system, the supply depots where you had to collect from, with the bad part, the infinite, low-effort but high-risk resource wells.
I also don't like the idea of having a hard limit on the build count - it creates a drastic penalty in asymmetrical matchups, for example 2 vs 3 (one having been killed of), robbing one side permanently of a good portion of resources.

[Warthog167]

Sounds similar to Real War (which was not a very good game). You could build three supply centers, and then every minute or so a chinook would drop supplies. There was also an option when you built an airfield to upgrade it with C-130 support for a supply drop, and a naval yard in which a supply ship would drop supplies every couple of minutes.

It is true though, the supply docks scattered around the battlefield built up with supplies never felt very plausible. Perhaps there should be a new way of gaining supplies, but one that doesn't involve a pre-determined number of buildings as you mentioned.

[[GR]Agm]

Negative Effects
1. It takes much effort and testing time to get a good balance.
2. Players are not forced to go out of their base for new resources.
3. Map control is less relevant.


Well let's see here. This list seems incomplete.

4. It removes harassable targets from the game. In CCG (and indeed in virtually all RTS games), you have both the building and the gatherers. The gatherers are fragile and easier to kill, but less valuable than killing the main structure. This means you don't need to come in with an army of tanks to wipe out your opponent's economy, you can sneak in with one or two units to inflict damage to his economy. Removing separate gatherers removes this strategic opportunity from the game.

5. It limits interactivity potential. In CCG, China Supply trucks could be used to run over infantry, and USA Chinooks could transport units (even pick up and save dozers from being killed). By the simple fact that you have dedicated resource gathering units in the game means that you also have units with which you can do interesting stuff. Just add those units as normal units you say? That's no the same thing. All things being equal, gatherers can increase overall faction diversity and add to unit behavioral diversity.

[CaptMujy]

I dont think any limit is good! we dont need limits, if no limits then the game is open to unlimited strategy types if balanced properly. if you want to limit something you should just make it more expensive to build thats all! this way you dont just spam things you dont care but you will choose your builds wisely and meaningfully. you will upgrade what matters things you need to achieve what you want. please think out of box and forget about limit things and consider costs this way you indirectly limit many things in short games that makes sense but also open the unlimited strategy in mid and late games!