Rock Paper Scissors: New Counter Wheels

[Quadhelix]

Subject:
Rock Paper Scissors: New Counter Wheels


Description:
The “traditional” C&C counter wheel looks something like:

Rifle Troops > Rocket Troops > Tanks > Jeeps > Rifle Troops

The problem with this traditional formula is that it is hard to tamper with to create more factional diversity. Side A could have Rifle Troops, Rocket Troops, and “Main Battle Tanks” (tanks with an anti-infantry machine gun); Main Battle Tanks trump Rifle Troops and Jeeps, but loose to Rocket Troops and dedicated Tanks. Side B, conversely, would have “Infantry” (troops with rifles and rockets), Jeeps, and Tanks; Side B’s Infantry trumps Rocket Troops and Tanks, but loses to Jeeps and dedicated Rifle Troops.

However, another possibility would be to give infantry and vehicles independent counter wheels, e.g.:

Rifle Squads > Snipers > Grenadier/Flamethrower Teams > Rifle Troops
Armored Cars > Tank Destroyers > Tanks > Armored Cars

Under that system, no imbalance would be created by giving Rifle Squads anti-tank missiles or strapping a flamethrower to one side’s Tanks because the Rifle Squads are still countered by Grenadiers and the Tanks are still countered by Tank Destroyers.

This diversification process could be further improved by creating multiple “anti-vehicle” infantry roles and “anti-infantry” vehicle roles. For example, troops with RPG/Panzerfaust-style rockets might be relatively effective against Armored Car-type enemies but lack the punch to do serious damage to Tanks, whereas troops with Javelin/Kornet-style anti-tank missiles may be more effective against Tanks but have too slow of a rate of fire to be effective against Armored Cars. Thus, one side might give Panzerfausts to its Rifle Squads and Javelin Missiles to its Grenadiers while another side gives RPGs to its Snipers and Kornet Missiles to its Rifle Squads.


Positive Effect
-Allows more factional diversity by allowing units to mix and match roles
-Avoids the “crippling overspecialization” of traditional unit designs while still allowing a healthy counter system


Negative Effect
-Potentially Steep Learning Curve (Missile Troops are bad against Humvees? Basic Riflemen trump elite Snipers?)
-Increased balance complexity

[RedShocktrooper]

This might actually be pretty interesting. I do however feel that you could turn it into a web.

For instance, the Armored Car is better against infantry than Tanks, but Tanks are better than Tank Destroyers. Tank Destroyers are good against buildings, though, meaning they counter garrisons. Basic Infantry and Tanks become the "bread and butter" units of an army as Tanks counter Armored Cars and softcounter flamethrowers, and Basic Infantry could counter Tank Destroyers and softcounter other infantry. Toss in Armored Cars or Tank Destroyers doubling as APCs, or an infantry unit that sat outside the normal counter tree (Machine Gun teams that counter whatever gets into range) and it could certainly take off.

Might work better for a "Not Modern" setting if we use Tank Destroyers and Armored Cars, because the former and latter can get a bit interchangable these days.

[Quadhelix]

This might actually be pretty interesting. I do however feel that you could turn it into a web.

The "problem" with using web is that it makes "mixing and matching" roles much harder.

For example, with the "Armored Car/Tank/Tank Destroyer" wheel, different sides give distinct anti-infantry roles to different points on the wheel. In this case, GDI might give the Pitbull (the Armored Car) a grenade machine gun that makes it effective against exposed Rifle Squads, leave the Titan/Predator as dedicated "Tank," have the Shatterer (the Tank Destroyer) do bonus damage against garrisoned infantry or clear garrisons, and put an anti-Grenadier/anti-Sniper machine gun on its APCs. Nod, on the other hand, has the Attack Bike in a dedicated Armored Car role, equips its Scorpion Tanks with mortars to deal with exposed Rifle Squads, equip its Tank Destroyer with a machine gun for Grenadiers and Snipers, and use the Flame Tank to clear garrisons.

The main drawback to this would probably be the different "counter-counters" on each side: if Nod built lots of Scorpion Tanks to counter your Pitbulls, then you better hope that either your Snipers or your Grenadiers are good against tanks. However, if GDI built lots of Titans to counter your Attack Bikes, then you could use any type of infantry that is good against tanks.

For instance, the Armored Car is better against infantry than Tanks, but Tanks are better than Tank Destroyers. Tank Destroyers are good against buildings, though, meaning they counter garrisons. Basic Infantry and Tanks become the "bread and butter" units of an army as Tanks counter Armored Cars and softcounter flamethrowers, and Basic Infantry could counter Tank Destroyers and softcounter other infantry. Toss in Armored Cars or Tank Destroyers doubling as APCs, or an infantry unit that sat outside the normal counter tree (Machine Gun teams that counter whatever gets into range) and it could certainly take off.

This does seem like it could maintain a fairly consistent balance: if your opponent is building infantry, build Armored Cars and basic infantry.

Might work better for a "Not Modern" setting if we use Tank Destroyers and Armored Cars, because the former and latter can get a bit interchangable these days.

For a near-future game like the Tiberium series, we can argue that developments in tank armor led to further interest in developing vehicles specializing in breaking that armor: "Armored Cars" specialize in dealing lots of vehicles with light armor while "Tank Destroyers" specialize in doing consistent damage to all targets (they just aren't cost effective against targets that aren't tanks).

Additionally, the gameplay role of Tank Destroyer does not necessarily have to correspond to the traditional vehicle design. For example, the Shatterer could fill the role of Tank Destroyer as its sonic weapon would do Cannon damage (Tanks would have a high resistance to Rocket damage) and would always hit the rear of the target (Tanks would be especially vulnerable to side and rear attacks).