I feel at the current resource level you have to expand out pretty quickly. You can only maintain a smaller force on the resources you initially start with, and is a good thing. This forces people to play in a somewhat aggressive manner since they can't turtle up in one spot the entire game. I also like that Reactive materials are not located in the seed region. This makes it impossible for people to turtle in their stating region and stand a chance in the long run. It causes players to take small risks in the beginning to lay claim to the resources they need. So far I feel that having 4 metal resource nodes in the starting area is a good place to be. It allows you enough to build some starter units for battle/claiming, and also lets you get a good start on your base. I also feel like the Reactive nodes are in a good balance with the other regions on the map. Considering they are what's used in all the higher tier building I think it is very important to balance those correctly. I did feel after capturing 4+ zones that it became too easy though. Once I claimed those, built a couple Reactives storage, and a Reactives refinery it was GG. At that point you can build up a large enough force to steamroll fairly early on. On another game using the Proxima map I captured 6+ zones without finding a single Reactives node. On the same map i had a total of 9+ metal nodes, so I was definitely not short on it. This issue seems like an easy fix with the resource spawning though. Not sure what ratio you have it set on, but it may need a little tweaking.

Just ran through a skirmish, won before I could get into the enemy base from captured computronium, and I'd pretty much only captured the stuff in a line to their base.  Not sure on the other resources yet, but I can safely say that acquiring that stuff is a wee bit easy at present, perhaps it gains more quickly based on the relative number of captures and the AI just wasn't, but if it's a flat rate it's way too fast for a system to prevent stalemates.

I agree with this a lot, the way resources are distributed initially forces you to move out of you base which I think is a great thing, as you put it the need for reactives to expand your logistics means building a small force and getting stuck in quickly. 

I currently feel that the seed and natural expansion should have more resouces than other regions to encourage a good build up at the start, the other regions obviously need to have enough on top of this to encourage expansion instead of turtling (what this number is...I would need to play more at the moment), power needs obviously also help to push expansion. 

I always feel that the need to expand should be based upon the player wanting more 'stuff' rather than being restricted by other mechanics. It is actually something I think Gal Civ 3 does well with its rare resources that help incentivise exploration and expansion to build stronger units. Perhaps holding particular regions could give units or battlegroups certain buffs?

I'd suggest tying the unit cap (which can be viewed as a resource) to regions rather than buildings. Having engineer units set aside for the express purpose of building unit cap buildings the entire game felt kind of goofy/pointless to me. Alternately, the buildings could be limited to x per region (maybe 2?) so they couldn't all be clustered in more or less safe areas of the map.

Please no on tying the unit cap to the regions owned. If the unit cap is tied to the regions owned then the player that expands the fastest will win the game almost 100% of the time. The reason being that the controlling player will be able to create more units and push the weak player out of the game. With no way to increase their unit cap the player that controls less regions can't compensate and loses the game. Having the unit cap tied to buildings allows each player a fair chance to build up any force they want, as long as they have the resources. Having unit cap tied to buildings is really the most balanced way to handle it, and also why it's used in nearly every RTS out there. Alternatively they could use the method of base upgrades to increase unit cap, but it all depends on balancing.  

Also, unit cap is somewhat tied through regions with the power requirements. Since each region allows the player more power, you have to capture those to build more logistics buildings.

I wouldn't say you're wrong; we just haven't started scaling up yet. It's certainly something we're aware of and working on.

The unit count/logistics building ratio is extremely simple fix since it is controlled by a variable. With the current maps the unit count isn't really a big issue, but with larger maps I can see it becoming and problem. It could be fixed by something as simple as a T2 logistics building. 

I do like the idea of larger zones having better resources, and the middle zones having the best ones. If the middle zones had extra resources it could keep maps interesting since battles would be more frequent.

On the resources note, it currently seems far easier to win through victory points rather than actually destroying the enemies' seed. I'm not sure if this is the intended balance though.

It is, however it'll be a bit harder to do next patch

Quoting TheRealWarpstorm, reply 11

It is, however it'll be a bit harder to do next patch

Very nice. I will be looking forward to that. If we can extend the matches then we can try harder to break the game.  

Quoting TheRealWarpstorm, reply 11

It is, however it'll be a bit harder to do next patch

yes the Game Ends really fast right now, can we disable victory points?

Quoting ASADDF, reply 13

Quoting TheRealWarpstorm,

reply 11

It is, however it'll be a bit harder to do next patch

yes the Game Ends really fast right now, can we disable victory points?

Ends without much figthing , but i do like the victory point system, i bet on larger maps it can become quite a slug fest without it later on.

I am not sure, if I really be satisfied by the resource-system, because I like it at least a little bit "turtle"-ish. To be forced, to get out in the begin, is alright. But I don't want to get forced to run all over the map (I don't play very long yet, maybe my critic is complete wrong). 

Is there not a solution to get all resources, which I need to create by my own. For example, after capture some land/resources/points I get the possibility to build refineries, which cost a lot and need a longer time to build, but gives me the opportunity to conquer the map a little bit slower.

Then we have both. Gamers who want to play offensive and people who play more defensive.  

@ MindlessMe: Why must I be forced not to play more defensive? I think I am old enough to decide how I prefer to play. 

Disclaimer:  I haven't played enough yet to firmly understand how the game currently handles this, but I wanted to respond to some of the posts here.

What I see here are a lot of the same opinions on the pace of the game, but that is a narrow view.  Their are other game tactics and play styles to consider.  Do you want the game to be a one-trick pony, or do you want it to be versatile like SupCom?  The more tactics you can support the broader your appeal, and thus your audience.

I think we need to settle this issue right now. Strategy games are not McDonald's where you can "play however you want." That sounds nice in a marketing-bullshit, customer-service kind of way, but it's completely disingenuous, even though some people seem to have bought into it.

Nobody says this kind of nonsense about games like Chess. You don't get to "play your way" because your way might be stupid. Complaining that you would prefer to just use pawns doesn't excuse the fact that you will, and should, lose unless you use your other pieces too.

In like fashion, you don't get to decide that you just don't like attacking. If the situation calls for attacking and you don't do it then you should lose.

First of all, sorry for my limited english, I try to discuss this with hopefully the right words. ;-) 

Maybe polemic sort something out, but I never talk about, that I play every game however I want and always wining a game; that's pointless and boring. I play FA the campaign with the highest level and I failed a lot and many times.

Nor I wrote, that the game should be same like FA. This I won't either, because than I can remain with FA.  

But I would prefer to decide, which way I want to win or loose. 

And I hope it will work in both ways. If the situation calls for defense I can defense. And I also don't want a trigger, where I have to push the right button in the right time and the right tempo. I want to have the possibilities to choose and make mistake. Something I don't like in FA is, that the turtle-game is seldom a mistake. 

With the first two maps in AOTS I rush over the map and win easily (ok, that was not faire, because the ai is still very defensive). 

I feel like the current spread of resources could be improved by allowing individual extractors to be upgraded individually and then for the late game still have the refineries. Maybe this could be a t2 upgrade that makes the extractor give 1.5/tic instead of 1.0.  This lets you have a little more build variety with stay in base a little longer vs early expansion.  

On the same note, although I feel that the unit cost is not too bad currently, I think the build times are too short.  At least for the lower tier units.  I think in order to pump out units as fast as I do with 1 (or 1+1 Engy) I should either have to build 3-4 factories or attach 4 or more engineers to the factory.

Although I agree that using any tactic and winning should not be permitted, there should be multiple ways to win and multiple strategies that allow for success. One of the aspects of Sins that I enjoyed was that I was able to play the defensive role by expanding a little in the beginning and upgrading my economy to the point that I had funds to expand through the universe. I was able to fend off attackers because I could produce enough units to demolish the wimpy forces sent to my sector because they were spread so thin. Then I could come in and lay claim to their lightly protected worlds (or command posts in this game).

I knew others who preferred to expand quickly and were successful at that strategy as well, but I liked the option to do either and still win. The type of "turtling" that I find intolerable is what was featured in C&C: Generals (to name one) where you could build a strong base defence line with missle launchers to deter foes while building platforms to get tons of money and power plants to build whatever you want. This meant you never had to expand and you could have more resources than anyone else by staying put. That is what I want to avoid. Having the ability to expand a few sectors and then only continue expanding when you're economy has outgrown your current outpost is fine by my standards.

As far as resource locations go I think that there are too many on the small map, there are too few on the large map, and that the medium map has a good location spacing, but needs to have more metal closer to base. I think runnning out of metal is the issue I've faced the most and the hard map has way too few of these resources spread way too thin. I think that outposts should have more than 1 resource and that some should have a lot (I was happy to find the 4 metal spots in the medium map and thought that those were strategic hold points). I also want to see research that enables one to grow an economy  (increase output of extractors, increase extractor build speed, lower power consumption of these types of structures, etc). I also liked the black market of Sins, although if the devs don't want to incorporate that I wouldn't mind.

I like the web of pathways. It allows you to actually hold your command posts by defending either side of the road or blocking the road with defense structures. They may need to be a bit wider for large maps so that units can be 20 wide or so, but even that seems rather big to me when we're talking about relative sizes of units. And not all 1,000 units will be going to the same spot so the paths shouldn't need to transport them all simultaneously. I think adding some sort of speed to the empty pathways would be an improvement though, that way your units could just travel from one post to another quickly.

The quote that ledarsi used for the argument was specifically referring to playing using a more defensive style of deployment. That was the part of ledarsi's argument that I wanted to comment on. I understand perfectly the idea of "playing your way" and how that basically ensures mass chaos with every player wondering why a 5 yr old can beat them because they picked their favorite units.

Different strategy games have varying degrees of "resource hunger," if I might coin an RTS concept, that they impose upon players.

Some games, like C&C Generals, are fairly relaxed about resource hunger. These games allow choices that are highly amenable to hardcore turtling. Such as allowing players to generate resources within a compact amount of space, and allow weapons like passive long-range artillery that are highly safe, inexpensive to wield (if not to construct), efficient, and difficult to deny.

Other games, like Total Annihilation, impose severe resource starvation that can only be sated by claiming as many resources as humanly possible, and you never have enough. Whenever possible these games always favor rapid expansion and conquest, and turtling on a small portion of the map is simply not an option. You will always lose against an enemy that actually expands.

I think the best way to design strategy games that involve resource acquisition is to give the player a virtually unlimited appetite for resources. However, actually acquiring those resources should be a fairly challenging endeavor because the enemy is going to harangue you at every turn, while you do the same to them. But, if you don't expand, the enemy will, and then you will be hopelessly outmatched. Thus, expansion to secure resources is absolutely vital for your survival. And so is disrupting the enemy's attempts to secure resources. Because if you don't do both of these things, the enemy will, and you will lose. This leads to immediate strategic decisions and immediate player interaction, and possibly even battle.

Now, to be clear, defensive play is still absolutely viable. However, the meaning of "defensive" isn't quite the same. Reckless expansion where you do not spend any resources on defensive units and structures gives you the greatest possible growth. However, this also means your critical resourcing facilities are undefended, leaving you highly vulnerable to being raided by the enemy.

Defensive play is slower expansion with additional precautions, such as defensive units and structures, or investing in a larger military in the event of a large enemy attack. However, spending resources defending in this way does leave you vulnerable to the possibility that the enemy will have expanded as aggressively as possible. Which you can then counter by using your units to go destroy those undefended facilities.

Basically, rather than thinking about defending a single base, in the context of expansion a defensive player is one who expands more slowly but with greater security.

Well we dont have an exponential economy at the moment, its all based of caping the entire map and you will hit a limit in both economy and production, i dislike this a lot especially since you want this to be a large scale game with a lot of units on the field.

Also the current maps dont suit this economy system at all.

I would like it for maps to have very few resources back at home and more spreaded out like 5x the number of resources you have in your starting area if not even more the current maps have super low resource counts. Think of it this way id like it on a 3v3 for the front guys to cap the map and get as many metal extractors as possible, while the back guys eco up and tech into tier 2 and 3 while using the front guy`s extra metal.

The current economy model does not alow this because there isnt any eco teching or a gradual eco boost in your home base. Refineries are also expensive and confusing to make.

To put it more clearly this eco suits more a smaler scale tactical game and reminds me a lot of how supreme commander 2 did its eco. I know that sins of a solar empire had a similar system but it was much better, mostly because you could buy and sell resources on the market and had a much more fleshed out research system that you could invest on stuff.

Natural expantions should have 2-3 times of your seed and it should grow exponentialy towards the middle of the map.

I think you want to make refineries as your endgame eco but its a boring concept its super simplistic there needs to be something more. Only after this has been reworked can we start discussing maps because currently its kinda pointless.

I think the best economic system made to date was the Forged aliance, there is no better.

It has everything to do with a true power of a large-scale RTS  it touches on all essential points.

6/8 metal deposits i think are essential at this time.

I do not think that works well a system like Company of Heroes on this type of game but....

For me I think this kind of rts, to bring  back the old glory that has been lost in rts.

.1 Ecohore style again
 
.2 Only metal deposits and reactive deposits not enouth all over the map since logistics need fix, we needed a goal to reclaim out the main base, so that tatics can fluid in players minds (such reclaim mass in  FA ,its the main objective and a good strategy in some parts of the map) or another option.

.3 I now its too early and this game still havent nothing but plz think in the good gameplay, RTS style its dead because game designers stop with the usual ideas,ideas that real work .

Sometimes something simple has minecraft take players play the game over and over .

Just a note   ....has an initial simplicity and ease of play that quickly gives way to a complexity as deep as the mines you'll soon find yourself digging. 

This is why games like minecraft are so damn popular  .

You guys have here by the 1 time 1 choice to call again rts players ,but for that there are doors that you must open again dont close.

Listen to players like ColaColin  and tatsujb they already give good exemples.

This was just a thought im a 40 old RTS player and im like the game and i now with map editor we will make great maps..

Well natural expantion is a term that existed before starcraft apeared. And again you will always have "natural expantions" in any kind of RTS. Its not specific to anything, (FAF)forged aliance forever has natural expantions on 1v1 maps in fact this term is used by almost everyone that designs maps in any RTS game.

I recall the expression being used on games like Dune and C&C. But doesnt matter.

If you dont like this expression think of it as "the first place or places a player goes outside his base to get extra eco".

Playing the Hard map, with the current AI, I feel that this is the case and only by rapidly expanding can you hope to win the match. Since I'm a fan of having a more defensive approach I think there needs to be an increase in resources closer to home and at each command post for the Hard map.

I appreciate the clarification. This is the kind of defensive play that I wanted to ensure was possible in Ashes and I think your ideas are the kind of balance I'm looking for.

Agreed

I personally really enjoyed the economy model of Sins since the resource extractors you had (there were a fixed number of them in the solar system) weren't the only economy (trade stations would increase the monetary flow allowing black market resource purchases at very large costs).

There definitely needs to be some way to increase the output of extractors and a better system for storage of materials. I think that is what makes a defensive strategy a possibility and prevents everyone from recklessly expanding because they will lose if they don't.