Mutually-exclusive upgrades

Something that Age of Mythology introduced (or as is more likely, made me aware of - I am sure there is precedent somewhere) is the concept of mutually-exclusive upgrades. I would like to see the tech tree treated more like an RPG's talent tree, with permanent, mutually exclusive decisions that you must make on a per-unit basis. This would allow you to customize your army on a per-game basis to fit the playstyle you are using.



This is similar to the upgrade system in Supreme Commander 2, however making upgrades mutually exclusive creates long-term impact to your decisions, and would greatly contribute to replay value.





Some examples of possible mutually exclusive decisions:



Equipping spearmen with a two-handed weapon for heavier damage and a bigger bonus against cavalry (you now train Halberdiers)
-or-
Equipping spearmen with a shield for protection against arrows (you now train Phalanxes)



Equipping one type of light infantry with mounts for mobility
-or-
Upgrading one type of light infantry to medium/heavy infantry



Reduced building cost
-or-
Increased building durability



A more extreme example:



Horse Cavalry
-or-
Elephant/Camel Cavalry
-or-
Ostrich/Bear Cavalry





And for some broader-sweeping strategic examples:



Suppose I want my strategy to emphasize ranged damage - then I might focus armor upgrades and defensive bonuses for infantry to protect my ranged troops, while converting light cavalry to horse archers.



Suppose I want to play an offensive game - then I might turn one infantry unit into heavy infantry with huge shields for wall-breaking duty, and equip another type of infantry with two-handed weapons and damage bonuses to serve as stormtroopers once the turtles have done their job.





The great thing about doing this in an RTS is you don't have to kill yourself "balancing" the tech/talent trees so that they are all equally interesting/powerful. Instead you can add these decisions on a unit-by-unit basis as is appropriate, sensible, or interesting.|||supcom1's commander did have mutually exclusive upgrades, with the purpose of making people choose what they wanted their commander to become.



SC2 completely sidelined that concept of choice, and instead we now have the simple question of *when* you fill up research and factory upgrades.



For example, factories should either be upgraded with a complete weapons suite (AA, decent artillery), Shields, OR engineering suite (limited economy income & build cost reduction)





Hence, i'd love to see a return of mutually exclusive upgrades & research.|||re1wind|||No, that's wrong. How many games have you played where you have maxed out the entire research tree? If you upgrade your ACU fully, you neglect your land units, essentially making them mutually exclusive. SupCom2's system simply allows for more choice, while taking nothing from the gameplay.|||As soon as I have my economy going in SC2 I tend to churn out between six and twelve research facilities.



Any tech you pass up initially can be had in fairly short order, so I find there is no real decision there.



Certainly there are advantageous orders in which you can invest your research points, such as the shield generator and the research income upgrades, but I want to create dilemmas that have lasting impact on the outcome of a game. The upgrades in SC2 do not do this.



I want to make the player choose between 40% extended range and naval leg technology - not which one they want to get first.|||Has anyone else noticed the ridiculous bad and wrong this idea is made of?



Let's say this gets implemented, and you can only choose once what you want your units to become (either long range, short range, or that other crap you put in there). Now, I scout you, and your research resources and time are immediately wasted.



I research the option on my units that hard counters the one you went for, and my units beat your units for the rest of the game.



gg no re.|||thats not what he means. he means you start out with simple basic units, and then individually upgrade every one sepratly. like Sacu's in SC. so if you build 20 light infantry, you could turn half of them in too spearman, and half of them into heavier infantry.



personally, I would love to see how this system works in a real game. I do see one problem though. with this system implemented, you are gonna see alot of people complaining about the lack of units in the game. I'm not bothered with it, but allot of other people will be.|||My point still stands. If I scout you and upgrade my units to counter yours, the time and resources you have spent on upgrades are now utterly useless.|||AgentSmith16|||What tit means, Agent Smith, is that hard counters become softer, in one strain of thought.



It could best be used for more important units/structures where the extra micro --choosing what upgrade to choose-- is of more importance than upgrading individual units. I.e. your barracks factory starts with a single archer turret for self defence and has the following mutually exclusive upgrades: Masonry upgrade (200%hp & regen), 3 extra archer turrets, or enhanced training (gives units one free veteran level). Each of these upgrades has strong implications for your play style, super-strong building, 300% self-defending barracks, or get free 10% health & damage bonus on all units produced from the barracks.



These upgrades should be cancel-able, just like supcom1's commander. You could even add tiers to them: i.e.



Teir 1 of masonry dobules hitpoints. (+100%)

Tier 2 of masonry triples hitpoints. (+200%)

Tier 3 of masonry quadruples hitpoints (+300%)



Tier 1 of archer turret adds a second archer turret.

tier 2 adds a third turret.

tier 3 adds a fourth turret.



Tier 1 of training adds 10% to unit health & damage. (veteran lvl 1)

tier 2 of training adds another 10% to unit health & damage (vet' lvl 2)

tier 3 of training adds another 10% to unit health/damage (vet' lvl 3)



Something like that is what *I* mean, and i'm not sure if that is what the OP means.|||honestly. I'm fine with both your suggestions.|||AgentSmith16|||Mr Pinguin|||Quote:|||I definitely like this idea. I always try and advocate variation and customization over broad sweeping upgrades. I too was a fan of Age of Mythology and the minor god system they used.



A similar concept could be used in Kings and Castles to align with gods, ally with other factions, grant magic and even guide research, depending on what's implemented within the game and how it functions.



For example, if there are different schools of magic in the game, you could only have access to one type. For god allegiance, you would have to choose between an aggressive god the gives combat bonuses or a passive god that improves castles. There could be several to chose between.



Something I have not seen before, along a similar vein, would be to have research breakthroughs. Every so often players are given the choice to pick one of say two or three avenues of research to improve and customize their kingdom. They would represent scientific discoveries made within the kingdom. As the king you could chose to pursue one and would receive the bonuses of the chosen research after a small period of time. The choice of breakthroughs would depend on how you run your kingdom.



To expand further, let's say you train mostly heavy melee cavalry with some dark sorcerers for support and had some defenses upgraded . At the five minute mark of the game, a small icon lights up indicating recent scientific discoveries. By clicking the icon a window appears with three choices displayed:



- Superior horse breed: Local horse breeders have begun trying to breed hardier, more roughed horses do to the increased demand for heavy cavalry, with a little help will can create faster and stronger cavalry. Heavy cavalry will gain additional hit points and speed.



- Crippling Mushrooms: It has been discovered that by using the so called "Crippling Mushrooms" in dark magic portions, spell casters can increase decay effects with casting dark magic. With a little time and resources we can find the right balance to maximize their effect. Sorcerers' decay spells do additional damage.



- Iron mortar: Experiments using iron in mortar are proving fruitful to increasing wall strength, however more work needs to be done to properly find the best mix. If we promote this discovery we can soon expect our walls to be stronger.|||This reminds me of chaos in warhammer. Choosing a god for a squad gave it a more distinct role. Khorne for the assault minded, slaanesh for those who prefered to strike quickly, etc. but they kept their basic role of fire support. In other words, I'm for this by-unit upgrading.