I hope you enjoyed my last post on how I think the Tiers system should be implemented in KnC. In this post I am going to argue for the inclusion of sub-factions in KnC.
For the purpose of this post, a sub-faction will be defined as:
1. A divergent branch of one of the larger factions, selected before the game, and which has access to unique structures, abilities, and units. They would have 2 unique experimental units per faction, one major and one minor.
The addition of sub-factions would a layer of strategic depth to Kn'C, while at the same time making it more fun to play. I can currently think of only one other RTS which implemented sub-factions: AoM. Their addition to that game certainly improved it.
Sub factions allow for a greatly enhanced strategic depth to the game. Instead of Faction A vs. Faction B vs. Faction C, it becomes Faction A(x,y,z) vs. Faction B(x,y,z) vs. Faction C(x,y,z). This also allows for greater replay value, and variety.
Each faction should have three divergent paths, each with accentuating three main facets of the race. For example, the Empire might have one path that enhances defence, one to improve their infantry, and one which improves the powers of their King.(These were chosen at random, as examples.) Players following the defensive route will be given a discount on their walls, start the round with an extra builder, and be given a minor experimental T4 wall. They will also have access to a special building unit from the start of the game. These are better at combat than other builders, and also build faster. However, they have a higher cost. Their 2nd Experimental could be a siege engine, specialized at the obliteration of enemy fortifications.
As another example, the "King" faction. This would spawn the King with extra HP, and upgraded weapons and armour. The King would possess an aura around him, which would boost building speed around workers, or boost HP, attack and speed around soldiers. He would have access to upgrades that other Kings would not, such as movement speed bonuses, and extra abilities. The minor experimental would transition the King's mount from a horse to a golden hawk. The King, for the major experimental, could summon a squad of some type of immensely powerful soldiers, the "King's Guard".
Those were two examples of how the sub-factions should be implemented. I believe they should be a combination of "mundane" buffs, such as decreased costs, build speeds, extra units etc. , as well as more exciting ones, such as new units, abilities, and experimentals.
I hope you enjoyed this post, look for my next about my thoughts on veterancy and research.|||no sub-factions please.|||Are you against the idea, or my interpretation of it?|||both.
the way I see your analysis is that each faction could be good at offence, or good at defence, etc. the result is that the actual faction is superfluous... anyone can try [almost] any tactic (those tactics unavailable to other factions likely to be way OP or UP), and the faction ends up as a pretty paint-job.
I can see that you're adding variety to each faction, but in doing so you're adding degeneracy and accidentally removing variety.
also, sub-factions are fine for story and fluff. I can completely understand political issues in the future, but that doesn't mean that a sub-faction should get better, say, artillery. sub-factions should fight under a different flag, for a different reason, but with the same tools.|||I don't think so. The vast majority of the units, structures etc. will be shared between the subfactions. In this way, nothing viable the faction possesses as a whole will be devalued, just certain aspects enhanced. But the defensive player, for example(who has already chosen this tactic) is given more resources to work with.
Your argument about balance is a valid one, however. I could see a balancing nightmare arise if this was implemented in a game.|||I think that the best way to create "sub factions" is through the use of the tech tree. First of all, get rid of the "Land, Sea, Air, Structure, King" model. Then implement a new model, possibly unique to each faction, that would encourage vastly different play styles. Every upgrade would effect every unit (except for the King, who gets his own tree). So, if there is a "Defense" tree, and you research "Personal Shields" every unit that would be eligible would get it, and only in the "Defense" tree could you get personal shields.|||scotchtape622|||I agree, I spent the better part of a week figuring that out
|||What about the sub-faction model for Emperor: Battle For Dune? There were three main factions (Harkonnen, Atreides, Ordos) and various subfactions (Sardaukar, Ix, Fremen, Tleilaxu, Space Guild). When picking a faction for skirmish, you had the option of picking any 2 as allies, which would give you access to 2 (for Ix 3) new units each subfaction. Each subfaction had a speciality, such as fremen units all having stealth, or Tleilaxu units being able to contaminate enemies (such that when they die, they become the tleilaxu units under control of the tleilaxu player, zombie style).There may have been benefits to not having sub factions, I think it was that "pure" units cost less or were more powerful.
Scotchtape's idea is also good, perhaps also make the most powerful upgrades in each tree mutually exlcusion with the most powerful upgrades in other trees, though this could lock people into one style of play and be bad.|||Scotchtape's idea is similar to the research system in Universe at War, where there were three paths for research with 4 levels each, and one could only get 6 techs (i.e. half the possible research options) which meant one could specialize in one path or spread themselves out. You could also delete research to free up a slot, but would lose any units or abilities that tech gave you.
However, the idea scotchtape has seems to not be about (temporary and relatively fluid) mutual exclusion so much as simplification of SupCom2's tech system, but still has the faction-specific tech options.
I suppose it also carries some similarity to CoH's Doctrine system, but that was much more about mutual exclusion than when scotchtape seems to be proposing. I'm mentioning it only for the sake of completeness.|||AtlasMcCoy|||And maybe an Empire Sub-Faction ''Home Guard'' would favor a denfensive player by giving units that work better on the defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment