I think that it should take lots of res and a long time to build, this would cripple the building team, unless they are really winning, this way you would only get them as a game ender
definately. plus, i imagine that the superweapons would be Chemestry (napalm) and Biology (gas, because researching gas needs to be tested...), possibly electirical engineering (tremmor). and then of course, your going to have to have researched very high in which ever one aircraft is to get bombers (probably mechanical engineering). so the very least required to get napalm bombs is a long time researching Mechanical and then Chemistry. probably about 15 / 20 minutes of research alone, and several thousand Res.
Your reasoning here is flawed. It's the same escalation argument that I was pointing out before: the idea that since one thing is overpowered, rather than bringing it in line with the rest of the game we should add some other overpowered thing to "balance" it. Just because something has a counter doesn't mean it's well balanced. It is the idea that, rather than bringing 1 thing in line with the rest of the game, the rest of the game should be brought in line with that 1 thing. As a side note, Superweapons focus the game on getting the superweapon and using it (and commanding forces to that end) rather than commanding forces well in a general battle. There are plans for something that will end a game that would otherwise be indefinitely drawn out, but I don't believe anything more than that.
Some sort of a super weapons is needed; taken as an example look at supreme commander; where the battle can wage for ever; since the resources are infinate; and if the two commanders are dilligant; they will be dancing all over the map not really getting anywhere; until one tries to get nukes; and starts loosing ground fast; and just at the last moment the nukes are let fly crippling the oppenents economy; and ending in a gg... Something similar is needed in Empires; as "Death By tickets" Is reallly anti climatic and when the tickets are at a low; you will see two sides camping (Im thinking about when the larger games become feasable with a player influx) Some sort of a thing is needed to make one of the sides do "That last push breath before death" Be it the sence of impending doom as they haull out some super tank or something; or bombers dropping nuclear/biological or other weapons; making the once camped front line collapse with one side trying to break out and put pressure back on the enemy.
Quite obviously. It should be timetaking and expensive. It could be a last-chance weapon for a team under siege. You know, those games where the enemy has the upper hand (more refineries, highground, or something) and you can predict their victory, as they are advancing all the time and are ahead in research. The losing team in a stalemate could still have one last chance to break out of the siege, but if they'd fail and lose the radar/aircraft factory, they should be fucked up and lose within minutes. If you've ever played Total Annihilation: Spring (and the same features are possibly in the original TA too, but I haven't played it) then you'd know about the nukes. They are perfectly balanced, and are only used in 30% of matches. They are timetaking and expensive to build, and often a team trying to quickly win a game with them loses fast because enemy ground forces reach their base way before the nuke silo is done. Not everybody tries to get them, definetely not, because it's very often a too big risk. Most people try to just improve ground forces and that often guarantees relatively good chances to win, but some situations offer usage for nukes. That's exactly what I'd want in Empires, albeit a BIT less powerful (the nukes in TA: Spring can wipe out any vehicles from like, a 50 meter radius). Try out the game, it's free: http://spring.clan-sy.com/
take in mind this consideration; wow factor WMD's would really draw in new players, and give a platoon something to fear. ------------------------------------- @falcon X: I think you're overestimating the power of these weapons. although they would be devistating to a very close group, even the most powerful, lets take napalm, would only be able to kill on a realistic run 3 - 4 people, if they were very close together. take in mind that this is a weapon, cost 500 res to build, huge amounts of time to research, and so obviously it's not going to be used often. given that AA turrets will be guarding the enemy base, it's not going to be a game finisher as much as tanks, infantry or artilliary are. moreover, it would be a weapon for the front line. you're troops are being pushed back on the chokepoint of canyon, so you call in support, etc. take in mind that BF2142, with similar gameplay, gives several classes the ability to call in strikes that can easily kill many people, yet it hardly effects gameplay.
Perhaps the powerfulness should not be measured with amounts of people. It's easier to just say that if you know there's a bunch of people somewhere (for example, the middle highground in Badlands), be it 2 or 20, then you can scorch them all to death by dropping the napalm bomb somewhere around there, without having to be concerned about how accurately you will hit. Dropping it in the right area at the right time should be enough to clear that area of infantry for a while.
or at least deny the enemy a passage. I picture napalm doing a trail of fire as long as the diameter of that center bit on badlands, but only as wide as 2 VF's...
I only find death by tickets/long attrition to happen only on badlands?(whatever the one with 75 tickets is) and ONE server. I agree with falconx on this.
My last response was to JJ45's contention that the bombs would be extremely powerful. As I've said, there are plans for a weapon to end stalemates where one team clearly has the upper hand.
It shouldn't necessarily always *end* stalemates. If one team gets the upper hand and the losing team starts researching/building bombs early enough (which further makes it possible for the enemy army to gain more territory faster, as you aren't investing as much in ground forces as the enemy is). If you're lucky, you get the bombs before the enemy army reaches your base, and you can bomb them a few hundred meters backwards, and then struggle to keep that gained territory, and hold it until the next bombs arrive to save the day. Then the enemy commander will start building anti-air defense, and maybe getting bombs as well. This allows you to invest in ground forces, and thus the match will become extremely balanced in a few moments. Wouldn't that be an interesting match?
yeah of course. though it's worth taking in mind that the attacking team almost always have the more research. right? not always, but usually. one exception to that is money, where the team that rushes with tanks is always the last to get arty, which i love. some maps are like this, but often the team that attacks most has the most res.
