Unit Pricing

[Szei]

If you buff snipers and specials, runners certainly do not counter them. I especially question your 'runners counter specials' point. A buffed special can have 3-4 hp depending on the unit. Your opponent shouldn't let you get 2 runners within position to hit his special in the first place anyway, but even if they do, it will cost you 4 wits (moving and attacking) to deal 2 damage to that 3-4 hp unit. That's extremely ineffective.

You are right though that Gani (it looks like a C but I just checked, in chat it actually shows up as a G) did use his scouts ineffectively. However, keep in mind that by not attacking with them he actually wasn't using 2 wits (on a turn where he made 2 scouts). It's arguable that he would have been put in an even worse position if he had attacked with those scouts dealing 1 damage each to what, a soldier? A heavy? A buffed sniper?

Also you quote me saying "scouts aren't too good" and then say I'm wrong by talking about how scouts are good. Well yes, scouts are good. Good doesn't inherently mean 'too' good.

All of your following points are true though which is why good players do make a lot of scouts. That is not the part I disagree with.

"They are good early because you need to see the board and medics and snipers havn't had time to move into protective formations." Check.

"They are good mid game because you can build them while also attacking with your starter units." Check.

"They are good late game because combat can leave even big units at 1 HP. Also scouts are the only units who can cross the board in time to actually support an enemy base assault." Check.

What I disagree with is your statement that "units on the field means [sic] very little." I have yet to lose to a player who doesn't spend any money mobilizing their other units (though I'm by no means a great player, I play mostly masters). It's true that I often neglect using my free sniper because usually it's way out of position and mobilizing them to a useful point is expensive. But I most certainly make use of every other type of unit in conjunction with my scouts.

I think it's not so much that we disagree what is happening in the game (i.e. people making a lot of scouts, scouts are good, etc), rather we disagree on what we find makes a good game. I'll lay out my understanding of your opinion on the matter and where I agree/disagree.

You think good players make mostly scouts. I agree. The majority of the units I produce in most games are scouts for the reasons you state as well as some you left out (scouting info, picking off medics and snipers, harassing wit spaces, picking away at the opponent's base, etc).

You think this is a problem. I disagree. Why? Because like ArtNJ and CombatEX I feel that looking at the units being used is more important than the units being produced. Runners are the weakest unit and are often thrown far into the enemy lines. As a result they have low survivability. This means if you want to maintain map control you're going to want to replace your Runners to reveal more of the map as your Runners die. In essence your Runners die more often so you need to build them more often. If I lose all my soldiers, I'm going to want to rebuild some because you can't hold of Runners effectively with other Runners alone. You need units like Soldiers or Heavies to tank some damage.

"In fact, I have a very good feeling OML designed it this way because if not given these units for free, the only units produced would be runners."

You think that if players didn't start with free units, players would likely only build Runners. I disagree. It would depend on the map, but imagine this. Player 1 builds only runners while player 2 builds only soldiers. The only way player 1 can win going on the offensive while player 2 defends is if he can get enough runners up to player 2's base and attack it 5 times before player 2 can defend it. I'll concede that depending on the map this *could* be difficult (2 spawn maps with many base openings, on 1 spawn maps player 2 with soldiers shouldn't have much of a problem), but in general even as player 2 (which makes a huge difference in a rush scenario), player 2 should be able to get in a favorable enough position in time. If the soldier player gets in the way such that the runner player needs to engage, the runner player CAN NOT WIN by continuing to make runners. 2 wits to deal 1 damage to a unit with 3 health is going to take way too many wits to break through. And remember, this is being generous and assuming the runner spam player is player 1. As player 2 it would be even more difficult to pull off.

Long story short, even without free non-runner units, players would still need to make more than just runners.

Ultimately the game hasn't been out long enough to know the optimal unit composition (and it depends on position, map, etc), but I'm fairly certain you need more than just runners on the board to win the game.

If soldiers died as often as runners, you would see a much higher soldier production in addition to runners. Runner production is so high because, yes, they are good units just like soldiers, medics, etc, but they die more often so you need to remake them more often.

_________________________
BASIC POINTS
_________________________

- Unit Composition > Unit Production
- Mass Runner without other unit support =/= definitive winning strategy (more likely a losing strategy)
- Other units are necessary too but do not die as often so they do not need to be remade as often



Anyway, no more use in discussing this any further. If you still don't like the game the way it is, no further discussion is going to sway your opinion. I personally find the current state of the unit balance makes for an enjoyable experience, even if it means producing mostly runners, because despite this I still am using the other units too.

Ultimately we should wait for the metagame to evolve further before any drastic change is considered.