A thought about T4

[prodromos]

I 've never really liked the idea of nerfing the T4 units , "so that building them is actually viable". To me nerfing them , equates to messing with t3 and virtually canceling it. You 're not supposed to be able to build them early; they belong to a very advanced "T4" economy, if we can mint this term.Why not build t3 assault bots, t3 artillery, t3 units first? If you build a t4 because you deserve it(economy as a result of strategy-battles) it should be ridiculously powerful as well as expensive.
Beginning of rant
Giving credit to eternal whiners, destroyed supcom2:
1. oh oh too difficult to reclaim, just remove it
2. oh oh the units, have problems in pathfinding waisting computational power, let's replace it with the unnatural flowfield(yupee battleships and colossi skating on ice like ballerinas!)
3.oh my god too high graphics requirements(lol), let's make it look like a toy from the AOE era.
4. whine! my t1 units can't be used in later stages, let's buff them so that a tiny winy mouse can bring down a t4 behemoth(oh yeah the revenge of little people!)
and countless more whines!-end of rant..
Like it or not, supcom can be a lot of different games, from the starcraftesque t1-t2 rush, to the countless hours lasting "nirnaeth arnoediad" over huge maps and militarily established territories. What kind of battle you like to participate in is a matter of personal taste, just don't impose it on others, thus corrupting the essence of the game.Noone would prohibit in this case to accompany your t4 with t3, but it would retain its character of inspiring awe and panic!
Buffing the t4, would expose possible weaknesses of t3(ie if it is possible to win a t3 opponent while you 're at t3 yourself; if you had necessarily to tech to t4 this would indicate imbalance)

[RoLa]

I 've never really liked the idea of nerfing the T4 units , "so that building them is actually viable". To me nerfing them , equates to messing with t3 and virtually canceling it. You 're not supposed to be able to build them early; they belong to a very advanced "T4" economy, if we can mint this term.Why not build t3 assault bots, t3 artillery, t3 units first? If you build a t4 because you deserve it(economy as a result of strategy-battles) it should be ridiculously powerful as well as expensive.

What is wrong with t4? the air exps are a real threat to the opponent acu. The game is all about threats and counters so why should a a nuke can be countered and an exp not? And countering ground exps with t3 bots is only an option if you have the stronger economy. Meaning you must have at least the same mass/energy income but a lot more build power(engies).

[prodromos]

Forgive my tone, it's most probable that exps as they stand right now are harmoniously mixed with other units and well enough balanced. What I am proposing is based on an idea, a vision if you like, but the technical details of applying it, would probably require extensive testing.(i.e. I wouldn't trade a proven functioning order with an untested one).

It seems, I am a purist; to me exps should mainly be countered by other exps(but not only), because in the t4 stage it would be more elegant to build your own exp-counter, than the equivalent of a t4 in t3 army(i.e. 50 bricks to bring down a colossus). So the whole idea about seriously buffed t4, is the de facto creation of a distinct t4 stage; difficult to reach, but rewarding when you make it.

[ColonelSheppard]

what exactly do you want to tell us?

[da_monstr]

I think he is pissed because his colossus got killed by 50 bricks?

[Ato0theJ]

50 bricks to bring down a colossus

Are you nuts? That's more than double the mass in bricks vs the colossus. T4 should lose head to head to the equivalent counter in t3 units worth of mass due to units being much harder to manage and build up to than t3 units. I.E. And purely air player can make a colossus despite not making a single land fac while the other player has to tech up twice. T4 isn't supposed to be the 'I win button' It is a single unit with the firepower of many single units and acts as a economy drain.

[prodromos]

"I think he is pissed because his colossus got killed by 50 bricks?"
"re you nuts? That's more than double the mass in bricks vs the colossus. T4 should lose head to head to the equivalent counter in t3 units worth of mass due to units being much harder to manage and build up to than t3 units.
T4 isn't supposed to be the 'I win button' It is a single unit with the firepower of many single units and acts as a economy drain."

I couldn't be pissed about such thing because Aeon is not my race.
I brought it as an example, i.e. a colossus should not only be as powerful as 50 bricks, it should also be that much expensive.
I absolutely agree that T4 should not be an "i win button" and be of about equivalent cost as x amount of t3 units.
What "I am trying to tell you" is give t4 a distinct place at the very end of the game, and give t3 more air to breathe.
If this is done correctly(ie balanced and not as many of you fear about op exps; I wouldn't for the life of me want such an abomination as a unit that is unstoppable), I feel it would give the exps the sense of grandeur and epicness they have lost since vanilla supcom. I may be wrong, but you never know if you don't try first. Anyway, part of my motivation to speak about this is supcom2 and its frail exps; having an awesome-looking but worthless unit early in the game is not the right way to do it. I feel the new patch especially with the engie redesign is close to my way of thinking, as well as correcting the bug of the bombers early in faf. If the transports could also be changed, so that they could endure a little longer, or load and unload a little quicker, it would allow for some very interesting strategies.

[prodromos]

" I.E. And purely air player can make a colossus despite not making a single land fac while the other player has to tech up twice. "
What I am suggesting means that "a purely air player" would not even come close to finishing an experimental before being overrun by every kind of t1 t2 and t3 units .
My suggestion implies the player building the colossus has pretty much dominated a significant part of the battlefield for a long time.
It also implies that he/she probably has the good habit of cooperating with the allies, because building an exp would stall the economy so badly ,he/she would hardly think building it alone!

[CopyyyCattt]

First decide what you want the XPs to be...If T3 should be better for cost why make XPs? only thing to do is make them they into defense breakers...nothing more...They should be the units you get when t3 cant get past the defense..At super late game which most games should not get to...T4 should be rare.
They are not fun units..You just send them in.
T3 and especially t2 are much more interesting tech tiers...
nerf the viability of XPs they should appear in less games.

[Mycen]

They are not fun units..You just send them in.
T3 and especially t2 are much more interesting tech tiers...
nerf the viability of XPs they should appear in less games.

I don't think this is accurate. The only reason that XPs seem the way you describe is because at T4 for all factions combined there are a total of fifteen units to choose from. T2 and T3 have many more unit choices, UEF alone has what, over thirty units to choose from at T2 alone?

The choice of what units to build and where and how to deploy them in what combinations is what makes SupCom a fun and interesting game. Following that reasoning, T4s should not be meant primarily as rarely-seen 'line-breakers' that have such high costs you wouldn't see them and an army at the same time. Balancing them that way causes them to be "not fun units" where all you can do is "just send them in." If you balance them such that a player is encouraged to use them as part of a larger force they are much more interesting.