Suggestions and Questions

Currently units that are destroyed inflict no damage from debris. Don't expect this to change.

Awesome!  I like the low-tech solution, doesn't get much simpler or more stable than that :- )

Aircraft that are destroyed pop instantly and do not impact the ground. I don't expect this to change much since the animations are already there, aside from the explosion missing. I do agree with what you are saying though. SupCom got extremely annoying with "Your base is under attack" every time a aircraft was shot down and crashed into something. 

Adding to the suggestions portion of this post I'd like to add a few that I think would improve the game. As a preface to this I'd like someone to tell me if the feature is already included and I'm just missing it.

1) I'd like the ability to select all units of one type in view at the moment (e.g. select all bomber squadrons visible on the screen)

2) I'd like to have the blue movement pin (that's what I'm calling the order indicator) show up on the map even if the place I clicked on is in the fog of war (it lets me know that the order was acknowledged)

3) I'd like the blue pin to be red when issuing an attack command and maybe green for capture an outpost so I can tell what command my units think I gave them.

4) I think the units should have special abilities unique to the unit that use up some sort of rechargeable energy

5) I really liked the ranking system of capital ships in Sins (of a Solar Empire) that allowed more abilities to be added to the capital ship as the ship survived more attacks

6) I mentioned this in another post, but the ability to command units to move with the slowest unit in the meta group (I'm pretty sure that this is an intended feature of the meta group)

7) I'd like a stay command so that my units can stay near the outpost to capture it while fighting everyone else instead of moving around away from the outpost and making the capture time longer

8) The ability to destroy buildings (and units, but reading another post I think we can do that already)

9) I want to queue my research so that I don't need to worry about it during the game. That said I'd also like a lot more research items and a lot more tiers of research. I always liked the way that Sins had different ships be different levels of research and some required 5 research structures

10) Another research suggestion from Sins: I always liked the fact that Sins had Military research separate from Civilian research so you could work on building an economy while figuring out what new ship you want to research

11) Scout mode for the drone or scout unit that enables me to click a button and have the unit explore aimlessly all areas that have yet to be explored

12) Have the enemy units flash or something when I command my units to attack them (just once or twice to acknowledge the order was given and know you're attacking what you wanted to)

That's my list for the moment. I'll add more things as I think about them. I'm liking the game so far!

Besides being an ass you make very poor assumptions and spout utter nonsense.  Please only reply if you have something useful to say.  I cannot help that your game play is so poor that you must troll forums with your ineptitude, just as I cannot help being amused by your lack of ability to defend yourself from 20(!) tier 3 bombers.  That us utterly laughable!

If you are capable of having a civilized conversation and are willing to have one I will happily discuss this with you.  Otherwise I am not going to continue feeding the troll.

I think you and tatsu play not the same kind of FA. There are many ways to play the game. In some you need multiple czars to end it, in others a snipe of 20 t3 bombers will end it.

Sure there is if you have players who feel hour long turteling is fun. PvP does not need to mean "play to win asap".

 I might play like that and you might play like that but let's respect that others play PvP to just have a good time crashing robots together.

Let them play in the way they have fun.

If I take an RTS game and let 100 people play it I will most likely find 50+ different ways to accomplish a win. This means that almost everyone develops their own play style depending on the units and tactics allowed for the game. A lot of them will look the same, but will have small variations depending on the player. Instead of arguing over who is doing it right or wrong, lets explore the tactics and see what is fun. The pissing matches, name calling, and calling people out just kills any useful discussion. If you can't have a level headed discussion without resorting to childishness then just exit the forums.

This is the major distinction between casual gamers and the so-called "hardcore" gamers. The casual gamer isn't actively trying to solve the game. The casual gamer is doing things that appeal to different kinds of interests for them personally, such as wanting to see giant robots, or a preference for a specific type of play.

Where this gets confusing for a lot of people is that a lot of casual gamers will make strategic decisions for these sorts of reasons. Like a preference for being a hardcore turtle, for example. That's a strategic decision being made for non-strategic reasons. They haven't looked at the rules of the game, the map situation, their opponent's style, and so on, and made any kind of decision that turtling might be advantageous. No, they just blindly decide that they like turtling and do it.

Now I am all for a strategy game making it possible for players to express their creativity in this way. But it is very important from a game design perspective that this does not intrude on the actual game. I'm not going to tell anyone else how they should enjoy their game. They can play badly if they really enjoy it more because they think certain units are cool or like to roleplay The Alamo or whatever. If they play against someone who is actually trying to win, they will just lose.

But I am going to firmly object if these casual gamers want to change the design of the game to appeal to this type of silly, transient appeal.

In the actual game, players make decisions because they are trying to win. And there are clearly some things a player can do that are simply mistakes, and that is as it should be. Under absolutely no circumstances should you attempt to make a strategy game where "all strategies are equal" or where "you can play however you want." Apart from being fundamentally impossible, even if you succeeded you have (by definition) destroyed the significance of intentionally choosing one strategy over another, since they are all equal.

If you make an interesting, tense, tightly designed strategy game then the casual players will be none the wiser. They can do whatever it is they want to do and not worry about winning the game. As long as they play each other they will probably have a great time.

But serious players will turn away in disgust quite quickly if the game is designed to cater to those types of shallow appeal. Such as making a duel between one or two giant robot units the centerpiece of the gameplay, rather than a strategically interesting contest between armies fighting over resources and strategically significant terrain.

I don't mean to scrap up an old thread for no reason but as someone who has 100's of hours in FAF multiplayer...

Suicideing T4 air units in Sup Com rarely works in multiplayer because of the reclaim mechanic.  In fact, the reclaim mechanic can sometimes lead to long game stagnation because neither team/player wants to attack because a failed attack will more or less mean losing the entire game due to dumping so much mass near the enemy.

I'm pretty sure AoTS will never have a reclaim system in order to distance itself from Sup Com, but I don't see why plane wreck damage would be a problem right now.  Not to mention that a few point of damage from a plane wreck hitting a tank is a drop of water in the ocean compared to the fire a meta unit will be sustaining in combat.  It would be rare for a fight to turn on a plane wreck hitting something !