I just wanted to ask the community (since it's easier than to ask each player individually, needs so much correspondance) whether there is support for merging the starting commanders, like in zK?

I thought the option could be moved from the modoption to within the game, so that you can choose between:
– Autoupgradeable commander
– Commander morphable in separate steps
– Wanking commander.

What do you think? I think all options except maybe the last are quite balanced. But the biggest benefit would be to reduce modoptions to reduce setup-time before each game.

Wait... what?

winking. the commander is winking.

in zK com-choice is part of the game but in xta it is part of the gamesetup just as deciding on a map, arm/core, teams, etc. so imo makes no sense.

put a different default in game/ah if that really is a problem (imo it is not)

CarRepairer,
If the com is idle for a long period it starts wanking and shoots d gun for cum fx. Seriously test it out, its no lie.
NO ONE LIKES IT DK, PLEASE TAKE IT OUT!

Jools,
I think that all depends on the stats of the coms. Are they the same as each other performance wise. Why would you pay resources to upgrade your com, and have it defenceless for a period, when an auto upgrade com can do the same for free? And no upgrade time penalty!

Wouldnt morph com be at an disadvantage vs auto upgrade com?

But then again i might be barking up the wrong tree here, i dont play ZK and im not too sure what your on about. Well, i "think" i know what your on about anyway lol

Autoupgrade vs manual upgrade could be user selectable in-game, just I'm not really interested into digging through LUA of other games to find the right one nor writing one myself (it's generally the same thing as faction select in BA, ZK variant uses some communication to PlanetWars server)

It may well be quite the opposite. Since autoupgradable com's abilities are directly proportional to it's XP, a commander that doesn't fight will have no upgrades. Manualy upgradable commander can be upgraded by one level right at start without any combat involved. It's about as powerfull as an autoupgradable commander at 0.2 XP but with the difference of having: lower cloak cost while moving, more resource production and storage, more buildpower, more selfrepair speed, longer d-gun range, somewhat longer radar and sonar range.

For the short minded, a detailed explanation of autoupgradable commander's abilities.

• 0.15 XP: 20% extra armour, secondary laser
• 0.3 XP Paralyzer beam (ARM) / Ion beam (CORE)
• 0.6 XP Sniper gun (ARM) / Sumo laser (CORE)
• 1.2 XP Satellite strike

Commanders gradualy increase their radar, sonar, LoS range and movement speed and cap at 1.5 XP (4x radar, 2x sonar, 1.5x LoS, 1.5x speed).
Laser range also increases gradualy till 2.25XP and 2.5x range (ARM, starts from 200) / 2XP and 2x range (CORE, starts from 260)

Because the stepwise upgradeable com gets a better radar, storage too, and then you save time by not making an estore or radar in the beginning. But the biggest advantage is by core, who has such a slow commander without the upgrade.

It also allows for a good air start strategy, while the commander is morphing you micro a bomber to heckle the enemy.

I added support for selecting commanders in game now, and also to switch factions. When tetsing I saw that the automatically upgraaded commander is quite strong too. In essence it boils down to whether you want to be strong immediately or later. Therefore it is a decision you make based on the facts that you play frontline or backline, or if needing extra storages early.

In any event, I think both options are competitive. Let's see how people opt...

One third joke option cpuld be that instead of commander you get 15 roaches.

are there now 2 gadgets that spawn startunits?
In gui_commchange.lua, are those hardcoded unitdefIDs?

Yes they are, I just followed the way they implemented faction change.

This gadget only operates when you have selected to choose commanders, otherwise it unloads.

its still bad, you can not rely on unitdefids always being the same.

Yes, but can you rely on the (internal) unit names to be the same? What would be a better way to do it with?

defid = UnitDefNames["unitname"].id

Lies. Falsifications. Propaganda.

This never worked.

It's easier to follow the code with unit names, but can't both of these change equally easily?

yes
no

with names, it is easier to follow and when the internal unit name changes, you will get an error, and hte gmae has to be updated, which is what you want!
if you use ID, and IDs change, you will possibly spawn an other unit, and thus get no error; and the code is less easy to read.