Gameplay: Anti-air as a larger part of strategy.

[Haro]

I've been perusing the forums lately and have seen a lot of posts concerning the lack of ground transports used in PS1. Quite simply, the Galaxy trumped ground transports in every aspect, with more armor, speed, mobility, and could easily assault bases in spite of AA, which I felt never had much usage in PS when I played. So my suggestion was that the only way we can make ground transports more viable is by buffing AA to discourage Galaxies from always dropping troops. Or at least make it harder.

This got me thinking as to how AA could be better implemented. A stronger AA vehicle than the skyguard is a must, like a kind of AA missile-toting tank. Better AA turrets for bases would also be important for establishing bases as a kind of no-fly zone for the enemy. AA is not just about shooting down aircraft but also creating area denial. Air defenses are made in a way that makes you think twice about going in, something ps1 seemed to lack for me when I flew reavers or galaxies.

How should this be balanced, though? While shifting more focus onto ground transports would be great, we can't make it so that galaxies of PS2 are like deliverers of PS1. But there's a difference in that, without AA, galaxies and aircraft in general once again become a superior force.

So, to get to the meat, I think that introducing stronger AA will create a new incentive for coordination, and add another level of strategic complexity to the game. Make some AA, like the tanks and stationary turrets, strong but rare, a vital resource for the empire controlling them and a vital target for the force opposing them. If an empire manages to destroy enemy AA, they gain a huge advantage in that they can now use their air power freely. Without it, they can still fly, but at far greater risk in certain areas.

A hierarchy of AA units will allow this type of gameplay to extend to different areas of a continent in certain ways. AA zones will be most focused around bases, naturally, followed by towers, hotly contested zones, and then uncontested zones. Trying to gal-drop on a base, where at the very least you will have several powerful anti-air missile turrets, will not be possible unless you destroy the turrets (or possibly their radar?) Towers will have fewer and maybe smaller turrets, and so are more vulnerable, but still fairly potent. During battles in open ground, a smart commander will be sure to include some anti-air tanks in his force, but will need to guard them well if he doesn't want a formation of reavers and liberators to ruin his day. Finally, a group of ground units moving through an uncontested zone to a battle may want to bring a skyguard or keep a few AA infantry handy in case they run into a mosquito or reaver.

There can be other additions to this dynamic, such as skill trees for aircraft raising resistance to radar lock or AA extending their vertical range. My main thought behind this series of ideas is not to weaken aircraft, but to limit them. Ground vehicles are limited by the fact that they have to navigate through different types of terrain and that there are many weapons and vehicles designed to damage them. Air vehicles should similarly be limited in where they can go by improving AA, but these limits can be removed through cooperation and strategy, with the reward of air superiority.