X3M

True. I remember 3 moments where I had to adjust my calculations as well. 1. The formula all above in this topic has movement speed and attack range on the same side. That is wrong. Because 0 damage with infinite attack range would make the unit infinite expensive. And a lot of formula's on the internet do the same. Why was it there in the first place? Many thought that a longer attack range would add to the durability of an unit. While true, it is movement speed that truely adds to durability, simply by moving away. 2. Attack range on equal grounds as movement speed? That didn't stay too long. Many games showed that the attack range is taking place on a 2d field. While movement is 1d. What I mean is that if you have a terrain. And you want to reach your target. Using movement, would need you to move to every spot possible on the map in case of the most crowded map with impassable terrain. As for attack range, a simple direct trajectory is the case in 99.9% of the RTS games. This means that the average terrain creates a factor between the movement and attack range. You only notice the effect of long range weapons if the designers did it wrong. I noticed this in Red Alert 2 with the Prism Tanks, but also the sniper and the GI inside a IFV. 3. The size of units. The combat density is one that is done wrong more than other value's. And this includes a limit on units as well. I started to look into this a lot more when I was making Starcraft/Broodwar maps with an altered RPS. The Siege Tanks in there are actually super small and packed together. Especially when I applied my own rules. According to my calculations, the Siege Tanks would cost 800, while marines cost 100. First, I thought it was the cumulative versus squared rule. But I quickly could rule this out. I discovered that due to the size effects, eventually I had to ram up the cost to 1200. This is over 10 years ago by now. As for theory and practise. I never said that you make it with theory alone. There are still aspects like: - Player Skills Slow/fast, dumb/smart, where do you place your balance? - Resource managment Testing on money maps, show the best results - Visuals How much can players see? Highest attack range, like in Warcraft 2? Or lowest tier attack range, like in Warzone2100? What about fog of war? - Special designs/Unique functions Some units, you need only 1 or 2 of. Maybe 3. Or a dedicated squad. If you build too little or too much of them, they don't serve their function anymore. Sounds like the Flame ATV from KKnD But, the buggy/bike from the C&C games is similar. Which are great example for the 3 practical balances regarding the Flame ATV: A player needs to be smart. As for being fast, not sure, maybe? Resource managment in the map has to be relatively low. The unit is cost efficient, but only at a small number. Spamming has no use due to short range attacks. Visuals is not a key here. 1 can do the job. But if the enemy defends properly, Build like 4 to 6. No more. Or use 2 squads of 4. It depends on the map layout and defence structures. Their purpose? Find unquarded enemy structures. Preferably the resource managment of the enemy. As for the Buggy/Bike: A player needs to be fast. Resource managment requires the player to have decent defences as well. where it matters. As for attacking, a nice mix of buggies and bikes is what matters. Visuals is key here. There is a lot of FoW in C&C3. While in C&C td the vision for the player is simply small. You attack all over the place. In C&C td, 6 bikes. Or you spam them. In C&C3 you spam them anyways. The buggies are there for being fodder and dealing with some infantry if needed. But also to create even more chaos for the enemy. You poke all over the place. Until you get the upper hand and snowball your way into the enemy. In KKnD it is more of a tactical move, part of a grander strategy. In C&C3, clearly it is RTS all the way with that tactic. The player simply needs to see for when it needs to switch tactics at the right time.

The post from Posted August 4, 2013 contains a mistake in the calculations. While it was used for a board game. It doesn't work that way. I never corrected that one. A few extra modifications on these, and you can use most of them for RTS as well. I see some on the internet. Assuming that they differ due to different game mechanics in their RTS. Most common used formula's in my department Main balance formula: Stats = a * ( Body + Weapon ) + b * ( 2* sqrt( Body * Weapon ) ) / ( a+b ) Initial H/D ratio. You simply pick a number that indicates how many turns or seconds a basic ammount of damage is needed for destroying a basic ammount of health: = HDratio Normally: Cost = Stats = Size Used for stacking cover mechanics. The SumSize gives different proportions to units that take cover inside things: SumSize = Body + Weapon Used for hiding cover mechanics. The Size of a design can also decide on the combat density of an army. Smaller means a higher density: %Cost = %Stats / sqrt( %Size ) Basicly, if the size is only 25% of what it is supposed to be. The costs will double. I left the %Stats in there, it is always 100% stats, so you can replace it with a 1. Please note that the Armor mechanic works completely different in every RTS game. In some, its subtraction. In others, it is part of a RPS system. Here it is part of a "RPS system" and receives a weight percentage: Body = %Armor * Health * %BodyAttributes * ( Speed + HDratio ) / HDratio Map design can be of influence on movement and projectile movement. Most modifications are withing the Attributes. But there is always a fixed factor between the Body and Weapon calculation: = Rf Personally, I always use 1.5 here. But the average number in RTS is actually sqrt( 2 ). %Damage is the mirror of %Armor: Weapon = %Damage * Damage * %WeaponAttributes * ( Rf * Range + HDratio ) HDratio Some designs can move AND attack at the same time: Weapon = %Damage * Damage * %WeaponAttributes * ( Speed + Rf * Range + HDratio ) HDratio Instead of simple Damage, you can also add in a SalvoFactor or DPS number in the Weapon formula above. However, the SalvoFactor is a sum of the moments that damage is dealt. And each moment has its own weight: SalvoFactor = Sum of all DamageMoments DamageMoment = (( HDratio / ( HDratio + 1 ) ) ^Moment ) / HDratio Salvo's can contain smaller salvo's. With each smaller salvo having its own moment weight. A simple example; if you pick a HDratio of 5 seconds. And the weapon shoots every second. With the first moment at exactly 1 second. The second moment at exactly 2 seconds, etc. The SalvoFactor will be 1. If you however start at 0 seconds immediately, your SalvoFactor will be 1.2. And to balance this, the damage should be 5/6th. A HDratio of 5 is actually very short. The fun starts when you consider a higher cooldown. So you fire every 5 seconds after the first one being on 0 seconds? The SalvoFactor here will be 0.33438. In a sense, this design may deal roughly 3 times more damage in order to be balanced again. In my boardgame, splash damage works different than in RTS games. In RTS games, there are several ways. But the main rule is that it is a yes/no mechanic, depending on the targets choices. This means that an explosion causing splash damage, will get an 50% extra weight for each additional possible target. In most RTS, smaller units can receive more damage this way. In rarer occasions, there is a maximum ammount of targets that actually get hit in the explosion. This is based on the fact that certain units absorb the damage, like in real life. This factor is often put in the %WeaponAttributes: %WeaponAttributes = 1 + 0.5 * NumberOfPossibleTargets If the game allows lower damage value's, further away from the centre of the explosion: %WeaponAttributes = 1 + 0.5 * %Exploson * NumberOfPossibleTargets + 0.5 * %Exploson2 * NumberOfPossibleTargets2 + ...

It is not the core. It is the giftpackage that finishes it. In order to understand it. I explained it with the 2 most basic value's. As practical example. Where I got this idea from would be KKnD. KKnD is the best example. Here you can tell which units act as tanks and which as support. These tanks often move forward too. The AI shoots at the units that are the closest. The player can get an advantage here by aiming for easy soft targets that normally give dps. The units that are tanky, compared to their damage: Survivors have the Anaconda Tank and ATV. But also the Swat, these infantry are relatively cheap, but very durable in small forces combat. The Mutants have the Monster Truck, which just so happens to be 99,9% balanced to the ATV. And the Mastodon is the equivalent of the Anaconda Tank. They excel in their durability. And their infantry version would be the shotgunner. While the game has a lot of assymetry. The functional uses of the units are almost always, the same. My boardgame was another example. But that project slowly died due to creeping. As for other RTS. You can tell the absense of this root factor in C&C td. As for the core for balance. The H/D ratio, is THE key number for the weight factors of the movement speed, attack range, salvo (or dps, but cooldown and charging included). Map design also adds weight to the attack range. Body has the health, movement speed and other body related value's. Weapon has the attack range and salvo. As for the whole game balance. You have a basic formula. Based on the H/D ratio. Then you wrap it up with the root factor. Getting advanced? If you wonder if your H/D ratio changes due to having more or less support combat units. You could recalculate this one. And recalculate the entire list, assuming all units are used equally. A little macro. And you end up with a mathimatically balanced list. Still theory. Playtests will show how much players truly use certain units. Now for the fun part. Upgrade the list with the weight factors on how often the units are build. If they weight more. Their influence on the H/D ratio will weight more as well. Recalculate the entire list again. I believe that C&C3 didn't use the root factor to begin with. But I suspect they did use a matrix balance on multiplayer results. C&C3 also has an important factor...Size, thus the combat density sometimes matters when large armies are used. And another factor that matters with low unit counts. Would be the fodder/tank ratio.

Right, I guess in simpler/different terms? When you have the body value's and weapon value's added up. There is an optimal balance at a 50%+50%=100% value. But when you start shifting the percentages. To either meat or support. The overal effectivness of 1 unit will drop. Compared to the most optimal design. You can see this by simply multiplying the value's of the body and weapon. 50 * 50 = 2500 40 * 60 = 2400 30 * 70 = 2100 20 * 80 = 1600 10 * 90 = 900 0 * 100 = 0 The productvalue is what matters in combat. And the lower it gets, the less this unit is effective. If you apply the root factor for calculating the costs. You get: 2* sqrt( body * weapon ) 2* sqrt( 25 * 100 ) = 100 and the producvalue will then be: 25 * 100 = 2500. Which brings it back to the maximum possible effectivness. Of course, we cannot have infinities. Thus we need to add a bit of the normal calculation. 1:1 portions ( body + weapon + 2 * sqrt( body * weapon ) ) /2 With 30%+75%. We get: ( 30 + 75 + 2 * sqrt( 30 * 75 ) ) /2 = 100. And the productvalue is 30 * 75 = 2250. This is now 90%. 1:5 portions ( body + weapon + 10 * sqrt( body * weapon ) ) /6 With 30%+80%. We get: ( 30 + 80 + 10 * sqrt( 30 * 80 ) ) /6 = 100. And the productvalue is 30 * 80 = 2400. This is now 96%. While previously we had 2100 or even 1600, which equals to only 84% or 64%.

Very well. If there are any questions, feel free to ask. This balance theory looks at the fact that in RTS, players can attack those with the lowest ratio of body points to weapon points. And that synergy between 2 different designs, is not an option for the players. First I explain without the balance. First some basics. When you design an unit. The design consists of value's that belong to a body. And value's that belong to a weapon. I am not going into detail of all the value's that can be in a RTS game. But the most important ones, for explaining this, would be: Body: Health Weapon: Damage That is all we need for understanding this. We are not going to look at movement speed, attack range, size or other stuff. Just the 2 mentioned above. Of course we need to shoot an X times with Damage before we get to Health. The cost of Body is Health. The cost of Weapon is X * Damage. Most designers initially add the 2 together. What you get is that a well balanced design had 50% Body and 50% Weapon points. 50%+50%=100% In case of the above, lets say we have 72 health and X=12 with 6 damage. The cost here is 144. If we now design a support unit. One that deals more damage. We could design the following: 36 health and 9 damage. The cost...? Would still be 144. But while this unit deals 50% more damage on anything. It is much weaker compared to the balanced design. It has only 50% health. What do we get when we look at a 1v1? 72 health / 9 damage = 8 hits 36 health / 6 damage = 6 hits The balanced design here, has 33% more durability. *** This is all fine if you have a game with the rules that one unit blocks projectiles for another. You see this in games like Warzone 2100 (Yes, it happens, look it up ) And designing like that would be ok. Because you get this synergy: The tank would have 108 health and deal only 3 damage. 2 Normal vs a tank and a support: Normal: 72 + 72 health. Tank + Support: 108 + 36 health. Both sides deal 12 damage before one of the 2 dies. If there is no micro, except for one player putting the healthiest one in front. 72/12=6 hits 108-72=36. Now, the normal are down to 1. And can deal only 6 damage. 72/12 =6 hits. 36/6 = 6 hits. Clearly the tank takes the bullets here. And voila, the support unit is still at full health after this exchange. *** What happens in RTS? The player with the normal units first focus on the support unit. 72/12= 6 hits. 36/12= 3 hits. Clearly we remove the support unit here. And the normal units take only 12 x3=36 damage. 36/3= 12 hits. 108/12= 9 hits. Clearly we now also remove the tank unit. And the normal units take only 3 x9=27 damage. The normal units here have 9 health remaining on one, and the other is at full health. This is the reason why most support units have more attack range. Because you need to move further into the army in order to destroy them. A RTS that I think fails here would be The Frozen Throne. Where the support units have weaker armor, compared to Warcraft 3. But also, the rocket soldier in C&C td seems to be much weaker. And is not used that much in direct combat at all. It melts vs most tanks. *** The root factor? If we look at the cost calculation. We can balance tanks and support units with normal units with one simple calculation. Instead of body + weapon. We do 2 * sqrt ( body * weapon ) We get for the normal: 2 * sqrt ( 72 * 72 ) = 144 We get for the support: 2 * sqrt ( 36 * 108 ) = ~125 (ok, not the most perfect number, but my time was short) But if we keep the health the same and increase the weapon or damage value. We get: 2 * sqrt ( 36 * 144 ) = 144 And for that 144 in weapon value, we have a 12 in damage value. A normal has 72 health, divided by that 12 = 6 hits. A support has 36 health, divided by that 6 = 6 hits. The support and normal are equal now. And the same goes for the tank. The tank would keep the 3 damage, but have 144 health. 144 / 6 = 24 hits. 72 / 3 = 24 hits. And a tank vs support? 144 / 12 = 12 hits. 36 / 3 = 12 hits. When a tank or support face a normal, the battle takes longer. But when a tank or support faces each other, the battle takes the same time. Of course, a tank vs a tank is super slow. And a support vs a support is super fast. Ok, so, to finish this formula. Let's design a wall then, the ultimate tank in a game. How much health should it get? The formula breaks here. Because we have 0 damage. 2 * sqrt ( ? * 0 ) = 0 It depends on the game how much micro players can apply. Thus, how fast would a player attack the support units first, before taking on the tank units? What a good design does is: a * (body + weapon) + b * (2 * sqrt ( body * weapon ) ) / ( a+b) You can see the results in KKnD for this one. As for the walls, they are not free anymore. But support units and tank units are now more balanced compared to the normal units. And depending on how much micro the players can use. You can shift the bar between a and b. If you use Excel for this, it can be an easy factor at the top of the list. My favorite a and b are: 1+1 and 1+5. With the 1+5 I have walls being 12 times more durable than their soldier counterparts. In a sense, I have 600 for body, 0 for weapon, costs is 100. A rifleman has 50 for body, 50 for weapon, costs is 100. A support type of rifleman has 30 for body, 80 for weapon, costs is 100. -20 on the body for a +30 on the weapon is a good exchange already. And once you add in attack range and movement speed. You can make the support units even more effective or better said, immune to micro managament effects. Either make support units slower, thus more durable. Or faster, can hit and run. And you get this RPS between units, based on the root factor, movement speed and attack range. This RPS is a natural one. If there are any questions, feel free to ask. I understand if it is a bit too much to get in one go. So, as soon as you get a question. It is better to answer that one first. Before you continue the read.

I see people pop up. Making their own RTS. Then calling it quits again because their playtests fail. I don't see it anywhere. The "root"-factor. It is a god tier way of theoratically balancing a RTS game. Anyone interested in me explaining this?

If EbfD. You need a Palace and sufficient energy. If Dune2000. Wrong game, just wrong.

Didn't find any time yet. In order to check it out. Too busy with RL, work and other games 😛 I spotted shotgunner. I like that. Is it going to be a classic short ranged anti infantry unit? Will it deal medium damage to light vehicles by any chance? Is the attack type similar to that of the siege tank and grenadier? In other words, the projectile goes fast and deals similar damage.

I remember trying out the OpenRA version of Dune2000. What I remember is that siege tanks had much more attack range. And the projectile looked and sounded differently. But this is all I remember. And it is such a long time ago. I am not even sure if it was really from OpenRA. I liked that long ranged Siege tank.

Have you any thoughts on a tech tree? How will it progress? Sorry to say, the techtree needs to be balanced as well. And this might be the hardest job. Since you introduce a player to a new unit. The mission might depend on that particular unit. And the multiplayer techtree should be balanced as well. I think, the latter is even more important than the single player campaign. Because a new unit might actually be over powered for its first job. Just for the fun of it It is how I introduced some of my units in the past. "o my, we don't have enough resources for dealing with the bunkers. Let's get 1 artillery unit, we know it is expensive, but that attack range of 13 is more than enough to protect it from wandering survivors".

I like your train of thoughts. I like that you also considered balance around resource managment. But also allow for turtling. That is a very awesome approach. I am glad that you called them RTS enjoyers. It is true, campers on RTS are enjoying their line of defence. I had this in Warcraft 2, Starcraft and also in Tiberiun dawn and sun. Would be funny though, if you slip in 1 mission that requires the player to camp first for an hour or something. Like, being stuck in the mountains with limited resources that grow slowly overtime. I did something similar in regards to resources. Although resources were limited. And expansion should be done if you are an agressive player. A turtle player could camp. till the resources were depleted. Then all the forces should move. That kind of deal. That was a so called mission 8 I once made in Starcraft. (It is lost forever ) In short, you could camp with the correct defenders. And for an attack, you could either repair/heal them almost indifinately. And after defeating 1 of the 2 bases, you got that expand. I literly made that mission with the goal in mind. Defeat 1 base, and you could spend the remaining resources entirely on only half your units. As for secondairy objectives. I feel like they should be there from time to time. Especially in later missions. But they should be there for adding a reward for the player, during the mission. Which would help the player. One such secondairy objective was often the capture of enemy structures in C&C td. But the resque of units or whatever, are also valuable options. Unless, you have secondairy objectives being part of the primairy one. Then it is simply all primairy though. Perhaps, when the campaign is almost done. You could test the different difficulties, together with the resource managment. Where on easy difficulty, expansion is not needed. On normal, recommended. And on hard, a nessesary objective. Something like that. It is very hard to achieve though. So, if you manage, you can consider it as a trophy as designer. I will come back later on that editor. I never used it. But you mentioned it by name specifically. Once I have more time. And after playing the mission. I might ask for the other stuff. Wow, you can allow the player to select their start location? That is awesome! I always liked that. Ehm. you mentioned theoratical balance at the end for multiplayer. I meant that theoratical balance is solely based on numbers and formula's. For all the other balances to grow on. An example would be that the bazooka infantry in C&C td costs 300. But testing already showed that they are too weak that way. Practically speaking, they needed more health or cost less. This was even the case for single player. In multiplayer, they are only used as anti air units at the start. They were....tested very late. You can see the result in tiberian sun. Where the Nod rocket soldier has A. more health, and B. costs 250.

I will put it in my todo list. Although, it is one mission. I understand you need proper feedback on it. Since I did one on Barkhan, why not. Right now, I am in a flow, right before a very busy month. So, earliest would be December I think. Would love to poke around. But it is new territory for me. Still, it is similar to how Forge looked like. So a traditional editor. I will find my way. (I mis Forge) I got some insights on balance. It can be a tricky thing. There are several steps (not in order). - Theoratical balance; all designs follow the same formula. This formula is based on the combat mechanics. Unique to every RTS. All numbers that I like to crush. - Practical balance; some designs might be a bit too unique, or are part of a group of similar designs. Uniqueness means less choice. And it depends on how it can be countered, thus a buff or nerv would be required by mapping the RPS between designs. Practical balance is also depending on a map layout. Personally, I like adding new units to cover this section. Or redesign others. - Skill balance; due to certain players being extra good. Some units might be overpowered. If they are bad in the hands of noobs, you are all good. But if they are also good in the hands of noobs, they certainly need a nerv. - Single player balance; can often be different than the multiplayer balance. All steps are important. Most discussions appear around the practical balance. But their true roots are in skill balance. I had one a couple of days ago about the new axethrowers and archers in the remaster of WC2. The skilled player felt it was too powerfull for now for him. He mostly plays chokepoint maps. Yet the balance that Blizzard had in mind was for the single player campaign. The balance that YOU pick, is YOURS. You can ask for Feedback from others. But YOU as the game designer are never wrong in this for YOUR own game. Meaning, no matter what I or others throw at you. The decision is yours. You need to feel comfortable playing your own game. Well, having said that. Consider Feedback as advice. And you can organise advice. So, if you want to collect the massive feedback in landsraad. Perhaps make a simple tickbox poll. Not sure if it is possible. But a table per unit design would be usefull for you. The columns could be: cost, health, damage, firerate etc. While the rows cold be: way to low, to low, good, to high, way to high. People could change the tickboxes. Maybe prepare an excel file with this and some explanation. Firerate....i know it as Rate of Fire, Cooldown, DPS. Well, people gave it all kind of names. But make sure that you and the one filling in the questionaire are on the same wavelength. Because some think of Rate of Fire as Cooldown, yet they are each others opposites. Rate of Fire in physics means, the rate, on firing. Thus higher is faster. Cooldown is the time between shots. I don't care if people still get it wrong and strongly believe they are right, just make sure you are on the same wavelength. I also spotted time between shots, this is good, there is salvo. I could explain to you in a PM/DM how salvo balancing works It is theoratical though. Well, cheers, X3M

Looks awesome... ... Went back to the start... watched the video... Wow.... Went back to the start again. Read it all. This is a remarkeble work dude!!! Many of us must have dreamt to be able to such a thing like what you did. You got an entire new theme to it all. Although, dark and purple is in these days. Yet, you just did it. My hats of for you. And your sister, she did an awesome job on the tileset etc. I couldn't help, but chuckle at the voice lines. Still, you got your own voice lines. Consider the chuckle as a nod to a job well done! I love to crush numbers. Care to share the stats you are using for your designs? Once you are done with the campaign etc. Would love to play it, if you know what I mean.

Another 4 years later. Working on something for a RTS tought me even more. Alas, that project is dead or a scam. 2 years ago, I finished a research of 2 years. Where the health to damage ratio had to vary for the individual unit designs. The conclusion is that games like Starcraft and their design choices started to emerge. While most argue that Starcraft might have been a stack of lucky accidents. I do see a patern in the numbers. I even got a formula for it now. I wanted to use this new knowledge in an upcomming game. Together with some other calculation mechanics that are unique to RTS in general. It would have been refreshing for the players for sure. Alas...dead or a scam. Perhaps... someone is interested. I just wanted to share this with the remaining visitors of this forum.

Not sure if anyone here is still around to discus the "remaster" and thus "rebalance" that got applied by Blizzard. Bloodlust sure is as intended now. And the archers/axethrowers have been buffed in a strange way. Axethrowers can reach the level that the old Rangers had. And the true Rangers now only deal 10% more damage in comparisson. There is more to talk about.

Ah yes.... 7 years later. Here are some changes, not chronological though: They added heroes. 5 each faction so far. It will be 6 soon. For money. They reduced the size of infantry, systematically they are now half that of a vehicle. Ingame money crate collection is no longer a tap, but a wait instead. You can upgrade this with a skill card. They changed the skill points into skill cards. For money. They did a lot of balance updates. At one point, they added a lot more upgrades per unit. For money. Premium can only be bought. For money. Re-roll keys, so you can exchange a bad crate opening. I was part of the Youtube program for 2-3 years. Since I was not allowed to share promocodes on a regular basis. I didn't grew my channel that much. Due to intensifying of my work, I had less time and energy for making video's. I finally managed to get my streams working. But it seemed to be too late. Eventually, I was not part of the Youtube program anymore. This demotivated me more. Also, my clan was hardly playing. I changed clans, and voila, the old clan suddenly lost half its members. Not sure yet if I ever return. One last time, I streamed with a promo-code that I asked for a special event. "my last stream". It got me 40 new subscribers that unsubscribed in the 2 weeks after. Just indicating how toxic the greedy community is. Now my number of subscribers remains stable between 1290 and 1300. I play a lot of other games nowadays. I play for fun. I stream for fun. I am not going to be a lackey. So, I have yet to see if I ever return. It has been fun though. But it is repetetive now. My current mobile game is Call of Dragons.

Select the palace. In there you can select the Death Hand. Then click anywhere on the map.

Oh, a new windows is the issue then. You need to wait for some time until Windows 11 is accesable with the Gruntmods edition. PS. Microsoft does shady things.

I strongly suggest you delete the game (and keep trying). You are not playing the most recent versions and are hoping to do something that is waaaay to outdated. Then, if you realize that you are doing something completely silly. Try, the Gruntmonds edition. This version works on windows 10 for certain (seeing as how I could play it in some of my recent streams). And if you have windows 11. My condolences. But I am sure it will work there as well.

22 years later. Sorry for bringing this up. But I am curious as of how to get this one through the intended means.

Please.... Please mention that awesome ini file to everyone that allows people to change the resolution. Heck yeah!!! i got 4K EbfD now

It is....KEK.... time. Meaning, downloading it right now and going to test how it works on my system. If all goes positive, I will celebrate. Edit: The game works. That is great. The issue is with the resolution. I got a 4k screen. Perhaps you can add in an option to "stretch" the whole deal? Stretching seems to work best. It would be included for certain ways of recording or streaming as well. My Tiberian Sun games went super good with a stretch. Well, keep up the good work!

You could post it here. If you are still willing.

Funny, Soon I willl return to the game as well. I got all kind of noob tactics against the AI. - Quads for harvester raids. They are fast and anti vehicle. Use them to scout and kill enemy harvesters in the fields. Run away from any enemy units defending the harvesters. But they can fight the faster raiders/trike's with ease. - Missile tanks for carryall removal. This way, the harvesters can't be lifted up and placed down in a fast fashion. - If you are a heavy camper type. Sonic tanks in front, followed by 2 rows of combat tanks, followed by 2 rows of siege tanks and missile tanks. And move them forward to the enemy 1 row at a time. The width depends on the path. But 7 is really the maximum. Meanwhile, build a new steamroll wall. - The multiplayer spam seems to be trooper/quad/combat tank, plus some starport reinforcements. - Atreides....get that Napalm!

During Covid. I didn't play it....but now after Covid.... I returned to Minecraft. That game....has changed in those 3 years.