Hey Commander !

To lengthen the return time of units I do not really know ... why use a boost to leave your units out longer ? So you could use it to quickly recover your units ? 

Why would you need to extend the construction time of a building ?

because it often happened to me to have started construction of a building lasting 12 days or more (or a contract, or a protocol) and the tournament "Base Development Race" or "Drone Derby" started 2 minutes after the deadline of my negotiation.

How many times I would have liked to prolong that completion time of only a few minutes more!

I would have gotten very good prizes using only one 10-minutes accelerator (/extender).

regarding the return of the units:

if my units fall back to the base between 4h and I will be back online in 5h, it is more convenient for me to delay the arrival of 1h, instead of shortening it by 4h.

Red-Terror, many things in the game are done because of the strategy.

You need to plan your activity on a couple of hours (or days) in advance. Yes, the suggestions you made will make the gameplay easier, but it's not the purpose devs have.

Alina Phoenix said:

Red-Terror, many things in the game are done because of the strategy.

You need to plan your activity on a couple of hours (or days) in advance. Yes, the suggestions you made will make the gameplay easier, but it's not the purpose devs have.

It's a hardcore strategy game and if devs allow players not only speed up but prolong this or that action as well, it would lose any strategy at all. 

it is not at all true that the strategy will be lost, indeed: it will increase (as I have already explained above).
I tried to predict the arrival of certain tournaments 10-12 days before, but it is practically impossible to do exactly that.
if I can extend the time (as well as shorten it) I can adjust my estimate if it is not 100% correct.
I can also strategically decide that it is more important to increase the return time of a group of units rather than reduce it.

in short: they are all choices that require a "strategic logic" in order to be taken.

Bill Almorra even did not even understand the usefulness of all this, so I would say that if he does not understand the importance of this possibility, he has a much less strategic mind than mine (no offense).

deciding whether to use stopwatches as "shorteners" or "extenders", allows you to have more choices in your strategic actions, giving you more ideas how to manage the situation (better to increase or reduce?) and all this can only result in an increase in strategy.

Seriously I do not understand how you can come to the conclusion that the strategy would be reduced, increasing the possibilities for maneuver and decision-making of a player.
it is like saying that a language is impoverished by adding more words to it.

furthermore, this change will increase the use of stopwatches in players (who will use a greater quantity of them, since they will have a double function!).

As for the button to select units quickly:

almost all RTS videogames offer the ability to quickly select a group of units previously indicated and stored under a "keyboard code".

It's not a matter of having different buttons from the other players, but it's about selecting the units you want, with 1 click ... instead of losing 5 minutes to select each unit type you have in your bunker the exact amount you want.

Watch this video for more details:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlNRfFkPdk

honestly I do not think it's a complicated thing to develop:
when I am on the unit selection table, I press "1" on the keyboard and automatically select 10 firedrake, 100 mauler and 100 sapper, rather than scrolling through the unit selection table and selecting them maually.

something like that...

________________

Regarding the possibility of reconning the incoming attack by the defensive player:

first of all, the spying would take place only 2 minutes before the attacker hits, so the defensive player would only benefit from the information if he is online at that precise moment and acts quickly.

second: if you think that the possibility for the defender to spy on the attacker's army is so ruinous for the game, why do you not consider the attacker's chance to spy the forces of the defender equally damaging to the game?

I do not understand why it is unacceptable that the defender knows in advance what he is going to face, while it is considered legitimate for the attacker to acquire this information before hitting an enemy base with his army (knowing in avance the defensive forces contained in it).

The interest to attack will not be killed at all: the players will continue to attack trying not to be reconned (as well as the defenders will defend the bases, trying not to be spied on).

Again, the strategy will not be dead at all, but rather it would become more elaborate, allowing players to develop new game tactics and pay more attention to developing attack strategies.

your usual conclusion of an impoverishment of the strategy makes no sense.
if the chances of action increase, the strategy also increases.

rather it is currently that there is no possibility of implementing strategies.
the only possible strategy currently applicable is to deploy as many defensive forces as you can, hoping to be stronger than your attacker (that's all.... which, honestly, is not a real strategy).
By introducing this change, then yes, you can start talking about "strategies".

So it's exactly the opposite of your conclusions.

Commander, I replied to this suggestion already and it was a final decision on these suggestions.