Steel Divisions biggest flaw

[holoween]

Steel Divisions biggest flaw is the complete lack of a comeback mechanic

What is a comeback mechanic and why do we need it?
The goal of a comeback mechanic is to allow both sides to maintain a roughly similar ammount of units on the field at any given time to make up for the fact that sometimes rng screws you over
and to accentuate what makes this game interesting: fighting a tactical battle against an opponent.
Basically it aims to reduce the effect that rng has on the outcome of a battle to allow for the maximum number of equal fights between the opponents.
Without it lanchesters square law strats kicking in quickly causing fairly oneside battles.


You might argue that division specific income does represent a comeback mechanic.
This doesent work for the simple reason that in most cases it either doesnt have this effect or even the opposite effect.
The possible situations are as follows:
1 both sides have the same income
2 one side has more income and the higher income side winns the first engagement
3 one side has more income and the lower income side wins the first engagement
In only one of the cases does it actually work as a comeback mechanic but just as often it works in exactly the opposite way.


An actual comeback mechanic would need to work in favour of the loosing side every time.

So how do other games deal with this?
specifically Men of War and Company of Heroes. Im using these as examples because they both similar to steel division in that the feature a barebones economy,
a unit progression over time (CoH via expanding your base and men of war via time restricting units) and the main focus being tactical fights with loads of rng where you fight the opponent over territory

In Company of Heroes we have:
1. Upkeep for units so whoever ha smore units on the fiels has lower income allowing the other side to catch up.
2. Full squads cost more than reinforcing making it easier catching back up in strength than increasing it further.

in Men of War we have:
1. Unit refund a percentage of killed units price is refunded as an increase to income until the price is refunded.
(in very loopsided battles the looser can reach up to 3 times income of the winning player)
2. Population cap this is fairly low and stops a winning player from increasing his advantedge over a certain point and lets a loosing player build up to match the winning player.
3. Special points there is a small pool of points available to both players from the start to buy units from.


In which way could this be implemented into Steel Division?

The most straight forward way to implement this would be to introduce
1. introduce a straight popcap
and/or
2. simplay refund some points for lost units possibly over time

This would already make steel division a far more interesting game to play.


A more indepth approach could make use of the deck system which is unique among those games.

1. rework decks to rework decks to allow for a maximim number of points spend
2. remove points ingame and replace it with a popcap
3. have phases affect the popcap of a division

This changes the deck from simply being a slightly restricted list of what to buy to an actual reserve which you can only use a certain ammount of at any time.
As a result this creates the larges ammount of equal fights possible without sacrificing an advantedge for the winning player as he still gains vps and has more reserves left.

 

[roirraw]

People should be building layers into their decks to allow "come backs". Multiple strategies in a battle group for all of the threats you will face. If you're lacking something, like the 12 SS and it's vulnerability to air, you have to compensate in tactics and timing. Reading your opponent and how he uses his units can allow you to make plays in the moment without needing some special call-in.

I play with some people who panic in A phase and ask for help on the other side of a map really early on. Should they be able to call in a unit in the first 10 minutes? It's situations like this that could throw the balance further out of play because it's so subjective to a players skill vs their opponents.

I really feel with the addition of a few more units overall, like the Sherman Crocodile to the 2nd Infantry We will see the game develop more.

 

[holoween]

People should be building layers into their decks to allow "come backs". Multiple strategies in a battle group for all of the threats you will face.

what youre talking about is simple counters.

aside from that your post boils down to "if youre better you can make a comeback".

the problem arises when both players are equally good. at that point will run into one or the other winning the first engagement and be let with more points on the field. at that point the battle is effectively decided barring drastic rng luck.

basically the game circle currently is
1st fight 50/50 chance of who wins
2nd fight whoever won the first fight has a 70% chance to win
if one player wins both fights the battle is effectively decided
if both win once its back to the start. however the player who won the second fight is probably better since he won the fight despite the odds being against him

with a comeback mechanic the first step is repeated over and over until one player has won more.

 

[Gilmund]

The variations of income don't mean shit, you have to look the prices within the decks. The low income infantry decks are in fact often more powerful cause they can actually bring more units on the field, cheap infantry, to hold ground than the heavy armored decks with more income overall and very costly units. But they are not powerful in every environnement. It is why imo this game shines more in teamplay once you may use various strenghts of various decks together with your teammates on maps with all kind of terrain.
The overall way this games works is to allow you to bring the number of units allowed in your deck, not to reenforce constantly what you loose cause you play too badly to keep your units alive or to avoid the effects of a very good play from your enemy. Every loss matters, being able to kill enemy units without losing your own is the whole point and it's precisely good cause it is different from CoH or Men's of War which have these kinds of mechanics. If you have not one kind of unit left cause you lost all of these before, you screwed and you cannot counter anymore. That said, each deck has counters to everything in the beginning. It's punishing.
You could induce a very costly way to reenforce some infantry you'd bring into a retreat line but this should always be a costly solution preventing you to abuse it and preventing you to do something else with these points.

Though there is some mechanic to allow the losing side to do something, the more you get ground the more your new units take time to go to the front, meaning your losing opponent is able to change situations if he brings counters when your own counters will take a shitload of time to get there.

There is a maximum of points you can spend in any game and you never can buy all of your units in a deck, all is about choice. There is a tactic involved here when CoH is more about micro and reaching points.

I don't agree with you, it is interesting precisely cause there is no coming back. Fact games like Coh are worse in a way cause you're screwed if you don't get enough of your ammo/fuel to run your economy and buy your things, it is more picking the right spots at the right time than playing the entire map. It is why this game has some multiplicator for the losing part, if not you would loose the game faster once you have lost the strategic/economy points. There is no need for this kind of mechanic in here cause you do not play to get economy (like you do when you boom population/settlers in any other RTS or when you seek ressources), the points you get are fixed as are the ones from your opponent, the type of units you may get are not related to your ressources and upgrades but only to the 3 phases. You just play your units and you take the ground the way you wanna do it within the boundaries of your deck.
As real-time-strategy, it is more board wargame than economy builder.

 

[Gilmund]

what youre talking about is simple counters.

aside from that your post boils down to "if youre better you can make a comeback".

the problem arises when both players are equally good. at that point will run into one or the other winning the first engagement and be let with more points on the field. at that point the battle is effectively decided barring drastic rng luck.

basically the game circle currently is
1st fight 50/50 chance of who wins
2nd fight whoever won the first fight has a 70% chance to win
if one player wins both fights the battle is effectively decided
if both win once its back to the start. however the player who won the second fight is probably better since he won the fight despite the odds being against him

with a comeback mechanic the first step is repeated over and over until one player has won more.

The more the player is equal to his opponent on a SD battle, the more the lines don't really move much and it leads to draws.
The big changes are related to teamplay (people do a double push with tremendous death results and create a gap) or low skills (the opponent doesn't know how to manage a particular type of unit demolishing him and losing ground fast).
In 1vs1, map is also more involved, on maps like Odon well you'll have a hard time with armor decks.

 

[holoween]

TIf you have not one kind of unit left cause you lost all of these before, you screwed and you cannot counter anymore. That said, each deck has counters to everything in the beginning. It's punishing.
There is a maximum of points you can spend in any game and you never can buy all of your units in a deck, all is about choice.

this is what your deck does it limits the maximum ammount of a specific unit which while i mention it in what can be done isnt the point of the post.

The variations of income don't mean shit, you have to look the prices within the decks. The low income infantry decks are in fact often more powerful cause they can actually bring more units on the field, cheap infantry, to hold ground than the heavy armored decks with more income overall and very costly units. But they are not powerful in every environnement. It is why imo this game shines more in teamplay once you may use various strenghts of various decks together with your teammates on maps with all kind of terrain.

yes this is indeed a tactical game where different divsions have different strengths not shure why you feel the need to point that out.

The overall way this games works is to allow you to bring the number of units allowed in your deck, not to reenforce constantly what you loose cause you play too badly to keep your units alive or to avoid the effects of a very good play from your enemy. Every loss matters, being able to kill enemy units without losing your own is the whole point and it's precisely good cause it is different from CoH or Men's of War which have these kinds of mechanics.
You could induce a very costly way to reenforce some infantry you'd bring into a retreat line but this should always be a costly solution preventing you to abuse it and preventing you to do something else with these points.

you seem to be under the impression im talking about removing the limits set about by the decks but what im actually talking about is the points used to buy stuff from said deck which is a subtle but important difference.

I don't agree with you, it is interesting precisely cause there is no coming back. Fact games like Coh are worse in a way cause you're screwed if you don't get enough of your ammo/fuel to run your economy and buy your things, it is more picking the right spots at the right time than playing the entire map.

youre straight contradicting yourself
so in your words one if fun for not allowing comebacks and the otherone is worse bacause of it.

also i dont know how you eel but 90% of the game im playing in steel divisions are 5 min of interesting fights followed by a long time of delaying the inevitable loss or moping up the enemy.
as far as im concerned the time where my opponent has a chance of beating me is far more interesting and fun than the time where its clear one has lost. te aim of my post is to prolong the time my opponent can challenge me as much as possible.

The more the player is equal to his opponent on a SD battle, the more the lines don't really move much and it leads to draws.

yes because neither side can attempt a risky attack as if it fails there is no coming back

 

[Ktonos]

Steel Divisions biggest flaw is the complete lack of a comeback mechanic

I disagree.

There are comebacks in SD games; Not many, but comebacks are supposed to be rare. If they were a common occurrence, then that, that would be a problem.
And most importantly: And most importantly in most games were a player is hundreds of points behind, and struggling for the first phases, there is a feeling that he is one breakthrough away from victory.

 

[holoween]

I disagree.

There are comebacks in SD games; Not many, but comebacks are supposed to be rare. If they were a common occurrence, then that, that would be a problem.
And most importantly: And most importantly in most games were a player is hundreds of points behind, and struggling for the first phases, there is a feeling that he is one breakthrough away from victory.

i cant argue against your subjective feeling but what youre saying makes the issue im trying to adress fairly clear: there is never a change in momentum baring rare circumstances
the point of a comeback mechanic is to allow for the maximim number of equal or close to equal fights with the winner of the battle being determined by who won more.
so it allows and and encourages gameplay where in any battle both sides will loose fights rather than one side winning all if they win the first one.

 

[Gilmund]

this is what your deck does it limits the maximum ammount of a specific unit which while i mention it in what can be done isnt the point of the post.



yes this is indeed a tactical game where different divsions have different strengths not shure why you feel the need to point that out.



you seem to be under the impression im talking about removing the limits set about by the decks but what im actually talking about is the points used to buy stuff from said deck which is a subtle but important difference.





youre straight contradicting yourself
so in your words one if fun for not allowing comebacks and the otherone is worse bacause of it.

also i dont know how you eel but 90% of the game im playing in steel divisions are 5 min of interesting fights followed by a long time of delaying the inevitable loss or moping up the enemy.
as far as im concerned the time where my opponent has a chance of beating me is far more interesting and fun than the time where its clear one has lost. te aim of my post is to prolong the time my opponent can challenge me as much as possible.


yes because neither side can attempt a risky attack as if it fails there is no coming back

And CoH is about perfect build order to make one unit after another and take maps in a certain way, like it's perfect...
Do you play teamplay games ? Cause obviously we're not playing the same game i don't feel what you feeling. If you do play only 1vs1, i may get your feelings. But as i said, if you fight for ground against equal opponents it leads to draws, not to huge gaps with 5 mins interesting figths.
I feel to point that out cause you will reduce these strenghts/weaknesses of each deck if you allow them to have infinite units with some sort of economy/population. Strenghts also come with lack of availability, it is how the game is designed and you may unfortunately loose your strengths and suffer from it. A good example is the 380 points koenigstiger.
Yes i do find fun to loose when a player outmatch me and not being able to come back magically cause the game would give me some better economy to do it. I do understand why this mechanic exist in CoH like i said (due to the economy involved to build units in CoH and the points the lead players accumulate once he takes ground) but i do not want that in SD.
Why do you wanna make SD like a Coh ersatz when SD is different in this matter?

If you're that good and smash your opponents too quickly, play opponents able to challenge you.

 

[Gilmund]

i cant argue against your subjective feeling but what youre saying makes the issue im trying to adress fairly clear: there is never a change in momentum baring rare circumstances
the point of a comeback mechanic is to allow for the maximim number of equal or close to equal fights with the winner of the battle being determined by who won more.
so it allows and and encourages gameplay where in any battle both sides will loose fights rather than one side winning all if they win the first one.

The point of the comeback mechanic you propose is to reduce the difference of skill between players, like when you give more points to AI than you in hardest level of difficulties.
Instead to make people improve their game, you want to give them free points to buy units to outmach their better opponents by numbers. How good is that...

 

[holoween]

I feel to point that out cause you will reduce these strenghts/weaknesses of each deck if you allow them to have infinite units with some sort of economy/population.

this is where youre fundamentally misunderstanding me
im not asking to take the limitations of the deck system away (though i admit that i didnt word it perfectly in my suggestion). what im asking is limit the relative power disparity(as in points of units on the field) between two players that can happen due to rng

The point of the comeback mechanic you propose is to reduce the difference of skill between players, like when you give more points to AI than you in hardest level of difficulties.

to use my prefered method to deal with this problem
1. rework decks to rework decks to allow for a maximim number of points spend
2. remove points ingame and replace it with a popcap
3. have phases affect the popcap of a division

so both sides have a deck with units inside just like it is now. however your number of cards is limited by the total cost of the units inside (a card with a 100p tank is equal to a card with 10 10point inf) so that both players have say 10000 points of units available.
once they get to the battle they have a certain limit of it available say 500p (as it is now) but as a population cap meaning at any given point both players can have 500points of units on the field.

say we have a extremely loopsided first fight the looser looses all 500p woth of units and the winner looses nothing
the looses can now call in more units up to 500p but has only 9500p of reserves left
the winner still has all his units but is starting to gain vps from holding more ground.
next fight happens

this repeats until one player is out of troops, the vp cap is reached or time runs out.

this system actually makes skill more important than the current one.
with the current system if youre equally good as your opponent someone will win via rng and the winner rolls from there

with the proposed system you have to consistently win at equal odds for both sides so skill is far more important.
additionally it does allow far more agressive gameplay as a single fuckup doesnt end the game but only reduces your reserves and you can attempt at causing those losses to your enemy.

 

[Karlburg]

Honestly, i've had a fair few comebacks in this game, and it already has a mechanism that helps a player on the back foot - starting closer to your spawn. Honestly, dumping a bunch of points on a losing player would make every game a power grind with no real breakthroughs, and i'm not sure that's particularly fun.

I think causing attrition on an enemy should have a more immediate effect than 'well, later on in phase C they'll have less to work with'.

 

[Gilmund]

There is already a maximum number of points you can spend by deck in the overall game, each thick gives you a part of it depending of the total of points you are allowed in each phase until the end of the time or the win by conquest points. When decks have more points overall to spend it is cause their units are more costly!
With your system, if i'm on the winner side i'll never be able to buy a 300 points unit like a big and powerful tank cause i'll have to force myself to loose units to make pop when my pop is capped, if i understand correctly. Plus there will be no interest at all to bring a tank if your opponent will flow at the same time 10 infantry for the same cost.

This system does not bring skill cause you've magic points once you loose units until your reach the end of your pool. All you have to do is to loose units to have more availability of them, how does that learn to play them correctly. The purpose of the game is to keep your units alive and make something of them cause they are rare, not reduce their loss effect to avoid losing the game or loose the game less quickly.
To me you want to make this game about economic possibilities to bring again again new units on the field until the end when the game is much about the use of a limited number of units on the field.
There is no skill involved when your losses don't matter and you can replace them. You will even create a system where it's better to loose one type of unit to create room in your pop cap to bring the counter of your enemy.

It is good to have more units on the field than your opponent if you have succeeded to keep them alive and kill theirs, i don't know why you wanna break this mechanic.

 

[holoween]

There is already a maximum number of points you can spend by deck in the overall game, each thick gives you a part of it depending of the total of points you are allowed in each phase until the end of the time or the win by conquest points. When decks have more points overall to spend it is cause their units are more costly!

the reason you would have to set a max points for deck building is that potentially you could use all units in the deck and if one deck has twice the points value of units it gives that side a huge advantedge. so those limitations are to balance overall strength two decks can possibly have. currently your deck can contain more points than you could spend while income over the full gamelength is the same for everyone. since the change would mean the entire deck can be used it needs to be limited to have the same max pointsvalue as the oponents deck.

With your system, if i'm on the winner side i'll never be able to buy a 300 points unit like a big and powerful tank cause i'll have to force myself to loose units to make pop when my pop is capped, if i understand correctly. Plus there will be no interest at all to bring a tank if your opponent will flow at the same time 10 infantry for the same cost.

3. have phases affect the popcap of a division

you could start with 500 as its currently and slowly increase it over time ex +50 every min in phase a, +100 every min in phase b or simply add a flat ammount each new phase
so no you couldnt bring a kt in the first few min but later on you can.

This system does not bring skill cause you've magic points once you loose units until your reach the end of your pool. All you have to do is to loose units to have more availability of them, how does that learn to play them correctly.

if you keep loosing because you run out of units it teaches you to be more carefull with them earlier on so you dont run out.

The purpose of the game is to keep your units alive and make something of them cause they are rare

the porpose of the game is to accumulate victory points by holding more territory. fighting is just the means to this end.

To me you want to make this game about economic possibilities to bring again again new units on the field until the end when the game is much about the use of a limited number of units on the field.

thats the way it already is except that currently any difference in points resulting from fighting accumulates over time creaing a massive disparity in points on the field which in turn makes for fairly boring gameplay as the one ahead has almost no way of loosing.

There is no skill involved when your losses don't matter and you can replace them.

so let me get this straight youre saying it needs more skill to win with more units than your opponent on the field than with the same number of units? because thats what happens ingame after the first fight.
so with what im proposing you need to gain and hold ground with the same ammount of units on the field as your opponent. also i still dont get where youre saying losses dont matter. if you loose twice the number of units (in points value) in every fight youll just run out and loose.

It is good to have more units on the field than your opponent if you have succeeded to keep them alive and kill theirs, i don't know why you wanna break this mechanic.

because it forces passive gameplay as the first engagement where one side looses more troops effectively decides the game.

 

[Protosszocker]

Show me one RTS where it is this way? After loosing the first fight (normally the first fight should more like an tradeoff) you are running behind in every game. Loosing your widowmine drop with out dealing dmg in sc2? You are behind. Killing 5 workers with it? Trade off. Loosing your firefly as 12 ss you are behind. Killing 2 cromwells first? trade off. Its this way in every rts. Loosing your swordfighters in AoE 2 against long range units? You are behind, killing a few workers or killing his pikeman first? Trade off.

you have a comeback chance with every late game division though as you get more income onthe field than yoru opponent in Sd but still looses should be looses. If you loose your troops early you have just to play smart to comeback, smart play should be the way not help by the game.

 

[holoween]

Show me one RTS where it is this way?

maybe the 2 games i did bring up in the op? namely company of heroes and men of war which are a better comparison to steel division than classical rts mostly because classical rts focus significantly on economy rather than the actual fghting

you have a comeback chance with every late game division though as you get more income onthe field than yoru opponent in Sd but still looses should be looses. If you loose your troops early you have just to play smart to comeback, smart play should be the way not help by the game.

i already adressed division income in the op
why do you think losses arent losses whith the proposed system? if you have 10 tanks in your deck and loose one you only have 9 left. the difference is that both sides can call all 10 so if you loose more troops than your opponent you will still loose.

saying you can make a comback by playing smart is the same as saying you can make a comeback if youre better. or why would your opponent who has territory and units on the field advantedge loose?

 

[Protosszocker]

maybe the 2 games i did bring up in the op? namely company of heroes and men of war which are a better comparison to steel division than classical rts mostly because classical rts focus significantly on economy rather than the actual fghting



i already adressed division income in the op
why do you think losses arent losses whith the proposed system? if you have 10 tanks in your deck and loose one you only have 9 left. the difference is that both sides can call all 10 so if you loose more troops than your opponent you will still loose.

saying you can make a comback by playing smart is the same as saying you can make a comeback if youre better. or why would your opponent who has territory and units on the field advantedge loose?

company of heroes is different as it balances the income for you because if you loose troops you loose points and the winning side will have a lot of fuel and ammo, if you would not give the otherone at least a chance to get basic troops it would be totally shitty, also it doesnt work with the who is loosing, it works for both sides the same. You can have the controll above al marks andstill get alot of man power points. in sd this would just make you push push push. Haveing 65% of the map? Okay i still push on because i get more income? I think come back mechanics if needed at all should be more like makeing points in late game more (like in the last 10 minutes 1.5x the points you get till you are 200 behind the enemies points or so.

CoH has 3 recources thats soo different from SD and It is arcade as hell. letting SD going the same way would just make it worse. This is really not an option for sd. SD is all about useing your budget, as limited as it is. Trading units for zone points and intelligents, loosing troops should be really impactfull. Also the prizes per unit in Coh are so high, so you need something to compansate loses at least a bit, in SD units are quite cheap in compared.

 

[holoween]

company of heroes is different as it balances the income for you because if you loose troops you loose points and the winning side will have a lot of fuel and ammo, if you would not give the otherone at least a chance to get basic troops it would be totally shitty, also it doesnt work with the who is loosing, it works for both sides the same.

if you ahve fewer troops and less territory you are in fact loosing
so what the income balance does is prevent you from loosing now because youve lost some units but gives you the chance to come back and retake the territory since especially fuel only kicks in later in importance. whatever should we call a mechanic that lets someone come back from a bad situation i wonder?

CoH has 3 recources thats soo different from SD and It is arcade as hell. letting SD going the same way would just make it worse. This is really not an option for sd. SD is all about useing your budget, as limited as it is. Trading units for zone points and intelligents, loosing troops should be really impactfull. Also the prizes per unit in Coh are so high, so you need something to compansate loses at least a bit, in SD units are quite cheap in compared.

if you want to go more hardcore men of war provides another example that goes way further to the point where you can have 3 times the income of a winning player if he never lost any units.

also no matter how arcade or hardcore these games are the basic principle is the same
you need to take territory to win and to do that you need to fight your opponent.
fighting your opponent gets exponentially harder the more units he has compared to you
due to rng no single engagement has an outcome purely decided by player skill.

so if both players have the same skill the first fight is determined by rng.
since whoever won the first fight now has a higher chance of winning the next victory between 2 equally skilled opponents boils down to rng luck in the first fight.

so to determine who is the better player you want as many fights that are as closely matched as possible either in one match or over several.


yes im aware that in an actual game it is not quite as clear cut but the basic principle still stands.

 

[Protosszocker]

if you ahve fewer troops and less territory you are in fact loosing
so what the income balance does is prevent you from loosing now because youve lost some units but gives you the chance to come back and retake the territory since especially fuel only kicks in later in importance. whatever should we call a mechanic that lets someone come back from a bad situation i wonder?



if you want to go more hardcore men of war provides another example that goes way further to the point where you can have 3 times the income of a winning player if he never lost any units.

also no matter how arcade or hardcore these games are the basic principle is the same
you need to take territory to win and to do that you need to fight your opponent.
fighting your opponent gets exponentially harder the more units he has compared to you
due to rng no single engagement has an outcome purely decided by player skill.

so if both players have the same skill the first fight is determined by rng.
since whoever won the first fight now has a higher chance of winning the next victory between 2 equally skilled opponents boils down to rng luck in the first fight.

so to determine who is the better player you want as many fights that are as closely matched as possible either in one match or over several.


yes im aware that in an actual game it is not quite as clear cut but the basic principle still stands.

I think if both players are the same skill level, loosing troops will happend to both, depending of what kind of troops are lost, you have to think about a strategie about how to exploid the units death you killed and stoping the enemy of doing the same. In CoH if the enemy doesnt get fuel you know you dont have to worry about tanks, in SD it works different as there is just one recource. Same level fights are much more about outsmarting than it is about same point investment. Giving a player who lost troops directly the chance to bring a new one for it is just no fun... I mean if you have killed all of the enemies aa guns you dont want him to be able to buy 3 more instantly, that would just make it feel less impact full. Coh players can effect their income much more already in the normal settings (building depos and buildings that dont effect manpower but can buff firepower or income). Really I know what you wanna achive but the way you wanna go isnt a good one for SD.

 

[holoween]

I think if both players are the same skill level, loosing troops will happend to both, depending of what kind of troops are lost, you have to think about a strategie about how to exploid the units death you killed and stoping the enemy of doing the same. In CoH if the enemy doesnt get fuel you know you dont have to worry about tanks, in SD it works different as there is just one recource. Same level fights are much more about outsmarting than it is about same point investment. Giving a player who lost troops directly the chance to bring a new one for it is just no fun... I mean if you have killed all of the enemies aa guns you dont want him to be able to buy 3 more instantly, that would just make it feel less impact full. Coh players can effect their income much more already in the normal settings (building depos and buildings that dont effect manpower but can buff firepower or income). Really I know what you wanna achive but the way you wanna go isnt a good one for SD.

youre not outsmarting an equally good player or if you can outsmart him then he could do the same to you with the same chance of doing it. so if you have the same chance of outsmarting each other you again boil it down to the first fight being the only one that matters.
think of a computer exactly mirroring your every move. in a classical rts without rng you will end up with the last 2 units on the field killing each other at the very end.
in a game that relies on rng that only holds true until the first fight where rng will decide a victor.

also focusing a certain unit type works just as much as it does now. one your opponent has none left in the current phase then they cant bring new ones.

also if you think, the way i suggest would work best, doesnt work then thats fine however a mechanic acting in this way would still be important
there is a reason i first put fairly simple modifications first. ex a 50% refund over the next 3 income ticks could work aswell if you think it would otherwise be too fast.

edit obiously the base incom would have to be somewhat adjusted ot there will be significantly more points on the field