Few notes on the infantry (which is the primary reason I play this mod) and aspects which involve amphibious landings.

1) The drone isn't cost effective; the Robin costs 1200 with more HP and speed than the drone which costs 3000.

2) The stalker is listed twice in the Mech factory.

3) The infantry build list is a bit odd. It feels like it wants to go rifleman->grenadier->mortar, marksman->elite marksman, machine-gunner->assault->combat diver->pegasus->phantom, missile support->heavy anti-tank->strike launcher, random railgunner, random fencer, stalker? But the rifleman can't go prone and the grenadier has an equivalent range of the rifleman (that's a long throw). The combat diver is pretty much superior in everything except firepower and range (it can go everywhere and has decent fire suppression for its cost). The strike launcher's range is also a huge leap from the heavy anti-tank. What if

A) rifleman->grenadier->mortar: units go prone to reduce damage. Grenadiers and mortars use secondary weapons when prone and move slowly when deployed. This gives the units a clear defensive purpose.

B) marksman->elite marksman->phantom: units go prone to increase range. Elite marksman and phantoms have shields. Phantoms can cloak. This allows units to perform bounding overwatch for offense.

C) missile support->heavy anti-tank->strike launcher: no prone function. These units become valuable for anti-air/anti-tank support. I'd standardize the firing rate but increase range and damage between the tiers.

D) assault->combat diver->pegasus: no prone function. Assault remains the same, combat diver remains the same, pegasus is able to cross any terrain and is shielded. These become your go-to ground troopers for offense with the tiers representing increased damage.

E) machine-gunner->railgunner->stalker: units go prone to deploy weapons (except for stalker). Machine gunners do rapid fire damage vs railgunners which do the damage all at once (150/s). Stalkers are shielded, do more damage in a burst, and are heavily armored (basically a human mech).

F) The scabrewolf could be used to detect stealth units and have an increased detection range.

G) The fencer. I'd actually like to see the fencer just removed or maybe used (attack included) as an engineer able to build defenses (hey, plasma torches can do damage, right?).

The idea is to keep all of the units relevant and encourage their use through at least the mid-game.

4) The transports might also need a similar treatment. It seems like the troop transport, transport rib, transport half-track, and typhoon are the primary non-flying transports. If

A) transport rib->typhoon: no secondary function. These are fairly functional as they are as most units are unable to cross water. They should be built in either the land factory or the sea factory (but not in the infantry barracks).

B) troop transport->transport half-track->battlewagon->anti-tank half-track: these need to move fast enough and be armored enough to encourage players to protect their troops at least during early game expansion. Increasing weaponry/damage output while reducing troop capacity gives the player trade-offs to play with and will likely result in the player combining or convoying the transports with armored vehicles.

5) The light carrier vs the carrier vs the carrier: purpose of use seems a bit confused here. If

A) the light carrier were able to produce drones, dragonfly (which is practically a combat drone), robin fighter, orca transport, skycat gunship, transport rib, and builder ship it would serve as a "recon" ship with some amphibious capabilities. The ship remains relevant mid-game due to its lower cost versus the carrier (custom model).

B) the carrier (custom model) were able to produce drones, dragonfly, robin fighter, eagle fighter, missile airship, swallowtail, eris light bomber, manticore bomber, skycat gunship, nightmare, orca transport, osprey transport, transport rib, typhoon, and builder ship it would be an overall improvement over the light carrier and represent a serious threat mid-game to late game.

C) the carrier (base game) remains the weird mobile hodge-podge with anti-nuke but I nuke you when I blow up... thing.

Brief comment on mechs: the base game suffers from a kind of "and then you'll never use it again" issue during the mid and late game. I think broadly organizing and retooling the mechs into a light or skirmishing, mid (all-terrain tank at higher cost), heavy (all-terrain with damage/HP advantage over defenses), support (artillery and other long range options) keeps the units relevant. I rarely touch the base models at all and skip straight to long range for mid to late game, meaning the other options are irrelevant.

All fantastic points Drjones013! As for the infantry units, last I heard inkyboi was working on a new system that was more custom and usable, and so I'm hesitant to rework the present units until I get word about those, since those would be more aesthetically on point for the mod, given his excellent work in retextures for some units in this pack!

As for the transports, I'm still trying to better figure out how to make landings smoother, considering that they always (in my MP experiences) seem like the landers and deployed units all push each other around (and off the beachheads) too much to be that stereotypical D-Day looking landing everyone aspires to having. A rework is being looked into, but at the moment my bigger concern is making the naval element more enjoyable, given how one submarine can effectively landlock a player if it destroys their factory (until a sizable investment in landships or combat engineers can be made), due to targeting requirements. I have had what I believe to be be an eloquent solution to that particular naval gripe for a while, but I want to release something a tad more substantial than just one unit coming back from such a long absence, so stay tuned! Making the navy usable without making the submarine unusable is something I've taken care to ensure! The overland transports could use some more tinkering, I concur, though that's more an issue of price scaling in my own experiences, given how a half track can comfortably defend itself in early game expansion against ground forces, but higher price units like battlewagons struggle within their own price brackets. As you said, additional armaments could greatly aid in their balancing.

The carrier does sit in an uncomfortable spot in the base game, as does the bomber in my opinion. Since they are base game, I have been hesitant to modify them (given how much a headache that could prove with reused assets) to a great extent, like the total rework the base game bomber totally needs. At the moment, I was thinking that the faster, speed focused aircraft like robins and eagles are best for the "medium carrier" considering both it's appearance and the idea that it's designed to be slightly more expendable than a base game carrier, giving the medium carrier a bit of a glass cannon type of unit spawner, and giving the base game carrier some more utility and defensive oriented aircraft, as to make it more of an essential part of a main fleet's ability to repel attacks. Thus, the anti-nuke capability is in-fitting, and the nuclear death makes it something important to protect, but you are right in it being an awkward fit. I'm also considering making a rig-like aquatic base that could serve a similar role in a less mobile sense, though I haven't had the patience to put that together yet. Still, for the moment, giving the base game carrier slower but hard hitting defenders could help make it fit better, though I would hounestly have to inspect the roster a heck of a lot more closely in multiplayer before I could definitively say that I have a fix for them.

As for unit order, I'm quite concerned at menu length. I'm a huge proponent of large scale player choice, hence my work on expanding the roster, though it's clear to me that the number of units is a bit tiring to scroll through. Thus, I do have plans to make some more factories for the different unit types in the future, further allowing for player specialization in strategy and playstyle, which will hopefully fix the issue.

Mechs are always in a weird place in the meta of vanilla, considering how cool they look, contrasted with how ultimately useless they are. I haven't touched much in this category, but I can definitely say the division between speedy light mechs and powerful heavy mechs is certainly a strength I should play into (provided the animations don't break going too fast, of course!). While that's easy enough to make happen, that still leaves medium-sized mechs in a bit of a weird area. While the mechs expanded folks have the secondary function feature to make them more useful, ultimately they still don't see a great deal of use, and I legitimately am unsure of how to fix that in an enjoyable and balanced manner. They are just too slow and expensive for frontline use, and too unarmored and weak to aircraft even if fielded. The air meta is quite strong, of course, so I suppose a nerf (like a new dedicated fighter or something) to that may help with mechs? Or maybe going down the opposite route of adding more of the airships that drop mechs could help? Regardless, I know that I often play in larger maps, and the long travel distances make mechs a tad obsolete. It's definitely something to look into, considering I personally don't even use mechs outside of the heaviest lineup.

Hopefully I can get some of these changes into upcoming updates! I hope to release a relatively small unit pack somewhat soon to fix the aforementioned naval issue, and present an alternative to the brimstone for mass late game assaults, and then it's off to see if my salvaged .dat file can update this mod (which was uploaded on a .dat I've found a copy of in an old google drive) with some of these proposed changes! Hopefully this addresses some of your balancing concerns and ideas Drjones013, though do tell me if something else needs updating or addressing as well!

Basically my argument for any kind of weapon system is Purpose of Use: "upgraded" versions of weapons negate the previous versions and poor balance allows mono-combat (involving a single type of unit).

A fast recon carrier would be highly desirable in a number of situations with a somewhat slower and more heavily armed carrier able to provide cover. Limiting the medium carrier to light and speedy planes gives it a purpose but also limits its POU to the point where it may not be useful during the mid-game. I'd honestly just toss the base model carrier *but*, if you're absolutely committed to having it, have it perform a mobile factory option: able to produce other carriers and subs and perform repairs. That makes a MCV carrier the heart of a large naval group and gives strong incentive to protect it outside of nuclear suicide.

As to the mech issue, realistically most modern armies don't have many tanks because the "light" tank has been replaced by a heavier-armed IFV. That means mechs have to engage at a more specialized level. A good start there would be to make all mechs all-terrain and some of the larger mechs able to cross water. Mechs then represent a much greater tactical threat than cheaper tanks even though firepower is comparable. Close-range mechs should have heavier shielding to soak damage with other mechs "trading off" with lighter (or for extremely long-range mechs, no) shielding with perhaps slightly more agility. I'd also include a high-cost mech with reasonably fast movement for rapid-fire/slow-reload artillery attacks. This encourages good forward recon and gives players less room to "camp" until superior resources are collected.

The ultimate argument of tanks vs mechs should be speed vs mobility. Tanks should be relatively cheap, move reasonably fast (not as fast as a wheeled vehicle but *much* faster than a mech), and have the ability to only travel on flat terrain. Mechs should be more expensive, heavily armored/shielded, and have the ability to all-terrain. This gives players options: do I build towards the mountains and focus on mechs or stay away from them and build tanks? Having dedicated "mech carriers" also makes sense.

The air meta is always going to be strong because air *is* strong. The tradeoff there should be loitering ability (notice how long it takes a robin to fight a stationary target), lighter armor, and cost. A low level tank should be able to do more damage than a low level interceptor; a low level bomber shouldn't be able to outperform low level artillery. But air is genuinely more agile and that should be its selling point. A slow-moving tank killer like the A-10 is desirable because of its mobility; it quickly moves anti-tank weaponry across the battlefield. But is it cheaper than an anti-tank artillery piece?

The basic game progression thus becomes infantry->base defense->tanks/mechs->navy/air force. Infantry never become obsolete because they can hold ground cheaply. Players who choose tanks over mechs have to be more aware of battlefield limitations. Planes are only able to hit on target for a limited time before they have to turn around and thus won't produce the same amount of damage as tanks/mechs but can definitely move across a battlefield late-game.

Oh, and if you wanted to really make me happy? Let's improve the bug faction a bit for fun neutral factions!