Combine Cruiser, I want to say this one thing to you:
Most of your ideas so far have been about one thing: removing depth from the gameplay. You want to make it so the player doesn't have to micromanage. You want to turn OP2 into C&C. This is what makes OP2 good -- the fact that there is depth of gameplay. The micromanagement (manual management of various resources, morale, and even the lack of build queuing can all be seen as micromanagement aspects) is what sets it apart from most other RTSes. I don't think many people want to see OP3 stray away from this.
Furthermore, introducing things like automatic vehicle factories that prevent you from having to click anything to make them build units, or mega space stations that allow players to rain down units onto the map out of nowhere really kills the gameplay. Not only does it take away the micromanagement aspect but it unbalances the entire game.
Most items in an RTS are balanced. For example, think about power plants in OP2.
The tokamak is the most basic, but it damages itself and will eventually blow up at random if not repaired.
The solar power array generates a fair amount of power, but you must launch a solar satellite for it to work.
The geothermal plant generates a huge amount of power, but you have to build it on a fumarole (of which there are limited number)
and so on.
Some of the things you want to add have almost no negative side to them, making them the kill all end all units you want. It's a way of trying to dumb down the game to make it more one-dimensional, plain, boring, and easy.
Look at superweapons in C&C games. In Red Alert 2 for example, all you need are a couple superweapons and you have a very significant advantage against the other players. True that they can only be activated every X minutes or whatnot but the capability they have is huge compared to 'normal' weapons (blast a nuke into someone's base, or use the lightning strike on someone).
No one wants this sort of stuff in the Outpost world. Not only does it take away from the depth of the game (micromanagement) but it ruins the delicate balance of the game. This brings me to my third point.
Ideas have to be realistic. OP1 and OP2 are both hard science games (I don't even want to tack on the word 'fiction' after 'science' since most things in the game are based off of factual real-world research). Unreasonable things like Interdimensional resource teleporters or GPs mounted in the side of cliffs or whatever else that can't be backed up with actual research, or would be simply unreasonable or uneconomical to build simply do not belong in the game.
None of this is meant to discourage you from contributing your ideas. The only thing that most people would ask is that you check to be sure that your ideas aren't going to violate any of these principles I just discussed. And of your many ideas, there have been a few good ones (the MULV is one that I could imagine making it into the game).
Oh, and on a related note, don't post things at the bottom of your post that say "Please don't lock the thread", and don't argue with others (like above). Replies like these are hardly likely to gain any sort of widespread acceptance.
