lol this is turning into some sort of heated debate.
XrRydr wrote:
If only I could let you see the staff forums...
Well about your "heavy tank" idea... I really don't like the idea of all three sides having a two-barrled, slow-moving, powerful monster. That is the characteristic of a brute force army and to have in all of them would just make things boring.
XrRydr wrote:
Like it or hate it, every CnC game to date as a slow-moving, double-barreled tank (except TS, but RA had two to make up for it). It's a classic element in CnC, and no side would be properly represented without it. Which brings us to...
But before I go further we to clear up on a few things. What are the aims of mod exactly? I was making a lot of guesses as to what *I* would be cool and make it more fun, not as to what you want, because I didn't know what you want. What do you want as far as the themes for each team? But what you will surely need to stress is diversity. Having units that appear across the teams that are nearly the same are no fun at all. You should have teams that have some types of units where they are strong at, and some units where they are weak at.
XrRydr wrote:
That's the tightrope we have to walk when we plan this mod. If we make the sides too homogenous, then we will get complaints of, "WTF ALL TEH SIDES R TEH SAME Y DID U MAKE 3 SIDES IF THEIR JUST TEH SAME 🤐!!!!!!1111!!11q" (I'm not trying to imply that you sound like this, it's just a dramatization to get the point across.) If we give each side a definite theme, like sneakiness for the Tiberians, then we hear, "OMFG U SAID TEH SIDES COME FROM BOTH SIDES IN A STORY BUT AL I SEE R NOD UNITS 4 TEH TIBS 🤐1!!!!11!1w" We have to strike a balance somewhere, even if that means being flamed by both sides.
And in RA2, they gave Soviets brute force and a powerful artillery unit and it was still balanced.
XrRydr wrote:
I'd hardly call the V3 'powerful.' The rocket just took too long to reload and was too easily shot down.
I just say this because I see that you are suggesting units that would follow the no weakness sort of gameplay. It's the things like all teams having massive tanks, or all teams having powerful artillery, or all teams having pad based aircraft.
XrRydr wrote:
But think about what would happen in a side that had no siege artillery fought against a side that specializes in base defenses. There would be no strategy; the person with no artillery would only be able to win by rushing the base defense player before they could build a solid defensive line. Once the player was well defended, they could slowly wear down the no artillery player and win. Strategy in this case is choosing the right side, and the game becomes a glorified verson of rock-paper-scissors. This is the pitfall of heterogenuity, and Zero Hour was ruined by it. (The example was Tank General vs SW General.)
I just think it would be more fun if each team had major strenghts and weaknesses that are obvious. A good example is the GLA. They are a very specialized team in that they have no air or any powereful tanks, and they have workers instead of dozers. They also specialize more in more cheaper units instead of less, more powerful units. But they also have no power plants to worry about, and the buildings have holes. They can also be sneaky, and can use tunnel networks.
XrRydr wrote:
I always felt that the GLA were out of place in Generals. They seemed more specialized than either the USA or China. So much, in fact, that one wonders if EAP mixed them up at one point (is that why the MiG is so strong and the Raptor so weak?) Plus their specialties worked straight into the rock-paper-scissors system: China was baffled by their movements, but the USA could pick them out easily.
Also, try to update somewhere if you are adding new units. You never said that generals elite would have the radar van.
XrRydr wrote:
I told you so, Blbpaws. At least he was nice about it. 😄
And I only suggested Grenadier because like I said it's ok for teams to have weaknesses. In red alert the soviets didn't have any anti-air infantry and they lived to tell about it lol.
XrRydr wrote:
Didn't they lose the war, though? I MEAN UNBALANCD!!!!!1111!!1one11!!! 😄
And now for yet another list (😏) of comments:
- Helix -- Even Helix massers agree that the Helix is overpowered. They just disagree with the rest of us on whether that's a good or bad thing. We could tweak it a bit if we decided to add it. But now I'm thinking that they use the same system of upgrades and are not diverse.
- Stealth Fighters -- Both the Stealth Fighter and Aurora are primarily anti-structure. I wouldn't have a problem with one of them, but having both means that they will step on each other's toes in terms of usefulness.
- Microwave Tank -- If a side has too many units from another side, it's worth taking a look to see if those units can be replaced rather than having to adapt another side's unit to fit a particular role.
- Bomb Truck -- Just because they're big on explosives doesn't mean they have to be small on toxins. We're trying to put the entire GLA into the Generals Elite, not just the Demo General. Dr. Thraxx might not like that. 😄
- Terrorist -- See above.
Anyway, now for my compromise on the Heavy Tank issue:
- Tibs: The Tiberians may seem a bit short-changed in this category -- they don't get a conventional two shooter. They get something more powerful instead: The Mammoth Mk. II. But they have to expend a Generals' Point to get it, and only one can be deployed at a time.
- Reds: The Red Alert team gets an offense-oriented Apocalpse: not as much armor as the Overlord, but more powerful tank shells. It would be a good unit to lead the charge.
- Gens: Generals Elite receives the Overlord, tweaked with more armor but less firepower. It becomes more of a meat shield unit, either transporting infantry (Bunker), healing nearby units (Propaganda Tower), or deciding to carry a more offense-themed unit into battle (Gattling Cannon).
CommieDog: Because someone has to do your dirty work for you