Your strategy

[Ivan_Moscavich]

What will be your strategy for RA3? Same as previous games, I know mine will be.
A **** ton of Apocalypse tanks with just enough support to handle counter attack units.
Or, just so many Apocalypse tanks there really is no way to counter them.
You might take five or ten of them out, but that still leaves 90 or so left.
If I've figured out anything over the years, and obscene amount of heavy armor will accomplish any objective, you can expect some losses, but the enemy won't stand a chance.

However, strategies change with the times, and I have been moving more towards combined arms tactics focused around heavy armor.

[Annihlator :D]

Actually, some of those King Oni's or Century Bombers and Cyrocopters wopuld take all those out, or so it appears to me......

[Quadhelix]

Actually, some of those King Oni's or Century Bombers and Cyrocopters wopuld take all those out, or so it appears to me...... I know, especially the King Oni: a handful of King Oni mechs, using their Bull Rush ability, could charge through huge masses of Apocalypse Tanks, leaving little more than rubble in their wake.

[Annihlator :D]

I'm actually quite looking forward to the Cyrocopter, used to good effect, it should own the bettle field. I played TA, and some type of flying drone thing froze my units. Needless to sya, my defensive line was beaten back because of it.

[Quadhelix]

I'm actually quite looking forward to the Cyrocopter, used to good effect, it should own the bettle field. One thing to remember about Cryo Copters is that they absolutely cannot operate without support units, either to shatter frozen enemies or crush shrunken enemies.

Other than that, we have to consider their rate of fire, pre-attack delay, whether the beam works instantaneously or like the Chrono Legionnaire's beam (i.e., taking longer to affect more powerful targets), etc.

[Daishi]

How can these threads exist before the beta is even out?

[SgtRicko]

How can these threads exist before the beta is even out?

I guess you're the only guy here that doesn't have connections to Einstein, eh?:p


As for the balance... well, that Apoc tank spam definately ain't gonna happen in this C&C anymore. If you haven't noticed, this is easily the weakest version of the Mammoth in C&C lore as of yet, since the thing doesn't even have AA capabilities from what I've heard. That, and since this game is going to be heavily water-based, you won't always be able to simply drive up and kill everybody anymore without a body of water interfering.

[Commander Dave]

Always to remember to flank your enemy if possible and use other units



in support of your main force that way not just one unit or units are


taking the brunt of the action , dave omg im so excited hahahaha

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Actually, some of those King Oni's or Century Bombers and Cyrocopters wopuld take all those out, or so it appears to me......
Some? You think a hand full of kind oni's or bombers can take out 90 apocalypse tanks? You seriously underestimate the power of the apocalypse unit.

I know, especially the King Oni: a handful of King Oni mechs, using their Bull Rush ability, could charge through huge masses of Apocalypse Tanks, leaving little more than rubble in their wake.
Something needs to be figured out here. The Oni should not be able to charge through masses of high level units. The higher level the unit or structure is, the less it should be able to charge through.

I guess you're the only guy here that doesn't have connections to Einstein, eh?:p


As for the balance... well, that Apoc tank spam definately ain't gonna happen in this C&C anymore. If you haven't noticed, this is easily the weakest version of the Mammoth in C&C lore as of yet, since the thing doesn't even have AA capabilities from what I've heard. That, and since this game is going to be heavily water-based, you won't always be able to simply drive up and kill everybody anymore without a body of water interfering.

I'm well aware that this looks to be the least powerful incarnation yet, however, I've made it work before, and I still make it work. My best strategy is teching up very quickly and cranking out mammoth/apocalypse tanks.

Always to remember to flank your enemy if possible and use other units



in support of your main force that way not just one unit or units are


taking the brunt of the action , dave omg im so excited hahahaha

I've begone to do this in CnC3, you can no longer always count on one type of unit, as they are specific counters, also since nod now has a unit that can go up against the mammoth tank, which completely betrays Nod's hit and run docterne IMO.
Obviosuly since this Apocalypse lacks anti air, I will probably be using MiGs as air cover, just as I use AA firehawks as aircover for my Mammoth tanks, I don't bother with land AA, because fighters are faster, and can hit the enemy alot faster.
But the core of my forces will be a large mass of Apocalypse tanks, and just enough support to counter counters.

"Brute force, if it isn't working, you're just not using enough."

[Statalyzer]

If you aren't using enough, it'll take you more money and time to get money, and your opponent can use that same money and time to counter. Brute force strategies are really economy strategies, for the most part.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

If you aren't using enough, it'll take you more money and time to get money, and your opponent can use that same money and time to counter. Brute force strategies are really economy strategies, for the most part.

Countering masses takes a lot of money too.

[Derek]

Not if you've got a hard counter system.

[Statalyzer]

Countering masses takes a lot of money too.

Exactly my point.

[Quadhelix]

Again, the apocalypse tank will not be stopped. You are incorrect. Using its Bull Rush ability, a King Oni can run over structures. Apocalypse Tanks, powerful though they may be, cannot withstand an impact capable of crushing a structure.


Plus, the King oni looks to be a late game units, just like the apocalypse tank. Exactly, "Just like the Apocalypse Tank." This means that by the time you've built your humongous number of Apocalypse Tanks, the other side with already have a decent sized force of King Oni mechs, which can bull rush through the Apocalypse Tanks to crush the majority of them. No doubt a handful of King Oni mechs will fall to the Apocalypse Tanks' M Harpoon ability, but one use of M Harpoon would destroy one King Oni, whereas one use of Bull Rush would destroy multiple Apocalypse Tanks.

[Annihlator :D]

I think you should watch the new RA3 battlecast. I could destroy your tanks with peacekeepers.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

You are incorrect. Using its Bull Rush ability, a King Oni can run over structures. Apocalypse Tanks, powerful though they may be, cannot withstand an impact capable of crushing a structure.


Exactly, "Just like the Apocalypse Tank." This means that by the time you've built your humongous number of Apocalypse Tanks, the other side with already have a decent sized force of King Oni mechs, which can bull rush through the Apocalypse Tanks to crush the majority of them. No doubt a handful of King Oni mechs will fall to the Apocalypse Tanks' M Harpoon ability, but one use of M Harpoon would destroy one King Oni, whereas one use of Bull Rush would destroy multiple Apocalypse Tanks.

I saw them run through powerplants, which are not known for their armor or durability, I also saw them run over what looked like hammer tanks.
I have not seem then run through anything more than that, I'm guessing that there is a limit, also, from how it sounds, they will be quite expensive.
Also, I'm not going to just sit there when those start rushing, hopefully they'll bring back scatter command, if not, i'll manualy move them, only an idiot would leave a large tank force unattended, they tend to get screwed up during movement.

I think you should watch the new RA3 battlecast. I could destroy your tanks with peacekeepers.

Unless that shields protect against the treads of tank, i don't think so.


And somehow this turned into a discussion about my tactics, this was meant to be everyone talking about what they think they'll do.

[Annihlator :D]

Unless that shields protect against the treads of tank, i don't think so.


And somehow this turned into a discussion about my tactics, this was meant to be everyone talking about what they think they'll do.

1. Watch the Battlecast Video.

2. I thought that was what you meant..... What else would we do?

Edit: Also, the dev's have stated that the tank spam will not be returning to RA3, and the bull rush will be able to destroy Apocalypse tanks. And even if it didn't the King Oni will be able to kill at least its cost effectivness in Apoc's I'm going to say Bulll Rush, becaus if the King Oni could kill five or so Apoc's in a with its lasers, that would bring majpr balance issues to the game.

[nyarlathotep]

I will BORE my enemy of the battlefield :gnarly:

[SgtRicko]

They also mentioned that the King Oni doesn't have much in the way of anti-infantry weapons, so the chances are that a garrison or two might be able to cripple the mech somewhat. Also, they didn't mention anything about it being amphibious, so that could be another possible limitation as well.

[Zardac the Great]

The Oni can simply Rush infantry in the open, and Rush garrisoned Infantry. It will be more costly, but if they can damage buildings with it (they can) I don't see why they can't damage civilian buildings.

I wonder what happens if two Onis rush into each other?


My statagy: Mirage Tanks hide my assaults.

If I fight Ivan, or one who fights like him, use a lot of Cryo coptors and Cryogeddon + Century bombers or Century paradrops.

Chronoshifting units here and there.

Basically making myself a nusiance.

To begin an assault, I will probably drop a Cryogeddon on the enemy's doorstep, then charge in, guns blazing.

[nyarlathotep]

Sorry, but what exactly IS a Cryogeddon??? It's not even in the list...

[Zardac the Great]

Sorry, but what exactly IS a Cryogeddon??? It's not even in the list...


Cryogeddon is one of the Allied support powers detailed in the latest Command School. It is basically a big Absolute Zero Cannon in space that fires a freeze laser onto the battlefield, freezing whatever is caught in it into a block of ice, which can be destroyed with one shot from most units, including Peacekeepers.

The Beauty of Peacekeepers shattering Apocalypse Tanks...or Tesla Coils...or Construction Yards.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

1. Watch the Battlecast Video.

2. I thought that was what you meant..... What else would we do?

Edit: Also, the dev's have stated that the tank spam will not be returning to RA3, and the bull rush will be able to destroy Apocalypse tanks. And even if it didn't the King Oni will be able to kill at least its cost effectivness in Apoc's I'm going to say Bulll Rush, becaus if the King Oni could kill five or so Apoc's in a with its lasers, that would bring majpr balance issues to the game.

I see the little space freeze thing.
And that is not what I meant.
I thought you were somehow implying that a peacekeeper by itself could take on an apocalypse tank.

And I'm not going to bother multi replying, I'll just cover some stuff here, you can figure out who it is.

No tank rushing? What in the hell kind of bull **** is that?
Tank rushing has been a strategy in every god damned CnC game to date. It's the more expensive, heavier counterpart to the infantry rush.

It's bad enough the mammoth tank has been surpassed in part by the Avatar in CnC3, and now they're going to **** with the Apocalypse tank?

This is seriously beginning to get on my nerves. The are ****ing with the very core mechanics of what I know as units.
A mammoth tank no longer being the best unit. They were expensive and slow, it evened out in the long run. That was the balance, not making units stronger than the ****ing tank that established super heavy units in RTS games.

God ****ing damnit, the apocalypse tank losing it's anti air was bad enough, but now, run down by a ****ing Japanese foot ball mech? Now mind you I'm not racist, but it gets on my nerves when people come in and **** up everything I knew, everything that I held dear to my favorite franchise.

You go ahead and do your allied tactics, sneaking around and doing hit and run. I dealt with chrono legionnaire annoyances before, and they were some of the most annoying things you could use, those and mirage tanks.
I've stopped you once, I'll stop you again.

The thread was RA3 tactics, meaning everyone would be free to discuss what they think they'll be doing, kind of a pre war planning conference or something like that, get some strategies in the open, discuss them, all of them, not just mine.

Well, I'll find ways to adapt my strategy, I always do, I was forced to do it in CnC3, but the Mammoth/Apocalypse tanks form the core of my strategy's they always do. I think I might add Kirov's into the mix, I never used them as main assaults before, but I already am having an idea.

And good luck using cryocopters, I already stated I'd be using MiG's for air cover.

One more thing, IRON CURTAIN + APOCALYPSE TANKS


Alright, I'll check back later, and please, let's expand the discussion here.

And I apologize for all the language, but I am quite irritated. Also need's spell check, which I'll do later.

[Zardac the Great]

Apocalypse Tanks + Chronosphere = wet tanks. :D + Possibly wasted Iron Curtain if the timing is right.

Apocalypse Tanks + Cryo Coptors = Squished/Shattered Apocolai

[Quadhelix]

A mammoth tank no longer being the best unit. They were expensive and slow, it evened out in the long run. That was the balance, not making units stronger than the ****ing tank that established super heavy units in RTS games. "Best" is too broad a term for the old Mammoth Tanks. They were the most heavily armored, but SSMs had the best range, Recon Bikes had the best speed, etc.


God ****ing damnit, the apocalypse tank losing it's anti air was bad enough, but now, run down by a ****ing Japanese foot ball mech? They probably included this because of people (like you?) who build Mammoth/Apocalypse Tanks as though they where Main Battle Tanks, using them as the bulk of an attack force, instead of the Medium/Heavy/Rhino Tanks that should have served as the Main Battle Tanks.


And good luck using cryocopters, I already stated I'd be using MiG's for air cover. Which will be countered with Multigunner IFVs. Also, it would appear that both MiGs have to rearm from an airfield.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Apocalypse Tanks + Chronosphere = wet tanks. :D + Possibly wasted Iron Curtain if the timing is right.
Apocalypse Tanks + Cryo Coptors = Squished/Shattered Apocolai

It just depends on who gets the secondary super weapon up first.

You'll need something with those choppers. Also, it's not like I'll be sending them out by themselves.

"Best" is too broad a term for the old Mammoth Tanks. They were the most heavily armored, but SSMs had the best range, Recon Bikes had the best speed, etc.

They probably included this because of people (like you?) who build Mammoth/Apocalypse Tanks as though they where Main Battle Tanks, using them as the bulk of an attack force, instead of the Medium/Heavy/Rhino Tanks that should have served as the Main Battle Tanks.
Which will be countered with Multigunner IFVs. Also, it would appear that both MiGs have to rearm from an airfield.

I mean best as in the unit that could take on any other unit and come out victorious.

Yes, I use them as the core of my assault forces, always have, and it's not like I'm just some idiot that sends a bunch of them out, it takes alot of work gathering a large group of heavy units and getting them to the destination correctly, as well as managing escort units.
Alot of people that see people using these tactics, often incorrectly, brand everyone that does it noobs or noobish. And I hate that, because to do it correctly takes alot of skill. I'm well aware that they have weaknesses, and I pay attention to the counters.
Also, about that minigunner IFV quip, how do you expect them to get in range of the MiGs if the MiGs are equaly being escorted by as well as escorting the Apocalypse tanks.
I try to build my assault forces not only with sheer brute force in mind, but with the flexible abillity to have each of the units in the force be able to counter the counters that counter each other.
However, with the force based on heavy units, retreat is often not an option, so I know I'll take losses, but I will see it through.

I'm not stupid, I'm well aware of counters, and I counter with counters of my own, which in turn may be countered and re countered.
But I dislike people talking down on units, especialy my favorite units.
Back in the day everyone understood that every units had merit, and every unit was to be respected.

What ever happen to that? It seems like we don't even play for fun anymore, it's all about ranking and cash. I'll probably only be playing online co-op with my friends.
The way it is now, I can get a more friendly game playing against the AI than I can with other people.

People like me must be a dieing breed, the people who play games to have fun.

[Annihlator :D]

Back in the day everyone understood that every units had merit, and every unit was to be respected.

What ever happen to that? It seems like we don't even play for fun anymore, it's all about ranking and cash. I'll probably only be playing online co-op with my friends.
The way it is now, I can get a more friendly game playing against the AI than I can the computer.

People like me must be a dieing breed, the people who play games to have fun.

Ok, #1 you don't respect the Queen :p and #2, you are blowing this out of proportion, I was bantering, but you seem to think I'm trying to put you down, I'm not. I'm just having a friendly arguement. And besides, when you say a ****-load of Apocs and some countering units, I think of 30 Apocs and 3-4 migs, not really a force to worry about if you can find it before it gets to your base... if no, you're screwed, I agree w/ you there.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Ok, #1 you don't respect the Queen :p and #2, you are blowing this out of proportion, I was bantering, but you seem to think I'm trying to put you down, I'm not. I'm just having a friendly arguement. And besides, when you say a ****-load of Apocs and some countering units, I think of 30 Apocs and 3-4 migs, not really a force to worry about if you can find it before it gets to your base... if no, you're screwed, I agree w/ you there.

I apologize for misconstruing your "Banter" then. It's just that it seems 99.9% of discussion is blatant arguments.

Also, by **** load of Apocs I meant 40 to 50, with 10 flak tracks with a 2teslatrooper/2flaktrooper/1attackdog fill per half track and 10 terror drones. (This was my RA2 strategy that got me to the top of the leader boards)

In CnC3 I went roughly 20 mammoth tanks 12fire hawks and 8 orcas, with zone troopers in varying amount. It works well, but takes a while to get going. I've had really good with Firehawks due to the Scrin, and since EA thought it'd be a fantastic idea to make mammoth tank's missiles nearly useless against air units.

[Quadhelix]

Yes, I use them as the core of my assault forces, always have, and it's not like I'm just some idiot that sends a bunch of them out, it takes alot of work gathering a large group of heavy units and getting them to the destination correctly, as well as managing escort units.
Alot of people that see people using these tactics, often incorrectly, brand everyone that does it noobs or noobish. And I hate that, because to do it correctly takes alot of skill. I'm well aware that they have weaknesses, and I pay attention to the counters. That was not my point. I understand that massing Mammoth Tanks with support units is a viable strategy. The point that I was making is that, from a game design point of view, Mammoth Tanks and Apocalypse Tanks should not replace their faction's Main Battle Tank, be it Medium Tanks, Heavy Tanks, Rhino Tanks, Predator Tanks, or Hammer Tanks. If people are ignoring their Main Battle Tanks in favor of Super Heavy Tanks, then either the Main Battle Tanks are too weak or the Super Heavy Tanks are too strong.


Also, about that minigunner IFV quip, how do you expect them to get in range of the MiGs if the MiGs are equaly being escorted by as well as escorting the Apocalypse tanks. The Allies also have Apollo Fighters, which seem very similar to the MiG. Also, the point that I was making was that, although you did have units to counter the Cryo Copters, the comment about "good luck" seems a bit extreme as your own counters have counters.


Back in the day everyone understood that every units had merit, and every unit was to be respected. Obviously not, or you would have included Rhinos with your Apocalypse Tanks and Flak Tracks, and perhaps some V3s as well.

[thetechieotaku]

True. However I'm looking forward into playing as the empire.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

That was not my point. I understand that massing Mammoth Tanks with support units is a viable strategy. The point that I was making is that, from a game design point of view, Mammoth Tanks and Apocalypse Tanks should not replace their faction's Main Battle Tank, be it Medium Tanks, Heavy Tanks, Rhino Tanks, Predator Tanks, or Hammer Tanks. If people are ignoring their Main Battle Tanks in favor of Super Heavy Tanks, then either the Main Battle Tanks are too weak or the Super Heavy Tanks are too strong.


The Allies also have Apollo Fighters, which seem very similar to the MiG. Also, the point that I was making was that, although you did have units to counter the Cryo Copters, the comment about "good luck" seems a bit extreme as your own counters have counters.


Obviously not, or you would have included Rhinos with your Apocalypse Tanks and Flak Tracks, and perhaps some V3s as well.

Alot of people use the main battle tank, I have on occasion but my strategy rellies on the power of super heavy tanks.
The "good luck" comment was sarcastic because he said nothing of other units, sending cryocopters by themselves would not acomplish much at all, just an annoyance.
Did you just make a statement about my train of though? Are you pyschic or something? Using units had nothing to do with the fun people have, unless you're talking about the last part of the statement i had made.
I already stated I often used 10 flak tracks with infantry inside of them, as well as terror drones. I my self found V-3s better in a support team, usualy a flanking team that did happen to include some Rhino tanks.
I've used all units in situations that call for them. And I do use main battle tanks, but, my the core of my assault forces is super heavy tanks. I don't exclude them from my main assault force either.

Think of it like a carrier task force.
The superheavy tanks are like the carriers and the battle ships. Anti air are like the cruisers, main battle tanks would be the picket line of destroyers. Some other units, mainly anti infantry would be the frigates and corvettes.
This, along with air cover provides and extremely balanced force.
However, it relies on the super heavy tanks in the core, they are the hardest hitting, most armored thing there, and while capable of dealing with most all threats themselves, still need protection from specific counters and smaller, more maunverable things they may not be able to hit.

I never said that I didn't use other units, you made that assumption yourself. I merely stated that I use the super heavy tank as the core of my assault force.

[Statalyzer]

If people are ignoring their Main Battle Tanks in favor of Super Heavy Tanks, then either the Main Battle Tanks are too weak or the Super Heavy Tanks are too strong.

Not necessarily. Plenty of people massed Mammoths in RA, but plenty of people also stuck with Heavy Tanks. Both were viable options, depending on which a certain player happened to prefer.

[Quadhelix]

Did you just make a statement about my train of though? Are you pyschic or something? Using units had nothing to do with the fun people have, unless you're talking about the last part of the statement i had made. What I meant is that your claim that you found all units valuable was not consistent with the composition of the attack force that you described, that consisted of Apocalypse Tanks, Flak Tracks, Terror Drones, and infantry. The fact that you do use Rhino Tanks and V3 Launchers proves my statement incorrect.


I already stated I often used 10 flak tracks with infantry inside of them, as well as terror drones. I my self found V-3s better in a support team, usualy a flanking team that did happen to include some Rhino tanks. I stand corrected.


I never said that I didn't use other units, you made that assumption yourself. I merely stated that I use the super heavy tank as the core of my assault force. You described your typical attack force as consisting of 40-50 Apocalypse Tanks, 10 Flak Tracks with infantry, and 10 Terror Drones. I saw no indication that you used Rhino Tanks or V3 Launchers. The fact that you used them in flanking teams had not come up, so I had no way of knowing about it.


Not necessarily. Plenty of people massed Mammoths in RA, but plenty of people also stuck with Heavy Tanks. Both were viable options, depending on which a certain player happened to prefer. Interesting. How many people went with mixed forces consisting of both Mammoths and Heavies?

[Ivan_Moscavich]

What I meant is that your claim that you found all units valuable was not consistent with the composition of the attack force that you described, that consisted of Apocalypse Tanks, Flak Tracks, Terror Drones, and infantry. The fact that you do use Rhino Tanks and V3 Launchers proves my statement incorrect.


I stand corrected.


You described your typical attack force as consisting of 40-50 Apocalypse Tanks, 10 Flak Tracks with infantry, and 10 Terror Drones. I saw no indication that you used Rhino Tanks or V3 Launchers. The fact that you used them in flanking teams had not come up, so I had no way of knowing about it.


Interesting. How many people went with mixed forces consisting of both Mammoths and Heavies?

I suppose not mentioning flanking teams and secondary attack forces would cause some confusion. That is purely my fault then, I apologize for that.

In the original RA1 (Which I recently began playing after going through a Kane's Wrath and the Forged Alliance binge) from what I recall, it was not all common to see large amounts of both tanks used in an attack force.

[Quadhelix]

I suppose not mentioning flanking teams and secondary attack forces would cause some confusion. That is purely my fault then, I apologize for that. You were right about me assuming, so I apologize for that, myself.


In the original RA1 (Which I recently began playing after going through a Kane's Wrath and the Forged Alliance binge) from what I recall, it was not all common to see large amounts of both tanks used in an attack force. I can somewhat understand the reason behind this: the main advantage of Heavy Tanks over Mammoth Tanks is the Heavy Tanks' speed, which is completely negated if they have to wait for the Mammoth Tanks anyway. Still, an interesting strategy might be to lead with the Mammoths, keeping the Heavies in back, then flank with the Heavies once the Mammoths have engaged the enemy. Of course, part of the viability of that strategy depends on directional armor, which was not implemented until much later in the Command & Conquer series. Even so, a viable variation might be to use the Mammoths as a distraction against the main enemy tank force while the Heavies go around to attack the enemy base.

[apple23]

I understand that apocalypses were strong, Ivan, but how the **** did you mass 40-50 of them before getting run over by an enemy rhino rush? How did you get the monster economy needed to mass that many?

Same in RA3: How are you going to mass an army that large before your enemy makes a move? If he bombs you war factory while you make apocalypses, that will not only force cancel the apocalypes you were working on, but also waste time building the war factory back, and with how expensive apocalypse tanks are, you won't have much money to build much else.

That brings up another good point: How are you going to get that much money in a general game? Apocalypses are probably going to be really expensive. If you spend all that time and money on an Apocalypse tank, your opponent may very well attack that Apocalypse with a special counter(cyrocopters, or maybe javelins or tankbusters, centuries to take out the war factory, and you're screwed), and then send in 10 smaller tanks and maybe even infantry. With the money you spent on that Apocalypse, unless you have a monster economy and he dosen't, you won't have much else on you to counter him.

It would, of course, be understandable, if you had a bunch of hammer tanks and some rocket troops and bullfrogs, and then you rolled out an Apocalypse or two. In my idea, the Apocalypse tank seems like the kind of tank that will bring up the rear and then wipe up everything that didn't get destroyed after your main forces engage.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

well, let's just say five harvesters per refinery has it's benniefits and draw backs, you have to start micromanaging your harvesters after three per refinery lest the get stuck.

And at this point I've already realized my old strategies will not work, well not entirely, but with some modification they will.
Just as in CnC3 I was forced to adapt, which I did quite well, it seems I will have to in Ra3

Once the beta comes out i'll have a much better understanding of the units, which will greatly help me formulate a better attack force.

The unit's I'm absolutely sure I'll have in it will be Apocalypse tanks, MiGs, and Twinblades. (Just like mammoth tanks, firehawks, and hammerheads in CnC3)

Now, I may start going for an even more combined arms tactic, but will continue to base it with the core heavy armor in mind.

Depending on the speed of the hammer tank, I may choose to include them in my bullfrog/sickle quick response teams, teams that I will set up out side of my main force, but will be just far enough back that it will allow them to quickly intercept threats.

At this point I'm seriously considering including Kirovs in my team as well. But it remains to be seen if I can work them into a proper strategy.

Considering that everyone has fighter craft, I may need to employ two teams of MiGs, on with the assault force, and one out side the assault force, so that I can bring them up to either cover the retreat or help the primary force deal with arial threats.

But like I said before, everything depends on how I feel I need to work things together.

[Annihlator :D]

At this point I'm seriously considering including Kirovs in my team as well. But it remains to be seen if I can work them into a proper strategy.

I don't think you need too, honestly I think the point of kirovs is to buildwhole bunch of weaker untis to hold the line, then you bring kirovs up and bomb the **** out of 'em

[Ivan_Moscavich]

I don't think you need too, honestly I think the point of kirovs is to buildwhole bunch of weaker untis to hold the line, then you bring kirovs up and bomb the **** out of 'em

Well, I wasn't considering them as part of the intergrated attack force, but as something else entirly.
You see MiGs and Kirov's in the air. Which is a bigger threat to your base? Obviously the Kirovs, but you can't just try to go through the MiGs and get the Kirov's, you need to take them both out, but which do you do first?

Depending on what happens, I could use the gastro burner to power the kirovs on ahead as an deceptive assault formation.

[Statalyzer]

In RA2, especially in Sov vs Sov where thanks to lack of rockies and harriers there was often no AA on the board when you got your battle lab, it was a good strategy to build 1 single Kirov, even if you didn't have a big use for it, because your opponent would often have to stop building tanks to build AA, and then end up spending more on AA than you spend on the Kirov, even if he didn't need to build that much.

[Derek]

Thats not likely to be an issue in RA3. Air is more effective, AA is more flexible, and tank spam will not be the only strat (tanks are actually T2 for once, so you can't even build them right out of your WF without teching up).

[Statalyzer]

I like the idea of not being able to build tanks from WF right away. AA being more flexible wouldn't change the Kirov strategy, nor would the existing air being more effective. What would make it less likely would be both sides having air units. In RA2 you rarely saw the lone Kirov vs Allies because they probably already had rocketeers and so didn't have to build AA if they heard "Kirov reporting", but since Soviets didn't have airpower, often other Soviets would have no AA until the Kirov was built.

[Derek]

By flexible AA I mean AA that can also act as AI or AV or something special. For example, Bullfrogs can be used as transports, I think Javelins can attack air, and of course Japan has three units that can transform, with one form acting as AA and the other as AI or AV. In contrast, the Hydrofoil can only attack air.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Thats not likely to be an issue in RA3. Air is more effective, AA is more flexible, and tank spam will not be the only strat (tanks are actually T2 for once, so you can't even build them right out of your WF without teching up).

I like the idea of not being able to build tanks from WF right away. AA being more flexible wouldn't change the Kirov strategy, nor would the existing air being more effective. What would make it less likely would be both sides having air units. In RA2 you rarely saw the lone Kirov vs Allies because they probably already had rocketeers and so didn't have to build AA if they heard "Kirov reporting"

By flexible AA I mean AA that can also act as AI or AV or something special. For example, Bullfrogs can be used as transports, I think Javelins can attack air, and of course Japan has three units that can transform, with one form acting as AA and the other as AI or AV. In contrast, the Hydrofoil can only attack air.

In other words the Dev team is saying. "Let's remove the apocalypse tanks AA capbillities, but give AA to a bunch of other random units!"

Also, I'm suprised this thread has remained OFF TOPIC for five pages.
I'm still not getting what it was meant to be, a discussion of all strategies, not just mine.

[Derek]

Yeah, but those units are not simultaneously the best MBT in the game.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Yeah, but those units are not simultaneously the best MBT in the game.

It's a super heavy tank, not a main battle tank, but I see your point there.

[apple23]

I really like that in RA3 all factions get airforce, and i really like that you can't make battle tanks until T2. I actually honestly think that EA is doing a great job on Red Alert 3. They have really addressed many of the pressing problems that RA2 had and are also taking a leaf out of the Generals book, seeing the great success it was balance-wise. (Controlled Economy for the win!!!)


Back on topic: my strategy would probably be to mass infantry early game, get my wf up and make so IFVs or sickles or similar depending on what i feel like, and then get right off making guardian tanks asap. for late game, I'll mix assault destoyers in there, with air support wherever needed.

By the way, Ivan, this thread has not really gone off topic, we are discussing how your strategy would work and along the way discussing some of the unit mechanics. I don't really see how that dosen't pertain to strategy.


In other words the Dev team is saying. "Let's remove the apocalypse tanks AA capbillities, but give AA to a bunch of other random units!"

Can't you see what they are doing there? they are promoting a mix of units. They saw how easy it was in CNC3 to spam mammoths because they didn't really need any support. They could own any other unit hands down pretty much. In RA3, they are giving the apocalypse tank a vulnerability, promoting balance and utilizing a mix of units, something that they have never really done with the superheavy tank of any CNC game.

In Theory, the old mammoths didn't need any support at all, because they could destroy any and all units that came thier way, including air, making them the singlemost powerful and spammable unit (In practice, however, this did not always work)

[Derek]

ack on topic: my strategy would probably be to mass infantry early game, get my wf up and make so IFVs or sickles or similar depending on what i feel like, and then get right off making guardian tanks asap. for late game, I'll mix assault destoyers in there, with air support wherever needed.
I wouldn't recommend spamming infantry early, as the primary early harrassment unit of two of the three factions is an anti-infantry vehicle (the Sickle and Mecha-Tengu). You can do it against Allies though, IFVs sucks against infantry and Riptides are not as effective against infantry as the Sickle and Tengu nor is it as good against harvesters.

[Annihlator :D]

You can do it against Allies though, IFVs sucks against infantry and Riptides are not as effective against infantry as the Sickle and Tengu nor is it as good against harvesters.

Riptides?

[Avapodnaught]

I wouldn't recommend spamming infantry early, as the primary early harrassment unit of two of the three factions is an anti-infantry vehicle (the Sickle and Mecha-Tengu). You can do it against Allies though, IFVs sucks against infantry and Riptides are not as effective against infantry as the Sickle and Tengu nor is it as good against harvesters.
Even the IFVs with the shot gun Peacekeepers in them? (Imagines a big shield guarding the IFV but assumes RA3 doesn't have it)
I thought that would pawn infantry big time (getting close and personal fast), though it would be slaughtered by vehicles and suck against structures but still... not against infantry I'd understand that without anything in it...
Have you tried that yet?
Or does it still suck because of its armor...

[nyarlathotep]

In fact, that still would be the best solution, ok you lose the shield abilty but your mounted shotgun is still a heavy anti-inf weapon. And your sitting in an armed vehicle, which in a way is still a shield.
Just to remind you, in the days of RA2 a dozen IFVs could be a force to be reconed with(because of 2 regenerative engineerIFV's in the middle).
But the fun really began when you'ld captured a soviet barracks. Man, TeslaIFV's were SWEEEEET !!!:devil:

Still, I'm going to miss Yuri-clones :\

[Derek]

It probably would, you have to make sure it gets close though, and IFVs don't have great health.. Completely useless against harvesters though.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

I really like that in RA3 all factions get airforce, and i really like that you can't make battle tanks until T2. I actually honestly think that EA is doing a great job on Red Alert 3. They have really addressed many of the pressing problems that RA2 had and are also taking a leaf out of the Generals book, seeing the great success it was balance-wise. (Controlled Economy for the win!!!)


Back on topic: my strategy would probably be to mass infantry early game, get my wf up and make so IFVs or sickles or similar depending on what i feel like, and then get right off making guardian tanks asap. for late game, I'll mix assault destoyers in there, with air support wherever needed.

By the way, Ivan, this thread has not really gone off topic, we are discussing how your strategy would work and along the way discussing some of the unit mechanics. I don't really see how that dosen't pertain to strategy.


Can't you see what they are doing there? they are promoting a mix of units. They saw how easy it was in CNC3 to spam mammoths because they didn't really need any support. They could own any other unit hands down pretty much. In RA3, they are giving the apocalypse tank a vulnerability, promoting balance and utilizing a mix of units, something that they have never really done with the superheavy tank of any CNC game.

In Theory, the old mammoths didn't need any support at all, because they could destroy any and all units that came thier way, including air, making them the singlemost powerful and spammable unit (In practice, however, this did not always work)

>In RA3, they are giving the apocalypse tank a vulnerability
>apocalypse tank a vulnerability

These are two things that should not be in the same sentence :/
The apocalypse was meant to be an all around unit, effective versus land, sea, air, buildings, and sometimes infantry.

I understand that the mammoth tank is a bit over powered, except their missiles suck now (Thank you EA for lowering the missile damage to air by 33%, might as well not even have them anymore since they do **** for damage)
The Apocalypse tank in RA2 had it right, it was a super heavy tank meant for anti tank and building, and had anti airmissile so it could defend it self slightly from air attacks, the missiles wouldn't kill a harrier out right, and if the harrier was retreating before the missiles were launched, they would likely get out of the missiles range before getting hit.
The apocalypse tank was not an all around unit because it had no form of anti infantry (though an elite one would kill anything very quickly).

I rather enjoyed that, because you had a heavy tank, that wouldn't be picked off by a lone ****ing rocketeer because it couldn't getback to base in time due to it's slow speed.

There is a reason mammoths and apocalypse tanks have anti air.
They are slow, aircraft are fast. They can't get back to base in time to get healed in some occasions.

Now, the missiles don't need to kill everything in one hit, but they can't just be useless as they are now. Slow speed and moderate damage.

CnCTD- Mammoth tank, missiles, cannons
RedAlert- Mammoth tank, missiles, cannons
CnCTS- Mammoth MKII, missiles, railcannons
RA2- Apocalypse tank, missiles, cannons
Generals- don't give a ****
CnC3- Mammoth tank, missiles, cannons/railcannons
RA3- Apocalypse tank- Magenetic harpoon, cannons

Seriously, if it's not broke, don't ****ing mess with it, leave the design alone and make some other ****ed up unit.
EA just ****ed up over 10 years of consistant unit design.

That's like going into a UN meeting, and finding out they made shooting medics an openly okay thing to do.

You just don't ****ing do **** like that.

[Derek]

Let me summarize all that for you: I know nothing about unit design and balance.

[Annihlator :D]

Ivan, the reason they took out the missles waws to prevent a complete tank spam, which has always been happeneing in C&C games, and wich a lot of gamers don't wan't (you can try and argue with me, but neither CoH or WiC were a tank spam, and both games were amazing) They're trying to add more strategy by forcing you to need a combined arms force, not just tanks, tanks, and more tanks.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Let me summarize all that for you: I know nothing about unit design and balance.

Just an insulting sentence for a reply? Come now, you can do better than that.
What are we on, 4chan here? Come now, let's at least be civil.

Ivan, the reason they took out the missles waws to prevent a complete tank spam, which has always been happeneing in C&C games, and wich a lot of gamers don't wan't (you can try and argue with me, but neither CoH or WiC were a tank spam, and both games were amazing) They're trying to add more strategy by forcing you to need a combined arms force, not just tanks, tanks, and more tanks.

Neverplayed COH, because Panzer General is about the most realistic game I have when it comes to strategy. And I'm fairly sure PG is still the most detailed, historicaly accurate strategy game on the market.

I'm sorry, I thought the CnC series was about fun, to me it was always about fun, I never cared about balance, games are supposed to be FUN.

[Derek]

Just an insulting sentence for a reply? Come now, you can do better than that.
We've already explained it to you. You refuse to listen.

I'm sorry, I thought the CnC series was about fun, to me it was always about fun, I never cared about balance, games are supposed to be FUN.
Spamming one units is not fun.

[Annihlator :D]

Spamming one units is not fun.

Nor is it strategy, which we are here to discuss.

[apple23]

>In RA3, they are giving the apocalypse tank a vulnerability
>apocalypse tank a vulnerability

These are two things that should not be in the same sentence :/
The apocalypse was meant to be an all around unit, effective versus land, sea, air, buildings, and sometimes infantry.
The apocalypse was also designed to be a big, ungainly beast that either way needed support to accomplish anything significant anyways.

I understand that the mammoth tank is a bit over powered, except their missiles suck now (Thank you EA for lowering the missile damage to air by 33%, might as well not even have them anymore since they do **** for damage)
I will agree that making the missiles practically useless kind of sucks, but they were on the right track as far as making a counter to it. My main beef is that thier rockets could attack ground as well, so they nerfed its gorund and air damage.

However, they still need to do something else to make it less spammable, if they totally took out its rockets that would make more sense than reducing thier damage.

The Apocalypse tank in RA2 had it right, it was a super heavy tank meant for anti tank and building, and had anti airmissile so it could defend it self slightly from air attacks, the missiles wouldn't kill a harrier out right, and if the harrier was retreating before the missiles were launched, they would likely get out of the missiles range before getting hit.
The apocalypse tank was not an all around unit because it had no form of anti infantry (though an elite one would kill anything very quickly).
I personally don't think the RA2 apocalypse could even be considered a superheavy tank. Its armor wasn't that great in comparison to a rhino, and it was the slowest unit in the game. It had respectable firepower and could attack air units, but overall, rhino spam was much, much more cost efficient and required no teching up to do.

I rather enjoyed that, because you had a heavy tank, that wouldn't be picked off by a lone ****ing rocketeer because it couldn't getback to base in time due to it's slow speed.
if you ever lost even a rhino to a lone rocketeer, that's sad, truly sad.

There is a reason mammoths and apocalypse tanks have anti air.
They are slow, aircraft are fast. They can't get back to base in time to get healed in some occasions.
it was actually more just to patch up thier weakness against aircraft, which was a bad desicion, because that makes it that much more spammable because it didn't need anti-air support.

If you didn't bring anti-air support, then you deserve to lose the tank.

Now, the missiles don't need to kill everything in one hit, but they can't just be useless as they are now. Slow speed and moderate damage.
The Apocalypse dosen't need missiles at all. For how much extra it would probably cost (realistically) to arm them with a missile pack, you could buy a bullfrog and get MUCH better anti air support and that's what EA was going for, promoting a MIX of units that are equally powerful in thier special counter, with other units nearby to counter against thier weaknesses.

CnCTD- Mammoth tank, missiles, cannons
RedAlert- Mammoth tank, missiles, cannons
CnCTS- Mammoth MKII, missiles, railcannons
RA2- Apocalypse tank, missiles, cannons
Generals- Overlord, cannons, add gatt, bunker, or speaker tower.
CnC3- Mammoth tank, missiles, cannons/railcannons
RA3- Apocalypse tank- Magenetic harpoon, cannons


The winner here is TS's Mammoth MKII, because you could only have one at a time. Where all other mammoth tanks went wrong was having a unit that could counter against anything, making it extremely spammable. TS had one unit that could counter against everything, but you couldn't spam it because you couldn't make more than one at a time.

RA3's apocalypse takes second place because it has a vulnerability, promoting less spam and requiring a mix of units.

Seriously, if it's not broke, don't ****ing mess with it, leave the design alone and make some other ****ed up unit.
EA just ****ed up over 10 years of consistant unit design.

It wasn't broke, I'll give you that, but it definitely needed some redesigning, as i have very obviously pointed out earlier

[Ivan_Moscavich]

We've already explained it to you. You refuse to listen.


Spamming one units is not fun.

Oh I'm listening, and you little insult was out of line. You insulted me directly with no proper reason.
Spamming not fun? You've obviously never seen a huge mass of conscripts, it's rather hilarious to see 100+ conscripts kill a base.

Nor is it strategy, which we are here to discuss.

Rushing and spamming are as much a strategy as combined arms. They always have been, and always will be. There is nothing "Cheap" about them either. They are both valid strategies, and if you don't except them, you know very little about military doctorine.
Look to history, you will see many, many,many accounts of "Spamming", generaly large amounts of basic infantrymen.
The blitzkrieg? Oh that's right it was paramount to "Rushing" all biet with combined arms to an extent.

Neither of you can call into question my knowlege of strategy because A, It's my ****ing job, and B, you know next to nothing about me, let alone how I think and what I know.
Don't even try and act like you can call me on things when you have know idea.

The apocalypse was also designed to be a big, ungainly beast that either way needed support to accomplish anything significant anyways.


I will agree that making the missiles practically useless kind of sucks, but they were on the right track as far as making a counter to it. My main beef is that thier rockets could attack ground as well, so they nerfed its gorund and air damage.

However, they still need to do something else to make it less spammable, if they totally took out its rockets that would make more sense than reducing thier damage.


I personally don't think the RA2 apocalypse could even be considered a superheavy tank. Its armor wasn't that great in comparison to a rhino, and it was the slowest unit in the game. It had respectable firepower and could attack air units, but overall, rhino spam was much, much more cost efficient and required no teching up to do.


if you ever lost even a rhino to a lone rocketeer, that's sad, truly sad.


it was actually more just to patch up thier weakness against aircraft, which was a bad desicion, because that makes it that much more spammable because it didn't need anti-air support.

If you didn't bring anti-air support, then you deserve to lose the tank.


The Apocalypse dosen't need missiles at all. For how much extra it would probably cost (realistically) to arm them with a missile pack, you could buy a bullfrog and get MUCH better anti air support and that's what EA was going for, promoting a MIX of units that are equally powerful in thier special counter, with other units nearby to counter against thier weaknesses.


The winner here is TS's Mammoth MKII, because you could only have one at a time. Where all other mammoth tanks went wrong was having a unit that could counter against anything, making it extremely spammable. TS had one unit that could counter against everything, but you couldn't spam it because you couldn't make more than one at a time.

RA3's apocalypse takes second place because it has a vulnerability, promoting less spam and requiring a mix of units.



It wasn't broke, I'll give you that, but it definitely needed some redesigning, as i have very obviously pointed out earlier

First of all, the cost of arming a unit in agame, compared to realistic cost is rediculous, it's a game, reallistic comparrison is irellevent unless the game is supposed to be realistic.
And the mammoth/apocalypse tank spam was only a viable tactic if you had a major economy up and running, even then it was hard to gather so many of them.
I've not lost a rhino to a single rocketeer, ever, to 10+, yeah it happens, rocketeers spamming was a favorite allied tactic. Besides I always had flak tracks with my rhinos.
I've already accepted that the Apocalypse tank is no longer what it should be, I have no choice in the matter. Will I use it, yes. Will I like it, perhaps.
I'm well aware what EA is doing, and it completely contridicts the last 10 years of command and conquer.
*sigh*
Look, I hate arguing with people over small things.
I guess I'm just pissed because they are changing alot of the things i've known for ten years. I'll be the first to admit I really don't like change, never have, probabaly never will.
We'll just have to wait and see I suppose.
Perhaps when i get the beta, my mind will be changed, but there is no way to know for sure untill I begin playing.
Perhaps the dev team knows what they're doing, it just doesn't look like it to me.
I'll wait and see though.

[Derek]

Oh I'm listening,
Read the thread.

Spamming not fun? You've obviously never seen a huge mass of conscripts, it's rather hilarious to see 100+ conscripts kill a base.
Thats funny. Not fun. And if it happens over and over, it becomes boring.

Rushing and spamming are as much a strategy as combined arms. They always have been, and always will be. There is nothing "Cheap" about them either. They are both valid strategies, and if you don't except them, you know very little about military doctorine.
Rushing has nothing to do with spamming. Dont mix them. Spamming is a strategy, but it is boring and a good game is designed to make it ineffective, so that games won't be boring spamfests like CNC3.

Look to history, you will see many, many,many accounts of "Spamming", generaly large amounts of basic infantrymen.
The blitzkrieg? Oh that's right it was paramount to "Rushing" all biet with combined arms to an extent.
...
First of all, the cost of arming a unit in agame, compared to realistic cost is rediculous, it's a game, reallistic comparrison is irellevent unless the game is supposed to be realistic.
Good job contradicting yourself.

I'm well aware what EA is doing, and it completely contridicts the last 10 years of command and conquer.
Who do I think will make a better game: A developer with little to no experience in the genre, or a developer with twelve years of experience in the genre?

EA has learned from Westwood's mistakes.

Perhaps the dev team knows what they're doing, it just doesn't look like it to me.
You don't know what you're doing. The devs are very intelligent and have designed a very good game that emphasizes micro and diversity.

[apple23]

Oh I'm listening, and you little insult was out of line. You insulted me directly with no proper reason.
It wasn't an insult. He was tying to bring to your awareness how much of an arrogant ass you are being right now.
Even if ti was an insult, it had a reason.

Rushing and spamming are as much a strategy as combined arms. They always have been, and always will be. There is nothing "Cheap" about them either. They are both valid strategies, and if you don't except them, you know very little about military doctorine.
Yes, spamming is a strategy. There are tons of strategies out there. I personally believe that a game should be fine tuned to not allow spamming of one single unit to be really effective at all, let alone cost efficient.

Look to history, you will see many, many,many accounts of "Spamming", generaly large amounts of basic infantrymen.
The blitzkrieg? Oh that's right it was paramount to "Rushing" all biet with combined arms to an extent.
Good job contradicting yourself. Blitzkrieg was not at all spam. It was, as you said, a rush tactic. It was a quite balanced force, actually, mixed in also with air support. If you call that spam, well... then YOU know very little about military doctrine.

Neither of you can call into question my knowlege of strategy because A, It's my ****ing job, and B, you know next to nothing about me, let alone how I think and what I know.
Don't even try and act like you can call me on things when you have know idea.
I'm having trouble understanging your logic there. You're saying that because we don't know you personally, that makes you right and makes you impervious to us contradicting your arguments?

That's not how it works, buddy. If you know SO MUCH about strategy that we shoudln't dare question your mighty self then try presenting yourself in a way that gives us no reason to contradict you.

Arguments don't work that way, if you present a point, be prepared to defend it otherwise you lose the argument and there is nothing you can do to stop other people from questioning your logic.

Get off your arrogant ass and maybe try really listening to what we have to say.

First of all, the cost of arming a unit in agame, compared to realistic cost is rediculous, it's a game, reallistic comparrison is irellevent unless the game is supposed to be realistic.
You took my comment way out of context there. I meant that if they were to give the apocalypse back it's AA capability they would have to ncrease its cost to compensate. With the extra cost you would have to add, you could just buy a bullfrog and get better AA support.

And the mammoth/apocalypse tank spam was only a viable tactic if you had a major economy up and running, even then it was hard to gather so many of them.
Actually, it didn't demand a very meaty economy. Take CNC3 for example, mammoth spam was very easy, and your economy could easily support it if you grabbed a few tib fields and strip mined them quick.

I've not lost a rhino to a single rocketeer, ever, to 10+, yeah it happens, rocketeers spamming was a favorite allied tactic. Besides I always had flak tracks with my rhinos.
If that's so, then what was the point of thast comment?

I've already accepted that the Apocalypse tank is no longer what it should be, I have no choice in the matter. Will I use it, yes. Will I like it, perhaps.
if you have accepted the new apocalypse, then why make this whole argument about it?

I'm well aware what EA is doing, and it completely contridicts the last 10 years of command and conquer.
Really, the apocalypse hasn't changed much. It still fills its role as the big, ungainly, superheavy anti-vehicle and structire tank that rolls over everything in its path. The only diffeence now it it needs some extyra anti air support, and trust me, that's a good thing.

Look, I hate arguing with people over small things.
then why are you?
I guess I'm just pissed because they are changing alot of the things i've known for ten years. I'll be the first to admit I really don't like change, never have, probabaly never will.
like I said earlier, the apocalypse hasn't changed much. its Anti air capability was never really a big deal anyway.
We'll just have to wait and see I suppose.
Perhaps when i get the beta, my mind will be changed, but there is no way to know for sure untill I begin playing.
Perhaps the dev team knows what they're doing, it just doesn't look like it to me.
I'll wait and see though.
That's the way to be about it. Trust me, that dev team actually knows what they are doing with this one.

If it turns out that the apocalypse tank totally sucks, then you can come back and complain about it.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Alright, I'm looking back through here, and I did indeed make an ass out of myself, making a few contridictions and counter insults as well.

I want to apologize as I generaly refrain from doing such, and I'm not quite sure what came over me.

I could try and make a list of excuses, but I won't, just an apology.

I let frustration get the better of me, and I should not have done that.

The only thing I'm going to make a retort here to is this, because I'm either reading this wrong, or it could be put more clearly.
And also a clarification as to the mammoth spamming.
>>
Quote:
I'm well aware what EA is doing, and it completely contridicts the last 10 years of command and conquer.

Who do I think will make a better game: A developer with little to no experience in the genre, or a developer with twelve years of experience in the genre?

EA has learned from Westwood's mistakes.


To me that sounds like you're saying Westwood has little to no experience in the genre, and EA has twelve years.
Because to the best of my knowlege, Westwood was one of the major pioneers of the RTS genre.

I was not taking into account the latest addition of CnC, I was talking in the past, where gather resources was a tad bit harder.
Building a large force of Mammoths or Apocalypse tanks in Red Alert and red alert 2 took a very large cash flow.


And to clarify I was concerned that you were calling into question my capabillity of strategic thinking, which I am very very good at. I don't take kindly to insults or slanderous comments towards my mental capacity in any way shape or form, it seems it is the only form of negative comments that angers me.

Also, the original post is sort of misleading, well, quite misleading, it seems that everyone thinks that "a massive ammount of apocalypse tanks with minimal escorts" lead people to believe I would mass nothing but tanks, and have a handful of flak tracks near by, which is not the case, I probably should have phrased that better and this entire conflict would have not begun in the first place.


In summary, I appologize for my antogonistic and disorderly comments.

There are probably a few more things I could, and should clear up, but at this time I still have things to get done, so it will have to wait untill a later date.

LAstly, as a small clarification. The blitkrieg was a form of rushing, since rushing is not the same as spamming, which some one seemed to attempt and correct me on when I did not make any direct indication of them being so. It was a combined arm rush.

Rush being defined as a fast, overwhelming strategic movement designed to incapacitate the enemy as quickly as possible. The contents of the attack force is irellevent, it is only in the gaming word where rushing is defined as the early mass of single or a few types of low level units sent to the enemy in hopes of destroying them early game.

Oh, and to why I am arguing my points, I despise losing arguments. ;)
Untill next time....

[Derek]

To me that sounds like you're saying Westwood has little to no experience in the genre, and EA has twelve years.
Because to the best of my knowlege, Westwood was one of the major pioneers of the RTS genre.
Exactly. Pioneers have no experience. You cannot expect an RTS from when the genre was new to live up to the standards of modern RTS. That would be like saying Wolfenstein 3D is a better shooter than Half-Life 2. Westwood created the genre and developed it early, but the original WW games are horribly shallow compared to modern games. They had no concept of balance in either faction or game design. Nor did they realize the implications of rushing, spamming, or turtling. These are all ideas that came much later.

[Lazzars]

does HL2 have a robot Hitler boss battle, i think not!

[Derek]

Doesn't matter, I'ld rather fight a Strider.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Exactly. Pioneers have no experience. You cannot expect an RTS from when the genre was new to live up to the standards of modern RTS. That would be like saying Wolfenstein 3D is a better shooter than Half-Life 2. Westwood created the genre and developed it early, but the original WW games are horribly shallow compared to modern games. They had no concept of balance in either faction or game design. Nor did they realize the implications of rushing, spamming, or turtling. These are all ideas that came much later.

Yes, yes of course.

does HL2 have a robot Hitler boss battle, i think not!

Yeah, but he was somehow more powerful out of his suit.