Yuriko Omega

[Commander Dave]

She is very good looking but oh so deadly, i watched




the demo on raden that was real cool of her destroying a


russian harvester within seconds and she can knockout infantry


as well , so if you want to know more go to RED ALERT 3 .com for

more details !

[SgtRicko]

Given her description on the main site, it sounds like she's somehow related to Yuri's research on psychic weapons, albeit in a more brutish and physical manner.

[Cylon Crusader]

Get it guys,

"Yuri"-ko Omega

[Quadhelix]

"Yuri"-ko Omega
"Lily (http://www.behindthename.com/php/search.php?nmd=n&terms=Yuri&submit=Go) Child"/"Yuri Child"


Anyway, based on the art on the RADEN main page, I'm willing to guess that my suggestion does not fit with EA's idea, but when I read about Yuriko Omega here (http://commandandconquer.filefront.com/info/ra3_empire), I thought that the voice used with her could do much to break the "humorous" nature of the game, if not the over-the-top aspect. The idea, in essence, is to give her responses similar to:

"You can't stick needles in my eyes then ask me what I see!"

Of course that line is copyrighted (kudos to those who get the reference), but things along those lines, revealing a tormented child whose childhood, and perhaps humanity, has been stolen from her in a cruel attempt to create a better weapon, would have been better than the "I'm Tanya with pigtails" attitude that she has now.


That's it! Yuriko is the love child of Tanya and Yuri! Or not. Hopefully not.

[pipinowns]

She is very good looking but oh so deadly!

The fact I imagine you as a 7 year old throwing his hands at his keyboard and crying makes this post so damn funny.

[apple23]

However true that may be, please do not flame in boards like these or post completely irrelevant spam.

Anyways, Yuriko Omega is almost the same as yuri, except that she can't mind control, instead using the psionic powers to destroy things. Her secondary ability is basically the same thing as Yuri's psych-blast.

I'm not very impressed, and the fact that she is depicted as an extremely scantily derssed schoolgirl makes me sick.

If she was given a different history and dressed like a commando, that might be a bit cooler...

That's it! Yuriko is the love child of Tanya and Yuri! Or not. Hopefully not.
Maybe Yuri is on the Empire's side and Tanya is a traitor and they dressed her as a schoolgirl to cover all that up... who knows... with RA3's wacky storyline that could actually make sense... sadly enough...

[Quadhelix]

I'm not very impressed, and the fact that she is depicted as an extremely scantily derssed schoolgirl makes me sick.
I'm not really bothered by making her a schoolgirl, but her apparent attitude seems a bit off given her backstory. Again, I feel that the design staff should have watched Firefly and Neon Genesis Evangelion before designing this character.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Im just wondering why she is the only commando EVER to have anti air capabillities, of sorts, I guess grounding aircraft is basicly anti air.

What happen to the days where a commando could get picked off by any wandering aircraft?

[TTFTCUTS]

Or in the old days a nod buggy, given a little time :P

Yeah, it does seem a tad odd that a commando would be able to do that given their much narrower strengths in the previous games...

I wonder if the others will have comparable powers?

[pipinowns]

Shes the most powerful because Empire is the most powerful late game. But only if they saved up tons of money.

Allies is the strongest early game and Soviets are stronger at early game then empire and stronger at late game then Allies.

Tanya and Natasha are about equal. Omega is very very strong.

Also she isn't very good looking. While Natasha is a bit scary and Tanya is a whore. I think having a bunch of "sexy" female commando's in game wasn't a great idea.

There bloody pixels for god sake.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Shes the most powerful because Empire is the most powerful late game. But only if they saved up tons of money.

Allies is the strongest early game and Soviets are stronger at early game then empire and stronger at late game then Allies.

Tanya and Natasha are about equal. Omega is very very strong.

Also she isn't very good looking. While Natasha is a bit scary and Tanya is a whore. I think having a bunch of "sexy" female commando's in game wasn't a great idea.

There bloody pixels for god sake.


Powerful early, powerful mid, powerful late game, I thought everything was meant to be balanced now adays. :lmao:
Balance my ass.

[pipinowns]

That's where the strategy comes in...

[apple23]

Actually, that's where faction diversity comes in, which in turn denotes strategy.

And what exactly were you referring to Ivan?

I think having a bunch of "sexy" female commando's in game wasn't a great idea.

There bloody pixels for god sake.

Amen to that. I liked the RA2 tanya way, WAY better. I even liked the RA1 tanya even though RA2's was hotter, but not in a whorish, skanky, overlysexy way, which is what alot of the females in RA3 seem to be.

[thetechieotaku]

Im just wondering why she is the only commando EVER to have anti air capabillities, of sorts, I guess grounding aircraft is basicly anti air.

What happen to the days where a commando could get picked off by any wandering aircraft?

I was also wondering why Yuriko Omega is the only commando with ANTI-AIR capability. I should say that her weakness SHOULD be infantry (Shotgun or AK-47). Tanya and Natasha should too have Anti-Air capabilities. I really think that EA is already messing up the game. Damn.. I can't say something about the gameplay as of now 'coz I don't have a copy of the beta.

[pipinowns]

Amen to that. I liked the RA2 tanya way, WAY better. I even liked the RA1 tanya even though RA2's was hotter, but not in a whorish, skanky, overlysexy way, which is what alot of the females in RA3 seem to be.

I love the show House MD and I've always thought that Jennifer Morrison (Who's on the show) was cute. And its pretty embarrassing that EA had to make her a joke. I honestly think even if they had pretty women who didn't have a slutty playboy feel to them that they would still make them an embarrassment.

Disappointing...

[thetechieotaku]

"Lily (http://www.behindthename.com/php/search.php?nmd=n&terms=Yuri&submit=Go) Child"/"Yuri Child"......

True. Yuri is Lily in Japanese.

....That's it! Yuriko is the love child of Tanya and Yuri! Or not. Hopefully not.

It doesn't mean that Omega's name contains Y.U.R.I. would mean that she is Yuri's daughter. Plus Yuri is used by both the Russian and Japanese languages.

[Quadhelix]

I was also wondering why Yuriko Omega is the only commando with ANTI-AIR capability. I should say that her weakness SHOULD be infantry (Shotgun or AK-47). Tanya and Natasha should too have Anti-Air capabilities. No. As far as I can tell, each Commando has a specialty. Tanya and Natasha are strong against infantry, but Tanya has C4 to demolish structures and Natasha can pilot-snipe vehicles. Yuriko's "specialty" would thus be aircraft, although it is too early to tell if she will be strong against infantry, tanks, or both.


It doesn't mean that Omega's name contains Y.U.R.I. would mean that she is Yuri's daughter. Plus Yuri is used by both the Russian and Japanese languages.
It was a joke. In any case, I was referring to her psychic powers and her Tanya-esque attitude and musculature.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Actually, that's where faction diversity comes in, which in turn denotes strategy.

And what exactly were you referring to Ivan?



Amen to that. I liked the RA2 tanya way, WAY better. I even liked the RA1 tanya even though RA2's was hotter, but not in a whorish, skanky, overlysexy way, which is what alot of the females in RA3 seem to be.

I was refering to generalized blance.
They talked about making the game balanced for all sides, and you can't do that with faction diversity.
That's what made Red Alert and red Alert 2 great, you had the Allies, a high tech, hit and run faction, and you had the Soviets, slow,heavy hitting.
Both sides used different styles of play and people would choose one and work accordingly. Balance didn't mean much because you can't attempt to standardized to different things into a single value while still keeping them individuals unto themselves.

No. As far as I can tell, each Commando has a specialty. Tanya and Natasha are strong against infantry, but Tanya has C4 to demolish structures and Natasha can pilot-snipe vehicles. Yuriko's "specialty" would thus be aircraft, although it is too early to tell if she will be strong against infantry, tanks, or both.



It was a joke. In any case, I was referring to her psychic powers and her Tanya-esque attitude and musculature.

Commandos have always had C4, here, look at this, this is what the commandos in RA3 are like, and how it is unbalanced, that not nessacarily being a problem

Tanya, anti infantry pistols, and building C4, special abillity "Time belt" moves tanya back in time 15 seconds

Natasha, anti infantry sniper rifle (this actual makes her the best anti-commando commando by the way), and air strike laser designator, special abillity "Pilot snipe" which removes vehical crews(including ships to my amusement, nothing like sniping the crew of a heroic shogun battleship and taking it yourself)

Yuriko, okay, i havn't played as the japs yet, and only played as the allies because in the first to 2v2 matchs i played, (i was soviet both times, and ended up with allies as an ally) my ally quit, giving me control of their base (i also won both matchs, 1 v 2)
But from what I've heard, yuriko uses a sort of psychic burst that sends infantry and light vehicals flying, she can ground aircraft, and shot, i believe it was called "mind bullets"
That's what I heard at least.

[Derek]

They talked about making the game balanced for all sides, and you can't do that with faction diversity.
Yes you can.

[apple23]

I love the show House MD and I've always thought that Jennifer Morrison (Who's on the show) was cute. And its pretty embarrassing that EA had to make her a joke. I honestly think even if they had pretty women who didn't have a slutty playboy feel to them that they would still make them an embarrassment.

Disappointing...

IMO, EA did a fine job with RA2's cast. The guys were cool, and the women were pretty, but not in an overlysexy way. If RA3 could just bring that feel back to its cast, I'd be totally fine with its current set of characters.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Yes you can.

No, you can't, at least not absolute balance.
Absolute balance being no one has any advantages in any area, everything is exactly the same.

You have two commandos with medium range, and a commando with a sniper range.
Ranges, not the same, there for not balanced (one on one, obviously snipers have disatvantage against superior numbers)
Japanese commando has anti air capabillities, upsetting the commando balance of power, which has always been a lack of anti air. (though it would be humorous for the CnC3 GDI commando to be able to detpack aircraft while jumpjetting)

Apocalypse tank versus Grizzly battle tank, not balanced in any ****ing way (again, one on one, two, three, four, five, etc)

With such a variety of units and diverse unit design and function, things can not be absolutely balanced, it is impossible, and un wise.


I'm by no means saying that everything should be absolutly balanced, things need variety, it gives you strategic options.
Strategic options lead to different battle situations.
Different battle situations lead to fun.
Fun leads to good game.
Good game leads to sales.
Sales lead to money.
Companies love money.

There are few games, designed from the start to be purely balanced, that are still very fun. Chess, checkers, Tic tac toe even.
In these you are limited to the same amount of strategic resources as the opponent, meaning no one has a clear advantage.

In a game where you make units, such a variety of units, you can only balance things so much. And the idea is not to change the units so drasticly they don't become an option to use, but to let the players find their own strategies that work for them against the opponent.

In red alert two people found ways to overcome soviet tank rushs, prism towers, soviets found ways to over come prisim towers, v3s, allies found ways to over come v3s, harriers, and it goes on and on and on.
It's the player's duty to find strategies, develope counters and counter-counters, not the company. They player will log much more play time on the game than the company will, so they know what they are doing when it comes to strategy.

Now when you read through my first examples don't you dare reply "Harriers work against tanks, ships" etc, I'm talking unit type on unit type. Heavy tank against light tank, there is no balance there when you go one on one, and there shouldn't be, it is the unit's implicit design to be superior one on one against other tanks. The light tanks abillity to be produced in greater numbers is what counters by extent the power of the heavy tank.

Player's need to take responsibillity for their own strategies, and not sit around and bitch untill the game company makes a change that makes them happy.
And before you comment on the other thread, while I was bitching about the apocalypse tank not having anti air any more, I was simultaneously working on adaptive strategies. I was bitching, and doing something about it. That may sound odd, but in my line of work I find that the angrier I am at the problem, the harder I work to resolve it.

Now there are certain game play balances that are always in play, like the aforementioned heavy vs light tank, the light tank is cheaper, and therefore easier to mass produce and overwhelm the heavy tanks.
But units them selves should not be overly balanced. Units should always be different to an extent. A heavy tank is a tank with better armor and armorments, as well as a higher cost than a light tank. A light tank is faster, and easier to mass produce than a heavy tank. That is the way the units are supposed to work.

Now I'm running out of things to say, as well as I have to get back to work.

[Derek]

Sides don't have to be symmetrical to have balance, nor do tanks have to be balanced for entire factions to be balanced. Symmetrical games are easy to balance, but assymetrical games can be balanced too, it just takes more work. If one side has weak tanks, maybe it has strong aircraft or infantry to compensate, if this is tuned right, then its balanced.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Sides don't have to be symmetrical to have balance, nor do tanks have to be balanced for entire factions to be balanced. Symmetrical games are easy to balance, but assymetrical games can be balanced too, it just takes more work. If one side has weak tanks, maybe it has strong aircraft or infantry to compensate, if this is tuned right, then its balanced.

Now that's background balance, not involving ****ing around with the units themselves. This is partly how it should be.
But like I said before, perfect balance, meaning no one has any advantage what so ever in any area, can not be acheived with diverse units.
Background balance can come into play, but from there the players themselves take over.

[pipinowns]

Now that's background balance, not involving ****ing around with the units themselves. This is partly how it should be.
But like I said before, perfect balance, meaning no one has any advantage what so ever in any area, can not be acheived with diverse units.
Background balance can come into play, but from there the players themselves take over.

Perfect balance means it ends up whoever can build there units fastest.

[Morph]

'Perfect' balance as you call it will never exist in a good RTS. General balance will. As has been said, what is lacking in one area should be made up for in another.

Just because one team has an advantage in one area doesn't mean that overall they have an advantage - it's all about how the units are combined and moved around the battlefield, general army micromanagement is the key to proper balancing.

[Derek]

Perfect balance can exist, it just takes an inordinate amount of work. With proper support a game can come very close. Strarcraft is pretty much completely balanced.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

'Perfect' balance as you call it will never exist in a good RTS. General balance will. As has been said, what is lacking in one area should be made up for in another.

Just because one team has an advantage in one area doesn't mean that overall they have an advantage - it's all about how the units are combined and moved around the battlefield, general army micromanagement is the key to proper balancing.

I never said I wanted perfect balance in an RTS game, I had already stated that it would make the game boring. it would then only depend on numbers rather than strategy.

Perfect balance can exist, it just takes an inordinate amount of work. With proper support a game can come very close. Strarcraft is pretty much completely balanced.

I am aware it can exist, I had given examples of it, mainly board games, but that is how they are designed.
But for this kind of game you don't want that kind of balance, you want back ground balance.

Derek, I can't help but think we continue to come to the same conclusion from different sides, and for some reason argue over it despite reaching the same end result.

[Statalyzer]

Ivan, I don't see what your complaint with RA3 is. By your own admission RA3 can be good and balanced, just not "perfectly" balanced, so what's the problem?

[apple23]

No, you can't, at least not absolute balance.
Absolute balance being no one has any advantages in any area, everything is exactly the same.

If all factions are the exact same, what is the point of having different factions?

You have two commandos with medium range, and a commando with a sniper range.
Ranges, not the same, there for not balanced (one on one, obviously snipers have disatvantage against superior numbers)
Japanese commando has anti air capabillities, upsetting the commando balance of power, which has always been a lack of anti air. (though it would be humorous for the CnC3 GDI commando to be able to detpack aircraft while jumpjetting)

I will admit that it is weird that yuriko has AA capability, but from what I have seen, she is very easily overwhelmed by any anti infantry tank if it comes in more than 1 unit at a time.


Apocalypse tank versus Grizzly battle tank, not balanced in any ****ing way (again, one on one, two, three, four, five, etc)

Of course the apocalypse will be way more powerful than the grizzly. It is almost 3 times as expensive and takes almost 3 times longer to build!

You don't just look at one on one units when thinking about balance. You also have to consider the cost-effectiveness of a unit against the lesser unit.

With such a variety of units and diverse unit design and function, things can not be absolutely balanced, it is impossible, and un wise.

It is not impossible to balance. It is definitely more difficult, but not impossible and to make a really fun game with lots of depth and variety it is very wise to try.


I'm by no means saying that everything should be absolutly balanced, things need variety, it gives you strategic options.
Strategic options lead to different battle situations.
Different battle situations lead to fun.
Fun leads to good game.
Good game leads to sales.
Sales lead to money.
Companies love money.

Actually good game leads to fun, but otherwise you're right there.

There are few games, designed from the start to be purely balanced, that are still very fun. Chess, checkers, Tic tac toe even.
In these you are limited to the same amount of strategic resources as the opponent, meaning no one has a clear advantage.

All those games have one compelling characteristic: They are very shallow games, especially compared to an RTS game.

In a game where you make units, such a variety of units, you can only balance things so much. And the idea is not to change the units so drasticly they don't become an option to use, but to let the players find their own strategies that work for them against the opponent.

In red alert two people found ways to overcome soviet tank rushs, prism towers, soviets found ways to over come prisim towers, v3s, allies found ways to over come v3s, harriers, and it goes on and on and on.
It's the player's duty to find strategies, develope counters and counter-counters, not the company. They player will log much more play time on the game than the company will, so they know what they are doing when it comes to strategy.
The company is not handing us a complete handbook of strategies and counters on a silver platter.

You are missing the point here. The point is to creat a carefully balanced counter system that the player can work with. You even described a good one in the first half of that paragraph there.

The player cannot tweak a unit if it is overpowered or too spammable. THAT is the company's job, to make the unit useful, but also counterable.

Now when you read through my first examples don't you dare reply "Harriers work against tanks, ships" etc, I'm talking unit type on unit type. Heavy tank against light tank, there is no balance there when you go one on one, and there shouldn't be, it is the unit's implicit design to be superior one on one against other tanks. The light tanks abillity to be produced in greater numbers is what counters by extent the power of the heavy tank.

This goes back tpo what I said earlier. You also contradicted your other argument.

Player's need to take responsibillity for their own strategies, and not sit around and bitch untill the game company makes a change that makes them happy.

Consider this scenario:

Let's take RA2 for example. Let's say that they made apocalypse tanks only 1000 dollars, and made them faster, more powerful, and more heavily armored than before.

That would be the singlemost spammable unit in RTS history. Would you rack your brains trying to figure out a strategy that could counter that, or would you want a change?

If a unit is too powerful, it is too powerful because there are too many limits on what could counter it.

Besides, we aren't bitching about it, and balance is a thing that is totally up to the game desingers. If there is no balance, then your strategy is greatly hindered.

Now there are certain game play balances that are always in play, like the aforementioned heavy vs light tank, the light tank is cheaper, and therefore easier to mass produce and overwhelm the heavy tanks.
But units them selves should not be overly balanced. Units should always be different to an extent. A heavy tank is a tank with better armor and armorments, as well as a higher cost than a light tank. A light tank is faster, and easier to mass produce than a heavy tank. That is the way the units are supposed to work.

And that's how they do work. If a tank is stronger than another tank, the stronger tank is harder to produce or has more limits to compensate.

That IS balance, right there.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Ivan, I don't see what your complaint with RA3 is. By your own admission RA3 can be good and balanced, just not "perfectly" balanced, so what's the problem?

I have no problem, well, not really, I am just in an argumentative mood.

If all factions are the exact same, what is the point of having different factions?

Ivan: There would be no point, which is why I was stressing diferences.

I will admit that it is weird that yuriko has AA capability, but from what I have seen, she is very easily overwhelmed by any anti infantry tank if it comes in more than 1 unit at a time.


Ivan: She survived a hit by Natasha, who is a sniper. I've had a Yuriko unit surrounded by peacekeepers and she destroyed them all. And last but not least, she throws, not just apocalypse tanks in there air, but buildings.

Of course the apocalypse will be way more powerful than the grizzly. It is almost 3 times as expensive and takes almost 3 times longer to build!

You don't just look at one on one units when thinking about balance. You also have to consider the cost-effectiveness of a unit against the lesser unit.

Ivan: I was giving examples on difference, I was by no means putting that as a direct comparrison, although I suppose it would have been wiser to have replaced the apocalypse with the rhino. My bad there.

It is not impossible to balance. It is definitely more difficult, but not impossible and to make a really fun game with lots of depth and variety it is very wise to try.


Ivan: I said impossible to absolutely balance, i never said it couldn't be balanced.

Actually good game leads to fun, but otherwise you're right there.

Ivan: And fun leads to sales, and sales leads to money.


All those games have one compelling characteristic: They are very shallow games, especially compared to an RTS game.

Ivan: They're also turn based board games.


The company is not handing us a complete handbook of strategies and counters on a silver platter.

You are missing the point here. The point is to creat a carefully balanced counter system that the player can work with. You even described a good one in the first half of that paragraph there.

The player cannot tweak a unit if it is overpowered or too spammable. THAT is the company's job, to make the unit useful, but also counterable.

Ivan: Well, more often than not when the game is shipped everything is fairly good, but then they patch things, one unit becomes extremely powerful *cough*Blackhand*cough*.

This goes back tpo what I said earlier. You also contradicted your other argument.

Ivan: The contridiction was intentional, but yes.

Consider this scenario:

Let's take RA2 for example. Let's say that they made apocalypse tanks only 1000 dollars, and made them faster, more powerful, and more heavily armored than before.

That would be the singlemost spammable unit in RTS history. Would you rack your brains trying to figure out a strategy that could counter that, or would you want a change?

If a unit is too powerful, it is too powerful because there are too many limits on what could counter it.

Besides, we aren't bitching about it, and balance is a thing that is totally up to the game desingers. If there is no balance, then your strategy is greatly hindered.

Ivan: I'd ****ing love that. But they'd still be countered by Chrono legionares. Actualy I always though Apoclaypse tanks should be 1800 or 2000, not 1750.

And that's how they do work. If a tank is stronger than another tank, the stronger tank is harder to produce or has more limits to compensate.

That IS balance, right there.

Which is what I was saying, you only need base balance and background balance, you don't need to over proportionaly screw with the stats of every unit. Which is what EA has been doing for CnC3 and Kane's Wrath.

[Statalyzer]

Chess, checkers, Tic tac toe even.

None of those games are perfectly balanced, since there are at the very least slight differences involved based on who goes first and who goes second.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

None of those games are perfectly balanced, since there are at the very least slight differences involved based on who goes first and who goes second.

They come as close to perfect balance as you can achieve.
Again, what I mean by perfect balance is that no one has any advantage in anything what so ever.
I suppose using turn based games kind of ****s that up due to one person gets the first turn, but beyond that, it is what you have on the field, no numerical or position advantage, it rellies solely on the players strategic thinking.

[apple23]

Which is what I was saying, you only need base balance and background balance, you don't need to over proportionaly screw with the stats of every unit. Which is what EA has been doing for CnC3 and Kane's Wrath.


Screwing with the stats of all the units is EXACTLY what promotes balance.

I'll give you a scenario to put what you just said into perspective. This will be very similar to the example I used in my last post. This is a little overdramatized, but I really need to get my point across as I have tried and failed to do so numerous times.

So lets say we gave the RA2 Rhino tank lasers instead of shells. We gave it the damage and warhead of a nuclear missile, and made it cost 200 credits. On top of that, we gave it unlimited range and enough strength to withstand 3 consecutive nukes.

Would you burn EA's ass off if they weakened the rhino to a resonable level, or would you say

"NO! the super-oober overpowered rhino needs to stay the same! even if it completely and totally kills all the fun in the game! It must stay the same!"

I understand that is slightly overdramatized, but that's what your comment came off to me as.

If you don't tweak the units and fine tune them to get them just right and perfectly balanced, then you won't have any kind of balance. If unit balance if way off, it kills the strategy of the whole faction, and maybe even the whole game


They come as close to perfect balance as you can achieve.
Again, what I mean by perfect balance is that no one has any advantage in anything what so ever.
I suppose using turn based games kind of ****s that up due to one person gets the first turn, but beyond that, it is what you have on the field, no numerical or position advantage, it rellies solely on the players strategic thinking.


One of the great things about faction diversity is that even though one faction has a weakness (Which it should have) it has a strength that compensates for that. It is the trick of balancing the faction's strengths and weaknesses that really promotes balance. For example:

In CNC3, GDI is a smoewhat balanced force, but it is more balanced towards slow units. To make up for thier slower units, they are powerful

In contrast, NOD's units are very fast, which is a strength. To compensate for this, thier units have less armor. To promote thier hit and run strategy and more balance, thier units also pach a punch.

That is what should be so when it comes to faction and game balance.

Ivan: She survived a hit by Natasha, who is a sniper. I've had a Yuriko unit surrounded by peacekeepers and she destroyed them all. And last but not least, she throws, not just apocalypse tanks in there air, but buildings.

You missed the one thing that would counter her: Anti-infantry VEHICLES. Yeah, she can knock out infantry, i find it odd that she survives a hit by natasha, but it is meant so that one on one, she wins, but she is easily overwhelmed by anti infantry vehicles.


Ivan: Well, more often than not when the game is shipped everything is fairly good, but then they patch things, one unit becomes extremely powerful *cough*Blackhand*cough*.


You'd be amazed. Patches almost always are good, and the black hand is not overpowered at all. (They own the **** out of zone troopers for a reason (but a sniper team or two wins by far))


Ivan: I'd ****ing love that. But they'd still be countered by Chrono legionares. Actualy I always though Apoclaypse tanks should be 1800 or 2000, not 1750.


You COMPLETELY missed my point, and not even chrono legionnaires could counter it. If apocs cost 1000 dollars there would be more apocs than your chrono leigonnaires, plus if they do more damage, you're screwed anyway.

My point there is that if you have a unit that is That spammable then it is overpowered and needs to be nerfed.
Ivan: I was giving examples on difference, I was by no means putting that as a direct comparrison, although I suppose it would have been wiser to have replaced the apocalypse with the rhino. My bad there.

Setting a rhino 1v1 against a grizzly isn't an example of good balance either. The rhino is supposed to win against a grizzly, that is why it is slower and more costly and takes longer to produce.


Ivan: I said impossible to absolutely balance, i never said it couldn't be balanced.


The only way to achieve absolute balance is to make both sides exactly equal in all ways, and even then, if unit balance is off, that isn't absolute balance then

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Screwing with the stats of all the units is EXACTLY what promotes balance.

I'll give you a scenario to put what you just said into perspective. This will be very similar to the example I used in my last post. This is a little overdramatized, but I really need to get my point across as I have tried and failed to do so numerous times.

So lets say we gave the RA2 Rhino tank lasers instead of shells. We gave it the damage and warhead of a nuclear missile, and made it cost 200 credits. On top of that, we gave it unlimited range and enough strength to withstand 3 consecutive nukes.

Would you burn EA's ass off if they weakened the rhino to a resonable level, or would you say

"NO! the super-oober overpowered rhino needs to stay the same! even if it completely and totally kills all the fun in the game! It must stay the same!"

I understand that is slightly overdramatized, but that's what your comment came off to me as.

If you don't tweak the units and fine tune them to get them just right and perfectly balanced, then you won't have any kind of balance. If unit balance if way off, it kills the strategy of the whole faction, and maybe even the whole game



One of the great things about faction diversity is that even though one faction has a weakness (Which it should have) it has a strength that compensates for that. It is the trick of balancing the faction's strengths and weaknesses that really promotes balance. For example:

In CNC3, GDI is a smoewhat balanced force, but it is more balanced towards slow units. To make up for thier slower units, they are powerful

In contrast, NOD's units are very fast, which is a strength. To compensate for this, thier units have less armor. To promote thier hit and run strategy and more balance, thier units also pach a punch.

That is what should be so when it comes to faction and game balance.



You missed the one thing that would counter her: Anti-infantry VEHICLES. Yeah, she can knock out infantry, i find it odd that she survives a hit by natasha, but it is meant so that one on one, she wins, but she is easily overwhelmed by anti infantry vehicles.



You'd be amazed. Patches almost always are good, and the black hand is not overpowered at all. (They own the **** out of zone troopers for a reason (but a sniper team or two wins by far))



You COMPLETELY missed my point, and not even chrono legionnaires could counter it. If apocs cost 1000 dollars there would be more apocs than your chrono leigonnaires, plus if they do more damage, you're screwed anyway.

My point there is that if you have a unit that is That spammable then it is overpowered and needs to be nerfed.


Setting a rhino 1v1 against a grizzly isn't an example of good balance either. The rhino is supposed to win against a grizzly, that is why it is slower and more costly and takes longer to produce.



The only way to achieve absolute balance is to make both sides exactly equal in all ways, and even then, if unit balance is off, that isn't absolute balance then

Man I love arguing/debating with you. I think you are quite intelligent, and I really enjoy testing people.
Okay, return fire now...

I understand that units need to be balanced, but they don't need to be drasticly modified, as well as modifing a counter.
Example, Mammoth tank in CnC3 get's 25% less power against air. Then, in turn, they take the Devestator warship, increase it's range, and convert it's shells into anti armor rather than anti infantry (note that it still reads effective against infantry and structures[initialy with grenade weapon type]), however, now it is effectivly destroying any vehical it comes across, but somehow has rocket/missile squads surviving a few volleys.
My problem here is that this is a double whammy, they not only weaken a unit to compensate for the unit's power, but they buff a possible counter, which they do not need to do.

I know if a unit is extremely powerful it should be weakened. If the rhino tank was like that it would need to be weakened.
But the thing is, there are no units that powerful. The unit balance has never been that bad. And most things could have stayed the way they were. Now I say MOST COULD HAVE. Not that they all should have stayed exactly how they were.

You got the strategies of GDI and Nod down pat, but then guess what. They throw in the scrin, that have near total air dominance, as well as being extremely effective in land.

This is nearly the same as with Allies and Soviets, Allies being the high tech, fast strikers, and the Soviets being the slow, lumbering, heavy hitters.
Then they throw in the Japanese with near absolute air supremacy, with an extremely effective land and sea force. As well as the capabillity top seemlessly shift their land, sea, and airforces into another type of unit.

A single black hand squad will take over 20 hits from a upgraded mammoth tank. Nothing else even survives ten hits. It was their health, way, way too much, that, and they could garrison buildings, something no other heavy infantry could do (I'm not sure if that was meant to offset the or what) That, and they cleard buildings. A sniper team took two shots to kill a single squad member. I'm not saying to make them useless, but something needed changing, severe changing. (just reduce their health to 300, then maybe it would only take 15 rail gun hits to kill)

And no, anti infantry vehicals will not work against Yuriko, she throws apocalypse tanks around, anti infantry vehicals are useless, since not only does she out range them, but she can throw them away before she can even get shot at once.

Also, any spammable unit is overpowered? Than remove all infantry, actualy, remove everything. With a large economy, any unit can be spammable.

You just repeated what I said about absolute balance with an added line.
And that line doesn't fit, because it would be. No one would have any different unit.
And I never suggested that be implemented, I was saying that's what it would be if everything was in perfect, absolute balance. And no body wants that kind of balance.
The japanese faction just needs a smal bit of tweaking, and it should fine.


Well, I hope to have another round of discussion.

[Quadhelix]

So lets say we gave the RA2 Rhino tank lasers instead of shells. We gave it the damage and warhead of a nuclear missile, and made it cost 200 credits. On top of that, we gave it unlimited range and enough strength to withstand 3 consecutive nukes. This analogy is so ridiculous that it completely undermines your argument.


If you don't tweak the units and fine tune them to get them just right and perfectly balanced, then you won't have any kind of balance. If unit balance if way off, it kills the strategy of the whole faction, and maybe even the whole game It could be argued that, as long as it is possible for any one faction to win against any other faction, balance is not a major concern (though it still is a minor concern). Poor players will gravitate toward the stronger factions and, assuming that play is limited to "for fun" as opposed to "for profit," good players will gravitate toward the weaker factions for challenge and bragging rights.


Setting a rhino 1v1 against a grizzly isn't an example of good balance either. The rhino is supposed to win against a grizzly, that is why it is slower and more costly and takes longer to produce. QFT! (Quoted For Truth!)


The only way to achieve absolute balance is to make both sides exactly equal in all ways, and even then, if unit balance is off, that isn't absolute balance then I see what you mean here: even if all sides are identical, if one unit is much more cost effective than the others, the game will quickly turn into a contest to see who can produce more of that unit, effectively killing the game despite the factions being functionally identical.


Also, any spammable unit is overpowered? Than remove all infantry, actualy, remove everything. With a large economy, any unit can be spammable. Not exactly: infantry are not "spammable" because, while you can produce them in large quantities relatively quickly and cheaply, they also die like flies and generally do poor damage. Also, while anything is "spammable" if you have an economy significantly stronger than your opponent's, I believe that Apple23 is referring to units that can be spammed even if you do not have a significant economic advantage against your opponent.

[thetechieotaku]

It was a joke. In any case, I was referring to her psychic powers and her Tanya-esque attitude and musculature.

I hope that one is just a joke... Or else I won't buy RA3. :|

*EDIT* I hope that I would see the Tanya dressed accordingly! I hope that she will not wear those clothing that would make her look like a porn star!

[Ivan_Moscavich]

I hope that one is just a joke... Or else I won't buy RA3. :|

*EDIT* I hope that I would see the Tanya dressed accordingly! I hope that she will not wear those clothing that would make her look like a porn star!

Well, you may not buy the game then, she is dressed like a total slut.

[apple23]

I understand that units need to be balanced, but they don't need to be drasticly modified, as well as modifing a counter.
Example, Mammoth tank in CnC3 get's 25% less power against air. Then, in turn, they take the Devestator warship, increase it's range, and convert it's shells into anti armor rather than anti infantry (note that it still reads effective against infantry and structures[initialy with grenade weapon type]), however, now it is effectivly destroying any vehical it comes across, but somehow has rocket/missile squads surviving a few volleys.
My problem here is that this is a double whammy, they not only weaken a unit to compensate for the unit's power, but they buff a possible counter, which they do not need to do.

First off, in this context, referrencing CNC3 like that (since you weren't talking hypothetically) kind of defeats your argument, but anyways:

You keep using words like changed, and modified. Those words do not fit this context. EA is not changing or modifying any of RA3's units, they are creating them. There is no official realease of any of these units, so there is nothing to modify. It also bears mentioning that this is a BETA, so it is no wonder that they are making changes to the units, they NEED to tweak the units they are making so they are just right for the release.

If they make the full release, and then screw with the units drastically, then you can whine about it.

I know if a unit is extremely powerful it should be weakened. If the rhino tank was like that it would need to be weakened.
But the thing is, there are no units that powerful. The unit balance has never been that bad. And most things could have stayed the way they were. Now I say MOST COULD HAVE. Not that they all should have stayed exactly how they were.

I was purposefully ridiculously overexaggerating because I really had to put my point into perspective here.

You got the strategies of GDI and Nod down pat, but then guess what. They throw in the scrin, that have near total air dominance, as well as being extremely effective in land.

Having a more versatile airforce does not necessarily mean total air dominance. GDI firehawks are surprisingly effective at taking out thier big, lumbering battleships, and then returning to the airfield before they can respond, and it also bears mentioning that devestator warships don't even have AA capability and stormriders are almost never used.

This is nearly the same as with Allies and Soviets, Allies being the high tech, fast strikers, and the Soviets being the slow, lumbering, heavy hitters.
Then they throw in the Japanese with near absolute air supremacy, with an extremely effective land and sea force. As well as the capabillity top seemlessly shift their land, sea, and airforces into another type of unit.

They don't have total air supremacy, just because thier units are versatile. They don't even get a dedicated airforce, just a few units that can transform between air and ground/sea. They also strike a flexible balance between all 3 categories, as with both the other factions. Transforming units are only useful in the hands of the right person, good micromanagers, and even then, there is no definite advantage there, except to force the enemy to make a more versatile and varied strike force to counter multi-roled units.

A single black hand squad will take over 20 hits from a upgraded mammoth tank. Nothing else even survives ten hits. It was their health, way, way too much, that, and they could garrison buildings, something no other heavy infantry could do (I'm not sure if that was meant to offset the or what) That, and they cleard buildings. A sniper team took two shots to kill a single squad member. I'm not saying to make them useless, but something needed changing, severe changing. (just reduce their health to 300, then maybe it would only take 15 rail gun hits to kill)

I understand where you are coming from. it is really retarded that the beefed black hands that much, but again, this argument dosen't really pertain to RA3.

And no, anti infantry vehicals will not work against Yuriko, she throws apocalypse tanks around, anti infantry vehicals are useless, since not only does she out range them, but she can throw them away before she can even get shot at once.

I will say this one more time, then. If it dosen't get through to you, then so help me i will physically jam it into your head:

THAT IS WHY YOU ATTACK WITH MULTIPLE UNITS AT ONCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have already discussed that she wins hands down at 1v1 against anything, and she owns infantry, but if you overwhelm her with anti infantry vehicles, she will lose. And one more time just to makle sure:

ATTACK HER WITH MULTIPLE UNITS AT ONCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There, did I get my point across this time? I realy, really, really hope so.

Also, any spammable unit is overpowered? Than remove all infantry, actualy, remove everything. With a large economy, any unit can be spammable.

Let me define a spammable unit for you:

A spammable unit is a unit that, when mass produced, has no significant counter of the same monetary value.

In other words, mammoth spam. Mammoths are useless alone, because there are counters to it, but when mass produced, they are nigh unstoppable. (at least in origional CNC3, they were)

[thetechieotaku]

Well, you may not buy the game then, she is dressed like a total slut. No. I mean I would not buy the game If Yuriko Omega is the daughter of Yuri and Tanya! If she's dressed like a slut, then I will not play the Allied Campaign! :p

[Ivan_Moscavich]

First off, in this context, referrencing CNC3 like that (since you weren't talking hypothetically) kind of defeats your argument, but anyways:

You keep using words like changed, and modified. Those words do not fit this context. EA is not changing or modifying any of RA3's units, they are creating them. There is no official realease of any of these units, so there is nothing to modify. It also bears mentioning that this is a BETA, so it is no wonder that they are making changes to the units, they NEED to tweak the units they are making so they are just right for the release.

If they make the full release, and then screw with the units drastically, then you can whine about it.



I was purposefully ridiculously overexaggerating because I really had to put my point into perspective here.



Having a more versatile airforce does not necessarily mean total air dominance. GDI firehawks are surprisingly effective at taking out thier big, lumbering battleships, and then returning to the airfield before they can respond, and it also bears mentioning that devestator warships don't even have AA capability and stormriders are almost never used.



They don't have total air supremacy, just because thier units are versatile. They don't even get a dedicated airforce, just a few units that can transform between air and ground/sea. They also strike a flexible balance between all 3 categories, as with both the other factions. Transforming units are only useful in the hands of the right person, good micromanagers, and even then, there is no definite advantage there, except to force the enemy to make a more versatile and varied strike force to counter multi-roled units.



I understand where you are coming from. it is really retarded that the beefed black hands that much, but again, this argument dosen't really pertain to RA3.



I will say this one more time, then. If it dosen't get through to you, then so help me i will physically jam it into your head:

THAT IS WHY YOU ATTACK WITH MULTIPLE UNITS AT ONCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have already discussed that she wins hands down at 1v1 against anything, and she owns infantry, but if you overwhelm her with anti infantry vehicles, she will lose. And one more time just to makle sure:

ATTACK HER WITH MULTIPLE UNITS AT ONCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There, did I get my point across this time? I realy, really, really hope so.



Let me define a spammable unit for you:

A spammable unit is a unit that, when mass produced, has no significant counter of the same monetary value.

In other words, mammoth spam. Mammoths are useless alone, because there are counters to it, but when mass produced, they are nigh unstoppable. (at least in origional CNC3, they were)

Good good.
Counter point.
I was not even talking about Red Alert 3 in that context, I was making that reference in lue to the discussion of balance, that had nothing to do with Red alert 3 in that particular point in time. The reference was not "defeated" because you took it out of context.
Rule number one in a presentation, don't over exaggerate, it comes back to bite you in the ass in the long run. A more meaningful example would be a rhino at 600, with increased speed and rate of fire. Obviously, since it is a heavy tank, it should not be cheap, and have a high ROF and high speed. My suggestion would be to make it slower, a few hundred more expensive, and a bit less rate of fire. I would suggest this all even though I would only be the Soviets. I know when things are not balanced, and I'd be fine with changes if they ARE necessary.
Air dominance is not the same as air superiority. Air superiority means you have total dominance of the sky, and complete cover for your ground troops.
Air dominance means you have the upper hand in the air, and are more likely to be able to cover your ground troops.
And yes, I love fire hawks, they are my anti-scrin unit. But there is a problem, they need to dock, they have to reload, you can not buy two of them for the price of any other air unit. They will not destroy anything more than a venom or orca in one missile pass.
The scrin, do not need to dock, they do not need to reload, they will just keep sending high level air units at you until devastators get four screens away from your base, and shell you into oblivion because your fire hawks are reloading, and your air defense is out ranged.
Now obviously the devastators should be longer range artillery, they are in the air. Make them slower, or have a bit less health to counter their range advantage.
The Japanese, by having those three land/air units, are capable of creating near air superiority, just like the scrin, they don't need to dock or reload.
They can escape an air battle, and go onto the land, in which case two of them then become anti air land units, rather than anti air air units.
Now, because they lack a dedicated air force, this is what they have to do, but the rate at which they do it, can make them a nearly invincible air force, because they can become land units to escape the air war. Nearly instantly they can disengage an air battle at will, and become immune to air attack, while still countering the aerial threat they escaped from.
That is my problem, if there was just a bit of a delay, some way to prevent them from saving every single unit with the click of a mouse, a slight time delay would work fine, they wouldn't lose all of their units, but they couldn't get off Scot free either.
I'll use for example the seawing/sky wing. some one is flying them in the air over the water to get somewhere, they encounter some Apollo fighters. The allied player goes to engage, there are no other units around. it's 8 fighters against 4 seawing/sky wings.
Just before the fighters can fire their first shots, the sky wings instantly go into the water, without a second's delay. In mere seconds, all eight fighters have been destroyed. Even after the pressing of the recall ability, the fighters were not able to get out of their, all die.
Now, let's repeat this with the seawing/skywings having a 1-2 second time delay.
The allied fighters go in after one target, the allied players has put the fighters in to two teams of four, he orders the fighters to attack two different targets.
The Japanese player, presses the transform button, the sky wings start to transform into sea wings, one gets shot down, then another. the other two make it to the sea. They begin firing on the allied fighters, one, two, three go down, the allied players presses the recall button, the fighters turn for home. Four, five fighters lost, the rest are now out of range and heading home.
That makes much more sense to me, obviously you'd still lose fighters, they are very weak against AA guns, but you would at least have taken out some of the enemy.
And making the enemy create a varied multirole strike force to deal with the transforming mechs? You were talking about cost effectiveness right? Well there's your problem, by having instantly transforming units, they are already the most cost effective unit you can have. Any other strike force built to deal with them would cost up to twice as much as the Japanese strike force. There is no current cost effective way to deal with them. (though for 5000 you can make a simple, early game deterrent that can fend them off fairly well. A soviet strategy though)
Actually 2 v4s with the scatter ability, or any tier three naval vessel can deal with her. You'd need at least three of any anti infantry ground vehicle to kill her. And even then you'd lose two of them.
She is probably the most broken commando counter wise.
Now let me tell you what spam able means.
Anything produced in mass. It has nothing to do with counters, or cost effectiveness.
A spam is a mass of one type of unit.
Spam able meaning they can be produced.
Anything that can be produced, can be produced in mass, and is therefore spam able by the definition of the term.
Alright, a lot of those were fairly long, but hopefully it will make you understand my ideas on the point a bit better than I had previously attempted.
I thank you, it's not often I find someone I can have full length, intelligent discussions with, and even then it is rarer still to drive me to my fullest literary abilities (which I haven’t reached yet.)
I await your response.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

This analogy is so ridiculous that it completely undermines your argument.


It could be argued that, as long as it is possible for any one faction to win against any other faction, balance is not a major concern (though it still is a minor concern). Poor players will gravitate toward the stronger factions and, assuming that play is limited to "for fun" as opposed to "for profit," good players will gravitate toward the weaker factions for challenge and bragging rights.


QFT! (Quoted For Truth!)


I see what you mean here: even if all sides are identical, if one unit is much more cost effective than the others, the game will quickly turn into a contest to see who can produce more of that unit, effectively killing the game despite the factions being functionally identical.


Not exactly: infantry are not "spammable" because, while you can produce them in large quantities relatively quickly and cheaply, they also die like flies and generally do poor damage. Also, while anything is "spammable" if you have an economy significantly stronger than your opponent's, I believe that Apple23 is referring to units that can be spammed even if you do not have a significant economic advantage against your opponent.

I don't see all the good players flocking to a "weak" faction. If you're good, you play with what you want, and are good at it. I play with soviets, I'm good with them, always have been, it fits how i think tacticaly. but that doesn't mean just because I'm soviet I just throw tanks at people.
And not all allied players spam the **** out of air craft or laser units.
There are no "weak" or "strong" factions, everything is relative to the player's personal preferences and abillities to use the factions in a way best suited to their abillites.

I was the one who brought up the talk about absolute balance, not him. And no, no unit would be any more cost effective than any other, ecause if everything was exactly the same, there would be no differences, at all, no different units, no different, powers, no different anything.
ABSOLUTE PERFECT BALANCE MEANS EVERYTHING IS THE SAME, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.

And for ****'s sake, I never said I wanted it like that, that's what I wanted to avoid having happen, but I don't want things so terribly different, no one has a ****ing clue what's going on.

You need to strike some where in the middle there, balanced, but different, which is relativly harder to acomplish the farther the differences become.

[Quadhelix]

There are no "weak" or "strong" factions, everything is relative to the player's personal preferences and abillities to use the factions in a way best suited to their abillites.That depends: in a game where tanks almost always trump infantry, the side with the most cost effective tanks is going to win. In a game where aircraft slaughter ground forces, the side with the best aircraft will win.

I'm not saying that any of the Command & Conquer games are like that, but those examples demonstrate what I mean: certain factions can be stronger than others.

My point is that, as long as no faction is guaranteed a victory against any other faction and the game is played for enjoyment and not competitively, there is no real problem with one faction being stronger than another.


I was the one who brought up the talk about absolute balance, not him. And no, no unit would be any more cost effective than any other, ecause if everything was exactly the same, there would be no differences, at all, no different units, no different, powers, no different anything. Incorrect: even if all the sides are the same, they are going to have units that are different from the other units of that side: a rifleman is not a medium tank, a rocket soldier is not a humvee, an artillery piece is not an attack helicopter. If there is one unit that is more cost effective than the others, that is the unit that will get spammed.


You need to strike some where in the middle there, balanced, but different, which is relativly harder to acomplish the farther the differences become. As I said, as long as the game is not played competitively and no faction is guaranteed a win against any other faction, balance can take a back seat to fun gameplay.

[apple23]

Good good.
Counter point.
I was not even talking about Red Alert 3 in that context, I was making that reference in lue to the discussion of balance, that had nothing to do with Red alert 3 in that particular point in time. The reference was not "defeated" because you took it out of context.

Alright, then you made a good point.

Rule number one in a presentation, don't over exaggerate, it comes back to bite you in the ass in the long run. A more meaningful example would be a rhino at 600, with increased speed and rate of fire. Obviously, since it is a heavy tank, it should not be cheap, and have a high ROF and high speed. My suggestion would be to make it slower, a few hundred more expensive, and a bit less rate of fire. I would suggest this all even though I would only be the Soviets. I know when things are not balanced, and I'd be fine with changes if they ARE necessary.

What is unnecessary about balance changes? The changes you destcribed are pretty much what is happening when they make balance changes. They aren't changing the necessities or the role of the unit, just small tweaks to balance it

Air dominance is not the same as air superiority. Air superiority means you have total dominance of the sky, and complete cover for your ground troops. Air dominance means you have the upper hand in the air and are more likely to be able to cover your troops.

Actually both of those definitions are right, but you got your terms backwards. You even used the word 'dominance' in the definition of 'superiority'

Superior means you are better, dominance means you are the best and you are in total control of the skies.

And yes, I love fire hawks, they are my anti-scrin unit. But there is a problem, they need to dock, they have to reload, you can not buy two of them for the price of any other air unit. They will not destroy anything more than a venom or orca in one missile pass.
The scrin, do not need to dock, they do not need to reload, they will just keep sending high level air units at you until devastators get four screens away from your base, and shell you into oblivion because your fire hawks are reloading, and your air defense is out ranged.
Now obviously the devastators should be longer range artillery, they are in the air. Make them slower, or have a bit less health to counter their range advantage.

I do agree with you there, I always thought the air units in general should have less armor and the scrin capital ships should move slower, but it only takes a few firehawks to take down a devestator and not many more to take down a PAC.

Reloading is a problem, though. I always thought that each faction should have an air superoity fighter that wouldn't have to reload or at least have a significantly large supply of ammo.

The Japanese, by having those three land/air units, are capable of creating near air superiority, just like the scrin, they don't need to dock or reload.
They can escape an air battle, and go onto the land, in which case two of them then become anti air land units, rather than anti air air units.
Now, because they lack a dedicated air force, this is what they have to do, but the rate at which they do it, can make them a nearly invincible air force, because they can become land units to escape the air war. Nearly instantly they can disengage an air battle at will, and become immune to air attack, while still countering the aerial threat they escaped from.
That is my problem, if there was just a bit of a delay, some way to prevent them from saving every single unit with the click of a mouse, a slight time delay would work fine, they wouldn't lose all of their units, but they couldn't get off Scot free either.
I'll use for example the seawing/sky wing. some one is flying them in the air over the water to get somewhere, they encounter some Apollo fighters. The allied player goes to engage, there are no other units around. it's 8 fighters against 4 seawing/sky wings.
Just before the fighters can fire their first shots, the sky wings instantly go into the water, without a second's delay. In mere seconds, all eight fighters have been destroyed. Even after the pressing of the recall ability, the fighters were not able to get out of their, all die.
Now, let's repeat this with the seawing/skywings having a 1-2 second time delay.
The allied fighters go in after one target, the allied players has put the fighters in to two teams of four, he orders the fighters to attack two different targets.
The Japanese player, presses the transform button, the sky wings start to transform into sea wings, one gets shot down, then another. the other two make it to the sea. They begin firing on the allied fighters, one, two, three go down, the allied players presses the recall button, the fighters turn for home. Four, five fighters lost, the rest are now out of range and heading home.
That makes much more sense to me, obviously you'd still lose fighters, they are very weak against AA guns, but you would at least have taken out some of the enemy.
And making the enemy create a varied multirole strike force to deal with the transforming mechs? You were talking about cost effectiveness right? Well there's your problem, by having instantly transforming units, they are already the most cost effective unit you can have. Any other strike force built to deal with them would cost up to twice as much as the Japanese strike force. There is no current cost effective way to deal with them. (though for 5000 you can make a simple, early game deterrent that can fend them off fairly well. A soviet strategy though)

While I agree that it would be best to have a transforming delay, you should also think about the fact that each transforming unit has one weakness that neither of thier transforms can cover.

Sea/sky wing: If you attack it with ground/naval anti surface or submarine weapons and air superiority fighters, you will own them. Reason being:

They can't attack air in thier airborne mode, they see air fighters comming, they transform to naval, your air fighters see the transform, escape while they can, and your navy attacks them. If they go back into the air, your fighters come back and own them. If they stay naval, your naval force will own them

Mecha/Jet tengu: Either gtround anti air and ground anri vehicle tanks, or air anti ground and ground anti air (the former works best) Reason being:

They are anti infantry in thier ground mode, so anti armor vehicles own them, as well as anti ground assault aircraft. If they transform, your anti air vehicles own them, and you pull out your assault craft if you brought them.

About cost-effectiveness, I don't know exact cost comparisons, but I would assume that the transforming units are more expensive than others, and take longer to produce. If you scout properly and keep a lookout, you can see the attack comming and counter it with less than the cost of his force, even if he has good micromanagement abilities.

The ETRS is a faction that really amplifies the abilities of a good micromanager, and it often takes more micro to counter them than it would any other faction.
Actually 2 v4s with the scatter ability, or any tier three naval vessel can deal with her. You'd need at least three of any anti infantry ground vehicle to kill her. And even then you'd lose two of them.
She is probably the most broken commando counter wise.

if 3-4 anti infantry vehicles costs less than she does, that is an effictive counter to her. End of story.

Now let me tell you what spam able means.
Anything produced in mass. It has nothing to do with counters, or cost effectiveness.
A spam is a mass of one type of unit.
Spam able meaning they can be produced.
Anything that can be produced, can be produced in mass, and is therefore spam able by the definition of the term.

Spam is producing any single unit in mass. A Spammable Unit is a unit that can be effectively produced in mass, meaning that there is no cost effective way to counter it. If a single unit cannot be countered with any other mix of units of equal or lesser value, then it is overpowered.

Alright, a lot of those were fairly long, but hopefully it will make you understand my ideas on the point a bit better than I had previously attempted.
I thank you, it's not often I find someone I can have full length, intelligent discussions with, and even then it is rarer still to drive me to my fullest literary abilities (which I haven’t reached yet.)
I await your response.

A peice of advice: Split up the different parts of my reply by wrapping each individual part with () tags and replying to each of my paragraphs separately. That will make it alot easier to read and reply to.

As with the last part of your reply, I applaud you for keeping a cool head in this discussion. Usually when the heat is on like this, someone flips out and the thread degenerates into a mindless flamewar.

[quote]Incorrect: even if all the sides are the same, they are going to have units that are different from the other units of that side: a rifleman is not a medium tank, a rocket soldier is not a humvee, an artillery piece is not an attack helicopter. If there is one unit that is more cost effective than the others, that is the unit that will get spammed.

If all factions are exactly the same, there wouldn't be such differences. In that case, it all comes down to unit-to-unit balance. There can be different units, so long as that unit is the same across all factions, there is absolute faction balance. The only thing that differentiates the factions at that point is thier storyline/history/role in the campaign, and thier graphics.

Faction balance, however, is only part of the whole sphere of balance.

As I said, as long as the game is not played competitively and no faction is guaranteed a win against any other faction, balance can take a back seat to fun gameplay.

True, but the game is played competetively, and fun and balance aren't exclusive of eachother. I wouldn't have much fun playing a game where one faction had a clear and definite advantage over another, or if a unit was way too spammable.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Well, I don't think I have any more points to argue, this looks to me like we both came to an agreement.
Thank you for this, it's not often I can enjoy a good debate.

Anyways, I've been the soviets since day one, I've had to adapt and counter time and time again. I will continue to do, every strategy has a counter, and every counter in turn is counterable.

Adapt and counter, command and conquer.

Good night ladies and gentlemen, it's time for me to turn this in.