cn2mc

... A-a-and then you're fighting on the internet against a guy in Siberia, and his soldiers wear warm fuzzy mink coats. And then you wake up.

I'm pretty sure TD lacks the terrain modifiers for speed that RA has, either it lacks them completely, or it has them, but they are disabled. Either way, no conclusive proof has been found on this issue.

Umm. Bridgeheads already have their own tileset - the bridge itself, right? I can easily just place two bridges on both sides of a wide river, use only the few tiles of the respective bridgeheads and delete what I don't need so I can fill in the blanks with the new 'fixer' tiles, and those can be made part of another template. You are right, though, I would need not 2 but 3 new squares to make each bridge perfect (this one's missing the reflection of the rocks in the water). Anyway, again, I know about cc-scen, hexing and whatnot, my initial post had more to do with the fact that the main map editors for TD lack functions as simple as copy/pasting or selecting a single tile of a tileset to place.

This is almost true. The APC is indeed faster, but only as far as the actual stats in the .exe go (APC speed in .exe is 35, humvee/buggy speed is 30). Ingame the APC actually moves slower than humvees and buggies, even in straight lines, i. e. this is NOT because of the APC's lower turn rate. This is caused by the different movement types for units - humvees are wheeled, while APCs are tracked. The same 'speed=' parameter for wheeled and tracked units in the .exe will result in different speeds ingame. A wheeled unit with a speed of 8 is just as fast as a tracked unit with a speed of 12, so, basically, a 2:3 correlation. This makes the APC's tracked speed of 35 work like wheeled speed 24 ingame, a tad slower than the jeeps at 30.

This is actually TS mission 16, it appears. I haven't played TS in ages, but I think your chameleon spy has to enter ALL of the ion cannon uplink centres, or whatever they're called, and then he has to escape with an APC.

Well, you don't neccessarily need to add all RA tiles, just add/make the ones that would be essential for what you want to accomplish. I whipped this up in good old paint as a quick proof of concept: The shorelines are all made in xcc through the use of some overlapping of shore/bridge tiles (note, no river tiles were used). I could've made them better if I used the cell-replacer/spent time hexing, some are juuust a bit glitchy, but that's easy to cover up - either through the use of obstructing terrain features (like the boulder South of the bridge) or through slight retouches in the original graphics, which will make seemingly unconnectable single tiles connect better. The long part of the bridge was made in paint through the petterned use of the four tiles on the left, the two in green are readily available from the stock bridge itself. The two in red are the ones I made, and I'd imagina another two, three at most, would be needed for the other one. Now, here's why I mentioned rivers not being used, we can do away with those awkward rocky desert rivers. The shores are already (almost) perfect and can connect in all sorts of ways to bridges and eachother (1-2 new squares needed, tops). Next, a part of the river tiles can be converted into other shore tiles, another part can maybe be turned into concrete-lined canals for an urban setting (with the N-S and E-W fords being made into normal road crossings, etc.). The remaining river tiles and free ones, and they may not be as little as you think, can be converted to all sorts of other neat terrain eyecandy. But, of course, we know that they can be converted, but my initial post here (from a while ago) had more to do with the poor capabilities of TD map editors, which lack a copy/paste function and do not cope properly with the 'fine-tuning' of the .bin file.

39 is not that small of an amount, considering you also have a winter theatre, which, if used for a conversion, can have more additional tiles (like modded snowheaps). My point was, that with several different tiny 1x1 'patch' tiles arranged in a couple of larger tilesets, one can expand the game visually in a lot of ways. F. ex., there'd be a couple of 'shore fix' tiles, which make river to ocean transitions easier. As I already said, a long bridge over open water, or a wide bridge (as in RA) is also theoretically possible. So are direct cliff to open water tiles, etc. Threads like this have shown that the actual drawing of the graphics is not an issue. For TD it comes down to A) whether these eventual new tiles (which the game can read) can be made easy to use for mapmaking in a new editor or in one of the preexisting ones, and B) if the game can be modded/hacked in order to set the correct passability for these new/replacement tiles. Anyway, I was actually here to comment on the dam and graveyard. Really nice!

Against APCs, walls can work wonders. They don't really work against bikes though. It's better to use your cash and APM on infantry.

You can count on me for that, and thanks. Nyer, as for Nod, it's commonly accepted that the more open a map is, the more an advantage Nod has because of the space bikes have to maneuvre. It's harder to trap them and it's harder to defend your base. A classic example of this would be the infamous Southern Utah, where GDI is at a severe disadvantage, because, at best, only one side of their base will be protected by the map edge. Everything else is open for hit and run. On top of that, large tiberium fields prevent GDI from defending against harvester raids effectively as infantry will die or fight with low health in tiberium, especially deadly for the main bike-killers, grenadiers. All of this said, i do not think it applies to this particular map. The villages, as well as the small bush-ridden sides of both spawns are meant to be barriers that disrupt this kind of hit and run, and the whole general idea behind the canyon layout and the three different attack vectors is to make hit and run harder: if your bikes get caught in the canyon you can't just swing around as usual, you have to run all the way back to your base and take one of the other, lenghtier and deadlier routes. And again, all of this said, I haven't played it myself, so we'll see how it finally works out. Although, if there is an 'open-closed' map scale, this one actually falls more on the 'closed' side, as far as most maps being played in TD goes.

Doing my best to keep the tradition of bringing you higly detailed duel maps: There are far too many maps with 'canyon' in their name (even one of mine), so I chose 'Axis of Advance', but the gist of it is... it's a canyon. This time the canyon is not the obstacle between opponents, rather the main attack route. Of course, there are two more approaches towards the enemy to choose from, and they have something the canyon desperately lacks - tiberium. Enjoy! cn2Axis_of_Advance.ini cn2Axis_of_Advance.bin

I'm pretty sure he's actually saying you should try to deal with pricks like these on your own before you call 'the community' into the matter... But what do I know, I'm just another prick, right? Dumbasses.

CnCNet appears to have a part fix, part screw-up for this issue. With maps like Manu's last one you can't start next to eachother in 1v1, which is good, but in stock maps with many different spawns a lot of the interesting close base 1v1 matchups become impossible since the game tries to make players start as far apart as possible. This leads to a lot of predictability on most maps, like knowing (almost) for certain where the other guy is at the very start.

Videos seem fine, it's the stream that lags. And yeah, it's an ambient mic recording everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuNhTLVgV2Y

That's what I meant by walls being useful for selling stuff. South advantage (or North disadvantage) is the range advantage all units and towers get when they fire at something above (North of) them. It happens because of the way the game draws the graphics in perspectve and the result is that in certain situations you can have two identical units facing each other, but only one of them (the one on the South) will be able to fire at the other. South advantage is most prominent with towers such as the AGT and obelisk, because they are two cells tall, but it is present in all units. You've certainly noticed that a group of five minigunners can stand one cell away from a building and fire, if they're South of it or to the side, but if they're North, only the bottom two minigunners in the cell can fire, and the others will have to move to the cell next to the building. The stealth AGT block is as follows: you approach the AGT with a stealth tank from the North and stick it directly under (above it). The tower will briefly detect the tank as it enters the cell, perhaps it'll even fire off a salvo, but as the tank stops in its blindspot the tower will stop firing and the tank will stay cloaked. If there are no other units and towers nearby, you can attack the tower with the tank and it will not return fire. Also, sometimes the blocked tower will not fire at other, visible units you move near it after you've blocked it.

I'd say the sandbags and other walls are best for selling stuff when you really need the cash to build that new ref or harv. There's also the stealth tank AGT block (not sure if it works on obelisks), but that is only useful on very rare occasions. And, of course, the good old South advantage that's built-in in TD and RA, every good players tries to either get it or deny it to his opponent.

Check your first reply to me, reply #27, and show me where I've said the things you insinuated there. I never said 'don't advertise OpenRA here', I only said backlash is to be expected, especially if the advertising is done in an improper manner, which it has, QED. The perceived hostility, or 'grudge', as pchote incorrectly called it, that OpenRA is getting is infact not at all that hostile. It's simple criticism of this bad practice. And of the other bad practice of dishonest marketing. Everything about these issues has been very well explained, over and over, and again and again, but you guys still write it off as 'hostility', 'a grudge', 'elitism' and what not. You just don't understand, do you?

Djj, I don't like it, because it just doesn't feel right to me when I play it. You have to realize that I've played C&C for almost 20 years. I've seen flash implementations of TD that play more like the original than the OpenRA mod does. I like the project, hell, I admire it even, but I've already made clear my dislike for this kind of evangelization that's been going on here for far too long. Enough is enough. Swap links on the mainpage, make a subforum here for OpenRA and one there for the originals, and be done with this crap (that's directed at general forces that be). Also, I do not like getting strawmanned, like in some of your earlier comments, but I already let that slide... So, my bottom line is, the feel of the game is fundamentally different than that of the originals. Calling it OpenRA is one thing. Saying it's 'the same but better' is a completely different one, improper. Is that clear enough?

Too bad it's not really C&C1, right?

First thing's first, and this is somehting you apparently fail to understand and accept, even though it has actually been proven: OpenRA is definately not an 'effort at making a RA clone', let alone a good one a that. As people already said times upon times, they (including myself) dislike it being branded as such. And to add insult to injury, OpenRA has been shoved in our faces for years. It's not like we don't know it exists, you know. OpenRA is already quite well covered. Exceedingly well, infact. Even a simple Google search of just these very forums yields 240 results (probably around 250 now), so stop acting like noone knows about it. We all do. So, speaking of advertisment, which you seem to know a lot about, if OpenRA is reaching the right audience, but the ads aren't really working, then there's something wrong with the product. Is it that hard to grasp? I, personally, don't like the very idea of OpenRA, of something, which takes literally historically important games and toys with their concepts and gamepley as if they were somehow obsolete... But on the other hand it still makes use of the name and brands itself a 'recreation' that has 'the classic gameplay of the original'. I've spent summers on the countryside as a little kid, but this is the biggest pile of bullshit I've seen in my life. You, my friend, cannot speak of 'logic' to me, you know nothing about it. EDIT: Matt, hostility certainly has nothing to do with those warnings. People can't just go around derailing random topics to advertise, and advertise something irrelevant to the topic. One second you're discussing rules.ini and, on the next, someone comes in and blurts out 'that's why we did OpenRA in .yaml, lol'. Sites and projects in communities work by linking to eachoter on the mainpage in a civil manner, and that's that. If any of the users prefer to frequent one site, or another, or both, and play one game, or the other, or both, they do. But we don't send around missionaries to explain to the unchristened how our game is better than your game and you should play it 'cause it's better. Got it?

Ya'll read well what Blade here wrote. He's saving a lot of people a lot of time and explanations on the subject. For me, I tried OpenRA and didn't like it at all, it doesn't even begin to approach the feel and fluidity the originals had, let alone manage to imitate the finer details like movement, inaccuracy, the correlation between the two, etc. It's a completely different game that chose a completely different path but happens to use the same graphics. With all this said, I still have no real problem with it calling itself OpenRA. But I do have a problem when OpenRA proselytes use every possible (and often impossible) opportunity, and the C&C/RA name, to board the very succesful CnCNet ship and use it as an advertising vessel for their own project. As CnCNet is a service devoted primarily to maintaining and preserving legacy WW games, the kind of conservative backlash OpenRA folks are getting is only to be expected here.

Ummm, what?

What would really be racist is if someone said blacks can't play C&C. You know, like the movie, White Men Can't Jump.

Jacko, the best thing to do when scripting C&C missions is to have a small (like 10x10 squares) test map for your triggers and teamtypes. That way you don't have to playtest through your whole mission only to find the win trigger doesn't work. Also, Nyer's 'tactical' code - that reveals the whole map so you can see if the enemy patrol movements and construction are as planned.

No, this is the essential parts of the game needed for online play - stripped of music, videos and even singleplayer missions, I think (positive for C&C95). AFAIK, this is done to limit bandwidth as much as possible, as there are thousands of CnCNet downloads. Music can be downloaded separately through the client. If you want campaigns and videos, you'll have to download the entire game(s) from the respective sites that host them. TD, RA1 and TS are free and readily patched and available. EDIT: also, the client downloads various other things than music through updates.