cn2mc

Well, the only real way to tell whether the drums are played from start to finish, as opposed to looped, is to load up the song in some sound editing software, isolate and magnify (slow down) the drum track and look at the precise intervals between the hi-hat hits. If the intervals are all completely equal, then the drums are looped or programmed. If there are slight deviations, even to the tune of a millisecond, then he played them for real. I'm not debating his drumming skills, Klepacki's obviously a great musician, but even the best drummers miss their beats, albeit by tiny, unnoticable to the naked ear amounts of time.

He might have very well played them for most songs, I meant particularly the Trouble track - those sound like either a looped drum sample or a completely synth drum track. It's a heck of a beat to keep up for a couple of minutes without missing so much as a millisecond.

Anybody who's ever held a guitar can easily play Frank Klepacki's riffs, they're quite simple really. Of course, the broblem remains that you'd still need the instruments (maybe sans drums, they're programmed anyway) and some recording equipment.

No, it won't. There was even a guy who claimed to me that all C&C games always had it on by default... A facepalm pic won't do this justice.

Every unit that can crush infantry can crush bikes, but the feature is either flawed or purposely made a bit of a pain in the ass. The bike seems to need to be hit from a certain angle and has to be either stationary or moving into the cell where you want to crush it, and from what I've seen wether you can crush it or not also depends on the way the crusher-unit enters the cell the bike occupies. Diagonal movement gives you a better chance of crushing bikes, probably due to cell-entering logics nobody knows anything about yet.

Yeah, good luck with that. I pointed out these issues like a year ago in the dedicated cncnet5 suggestions thread... It changed everything... Auto-crush just makes your units act like AI units - return fire, run over bikes/infantry, etc. Sucks balls. Undeploy I can live with but it also blows for reasons already mentioned.

I'm not really sure, but it seems to me that it might, and it makes some sense.

The tiberium in the middle is quite thin and uderdeveloped actually, so it wouldn't damage infantry that much, unless you move them right through the trees. I think a 2v2 is possible too, teammates will just start on the same spot. One can move out towards the first expansion, while the other builds back. If both start building right away it can get messy in those tight spots. It's still doable though.

Another two player duel map. This time bigger. Here it is: Enjoy. cn2Twin_Peaks.bin cn2Twin_Peaks.ini

Heh. That instantly made me think of a reaver getting repaired by 5 SCVs.

Leave it as a theme when you change.

Some probably have changed names, mind you. Some most probably didn't make it in the client. But that only means the links were already dead and the authors gone long before CnCNet5 was launched.

You are needlessly resurrecting 5-year-old topics. As somebody already told you, basically all of these maps are in CnCNet5 already.

All of that might very well be true and I appreciate the fact that you guys are trying to make CnCNet more popular and accessible to new players (empahsis on 'download and play'). But, for the rest of the people who are already regulars, the site has lost it's major functionality, which was that it showed the number of open games for each supported game or mod right away. Now, I need to click on a link and then I also need to scroll down a couple of times to see that. Before I get where I want, I see the 'number of players' chart, which is very nice but really mostly irrelevant. Then I get to the 'number of games chart', ditto, as it only shows that RA is being played 'a lot' and TD, TS and all else 'very little'. And underneath that, in veeeery fine print, I can finally see who's playing what. Now, put all the modern design thingys in the world in this site, hell, I have suggestions even, if someone would actually take note of such things! One of them is restore the 'open games' display in the main page in one form or another, for people like me who only open the site to see if somebody's on playing their game. So yeah, for everybody that plays anything other than RA.

Umm, design is always a matter of functionality. The site appears to have lost some in favour of (not so) fancy graphics. That's our point, really.

That's the only problem, really. I did like the older and darker design better, but other than not seeing the games right away, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with this one. A bit puzzling though, as similar modern website designs are mostly tablet-oriented (touchscreen scrolling, etc.), while I assume the majority of the 300+ players will usually log on from a PC, and certainly play from one.

LOL, sorry for being too direct, but saying "I'm not racist" and admitting you are in the same post doesn't soud too well to me. I myself enjoy all kinds of racist jokes because they are extremely funny, but ultimately a person is either a good one or a bad one, still subjective, but that doesn't depend on race, ethnicity, etc.

MUGG, you clearly are an idiot, which is reason enough for you to get banned if you ask me. Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqJJtIFuLTg

Also, even if what Nyer said wasn't true (which I'm glad it is), you could always just make it a 'no base' map and give players MCVs instead of starting waypoints.

Yeah, an arty a little bit off centre can hit an obelisk I think. Even if it can't, you can force fire below it and inaccuracy and splash will do the job. AGTs are shorter range, South artillery kill them.

Nyer, when I make these maps I actually use clusters of details like snow/dust patches to indicate the supposed elevation of terrain, even though there is none. In winter I will also try to mimic the natural way snow melts, meaning there will be more snow under North-facing cliffs, under trees, etc. C&C is weird in that it has a very pretty and very functional graphical interface and yet it still uses it as an arcade game, map features are simply blocked cells with different pixels. But it's a hell of a lot of fun to draw and this theatre expansion thing y'all doing is giving me ideas of getting back into .shp-s. Goat, South advantage is inherent in TD and RA. Basically, all units firing from the South Northwards have a range advantage over those firing from the North to the South because of the way the TD/RA engine draws the graphics. You've certainly noticed that minigunners attacking something from the South can stand one square away and fire, while (most of) those coming from the North will go right next to it to attack. This is in effect for all weapons, you can have two opposing obelisks and the Southern one will be able to attack the Northern one but not vice versa. EDIT: White, yes, the comm. centre is there to trick you into spending 3000 on a helipad, chinook and engi to get it. Manu - I've already done a couple for 2v2. I'm thinking of doing more duel maps, actually.

You know how I work... Thanks.

Pretty much what the title says. I tried to make a symmetrical 1v1 map with minimal (albeit still existing) south advantage and no west disadvantage for Nod. There are several ways to approach the enemy and your build, not all of them tested yet. Place the map in the Custom folder in the Maps folder in CnCNet and when you make a game you can select it, all other players will receive it automatically upon start. Have fun and report bugs/imbalances! cn2fjord.ini cn2fjord.bin

You can't place aircraft on a map. They can only come in as reinforcements. If it's for multiplayer, make neutral/special chinooks come and land, and give the player an extra engineer to get them.

Then go ahead and post links to some child porn, see how well that goes for you... Just don't protest about your rights here to the site creator. Anyway, back on topic. The first RTS I really played is C&C and it's still the best to me. I haven't played a lot of other RTS, but basically went through all the major ones. WCI and WCII, especially the latter, were nice little games, albeit what in our language we'd call 'wooden' ones. Just not fluid enough (as Dune II wasn't). They feel like you're still pushing about game pieces or cards on a board as opposed to a real fight. I played the first AoE too, not a bad game but still suffering from the same flaws of WC and many other RTS at the time - basically the same units pitted against eachother and an overly complex resource system. Also, long boring games. TA (not Kingdoms, haven't tried that) had some nice features and ideas but was just too borng too. And again, very much the same old hit-for-hit battles when you actually got down to fighting. I confess I like SC:BW a lot (not into SCII) and I even enjoy watching those crazy Korean competitive matches, it's perhaps the only game that managed to cover all the ground C&C covered back in '95 and then some. Although I still prefer playing C&C to it. Not really into new RTS, I prefer good old 2D rendered animation to fancy 3D effects, and I also believe that many of the automated unit commands (such as attack move in SC) take away from the fun in these games.