cn2mc

That's why as Nod I will usually build my second strip close to the first one, so spamming doesn't result in unused units somewhere else. But under certain circumstances you'll need different spawn points for your units and it is frustrating to build a new airfield specifically to ship units to one part of the map only to later find out that no planes are landing there. Infact, they'll often enter the map with the correct approach, lined up with the primary strip only to suddenly make a sharp turn towards the one they like better and deliver there. Funny things, cargo planes in C&C. Almost as crazy as Harvs.

No, it's not that. The primary building bug is when units will keep coming to just one of your airfields, even though you set another for primary. It doesn't always happen, but often. It just uses the east-most strip as a primary and that can sometimes become an issue.

Well, it's not exactly the same problem. Airplane speed remains constant and delivery time will still depend mostly on longitude. You will get the double speed (is it actually double?) for two airfields, but two planes will enter almost simultaneously and, presumably, when the first one lands, and the second one is approaching, you've just about built the third. I can imagine the problem still persisting in the very far West of a 124x124 map, but that would be totally the player's fault. Also, I think that this theoretical problem, which could emerge in case we get bigger maps, can easily be solved - although Nyer will probably dislike my suggestion - by simply making the plane faster. AFAIK, it has a speed of 40, and if C&C can handle unit speeds over that (it can for projectiles), voila, almost no west disadvantage.

I'm pretty sure it solves it. The problem with the airstrip is really the fact that with just one you can't call in a second plane until the first one has made its delivery. This results in the unit you've already built and paid for remaining 'ready' but not delivering, thus requiring another click on the icon (if previous delivery was made, the click sends the plane in, if not, the order is cancelled). Having more than one strip eliminates that, because there will be another one for the second plane to head to even before the first one has touched down. In normal 62x62 maps this is only an issue for 1-strip buggies, so it juuuust might be an issue for two strips on 124x124.

No. But my memory about seeing them on radar might be a bit hazy too, it was too long ago (like over 10 years), and on a coop map with scripted AI. Maybe I'll try and see if it actually works the next time I play a 2v2. I think it's just one of those little ally things in TD, like the way you can see how much money there is in yout ally's harvs and refs. Same for helicopter ammo, etc.

I'm also pretty sure that you can see allied stealth tanks on radar, but I think for that to happen the guy with the stealths has to be allied with you, rather than the other way around.

In TD you need 4 orcas to kill a SAM with only one orca getting damaged. 3 are enough to kill it but one will probably die before that if you try. 2 SAM sites and 8 orcas will most probably result in one, possibly two dead orcas and two dead SAM sites. The flawless victory is 4 orcas with 3 attacking and one distracting the SAM site, this way you will get no damage at all, but there has to be no enemy AA besides that one SAM site.

Yes, Nyer, my word processor, browser, etc. are usually on top and maximized, writing in a window is quite a bitch to handle. I'll keep that in mind about mouseover though, but I have to wonder whether in Windows 8 it also tracks movement over the small 'effigy' window that appears when you scroll over the taskbar icon... Time to try it out I guess. EDIT: I did some tests and no, you can't just scroll over the window in the background. It has to be active, i. e. clicked on to keep you away from the away status.

I understand it's meant as a traffic reducing feature, but the fact that it only acknowledges clicks/button presses in the client itself makes people miss out on potential games. F. ex., I might very well not be away, but working on something in another window, just waiting for a game to pop up, but I won't hear it being opened because of auto-away. In the end, when I'm in this limbo state of playing and not playing, I will check the client every couple of minutes, which a) basically creates the same traffic as if there was no auto-away and b) is slightly frustrating for me. And I only say 'slightly' because I'm used to this sort of thing (by having multiple e-mails and organiation software accounts that I use for my work and I have to check almost constantly). So, if traffic is the biggest problem with the games list, maybe there can be some sort of workaraund? Possibly a bleep that will play when a game (or any game) is formed, regardless of whether you're away or not (i. e., client won't refresh the games list, only acknowledge there's a new one there)?

Auto-away sucks. Option to turn it off or at least set a longer timer?

I don't understand the desire of C&C players to cram themselves all in one game. I'd much rather have 3-4 open 1v1 games instead of one 6P hellhole. Anyway, theoretically 6P games should be possible (they were in CnCNet4), but AFAIK the difficulties in implementing the feature are caused by a) the fact that CnCNet5 uses wchat code and not LAN, and b) it's hard to do exhaustive tests so it can be implemented properly.

With bigger maps most certainly you'd need more early scouting and defences as the surprize factor of APC and heli rushes will increase dramatically. Also, depending on map design, people might be more inclined to build MCVs instead of spiderbasing to expand. Again, depending on map design, Nod would get a slight boost with their fast bikes, but on the downside, Nod players spawning in the West will have more delay between deliveries, potentially the biggest problem here, easily solved by a second airstrip, which you would need soon anyway if the map was, say 128x128. Also, radar would become more useful, I myself tend to keep mine, if I don't need the cash right away (or am not planning for ion), it's a great way of tracking bikes, stealths and the dreaded APC. I do play lo-res though. Overall, I don't think the game will play better or worse, just a little bit differently. More macro and more room for encircling tank/bike maneuvers sounds fun.

Short answer - no, the AI can't build air units. It can only repair them if they're stil alive and if it has a repair pad. I'm 99.99% sure the "create team" command will not work for helicopters, but the AI will rebuild destroyed helipads if you put them in the base section... Of course, that's irrelevant to your question. EDIT: If you look around this forum, and especially the singleplayer missions and posts by Nyerguds and LKO (Lin Kuei Ominae or something), you could probably figure out a way to reinforce new helicopters instead of making the AI build them. F. ex., the only AI units are those two apaches and you make a looping trigger which reinforces 2 apaches every time the AI loses 2 units...

I'm not usually the one to troll, but I'm high and this is amusing. OS95, I suggest you play the campaign through at speed 4, then kick it up a notch and play it through on 5, repeat for 6 and THEN come back to CnCnet to play. Maybe that'll give you some better results. On a sidenote... Well, actually on topic, this warning thing sounds nice. I'm sure it's much more useful for RA players, but there are some non-standard maps in TD that look really good geometrically and people often choose them without knowing they're specifically made for 2v1 or crates etc. Still, players that pick those are usually new and even if they see the warning you'll still have to explain what it's about... So that renders my post totally worthless. Good night.

I suggest the removal of the auto crush option from TD. It's flawed and worse, it disrupts the game when noobs insist on turning it on. It is not infact auto crush but a return fire option, which gives your units some (very low) AI. Instead of carrying out your orders units will return fire or try to run over things that attack them. The result is you cannot effectively concentrate fire on any target because any enemy unit will draw your fire away. Instead of focusing on an obelisk f. ex. your tanks will fire at the random infantry around it. Instead of killing the CY your apaches will be dealing with bazooka men one by one or they'll decide it's a better idea to kill that SAM site. And the most annoying - harvesters will try to crush bikes. So yeah, get rid of that. I can kinda deal with the buggy MCV undeploy, which doesn't let you sell your CY when you need to... But auto crush has got to go.

Well, we'd really need the weapon's context in your story to be of any use. See, we're not weapons specialists and thus are even less qualified to ID the rifle or any such thing. But as a professional writer I can tell you this - I think you're overemphasizing its technical aspects. Write it off as whatever best suits your needs (of the variants you listed) and use the most prominent qualities of such a type of weapon to drive some of your story forward. What I gather so far is that this, a short barrelled assault rifle, not unlike an Uzi, is suited for both very close quarters (urban, room to room) combat and open range fire, although short barrelled weapons will have lower accuracy with longer ranges. Fully automatic fire will also be harder to control, so bursts. The high point of your analysis of the weapon is probably its very high magazine capacity. Fifty rounds is a LOT! Consider the differences - an M-16 usually has a 30 round magazine and a trained professional will need at least two or three seconds to reload. The Calico has almost double. Also, rounds - you have 9mm vs. .22 of the M-16, which is essentially a 5.6mm. Much more stopping power. So, definately a weapon for very close quarters urban fighting. Also, do some research on all available attachments, the M-16/M-14 can have many modifications - underslung grenade launchers, shotgun pumps, all kinds of sights and of course, the good old bayonet. What can this weapon carry? I hope I helped and if I think of anything else I will post again. EDIT: Also, Tom Clancy is boring. Do some Philip K. Dick.

I'm pretty sure the desert buildings from TD will fit much better in this theatre than the very European farms etc.

From my humble mission making experience, it appears that the 'sleeping' buildings are hardcoded. Player controlled buildings will be inactive at the start of the mission simply if the player has no units seeing them. The moment you discover the building, it becomes active. A bug from this feature can be seen when you have an undiscovered Construcion yard. You can easily find it in the shroud by just pressing 'h'. It will still remain inactive until you really discover it though.

Everything looking awesome so far! Maybe in the new jungle theatre the clear terrain can be a lighter shade of green (like in Nyer's screenies), while the thicker bush beneath trees can be achieved by using other template pieces (like the regular dusty patches or snowheaps of the winter theatre). Also, it sounds like too much work but might be interesting, roads can be even more ragged in the jungle, like the ones in this beta screenshot : Or like the bibs under the buildings in this one: If I were to do it, I'd just do it simple and split regular roads right down the middle to form tracks.

As far as I know, what you're asking is impossible, at least in TD and RA. There the AI uses all of its factories/barracks for production, so the result will be that any teamtype with the proper instructions will usually be built at ALL factories/barracks the AI has, as long as it has money. EDIT: Workarounds would include: 1. Assigning your 'primary' outpost to another house - this will work like a charm, but puritans will say it results in a wrong score at the end of the mission (incorrect kill/loss counts, but who cares). 2. Only having that building there - you want enemy tanks roaming a particular part of the map? Place all AI factories there. 3. Reinforce - cheat, just like the AI does. If all of the above fails you can always make these 'special' teams come in as reinforcements instead of cluttering production facilities.

I don't think queuing is neccecary and I also don't think it'll change anything in RA. Sure, less experienced players will gain a couple of seconds on their more seasoned opponents, but in the meantime pros will be able to just click out their well rehearsed build orders from the start and then only worry about building placement and better unit control = you still get your ass handed to you. Now, what would actually be more of a boost for newer players are building rally points like in TS. Just set your WF to send the units directly to the enemy's base or thereabouts. Building a tank only requires one click, while transferring one from your base to the field is: bookmark 1 + select + bookmark 2 + send = 4 actions, at least, and that's if you don't count the actual 'shifting' into the attacking team.

Really? Are there also any signs of code that might affect movement speed of units on land, as in RA? (Road - 100%, grass 80%, etc.)

You can't mod units with .ini (yet).

My personal opinion is that we can't afford to chase off new players, because there's too few people playing as it is (I play TD only, but the same applies to TS and RA, despite the 200+ players there). My advice would be: disregard any actual or perceived hostility towards you, get your ass beaten thoroughly by pros, get better, kick some asses yourself, earn some respect.

Theoretically, expanding the map by one cell is just as hard as expanding it by 64. I'm not a programmer but this research intrigues me and, as far as I understand, it's not the number of cells themselves that are the problem but the way the game counts them.