X3M

I did watch that. Lovely. All of his video's.

I was only commenting on the zoom. That it is open source is also interesting. That it has anal references written all over it is also something that I noticed. It was suggested to me on this forum though.

If GDI manages to draw each battle to direct combat with the best micro. GDI has a bit of an edge in the long run. If GDI manages to get beyond a certain treshhold with tanks. Those bikes are sniped down faster than a tank is sniped down. Not 8 to 5 but more like 9 or 10 to 5. I have seen the second happen a lot. Even on normal maps. But you need a lot of grenadier support. But this is my experience.

I don't play RA2. But I can tell that this map is awesome in design.

Are you telling me that he is godlike with NOD? I never saw him playing with NOD.

Nod has more "take that" variety. On the skill curve for normal maps. It starts with GDI. With some skill, NOD is the better choice. But at a maximum skill, I suspect that GDI reigns supreme. I mean, who beats Ferret? Would be neat though to have 2 learning ai have a battle with each other. And see which side wins and reasons as of to why.

Open RA seems to have a zzzzzzzooooooommmmmmm function. Why can't we have that too? Simply let players select the 2 resolutions that they like and have it toggle with a hotkey. I bet it is hard to program. Or that the software can't handle it at all.

It depends on the players playstyle. And the choice of map could be of influence as well.

Having better search options would also be good. 2 players, 3 players, 4 players, 5 player, 6 players, 2v1 specific, 2v2 specific, 3v2 specific, 3v3 specific. mod approved, standard maps, money maps, "the rest"

Well. I am not a programmer. And the reason for it going into circles is because there are no testing.

Well, I too do these post for fun. Some one wants to deny me that fun. Why? And I will bring up SC any time I need. The difference in practical balance is <2% these days. And that for a tournament game. buggies and bikes are no contest against mrls. 2 mrls can snipe a bike!!! I think 3 can snipe a buggy?? If we don't do the mrls. Then the APC to radar tech would be an option. Seeing as how the flame tank and stealth tank fit that category. The APC in it will have to deal with a flame tank too, once it rushes out. Although, 1 flame tank can only protect one corner of a structure, since it is slow. With barracks and radar as requirements. The APC will come after the flame tank and stealth tank.

Sad to hear that Red Alert 2 has these guys as well.

The players would only see 2 boxes, right?

Yes I know that the M16 has a better RoF. See how confusing it is when I say that it is 50% higher for the Machine gun. Lower is better. I think that if I said cool down, it would have been less confusing. Or if I said 50% worse. Higher is not better.

Great Idea! I got TD installed already. And enjoyed my first little 1 on 1. I am curious what future events hold for me with this mod.

I think that Starcraft got great because the creators where not conservative. Meaning, they where open to changes. Maybe you might say that the game became to commercial. But that is the goal of a company, making money. What most contributors to this topic have, is that they like to be flexible in idea's. Maybe someone with programming knowledge should make a mod with just minor changes. Until then, these topics keep popping up. If it bothers you, look away. If it bothers you that the original game might disappear. Simply say that only a mod should be the case. Which could be that tick box that we mentioned. Because I agree with you that the original game should not disappear. [Separate helipad, Redeployable MCV] Both tick boxes, not original. If you want to put in something positive and constructive in the progressive kind that this topic needs. Please with all means. I could also mention Warzone2100, Homeworld, Total Annihilation, Warcraft, KKnD. Those are only examples. Which can be mentioned because they have something that C&C has not. Going back to topic a bit further. A tick box for the MRLS to radar. Is it feasible? Especially looking at Ferret on this one. Since he agree's and has the connections?

Chess evolved, kinda like how Starcraft evolved over the years. C&C got designed in a very short time and never really changed afterwards. Chess evolving took hundreds of years. One of the first versions actually had dice, is what they told me. And I have no idea, how that played out.

Add it as a tick box for each unit separately? If it wrecks the game too much. Remove the option again. It is up to the top 10/20 to say what the option does. Right?

In theory, 4 buggies should be able to beat one medium tank. In theory that is. I don't know if damage is rounded, up, down or normally. Now that I am checking the ini, the M60 is a M16, both 15 damage, but with a 50% higher ROF and +2 range. It is 25% damage on heavy armor. That is 3,75. So, is it 3,75 or 4 or 3? Big difference! If rounded downwards, you need 5 buggies.

Yes, well, all other units where not taken into account with the LT/MT comparison. I feel that they went much further than just the basic balancing rules. Was it just theory? Did they include dimension effects that have influence on strategies? surrounding, combat lines, single unit battle's. Did they assume a fixed income rate? 700 per harvester. 1 harvester per field for prolonged money. Depletion rates. Grow rates. Did they assume an average design of maps? open vs closed. Base and/or army placements and/or movements. Looking at the difference and my suggestion of having the MT cost 900. This 100 difference is put in the buggy/humm-vee. I see only very rare occasions that the humm-vee is truly worth that of 400. I guess, that is why I love having both the buggy and the MT in my forces. Since both are relatively cheap. I could get loose on the health of the humm-vee, keeping the buggy at 300.

Instant spawn. But corrective build times.

Remember that they are weak to AP.

Range, First shot effect, Space saving factor (or size of units) are all closely linked together. The range factor for games where fog of war is applied. Is related to the health/damage ratio that is set as average. If it is 3, every 1 range is +33% costs on the weapon. If it is 5, every 1 range is only +20% costs on the weapon. The same is applied to speed. Open games have this 50% or 100% higher. But I have less experience with that. Might be cool though if I learn that magic number. Guess what, knowing this armor and AP combination. Before reading your post. I went mass buggies on someone with turrets. While receiving slightly more damage and facing enemy buggies. I easily managed to get rid of those turrets as well. The only combat difference this time was that the turrets where more spread out and not in a nice tight wall. I had to deal with 2 or 3 at a time. The most stopping factor in that game so far where those flamers popping out the barracks.

The range thing only counts when you play money maps or choke points. LT is a defensive unit. Being meat when obelisks do their job. But still, if you want LT and MT to be better balanced, what are their current statistics? (I never got to it, to put the ini into an excel file. For comparison. I don't see the point to do this.) (Also remove a big section that I quoted from the ini file. This forum needs the spoiler tags!!!) They are both actually heavy armored. Thus both dealing 100% damage. No rounding damage, which makes it easier. Costs: 600 vs 800 Health: 300 vs 400 Damage: 25 vs 30 ROF: 60 vs 50, where lower means faster. Middle speed settings give us 4 vs 3,33 seconds. Range 4 vs 4,75, which is weird since that would be 5 indeed? It involves rounding, but it must have a reason. And the top vs down is also an issue here. I don't know the health/damage ratio, but this is closely linked to the range and speed factor. The DPS is 6,25 vs 9. Speed: 18 vs 18, what the fuck, the LT has the same speed? That is just lame. Speed is included in my calculations, but it is the most inaccurate factor that I will suggest. So keep that in mind. Range in NOT included in my calculations. I pretend to have the range being set equal either way. I suggest raising the range of the LT to 4.75. Don't put both on 5, since there is a reason for 4.75. We have several options to change here. And I am assuming that these unit hav 50% of their worth in the health factor, and 50% of their worth in the damage factor. I don't know if and how the space saving factor is implemented, but MT compared to LT is simple. Seeing as how the health and the costs are linked. I bet that the ssf is not implemented. I don't know the health to damage ratio either. Or else I could include the range. Pick your change: - Price only, including space saving factor: €924 for the MT. OR €519 for the LT. - Price only, including the DPS: €832 for the MT. OR €576 for the LT. - Price only, including both ssf and the DPS: €942 for the MT. OR €510 for the LT. Choice 1: Obviously, €900 for the MT, would be more suitable here, but €550 for the LT is also an option. - Only changing speed, including the DPS: 20 for the LT would compensate against the DPS/€ factor. At least, the LT could escape. But this change doesn't do much for gameplay. - Only changing speed, including ssf (the one of €924 becomes 800): 24 for the LT. - Only changing speed, including the DPS and ssf (€942 becomes 800): Again 24 for the LT. Choice 2: 24 speed for the LT. Most noticeable speed, is faster then many other tanks. But not faster or equal to any other unit that is supposed to be faster then the LT. - Only changing DPS: 54 ROF for the MT. OR 55-56 ROF for the LT. - Only changing DPS, including the ssf (only the one of 924 applies here): 57-58 ROF for the MT. OR 52 ROF for the LT. Choice 3: A ROF of 55 for either the MT OR the LT. The advanced power plant. Should be an option for players, not just for saving space. 400 versus 600 health and 100 versus 200 power supply. With that, the true price of the advanced power plant should be €525. Although, if you include the space saving factor. The price comes scarily close to €700 (694,51). Why isn't the ssf applied to units? Also, most maps these days are to open to include this space saving factor. Except money maps. And base creeping is done with large buildings, something they certainly never factored in. So €600 would be best from all kind of perspectives. You pay twice the price for twice the power. You save 50% space. But you only get 50% more health. (An obelisk of light, including power costs, would be €1950) PS. Can there be an option on : line 64 TiberiumExplosive=no ; Does the harvester explode big time when destroyed? That would reduce harvester hunting. Which is something that a lot of players dislike. Or doesn't that work? Crashes it the game?

You will be getting those MRLS way faster if they are on radar. Then the AGT doesn't need that buff that much. It would be 1 AGT + 1.2 MRLS instead of just 1 AGT. The MRLS is cheaper and as I can recall, does more damage to vehicles AND air. Is that correct? 1 thing at a time. And oversee the consequences.