X3M

Since the build range is 1 space in between. And comfort attack range in fast games is at least plus 2. I would say that the artillery needs 3 range more then the tesla. The same goes for the v2. But this one could have plus 2 on top of the artillery. Tower rush becomes harder. So towers will then be more of a defensive type as intended.

Fake buildings saved me on low money games. But with fast money games. I think that the build time should be similar to that of a wall. You only build them in the beginning. Or later on under the coverage of a magnet. Since the armor type is different then a concrete wall. The damage effects by other weapons than explosives will have effect. This is the reason why a fake building has relatively more durability against cannon fire than normal walls. Only the access to these should become easier. The anti infantry mines. Might I suggest having them 5 times stronger then the anti tank mines? Seeing as how tanks are roughly 5 times more expensive. How? How about you lay the mines, but you actually lay a field of 5 mines at once in a cross field. This way, the anti infantry mine layer will lay down 25 mines in total before refilling. If you disagree, then I might as well say that both minelayers are useless in money map games. Which is 95% of time, if not more.

What if the starting units are fixed, are buildable by both sides and make for some protection against air and apc rush? Like giving each side a number or rocket soldiers? Make that an optional? Reasons: These can't attack that good by themselves because they are slow and weak. They can still scout a fair bit, but it is better to still build a barracks and then other infantry. They will be a starting protection against air. To a lesser extent to an APC rush. The same goes for the MRLS. But this one is a bit to powerful to my taste. You can only defend well enough with armored units. But having just 1 should not really be a problem. So; Option starting units 1: 0-6?? Rocket Soldiers. Option starting units 2: 0-2 MRLS. To stop APC rushes. Or make sure that the APC rush needs MORE investments, like wall destroyers. Simply have each player start with walls around their MCV. I have seen this a lot before. And TBH, I liked it a lot. It stopped me, and the opponent. But having a proper investment in the APC will still allow the APC rush. With 4 or at a minimum 1 opening to build from. Preferably in the direction of tiberium. So that a Refinery starts right next to it. More so would be having the tiberium being at the closed side, right next to the wall. That the player can see it and build the refinery above or under the CY after having build the power plant. If the refinery is placed under, there is room for 2 towers to be build. Or infantry to walk to. But also, one of the corners is closed up right away. Advanced guard towers build there can even reach above, if the apc stops there. Turrets would have not much of an option here. I know. Optional starting units can also hide behind those walls.

I am happy that someone actually starts with this. If I may place my suggestions: 1. Agreed with the current build orders, but also tech tree. 2. Actually, I think that nerfing should be done one the squishing. Either make all units that can squish slower, OR more expensive (speed x €##), or remove the squishing. But that last is something that most RA players don't want to see happen. Somehow, squishing has always been part of these games. And somehow, the game creators don't take the massive damage into account in the total unit costs. Every squishing unit is anti infantry, this is a fact. I remember adding squishing in my board game. Where having the ability to squish 5 infantry on average in one turn would add €100 to the tank, no matter what speed they had because the squishing was considered a weapon there. I see no other option than to see squishing power being based on the speed of a tank. Nerf squishing, and all those anti infantry weapons become more useful. 3. I think that when the game is more balance, these unused units will be used more often. Which one are you thinking on exactly? 4. Again to nerf (or remove or more expensive) the squishing. Anti infantry weapons like rangers, V2, artillery and even air support will become more useful against infantry. Players build more infantry, any way seeing as how tanks will have more trouble taking care of the infantry. 5. I presume you want to make the allieds better on land and worse in the water? 6. Curious about this one. Tell me more? 7. What else do you have in mind? Range on artillery? Proper speed value's on roads and land for certain vehicles? 8. It would be a waste of potential opportunities. Make sandbags non-squishable. But also make sure you can place a lot, FAST. Like in tiberium sun, placing 5 (or even more) at once. Is it possible? It would suddenly be a better option that having silo's or mass power plants do the job of expanding. How about making it into 2 options. Vertical and Horizontal. And make them long. Another option is to do it like in EbfD. Where you draw the line. And the CY starts automatically building them. Further more, have them allow to build other structures further away. Just like in TD.

In red alert.yes.

Seeing as how it screws things up in Starcraft, regarding clicking small units. I think that lower resolution would be better for pro players. But it is the pro player that could truly decide on this for TD. At least I say, yes, low resolution is better for TD micro play. Imagine fighting a squad of infantry from a distance with a humm-vee. You rather shoot that one bazooka guy instead of one of the 4 fodder rifle infantry. This is almost not done if you don't have precise mouse control. Lower resolution helps in this. I already have noticed that clicking an infantry squad, multiple times when an infantry unit of it died. Helps in fast killing the entire squad. Thus reducing it's damage towards my vehicles. A bit more skill, and I can easily target the most threatening infantry. Bazooka>Grenadier/Flamer>Rifle. A game speed of 5.5 sounds like a good idea. Fine tuning on where the most optimal mouse control versus overall skill, is possible, is a must have for every game. Is it possible? If every setting is going to be locked. Then I have my doubts about 10k. 10k allows for lame openings. Still a 4 apache rush is OP. Perhaps a 7k as standard? It is between 10k and 5k that I previously suggested. Now, players need to scout really well, to have this 4 apache rush. But it also means that they will NOT have income if the rush, is rushed. If this apache rush is in combination with a refinery. Then only 3 apaches will be in the field. A CY will survive, and when the apaches return, several bazooka men can stand ready as a late preparation. With 5k, it will be only 2 apaches asap. And this means that they need to return twice, that is, if the CY is being repaired. A lower starting credit will push air to a later game. Air would be used as support. So ask yourself, do you want the laming being possible? Or make it a more of a tactical choice for mid to late game?

Certain micro gets better with lower resolution. Starcraft remastered players call me a cheater because I can focus fire. Imagine that. They can hardly click small units. The reason is that their resolution makes for example a marine only 2-3 mm wide. You can't click this properly unless you are only 10 cm away from the screen. I have like 3 times larger in resolution. I simply pan the vision etc.

It might shock new players though. Having a good resolution, suddenly going "DOS mode".

Didn't think about the resolutions. But you are absolutely right. I don't even mind having the dos resolution as choice. But how to get all players use these resolutions by force?

Comsat close to the base is fine. Everyone understands that you can take these over and have a little spurt in technology. I even would cheer on some advanced power plants, right next to the base. Having them cost "500". Trickery long distance, multipurpose advantages. Sounds like trolling and cheating on new players to me. Those maps are for lamers who can't win in general. That's my opinion. There are also maps where you get entire huge bases to start with and a MCV in the middle to move. I don't mind them, but don't like these either. Perhaps if the base is a nice sim base, that is decent and small and still complete. Is there anything more to add to this topic though? How about comparing other games maps to C&C?

I can only complement on this. Awesome!

Talking about changing the game should be another topic. There you can discus the fact why it is so hard to change the game. This topic is about BlySY maps. If you are sorry, you shouldn't even start derail the topic. But make that new one, referring to here, Ok? BlySY, I say that the map you showed looks very good already. I really like that village. It invites to hide, but that would be a mistake for players Is the map intended for only FFA? Or is this that map you talked about of FFA/2v2v2/3v3 altogether? Count blossom tree's per player. I think that 3 each is awesome. I see you want to put in a good fair structure. Don't mind natural just yet. Basic balance is key here. Also, keep an eye on the start locations. I see one adjacent to the tiberium, this player is forced to move his MCV 1 spot. I also see some 2 spots away, while others are 1 spot away. I don't know what most players prefer. But it could be either 1 free space or 2 for all. This only counts for left/right configuration. Not top and bottom. There it doesn't matter much. Position 4 looks very bad to be. Maybe turn this into a neutral zone if you where make it a 5 player map. But since 6 is the norm now. I think you should make it easier for 4, since this one is the most central. Decrease the space access between 1 and 4. Some more tree's will do. Maybe even close it entirely off, since those tree's can be destroyed. Thus players making their own path. To start with the choke points above. It is very easy for 5, to steal resources from 4. So, reduce that from 3 to 1. Also the choke points from the village to those same fields. From 3 to 1. Those fields need 1 more blossom tree. I feel you had something along the lines of 4 choke points per player in mind. But sometimes it is bad. Especially for the middle player. But playing the map might show the answer. Just suggestions, do as you will

For the game modes. I looked at some other games (starcraft). Some have an official rule that a tournament game is at 100% speed. And normal at 120-150% for other types of games. We all know that c&c has this 100% on 3. But everyone agrees that this is too slow. 5 is a decent slowest speed setting for extreme micro control on individual units. Which is what certain players like. The speeds and multiple modes are only examples. We could also have one mode for tournament. And that the players are limited in choices. 3 speed settings and a couple of starting credits. Not trespassing the 10k. Might as well call it slow. Medium and fast. Credits could be 8 choices. 3k 4k 5k 6k 7k 8k 9k 10k. The starting credits could be different for different openings for strategy. 4 apaches are very unlikely on 5k starting credits. Either way. It should be entirely locked during the game what game speed is chosen. No crates!!! No viceroids!!! Those two are waaay to random for tournament maps. This is just my train of thoughts.

Since it looks like a solo preacher since 75% got removed due to reasons. I'll post an opinion about this. Maybe special options BEfore hosting? "Original 1v1 tournament" Sets player limit to 2. Money to 10k. Game speed to 7. "Strategic 1v1 tournament" Sets player limit to 2. Money to 7.5k. Game speed to 6. "Tactical 1v1 tournament" Sets player limit to 2. Money to 5k. Game speed to 5. These are examples. Nothing more. The thing is. The last example forces players to focus more on infantry. I played a couple of these games. And have to say, I liked them very much. As for maps? There should be a set of maps that support 1v1. Blistering sands (the one from Ferret as well) Is one of the better maps for this. How about making a giant list to begin with. Then those who post here can vote down certain maps they think are bad. Important notice to them: You don't have to play the maps, they are optional for others to play. It is only, if you think they are good enough for 1v1 matches. Then, the map that is selected BEfore hosting, should only be selected from this list. I noticed a dropdown that could add another option, "1v1 tournament maps". If the 1v1 is done, 2v2 is next. I don't think that 3v3 should be possible. 6 player games often crash, or crashes are more common suddenly after an update.

Is what I did. And what I told him. And he left....awww.... GG for the rest.

My record says only 9 times. I am pondering, if this is enough to accept the corresponding numbers as a trend. One time, selling the building wasn't enough. This was with the orca's. No one else out there who had this issue?

When the last factory is destroyed. But rebuild. I had this issue with the barracks, the factory, the hon, airfield and helipads. No doubt, it is possible with the CY. When selling your, whatever it is. And rebuild it again. The bug might be gone. But this doesn't always work. Is there anything that I can do about this? Losing in an unfair way makes me angry. Especially when the opponent is actually being honest, so that it is unfair to blame the guy. I keep track of people that I play with. I noticed that I got this bug more often with certain people that have a slight, jitter/packet loss, to me. But the thing is, with some, this doesn't happen at all. While their jitter/packet loss is higher than average.

Mistakes like that where also made in the images that I provided. You need the helipad AND barracks/HON for both the orca and the apache according to the manual. How strange that both sides get some tanks, while they can't be build. I would say that with the modern knowledge about bikes vs tanks, GDI is screwed! Maybe crates contained tanks for the players? Also, I find it odd that bikes have to do it alone. They are bad against infantry and to an extend to humm-vee's. But maybe they expected NOD players to send flamethrowers all the time.

You made a map for Dune2000? I am very curious now.

I know you cheated. You know I can't prove it yet. When I get the chance, I will record it.

This game and Starcraft run on entirely different engines. I only know editing in Starcraft. Logically speaking. Giving units or structures to a player is a possibility. But you need to protect the structures. Immortality should be added. Or a ridiculous high amount of health. So that they are not destroyed. MAD tank is still a problem here.

While I see no way of this working through ini or whatever. The idea is brilliant. It was possible for me to do in Starcraft, back in the old days.

Please keep in mind that the mrls is anti air as well. And does more damage than the artillery and is faster/ turns faster. The rockets too, are faster. And both are anti vehicle on top of infantry. However, gdi only has the hummer for specific purposes as anti infantry. Yet nod has them buggies more as a fodder unit plus the recon bikes as anti armor. That is why you see 800 vs 450. Mrls is simply stronger. I still feel that both need 1 or 2 range extra. The ssm launcher does a lot of damage against mammoth and harvester as well as opposed to medium tanks. You xan actually use the ssm as hit and run on mammoth.

Will you be making a single player campaign?

Best strategy so far is to have a friend to play with in any team game. Eventually you know the guy and he knows your style. You can improve your style fitting each other. If it is a waiting game. Try this out: NOD+GDI. Give each other a CY. A dual ion cannon and dual nuke is funny to watch.