X3M

How is TD proceeding in this regard? Where can I find these graphs?

I am more referring to the initial first weight factors. Before the practical balances are tested. It goes like: if health is X and damage is Y, then the costs should be Z. I suspect they had a certain level in this. But RTS games where relatively young back then. They noticed the mistake with an extreme, the artillery. They got a practical fix for the artillery. I wonder about all other units though. They probably had their weight changed by smaller adjustments, perhaps even prior to TS being made public. But I suspecting, it was not by the adjustment on weapon range. To add to your comment on the critical mass. There is math possible to counter this effect. That would be great!

It is not regarding a bug. It is merely a misunderstanding in combat statistics. It clearly can be shown with extremes, which the artillery unit has in range. To fix it: the WW team added inaccuracy to the damage in the Firestorm expansion. Which reminds me, does anyone know, how much the inaccuracy actually is?

This is a good and well explained view. The intention indeed seems to that artillery need to build later on. They need a clean basis provided by other units, before entering the battlefield as support. The threshold for artillery in TS seems to be very fast and perhaps to fast in this regard. Which can be seen as an (my) opinion or needs to be subject to a community vote if you will. The WW team followed up with FS shortly after they brought out TS, so the WW team did know about this balance that was hard to achieve by practical testing. No doubt they tried hard with TS. The solution through FS; the inaccuracy on the weapon: Imho a well thought fix outside the scope of mathematical balancing. A fix for practical balance through other means, is still a valid fix. I find it interesting that you don't see the artillery as OP. Is this a case of preventing a snowball effect? Thus preventing certain thresholds? Does Mola play TS or FS or both? Just curious. The artillery feel so very different in both games. What is a top player preference? If anyone wonders. Regarding the threshold that I am talking about. It is the number of units you need to get, before they become in certain ways "invincible", where otherwise there was a way to defeat them by the "wrong" means. Idk if I elaborated this before.

I only provide to those that aren't trolling. If Dark Horse requests, I will provide personally. It contains google searches, research and math with statistics. On general terms for all RTS. I am in disdain to those that make blatant assumptions. I only find those kin, on this forum.

This is good! I wonder about larger maps?? In contrary to WC3: Removed, lol.

You are simply assuming I would hate TS. I consider that as toxic behaviour. Back to topic: The artillery was an "extreme" in the game. The range was ridiculous, compared to other units. This made it hard for the designers to balance it properly. In Firestorm they added the inaccuracy on moving targets. Which is something they put in by mechanical means, not by natural effects. So, @Dark Horse with the help of the right people here, you should be able to undo this effect. Back then, the designers didn't know yet about the cumulative effects that ranged units can have. The threshold of overkill could easily be obtained. I could go into detail as of how and why. But instead I suggest to play around with the damage of the Artillery, once you removed this inaccuracy.

You are toxic as ever with your blatant assumptions.

Range got calculated wrong in that game any way.

That's fun to watch.

Nonsense! Go get new hobby's. That is what I did (not just gaming). And if a game starts to get boring. Try to give yourself new limits. That is just some advice, do as you will.

Do I disgust you as well?

You guys sure put some serious effort in this one!! Great work!

Wow, ok. So a 4th map called b...

I saw that one, but I assumed it was a map editor test made by Siberian GRemlin self. Simply naming the map b. Enlighten us?

3 maps no difficulty Interesting. The twilight version has much more than this.

Is there a skirmish?

Recognising that V2-launcher Can you show the names of the list of maps that are included with your version? Those used for the skirmish. Or is it only the single player game?

Thank you!

It disappeared from my list of channels. Trying to find it back with a link. Then Discord says, the link doesn't work or the channel doesn't exist any more.

A lot has been reverted. Good.

Meanwhile, no one complained about my absence from the game, lol.

This is regarding the mod. Not the original game. Whatever you say, has no effect on the original game. Nor the mod. The same goes for what I have posted.

Let us brake down the facts. The classic ini. The current speed for the APC is 35. Bikes have even 40. The NOD buggy and Humm-vee have only 30. I find this weird, most of the lighter vehicles have lower speed and are wheeled. A tracked vehicle should be the slower one, or make up with a higher cost. Most tracked vehicles have 18 or 12. With the exception of the Stealth tank, which is 30. Infantry range from 6 to 10 with their speeds. They need micro to dodge the speed of 18. Any higher speeds require a lot of anticipation. And groups of tanks already have no problem crushing infantry. We all know that roads have a positive effect on vehicle speeds. The wheeled gain more than the tracked. They will be on par, on roads. There for, I suggest to have the APC a movement speed of 24/25. Making it faster than any other tracked vehicle. With the exception of a Stealth Tank. If it proves to be to slow against certain defences. Slowly add speed until it reaches 30. If you made other changes on speeds in the community balance, by logic, the speed for the APC could be different too.

Instead of a slower engi. How about a slower apc? You could actually reintroduce crushing again.