ore_truck

1) You want a naval-based country special unit but to answer your question about why no countries have naval special units is because no one at the development team wants that. Let's say they put in a naval-based country unit, then what? People are gonna ask why are there no country with ore-mining special, or superweapon special country, etc. I'm not saying naval country unit is bad, it's just that it is not needed, implementing it just for fun like you suggested isn't a good enough reason because there are plenty more nation unit that can be implemented for fun besides naval unit. 2) While it is possible the game can be much more fun by implementing an additional naval class for Yuri (more type of unit = more fun), it just comes down to personal preference whether Yuri should have it or not since the faction doesn't need that. You can't send a spy into a shipyard in normal game.

1. If a country has unique navy, it will only be used on naval-major map. Most of the maps it will be useless, while on naval maps, everyone will be using it and there is no variety in nations for naval maps. 2. Because Yuri doesn't need a gatling ship. Cloaking underwater is already a good defense against aircraft. If you need anti air at water, get floating discs. No.

stop crying and post a more constructive argument, just saying

So, you're making judgements because it sucks in a 7 AI game? And I quote: "Gameplay experience may differ online" Is this relevant? In a 7 brutal skirmish game again? That's because the brutal AI always cheats money and have flaks all over their base. Human players don't play like AI because building flaks all over the base consumes a lot of cash. They're better using those cash for more tanks. You have every rights to say Allies is overpowered. I played a lot of Tiberian Dawn online GDI vs Nod before, I know the horrors getting rushed when you have late advantage (it is kinda fun actually). But the Allies do have advantage early in the game, Guardian GIs counter rhinos (im talking YR) and Soviets isn't all bad late at game, they have Iron Curtain and the apocalypse tank which can still put up a fight against BFs and chrono legionaires. But I agree, it is less luxury for the sov as they need to put in more effort to keep up. Explains a lot. Doesn't mean Soviets are as bad as you think. They're just comparatively bad for new players. And I think you should try using desolators more, they are extremely helpful against Allies. And play with real people not just computer because soviet's advantage isn't too effective against how the computers cheat play. The best way to learn soviet's full glory is lose against real soviet opponent as allies and see how they do it. You'll realize they aren't as bad as you think. Tl,dr I'm not gonna say your thoughts about Allies being more powerful is wrong, but you underestimated Soviet more than they deserve. Here's why, you said: 1. Soviet lack vision because spy plane is useless: Spy planes are not useless, maybe worse than psychic reveal and spy satt but they are still very useful. 2. Dreadnaught missiles can't reveal shrouds: doesn't matter in most games, you are playing soviets the wrong way if you need missiles to reveal their base. 3. Allies are pwerful in late stages of the game: I agree, especially with no superweapons but that doesn't mean soviets have no chance of winning. 4. V3s are bad: Only against brutal AI who has a million AA or when you're comparing them to prism tanks. Otherwise, they can still do harm. 5. Kirovs are bad air units compared to jets: because they are too slow to run away from AA, but that doesn't matter if kirovs reach the enemy base. But lets say the allied player is not dumb and will send AA to attack kirovs before they reach base and how are the kirovs gonna run away? soviets can escort kirovs and make those AA run away instead. Then you say allied air power is better because they are faster and doesn't need escort, but 8 black eagles (expensive!) can only destroy 1 or 2 buildings and maybe 0 if the base is filled wit AA (jets have low armor) but 3 kirovs ($6000) can at least destroy 3 buildings before dying in a base filled with AA if they all attack different buildings.

Good players won't send in their kirov airships if the route is well-defended that requires it to "change path and run away", you send in your kirovs once you sure the way is clear (off course you need ground forces to protect to kirov so the enemy won't focus too much on anti air and the kirov forces the enemy to spend money on anti-air, meaning you have less ground resisntance). Basically, kirovs forces your enemy to go out of base to shoot them down because if a full health kirov is near their base "kirovs will die, yes but they would accomplish mission. even spending a lot for those kirovs is ok to me" (I usually build one just to scare them). Also, if you have multiple airships, order them to attack different buildings, but the important ones off course!. Spy plane is not useless at all, just because it is an inferior map reveal method doesn't mean it is useless. If you're having trouble with spy planes, then you're doing it wrong. I don't understand what you are trying to say here but there is nothing bad if people here are against your thoughts. are you saying allies better vision is because of the spy satellite (since you mentioned late game)? because allies doesn't need that, people usually scout most of the map with rocketeers early in the game, the spy sat uplink is just a bonus "scout" for the late game, and unless you're playing freaking huge maps or ffa, people don't need spy satellite uplink if they scouted well with rocketeers, the spy satellite would only risk their shrouds getting reset and waste some energy. You were saying about prisms can outrange most defenses without acknowledging anything about the V3s. The point is: at least soviet does have a long range base defense killer. We're not saying V3s are better than prism tanks, but just because it's worse doesn't mean it is entirely useless. Remember, soviet has tank advantage so they don't need a superior long range like the prism tank. The allies send their crappy grizzlies and tank destroyers while their prism tanks do a good long range support. Soviets have their crappy V3 launchers but their superior tanks does the main job. the allies are supposed to be better in vision techniques, the real question here is why is the allies have powerful units? I agree the battle fortress does give them a huge tank advantage . totally forgot about those since I played RA2 multiplayer more than YR because how I dislike battle fortress and guardian GIs, they made soviet's supposedly supremacy on the ground easily rivaled. the only thing that's holding them back is their price tag. I always preferred it's the soviets who should have the most powerful ground unit and is only held back by its cost (and maybe speed). I didn't completely disagree with you about Allies being too powerful compared to the Soviets. They are very powerful in late games and you are right about hit and runs being too powerful. I do have doubts when people say Allies and Soviet are balanced in RA2, it's just that the reasons why you said allies are better are not good examples, I mean if you talked about how allied late-units allow them to go toe-to-toe with soviet's tank and numerical superiority while still keeping their surveillance, air power, base-cloaking, instantaneous traveling, hit and run, etc advantage, I would say you give good arguments but you mostly complained about advantages the allies should have like how they shouldn't have chrono-mining, superior scout and gap generators and the soviets should have them instead(lol)... and then you talked about the factions are not balanced because dreadnaught missiles can't reveal shroud or how it sucks at defending itself and destroyer's ability to shoot land makes allies overpowered??? PS you might find some errors and contradictions just ignore them it's 6 AM and im tired...

No, it's not.

Facepalm. You could at least put those GDI units in the actual footage instead of merging two separate unrelated videos.

1. That's because Allied units are supposed to be fast and can do hit and runs. Soviet kirovs act like their ground vehicles, slow moving behemoth that has tons of armor and deadly once it gets close to your buildings. 2. It has always been that way since RA1, allies are supposed to be advantage in surveillance and cloaking their base. 3. If you're talking about the Destroyer's ability to attack land targets, then you forgot to mention about how soviet subs have a more useful advantage: stealth. 4. Dreadnoughts do more damage overall, and if the hornets get shot down (which is always the case), it's a longer wait than rearming dreadnought missiles. 5. V3 launchers have the best land range. 6. The allies are supposed to be more mobile than the soviet to make up for their weaker tanks early in the game.

Black can be a problem in the radar and superweapon/power offline timer because of the black timer background. White is for neutral units if playing on maps with pre-placed neutral/civilian units. Teal (assuming you're talking about the SP allies in some missions) are really confusing with sky blue and green (e.g. in Operation Mirage, the three border outposts (teal) look almost the same as Einstein's base (green)), Magenta - if you're talking about Yuri's second house colour in SP, then it's obvious it is confusing with his standard purple. You forgot to mention Brown - can be confusing with Orange at night.

In Germany I think.

HJK gives a different style of play. Can be fun once in a while but nothing beats playing on decent maps without tiberium covering the entire map. The problem is noobs only want money maps (last I check, at least).

I think you got Kane's Wrath and Yuri's Revenge mixed up.

What has become of this community....

I guess the bot got pissed off when people are pushing it to fetch multiple accurate "last-seens" at the same time.

I am not a big fan modifying the classic, especially when it is good as it is but if I have the chance to make a change, it should be something small that doesn't break the game. Something like slightly increasing the range for minigunners and increasing speed and damage for chemical warriors. Buff minigunners range (same as grenadier's range maybe). This will increase the chance of: Getting people build more minigunners (it is underused other than the ones from destroyed/sold buildings or vehicles). Making GDI easier to repel bikes, grenadiers are good but having a hitscan infantry fighting alongside grenadiers would be better since minigunners never miss, and the cheaper cost allows GDI to train more infantry early in the game... the current minigunner range makes them more of a cannon fodder and usually die before they can do some real damage... Hence, experienced GDI players refrain from training them. Encouraging the use of artillery and MLRS, currently Nod players usually rely on flamethrowers against GDI infantry, because they can dodge grenades and have same range as minigunner so they don't have to worry getting shot by a hitscan weapon out of range, but if minigunners have better range, flamethrowers will be less effective and there will be more use of MLRS/Artillery. Maybe chem warriors too if the above buff for them is applied. For Nod to have better range infantry to fight grenadiers, more balance in tech level 1 wars since grenadiers dominate everything there. Off course, I'm not saying the above points is gonna happen if minigun range is increased, it may not impact all games but it may increase the chances for them to happen on some games. I don't like major changes that makes the game feel different, just small ones that only impacts some games. In other words, I'm only expecting to see the differences, such as artillery/MLRS being actually used in 1 out of 10 games, better than not being used (correctly) at all. But I do welcome major classic changes if it's treated as an unofficial mod or expansion separated from the original classic game like Tiberian Alert because it gives new experience.

probably trolling after his last thread got locked down

You should really post in a manner of a normal person instead of making us all cringe.

i like that one too

With these changes, I think it's okay for MLRS to be GDI only but the APC should stay with Nod. And do something about the chem trooper.

What's the point of removing MLRS and APC from Nod? They are not the reason for these multiplayer balance issues.

Awesome!

You should thank him for proving your point.

I don't mind host ticking all checkboxes but the starting credits up to a million and playing maps with tiberium infested all over is really game-breaking, I feel like playing a different version of C&C because it takes away something very important: the competition among players to conquer the resources and map control. It does have some fun in it, you can build evrything to the full but still feels different because you can have everything (masses of tanks, tech up to superweapon) with less worries about money which isn't helping new players... Put someone who only played games with huge money and money maps on a normal game settings and map, they're the first to abort.

Because people rarely build artillery and those guys are good vs tanks. They're the closest thing to a walking tank that comes out of a barracks.