XXxPrePxX

Yeah- - Got to be windows. You can make it work on Mac and even linux (but that's even harder), but simply you want windows. Windows 10 has major problems, but it seems like people have made it work.

Here's my opinion on Allieds in Ra2 vs. Yr. Ra2 in general, takes more skill. By skill, I mean TC, BO, taking care of the economy, and similar aspects of the game. This is due to the fast nature of the game. One small mistake with TC or eco and you are really behind/doomed (YR has always been more forgiven, which is why you often have insane comebacks on YR but rarely so on RA2). As alluded to earlier, Grizzly's and rocketeers seem to just 'work' on Ra2 compared to YR. On YR, they are nothing but fly's on my cars windshield wipers, but on Ra2, those grizz/rockie combinations can do swift damage to me. This is why Ra2 allies have always been more of a threat than YR allies to me. On YR, when I get matched with any allied player, I know I will control the game for the most part. I know that i'll be able to rush if I want or build up to tech, or build up to multi-war factory. I had no real fear in vsing any allied player back in the late 2000's. In fact, there simply wasn't many great allied players -- perhaps you can say this is due to the lack of players available, but I say it is because the allieds on YR are incredibly difficult to master and sustain over a ranking month. The two best allied players around where Andy and Adam (Phaillure??). Both of which ended up being cheaters apparently (Andy being the obvious cheater at the time). (In fact, on YR I often went months where my loses were less than 5 per 60+ games, this is due to there being very little risk in soviet vs. allied games) People mention Battle Fortresses and the late-game advantage of allieds on YR compared to Ra2, but I think that is mostly wrong. In a competitive 1on1, if an allied player can get more than 1 BF against your soviet techniques, then you as a soviet player are failing. The pressure you should be applying to an allied opponent should force them never to have a chance at 2+ BF's unless you have complete map and superweapons control and are just toying with the opponent. In reality, the allied opponent should very rarely get over 1 BF against you. Now, in the rare situation that the allied player does get the BF, best of fucking luck to this allied player because he now has to fend off my massive onslaught of rhinos against his 1 BF, a few grizz, maybe some rockies, and building mirages. Good luck in defending against splits on certain maps during this period of vulnerability. It takes an incredibly skilled allied user to be able to handle his/her diverse and limited forces in stopping multiple attacks by the soviet. If that's not it, this is usually when the iron curtain is getting ready. I mentioned first in this post, that Ra2 takes more skill, but the difference is that YR takes very particular strategy. In the extreme limits, YR takes an insane amount of skill (late game allieds management, yuri management in general takes a lot of skill), but these limits are rarely met. I think if we want to look at some measures, just consider the post I made on these forums about the current best allied players. There were very few satisfactory answers. In fact, the best allied players by far were named VWWWWW who is directly from Ra2 as an allied player (and I don't think has quite yet been tested on YR due to there not being a proficient ladder yet), and Justin (who has a clear Ra2 style in the way he uses grizz+para+rockies+seals to harass). Everyone else is simply name drops to make a list of top 10. As an allied player, I choose to use the Ra2 Style on YR as well. This is because there is less risk involved. Going late-game tech on YR is asking for the soviet player to enter your base and/or essentially giving the soviet player the complete control advantage of the map/game. I think there is a common misbelief that YR Allieds >> Ra2 allieds in the community. This is fueled by Battle fortresses, GGI, and strong GI's. But it doesn't help much in 1on1's if the allied player is dead in the first 3 minutes (the serious change is that it is actually easier to rush allieds on YR then it is on Ra2).

Wow, I think this is a great idea! More games quickly.

Forgot to respond to this. Well, there's two ways we can examine the situation. One way is that I can go through possible scenarios and show that Tank destroyers are not useful (meaning -- in all situations, America/GB/Korea are better than Germany), or you can try to find a situation that you think Germany is more useful then the other given allied nations. I think, for time purposes (and not to bore every reader here) it would be better for you to try to come up with a game scenario (competitive) where German Tank destroyers are actually more useful then American Paradrops / Korean Eagles / Great Britan Snipers. The only situation that I can think of that comes close is a meat grinder situation where there is basically unlimited money (so no air units, no tech units, but lots of money) in which case the TD is an upgrade to grizzly in tank combat and the unlimited money allows you to build them extremely fast. But even in this completely noncompetitive scenario (unlimited money is not competitive) I'd still likely take Korean Eagles or GB snipers over them to try to neutralize the desolator. My argument is that you can not find a competitive 1on1 situation that makes the TD's more useful. Just to argue ore trucks comment: " TD are good in countering rushes and slow down a soviet player at that point. " While that is very vague, in all scenarios I'd rather have either free paradrop + grizzly tanks or grizzly + eagles, or GGI ifv's. Tank destroyers are useless because they are slow, cost more money, and can't kill enemy buildings or infantry. Sure, you *might* slow down a soviets early attacks with a couple tank destroyers, but that'd only be because the soviet decided to chill out and take the massive economic and land advantage you just gave him and use it to his advantage (and thus, instead of possibly dieing early game, you now definitely die mid-game). My initial comment was that " grizzly tanks are better than TD's. When my opponent buys TD's, I know I have a freewin. " I probably should say instead of grizzly tanks, the other allied units are better than TD's. There's likely scenarios where grizzly tanks won't be better per se, but grizz+para definitely will, or IFV's, or rocketeers, etc. I know I have a freewin when my opponent buys TD's because it's a gigantic waste of money that no allied player has vs. a skilled soviet player like myself.

I think the point is that in a balanced game between 2 *equally* skilled opponents, the soviet player will win more than the allied player. As we agree, the allied player takes more skill to defeat the soviet player, in a competition between two equally skilled players, the soviet wins out. And therefore, soviet is OP compared to allieds. Which, is not really a bad thing, it's part of the reason we all love this game.

You are missing something, it's a bit of a complex situation. In a vacuum, there is no doubt that Iron curtain >> Chronosphere. For one, there is less risk involved with using the IC, for two, there is a 5 minute timer compared to the 7 minute timer. It would be much more even if they both were on 5 minute timers. Although, the chronosphere might have more impact (which is why WW likely gave it a 7 minute timer instead of a 5 minute timer). However, what is being missed here is that not every map is created equally. Some maps rely on superweapons to give the factions a chance. One quick example might be hammer and sickle. To demonstrate this example more easily, let's say the allied player is spot 1 (top right island) and the soviet player is spot 3 (bottom left). In a 1on1 without superweapons, it would be realistic for the allied player to have seals/tanyas at the bridges, somehow take naval control, and *almost* be unattackable. Sure, there are ways for a soviet player to outsmart the allied player, but it becomes incredible difficult with no supers on (i.e. seals make sure soviets can't cross bridges, and allied dolphins make sure soviets can't build navy, rendering the soviet helpless without supers). Superweapons here allow the soviet player to nuke or iron curtain important parts (generally, the nuke is placed where the navy seal would detonate the bridge, allowing the soviet player certain time to then use the iron curtain to get over the bridge). Now, that's just one example, but you can look further like Death Valley girl and Isle of War, both maps with clinch points that when the game duration is lengthy, the only logical way for a soviet to win is with the superweapon. The soviet superweapon becomes a rather polarizing option, then. I think this argument shows the superiority of the curtain over the chronosphere. There is not many maps where the allieds chronosphere gives them an advantage/disadvantage. The chronosphere is just... there, it's useful on all maps, almost equally (that is, in the very rare occurence that the allied player actually gets to use it). Now, of course, soviets are generally better than the allieds on (just a rough estimate) 70% of 1on1 maps, but that doesn't mean the 30% left over should heavily favour allies (i.e. certain maps without super weapons), because that isn't fair as well. Of course, we could go map by map and analyze the battle tactics and what maps the iron curtain is necessary on to make sure the long game allied vs. soviet match up still allows the soviet player to win. We can also think about it in another strategic way. Some soviet players (myself not included) actually like to play the long game vs. allieds and in YR, an allied army long-game is incredibly difficult to handle. The battle fortresses neutralize the desolator if handled properly and an army of mirage/prisms can easily take out rhinos. In this situation, the iron curtain is a necessity. Although, so very little allied players have the capability/skill these days to actually make this a realistic concern. It takes an incredible amount of skill to be able to handle a large diverse allied army such that it annihilates a soviet force.

No :p, never. In all cases, grizzly tanks are better than TD's. When my opponent buys TD's, I know I have a freewin.

Haven't been able to watch it yet, but definitely an awesome recording it seems. Props to Marko + Buff for putting on the show and whomever recorded it/set it up. Well done!

Feel free to explain this opinion in light of the discussion we just had regarding the exact opposite inequality.

Whaaaa??? What is this? Video proof or gtfo :P.

Well, even if we grant that the speed has changed, I'd venture to say over 90% of the community is thankful that we get faster games. You would be in the small minority wishing for slower games, in this case -- there is always the game speed tool to use on CNCNet to slow down the game. As far as the tactic changes go from TC/strategy based to more 'who can build the fastest', that's the way it always has been in this game. This game is about how fast an individual is, the speedier a person is, the better they are going to be generally. That hasn't really changed. I can write more on this when I get a better chance.

This is factually inaccurate. First of all, simply go to: http://xwis.net/ra2/ Select any player on the Ra2 Ladder and note their FPS. The FPS regularly is around 55+ which, is virtually the same on CNCNet. Additionally, if there are any speed tweaks that CNCNet is responsible for, that is almost universally welcomed by the community. From my experience, there is very little difference in the speeds in online play. In offline play, you can always adjust the game speed to your liking. Now, in regards to your comments regarding A.I. The A.I. on the base game and the CNCNet game are not very different, if at all. I can spy either of them equally easily, a spy in general is lame against the A.I. anyway. There's no difference.

Mate, what other gaming forums under 1000 active users have such a forum?

I think you can use the general forum here and create a topic for it. An entire forum section dedicated to it will not be utilized properly.

What are you talking about? You are going to have to be more detailed then this. A new forum such as? Prayer and mediation??? Or what? We already have a general forum here.

Blazer, what math are you focused on/what are your studies?

You'll be back, soon. I've been in your shoes 10's of times in the past 8+ years. I've finally been able to relinquish the game in the past 4 months, but I stick around the community and try to help out in QM when I can. We've seen many cases of this. With that being said, for your sake, I hope you do quit and never come back. For our sake, I hope you are back tomorrow! Good luck. ps: I played some games with you on cncnet if I recall, you were fun to play with.

I was always wary of this guy from the few times I've played him in his games to his weird-attention seeking ways on the forums relating to his videos. The few times I've played with him he's always had a sore loser attitude which leads me to think he has a huge ego problem. Sorry you have to deal with that nonsense, hopefully nothing negative comes out of it.

The problem with your argument here is the relative difficult assigned to each player and the money/skill in each of those scenarios. For soviets in your scenario: They simply need to make the rhino tanks, and attack well. Maybe get a flack trak if it get's to that point. For the allied player in your scenario, they need to spend money on ifv+ggi / grizz / teching up to get rockies/harriers (more $$$) and be able to manage all the units properly. First off, there is simply a money difference. Then you have the skill difference needed to win in each scenario. There is also a time difference due to the APP and allied unit building. It's just not comparable. And if all else fails, the soviet has the one unit that can essentially kill the entire allied defense early game (especially relevant on blood feud) -- deso. It's the relative difference in skill required to pull off each scenario that means soviets >> allieds.

No and No. 1. It is an entirely different argument. 2. I'd like to see your statistics to back up your statement that most games are played on those maps. Why? Because that's also wrong.

As soon as you take the game and manipulate it the way those maps do, your argument in this thread becomes useless.

Wow, I always thought the maximum was 8 and the function locked at that point in the game. Blows my mind that it is more then 8. Faulty information given to me by a superior when I was a young newb, apparently.

I'm pretty sure the highest is 8 war factories. If you can, you should try that out.

Also, original poster, I always was under the impression that 8x of a factory/barracks/shipyard/mcv is the maximum, not 6.

That looks like a great map. I didn't look too much into it, but it looks well thought out based on the mini map preview and very creative. Great.