Kampfkekskrieger

I thought this was for RA1, to enable mine layers finally to group place anti tank mines - too bad The Patch is good, but for the APCs CAN crush infantry, thats their only use and they are designed for it. also how weak must one be, not to kill the engineers of C&C1??? As if they were toxic. they are the most important unit to make the game popular. Its as if a tri-cycle with training wheels is still too difficult to balance, so lets try it with some 6. and 7. training wheel: The child will not learn it.

Enough of the words! Give me my sword! Why is that a Question? You KNOW the people are devided, or get devided: Where is the problem to just make both? Maybe we get a minority with taking the old style, the other is worse, but not worse (and probably more popular) than the old. the old is better because you see all units and buildings on one glance what I wish, but let the people 1. Get the power to decide the matters of interface 2. Room to adjust that! (1. ingame options for both; and 2. [I only suggest] without impact on the gameplay: Just let them define the interface on code by editing a xml file or such.) The time is passing on on computer games. Controls is very individual. If you devide it, you devide customers, no matter what you do. We are COMMANDERS! WE want to control that! I did see in... oh what was that game... Guild wars I think, there you could customize your interface, where you had what. Its not that terrible. Its terrible, if you cannot make queues, where you want some, or 'caged' stances, that you cannot change. Other modes are better without queues, then let them make manually. If you are not open for further into the question, to more than just answer, you can ignore the question.

1. I find TD/RA1 important, why not make any games about it despite everybody like it/is legendary and what else, despite being just one 'cheap game beyond thousands' 2. I read the announcement Remaster starts with Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert, but that's not all So I expect, I read that like that all games get remastered, with time, and not all games at once, (beginning with the first 2) no doubt. If you publish such a message, you must know that people are knowing it better. Its as you all know, even very hard to justify doing it not. But I think now I said enough. Its just a question of time, and sorry.

I am a master. I want a proper game. I didnt get one and I was starving for many years, not getting what I really looked for, nobody did entertain me to a least amount, it was okayish in earlier years, but its dropping, AND I (and I think many players) are getting more knowledge, than was possible 20 years ago about games, and hence raise their demands. I have a lot of experience developers need. And players dont understand games, only watching their surface, not getting a manual. You waste time refining them in this crooked relationship. It must stop. I started to help Act of Aggression/Wargame, because no C&C was there. I did play tiberium wars with addon in multiplayer for a while and generals zero hour, getting impressed how much much better the players use the game to their advantage, but was very sad, that you didnt do much more out of it(also not taking the cash that was ready), and I could not grab in and improve little things that annoyed, like transports in generals didnt work so well with infantry like with Act of war, and since then, I wanted the same in C&C and thats obvious. Desyncs in Kanes wrath made me throw it from the earth virtually after a time of addiction, no MP world conquest. I also observed in the last years actively, that the people dont seem to understand a game like Act of Aggression(count in various Strategy games I listed in the annoucement), struggeling with wargame, liking it, but not understanding its deeper innings, resulting in judging a thousands-feeter by the number of arms, and a ball upon its edges; I couldnt really believe how you cannot see how refined it is in its ideas, how much better playable, and why this is not in discussion. Now, I am so sad about the state, its really a 'state' in constitutional consense, that leadership in a computergame is vanishing, with the players loosing a least amount of orientation, to see the hand in front of their eyes, if the subheading says its a ball. Now, thanks for your interest, could have more of this... So the Refinery trick is very clear: you do it quick(1), 'same'(all players... play 2), skilled (3), or more ( exploiting /slowering enemy advancement, e.g. with troops, helos, succesful aggressions). More skill more reward. I LOVE to play infantry, because it has the same firepower like a tank gun, but you can have e.g. 5 grenadiers for the price of 1 tank, and they are so geniously versatile to use, press into every niche, distract the pure tanks, that are naked, and a bunch of helping infantry is SO cheap, and can distract a lot of guns from your tank HP. Now that slippery infantry in TD/RA, never thought you could professionalize their use, but having read Frederic the Great, I started to care for real world circumstances in warfare to include into my playstyle. This theory is the key to make out of your troops, because you dont see advantages with just looking onto the pixelgraphics, that you can do maneuvres with them, and how advanced things work, more than basic attacking/defending... I think most people dont know more than 3 words and ways for it. boring. sad. Furthermore, the games dont allow invested advanced tricking out the basic ways, favouring a lot the 'common' playstyle, not allowing creativity. And those RTS that Allow it, get thrown with tomatoes, see the astract in the announcement. Hence my goal is to relive those games, that are popular, but dead because they couldnt live in the world of cloudy folks, and technical incomprehenses/shortcomings in the industry, that dont seem to learn what is obvious for ordinary people. -> To their own damage! Now, the time of sorry is over, Its important not to let the developers slip through lazy, but make them do proper games, listening to the people, and include the change in the pulse of time. I also have insight into developers. Both bleed. nobody wins. There is no leadership. Big powers fall of their position because they dont know the historical leadership, dont follow it, dont respect the rules of the earth. We want to give them power. They decide if they need any. And RTS games are the key to regrow it. I have to say it here, hence I was asked. Welcome in the Divinity, Commander (I like playing the comedian while talking)

The Old graphic style has a LOT of gameplay advantages, with fluid playing the game, and not getting blinded by the UI, the are on which you play itself, or tiny annoyances that you get with more complicated 'graphics' which is actually not the graphic resolution nor textures nor reflections or daylight, but just the way, the Isometry /true 3D brings clearity into the pave. Its also easy to implement things on (Best game to mod in my opinion), change the GAME, instead of rumouring in the graphics, getting no step further. Now, Better graphics, I think pyroglyph how how they call, will not dare to come with 'nothing worked on' even though I would wish they keep the old style, at least as option, with gameplay-identic 3D mode maybe. You will get small differences with more graphics, no inload-animation(I LOVE THAT sweet inf going into apc and unloading ofc!, not just disapearing everywhere in all games I hate it too many games do that) anymore, worse quality 3D-Animation than the soft and friendly 2d-sprites. RA2 style was a bit too blinding to the eyes: everything was reflecting and you didnt see the units in front of your nose, because of too much reflection metal effects, snow covered /mix with building design, and it was too hectic, with no 'limit of speed', but neatless endless ongoing in time, but inconvenient UI, which was too complicated to do easy things. Its still something, and you can like it. I could live with it. but you can improve. There are a lot of MODS, I suggest you to watch some mods of Tiberium dawn, where you have missle trails unit queues, and the humvee corpse remaining after destruction, which is some advancement I would like to have in 'official' remastered ways. Well, you could do it more professional, but les say, things like thas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZF4hUtsXUg //BTW I have fun writing and discussing this. hope its okay, I dont like it if someone deletes me without a warning, without me knowing what I do wrong

Hihi, The Starting funds mechanic: well 1. you determine a certain minimum that a player needs to be given, to have a chance to be succesful. 2. Then you say, okay, if 50% of the last mission is succeeded/Reaching primary quest, or having 50% of used units as casualties, and not more, the player gets the 'full 100%' of what he is intended to get and have a fair way to solve it, depending on the difficulty whether this is a beginner mission or late in the campaign, the real nuts to crack. The 100% is then lets easify is (..., but 2x factor is a pretty strong advantage, but not if the total units/money is low, or the enemy presence diminishes the difference to a minor factor, maybe its harder to reach secondary goals with additional forces, but the primary target is save to be reachable.)... Then 50%(=the minimum) till-100%(=leastsucceeded with less than 50% casualties) of the recommended forces is granted, and with bonus goals and less units lost, you get Bonus cash, your hero units again, or certain units, that were on normal level before, now as a bonus starting in elite level or so. ->So you score the last level into a % scale, and give a translation of say 50% to 150% into the next mission, OR start at zero(for harder difficulty), and everything must be brought by the player, but expecting that the least 50% are not hard to reach. (you succeeded the mission, but have no oil left for the goalrun, so try it again for veterans) OR: You want to transfer total-units, the same, with increased rank, and maybe even the same repair status. Or you saved tha radar the last game, and because you saved it, you now have access to higher tech, instead of having to live with low tech. This makes missions tremendous more exciting. etc. The Storage mechanic for silos: the refinery isnt storing resouces, but only silos do, and hence every player needs to have a number of silos to have fluid economy, otherwise you have a just-in-time economy, where every penny must be built instantly, otherwise you get a cash overflow -which ( - oh yes: btw: 1) pauses your harvestors, or just deletes tiberium/ore amounts that you end with a shorter total capacity later, which everybody hates: If there is no way of getting unlimited res later. You get a standard start-stack of 1000, which you can increase with refineries either not at all, or to like 200 instead of 1000, but even with 200, you will build 5-10 refineries later, so you will not get affected too much having no silos. But still, if you destroy refineries with capacity, this shortcut shall hurt! Even in large games where you handle 20+ refineries, this must be less than excessive amounts, that you can influence. a) Most important is: If you destroy the silos, the player who looses them will loose the major part of his stored money, down to a very low limit. b) you must be in need to build a lot (enough) of silos, so the space is not always ideal to protect sooner or later, and you become vulnerable to raidings to your money pockets, if you store and produce excessive. So the silos also have a low capacity, and its just harder to get a comfortable stack. I have a c:) Unit type-Superiority: Lazy monotonous unit production shall be less superior, workable, but not the lazy way out of any need of silos I meant (1) If the storage of a player is full, I would like to have the change, that harvesters stop to unload their load, staying in the refinery, and waiting for free space, instead of 'vanishing cash': The player shall be punished for not giving care, but maybe not by throwing the overflow away without any trace to catch later.

Good Idea! [Option to turn that off if for lower difficulties] 1. I WANT to harvest Cash, and get it for the next mission! So maybe both modes, one for hardcore, to get the cash harvested, but very low official cash, so you have to calculate! Must be hard, not easy with it though. a) Also: I LOVE GAMES, where your army gets handed from mission to mission, so you have to take CARE of them, not to get too many losses, however that is archieved, and instead, give the player less opportunity to get over-excessive numbers, should he have harvest everything, using endless-counters should be off, but limited, so that I have to care, and dont get too much advantage from it, but many disadvantage from losses. b) If I fight in other countries, I cannot take over vehicles everytime, but My START troops and situation shall be adapted to some part, whether I did a good work in previous missions/100% score. ALL I WANTED! 2. I also want Silos! IN THE MID OF THE GAMEPLAY

https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/2676-quotuselessquot-units/?do=findComment&comment=71496 Remastering is a good start... what about the amounts of cash, that you were about to collect?

The most embarrassing for me is, that C&C is like the most popular RTS, and didnt get at least 5 addons for C&C1, 5 Addons for C&CRA1, 5 Addons for each, including Generals, AND at least 2-3 C&C1/RA1/TS/... Sequels each, continuing on that graphic level, ... take that sims games as an example, I think you know that game... everything video-story featured, like a Startrek voyager-series, Outplaying/unrolling/continuing/finishing out the plans that westwood had...with their employees together, with x5 the amounts of games/1xcontent in their policy, if westwood would have delivered 5xcontent in one game, to 5x the money -> everyone would have bough the 'full version games' all without freetoplay-concepts! how can the most succesful publisher not recognize the cash-cow they bought, if developed on? Why didnt they, despite continuing content-identic sports games and trash each year?, -> solving connection issues at the latest 2 years after release, adapting the balancing to the state 'every unit is playable' as a minimum requirement. (Keeping the old data and games accessible for historical and retro purposes) what could a big publisher and a BIG name do within 15 years? NOTHING? (what we got IS nothing, compared to the wish lists!) -> further investigations into making it a widely spread all-time-online/Esports game equal to counter strike in all versions, not just for geeks that refuse to stop playing it.

I now placed enough posts into the questions area about Queues, controls, (infantry, helicopters, plane control, to perma-use them unattended; hover over area; attackmove ofc. detailed chapters) path finding was suggested, being an obvious thing to do tesla coils, (do not weaken but make counterable and build into dense frontline unviable, if serious defense is on place "cut-the-creep-on-resistance-not-by-program-code") APCs, Helicopters, infantry crowd control with transports, crowd usage of helicopters, un-attended auto-refill (many helos low helipads+option for unattended using repair-bay ontheway) walls and fences, how to use them viable, with a implement example, suggested "save-the-base in one go" Rak cruisers make it into normal games, (GDI+NOD) together with original C&C1... ...landing pads, finally playable to transport single vehicles over sea; with crowd controls to enable mass -transfer vehicles (I did not write this, but its obvious result of this if would done),... ...and queue suggestion, group placement, and pre-done placement for buildings, resulting in a... ...better controllable, larger scale, better 'trashing' escalation with tic-tac-toe out the game with larger army forces mine layers I also suggested; I find them great, to make usable in large scale, to occupy a large area with a closed or intersected pattern, with un-attended auto-refill make useless radar vehicles and all useless units viable, including bunkers, artillery and jeeps etc.-> infantry in buildings and forests save from squishing (Infantry role <-> tank steamroll squishing) I am pretty good in making suggestions that fit into universe desireable would be some new campaign/campaign editor with access to the world map to choose custom missions, with definable mission order/nonlinear, that does not influence the old campaign that is accessible in 100%old shape maybe some world conquest mode, with access to world map, like the mode in C&C Kanes Wrath, BUT 100% accessible with COOP/Multiplayer, which encloses/finishes up what C&C is about: World domination games, extending over multiple skirmish games, with similar strategical options like Kanes wrath with custom battle groups - and not a stupid AI, hence players. The campaign related options are big, but in the openRA-style very easy-to-implement-high-effect products, that could change the community in a positive way, without faking the C&C1-feeling. I could go on

I as for me priorize the 3-ref 2-power plants build, as being the best balance of both: you are a bit late for early vehicles, but strong enough with infantry to defend/harass, before the enemy defenses become meaningless for infantry. I am a pretty good player, but caught to play with regular players, no idea, and not worth the cost, to hyperjump to turnament players that I look up to in the TV. 4-5 refineries are over the top, because you cannot spend your income without vehicle production, but can be still in-time if your early scouting determines, that the opponent is not buggy-rushing you, which can make your early infantry-defense inferior, even with large amounts of infantry. So if the opponent gives you the time with not-attacking, you can slip through with more refineries. And its a skill game, if you can get up with the vehicle production, with calculating that your late Weapon factory is also a popular target, just when its late-but-finally arrived, exactly then, its a vulnerable target. But there are mobs who count better than me?

Problem: I loved universe at war, mechanically, but It was technically impossible to setup properly, so the technology with internet lobby almost impossible to keep, is a very easy reason why things cannot love. The Topic you linked to, makes me thinking, the Developer didnt do bad game desgin, BUT, extremely derailed on technology - Accessibility of those games for longer terms, and online play, which is also a general, the BIGGEST Issue why RTS dont work: The developers are too silly, to think out, that people like to play it OVER MANY YEARS, but ALONE the shut down servers /game not work on 2 years later OS, and due to small marketing/player base, theese things accumulate into desaster, for very easy to reveal reason: If Paraworld would have easy-to-acess online-lobby NOW, I would play it. The problem is: You have isolated lobbys DEEP into the game, without you can just check the lobbies from outside of the game, over a big platform, that supports like all Popular RTS, that ever were published, not the obsolete gamespy-technology, but a superior Social-technology, that can keep those games TOGETHER, without rivalness of developers. Reason: You tend to browse through RTS games, you like to play. If you could browse through the online-Status at-any-moment by a list comparable like the steam-library, with listing EACH open game, online players, AND ALSO VERY IMPORTANT INCLUDE RANKED SEACH/Quick search -currently searching numbers PUBLIC, and visible from a standard firefox -> So you are not isolated to 200x years technology, in order to play those game later. All the Old RTS games have ONE single issue: No up-to-date servers, and no company taking care of this, in a centralized way! Some games, that would be popular, or much more common to play, if they just were more available and accessible in multiplayer, today, with a short analysis of the status and the existing shards) If I could just jump in and play A list of Strategy games: 1. Lords of the Realm 2: The Legend that overshadows everything since and for 23 years, counting... (no offense: its my favourite) 2. Sparta, Ancient Wars, Paraworld, Universe At war, Do you know Thandor, the Invasion? From old ComputerBildSpiele? Yes it had A multiplayer and I want to play it now!; Uprising2 from199x had a multiplayer great concept I never saw it again!, Die Völker from Jowood -> Multiplayer with round-world-concept repeating when scrolling to one side, so you had open front to every direction. 3. Startopia! really great concept for a Head-on-head 1v1 ranked-scene, it was a mix of Space-sym tycoon and RTS, and HAS still today (I still play it theese days!) unseen hero-position in innovation, with build-stack, plant-growing deck with many features, that games lost today. creativity pure!) 4. Eugen Systems (I start with the wargame series, Act of aggression, Act of War, to have it together. those games, too have this problem) 5. Command&conquer-Series (C&CTW needs a multiplayer version of the world conquest mode, maybe it was only in Kanes wrath, and no desyncs, that killed it for me, all former games, are more or less accessible today, again, but the publisher didnt react, and the Community acted too late, so a lot of player base is sleeping) 6. Empires Series (AOE1,2,(3), Empire Earth 1<-has currently working lobby, same for ,2,3, Age of Mythology,End of Nations, Empires, the New Modern Age, I put them all in here, its a cartegory from numberless succesful Developers, that suffered SOLELY by long term-support of technical way, so we have this problem again, and it cursed all, who were not big enough to survive, and the Big ones, C&C and Age of Empires, got repaired, but still dont get the care they deserve, and if they get, much too late). 7. Anno, Civilisation, Galactic civilisation: Long time Strategy games, still great multiplayer. If it would technical work, and comfortable amount of players -> here we have the same reason again. Civilisation 4 had urgenty to solve connection problems! Still, Civ4-6 are currently very strong Steam-Chart-Riders, together with AoE. -> Again this ONE BIG above mentioned problem to keep people + technology together! 8. Settlers 3, (remaster it with good care please, a million people ask for, it has the a-lobby and you can play currently multiplayer), I forgot some other very good games, oh yes Earth2150,60; stronghold is to rescue, but its much too late to save the gem. If done right it was great multiplayer, but too many unpolished details about it, so its a heart and a pain to play, mostly for technical missing care to polish to the end, instead opening the pain wider with new games=new rains of shards 9. Castle Strike: Great Alternative to stronghold, the multiplayer part is better than the single player, but game is too unknown to ever get a community for it, I assume, sadly. 10. there are so many games, that deserve a place in the list, so take your favourite inside here. So Fazit: it is our task to bring theese games into service, easily accessible for non-involved people, because other than geeks, nobody can setup those games, install them over hours, add community lobby, hamatchi-usage, and all it needs for comfortable play, without being busy for weeks. You want to play NOW, just download, see open games, and play. So this is the summed up desaster of a too blind entertainment industry, with FEW, really few easy work, once the code is accessible, would all theese games run and generate money with, if producers still had a Quantum of Solace for the people. The facts proof, that this isnt the case. Lets not mention desasters like closing completely the good gameplay of battleforge, and intentional-accidents I cant get how cruel life can be. Fazit to your discussion: The quality of the games is good in general, or good enough to play. But the technical miss-of-connection doesnt reach the people. For (for an observer it sounds) like trivial reasons.

we will NOT forget what happened to westwood once. A remastered version overshadows, that there are shards. The warning must keep a part of allowed official words. Away from that, I wish the best to unfold here, that is possible to happen, with the best regards to any of those developers we can have. This is in this state not meant to be negative, and is not favoured to happen by me.

If I see the RA1 games, its just a hazzle to build tesla coils, power plants and big tank armys with all the needed micro. (And lets add the point on the allied forces to counter this with even more numberous weaker tanks and turrets) Its still good enough, but for this we have the old RA1. 1. With a remastered game, I would improve the building/turret control, - again, to be controllable in groups, and better automatic behavior. You would still have a speed contest to absolve, but this would include MORE turrets and MORE tessla coils, which you can place in a timeframe of few seconds, until you touch the limits of what a gamers mouse can do. Another thing I have discovered is: 2. The APC (Armored Personnel Carrier) behavior should be smooth: With a mechanic like in Act of War/Act of Aggression, I want to select a crop/crowd of infantry, and APCs in one selection, and with a single load in command, I want ALL infantry to load into their each next accessible vehicle, taking care of the available troops/capacity, with eventual surpluses in troops/carriers being kept. Available is also the Option that I very liked, that a APC drives towards the infantry to pick it up, if a INFANTRY gets an inload command -> it moves the vehicle, too, also with pointing at the example in Act of War/Act of Aggression. -> In general, this shall be tools, to make infantry usage more competetive, and that due to the fact, that you can control large groups with ease. PS: The same is also applying for helicopter transports ofc.

I hoped for this, too, but the americans cannot do good games, without lead (EA-context, publishers with scars). They dont know any direction! If this was a new title, without responsibility, okay, but this is a step, where you can destroy the whole genre, if you make it without the missing love. There is a lot you can punish later: Thats when the remastered version is too good to ignore, and too bad, to play it, so you get thrown back to the old C&C, but you cannot play it without members, because their minds are split. I just give the example with the Wargame Series, I come from: You had the first game, European escalation, was a wonderful online community! Really great! If you had kept it for the next 5 years, you would have had a paradise community! But the developers kept go on, finished Airland battle withing only 1 and a bit year afterwards the release of European escalation, with mixed improvements: You could not stay in W:EE, because of quality improvements and features, it was greedy, and the stream soaked the people to the next game, to keep together. So you had to move somehow. Airland was a bit better in some things, and with planes, but poorer in game design, which made a lot of great tactics impossible, so that you had a flatter experience, you couldnt use atgm and tanks so well, so the balance crashed, and while it worked, and was worked on, it destroyed the former experience of Wargame:EE. They did it again with W:Red Dragon, and destroyed a lot of stable community and loved game design, and created enough new game design, that you could like, but it was different, (solid), but not as good as the first game, still, so you (me) play it with tears, while having to admit, that red dragon is a stable game now, and at least you have enough people around, even 4-5 years later and (despite) with off-developement (no more working on, maybe on later title one time). This is what happens if you let the developers just do it for you, and you dont take your own eye on it. You must help and help them to keep the guide line somehow, otherwise they cannot hold the game, and the quality sinks, and the people leave. I dont expect that the devs alone can work out all the things we want, to be honest, alone.