CriticalFailure

I think this is a common misconception, that the "handling", basically the system that mediates between the player inputs and the in-game outputs, is somehow separate from the "gameplay" and its workings can thus be changed freely with no expected impact on the aforementioned system of play. I'm being pretentious here in the hopes to demonstrate my main grief, that amateurs like us should not delude ourselves that we're in the known when giving our feedback on game design philosophy. I would personally just ask to not make a remake out of a remaster, but since both you and Jim Vessella & Co (why people trust the guy that tried to sell them on the "mobile base" of CNC4 being a breakthrough in RTS is beyond me) insist on doing so, my answer would be: only to the extent that it doesn't take away from the game experience. For example, I argue that the Dune 2 modification 'Dune Dynasty' that (along many "new" rip-offed features) allows the player to select and control the entire army at once, is not only an inferior gaming experience to "games with modern controls", as unlike Dune 2 's successors, it doesn't add more depth to keep the player engaged though a high level of interaction that the game still requires of them, but also an inferior gaming experience to the base game, as there's little for the player to do except A-move in Dune Dynasty in contrast to the "primitive", yet true to Dune 2 's legacy, challenge of selecting and controlling units individually. Take this from a non-veteran, maybe you lack this perspective, but to me these old RTS games shine because they're a product of their time not in spite of that, their functionality is encoded into their very soul, they only need to be restored not upgraded, just like with historical pieces of a bygone era that can still serve a function in contemporary society. I would even dare to claim it is you who aged, while the game code stayed completely unchanged. I say, a remaster ought to limit itself to make the game playable (no glitches), compatible (no crashes) and supported (no 3rd party applications required). Balance and customization are concerns beyond remastering that may be addressed only once the project has been finalized and the product reviewed by its intended audience. If someone's not satisfied that I didn't give a proper answer to the issue at hand, I would like the queue this way: infantry queue up to 5, that's all, everything else still one at a time. It's completely arbitrary, I know, show me an answer that's not so.

"However, because of the construction queue rules of the original games, we wanted to keep all buildings under a single tab, with associated tabs for Infantry, Vehicles (Air, Land, Naval), and Support Powers." Let's see, one production line for all structures, one tab, 3 production lines for air, land, naval respectively, one tab. What gives? The "construction queue rules" justification for omitting a dedicated tab for base defenses is invalidated by the lack of consistency in the internal logic. If wacky compromise for the sake of a lightweight UI is their favored path, they should disclose that much, instead of trying their best to make it look like theirs is logically consistent and sound design philosophy. "To further support the goal of reduced scrolling, we have then designed the Sidebar to fit 18 build buttons." This is a low hard cap and a bummer for modders, I'm amazed that none of you caught this one. It's way worse than in CNC3/RA3 exactly because of the lack of subtabs, meaning: no space for an extra faction into the game (in CNC3/RA3, the added factions would just have their own subtabs, in the upcoming TD Remaster there would be no subtabs and not enough build buttons to work with). Combining the old with the new can break the design and, paradoxically, features that were supported by both the old and the new.