Yuri's Revenge Rebalanced 2.0

[CCCP84]

36 minutes ago, cypher said:

Its about gamedesign and balancing. You are free to use rocketeers to defend rocketeers if that's your prefered way @CCCP84 .

And no it's not more costly to teh attacker per se - it depends. And if you have spied barracks it's even more questionable.

Rocketeer costs 600, Patriot costs 1000.
Imagine that 10 rocketeers are attacking a base where 3 patriots are stationed. The attack will be easily deflected. At the same time, the attacker will lose all 6000 entirely, and the defender, with an initial investment of 3000 (half of the cost of rocketeers), will lose 1 patriot in a bad scenario (1000). The ratio is 6 to 1. This is at the initial cost of the defender 1/2 of the costs of the attacker. The numbers are scalable.

Edited May 23, 2021 by CCCP84

[ReaperAA]

1 hour ago, cypher said:

However the buff is made, I think we all agree that it needs a buff (and no the argument is not that you can deal with rocketeers without patriot, the argumentation should be that this building loses it's intention and you rarely see it used in the game..)

I agree with this.

 

53 minutes ago, CCCP84 said:

Rocketeer costs 600, Patriot costs 1000.
Imagine that 10 rocketeers are attacking a base where 3 patriots are stationed. The attack will be easily deflected. At the same time, the attacker will lose all 6000 entirely, and the defender, with an initial investment of 3000 (half of the cost of rocketeers), will lose 1 patriot in a bad scenario (1000). The ratio is 6 to 1. This is at the initial cost of the defender 1/2 of the costs of the attacker. The numbers are scalable.

To be fair:

• The rocketeers are usually meant to attack important stuff like battlelab, power plants or construction yard and usually the enemy would be sending much more that 10 rocketeers for that purpose.
• While patriots do okay against rocketeers, they are much less appealing when you can just use IFVs instead. Also if the base is large, you would need much much more Patriots to defend your base against rocketeer strike forces.
• Soviet and Yuri's air defences vastly outclass them when dealing with rocketeers. The purpose of buffing here is to make them more on-par with them. Now you may say that patriot is supposed to be not so great as the Soviet and Yuri's air defences against light units and that they are meant to be better than those against heavy units. But the reality is that Soviet and Yuri's air defences are actually on-par or better against Patriots against pretty much any air threat. Only against Kirovs, the flak cannons are very slightly worse (and Yuri's Gattling guns are better even against Kirovs).

 

[throstur]

22 hours ago, ReaperAA said:

Because Allies are underpowered, so of course most of the changes would focus on them (although I do agree that auto shooting prism buff is a bit too much)

And....

Who said that? And why? I see nothing wrong in Yuri finally becoming somewhat balanced.

I don't agree that allies are underpowered AT ALL. The game has pretty much always been centered around the design of soviets having good AA and allies having good AG, with rush and brute-force tactics favoring the soviets and more cunning long play favoring the allies. This is why the allies need the spy, and actually the balance therein is that allies are actually much better than soviets if they manage to infiltrate at least the war factory (but barracks makes a big diff for the BFs). I think your blanket statements of allies being underpowered is complete bollocks.

The early game starts in Grizzly/IFV vs Rhino/Flak and conscript/tesla vs GI/GGI:

• In terms of units, the balance is fairly equal. Rhinos are stronger but slower, I've seen good allied TC with infantry support absolutely demolish a slightly larger soviet force in the early game
• In IFV vs Flak, the lack of space in the IFV is easily compensated for by the increased speed and ability to equip an IFV with an engineer in the early game before a depot has been built
• In terms of infantry, especially when coupled with the ability to fire from transports, the allies have a clear upper hand here. Aside from the desolator, the soviets do not get any infantry that the allied don't have a better version of -- with the exception of Ivan, which is quite strong but underutilized. You cannot tell me that flak is better than GGI because the only thing that made it better was speed 4 instead of 3 but now the GGI goes the same speed and deploys into "better" AA.. actually this is a good point for a bit of a tangent:
   

  ;GI Missile Launcher
  [MissileLauncher]
  Damage=40
  ROF=40
  Range=8
  Burst=1
  Projectile=AAHeatSeeker2
  Speed=30 ;40
  
  [GUARDWH]
  Verses=20%,20%,20%,100%,50%,100%,10%,10%,10%,100%,100% 
  CellSpread=.5;gs patch
  PercentAtMax=.5;gs patch
  
  [FlakGuyAAGun]	; Separate from Flak Cannon weapon so that stats may be tweaked
  Damage=20
  ROF=25
  Range=8
  Projectile=FlakProj	; AA bullet shared with Flak Cannon
  Speed=100
  Report=FlakTrackAttackAir
  Warhead=FlakGuyWH
  
  [FlakGuyWH]	; For Flak Trooper Anti-Air
  CellSpread=1.0
  PercentAtMax=.2
  Verses=150%,100%,50%,80%,80%,20%,0%,0%,0%,100%,100%	; no buildings

  As you can see in the snippet above, you can see that not only does the flak trooper get less DPS at the same range (although the delivery is admittedly instant) but actually when you think about it, other than the Flak AA being better at anti-infantry (allies have rocketeer for that anyway), the only time you'd actually want flaks instead of deployed GGI's VS air is when fighting massive blobs where the AOE factors in considerably or when destroying a kirov, because it gets an 80% effectiveness vs the GGI's 50%.
  This obviously only covers the AA part of the Flak Trooper, but the GGI can easily undeploy and deal with infantry in a way that is about as effective as the flak trooper's anti-infantry capabilities so I don't think there is any need for comparison along those lines, not to mention the GGI being uncrushable while deployed (all this for a measly price of 1 extra conscript).

So that covers the early game, pretty balanced in my opinion but allies still suffer higher micromanagement compensated for with chrono miners to reduce harvester attentivity requirements.

Let us move on to the middle game, I assume at least a radar and two war factories or an iron curtain for soviets and a tech lab for allies:

• Air support: Allies now have excellent air support, soviets might have choppers if they have a battle lab (to be fair, usually if they don't have one at this point it's because they don't need one due to having decent map control using basic units). The case of soviets winning on kirov spam is just a symptom of having absolutely no resource control and is not really related to the balance between factions. WITH PLANE DODGING, allies vs soviets is balanced because a flak or two can trade effectively vs harriers at least some of the time. Without it, there is an implied arms race in available harriers vs flak production which forces soviets to build a battle lab for choppers which trade rather poorly on the battlefield due to their comparatively high price and low strength.
• Units: Mirage & Prism tanks can effectively counter a deso flak quite easily, usually requiring several loaded flaks to effectively deliver the payload. They can also kite the Apocalypse, and now that prisms fire while moving, an apocalypse chasing a prism tank has absolutely no chance whereas before these tanks were a fair 1v1 match up heavily influenced by nearby terrain and skill. Overall it used to be very well balanced, slightly favoring the soviets with an industrial plant vs allies without spy upgrades. I'm not even going to rant about how broken BFs are. They do have a counter but I rarely see it work without mistakes from the defender.
• Infantry: Here's where it gets tricky. Chrono legionnaire is a mad one, so insanely powerful, but also very expensive and sacrifices rockies in the build queue -- my personal verdict is balanced but I'm sure some might disagree. The spy -- can spy practically any building to be cost effective although I admit the radar debuff is hardly worth the cost on small maps. Once the spy has managed to infiltrate a war factory and/or barracks, an investment of around $3000, the allied player has permanent supremacy into the late game and can only be defeated on multiple fronts or by starvation.

I feel that this extreme bias towards the allies in the late game is by design and fits in with the spirit of the game, as demonstrated in the campaign missions for both sides. But to balance that, the soviets need to maintain a slight edge in the early game for a chance to level the playing field. The middle game is supposed to be balanced, or in favor of the allied player if the soviet player is turtling, but the prism tank buff dismantles the balance completely. 

Now as for the Yuri side being better -- might just be the way it was portrayed in the campaign, but I remember since the game launched that Yuri was always the best side, with it's weak tanks being totally overcompensated for with mind-control EVERYTHING, and it can doddle with power and refineries with re-usable disks for less than the price of a two spies. I don't think Yuri side will ever be balanced but as I said earlier, I don't really mind or care. In competitive games I feel that in a 1v1 situation, Yuri has several weaknesses in the early game (like destroying the refineries and the barracks) that cause it a great deal of harm. It's not terribly unbalanced, just not balanced in the same way as allies vs soviets are, or were.

I think the main thing here is that micromanagement is being removed from soviets (plane dodging) where it doesn't need to be, and the allies get increased combat capabilities from prism tanks that it really doesn't need.

[CCCP84]

By making these changes, we risk losing the game. It will become some other game.

My wish is to pay more attention to the restoration of lost functions, like the psi sensor, or the correct spreading of ore. Or really necessary changes, like pinning the unit to one point.

And all these changes here - they are controversial. I admit that they may exist as a rebalance patch, but are not included in the main game.
The changes to the main game should be undeniably good and no doubt about it.

[ReaperAA]

1 hour ago, throstur said:

I think your blanket statements of allies being underpowered is complete bollocks.

I think that most pro players choosing Soviet in vanilla YR tells otherwise ?

 

1 hour ago, throstur said:

In terms of units, the balance is fairly equal. Rhinos are stronger but slower, I've seen good allied TC with infantry support absolutely demolish a slightly larger soviet force in the early game

Only if the Soviet player is bad at micromanagement. At equal skill level, the Soviet player (Rhino with infantry support) will beat an Allied player (Grizzly with infantry support) majority of the time.

 

1 hour ago, throstur said:

In IFV vs Flak, the lack of space in the IFV is easily compensated for by the increased speed and ability to equip an IFV with an engineer in the early game before a depot has been built

Flaks are also much better at anti-air than IFVs are. A couple Flaks are enough to make the rocketeers and harriers look like a waste of cash.

 

1 hour ago, throstur said:

In terms of infantry, especially when coupled with the ability to fire from transports, the allies have a clear upper hand here. Aside from the desolator, the soviets do not get any infantry that the allied don't have a better version of -- with the exception of Ivan, which is quite strong but underutilized. You cannot tell me that flak is better than GGI because the only thing that made it better was speed 4 instead of 3 but now the GGI goes the same speed and deploys into "better" AA.. actually this is a good point for a bit of a tangent:

Okay this I agree. The flak troopers are pretty useless and flak track do the AA job much better. I am okay with flak troopers getting buffed.

 

1 hour ago, throstur said:

now that prisms fire while moving, an apocalypse chasing a prism tank has absolutely no chance whereas before these tanks were a fair 1v1 match up heavily influenced by nearby terrain and skill. Overall it used to be very well balanced, slightly favoring the soviets with an industrial plant vs allies without spy upgrades. I'm not even going to rant about how broken BFs are. They do have a counter but I rarely see it work without mistakes from the defender.

I agree that Prisms should not auto fire (and given where things are going, there is a good chance that prisms will hopefully get changed back to vanilla). As far as BFs are concerned, yes they are very powerful. But the balance patch actually nerfed their firepower by 10%. So if anything, they are less painful than they are in vanilla YR.

Also I personally proposed earlier to have the infantry range bonus reduced from 2 to 1.5

 

1 hour ago, throstur said:

The spy -- can spy practically any building to be cost effective although I admit the radar debuff is hardly worth the cost on small maps. Once the spy has managed to infiltrate a war factory and/or barracks, an investment of around $3000, the allied player has permanent supremacy into the late game and can only be defeated on multiple fronts or by starvation.

Literally almost a non-issue at high-level play. Good players are able to avoid spy infiltration quite easily. Soviets only need to have a couple deso ready to be deployed whenever an IFV spy comes.

Spies are a big issue in causal games, which is why I proposed to have a "no spies" option in the client.

 

1 hour ago, throstur said:

I feel that this extreme bias towards the allies in the late game is by design and fits in with the spirit of the game, as demonstrated in the campaign missions for both sides. But to balance that, the soviets need to maintain a slight edge in the early game for a chance to level the playing field. The middle game is supposed to be balanced, or in favor of the allied player if the soviet player is turtling, but the prism tank buff dismantles the balance completely. 

The "extreme bais" is nowhere near as extreme as you are making it seem like. While I agree that Soviet's late-game units are weak, this is more than compensated by the Iron Curtain being pretty OP. 

Which is why in order to balance the SW as well as non-SW play, I am in favor of Apocs and Siege Choppers getting buffed and IC getting nerfed. Apocs could use a speed increase from 4 to 5 and Choppers could use a bit faster deploying/undeploying to make them more agile. IC is OP because it only has a 5 minute timer (as opposed to Chronosphere's 7 min) and it lasts for enough time to seriously dismantle enemy forces with it. IC either needs to have the timer increased, or have the invulnerability duration decreased.

Also I personally feel that All factions should be roughly balanced at all stages. I know you may say that this isn't "intended" by Westwood, but we all know that Westwood was never very great at balancing factions like other developers such as Blizzard.

[cypher]

3 hours ago, CCCP84 said:

Rocketeer costs 600, Patriot costs 1000.
Imagine that 10 rocketeers are attacking a base where 3 patriots are stationed. The attack will be easily deflected. At the same time, the attacker will lose all 6000 entirely, and the defender, with an initial investment of 3000 (half of the cost of rocketeers), will lose 1 patriot in a bad scenario (1000). The ratio is 6 to 1. This is at the initial cost of the defender 1/2 of the costs of the attacker. The numbers are scalable.

 

Please consider :

- each patriot uses power, means if you build 3 patriots you have -150 power, so for 4 patriots you'll need a powerplant meaning each patriot has effective costs of 1200.

- patriots are extremely vulnerable because of the power, so first thing most players attack are the power plants, meaning that you'll likely have to build a power-buffer to prevent your basepower going offline fast. If you do this - let's say 1 powerplant buffer for 4 patriots, the cost of each patriot increases to 1400.

- patriots are static. With rocketeers you can focus on one entry point while with patriots you have to cover a large area...that said you can imagine that the cost very much increases because you have to build much more patriots...at least 2x or even 3x or 4x more

- if that wouldn't be enough if you have mass-rocketeers many patriots fire at the same rocketeer, so they lose their effectiveness in not having a coordinated defense.

Just think about a base with 8 patriots, 2 patriots each direction, they'll use 400 power = 2 powerplants + buffer of 2 powerplants = 8x1000 + 4x800 = 11200 costs, but you have just 2 patriots each side, means if you attack with 18 rocketeers (10800) you'll face 2 patriots (let's say 3 or 4 if the radius overlaps) and go straight for the power. They will suceed in taking 2 powerplants (needed for the powerdown) out before being killed I'm pretty sure.

 

If you use rocketeers wisely you'll have no problem in outplaying the cost-use-ratio against the patriots.

And this is even more true for veteran rocketeers (spied lab).

 

[Banafrit]

21 hours ago, ReaperAA said:

Agreed with most of the things you said:

1. Either that or slightly reduce the Gattling tanks' 1st and 2nd phase firepower to balance the Gattmag (gattling + magnetron combo).
2. Agreed. Grand cannons should have their range nerfed from 15 to either 12 or 13. While this would still be a higher range than prisms/magnetron/siege choppers, it would atleast give them a better chance to take out the cannons. Optionally, Grand cannons could also use a build limit to prevent abuse in non-SW matches. The build limit would be need experimenting I think.
3. I think slave miners having HP decreased from 2000 to 1500 would be a good starting point. For reference, the chrono and war miners have 1000 HP.

I'm glad to know that we MOSTLY agree on my points. Going from 1 to 3 in this reply, I will say this:

I feel the Gattlings don't need THAT much tweaking. If you ask me I still say the Magnetrons are the culprits with the point I made. They disable most enemy units, making them helpless in the air, becoming free kills by gattlings, as they get quite a bit of time to attack with their guns, or free mind controlled units via masterminds and clones. A delay would make one of Yuri's main tactics more tolerable, and balanced for both the user and their opponent(s). Though if you want to tweak the gattling tank specifically, a nerf to phases 1 and 2 would definitely be good. It'd punish players who simply let it attack for too long, especially against bulky buildings and units, like the Kirov.

Interesting idea for the Grand Cannons. If there was a build limit, what would be a good number to experiment with? Considering their fire power and range, it'd be interesting to see a build limit experimented on, even if its not implemented into the final thing.

Agreed on the slave miners. They're much more mobile than the chrono and war miners, so they should at LEAST have more HP than the two. But in their current state, they're still WAY too bulky as meat shields.

[ReaperAA]

2 hours ago, Banafrit said:

I feel the Gattlings don't need THAT much tweaking. If you ask me I still say the Magnetrons are the culprits with the point I made. They disable most enemy units, making them helpless in the air, becoming free kills by gattlings, as they get quite a bit of time to attack with their guns, or free mind controlled units via masterminds and clones. A delay would make one of Yuri's main tactics more tolerable, and balanced for both the user and their opponent(s). Though if you want to tweak the gattling tank specifically, a nerf to phases 1 and 2 would definitely be good. It'd punish players who simply let it attack for too long, especially against bulky buildings and units, like the Kirov.

I guess you are right about Gattlings not needing much tweak. Although I will say that Gattling tanks should also have their HP reduced from 210 to 200. This would allow Black Eagles to be able to 1-shot them as they can 1-shot IFVs and Flaks.

For Magentrons, I think doubling the delay of changing targets would probably be a good start.

 

2 hours ago, Banafrit said:

Interesting idea for the Grand Cannons. If there was a build limit, what would be a good number to experiment with? Considering their fire power and range, it'd be interesting to see a build limit experimented on, even if its not implemented into the final thing.

Probably a build limit of 2 cannons (or 3 at the very most) would be a good start.

 

[CCCP84]

With such an abundance of great ideas, the rebalancing patch will quickly turn into an unused thrash. Probably, this is how the final of this venture should be ..

But, I don't mind. this patch is very useful as a valve for releasing steam from a lot of accumulated ideas

Edited May 24, 2021 by CCCP84

[ReaperAA]

1 hour ago, CCCP84 said:

With such an abundance of great ideas, the rebalancing patch will quickly turn into an unused thrash. Probably, this is how the final of this venture should be ..

The "great ideas" being discussed are just suggestions at this point until the developers actually implement them.

The fear of lack of adoption is why I am in favor of having the changes introduced slowly and few pieces at a time. So that people can get used to the changes.

 

[xe3]

On 5/21/2021 at 4:39 AM, NizzyStorm said:

I will be honest. with spy's OUT of the equation. I've not seen a single point where auto=shooting prism's are OP. I would very much like to see recorded proof of this TBH. I think allies are at a very nice point right now. At least for FFG's. For competitive play maybe not but that would require this to have a month in Quick match to see how it performs at a high level standard. That would be the only way to prove they are OP. Long story short, I DO NOT want auto shooting prism's to be removed. They are only EVER used for Chronospheres a lot of the time. I killed SEVEN of Kireeek's auto shooting prisms with ONE auto shooting Apoc and killed Kireeek because that was all he spammed. So if I can beat SEVEN of a so called OP unit with one unit that's referred to as "still crappy" then wouldn't that make Apocs and prisms fine where they stand? I really don't know why you guys are complaining without evidence of this. And I can gather evidence that they are not if you guys so want. 

I have posted a video there by Bryan that shows it pretty well. Dodging all BF GGIs missiles while firing with crazy AOE, 100% accuracy, damage and range is not enough? Having an ability to delete an entire base with just 1 unit without getting hit once is not enough? 

By the way...."Spy's out the equation"...You have to take it into equation. Veteran Prisms take a massive dump on everything.

I'll keep abusing this 0 skill unit for sure if it stays this way. No point in Mirages or BFs.

Edited May 24, 2021 by xe3

[xe3]

3 hours ago, CCCP84 said:

With such an abundance of great ideas, the rebalancing patch will quickly turn into an unused thrash. Probably, this is how the final of this venture should be ..

But, I don't mind. this patch is very useful as a valve for releasing steam from a lot of accumulated ideas

Speak for yourself. I only play with this patch on now. You have RA2 you can always go back to.... 

[cypher]

wow cccp becomes a troll

[CCCP84]

No trolling. I'm just describing where this all leads. The main thing in this activity is to get started. The rest will happen ..

[XGalaxyZ]

On 5/24/2021 at 6:43 AM, CCCP84 said:

I'm just worried that YR still doesn't have enough zombies and Hulks. It would be nice to introduce there more terminators, robocops and monsters from the movie Aliens 4. And a giant centipede, with an orc in the saddle on it.

Although, the battle fortress is a typical orc transport. It would fit perfectly into the surroundings of Warcraft2. The voice acting is also consistent.

But there are always Hungry Yuri Arnolds! you can spam constantly! To win every game at YR!  Because my own Hungry Yuri Arnolds! aka Yuri Brutes. ALWAYS WIN! When i spam 1000 Of them! ❤️ 

Edited June 8, 2021 by burg93
remove off-topic unrelated picture

[Ezer_2000]

10 hours ago, xe3 said:

By the way...."Spy's out the equation"...You have to take it into equation. Veteran Prisms take a massive dump on everything.

Don't touch the spy. It's fine as it is. Change something else, but not spy.

[FlyingMustache]

If you guys want balance and good game design, just play warcraft 3. ?

[FlyingMustache]

On 5/23/2021 at 8:12 AM, ReaperAA said:

I think that most pro players choosing Soviet in vanilla YR tells otherwise ?

 

Only if the Soviet player is bad at micromanagement. At equal skill level, the Soviet player (Rhino with infantry support) will beat an Allied player (Grizzly with infantry support) majority of the time.

 

Flaks are also much better at anti-air than IFVs are. A couple Flaks are enough to make the rocketeers and harriers look like a waste of cash.

 

Okay this I agree. The flak troopers are pretty useless and flak track do the AA job much better. I am okay with flak troopers getting buffed.

 

I agree that Prisms should not auto fire (and given where things are going, there is a good chance that prisms will hopefully get changed back to vanilla). As far as BFs are concerned, yes they are very powerful. But the balance patch actually nerfed their firepower by 10%. So if anything, they are less painful than they are in vanilla YR.

Also I personally proposed earlier to have the infantry range bonus reduced from 2 to 1.5

 

Literally almost a non-issue at high-level play. Good players are able to avoid spy infiltration quite easily. Soviets only need to have a couple deso ready to be deployed whenever an IFV spy comes.

Spies are a big issue in causal games, which is why I proposed to have a "no spies" option in the client.

 

The "extreme bais" is nowhere near as extreme as you are making it seem like. While I agree that Soviet's late-game units are weak, this is more than compensated by the Iron Curtain being pretty OP. 

Which is why in order to balance the SW as well as non-SW play, I am in favor of Apocs and Siege Choppers getting buffed and IC getting nerfed. Apocs could use a speed increase from 4 to 5 and Choppers could use a bit faster deploying/undeploying to make them more agile. IC is OP because it only has a 5 minute timer (as opposed to Chronosphere's 7 min) and it lasts for enough time to seriously dismantle enemy forces with it. IC either needs to have the timer increased, or have the invulnerability duration decreased.

Also I personally feel that All factions should be roughly balanced at all stages. I know you may say that this isn't "intended" by Westwood, but we all know that Westwood was never very great at balancing factions like other developers such as Blizzard.

Someone that knows! I think you are not realizing that part of the reason IC is so op is because of the nuke power. Nuke power is stupidly op, it compounds the power of IC due to its power.

[ReaperAA]

4 hours ago, FlyingMustache said:

Someone that knows! I think you are not realizing that part of the reason IC is so op is because of the nuke power. Nuke power is stupidly op, it compounds the power of IC due to its power.

I still think that IC itself is the bigger problem. Because while Nuke is very power no doubt (as in it more potent than the weather storm and the psychic dominator), it is also the easiest to avoid (you can shield the buildings where Nuke is about to land by listening to where the siren sound is loudest).

Whereas IC having only a 5 min timer means that IC gets recharged again while the enemy only just recovered from the previous IC attack.

[Kireeek]

1 hour ago, ReaperAA said:

I still think that IC itself is the bigger problem. Because while Nuke is very power no doubt (as in it more potent than the weather storm and the psychic dominator), it is also the easiest to avoid (you can shield the buildings where Nuke is about to land by listening to where the siren sound is loudest).

Whereas IC having only a 5 min timer means that IC gets recharged again while the enemy only just recovered from the previous IC attack.

MustacheX is referring to the Nuclear Power Plant, a structure with 1000 health and concrete armor with +2000 Power. For a measly cost of 400 bucks (after selling your first 2 Tesla Reactors - gain 600 back total), a Soviet player has Electric Power for the rest of the game. All the while an Allied player has to constantly build Power Plants.

[ReaperAA]

38 minutes ago, Kireeek said:

MustacheX is referring to the Nuclear Power Plant, a structure with 1000 health and concrete armor with +2000 Power. For a measly cost of 400 bucks (after selling your first 2 Tesla Reactors - gain 600 back total), a Soviet player has Electric Power for the rest of the game. All the while an Allied player has to constantly build Power Plants.

Oops. Me is dumb ?

Well, yeah the nuclear power plant provides wayyy too much power for its cost. I agree here. I think that it's cost increased to 1500+ or power output reduced would be a good start.

Edited May 25, 2021 by ReaperAA

[CCCP84]

At this stage of the game, the alliance has mirages, which are problematic for the Soviets to deal with. Allies have gap generators, prisms.
Do you want to take power from the reactor? Then add the gap generators to the Soviet ones.
 Thus, you will come to the warcraft2 model, where the sides have units that are identical in properties, but different in appearance.

[FlyingMustache]

15 hours ago, CCCP84 said:

At this stage of the game, the alliance has mirages, which are problematic for the Soviets to deal with. Allies have gap generators, prisms.
Do you want to take power from the reactor? Then add the gap generators to the Soviet ones.
 Thus, you will come to the warcraft2 model, where the sides have units that are identical in properties, but different in appearance.

Not even close. The game has a wide variety of units with different stats and functions. If anything, the game suffers from several units not being used at all due to their niche not being viable or efficient.

Also, Soviets have problems with mirages? Since when? Soviets always cream allies in QM with their broken units such as desolators and iron curtain. If the allies even make it to tier 3.

[Kireeek]

22 hours ago, ReaperAA said:

Oops. Me is dumb ?

Well, yeah the nuclear power plant provides wayyy too much power for its cost. I agree here. I think that it's cost increased to 1500+ or power output reduced would be a good start.

By the way, that's the reason why the Allied Power Plant in this patch was reduced to $600. Although the Allied Power Plant gives the most base power between the 3 basic power plants, Allies have nothing else to generate electric power the way Yuri and Soviets do. Also, another great benefit of the cheaper Allied Power Plant: Grants Allies the ability to reach their Barracks and War Factory, at the same EXACT time as both Yuri and Soviets.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Kireeek

[Kireeek]

20 hours ago, CCCP84 said:

At this stage of the game, the alliance has mirages, which are problematic for the Soviets to deal with. Allies have gap generators, prisms.
Do you want to take power from the reactor? Then add the gap generators to the Soviet ones.
 Thus, you will come to the warcraft2 model, where the sides have units that are identical in properties, but different in appearance.

The patch is only going to target very specific under utilized units, as well as sub par factions with Quality of Life changes meant to improve the gameplay. The optional patch will stay as close and as true to the vanilla gameplay as possible. This will not become another Mental Omega or some super different special mod, so please stop bringing up that nonsense. Keep to the actual discussion regarding the changes, or mention things that can be improved upon.