Jump to content

CnCNet Forums

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Zjorz

Useless unit & structures

Recommended Posts

Hey guys. I was brainstorming about a private patch to polish red alert. One of the things i want to do is remove units and buildings without function.

 

What units and structures are never used in any tactic? So far i came up with the following list:

 

Allied:

Field medic: useless in a tank centered game

Ranger: a crappy version of the apc without transport functionality

Camo pillbox: more expensive pillbox with the same weapon. Waste of money

Sandbags: crap version of walls that have little use yet are better

Fake structures: waste of time to build. Nobody cared about a fake radar or naval yard

 

Soviet:

Barbed wire: same as sandbag

Kennel: never seen anybody build this or a dog, EVER

Iron curtain: way to expensive for what it does.

Yak: does way to little damage vs buildings. Mig is superior and costs just a little more

Soviet mine layer: nobody bothers with anti inf mines since inf is easy to kill

 

Let me know what you think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Camo pillbox dose have more hitpoints than the basic pillbox...

 

True, but 2 camo pillboxes cost as much as 3 normal ones. The 3 normal ones will do 1,5 times the damage 2 camo pillboxes do for the same cost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allied:

Field medic: useless in a tank centered game

Find a way to properly wall in your infantry, think again.

But is way to expensive for a proper function. I would say, costs 400, not 800.

 

Ranger: a crappy version of the apc without transport functionality

Agreed, once again, great fodder if costs are less, 400 again?

You forgot to mention, this one doesn't crush infantry. However, it is a great scout in the first minutes of the game. It outruns all other units.

 

Camo pillbox: more expensive pillbox with the same weapon. Waste of money

No, has more health. But 200 more costs is indeed a bit to much. The only function is raping infantry. In a tank based game...

 

Sandbags: crap version of walls that have little use yet are better

Agreed, and the worst part is, they get run over too!

 

Fake structures: waste of time to build. Nobody cared about a fake radar or naval yard

No, I like faking :D. They have a decent ammount of health for occupying an opponent.

 

Soviet:

Barbed wire: same as sandbag

Agreed.

 

Kennel: never seen anybody build this or a dog, EVER

Agreed.

 

Iron curtain: way to expensive for what it does.

Agreed. But it is a fun weapon :)

 

Yak: does way to little damage vs buildings. Mig is superior and costs just a little more

Yak is the anti infantry version. Basicly, useless if you ask me.

 

Soviet mine layer: nobody bothers with anti inf mines since inf is easy to kill

Agreed

 

Let me know what you think

I think pineapples do good in a salad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the field medic, how do you use them? Build a pack of riflemen and surround them with concrete wall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medics.

Only on low money maps, are they useful.

And you need to sim city your base.

 

For walling them in, you need structures or tanks.

Using rifle infantry is not really an option, use bazooka men instead if you decide on using medics.

 

Although, if you can place a barracks in front of your base. Wall this in with Pill boxes and/or turrets. And then spam 2 medics with 8 bazooka. They cannot be over run. And 4 bazooka > 1 turret. 4 bazooka also > 1 AA gun.

 

Remember that they cannot run away from V2 and from Yaks.

 

But then again, having 5 bazooka is even better. Replacement when needed is cheaper, since V2 is an instant kill for bazooka and medics!

Any way, great defence when dealing with a silly AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the ranger vs APC

 

Ranger:

cost 600

150hp

armour light

movement wheeled (slower on most terrain)

 

APC:

cost 800

200hp

armour heavy

movement tracked (faster on most terrain)

can crush infantry

can transport infantry

 

Same:

Speed

View range

Weapon and damage

 

Even with the lower cost the ranger seems like worse choice 99.9% of the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume that the opponent has found a way to make infantry crush practically impossible. (Walls)

 

Overall, the range will do more damage when used as hit and run unit. The apc is meant to go into hostility.

In this case, let's value how both will do against infantry.

Spending the same amount of money, gives the ranger +33% more damage. While total health becomes the same.

Now, the snipe factor is a little higher for the ranger. Thus the overall damage will drop faster during combat. (Where rangers die before apc die?)

 

You need to know the armour effects, to know if the apc is truly an better option.

How does the armor work on rifle infantry?

How does the armor work on grenadiers?

How does the armor work on bazooka men?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume that the opponent has found a way to make infantry crush practically impossible. (Walls)

 

Overall, the range will do more damage when used as hit and run unit. The apc is meant to go into hostility.

In this case, let's value how both will do against infantry.

Spending the same amount of money, gives the ranger +33% more damage. While total health becomes the same.

Now, the snipe factor is a little higher for the ranger. Thus the overall damage will drop faster during combat. (Where rangers die before apc die?)

 

You need to know the armour effects, to know if the apc is truly an better option.

How does the armor work on rifle infantry?

How does the armor work on grenadiers?

How does the armor work on bazooka men?

 

Rangers take more damage from Rifle Infantry and Grenadiers than the APC. You'd prioritize Tanks over a ranger 99% of the time, because you can just crush infantry. A rifle Infantry has the same DPS for 100$, and can kill a power plant easily early in the game, hindering a persons production, and can cost effectively take out rangers.

 

In other words DON'T BUILD RANGERS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rifle infantry has only 3 range.

The Ranger has 6 sight range, which is very useless to have.

 

It is funny how all 3 units: rifle infantry, ranger and APC have the exact same weapon.

15 (SA)

and

ROF of 20.

 

Now, the question that remains is (sort of same question), how much damage percent does every weapon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

APC's have a slower Rate of Turning (5) while Rangers have (10).

 

Something funny is that back in Tiberian Dawn, APC's actually had a faster movement speed than Hum-vees/Buggies but still half the turning speed.

 

EDIT: See later posts as this has been corrected.  On regular terrain, in TD, APC's move slower than Humvees despite a faster speed #.  And in RA, tracked APC's move faster than wheeled Rangers despite the same speed #.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something funny is that back in Tiberian Dawn, APC's actually had a faster movement speed than Hum-vees/Buggies but still half the turning speed.

 

This is almost true. The APC is indeed faster, but only as far as the actual stats in the .exe go (APC speed in .exe is 35, humvee/buggy speed is 30). Ingame the APC actually moves slower than humvees and buggies, even in straight lines, i. e. this is NOT because of the APC's lower turn rate. This is caused by the different movement types for units - humvees are wheeled, while APCs are tracked. The same 'speed=' parameter for wheeled and tracked units in the .exe will result in different speeds ingame. A wheeled unit with a speed of 8 is just as fast as a tracked unit with a speed of 12, so, basically, a 2:3 correlation. This makes the APC's tracked speed of 35 work like wheeled speed 24 ingame, a tad slower than the jeeps at 30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you use a road.

Mission 8 with GDI, where you have only barracks for infantry production. But all other units need repairs.

First things first, getting the crate in the village. Thus moving in with an APC over the road. 4 soldiers are just standing there. The crushing goes humouristic fast :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure TD lacks the terrain modifiers for speed that RA has, either it lacks them completely, or it has them, but they are disabled. Either way, no conclusive proof has been found on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about that, actually. I never found them, but...

 

-It certainly has the movement types, with a difference between wheeled and tracked. Also proven by the "3-point wheeled vehicle rotation" beta option.

-I did in fact find those terrain speed modifiers in Dune II... so it seems strange that C&C1 would not have them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for setting me straight on speeds guys.  I did some side-by-side testing of racing units a good distance in a straight line.

In C&CTD Humvees (30 wheeled) definitely move a little faster than APC's (35 tracked)(only tested regular terrain).

However, in RA, APC's (10 tracked) definitely move a little faster than Rangers (10 wheeled) on regular terrain.

On roads they move the same speed (100% of 10 whether tracked or wheeled.)

If you set rangers to 13 then they move the same speed on reg terrain but faster on roads.

 

In RA I wanted to make APC's proportionally faster than tanks like TD without slowing the tanks to TD speeds.

In TD APC's are 35 tracked while most Tanks are 18 tracked.  Making them nearly twice the speed.

On RA's scale with its faster tanks averaging 8, that means about 15 would preserve the proportion.  But making APCs just 14 seems a little too fast for me so I guess it's best not to preserve that proportion so much with RA speed tanks.  The best compromise I've found while keeping tanks at RA speed, is to increase APC's to just 11 and Rangers to 15, so they move the same speed on regular terrain, but Rangers get a big advantage on roads.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure you can use the RA .ini's to nerf the advantage, but it will be nerfed for all wheeled vehicles. As far as I remember, the movement speed over different terrain types in RA is determined by percentages. So roads will be 100% speed for all, clear will be like 90% for tracks and 80% for wheels, etc. I think you can even make cliffs passable for infantry, f. ex., at a slow speed, so they'll look as if they're climbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather keep RA's added depth with terrain types.  But that is a really cool idea for having infantry slowly climb in theory.  Unfortunately it didn't seem to work right for me. I simply changed foot from 0% to 10%, and then tried 50%.  Infantry seemed to go the same speed as regular terrain (90%).  Tanya would sometimes run straight across the cliff.  Other times she or other infantry would go up a bit, encounter some invisible blocking line, and then you'd have to make them go left or right a little before they could get all the way up or down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The engines of RA and TD aren't sufficient enough to allow something like 10%?

Because climbing infantry is a really cool idea.

 

I still find it stupid that the Ranger is "slower" than the APC. Even if you manage to make it faster on road. How many maps out there actually have a road between bases?

Depending on the map, I would suggest that the APC is +50% compared to tanks off road. And the Ranger is +50% than the APC on road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been taking cues from this thread in tweaking things in my maps at http://gokuma.voila.net/cnc.html

 

Doing the math in map's where I just increased rangers to 13 to match APC's 10 on reg terrain:

Ranger is 30% faster than APC on roads and APC is 25% faster than the average tank off road.

In Retro (Tiberium Alert but still RA gfx&sfx) maps with APC's at 11 and Rangers at 15:

Ranger is 36.4% faster than APC on roads and APC is 37.5% faster than average tank off road.

I made supply trucks the equivalent to recon bikes.  In standard and Lunar maps I gave them same speed as ranger but in retro I gave them a speed 17 (wheeled).

 

I See Red Dawn (RA totally converted to TD) sets Tanks down from 8 to 5 and APC from 10 to 9.  Humvees are 10 wheeled while APC's 9 tracked are still faster unlike actual TD.  Otherwise I think they recreated TD's speeds really well on RA's scale which is less fine.  Just the humvee and recon bike should be faster, and the buggy should be wheeled and as fast as humvee.  So IF 5 is really TD tank speed, tanks got a 60% increase in RA and light tanks got an 80% increase. 

 

Now something I just tested in regular RA that'll really make you laugh...  On regular terrain, light tanks are substantially faster than rangers and even medium tanks are slightly faster than rangers!  Rangers just have double the turning speed going for them, but a medium tank still got ahead and turned into its path and cut it off.  The ranger had no horn to beep at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on the map, I would suggest that the APC is +50% compared to tanks off road.

Um. They're the same type, both "tracked". You can't give them differences per terrain type compared to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant that the APC can be faster than other tracked units.

If a tank has 8, the APC would get 12.

But on road, the Ranger should be able to beat the APC.

So once again, the Ranger should have something like 16 if on road.

 

Something like that.

If possible, make some sort of wide road. So the ranger has more going for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...