Nyerguds Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 What part of " vicious cycle of corporate stupidity" don't you understand? He can't legally give it to them because he doesn't legally own it, and thus legally shouldn't have it And that's all speculation anyway. These people wrote the code; they know what kind of stuff is in it. Doesn't mean they actually still have it. All he said is that they don't get to decide if it gets released despite it being "their" code since they don't own it anymore. Just think about it... if it gets leaked, EA knows they are most likely the ones who did it, and can sue them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tore Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 On the subject of the rifle, though, there are indeed .50 CAL rifles that get used as anti-infantry snipers as well, but it's somewhat akin to using a tank shell to demolish an old shed. Kinda overkill Sure .50 caliber anti-material rifles are used against infantry if the situation demands it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiRaLeX Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Sure .50 caliber anti-material rifles are used against infantry if the situation demands it. I second that. High profile "infantry" in armored vehicles or snipers hiding behind walls being those situational targets. Note that .50 cal (projectile diameter being half an inch with three inches in length) is not only generally the cartridge with the biggest power but also the longest effective range operated in a rifle and as such obviously qualifies as a sniper rifle itself. It's not for close combat nor for shooting from hips or shoulder while standing (rifle weighs like 10+ KG with a single cartridge around 100 grams). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampastring Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I guess it makes sense then. After all, the Commando is able to shoot infantry even if they're behind large buildings like Construction Yards. Then again, his gun cannot shoot through a wall.. (or at least I assume so, haven't played TD in a while) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyerguds Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 The fact only concrete walls can actually block projectiles, and the fact they only block non-ballistic, non-AA-capable and non-instant projectiles is just a silly game mechanic though On buildings I do think it's intentional, though, since buildings in Dune II were far too prone to friendly fire; in Dune II you can basically destroy a high-priority enemy building with just a scout just by luring along some tanks and hiding behind the building, and letting the enemy tanks do the rest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkey Wilkey Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I gues with that specification of rifle C&C commando should look like these Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiRaLeX Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 In the older C&Cs, with just ONE click, no questions asked, infantry are brave enough to: -walk across a tiberium field, even if it kills them -run solo through the enemy base just to scout -blow their selves up for Cuba -run into an enemy base with no weapon whatsoever just to try and capture one of their buildings -take on an entire army with just a sniper rifle and C4s -and many other crazy orders that their commander gives them. BUT... you can click a thousand times and they'll still refuse to go in the water (with the exception of Tanya and the SEALs from RA2). Exactly. ^_^ No-one wants to get his uniform soaking wet. Tanya only wears hotpants and a belly top and for SEALs, well it's part of their job description. :heady: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X3M Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 The fact only concrete walls can actually block projectiles, and the fact they only block non-ballistic, non-AA-capable and non-instant projectiles is just a silly game mechanic though On buildings I do think it's intentional, though, since buildings in Dune II were far too prone to friendly fire; in Dune II you can basically destroy a high-priority enemy building with just a scout just by luring along some tanks and hiding behind the building, and letting the enemy tanks do the rest Well, how about this is reintroduced then? All you need to do is programming the AI for not shooting their own buildings. And let the player wonder how to deal with this problem their own. Warzone2100 allows for friendlies to fire through any way (except walls once again). Yet enemies can't fire through a structure. Thus buildings are often used as walls in that game. (but then again, they melt like butter against certain weapons). Now, artillery weapons like the MRLS and Artillery are a bit more usefull now. They are standing safely behind walls AND other structures, while notching returns fire. PS. That lady has a nice gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiRaLeX Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Well, the problems might actually be that projectiles don't actually belong to anyone and some projectiles cause substantial collateral damage. You do the math, X3M! Or tell the units not to fire at the lure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X3M Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Units are supposed to know where they fire? Strangely enough, Warzone2100 has the "no return fire" option . Which is very usefull for bunker busters and tank killers. The slow but strong weapons can place good projectiles with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyerguds Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I gues with that specification of rifle C&C commando should look like these Given the fact that gun is called "Harkonnen", it might fit better in a Dune game :laugh: Well, the problems might actually be that projectiles don't actually belong to anyone and some projectiles cause substantial collateral damage. You do the math, X3M! Fairly sure ownership is traceable in the objects, actually, if only by reference of which unit fired it; C&C has a system where a unit's own weapon can't damage the unit that fired it, to prevent stuff like flamethrowers actually burning themselves. (odd side effect on this: if you shoot an ion cannon at your own Advanced Com Center, it'll be 100% undamaged by it ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiRaLeX Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Fairly sure ownership is traceable in the objects, actually, if only by reference of which unit fired it; C&C has a system where a unit's own weapon can't damage the unit that fired it, to prevent stuff like flamethrowers actually burning themselves. (odd side effect on this: if you shoot an ion cannon at your own Advanced Com Center, it'll be 100% undamaged by it ) That's right. A unit can't damage itself. But it sure as hell can damage any other unit (be it friendly or enemy), be it by accident/miss, target finding or forced fire. The point being, projectiles aren't "smart" as to avoid damaging friendly units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyerguds Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Never claimed they were. It's a mechanism to stop units from destroying themselves just by performing their intended function. You use units in groups that aren't intended to be used in groups, though, you just reap the results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X3M Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Hahaha, then that mechanism is better then the one in Warzone2100. Since there you can shoot yourself to death with certain splash weapons. I even lost a mortar pit to this effect. The structure was close to a cliff. And the projectile exploded in the cliff instead of flying towards the enemy. You cannot hold fire on structures in that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRITAWAKETS Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 4 oddities with 1 that is laziness,1 that might be my computer and 1 that is bad plot. Tanya (RA2) 1. When the 1st mission starts theres a cutscene with Tanya where she is inside and midway in the cutscene Tanya is somehow on the field already. 2. On missions with snow Tanya never gets in winter clothing while in cutscenes she does have it. Meanwhile ingame shes in a bra and shorts swimming in freezing ice water after hours in the cold. (Hypothermia is scared of Tanya?) Yuri (RA2:YR) 1. Hes overpowered 1. He has all of his units in the past when he did not even have an army. 2. He gets his units how? He does not even have a psychic dominator working yet. Alongside not having the mastermind so no mass mind control. Also the yuri clones can only mind control 1 person at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyerguds Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 All the ingame designs in RA2 are cartoony and simple simply for the sake of making units recognizable on the battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ore_truck Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 How did the Soviets still possessed giant squids (which were claimed to be mind-controlled by Eva and Yuri himself) after Yuri betrayed the USSR? What happened to all the Kirovs in USA (tons were seen in New York and San Francisco in the Intro cutscene)? I know Yuri's Revenge has one in San Francisco, but only one. In one of the Soviet cutscenes in Red Alert, the chronosphere is seen to be teleporting 2 Longbows (with the portal in the air) after teleporting tanks on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaxOwlbear Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 2. He gets his units how? He does not even have a psychic dominator working yet. Alongside not having the mastermind so no mass mind control. Also the yuri clones can only mind control 1 person at a time. I don't think that Yuri's soldiers are mind-controlled. They are probably a small, loyal elite force - Sophia mentions that Yuri is training his own troops in vanilla RA2 (where they are Soviet soldiers). In one of the Soviet cutscenes in Red Alert, the chronosphere is seen to be teleporting 2 Longbows (with the portal in the air) after teleporting tanks on the ground. The Chronosphere can also teleport Einstein without frying him. XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen262 Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 RA1 Chronosphere. It should have worked more like it did in RA2 as it could shift a group of units. This is something that RA++ should do. Same with the Iron Curtain. TaxOwlbear It was likely done to stop APC and Engineers combo rushs. This isn't hardcoded and ChronoKillCargo= yes/no is found in the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X3M Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Hoover MRLS dying on water during a ionic storm. Same goes for the air units. If it is EMP, than all mechanical units should be standing still. Not even shoot! Like the MRLS. On the other hand, cant they make the hoover MRLS amfibious just like the APC? That it doesn't die, but becomes a boat or something? What about making things mechanical without electronics? There are still plenty of vehicles in today's society that can survive the EMP blast of a nuke. You cannot EMP a motor that is purely designed for burning fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkey Wilkey Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 but you can EMP it's control systems. for MRLS dying on water, well it's desighned to hover, not to swim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X3M Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 We are talking about oddities. Why would an army design a hoover unit, if ionic storms can disable it and let it drown? While there is an APC around that floats. Simply put the rockets on the APC? Another thing, EMP forces subterrain units to surface. I think that they should remain stuck underground for a while. Units dying by the environment, is just silly. What other game has this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkey Wilkey Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 I'll help you: 1) place units on the bridge 2) destroy the bridge 3) count games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X3M Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 What you say makes no sense. If you mean that you need MRLS for destroying a bridge. You can use any decent unit to do that. And any decent player does not cross the bridge when the enemy is watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkey Wilkey Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 that reply was to Units dying by the environment, is just silly. What other game has this? Why would an army design a hoover unit, if ionic storms can disable it and let it drown? also Why would army design ridiculous walker mechs and ostrich-like tanks? How did they managed to establish local gravity on the space station? Why aircrafts can't fly into shroud, are they affraid of ghosts? Engeniers Who buys tiberium and for what purpose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now