NodAssaultTrooper Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 From what I have played so far I find Red Alert 1 a simple issue of who has the most tanks or who can get their tanks in the others base first...is that right? Because to me building tanks and tanks and tanks is incredible boring. Though is that really all RA1 has to offer? I really don't know...anyone here tell me?
Ferret Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 Infantry are just not that cost effective in RA compared to C&C in my eyes. I never really use them to attack long distances. But I feel ya.
Nyerguds Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 That's why I don't play RA...never really saw the appeal.
Revolutionary Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 I live some of the fancy units (like the chrono or mad tank), some of the facncy new logics (naval battles, bridges you can destroy, etc) and the expansions but I never liked they way woody west implemented the core units and gameplay. multiplayer turns in to you adverage spam fest quickly (if i wanted that id suck up to the koreans on $tarCr*p) and the skirmish AI are pretty bad... ...Ballance mod could make it nicer (my own ballance mod eventualy ended up concentraiting on adding new things which compleatly defeted the purpose) IMO The RA games have never been thought out or as good as the CnC ones but always have had some nice logics and units (until the just £A games reversed this by realising 2 poor CnC's and good RA's)
NodAssaultTrooper Posted January 9, 2011 Author Posted January 9, 2011 I live some of the fancy units (like the chrono or mad tank), some of the facncy new logics (naval battles, bridges you can destroy, etc) and the expansions but I never liked they way woody west implemented the core units and gameplay. multiplayer turns in to you adverage spam fest quickly (if i wanted that id suck up to the koreans on $tarCr*p) and the skirmish AI are pretty bad... ...Ballance mod could make it nicer (my own ballance mod eventualy ended up concentraiting on adding new things which compleatly defeted the purpose) IMO The RA games have never been thought out or as good as the CnC ones but always have had some nice logics and units (until the just £A games reversed this by realising 2 poor CnC's and good RA's) I personally like Tiberian Sun the best...I don't know why...just like the size of the maps, stealth and subterranean attacks. You have to be well sneaky with Nod and GDI you have to defend and have a large army.
Revolutionary Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 Agreed, There are still units and features i wish tiberian sun had/supported but i still love it the way it is On the subject of ballancing RA better, i shall be back soon with ideas (ill post in a new topic, so this one doesnt become to cluttered)
Myg Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 There is no need to "rebalance" any of the games to be honest, if anything; change the way you play. If you dont like tank spam, use tons of walls and teslas/turrets. Its like the Reaper rush when SC2 first came out, people whined and complained till it was changed; but during that time I nullified it for my own purposes by walling off the sides of my mineral collection area with supply depos and changing the waypoint for my barracks to my command centre. Simple problems; simple fixes.
NodAssaultTrooper Posted January 10, 2011 Author Posted January 10, 2011 There is no need to "rebalance" any of the games to be honest, if anything; change the way you play. If you dont like tank spam, use tons of walls and teslas/turrets. Its like the Reaper rush when SC2 first came out, people whined and complained till it was changed; but during that time I nullified it for my own purposes by walling off the sides of my mineral collection area with supply depos and changing the waypoint for my barracks to my command centre. Simple problems; simple fixes. And who wins by bunkering up and preying to god they have enough power and tesla coils to hold off the onslaught? Huh? “that the side which remains behind its fortified line is always defeated†- Napoleon.
Ferret Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 I believe that simply changing the cost of certain units would make them more "cost effective".
Irony Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I agree with myg, I always beat an early tank rush by getting my teslas up quick, I always waited for their first wave to get destroyed before I even though about switching from tesla production to units. then after they sent their second/usually bigger wave I'd send mine and it generally worked 80% of the time by end of RA1's hayday on WOL
pichorra Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 The gameplay of Red Alert is made to get rushed... Fast Ore harvesting... cheap units and buildings...
Iran Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Any good player will just camp outside of your base and take all the ore on the map
Revolutionary Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 even those who like RA as it is, what do you think could be done to "ballance it" a bit more especialy when you have Allied players agains Soviet player? (apart from the bugs relating to France and England getting a negative bonus and argubly ukraine not getting faster air units) So we have the suggestion of making some units more cost effective. (Is this worth a split?)
Ferret Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Who would be willing to do this though? I might be able to help if anyone is willing to.
pichorra Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 that wouldnt be so hard, you just will need patience, becauuse it is just need to edit rules.ini
Revolutionary Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I would be happy to do it (perhaps i should focus on BoB though)
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