Command And Conquer series

No need to remove base building in order to encourage not turtling. The resource model already encourages that.

Generals messed up a bit here by allowing each faction to build resource generators wherever they wanted, so you could use the map's initial resources to build up a generator farm and turtle.

What I'm seeing as a potential solution would be a resource system similar to that of Company of Heroes:

• Resource deposits are not exhaustible because if the battle drags on long enough for them to be depleted, the match devolves into a stalemate due to neither side having the resources to launch large offensives anymore. RA3's campaign missions suffer badly from this, especially in coop.
• No permanently destructible tech structures. This is one of my primary pet peeves with both RA2 and Generals: oil derricks are a good source of income, but far too easy to remove from the game as a factor entirely, especially with the AI not being programmed to consider it more valuable to own than to destroy (and in Generals, you cannot even mod the AI to make it not harm tech structures because it won't even capture them then). Either they should be invulnerable but capturable, or should respawn as neutral whenever destroyed; both encourages players to fight over them because wrestling one away from the enemy actively aids you rather than just indirectly aiding via the enemy no longer having it.
• No buildable resource generators. With the non-exhaustible resource deposits, they're unnecessary and would only encourage turtling. Make the players fight over resources instead of having them fall into their lap for no effort.

Sorry for vanishing on you guys. A whole month of distractions and low energy kept me away.

~Major Tom: The cover/accuracy mechanics reminded me of Emperor: Battle for Dune ^note Westwood implemented "infantry cover" as a damage modifier as well as protection against trampling-by-vehicle. and Company of Heroes^note A much more developed system where not only cover provides defensive bonuses, but firefights are more realistic in that not all shots hit the target; hell, even shells/rockets hitting a tank can do glancing hits that inflict Scratch Damage instead of the proper shots you wanted.. Definitely a must, IMO.

"Infantry ammo"... That too had something like it in Company of Heroes. Infantry squads would fire several shots per soldier, stop for a few seconds to reload, then resume firing. I don't think that's what you're aiming for, though; if I understand correctly, what you're talking about would be something like the ammo system for C&C aircraft, where the infantry unit has an ammo bar, only said bar regenerates on its own in a matter of seconds, but only after it's fully exhausted. Contrast that with the COH approach, where the invisible ammo counter appears to auto-reset if you interrupt the unit mid-firing by giving it another action (IINM, it also has to be something other than "attack this other unit that's within your range of firing").

As for increased range making suicide bombers and other "must be at point-blank range to work" units, you could remedy that by giving them either defensive bonuses that make it harder to land successful hits on them (barring snipers and maybe full-auto heavy machine guns), or the ability to sneak around unnoticed (e.g. suicide bombers can disguise themselves as another unit, like RA2's Allied spies; if they pick one of your units, an ally's unit, or a neutral unit, your units will not automatically fire upon them unless, say, you enabled a mode that has them auto-fire on any neutral unit^note Perhaps add a mechanic that punishes you somehow whenever you kill an actual civilian unit (in the campaign, this could be a PR meter), to encourage limited use of such a mode.).

Air combat tactics... I think doing a full-fledged air combat system within an RTS game might be a tall order, but adding evasive maneuvers as the visual representation of an air unit's evasion stat overcoming an enemy unit/defense structure's accuracy stat wouldn't hurt.

Finally, intelligent target acquisition... My personal suggestion would be adding a "threat" value generally derived from the unit's various stat values (raw stats like HP, weapon values), and then implement a "counterfire threshold" system where if a certain amount of "effective firepower"^note Calculated by adding the damage values of all the weapons of the units that are currently attacking the enemy, with each individual value modified by the enemy's defensive values (e.g. armor type, evasion). is already being dedicated against this unit, a unit that hasn't engaged this particular enemy would essentially ignore that enemy when it comes to "shoot or not shoot?" decision-making (this would keep your extra tank-killing infantry units alert to attempts at squishing by the enemy tank).

---

~Sgt Ricko: ... Absolutely "NO!" to doing away with the classic C&C base-building system. Here's why:

• The Barracks could be taken to serve the same role as a real-life barracks does: It provides a place for your troops to stay at when they're not on the job, as well as. You're not literally training fresh troops, they just happen to exit the barracks building as the final step of the process that called them from wherever they came from, with the rest of the process kept invisible for convenience.
• The War Factories make perfect sense considering the existence of Ridiculously Fast Construction for base buildings within the setting. If you have the tech to build entire base structures on-site in mere minutes (or hours, if we want to be a bit more realistic outside of gameplay), then what could justify the inability to perform the comparatively much simpler task of constructing military vehicles within a similar time frame? We can actually assemble huge numbers of such vehicles every day thanks to assembly-line technology; whatever it is that the Allies/Soviets/GDI/Nod use to make super-fast building construction could surely be used to drastically accelerate up the speed of vehicle assembly/construction, which would thus make it plausible to have on-site manufacturing of such vehicles.

That being said, I have a compromise: On-site building still exists, but you could sidestep the requirements for higher-tier units (i.e. not have to build prerequisite structures) or even the whole on-site process by calling them in from off the map; the downside is that it takes more time for them to arrive than to just build them, and you can't add units to a "shipment" once you've ordered it, so you can't respond in real-time to sudden developments.

Territory-taking... That's pretty much what COH and Dawn of War are about, right? Not a bad idea, IMHO.

---

~Amitakartok: Yeah, I really hate resource exhaustibility. Why not just make supply drops be the default method of resource-gathering if you're going to do that? Why do I need a Strategy Center in order to build a mere supply drop zone? It's just a frigging square with a simple flare signal marking its location!

And +infinity to "No permanently destructible tech structures." Hell, make that to "every destroyed building leaves a pile of ruins that could either be salvaged for a portion of the original building's cost or be reused to reconstruct the building at a reduced duration and cost". And I mean every building; that includes all the garrisonable neutral structures around the map. The only way to permanently destroy a structure is to destroy the resulting ruin as well, which is easier said than done (basically, a Ruin has much more HP than the building it was "made" from). Alternatively, you can "disable" a building's functions by damaging it all the way to the "red zone" of its Health Meter, at which point it becomes much more durable, but once HP is expended, it is destroyed and a Ruin left in its place that is only useful for either recovering some resources or speeding up the construction of another building when it's placed above it (moreso if it's a copy of the destroyed building).

On "no buildable resource generators"... How about making it so you could only build them on certain spots on the map, which would naturally be located in places quite a distance away from the default starting locations that don't have much base-building space around them, and are thus vulnerable to enemy attack unless you dedicate a lot of units to defending them and the few base defenses you could build around them? Of course, there should be some logic to this; a supply drop zone shouldn't be placed in the middle of a densely packed urban area filled with tall buildings, for example.

---

Now, for my two cents.

First off, here's something that Generals actually did right, and is done in several non-C&C RTS games (e.g. Act of War/Act of Aggression, Starcraft's Terran faction, Company of Heroes): No more "Construction Yard as the base's command center". Instead, the base HQ is in fact called "Headquarters", "Command Center", or whatever other appropiate name you prefer. "Construction Yard" (henceforth abbreviated to "Conyard" for convenience) as a name will instead be given to the secondary base-building structure, whose only purpose is to establish a radius within which you can construct buildings. The Conyard can be "unpacked" and relocated by its crew to any location within a certain radius of your HQ, and said radius quite big (roughly equal to the area of your average starting location in skirmish maps). There would be a way to extend the radius, of course, via a tertiary structure that, unlike the Conyard, is permanently placed.

Second, teching mechanics should be distinct to some extent for each faction, preferably by drawing upon some of the faction's traits. I take inspiration for this from Company of Heroes, Act of War and its Spiritual Successor Act of Aggression, and in spite of my many misgivings about it, Red Alert 3.

Examples from personal C&C mod ideas:

• Unlocking tech tiers requires spending Command Points, which are gained as a result of various actions, such as building structures and attacking enemies.
• GDI's tech tier system is DEFCON Status.
  • GDI forces are obligated to observe standardized DEFCON procedures, which imposes limits on a field commander's access to the GDI arsenal unless it's determined (read: the player "researches" the next DEFCON level) that the threat s/he's facing merits escalation of force.
  • Each HQ starts off at "DEFCON 3", allowing for the production of basic structures as well as first-tier units (including the basic air unit), and must be upgraded to DEFCON 2 for access to mid-tier structures and units (including naval units), and then to DEFCON 3 to access top-tier structures and units as well as unrestricted access to superweapons.
  • Unlocking a DEFCON level only applies to the specific HQ building you've performed the unlocking from, and by proxy all production buildings within its radius of influence. This means that you need to repeat the unlocking with each extra HQ on an individual basis; fortunately, the Command Point cost is significantly reduced in proportion to how many HQs currently have unlocked levels (DEFCON 1 is worth more than DEFCON 2, of course), representing how your superiors' expectations ease up in adaptation to the changing circumstances.
  • Even if you're at the requisite DEFCON level, some units on the unlocked tier require the presence of certain structures in order to be produced (e.g. a Tech Center to build Mammoth tanks).
• Nod's tech tier system is Exposure Status.
  • Nod's doctrine dictates that the true might of the Brotherhood's military forces should be concealed from its enemies until the very last moment possible, in order to capitalize on the element of surprise. In gameplay terms, a Nod player operates in either of two Exposure Status modes: Covert (default), and Unveiled.
  • Under Exposure Status: Covert, Nod resorts to recruiting poorly-trained but highly fanatical irregular militias from the Yellow Zones as well as hiring/bribing experienced mercenaries and terrorists to do its dirty work, relying more on massed attacks with low-tech and inexpensive units and surplus military hardware rather than risking its precious core of true believers, as well as a handy way to obfuscate Brotherhood presence from the vigilant eyes of GDI.
  • Exposure Status: Unveiled, by contrast, sees the Brotherhood proper come out of hiding and taking to the field to bring the full force of the Nod arsenal to bear upon their enemies, deploying all manners of high-tech equipment such as cutting-edge firearms and missiles, lasers and cyborgs, culminating in dreaded Tiberium mutants and weaponry and even nuclear warheads. Ironically (and perhaps a sign of Kane's sense of humor), Unveiled mode is marked by a proliferation of stealth units and technology.

That's it for now. I'm open to suggestions for what the Forgotten's teching approach should be like; perhaps make it like RA3's Soviet teching, i.e. "classic C&C, but with Generals-style building construction (thus vulnerable to premature destruction)"?

---

On a different note, given the fact that the Soviet Union was not only pretty racist, but arguably just as bad as the Nazis ^note we have the misfortune that the USSR succeeded in destroying too much of the relevant documents and evidence to get an accurate picture of what happened, even towards the Jews (Stalin himself was apparently quite antisemitic), one wonders if the Red Alert version of WW 2 saw its own racism-driven Holocaust at the hands of the invading Soviet forces. After all, we know that the RA1!USSR is not above massacring an entire town's population of hundreds of civilians just to test experimental chemical weapons, let alone for protesting Soviet policy or, God-forbid, actually taking up arms against the Soviet government/military.

edited 14th Jul '17 3:50:17 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

That's a working mechanic in Ares.

---

What do you guys think of the idea of the AI forfeiting the match if you back it into a corner badly enough that it cannot win unless you deliberately pull back? RA2 had the firesale mechanic for this, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the AI throwing the match without you having to destroy 90% of its base first.

Saw this mechanic in action in Sins of a Solar Empire today: I had an inferior fleet but five built-up planets compare to the AI's one (I rushed it at the beginning). Jump to the AI's planet, battle begins. My smaller fleet is getting wrecked by the AI's superior firepower but I rally-pointed my military production straight to the planet, so reinforcements are streaming in as fast as the AI can kill them. Once the AI is down to 3-4 ships while I have a nearly full fleet, it threw the match without me even having touched its factories.

In another match, the AI had two planets and sent its entire fleet attacking one of my planets, to which I responded by counterattacking one of its planets from the opposite direction. While I wrecked the AI's planet, the AI lost most of its fleet attacking mine (I kept building defenses faster than they could knock them out and wore them down via attrition) and retreated, finally retaliating against my attack. With my fleet at full strength, I wrecked the AI's fleet and the AI threw the match immediately even though it still had two planets, their resource income and the one planet I hadn't even attacked yet had intact factories.

One of the reasons I suggested avoiding base construction was in the event that the gameplay is being adapted for a setting in which you're fighting on a RISK-style map or invading hostile planets in an empire of many. Thus, you'd want the ground combat not to potentially drag on for too long, and nor would you want to build permanent FO Bs on what might essentially be a barren moon. Adding base construction would add to the the average time of a match, and also wouldn't make sense in a setting with orbital fleets, would it?

But... if we're sticking to one of the C&C universes (and obviously ignoring C&C4) then it makes much more sense to keep the base building mechanics.

@ Marq: I was never a fan of the Allies and their Security Clearance mechanic. I understand that it helped prevent them from fast-teching too quickly, and also kept them from instantly churning out high-end units within the enemy's base after the typical engineer fast-cap, but it made managing the expansion bases more confusing than necessary. I'd rather that they stick with the idea that they unlock the more dangerous support powers and units via command points akin to Generals. And I'm not even sure how exactly I'd fix that construction system, either.

As for suggestions on how to create a Forgotten faction... well I certainly won't be breaking the mold as to how everyone else has pictured them since Tib Sun: scavengers who mix-and-match old tech from GDI and Nod, along with taming the mutant wildlife.

Gameplay-wise, they'd be similar to the GLA due to their make-shift, underdog nature, but instead of having respawning buildings, they'd be able to garrison almost all of their structures. Their tech tree would involve more specialized factories than the other factions, along with only a couple of tech buildings. Forgotten infantry, assuming that their bulkier appearance from C&C3 hasn't affected the entire community, would range from the mostly normal infantry grunts to the larger guys carrying around minguns, heavy ATG Ms, or automatic grenade launchers, and even the rare individual or two capable of clairvoyance like Tratos was. Their key structures would not require power to run, but their base defenses, superweapons and support structures would, meaning the player, if they so choose, could potentially choose to forego building Forgotten power plants at all if planning a quick battle. An example of their construction list would go like this:

• Construction Yard (a civilian version of the MC Vs, with a worn, re-purposed look)
• Field generator (produces less power than the other power plants, but is smaller and cheaper too)
• Refinery (looks like the refinery from Tib Sun)
• Tiberium Silo (looks like the Tib Dawn Silo)
• Broadcast Station (a re-purposed TV station turned into a military sensor array. Also provides support powers)
• Forgotten Hovel (barracks)
• Motor Pool (light war factory)
• Salvage Yard (contains most of the upgrades, and can also individually upgrade units GLA-style and even repair them)
• Beast Pen (tiberium wildlife)
• Industrial Factory (produces heavy/high tech units, requires power)
• VTOL factory (creates gunships, air transports)
• Redoubt (Heals infantry, can be garrisoned with a larger than normal amount, and also allows them to upgrade their equipment)
• Tiberian Catalyst Injector - The Forgotten Superweapon. Originally designed to contain and kill the veinhole monsters and stunt the growth of tiberium, the Forgotten have figured out how to make one rapidly spawn within an enemy's base, in addition to a massive earthquake. How, exactly? By firing the catalyst into the enemy base with a massive artillery cannon.

Now for the units. Some examples I have in mind:

• Nod subterranean APCs, except this time given additional armor and designed to use their drills to damage enemies while still acting as a troop transport - but at the cost of no longer being able to go underground, as per the canon of C&C3 and beyond.
• The original Mammoth tank. Virtually unchanged and visually similar to the version from Renegade, with the only difference being that the Forgotten can how add additional upgrades such as smokescreen dispensers, makeshift ERA armor, or explosive 120mm blue tiberium shells.
• The Devil's Tongue flame drill tank from Tib Sun, only now it spews out corrosive chemicals in addition to using the drills as a devastating melee-range weapon. Can also be equipped with a mortar that also fires toxic shells.
• Battle Bus - exactly what it says on the tin, and functions just like the one in Generals.

Makes sense too since they had this particular unit since Tib Sun!

• Excavator - One of their larger units. Carries a massive howitzer cannon capable of firing at long ranges and doing heavy damage. Infantry can also garrison the unit and use it as a mobile bunker.

edited 16th Jul '17 10:20:02 PM by SgtRicko

@Amitakartok:

Really? How did it go in that game?

That would depend on how well-devised its algorithims for calculating nominal threat and probability of victory are.

@Sgt Ricko:

I'm guessing from the examples you listed later that you're taking inspiration from Company of Heroes, or at least a game with a similar approach to production buildings?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

They weren't the ones I had in mind, but yes, that comparison does work. Add in most of their structures being garrisonable, and you've got my idea.

Observe at 3:40.

Neat.

On a different note, having watched a few videos of the Gate anime depicting Curb Stomp Battles that the JSDF deal to the pre-industrial tech-using forces on the other side of the epynomous Gate, and remembering the scenes from Tiberian Eclipse where the MLP characters gawk at GDI's superior technology (particularly the military stuff; the Ion Cannon being the first thing they saw of their power must've been quite an effective first impression), now I'm having mental images of "What If? GDI had their own version of Gate's plot?" and predictably they're dominated by scenes of Wolverines, Titans and Orcas slaughtering medieval cavalry by the hundreds a piece per minute, all while the infantry take potshots from behind the mechs at whoever is "lucky" enough to avoid being shredded/blown to Ludicrous Gibs by said mechs long enough to actually get past their spread-out lines.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

So, an average discussion involving the GDI on Spacebattles.net then?

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot

... They like to pit GDI against random other armies?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

In the past, yeah. Lots of fan-wanking about GDI Firehawks being capable of taking down other sci-fi fightercraft, including the stuff from Star Wars, all due to how the Firehawk is capable of orbital re-entry and supposedly does it all in moments. Their "evidence" for that is how the build times for the structures in C&C3 take place in real time within exceptionally short timeframes (ex. tanks are built in 15-20 seconds, power plants in 15 or less, Nukes are prepared in 5-6 minutes, etc).

That being said, I do happen to agree with their assessment that a horde of Mammoth Tanks (especially the C&C3 variant) are basically a wall of unstoppable death with very few counters, save for long-range bombardment and orbital strikes.

Or, ya know, any air force with realistic range, since like any RTS, C&C units have pathetic short ranges.

Combine that with how all C&C tanks are insanely slow, almost any RL tank would be able to outrange and outmaneuver them, basically taking potshots without the Mammoth ever being able to retaliate. The Mammoth tank is slower than a guy on foot. An Abrams tank can reach 45 miles per hour.

Plus C&C tank lack armor (As can be seen by the fact they take damage from any unit. You can destroy a mammoth with enough Riflemen - even if you factor the Mammoth's damage reductions - it has none against cannon based weapons), literally almost any tank could take out a mammoth on 1v1 combat.

edited 20th Jul '17 7:59:34 AM by Ghilz

Mammoths taking damage from riflemen is not meant to be a realistic portrayal of what they can do. No hard counters is a C&C tradition.

Even then, the fact remains that cannons deal full damage to Mammoth Tanks (While bullets deal reduced), meaning that one of the Tank's best counter is... another tank. Then factor the abysmal speed and range. Heck, none of the Air units the Mammoth can attack ever fly at realistic heights for a combat plane (this includes when you see them in cutscenes).

edited 20th Jul '17 8:58:32 AM by Ghilz

Guys, C&C is not, and is not supposed to be, realistic. Anything from anti-tank and AA missiles being the same sort of thing to tank armour being (mostly) the same all around the tank point that way.

The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground

Indeed. Whatever AA systems are mounted on tanks in real life are more anti-helicopter than anti-plane.

It would be fairly easy to work a hard counter system into the game, though. I haven't modded the Generals/C&C3 engine yet, but the first Battle for Middle-earth game uses a slightly more advanced build of Generals' engine and it has hard counters.

For the RA2/TS engine, it's just a matter of setting the infantry's weapon to deal less than 17 damage per shot plus the weapon's warhead to 3% damage versus the Mammoth's armor type and you're all set because 16 * 0.03 = 0.48, which is rounded down to zero damage but still provokes the Mammoth into retaliating if it hadn't passive-acquired the poor sucker already.

Company of Heroes has a good system when it comes to realistically reflecting how well different weapons do against different targets. Firearms in general are practically useless against heavy armor, so the only hope for an infantry/light vehicle unit is that it has an explosive-based weapon ability, and even then you need something like a satchel charge, sticky bomb, rocket, and/or multiple units (plus good cover) to actually pose such a threat to the tank that it will really consider retreat as an option.

edited 20th Jul '17 6:08:14 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

As much as I like GDI, I know they'd get their arses handed to them by the UNSC.

Although UNSC Grizzlies vs GDI Mammoths would be Awesomeness Overload.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

...did anyone else encounter this bug in Renegade when, on All Brains, No Brawn, Mobius phases out of reality as soon as he puts his Powered Armor on?

He's invisible, cannot attack, draws aggro from enemies but they won't fire on him and when you get to the end of the level, the objective won't register him having reached the evac chopper, making you unable to finish the level.

edited 22nd Jul '17 8:45:59 AM by amitakartok

(Backing up a bit)

Every CNC game from Generals on back (though maybe not Tiberian Dawn) had a mechanic of sorts. All you had to do was wipe out its production structures, nothing more. It would then mass-sell all its structures and in the case of RA 2 and earlier hurl every last unit it had (unless unarmed like a Harvester) at a random player/house/faction in a Suicide Mission. (If it miraculously won against said target, it would do it again, typically picking the next closest.) In Generals it was an instant win since without structures you auto-lost in Skirmish/Multiplayer.

Personally I preferred the mass-sell-and-attack method of RA 2 and earlier.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

I always found it entertaining to slaughter the horde of Conscripts when the enemy went all fire-sale with Navy SEALs. Shame that doesn't happen any more, although in Red Alert 3 there's no need for it given the more varied objectives.

You know, one of the ideas that I came up with for a hypothetical Tiberium Series mod is to take a page from Warcraft and Dawn of War by giving each side multiple Hero Units with distinct roles and abilities. Some of a given faction's Heroes would be "generic" in that they don't represent any particular character from the setting (a la Dawn of War); these generic Heroes, however, can serve as a foundation for actual characters' in-game representation.

Examples of generic Heroes:

• Forward Battle Commander (GDI/Nod from TWII onwards)
  • Represents the Player Character taking to the field to personally lead his forces.
  • Just fielding him gives a small stat boost to the morale stat of every unit under your command.
  • He can be attached to a specific infantry squad (excluding noncombatant infantry, snipers and commandos), which improves most if not all of their stats significantly.
  • Can call in certain support powers, such as an off-map artillery barrage or an air raid.
  • Can be upgraded to wield a Swiss-Army Gun that works the same way as a GD-10, as well as a suit of Zone Trooper / Black Hand Disciple Powered Armor.
  • When fully upgraded, he's significantly better all-around than a Zone Trooper / Black Hand Disciple... but he's just one man, and Zone Troopers / Black Hand Disciples fight in squads. And he's still quite inferior to an actual Commando.
  • If representing the player, his "death" represents him being incapacitated by his injuries and promptly withdrawn back to HQ, explaining why you could reproduce the unit again. This Gameplay and Story Segregation Plot Armor, however, is nonexistent in campaign missions where the Player Character's survival is an actual objective (e.g. he was captured by the enemy and must fight his way to safety); the same goes for some non-PC versions of the unit.
  • Ideally, there would be a separate set of voice and dialogue for each sex, which could be manually determined by the player before starting the campaign/skirmish.
  • The name and role is lifted from the cancelled Tiberium FPS.

• Commanding Officer (Allied Nations/Soviet Union; GDI/Nod before TWII)
  • Represents the Player Character taking to the field to personally lead his forces.
  • Just fielding him gives a small stat boost to the morale stat of every unit under your command.
  • He can be attached to a specific infantry squad (excluding noncombatant infantry, snipers and commandos), which improves most if not all of their stats significantly.
  • Can call in certain support powers, such as an off-map artillery barrage or an air raid.
  • Wields a pistol that is understandably weak compared to the basic infantry squad's assault rifles, but one of the unit's abilities allows him to potentially one-shot kill an enemy soldier. If it succeeds, the rest of the enemy squad will suffer a morale debuff for a short time to represent the shock and intimidation factor, with a small chance of them gaining Suppressed status as well.
  • If representing the player, his "death" represents him being incapacitated by his injuries and promptly withdrawn back to HQ, explaining why you could reproduce the unit again. This Gameplay and Story Segregation Plot Armor, however, is nonexistent in campaign missions where the Player Character's survival is an actual objective (e.g. he was captured by the enemy and must fight his way to safety); the same goes for some non-PC versions of the unit.
  • Ideally, there would be a separate set of voice and dialogue for each sex, which could be manually determined by the player before starting the campaign/skirmish.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

I would personaly really like that.

As a further addition, consider the three-level Officer system used by the British in the first Company of Heroes game and the US Forces in the second game. You can have only three Lieutenants (only one for the US Forces), one Captain, and (for the US Forces) one Major at any given time, but you could always replace them if they're killed, and the COH 2 versions come with infantry squads as bodyguards. And the British officers give a variety of status buffs to your troops — the Lieutenant to a single squad, and the Captain to all units within an entire sector.

EDIT: Correcting a mistake regarding the numerical restriction on British Lieutenants.

edited 25th Jul '17 9:01:59 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

...and that just gave me an idea for a Tiberian series game where you can play in any of the three eras.

As in, imagine a skirmish match with TD-era GDI and TS-era Nod versus TW-era Nod and TS-era GDI.

Kinda like how Homeworld Remastered allows HW1-era and HW2-era factions to fight each other.

edited 24th Jul '17 2:15:10 PM by amitakartok