Command And Conquer series

I'd just rebalance things to make infantry relevant again.

I think the point is that infantry IS irrelevant these days, unless gurilla warfare or from fortified positions.

Take generals for example. Infantry hunkered down in a civilian building or bunker can hold back or defeat waves of tanks and infantry, and fend fend off small-scale air attack.

but out in the open they get crushed/shot in short order.

See, that's one way infantry and hero units can be made relevant to victory : allow ALL or more than one infantry types to garrison in a building / bunker, INSIDE this old game engine

And I still want my advanced GUI and double-click-select-all controls

edited 11th Apr '12 2:01:00 AM by Cassie

Sadly that isn't very likely unless somebody's willing to seriously overhaul the RA 2 engine. That, or create a brand new source engine for game, similar to the Open RA Mod.

But all infantry can garrison(aside from the GLA's angry mob)

which makes sense because, really, if an angry mob is just sitting around in a building, well, they're not really an angry mob anymore are they?

They would sit there and complain all day. Alternatively, the angry mob gets out laptops and goes to message boards to be angry.

Part of 4chan is comprised of bored GLA batallions.

... And formerly, Chinese hackers.

Doable. You just can't get independent ranges in RA 2/YR. In RA 2 it's even more restricted however, the garrison weapon is directly tied to the building rather than the occupant. You can make any infantry garrison in there but they will all fire the same weapon. YR fixed this by allowing an OccupyWeapon= tied directly to an infantry type. Range however will be global meaning say you made UC Buildings fire at 8 spaces away, a flamethrower with a Range of 2 cells will fire at 8 cells since it's that way. It's mentioned in the rulesmd.ini commentary that if it weren't a universal, a bug would arise where a shorter range unit inside would forbid the entire structure from firing at all.

Hey, if it's doable it's fine! At least it's better compared to old 1.01 YR. Chrono Legionnaires inside a building! Fun~

That is 1.001 YR. Just mod the rules file to achieve desired result.

I never found any use for the Legionnaires. The only times they were effective at all was when playing skirmish against a normal AI, who'd put all their superweapons at first far from defenses. They are killable while they are "transporting", and take forever to kill stuff.

... Well, that, and having that vehicle with lots of turrets filled with them in Yuri's Revenge, then it's time-raping time.

They were useful in the last Allied mission against Nukes actually - you hear the warning that one has gone off, target one against each of your major buildings. The Nuke hits your invulnerable buildings and you're safe. Just make sure you take the guys off before they finish the job...

@Tom: So, that would make flamethrower infantry utterly broken?

Huh. I never really thought of that. The only time I used them on my own base was when trying that spy glitch.

The spy has always been awesome. Except in Red Alert 3. Everyone was terrbile in Red Alert 3, but that's besides the point.

For King an Country, Yesh, commander?

edited 11th Apr '12 5:20:55 PM by ThatOneGuyNamedX

^^ In theory. Depends on how you balanced it.

Terrible is a subjective point

I didn't say otherwise. Let me rephrase that, I think everything about Red Alert 3 (minus George Takei and David Hasselhoff) was very sub par.

I don't want to play a war game where every female character looks like a Pornstar. Red Alert 2 was campy as hell, yes, but at least Tanya looked a bit better, and acted out her role a bit (that actress wasn't great, but she wasn't quite terrible, either).

@Major Tom: I guess if I were to implement it as you described, the Flamethrower infantry would have to be expensive as hell.

To the contrary, I liked what RA 3 did with the balance. Every single unit in the game had a purpose, and very few of them were truly spammable, namely the Japanese Striker VX chopper and Soviet Twinblade Hind. The rest either required that you use them with the support of other units or focused on their strengths, such as using the Soviet Akula subs as hit and run units to harass enemy outposts (or even their main base, if it's not well defended enough!).

Although some units were very situational, such as the Cryocopter and Spy. The only time a cryo copter worked is it you had 3-4 of them and the enemy forgot about air coverage, and the Spy didn't even manage to fool the AI anymore!

That was its problem. Every unit had a purpose and as such were horridly specialized into being nothing else.

Real world military offensives don't fall apart because you forgot to bring machine gun trucks to deal with infantry. They don't fall apart if you have limited or nonexistent artillery capabilities or SPAAG's. (Though in those cases your capabilities realistically speaking might be painfully limited in a symmetrical war.)

There's a reason why even today a thousand tanks in the open field is pretty damn unstoppable without really well prepared anti-tank defenses (usually ATGM's and other tanks) or air support.

edited 12th Apr '12 4:28:48 AM by MajorTom

But that's the problem in itself: making the game follow the logic of real life, especially within the boundaries often set by the C&C games, often lead to tanks and heavy units becoming unstoppable juggernauts that barely required support.

Of course the real-life counter to that would be a large group of CAS fighters like the A-10 or S-25 bombing them to death from a distance or getting carpet bombed by a B-52, but then that leads to another balance problem, doesn't it?

well, that is what I remember happening in Generals with the American A-10 support ability.

I gave up trying to make logical sense of any RTS a long time ago. By real life logic, The Allies should have steamrolled because they would have mass produced anti-weapon guns, made a land carrier, and won.