178 replies to this topic

[Divine]

Nautilus will probably a great addition to the Epsilon navy. They needed a heavier anti naval unit. I question why it needs to be a sub, though. Epsilon now has 4 submerged units and one 'ship.'

Mission additions yay! Lizard Brain sounds like a Scorpion Cell mission. And Dance of Blood. *heavy breathing* Give me Yuri's island! Other missions sound interesting, too. As always.

Well it's kinda logical, if it was a surface ship, it couldn't move together with other Epsilon naval units without giving away the whole fleet's position.

[Solais]

I personally welcome the naval expansion. One thing I really loved in RA3 was its focus on naval and amphibious assaults, including building bases on water.

[Hardric62]

And one of the things I liked the less was the fact Japan couldn't have an air force without ground vehicles production. Still, the naval aspect of the game was good.

[XoGamer]

I personally welcome the naval expansion. One thing I really loved in RA3 was its focus on naval and amphibious assaults, including building bases on water.

 

WE NEED MORE NAVY

~

RA3 did this amazingly well, MO has the capacity to introduce naval defences and buildings including more navy units and unique navy units but it isn't really being taken to it's full potential.

 

If possible, I really think a buff is need for the Naval Shipyard's health cos they do so easily to absolutely everything, or introduce some kind of naval defence.

[Death_Kitty]

the thing that made RA3 navy good was that the water was an utterly unavoidable truth of the game: expanding required naval control. no questions asked. that and amphibious assaults were possible, due to the LARGE pool of amphibious transports/units. Here? Transport craft are finicky, slow, hard to micro and annoying to actually use. that should hold more of everything (imo)

[Solais]

I wonder if it's possible to make "deep ocean" submarines. And by that I mean, "driller" naval units.

[Flandre]

I personally welcome the naval expansion. One thing I really loved in RA3 was its focus on naval and amphibious assaults, including building bases on water.

That's the reason why it become way to complicated...

 

Then again, I do wish that there mission in other parts of the world such as Asia or in the pacific. 

[Solais]

RA3 complicated? I thought it was disliked because it was too simplified.

[Bernadiroe]

Hopefully there will be naval defenses in the future updates.

 

Maybe with hover engine on the defense structures (because it kinda seems silly building a pillar from the bottom of the ocean to the surface just for 1x1 tile of defense structure) or upgrades that can be attached to the Naval Shipyard so it can have various ways of defending itself.

 

 

I wonder if it's possible to make "deep ocean" submarines. And by that I mean, "driller" naval units.

 

That might be a cool addition for naval units, sort of like deep sea ICBM submarines. Complete stealth, targetable projectile, 80 range navy artillery anyone? (Build limit 1, of course)

[Handepsilon]

RA3 complicated? I thought it was disliked because it was too simplified.

Probably due to the extra abilities everyone gets

[XoGamer]

I thought it was too disliked cos it had too much anime and robots and it all looked like cartoonish and silly and was kinda overboard with their stereotypes but idk

[X1Destroy]

RA 3 was dislike alots because of the cartoonish graphic and the toyish unit designs (ex:hammer tank). It have a much better gameplay compared to previous games IMO, but the game play at snail pace with much fewer units and limited resources. It feels more like generals than a RA game.

[DarkEmblem]

The game was mostly disliked due to the style of Economy management (no ore), hands down.

[Handepsilon]

let's face it. RA3 brings combos of things that people don't like, some disliked more than others. On the flip side there are concepts which we do like. I honestly like the part where it tries to emphasize naval side of RTS to be on even ground with the land side

[CLAlstar]

Imho it was more balanced than any other C&C and units there had their uses in any part of the game.

[Solais]

Have to say, I never exactly understood why people didn't like RA3 that much. Yes, I have my personal grievances with it as well (it went a little TOO silly both in some designs and in the cutscenes, using time travel as a story plot yet again just feels wrong (especially how it invalidates RA2), too many "fanservice babes", not that many units as RA2, 30fps limit makes the game feel like it's in slowmo), but I think it was still one of the better C&C games with a lot of unique ideas, focus on navy, beautiful water graphics, and, to be really really honest, I'm actually fine with the lack of ore fields. Sure, it's a series staple, but considering that C&C never managed to fix the dumb AI of the harvesters, it was the second best solution to limit their idiocy.

Edited by Solais, 14 February 2017 - 05:00 PM.

[Speeder]

It was ugly in the first place.

[Solais]

Have to disagree there, I think it is quite pretty, especially the water.

[0freeicecream]

Water's gorgeous, but then you look at the soviets *shudder*.  Allies are alright visual design-wise, 

 

I actually hadn't played before it until very recently, it kinda felt like I was playing a very different game from the other C&C games IMO (I haven't played 4, so don't start).  It feels like it focuses too heavily on micro and hard counters for my tastes, and I'd imagine that's what put others off.

[Handepsilon]

Soviet in RA 3 are clowns. They at least always have a ridiculous quote and something for us to laugh at

There's also that cel-shade selection for higher graphic settings (doesn't show up for lower settings) like, what are those for anyways? Like selection circle wasn't enough

Edited by Handepsilon, 15 February 2017 - 03:29 AM.