3930 replies to this topic

[Blazin419]

I still think AFG needs another VTOL unit just for the variety. Combat Chinooks do too little damage for the amount of money that you invest it in, and Rah-66 simply doesn't have enough armor to even get close to do any damage. I feel like AFG relies too heavily on jets, and when you're on a map like Defcon 6, you simply don't have enough space in your base to get enough jets out during mid-late game. My hope is to be able to spam VTOL units like I would spam ground units, and make massive escorted drops with Chinooks, while having a couple planes take care of enemy defence buildings before going in.

[dcesarec]

Airforce general now has comanche,combat chinok and pave low...they are good against anything and they are enough.

[sharpghost]

A very interesting factor that could be added into 008 is a handy neutral building. This suggestion is practically in CNC 3 with the neutral buildings that you can capture to train odd Mutant infantry.

In some maps there can be a barracks that trains specialized and tough to kill units that give a slight advantage to whoever captures it. These barracks would only train one or two units that are multipurpose and more expensive than other infantry units. I'm not sure if its possible to further specialize the barracks to show specific units depending on what faction is controlling the structure. I think there should be a script in Worldbuilder that can do this. If there isn't, you can always just make one special unit like a Mercenary or something.

USA:

Paladin Trooper 750$: A heavily armoured trooper armed with a heavy machine gun that can easily tear down enemy infantry. Also has the ability to spray at enemy choppers. Can plant explosive charges (TNT). Range is slightly less that of a regular Ranger. Weak against tanks and anti-infantry vehicles.

China:

Genji Stealth Trooper 750$: Lightly armed and stealthed unless attacking, the Genji stealth trooper can attack enemy infantry at considerable distances with a scoped battle rifle and kill them with a couple of shots. Unable to fire to aircraft, but can plant TNT on enemy structures and vehicles. Very weak against aircraft and vehicles.

GLA:

Rebel Raider 1000$: Armoured with junk salvaged from enemy tanks, the Rebel Raider is armed with a shoulder mounted minigun salvaged from destroyed American Helicopters. Can fire at aircraft. Extremely dangerous against infantry, light vehicles, and aircraft. Cannot plant TNT charges and weapon is weak against structures. Range is that of a normal Rebel.


Universal Unit for the Neutral Barracks:

Mercenary 750$: A gun for hire, the Mercenary is armed with a burst fire rifle and easily takes down small squads of infantry. Able to run faster than most troopers, the Mercenary can plant demo charges that explode with dangerous firepower that is able to take down weak and small structures and any vehicle. Not stealthed and weak against vehicles and aircraft.

[ApOcOlYpS]

Paladin Trooper: I'll bring up what Creator is bound to say: What's the difference between him and Colonel Burton? He can shoot choppers, sure, but that isn't a significant difference. Basically it'd be like allowing you to build 2 heroes. That isn't so much a balance issue as it's a "what's the point?" issue. Why go through the trouble of a new building, new unit and new behaviors to end up with basically what we already have?

Genji: Same idea as above, except you gave a weaker version of Jarmen Kell to China. I can't recall if infantry general has snipers in contra or not, but again, not too much different than what already exists so why add it?

Rebel: I could get behind this, if it didn't sound like the Death Machine from Iron Man 2 (the bigger issue is that he's being recommended for GLA). However, GLA have plenty of anti-infantry firepower, especially with toxins and jarmen kell, and should already be capable against aircraft.

Mercenary: On one hand, sounds powerful because he can kill just about anything. But, he's very fragile for it. I can't imagine him being used much if only because he would be good at base sabotage, but doesn't have the near necessity of stealth.



The issue with the above is you are paying so much in resources for more anti-infantry firepower that most people don't need.

[Casojin]

> Nuke Interceptor
Game mechanic for ground and air units work differently (especially for jet that requires reload).
If you add two weapons to a jet, it will only go back to reload after BOTH weapons are empty.

> Tech building:
Maybe the team could place Boss Gen buildings in some maps for capture.

Edited by Casojin, 30 January 2012 - 02:40 AM.

[Daedalus]

Idea: Dedicated Power Plants

Description: Would add the ability to make power plants power certain structures, and those structures only. Example: One power plant powers 3 patriots, while another powers other random things. The power plant would still have a power limit though, such as the current 10.

In order to make it more fair, however, you should only be able to make a power plant dedicated to things in a certain range. This way, you can't have power plants on one side of the map powering certain defenses on the opposite side of the map.

[ApOcOlYpS]

Don't think that's possible, and it seems to make power more of a liability since destroying specific power plants will remove power from the thing it supports (rather than destroying a power plant possibly having no affect if the player has extra).

[Daedalus]

Don't think that's possible, and it seems to make power more of a liability since destroying specific power plants will remove power from the thing it supports (rather than destroying a power plant possibly having no affect if the player has extra).

Yes, which makes it harder to defend things, effectively reducing the capacity to turtle.

[Casojin]

Idea: Dedicated Power Plants

Description: Would add the ability to make power plants power certain structures, and those structures only. Example: One power plant powers 3 patriots, while another powers other random things. The power plant would still have a power limit though, such as the current 10.

In order to make it more fair, however, you should only be able to make a power plant dedicated to things in a certain range. This way, you can't have power plants on one side of the map powering certain defenses on the opposite side of the map.

It's just not possible with ZH code limitation.

[S.Cohen]

I think Blazin419 has a very good point here. The Airforce general has a significant advantage early in the game and can still punch any other general in the face at rank 3, but there are two issues that I believe Blazin419 adressed properly in an other thread.

1.- You need a significant amount of room to store all your aircraft, and on some maps, and especially in team-games, there simply isn't enough room to build more than, say, 3 airfields.
2.- You cannot really push the offensive as airforce general. That isn't really a problem in the beginning, because you can trust on your ground units, commanches and hit-and-run jets do handle any enemy combatant, but later in the game, it becomes kinda nasty that the only thing you can possibly do is use hit-and-run tactics with your aircraft.

Commanches are reasonable, yes, but they are extremely fragile and not THAT good at countering heavier armour. Combat Chinooks? They are nice, but again, not very strong and extremely vulnerable to enemy interceptors. Plus, a single C-chinook filled with infantry is a significant investment, so not exactly something that you can afford at any given moment. The Pave Low helicopter sounds like an extremely nice addon for the USAF, but by the looks of it, it is basically a tomahawk launcher on rotors. Not exactly a units that can help you push the offensive.

So giving the Nemesis gunship (or any other VTOL unit, or something comparable/suitable for the USAF at the very least!) isn't that much asked I think. You won't hear me say that USAF is underpowered, but it lacks consistent, offensive cepabilities that all other generals do have.

[sharpghost]

Paladin Trooper: I'll bring up what Creator is bound to say: What's the difference between him and Colonel Burton? He can shoot choppers, sure, but that isn't a significant difference. Basically it'd be like allowing you to build 2 heroes. That isn't so much a balance issue as it's a "what's the point?" issue. Why go through the trouble of a new building, new unit and new behaviors to end up with basically what we already have?

Genji: Same idea as above, except you gave a weaker version of Jarmen Kell to China. I can't recall if infantry general has snipers in contra or not, but again, not too much different than what already exists so why add it?

Rebel: I could get behind this, if it didn't sound like the Death Machine from Iron Man 2 (the bigger issue is that he's being recommended for GLA). However, GLA have plenty of anti-infantry firepower, especially with toxins and jarmen kell, and should already be capable against aircraft.

Mercenary: On one hand, sounds powerful because he can kill just about anything. But, he's very fragile for it. I can't imagine him being used much if only because he would be good at base sabotage, but doesn't have the near necessity of stealth.



The issue with the above is you are paying so much in resources for more anti-infantry firepower that most people don't need.

The specialized faction units were just suggestions, but the purpose of the structure is to buff up the infantry prior to Rank 3 to give whoever controls the barracks a tactical advantage against the enemy. I know China Infantry has snipers and that USA has Burton to plant charges, but they aren't accessible until Rank 5 and Rank 3 respectively in 007.

Really the point I was trying to make is that a neutral barracks or Battle Lab (already in the game [inactive and used primarily for script triggers]) should be able to be captured that gives a player a tactical advantage by giving access to a versatile infantry unit that can either sabotage or combat all enemy unit types at a hefty price for infantry.

[dcesarec]

Paladin Trooper: I'll bring up what Creator is bound to say: What's the difference between him and Colonel Burton? He can shoot choppers, sure, but that isn't a significant difference. Basically it'd be like allowing you to build 2 heroes. That isn't so much a balance issue as it's a "what's the point?" issue. Why go through the trouble of a new building, new unit and new behaviors to end up with basically what we already have?

Genji: Same idea as above, except you gave a weaker version of Jarmen Kell to China. I can't recall if infantry general has snipers in contra or not, but again, not too much different than what already exists so why add it?

Rebel: I could get behind this, if it didn't sound like the Death Machine from Iron Man 2 (the bigger issue is that he's being recommended for GLA). However, GLA have plenty of anti-infantry firepower, especially with toxins and jarmen kell, and should already be capable against aircraft.

Mercenary: On one hand, sounds powerful because he can kill just about anything. But, he's very fragile for it. I can't imagine him being used much if only because he would be good at base sabotage, but doesn't have the near necessity of stealth.



The issue with the above is you are paying so much in resources for more anti-infantry firepower that most people don't need.

The specialized faction units were just suggestions, but the purpose of the structure is to buff up the infantry prior to Rank 3 to give whoever controls the barracks a tactical advantage against the enemy. I know China Infantry has snipers and that USA has Burton to plant charges, but they aren't accessible until Rank 5 and Rank 3 respectively in 007.

Really the point I was trying to make is that a neutral barracks or Battle Lab (already in the game [inactive and used primarily for script triggers]) should be able to be captured that gives a player a tactical advantage by giving access to a versatile infantry unit that can either sabotage or combat all enemy unit types at a hefty price for infantry.

Maybe, in near future we will discuss it (because its not that bad idea). But currently, we have hands full with new models and ideas, really. Our work is scheduled for next few weeks even now. Then, we will see do we have gaps which could be filled with another new ideas.

[Anok]

Hi All modder & admin;

Some player use maphack even for play Contra 007, the maphack is come with file d3d8.dll.
My suggestion Developer must add file d3d8.dll with something that you think suit with it.
This will avoid of using mapHack that coz game mismatch when 1 user not have it.
Then the balance & fun will come again.

(I think maphacker will hate this)

Edited by Anok, 05 February 2012 - 04:37 AM.

[Daedalus]

What about Neutron warheads for the Nuke Storm?

[ROFLsaucecopternot]

What about Neutron warheads for the Nuke Storm?

isnt that overkill to the best superweapon in the game ? lol

[Casojin]

What about Neutron warheads for the Nuke Storm?

isnt that overkill to the best superweapon in the game ? lol

I prefer explosive power of the Nuke blast. No need to kill their vehicle pilots and leave their base alone while I can easily destroy it.

[Creator]

What about Neutron warheads for the Nuke Storm?

Useless. Was tested already.

[Madin]

Hmm... the loss of the American defence turrets, I understand why it was done, but the lack of a satisfactory defence for a race who rely more on expensive infantry, expensive tanks, and heavy weapon turrets leaves much to be desired to prevent early game raiding.

I was pondering on it, and came up with a generalised solution that would deal with such issues in a manner similar to Chinese mines, while offering both anti-tank and anti-infantry options.

Give buildings the ability to build 'Guard Infantry' (akin to drones, just as land infantry instead) with doubled defence vrs flames, flash-bangs and toxins etc. This could give an active and effective deterrent while not offering massive benefits. Pick either a ranger with an anti-infantry machine-gun, or your rocket launcher to protect against tanks, and ONLY the one of them. If you want to steal american buildings you can, just murder their Guards and hey presto, ease of access.
I am also tempted to suggest (because infantry AI is poorer than drone AI) that the infantry be automatically rebuilt (taking maybe 2 minutes from the time they die? Or perhaps true autobuilding, so when they 'time out' they run into the building and out runs a new guy for his turn standing Guard ?) akin to mines, if we do this, keep their cost to be 100-120% of normal price, otherwise a discount for these uncontrollable infantry with no possible offensive potential might be more suitable.

The way I see this working with auto-replacement is simple: you choose what kind of infantry you want, and it becomes a building upgrade (think overlord/helix upgrades), preventing the alternative, and giving you a single guard for the cost of the man. Actual Build time would be low (maybe double barracks timing) allowing a player to react to assaults with moderate time-frame, meaning a player assaulting an American base would have to anticipate and prepare for such actions before they storm the base, while American players would have the choice of sinking a large quantity of cash into infantry for defence without any possible utility for offence potential (much like Chinese mines)
In turn, the attacking player (with penalties to 'pure anti infantry' weapons hence half damage) with the required abilities can storm the base, murder the guards and capture/attack the buildings for a long time with impunity, although if they take too long they will have to deal with replacements spawning under their feet.
Meanwhile, things like toxin bombs will kill the guards very quickly, but they are replaced at no cost at a later time, opening a window of opportunity with say sneak attacks or similar.
This would reduce be a means that American forces can reduce their risk against rushes, and other timing attacks (such as power down situations) while still allowing a decent player the ability to steam-roll without much risk.

Using this solution an American base will always have a standing patrol of uncontrollable 'infantry' for protection purposes, but their numbers are relatively low (better to spend your money elsewhere), and their power similarly dispersed preventing the massive benefit that each building previously had - which was effectively a rocket launching hummer turret!

Play Contra 003 to find out why your idea was used, then eventually rejected.

[Creator]

Give buildings the ability to build 'Guard Infantry' (akin to drones, just as land infantry instead)

Was implemented in ealy versions of Contra. It was very glitchy because of Generals engine features. Removed.