yes but will there be a replacment for it because heh i spawned them like crazy to make anti tank minefields since robo generals early game options are limited for anti-tank
Suggestions
Started by WARthog, Jan 27 2005 11:08 AM
3930 replies to this topic
#3822
Tomeister
-
- Members
-
- 217 posts
Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:18 PM
Did the nuke general used to have a tank that charged for sometime, the.let out a nuclear blast around it? I saw a trailer of it blowing up a us base.
#3823
Casojin
-
- Project Team
-
- 2,121 posts
Democracy not Dictatorship
- Location:Thailand
- Thinker
Posted 28 March 2012 - 07:15 AM
It's a structure, not a tank. It's called Apocalypse Device.Did the nuke general used to have a tank that charged for sometime, the.let out a nuclear blast around it? I saw a trailer of it blowing up a us base.
CASOJIN
#3824
Alessia
-
- Members
-
- 21 posts
Posted 30 March 2012 - 02:29 PM
I've noticed that usa has very little detection will this be fixed in 008?
and will you be able to see toxin clouds?
and do all gla defenses need to be cloaked? it makes it really hard to find them not to mention not very fair for the other players whose defenses can be blow up by artillery simply because they can be seen. something needs to be done about the defenses or something it's just too easy to break through the visable ones and too hard to see the invisble ones.
is the robo generals spy drone suppose to detect stealth it doesnt
and HOW DO I STOP COMPUTERS FROM BUILDING IN MY BASE!
and will you be able to see toxin clouds?
and do all gla defenses need to be cloaked? it makes it really hard to find them not to mention not very fair for the other players whose defenses can be blow up by artillery simply because they can be seen. something needs to be done about the defenses or something it's just too easy to break through the visable ones and too hard to see the invisble ones.
is the robo generals spy drone suppose to detect stealth it doesnt
and HOW DO I STOP COMPUTERS FROM BUILDING IN MY BASE!
Edited by Alessia, 31 March 2012 - 10:52 PM.
#3825
Guest_SomecChinaman_*
Guest_SomecChinaman_*
-
- Guests
Posted 07 April 2012 - 04:16 PM
GLA defense structures are weak,the camo-netting increases their effectiveness...take for instance stinger sites - you can crush them with antistructure,or antiinfantry weapons,and do it pretty easy...the element of surprise adds a bit to them...as for defense sites - they are only effective against one type of target,so they can be easily dealt with if you use a mixed force (AT positions can be taken out by anything except tanks and light vehicles,quad site with tanks,howitzer site with anything)
and as far as computer buildings in your base go - destroy them when they start building...allies don't mind you destroying their buildings...just like in real warfare
and there is nothing wrong with usa detection...you have a list of detectors on the site,give it a read
and as far as computer buildings in your base go - destroy them when they start building...allies don't mind you destroying their buildings...just like in real warfare
and there is nothing wrong with usa detection...you have a list of detectors on the site,give it a read
#3826
Alessia
-
- Members
-
- 21 posts
Posted 10 April 2012 - 08:07 PM
that's the old stinger sites the new defencsive sites are much more effective
#3827
Tomeister
-
- Members
-
- 217 posts
Posted 18 April 2012 - 09:51 PM
Why don't you add lists of generals powers to your website?
Mod wise- I think you should add a support plane for the Supw gen- very much like the support stealth fighter from shockwave.
Mod wise- I think you should add a support plane for the Supw gen- very much like the support stealth fighter from shockwave.
Edited by Tomeister, 18 April 2012 - 09:55 PM.
#3828
Guest_SomeChinaman_*
Guest_SomeChinaman_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:32 PM
Dunno if this is the right topic,but I want to know,will you do anything with the infantry general's J-10? He seems to me like the lamest unit in the game,or at least lamest aircraft.All he is good for is killing a group of infantry (which is not that needed to the infantry general) and weakening enemy armor groups, he's useless against structures. I appreciate he is different,but the napalm version the tank general has is much more usefull,in my humble opinion.Or maybe I just don't know how to use him properly (in that case,some hint would help)
#3829
predator_bg
-
- Hosted
-
- 2,435 posts
The predator
- Location:Bulgaria
- Projects:Contra
Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:57 PM
Dunno if this is the right topic,but I want to know,will you do anything with the infantry general's J-10? He seems to me like the lamest unit in the game,or at least lamest aircraft.All he is good for is killing a group of infantry (which is not that needed to the infantry general) and weakening enemy armor groups, he's useless against structures. I appreciate he is different,but the napalm version the tank general has is much more usefull,in my humble opinion.Or maybe I just don't know how to use him properly (in that case,some hint would help)
Almost every unit was changed since 007, including infantry general's J-10.
#3830
Guest_SomeChinaman_*
Guest_SomeChinaman_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 April 2012 - 03:58 PM
and the nature of it's change is?
I'm curious
I'm curious
#3831
predator_bg
-
- Hosted
-
- 2,435 posts
The predator
- Location:Bulgaria
- Projects:Contra
Posted 22 April 2012 - 04:06 PM
and the nature of it's change is?
I'm curious
It fires normal missiles and is available at first rank. Effective versus single vehicles (no longer effective vs. groups).
Edited by predator_bg, 22 April 2012 - 04:07 PM.
#3832
GerardoN
-
- New Members
-
- 2 posts
Posted 01 May 2012 - 11:57 PM
The assault general do not have special abilities, but it would be fine if a third world airforce (old fighters, bombers and helicopters from the cold war era) no? If the GLA is equipped with cold war era weapons, they should also have a somewhat effective airforce that can support land units. Well, that's my opinion. Thanks!
#3833
Casojin
-
- Project Team
-
- 2,121 posts
Democracy not Dictatorship
- Location:Thailand
- Thinker
Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:12 AM
Assault Gen used to have an aircraft in previous version but it was removed because the aircraft is not effective at all (since other factions have superior aircraft). Assault Gen strength is artillery (Katyusha, Dana, Rocket Buggy, Missile Silo, Karkardan in 008) plus tunnel (you can send artillery around the map quickly)....they should also have a somewhat effective airforce that can support land units...
CASOJIN
#3834
kkasll
-
- Banned
- 46 posts
Posted 02 May 2012 - 02:40 PM
Well I've just noticed something that really bothered me.. It's annoying to see the when f-22 raptors patrolling the skies other fighter Jets can still hit their targets and get intercepted only after they have shot the target , IMO when raptors are in the skies other jets should not be able to reach thier targets...
#3835
Guest_Fotiadis_*
Guest_Fotiadis_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 June 2012 - 09:16 PM
I recall they neutered income by limiting the number of supply buildings for all forms of game-play, which is a shame as it was always fun to mess around with the AI and amass a massive income and build all the fancy toys of each general, a tactic that does not work against humans (well competent ones anyway), so I have been pondering how to allow myself a means to boost my income without changing the spam-ability of these buildings in tourney modes.
I came up with the idea of upgrading the income rate through purchasable upgrades, upgrades that could easily be banned or restricted in tourney play to put an upper cap on income, and perhaps be either repeatable or simply have more tiers available for casual gamers such as myself.
the USA could upgrade to reduce the call in time on their cargo planes, the Chinese could upgrade the number of garrison slots (which would be a cheap upgrade given the need to pay for new hackers to gather the money), while the GLA could upgrade the money they get per click, or something akin to this anyway.
That way I can still mess around and have fun blowing things up with more money than sense, and tourney mode players will have a hard coded cap on their own income.
I'd also recommend the upgrade be PER BUILDING and anything but cheap.
If we give it a nice simple geometric progression of 1k 2k 4k 8k (8k repeating) per upgrade, you would be forced to decide how much you want the money over new units instead.
I came up with the idea of upgrading the income rate through purchasable upgrades, upgrades that could easily be banned or restricted in tourney play to put an upper cap on income, and perhaps be either repeatable or simply have more tiers available for casual gamers such as myself.
the USA could upgrade to reduce the call in time on their cargo planes, the Chinese could upgrade the number of garrison slots (which would be a cheap upgrade given the need to pay for new hackers to gather the money), while the GLA could upgrade the money they get per click, or something akin to this anyway.
That way I can still mess around and have fun blowing things up with more money than sense, and tourney mode players will have a hard coded cap on their own income.
I'd also recommend the upgrade be PER BUILDING and anything but cheap.
If we give it a nice simple geometric progression of 1k 2k 4k 8k (8k repeating) per upgrade, you would be forced to decide how much you want the money over new units instead.
#3836
Guest_gueste_*
Guest_gueste_*
-
- Guests
Posted 12 June 2012 - 06:04 PM
I recall they neutered income by limiting the number of supply buildings for all forms of game-play, which is a shame as it was always fun to mess around with the AI and amass a massive income and build all the fancy toys of each general, a tactic that does not work against humans (well competent ones anyway), so I have been pondering how to allow myself a means to boost my income without changing the spam-ability of these buildings in tourney modes.
I came up with the idea of upgrading the income rate through purchasable upgrades, upgrades that could easily be banned or restricted in tourney play to put an upper cap on income, and perhaps be either repeatable or simply have more tiers available for casual gamers such as myself.
the USA could upgrade to reduce the call in time on their cargo planes, the Chinese could upgrade the number of garrison slots (which would be a cheap upgrade given the need to pay for new hackers to gather the money), while the GLA could upgrade the money they get per click, or something akin to this anyway.
That way I can still mess around and have fun blowing things up with more money than sense, and tourney mode players will have a hard coded cap on their own income.
I'd also recommend the upgrade be PER BUILDING and anything but cheap.
If we give it a nice simple geometric progression of 1k 2k 4k 8k (8k repeating) per upgrade, you would be forced to decide how much you want the money over new units instead.
no, the are right.
#3837
Guest_gueste_*
Guest_gueste_*
-
- Guests
Posted 12 June 2012 - 06:05 PM
ops, i mean: they are right
#3838
S.Cohen
-
- Members
-
- 29 posts
Posted 16 July 2012 - 10:34 AM
I have several suggestions. I have no idea if the things I that I suggest, already have been suggested before, or already have been changed, so my apologies in advance if that is the case.
1.- I'm having problems as Air Force General. Sure, he's powerful and is probably the most mobile general out there. But the planes constantly need to return to the airfield to re-arm. That generates two issues. The first one is the most obvious one. This general just isn't capable of keeping the pressure on an attack, as the planes constantly have to return to the airfield. Sure, I can use commanches, but they're extremely fragile and you constantly have to babysit them in order to keep them alive; they can't be left alone. Combat chinook? Powerful indeed, but you need to invest a fuckload of money in order for it to be powerful. This general really needs a tier 3 air unit that is heavely armored and can only attack ground units. In the updates I've seen that you guys are planning on giving cyber general such a unit; why not give it to the airforce? Cyber general is already recieving a significant overhaul, what with all the spiders, terminators and fafnir's and all.
The second issue is the guard mode for airplanes. Can planes like the Hornet only be made to target tanks? It's outright silly that a group of hornets tries to take out a single rebel, while there's a whole assault force of tanks moving behind him.Or, a spearhead of F-16's you've sent in guard mode to take out enemy defense, while all they do is target an individual worker, and all of the F-16's get shot down in the proces. Planes should only be able to target those goals they're intended to counter. So an F-16 should only be able to target buildings, while the F-18 should only be able to target tanks, etc. etc. I believe that it was Creator who said that he intends to reduce micro-management as much as possible; wouldn't this idea reduce micro-management for the Airforce general?
On a sidenote, shooting down planes generates waaaay to much experience. Shouldn't this be toned down abit? It's easy to hoard xp when fighting against AFG, especially as infantry general.
2.- This concerns the superweapon general, the particle cannon and the tomahawk storm. Remind me, what exactly is the particle cannon good against? Buildings? I can only take out a single warfactory with it, unless it's an upgraded structure the GLA gets (and it usually fails to destroy the leftover holes) Units? Pfff, the tomahawk storm does a better job than that. Defenses? Tomahawk storm does it better. Now I have two suggestions related to this issue. It's a 'or', not an 'and' by the way.
a.- Make the tomahawk storm more powerful, shift it to tier III, shift the particle cannon to tier I, reduce the particle cannon's power consumption and reload time.
b.- or make the particle cannon more powerful, in particular against buildings. Tomahawk storm for clusters of units, particle cannon for buildings and defenses, ICBM's for everything and blackout for disabling bases over a large area.
The only reason why I would choose a particle cannon over a tomahawk storm, is the space it takes. Other than that, I only built it so I can get acces to better superweapons.
I may have more suggestions in the future, but for now, this'll do.
1.- I'm having problems as Air Force General. Sure, he's powerful and is probably the most mobile general out there. But the planes constantly need to return to the airfield to re-arm. That generates two issues. The first one is the most obvious one. This general just isn't capable of keeping the pressure on an attack, as the planes constantly have to return to the airfield. Sure, I can use commanches, but they're extremely fragile and you constantly have to babysit them in order to keep them alive; they can't be left alone. Combat chinook? Powerful indeed, but you need to invest a fuckload of money in order for it to be powerful. This general really needs a tier 3 air unit that is heavely armored and can only attack ground units. In the updates I've seen that you guys are planning on giving cyber general such a unit; why not give it to the airforce? Cyber general is already recieving a significant overhaul, what with all the spiders, terminators and fafnir's and all.
The second issue is the guard mode for airplanes. Can planes like the Hornet only be made to target tanks? It's outright silly that a group of hornets tries to take out a single rebel, while there's a whole assault force of tanks moving behind him.Or, a spearhead of F-16's you've sent in guard mode to take out enemy defense, while all they do is target an individual worker, and all of the F-16's get shot down in the proces. Planes should only be able to target those goals they're intended to counter. So an F-16 should only be able to target buildings, while the F-18 should only be able to target tanks, etc. etc. I believe that it was Creator who said that he intends to reduce micro-management as much as possible; wouldn't this idea reduce micro-management for the Airforce general?
On a sidenote, shooting down planes generates waaaay to much experience. Shouldn't this be toned down abit? It's easy to hoard xp when fighting against AFG, especially as infantry general.
2.- This concerns the superweapon general, the particle cannon and the tomahawk storm. Remind me, what exactly is the particle cannon good against? Buildings? I can only take out a single warfactory with it, unless it's an upgraded structure the GLA gets (and it usually fails to destroy the leftover holes) Units? Pfff, the tomahawk storm does a better job than that. Defenses? Tomahawk storm does it better. Now I have two suggestions related to this issue. It's a 'or', not an 'and' by the way.
a.- Make the tomahawk storm more powerful, shift it to tier III, shift the particle cannon to tier I, reduce the particle cannon's power consumption and reload time.
b.- or make the particle cannon more powerful, in particular against buildings. Tomahawk storm for clusters of units, particle cannon for buildings and defenses, ICBM's for everything and blackout for disabling bases over a large area.
The only reason why I would choose a particle cannon over a tomahawk storm, is the space it takes. Other than that, I only built it so I can get acces to better superweapons.
I may have more suggestions in the future, but for now, this'll do.
#3839
Casojin
-
- Project Team
-
- 2,121 posts
Democracy not Dictatorship
- Location:Thailand
- Thinker
Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:50 AM
1. AFG adjustment has already been made.I have several suggestions. I have no idea if the things I that I suggest, already have been suggested before, or already have been changed, so my apologies in advance if that is the case.
1.- I'm having problems as Air Force General. Sure, he's powerful and is probably the most mobile general out there. But the planes constantly need to return to the airfield to re-arm. That generates two issues. The first one is the most obvious one. This general just isn't capable of keeping the pressure on an attack, as the planes constantly have to return to the airfield. Sure, I can use commanches, but they're extremely fragile and you constantly have to babysit them in order to keep them alive; they can't be left alone. Combat chinook? Powerful indeed, but you need to invest a fuckload of money in order for it to be powerful. This general really needs a tier 3 air unit that is heavely armored and can only attack ground units. In the updates I've seen that you guys are planning on giving cyber general such a unit; why not give it to the airforce? Cyber general is already recieving a significant overhaul, what with all the spiders, terminators and fafnir's and all.
The second issue is the guard mode for airplanes. Can planes like the Hornet only be made to target tanks? It's outright silly that a group of hornets tries to take out a single rebel, while there's a whole assault force of tanks moving behind him.Or, a spearhead of F-16's you've sent in guard mode to take out enemy defense, while all they do is target an individual worker, and all of the F-16's get shot down in the proces. Planes should only be able to target those goals they're intended to counter. So an F-16 should only be able to target buildings, while the F-18 should only be able to target tanks, etc. etc. I believe that it was Creator who said that he intends to reduce micro-management as much as possible; wouldn't this idea reduce micro-management for the Airforce general?
On a sidenote, shooting down planes generates waaaay to much experience. Shouldn't this be toned down abit? It's easy to hoard xp when fighting against AFG, especially as infantry general.
2.- This concerns the superweapon general, the particle cannon and the tomahawk storm. Remind me, what exactly is the particle cannon good against? Buildings? I can only take out a single warfactory with it, unless it's an upgraded structure the GLA gets (and it usually fails to destroy the leftover holes) Units? Pfff, the tomahawk storm does a better job than that. Defenses? Tomahawk storm does it better. Now I have two suggestions related to this issue. It's a 'or', not an 'and' by the way.
a.- Make the tomahawk storm more powerful, shift it to tier III, shift the particle cannon to tier I, reduce the particle cannon's power consumption and reload time.
b.- or make the particle cannon more powerful, in particular against buildings. Tomahawk storm for clusters of units, particle cannon for buildings and defenses, ICBM's for everything and blackout for disabling bases over a large area.
The only reason why I would choose a particle cannon over a tomahawk storm, is the space it takes. Other than that, I only built it so I can get acces to better superweapons.
I may have more suggestions in the future, but for now, this'll do.
2. Some adjustments are done. USA factions are much stronger now in current Alpha. Some more test is being conducted internally.
Edited by Casojin, 17 July 2012 - 06:52 AM.
CASOJIN
#3840
Guest_mau y ber_*
Guest_mau y ber_*
-
- Guests
Posted 23 July 2012 - 02:37 AM
me and my brother would like some multiplayer mission or campaing ???
???
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
