6 replies to this topic

[feillyne]

Your suggestions how to make ASM more "realistic", and let us not be limited only to balance changes, but we should also consider units and whatnots.

Lately I've received some feedback from a compatriot who pointed out uselessness of war bears on the battlefield, i.e. they wouldn't be able to touch a tank, even if they'd be mutated/enhanced ones. ;-P What do you think? Should they be taken out completely ouf of the mod?


The latest plan was to make artillery inaccurate, but have cell range damage. Would be that imbalanced?

[some_weirdGuy]

Realistic =/= fun or balanced.

I say forget realism and as long as its cool, fun, and works well, leave it.

[feillyne]

Hmm, sometimes realism doesn't strike fun out.

BTW, the problem of infantry incapable of destroying any buildings at all is fixed now. Nevertheless, it takes a great deal of time to destroy any buildings with only infantry (unless they have some nasty fireworks ^^).

[Dregan]

I think alittle realism in RA2 is a good thing since its is clearly over the top from the start, It will become more reflective of RA for example. I think there will still be alot of fun to be had as long as the balance is right.

[Zetsumei]

Your suggestions how to make ASM more "realistic", and let us not be limited only to balance changes, but we should also consider units and whatnots.

Lately I've received some feedback from a compatriot who pointed out uselessness of war bears on the battlefield, i.e. they wouldn't be able to touch a tank, even if they'd be mutated/enhanced ones. ;-P What do you think? Should they be taken out completely ouf of the mod?


The latest plan was to make artillery inaccurate, but have cell range damage. Would be that imbalanced?

That might not be hard after seeing how tanks are now impenetrable to gunfire, but you'd have to go over some things that have been added to the game world.

1) Let's take the allies and their chrono devices for example. They can transport units at long distances in mere seconds. The Soviets used the same tech for Crazy Ivan (Chrono Ivan) which means they have basic info about such devices. In other words if a unit can simply vanish teporting around the map then why not ammunition for the tanks? It's frustrating sometimes when a tank can't shoot anymore as more units just keep incoming.

2) The planes have... questionable ammunition. 1 missile is wayyy too little for modern aircraft. Let's take a look at the Soviet M.I.G.



It's armaments show that it's got 4 missiles + 1 bomb and most likely 2x cannons similar to the M61 Vulcan. Probably in the openings behind the cockpit.

In order to keep things realistic you'd need to make more then 1 fairing mode - similar to the Apocalypse Tank that can shoot at both ground and air targets. In the M.I.G. and Harrier/Black Eagle case it should be - Gatling cannons to take down enemy infantry and other units that are not armored well and missiles for tanks and heavier units like the Fortress.

Let's see another plane now. The Harrier.



It surely can carry a lot more then 4 missiles - about 6 as you can see. But it's surely not as advanced as the M.I.G. and it's armaments seem much smaller with less firepower.

And finally the Black Eagle.



Certainly like the M.I.G. it is a very advanced fighter but you can only see 4 missiles attached to it's wings just like the one Soviet aircraft.

Since the world in Red Alert is a bit different then hours 1 rocket might not be enough to destroy a tank. I propose the following solution.

- All planes have cannons.
- Harriers have6 rockets, but much more worse then the ones in the Black Eagles and the M.I.G. fighters. They need 2 to take out 1 standard Soviet tank or all 6 to take out a Apocalypse tank, but that should be problematic since those tanks should be able to defend themselves quite well. Per say 2 rockets shot from that tank should destroy a Harrier and 4 to take out a M.I.G. or Black Eagle. After all it is the most powerful land unit in the game. Perhaps it's price for building should be raised. Anyway a Harrier should be able to destroy 3 standard tanks.
- Migs and Black Eagles have 4 rockets but they are better with more firepower so 1 rocket per tank in all those planes should destroy 4 tanks.

The planes should also attack by turning around and circling in the air around the target instead of just stopping in one place or moving slightly left and right while fairing. It's easier to shoot a stationary target then a moving one. Perhaps make the anti air turrets and rockets miss them sometimes?

I don't know if all that is possible but that should be realistic and still sticking to the game world.

3) As for the tanks. The Russians do have a few interesting constructions in today's world like the T-90 with it's 125mm cannon (5mm more then the Abrams) which is a pretty advanced tank, but I still think the American constructions would be equally deadly if not more. As far as I know not even 1 Abrams was destroyed so far when hit from another tank. So due to the smaller size I believe that the Grizzly Battle Tank should be faster then the Rhino tank while at the same time having similar firepower - slightly lower then Rhino and the same durability/armor. So the Rhino would have a little more firepower, but slower movement + a bit higher cost.

Also the general firepower of tanks should be higher and they should like in real life take out people with ease thanks to the use of the main cannon and machine guns 1 shot 1 or 2 kills + a few wounded not to mention machine-gun fire. Which means they should be able to damage helicopters also but not planes.

The Tesla Tank should practically 1 or 2 or 3 shot everything in it's way from a close distance. People 1 shot, tanks 2 shot, heavy tanks and fortresses 3 shots, but no area of effect damage - just single target like it was because it's hard for lightning to travel from one target to another when the units are not so close and it's short range should be a disadvantage. Besides it gives the prism tech a lot of uniqueness.

Actually why make the sides similar? Each should have a set of advantages and disadvantages.

Mirage Tank - very similar to the Abrams from RL + the ability to cloak itself. That unit should have the second best armor in the game for tanks and the third best firepower with more range then the Rhino or Grizzly. Great for both assaults and traps. Also capable of shooting down helicopters and obliterating soldiers with a machine gun.

Prism Tank - shouldn't shoot down helicopters, but it should have a heavy 2cond best firepower and a long rage - unfortunately low armor and could easily be destroyed when a tank gets close to it. A single shot from it should take down at least half of a Rhino's HP and at the same time wound a few other units around it.

I just realized I could just go one and one about this so I guess I could make a list first and think about everything carefully or just launch TibEd and provide you with a file containing the changes.

I just don't know if it would be possible to add the commando like units on the Soviet side equipped with HK's like the ones they currently have.



The last one is a HK-74 the Russian hero has the 47 version.

Edited by Zetsumei, 29 November 2009 - 10:27 AM.

[feillyne]

Some of this stuff is fairly possible, the rest depends on hardcoding, i.e. it isn't possible, at least not so easily.

I'll rethink "firing modes", weapons (+ ammo).

Mirage Tank was overpowered in vanilla RA2, camouflaged, couldn't be targeted when hidden (YR changed that), also, very capable of destroying anything, especially infantry. Therefore, it shouldn't have any anti-infantry guns/cannons, but I don't see any arguments against buffing regular tanks with some.
But it'll involve decreasing infantry costs even more. Also some resizing of them would be necessary to make them look 'realer', more real/realistic.

Hmm, right, Prism Tank should have longer fire range, but it'd require decreasing fire rate. Nothing for free, you know. :-) You always pay at least with your time if not cash. :-)

So Tesla Tanks and various aircraft properties may change.

Edited by feillyne, 02 December 2009 - 02:23 PM.

[Allied General]

You can make the most difference by editing the vs %

A lot of weapons for example are 100% vs inf, 50% if their prone.

By reducing the % to lower values, it can appear to make these troops seem tougher, without having to give ridicilous amounts of HP.

WW only did that for one example brutes/shock troopers vs units firing [AP] warheads

Its also easier to edit warheads then every units Strength value.


You can also consider giving fighters "sharpnel" weapons i.e. prism tank logic but more more balanced.

Just don't make RCS = inf die in one shot.

Because in real war scenarios for example WWII Berlin infantry take objectives whilst vehicles hold/break lines of defence and aircraft/navy as support