UprisingJC

It's been a long time since I posted here last time. No idea who the players I knew in MO 3.0 are still around except Mentalmeisters.

I had been away for a long time before I returned. Focused on a 3D FTG - DOA5 Last Round for a long time. Anyway, I'm back.

I've been uploading some videos featuring me completing single-player missions on Mental difficulty.

Currently the vids show the 1st time for me to clear each stage, so it's not likely that I can beat the best time for each of them.

Here's the link to the playlist: https://goo.gl/zyp5Id

https://youtu.be/BT5ahUHgYxM

https://youtu.be/19bKvPn_Peo

https://youtu.be/ObnP4WpJunE

Some messaged me and asked if I would be back to try to play MO competitively. Currently I have no plan for that as it will take some time for me to see through and get accustomed to the changes to the game and new units, structures, maps...etc.  Therefore, I can't promise anything at the moment. Now I'll just try to finish the new missions on mental difficulty, including the coop ones if I can find someone to play with me, first.

It's been a while since I last posted here.

I was busy with my thesis and thus seldom showed up on cncnet.

Just passed the oral presentation for the master's degree and I think I can have more free time before I enlist.

Here're the 3 vids recorded today.

Both jaguar tanks and bulldog tanks have decent speed, but jaguar tanks outclass bulldog tanks in terms of firepower, armor and hitpoints.

Bulldogs have flashbangs but they don't have AoE. What do you think about making it have AoE?

Not that familiar with the quote function. Please allow me to reply with fonts in another color.

 

Speed: Dune riders > Siege cadres = Pyros

Doesn't matter for infantry. Did you know that Duneriders and Libra are supposed to be faster than Marauder (speed 8), yet Marauders are faster?
Speed above 7 has hardly any difference ingame for infantry (only at very long distances). So, 95% of the time, Siege Cadre = Pyro = Dunerider.
 

Okay...

 

Range: Siege cadres >=(only 0.5) Dune riders > Pyros

Unless the unit can attack on move (which no infantry can), 0.5 range difference hardly matters in 9/10 cases. You'd have to place the unit in a very specific position in order for it to benefit from that.

 

That's why I listed ">=".

 

Structure damage: Pyros > Dune riders > Siege cadres

This is how well they really do compared to Pyro and Dunerider (yes! this is the current public version).


If you wondered how they do against ConYards, this is how.


Duneriders are actually the worst anti-structure (slightly worse than Siege Cadres against ConYards)! Maybe when Tyhednus said that they sort of suck, he was right?
 

My bad for saying that dune riders do larger structure damage than siege cadres do, but IMO I still don't think they suck. Their firepower in both killing infantries and damaging structures may not be the highest but considering that they have a long range, their attack has an area of effect, they're amphibious and they can detect cloaked units, they're still cost-efficient. 

 

Infantry killing: Dune riders >(Due to its range) Pyros >>> Siege cadres

Really? Pyro > all. 3 Pyros kill 3 Duneriders (2 Pyros survive, and this is in BR2, where Duneriders are supposed to be more effective!). This is also when they all stand clustered.

 

What if they hit and run? Besides, for most of the time players are not only having 3 of those units, but I should have mentioned this point in advance. 

 

Survivability: Dune riders > Pyros > Siege cadres

Only if you count their amphibious capabilities. Otherwise, Pyro > all (because of hp, which, with their damage, makes them unkillable by T1 and T2 infantry, except Rocketeers).

 

Yes I do count that ability and they can hit and run against Pyros. That's why I listed it like that.

Why do you compare Dunerider to the Siege Cadre? Siege Cadre is anti-structure and anti-infantry to a degree, while Dunerider is the Epsilon counterpart of the SEAL or Ivan, so it is anti-infantry and anti-structure. While both of them are good, they are totally different. Siege Cadre is rather good for spec ops tactics using the Stallion. You can destroy Battle Labs with them in the blink of the eye without worrying about dogs. Problem is that many ppl underestimate the Siege Cadre and I guess none of them used Siege Cadres with Stallion.

I do use siege cadres, but really not much. I use them mostly when my opponents surround his bases with lots of T3 defenses.

As for using them for the anti-infantry purpose, well...

Are dune riders the counterpart of the SEALs and Ivan?

Usually a player may amass more than 5 or 6 dune riders while SEALs and Ivan are not treated in the same way.

I often compare them with pyros and siege cadres.

Siege cadres: long-range anti-structure purpose

Pyros: anti-structure and anti-infantry purposes

Dune riders, long-range anti-structure and anti-infantry purposes

Both siege cadres and dune riders outrange T1 defenses and most of the T1 and T2 infantry units but dune riders are more efficient in dealing with infantries. Dune riders have a range of 7.5, which is only 0.5 shorter than siege cadres', while their weapon does more damage to infantries per shot than siege cadres' does and has area effect. Even SEALs get eliminated by them easily.

The price difference between the 2 units is just 50$ in BR2 and dune riders will receive the following buff:

"Dunerider effectiveness vs infantry increased by 10%, strength increased from 110 to 125"

Dune riders only have flak armor and are vulnerable to dog attacks and siege cadres have plate armor and are immune to dog attacks, but it doesn't really matter. Dune riders have decent speed(9) and are good at dealing with a large number of most of the infantries from a distance. Unless they encounter units like Siegfried, Morales, Mercury(mostly Tanya) IFV, or prism tanks, they won't get eliminated that easily and the units mentioned are T3 units. Dogs get killed before approaching them so it doesn't really matter that dune riders are vulnerable to dog bites.

Pyros can't outrange T1 defenses but they still can take out most of them very quickly unless they encounter a battle bunker garrisoned by a few conscripts and they're also infantry killers.

Siege cadres: 500$ for the range and armor type and being immune to dog bites

Pyros: 400$ for the damage output to infantries and buildings, the weapon with area effect, and more hitpoints(200)

Dune riders: 550$ for the range, damage output to infantries and buildings, the weapon with area effect, and the abilities to detect cloaked units, to be immune to crush and to be amphibious.

Speed: Dune riders > Siege cadres = Pyros

Range: Siege cadres >=(only 0.5) Dune riders > Pyros

Structure damage: Pyros > Dune riders > Siege cadres

ROF: Pyros(45) > Siege cadres(60) > Dune riders(70)

Infantry killing: Dune riders >(Due to its range) Pyros >>> Siege cadres

Survivability: Dune riders > Pyros > Siege cadres

Overall it just seems that dune riders are the most cost-efficient units of all the 3.

I'm here to report something strange.

Vehicles affected by a rage inductor break bridges.

Has this been reported?

Made a file showing the comparions between the T3 units of the 3 sub-factions: U.S, E.A and L.C

I don't have much time today so I only listed 3 of all the sub-factions in this file and I also had some of my own suggestions and opinions in it(Mainly for the U.S faction), FYI.

https://drive.google...QW8&usp=sharing

Haven't posted here for a while.

Gonna post a few videos here.

1.Soviet 9th Mission - Road to Nowhere on Mental Difficulty

Almost got fucked by the Zephyrs.

2.An U.S mirror match with Zaker

I could have been in big trouble at the beginning of the match as I didn't expect that Zaker would send 4 G.Is to occupy the building near my base.

Besides, his paratroopers did make some trouble to me.

3.A 4-man FFA match against demented, lovalmidas and Ultra7

Both lovalmidas and I saved our prepared Nuclear Missile and Lightning storm. I wasn't sure what was on lovalmidas' mind, but I saved my own SW for a long time so as to see what he was gonna do. If he had attacked me with the nuclear missile, I would had retaliated with my lightning storm right after he did that to me.

4.A 4-man FFA match on the game mode: King of the hill

My first time to try this game mode.

This one is also streamed by DoomHammer today.(http://www.twitch.tv...ans/b/498236777, starting at 5:53)

Besides, I just did something cruel to a lion and this was seen by Doomy...

I killed a lion with a Crazy Ivan planting a bomb on it and Doomy just noticed this!

"This is FUCKING CRUEL!"

5.A 4-man FFA match on the game mode: Unholy Alliance

Same, this was also the first time for me try this mode and of course it was also streamed by Doomy.

I didn't do anything special in this match, except Chronoshift + Iron Curtain combo.

(http://www.twitch.tv...ans/b/498236777, starting at 39:25)

Even when RA2/YR were still one of the main popular games, most people only played singleplayer.

Possible reasons are:

1.They either play the game just for fun, and A.Is are challenging enough for them.

2.They don't want to lose. It's just inevitable that beginners have to encounter a certain period of time that they'll lose almost all the matches.

I was also one of those who only played singleplayer. 12 years ago,I hadn't played RA2 online for 1 year until one of my friends known on the Internet asked me to give it a try. Of course I got pwned hard by a lot of people, but I still kept playing multiplayer because I thought it was fun and thus tried to learn how to get better in playing this game. However, NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO PUT TOO MUCH TIME ON GETTING BETTER, BUT THEY ALSO DON'T WANT TO ALWAYS LOSE. THEY JUST WANT TO PLAY THE GAME FOR FUN. You can't blame them as not everyone wants to play games competitively, and no one likes losing. That's why most people only play singleplayer.

3.Mental Omega 3.0, in my opinion, is more than just a mod. I'd treat it as a new game. Units that still exist in MO 3.0 mostly don't act the way they do in vanilla RA2/YR.

An deployed elite G.I can outrange a sentry gun or a pill-box in vanilla RA2/YR, but in MO he can't.

A flak trooper deals with vehicles and structures VERY EFFICIENTLY in MO, but he doesn't in vanilla RA2/YR.

A navy SEAL can take out a conscript squad by himself and destroy a building by detonating just 1 C4 in vanilla RA2/YR, but he even has a hard time dealing with just 4 conscripts by himself and 1 C4 can't destroy almost all the structures.

Even existing units have received a lot of changes in MO, not to mention that there're many new structures, units and of course new maps that need to be learned and it takes some time.

Some people tend to know the game better before going to play multiplayer. Take myself for example, I started playing MO3.0 when it was relased on 11/30 last year, but I hadn't played any online matches until 12/20 or even later.

If people don't want to play online, there's nothing you can do. Just keep playing the game.

4. Mental Omega 3.0 is a new mod, but it's based on Red Alert 2 and its expansion pack: Yuri's revenge and they are BOTH OLD.

Red Alert 2 was released in 2000 October, and Yuri's Revenge in 2001 October. Now it's already 2014. Most people have either turned to other games or stopped playing games and it's hard to try to get most of them back. Well I was one of those who had turned to other games(Dead or Alive, a FTG, just look at my avatar) and decided to get back to play this game with the mod MO 3.0 activated because of having a good impression on Mental Omega 2.0.

I first started playing MO 2.0 in 2008 as one of my friends recommended it to me, and it took me roughly 3 weeks to finish all the missions in it. I just got impressed with how the missions had been designed. They were way more challenging than those in vanilla RA2/YR.  It took me 8 days to find out how to clear the final mission of each faction on hard difficulty.

So I met Speeder a few hours ago for the first time on CnC net and of course had 4 matches(one of them disconnected...) with him.

1st match - 2v2

Speeder played as the United States and took control of this match all the time.

Those Stormchildren kept hunting for my miners, making me unable to just focus on dealing with Ultra7, the Latin Confederation player in this match. The air superiority overwhelmed my team though.

This match lasted 1 hour as I didn't want to surrender that easily even though I had already known that I got no chance to win. Speeder seemed to still have enough funds in the late part of this match while I had no more money to stand against him.

After a while I asked him for an one-on-one match.

I got overwhelmed again LOL.

Speeder just showed up to stand against the opinions about the U.S subfaction being weak. IT'S NOT.

Nicely done Focus Shift. I have finished this mission on Easy and Normal and did not know it was even more chaotic on Mental. Great Mision!

We should punch lovalmidas for making this difficult mission  .

1.First match versus DoomHammer.

I think everyone here knows him.

Before having the match, he asked me how come I only played as Euro Alliance, and then decided to show me what to do if I would like to play as Latin Confederation in the future - Continously harass your enemy 

2.First match versus Petya.

I was foolish enough to have forgotten that Headquarters had all-time-stealth units so I didn't make any cloak-detection units until he sneaked into my base and attacked me with shadow tanks.

3.2v2 match 1

I got overwhelmed by the Soviet player .

4.2v2 match 2

Teamed up with Petya against demented and Lovalmidas - first match.

5.2v2 match 3

Teamed up with Petya against demented and Lovalmidas - second match.

In this video you may see me deploy Siegfried for the first time in online matches.
Check the video at 18:28.

The extra cost is partly due to its Speed, and its anti-infantry capabilities. Consider Qilin vs Brute rush and Abrams vs Brute rush.

 

I won't consider the effects of the Industrial Plant since the Allied has an equivalent that acts almost the same way.

 

I have to say though, the only hope US has against a fully fledged China is to sack its base when the army is away (probably going for yours). You have to pray that you don't run into EMP mines/Eradicators too often. Also, Allied infantry is extremely weak compared to the other factions' infantries (Chrono Legionaires are costly and cannot deal with spam tactics), which adds to the US' weakness.

The U.S features laser weapons, but I somehow feel that Warhawks and Abrams tanks' laser are not that impressive(my own opinion).

Most of the other factions have units that can deal with a large number of infantries efficiently before they approach. This is what the U.S can't do.

Abrams tanks' laser can deal with infantries but I wonder if it can be more efficient in doing this? After all, their laser doesn't cover a decent range unlike nuwa cannons, blizzard tanks, prism tanks...etc

Besides, almost no china player will continue to use Qilin tanks when nuwa cannons are already available to them.

"I won't consider the effects of the Industrial Plant since the Allied has an equivalent that acts almost the same way."

What would that be? Oil Purifier? 

I've just got some opinions about the Allied faction and the United States after having played some matches as the U.S and Euro Alliance online and some studies and tests into them.

Those are just my opinions and I'm listing them here if you don't mind.

Comparison between Allied subfactions

1.Mid-to-long-range ground units(Siege capability)

Pacific Front > Euro Alliance > U.S

--------------------------------------------

P.F - Hailstorm, Zephyr, Blizzard(Mainly for support purpose)

E.A - Prism Tank, Charon Tank

U.S - Basswave, Tanya IFV

2.Anti-infantry capability

Pacific Front > Euro Alliance > U.S

--------------------------------------------

P.F - Hailstorm(if you want), Black Eagle(if you want), Blizzard

E.A - Prism Tank, Thor, Siegfried

U.S - Tanya, Tanya IFV, Abrams, Mercury Strike(Building)

Both P.F and E.A have units that can deal with a large number of infantries well.

U.S also have Mercury Strike and Tanya IFV that can attack multiple units in one shot, but Mercury Strike needs charge and you can only have 1 Tanya IFV on the battlefield at most. Without Mercury things, U.S sucks at dealing with infantries.

Abrams' laser can also kill infantries but they don't cover good distance, which means that infantries are likely to have an opportunity to retaliate.

Basswaves also deals good amount of damage on infantries, but I don't think it's good for this purpose.

Both Abrams and basswaves have one thing in common when it comes to dealing with infantries: Their attacks are "one-to-one".

You can only hurt or eliminate one infantry at most in one shot, while other units like Prism tanks and blizzard tanks can attack multiple units in one shot.

Prism tanks, Thors, Blizzard tanks and even hailstorms are units for multiple purposes, but in my opinion, basswave is almost for destroying buildings and maybe some light-armored vehicles only, but the units mentioned above can also destroy light-armored vehicles easily.

One of the characteristics of the U.S in MO3.0 features precision strikes. So...

1. Is it possible to bring back snipers in skirmish and make them unique to the U.S subfaction? 

E.U and P.F don't need them as they've had excellent tools for the anti-infantry purpose and I think it may help U.S deal with infantries a little bit better and not make it overpowered due to their sluggish rate of fire in MO3.0.

The other characteristic is about laser weapons. Tanya and aeroblazes are really amazing, but Mercury strike and warhawks seem to lack some.

I tried using target painters on some vehicles and them shoot them with the Mercury strike, I still can't eliminate most of them, even light-armored ones like an IFV unless I shoot the beam right upon it. 

As for warhawks, they feature excellent speed and being able to fire on the move, but the laser weapon seems not that good. They mean not much when facing against subfactions with strong anti-air capability such as China because of their paper-like armor that can't bear too much damage.

2.How about enhancing their damage output? I'm not saying that to make them super efficient in damage output, just slight enhancement in it.

I tried a test: Efficiency in killing infantries with a G.I IFV and a SEAL IFV.

I make both IFVs face in the same orientation and put 3 SEALs in front of each of both and the distance between the the IFV and the SEALs for both pairs are identical.

I ordered both IFVs to kill the 2 pairs of the 3 SEALs in front of them simultaneously, and the result was that the SEAL IFV did kill the 3 SEALs faster than the G.I IFV did, but not much difference.

When the SEAL IFV had finished killing all the 3 SEALs, the G.I one almost killed the 3rd SEAL(He got over 50% of his hitpoint taken).

The difference in the efficiency of killing infantries between them is not large, but the cost does.

G.I - 120

SEAL - 700

Compared with original Yuri's Revenge, the SEAL's rate of fire has been significantly reduced, but:

3.Is it possible to make the difference mentioned above more obvious? Either make G.I IFVs less efficient than how they currently are or enhance the rate of fire of the SEAL IFVs'.

What do you think?

Here're the 2 videos featuring 3v3, recorded by myself when playing.

Those 2 matches were also streamed by Zenothist and Doomhammer on Twitch 14 hours ago.

Saved videos can be found here.

http://www.twitch.tv.../pastBroadcasts

Enjoy.