David J. Oates

I have to say, I've never been able to beat him as AFG, largely because the design of the map is so against what the AFG needs as to be completely crazy. To be really successful, the AFG needs a lot of space to build his airfields away from each other so they can't all be hit at once, and this map is just too cramped. As an aside, have you seen what happens when you're working on a cramped map and you have to group four airfields together - that is a lot of cash to see go up in flames when your neighbour decides he wants to test his nuke or cluster bomb!

I suspect the answer lies with pathfinders to shut down his assaults, followed by massed long ranged MRLS missiles to knock out his awesome base defences (which are even more evil under PR), or capturing those platforms as 00Nobody suggests, but the fact that there simply isn't enough room for air power to shine really hurts.

One thing is clear - you have to put that nuke down fast - the fact that you can't see the timers on this map is a killer, as you really don't know when it's going to strike - hit the silo or the plants, but shut it down. It's just devastating on such a closed in map where you can't spread your base out - it's done for me several times in conjunction with a paradrop.

Maybe I'll go back and try this one again - this discussion has given me a few ideas to deal with the git. Also, is it just me, or does his voice really grate on the nerves?

David.

That's not insane, try 7 hards all on one team vs...... you.

You know, just out of curiosity, I just tried this - you should actually make it into a forum competition as to who can post up a replay file showing who can last the longest, and how badly people get ripped to shreds.

Literally, this was nuts - I set an eight player map, with myself as laser general on one team versus three tank generals, two airforce generals, a nuke general and a super weapon general.

I was flattened.

Totally and utterly buried.

After a very short amount of time, a virtual avalanche of steel descended onto my base, coupled with a rain of fire and death from what seemed to be the entire US air force. Thanks to the fact that I got a generous infusion of cash from my hastily built supply pad, I managed to crank out enough tanks, defences and Avengers to just about hold my own (not a chance of fighting back,) until several of them got cranky and it started to rain artillery shells, tank drops, nukes and particle cannons. I didn't last long enough to see a cluster bomb - that would have just been the ultimate humiliation.

Shame I didn't bother to save the replay, but for anyone who thinks they're good at this game and who'd like a healthy dose of humility, I'd heartily recommend it.

David.

The GLA are used frequently online and when having very small amounts of money to start. The reason? Rush.

Hmm - never really used them myself - maybe they work well early on, but for me they always seem to fall apart in the long game, as their defences and AA support suck.

I stand by what I said about the US though - the GPS and cluster bomb are what really sets them apart as the side that can kill any other with one strike. Fortunately, Vanguard (bows down with the obligatory "We're not worthy, We're not worthy"), has said that the GPS will be turned into a tech building, which is great news, but on a personal level, I don't think there should be any weapon in the game that should be capable of taking out a command centre or super weapon in one hit - these things are meant to be big and nasty and requiring a serious commitment of resources and firepower to destroy.

Okay if everyone else had this capability then it might be fair, although crazily out of bounds, but the cluster bomb, as it stands, it ridiculously overpowered. A better approach, as the CB is, in current military parlance, an anti-infantry device, would be to give it immense damage potential against infantry and vehicles, but bugger all against buildings. Think about it - it's shrapnel, basically - it rips infantry and undefended vehicles, but what the hell is it going to do against three feet of concrete - nothing! As it is, it rips through bases like paper. which places the US at a significant advantage, as they can just hold the thing until they hear the "Nuclear silo detected" warning, then let it go to remove the problem - there's no "Will it, won't it?" question here - if you set a CB in a particular area, everything is nuked.

Just my pet peeve, but without the CB and GPS, the US would be extremely balanced with the other sides. At the moment, it has a significant advantage.

David.

Just a quick report: - a mere text error, the US hover tank, and a problem with the tank bunker:

1.) The description of the Chinese hacker truck reads that it comes loaded with hackers, but when built it doesn't. I understand that the hackers have been removed as it was just too cheap to buy otherwise, in comparison to a full complement of 8 hackers by themselves, but I don't think the description was updated to reflect this.

2.) The US hover tank that comes out of the re-inforcement pad doesn't respect unit space - I left a pad going on the tank general map for about half an hour and had twenty of the things occupying the same space, on top of each other. I thought it was one tank at first, until I band-box selected it and told it to build a machine gun drone, whereupon a huge cloud of the things flew into the air like I'd kicked over a hornet's nest. They each had to be clicked and told to move to a separate space before I could do anything with them, as they kept getting hung up on each other when I told them to move as a group.

3.) When an unloaded US tank bunker gets damaged slightly, for me it completely disappears. However, it's not destroyed, as if you move a dozer into the region it starts repairs, and when it reaches 100% again, it miraculously re-appears.

Hope this helps,

David.

ETA: Sorry - noticed I'd posted this in the Known bugs and mismatches thread instead of the correct Bugs, mismatches and errors reporting thread about 2 seconds after I posted it.

This will be interesting to see in practice - I'm glad, however, that it will be a tech building production and not side-specific (particularly US specific), as the US is already slightly an overpowered side, thanks in part to owning the only weapon that can sink any command centre or super weapon in one strike (the cluster bomb).

Assigning exo-suits to any specific side would harm the game-balance, I think - particularly the GLA, who are already a side that is probably the least chosen when people play.

David.

ETA: Here's a thought. The tech dozer bay always seems like a bit of an overkill to me, as being able to produce the dozers of any side kind of defeats the object of picking a strategy side in the first place, as the first thing anyone will do is build the "Master side" dozer to get every super weapon.

How about, if it is possible, scaling down the size of the model, to say repair depot / re-inforcement pad size, as it does take up a bit of space on the map, and giving it the option to produce only one type of dozer - one which can build tech buildings. That way, if the delights of the civilian airport or exo-skeleton factory aren't on the current map, then a quick infantry rush can snag you a dozer that can build them (with obvious restrictions, such as making them hideously expensive to do this way). Giving the place high armour / health would ensure that every side has the opportunity to capture it back and get their own tech dozer. You could always incorporate an unlock patch to allow players to play the master side general if they want (I've seen one available that works, but I'm not sure if it works with Raptor).