A question about Infantry units.

[John Chi]

Will an infantry unit be an individual soldier or a squad or soldiers? It would be cool if infantry were like in Dawn of War in that if u clicked on one soldier, 3 or more are automatically selected as one unit or squad. I think this is the way all infantry units in an RTS should go, much easier to control them this way and it's also realistic since infantry always fights in a group.

[nastykiller]

I agree to that because in C&C Generals it got really messy when i had tons and tons of infantry. Also i suggest you allow tanks to run over the infantry just like Red Alert :) that will make the game more realistic.

[AgmLauncher]

I hope these guys dont TOUCH squads. What's the point of having squads of infantry when you click on it as one single entity? It's just there to make it look pretty and it's really annoying to micro tbh. I prefer small tactical armies of individual units, it's better for micromanagement purposes.

[nastykiller]

hmmm.... thats right but the only thing is wat if u mass them (wat i always do)? won't tat be a bit too messy?

[AgmLauncher]

Well technically that's not how you're supposed to play an RTS game, at least on a competitive level. When you're up against a player of equal skill and you're both playing as aggressively as possible to gain map control and therefore more resources, you'll be losing units and taking his. There is no time to sit around and mass units really. Besides you ought to be mixing them with vehicles. It's all about unit mixing. Each unit, if designed properly, will have a unique purpose and function to deal with particular situations. Use of the proper units in those situations will be what gives you a win. Infantry massing wont get you very far, nor SHOULD massing of any other unit. If the game is designed well, you shouldnt be able to just spam nothing but Abrams tanks as rocket soldiers and various other anti-tank weapons will own them and they wont do much damage in turn.

It's really all about how much experience Eugene Systems has in balancing an RTS game and how much support they are willing to give it. If you're interested in infantry tactics and squads, I recommend playing Dawn of War or Battle for Middle earth. Both are very good games in that respect.

[Cymru]

please please please no squads please please please.

[nastykiller]

true... u got the point. and btw i've played dawn of war and i think squad thing is pretty good since the game is mainly played with infantry anyways (at least tahts how i play it).

[Cymru]

Squads suck so much though : - /

It is basicly 1 more expensive unit that loses firepower as it loses health.

TBH I would prefer my 5 cheap units that I can micro to let them live.

You can micro squads, but if one is gonna die and you pull it back, that is a lot more than just one man.

Squads = bad idea.

[Cymru]

SS shows no squads :D
http://www.worthplaying.com/preview/actofwar/ActofWar_44.jpg
http://www.worthplaying.com/preview/actofwar/actofwar_741101HR.jpg

[Silver Hawk]

Squads would be fine only in units that Op. as a unit and then only 2 man teams, such as a Sniper-Spotter Team. Squad/Platoon units for normal soldiers would lead to the Meat Grinder sydrome and this game promotes the value of each indiviual soldier. Though I believe that infantry shouldn't be granted any immunity to weapons that fire projectiles larger then their leg, Blitzkrieg II TC for C&C Generals does this perfectly.

The AT Troops are still lethal to Tanks should they get the jump on them in a Urban or Forest setting, but if the Tank catches the Trooper out in the open the Tank greases the poor soul with some 76mm justice (the Round to kill average is about 2-3 since WW2 tanks weren't know for their flawless barrel design and the fact that a soldier is a very small target)

P.S. : Nice to see you again, AGM Launcher, I assume that you left the EA C&C General boards the same time I did, you might not remember me, but my handle there was Crusader26 or something like that. (I commented a lot on the Rods of God Super Weapon and the viablility of Tank Armor that could deflect or disperse incoming LASER energy.)

[phoenixstar]

Originally posted by Silver Hawk

(I commented a lot on the Rods of God Super Weapon and the viablility of Tank Armor that could deflect or disperse incoming LASER energy.) [/B]


Rods of god super weapon, yeah that would be a nice one to see here in action with these graphics and particle effects

I'm sure if they've got Dale Brown on their staff, they should know about this one.

[Remote]

There should be no squads unless you select the " individaul " units of any kind of your likeing and assign them to a hot key createing a team or so called " squad " just like C&C. If you were to give me 5 guys to micromanage verses your 1 squad of 5 men as 1 whole unit on its own. That squad would be lost. With me only suffering minor wounds. Worst case senario i'd suffer 1 maybe 2 casulties. Leaving me with 3 to 4 men to carry out odjectives while waiting for reinforcements. Squads and massing are a rediculous waste of life and resoucres and lack any real tactics. Pesonaily I could always do more with less. Massing hords is a perfect exsample of old mindless barbaric ways. Ever see the that movie ( The Patriot ) those old wars between the north and south those poor bast**ds lol lining up to get shot like that. Dont ever forget the value of one man or woman on the battle field cause its that one man or woman that operates that humvee, tank, jet, bomber or chopper that same one who plants the victroy flag in conquered ground. With out that " indivdaul " none of those things are possible.


P.S. Not only dose massing lack tactics. It also depresiates the look, qulity and over all play of the game. witch brings me to ( Resource Gathering ) view my opion on that topic in that topic

P.S.S. Long Live the Fighters.


Called in when things go bad.

((( Remote Out )))

[AgmLauncher]

Squads are just weird as far as RTS games are concerned. I dont see any significant design advantage or difference to squads as opposed to individual units. Looking at squads from the point of "controlable entities" will illustrate what I mean.

The way most games have implemented squads, have done so by making a group of 5 or 10 guys selectable as if it were ONE unit. Therefore from a micromanagement standpoint, controling a squad or controling a single unit is no different. So I must ask, in this respect, what is the point? It would seem as if it has more to do with the visual aspect of the game rather than gameplay. As you mentioned, people like masses of units, which is actually just stupid. They equate masses of units with enhanced strategy/tactics but that's not the case whatsoever. The more units you have, the LESS tactical/strategic control you can have over them. It becomes inefficient. But since squads condense the control of lots of units to that of a handful of "controlable entities", the whole notion that there is more stuff to be doing, more strategic decisions to be made with lots of units is a complete contradiction. The fact of the matter is that squads are unnecessary graphical enhancements that actually tend to limit your ability to apply precise control to your force.

Granted you can do stuff with squads that you cant do with normal units, such as regenerate guys in the middle of battle, offer bonuses, attach one type of squad to another to form a combo, make formations with the squad etc. But you can do all that with individual units while giving the player the option of more precise control of individual units.

IMO Generals implemented a PERFECT squad system in the form of China. If you put 5 or more infantry/battlemaster tanks together in a tight group, they would gain a horde bonus, which gave them a faster rate of fire. You could still produce just one tank hunter if you needed to deal with say, a dozer building a patriot near your supply, but you also had the option of gaining a ROF bonus by making 5 THs and sticking them close together. Then when you were attacking, if you had say, 2 tanks you wanted to kill. You could direct 2 THs to fire at one, and 3 THs to fire at the other. That way if the tanks were trying to run you over, you could kill both before they got close enough. Sometimes having all 5 fire at one would allow another tank to get close enough to run you over. It's little instances of maximizing your firepower in the most efficient way possible that made Generals fun to play. Squads take away the notion of maximizing and efficiently using firepower. And since you can get squad-like bonuses without forced squads, then what is the point to games like BFME and DoW that use squads? It's all graphics, and gameplay comes before graphics.

[Cymru]

I'd love to see a kind of "Horde Bonus" in AoW like China's one in Gens.

[nastykiller]

I think they should allow a button that u can attach individual units together to form a squad. I still like the idea of making squads because then u can control a bunch at a time. of course it is better to have individuals sometimes so make another button which makes them seperate when you want to. That will satisfy the need for both squads and individuals

[AgmLauncher]

But then you would need to make some sort of significant bonus for attaching the squads together to give it some concrete advantage over having the units close together, but not attached. And then if you do that, then it might be the "norm" to always group your units together and attach them as squads because they're so much better that way, and then you start down the path of "well if they're so much better that way, why not just make them start that way" and then you're back into the whole squad based RTS thing.

Perhaps if putting them in a squad gave them some distinct disadvantages. Squads should move slower than individual units, and maybe have more vulnerability to frag grenades as squads normally do. But then while attached, the units gain a horde bonus of sorts that makes them fire faster and with more lethality or something.

[Remote]

I disagree with horde bonuses and hordes in general. RTS games need to abandon this horde idea. I've always been a modern type war fair gamer. that means as close to real life vehicals, Infantry etc. Most importantly real life possiblities and real life physics. I dont mind some future/ fictional ideas as long as they follow most real life possibtities and laws of physics. I think hordes and horde bonuse are a lack of creativty that when you cant figure out another way to balance teams other then to give a horde bonus well its just lame and false. Your not ever gona get 5 real life M1 Abrams together then start fireing and moving faster or even flying for that matter. There is a good exsample of a fictional unit or idea. C&C's tomahawk missle tank not a real vehical but looks good and makes sence. Horde bonuses and flying repair drones armed with machine guns are a bit far feched. Personaly I think RTS games should take existing vehicals, Infantry and give them more selectable options. Like in C&C lets take ( Burton ) for exsample when you select him he has a # of action option windows from a knife attack to planting a timed or remote demo charge. RTS's should follow more on the lines of this idea for ever unit like the M1 Abrams could switch from its cannon to a little man coming out of its hatch and fireing a 50 cal machine gun to protect its self from infantry. That way you can do more with less. Eliminating the need for a horde. heres another exsample a rocket launcher man could have a second option like turning into a 1 man mortor crew. Rockets for jets and tanks mortors for anti infantry. Here an idea about C&C I didnt like though how all US infantry could up grade to flash bang launchers. I think something like that should only be givin to hero's like ( Burton ) or special units only. Making him or them valuable for special operations or supporting standard troops in any situation. See hordes are created by lack of options on units but at the same time you dont want to make a unit to powerful cause then you create an intimidation factor make the need for hordes again. OMG let me put a close to this book. LATER Gamers.

Called in when things go bad.

((( Remote Out )))

[Warhawk88]

I think that they should make it an option to assemble units into squads. For example, like in CnC Generals, you could assign any 2 or more units into a group. It would be cool if you could assign infantry into a group, but also have them stick together like in "Panzers" or "LoTR BFME." It would be really awsome too if the infantry were able to deploy different M.O.U.T. tactics , that way infantry battle could be more intense and strategic. Another thing that would be awsome would be different types or styles of game play. For example, in "Yuri's Revenge", the expansion for RA2, their was an option called, "Meat Grinder." This option made it so that there were only infantry units allowed during a match. The game would be very awsome if it different types of game play styles, that way people wont just get bored of the usual, "blow up all the buildings and units" routine.

[Warhawk88]

lol, srry guys, i just noticed some of you guys already said what i said. i was too lazy to read all the pages.

[nastykiller]

I think the horde bonus is a bad idea too... but the squad idea is still very good. They should add some special abilities that squads can do that individuals can't do, in real life individuals can't do everything by themselves and thats why there are stuff called squads and platoons made.

[Remote]

Oh yeah dont get me wrong of course squads are great givin the fact that you get to select the units of your chosing to be in that squad and assign them to a hot key. I was just fighting to whole idea of an Individaul unit being 5 to 10 men of the same type Infantry that you could not micromanage. Meaning that this large group of infantry would be sent into battle and force to fight for its self exersizing no real tactics and heavy casulties. Bringing back the need for massing hordes createing a large scale cr@p game. Squads where you pick the individauls veteran or not special skilled or not leaveing the option of makeing squads up to you. Yes send them in as a squad and when getting the battle or objective micromanage from there and if things get to hot fight select that squads assigned hot key and exstract them as a squad. Options and " Micromanaging " being my fight having the option of controling every thing at my disposal Individauls, squads or even if i were feeling crazy massing hordes.

Called in when things go bad

Long Live The Fighters

((( Remote Out )))

[Remote]

Yes squads should have special abilities in the sence of options like a mentioned in a earlier post. I think there should be different types of infantry units all with different selectible action options windows like in C&C. take Burton for exsample when selected he has a # of options from a knife attack to a timed or remote demo charge.here are a couple of ideas of my own :

ROCKET MEN - of course rockets for jet and tanks or option (2) siegies down to a 1 man mortor crew for anti infantry.

M1 ABRAMS TANK- of course it has its 120mm canon but not always the best againts infantry so go with option (2) where a guy opens the top hatch and strats fireing its 50 caliber machine gun and the ones you dont hit run then over.

RADIO MAN - now this one good for puting into a squad with 4 or more other diffent individauls hes equiped with a stardard M4 rifel but heres opion (1) he could call in a 5 shell artilary strike or (2) call in an air strike. All strikes though are on a timer so it would take several moments before reuse like it C&C.

I can go on and on but i wont. My point being the more options you give exzisting units you can make for a smaller scale war doin more with less. Apos to having a diffent units for each option make a big mess. No one man can't do every thing but he can do alot with options.

Cheak out the other posts I left under threads ( Hey whats this? ) and ( Resource Gathering ). Also started a new thread called ( blackhawk helicoptor ) cheak it Later gamers.

Called in when things go bad

((( Remote Out )))

[Warhawk88]

Ya, i agree with all of you in the three posts before this one. I think it would make the game a whole lot better if their were alot of different types of infantry then just two or one. The same goes for helis, jets, and tanks. There should be a varierty of each class that you could command, becaus then it just gets boring. Take for example, generals, Infantry sucks *** in that game, the only faction with an alright # of diff infantry types is GLA. Also, i got so bored of that game because each faction didnt really have alot of different units. I got tired of the same damn thing over and over. EA also went nuts on the expanision. I mean its cool and all but they gave way to much power to different factions, it just takes out the fun. In this game, there should be just modern weaponry and a Wide scale of different units that have special abilites. For example, you could creat different SEAL units and put them intoa squad, their would be anti-air/tank. Communications specialist that could call in a small airstrike or artillery strike, there could be an engineer who fixed vehicles and is able to commandeer some, it would also be awsome if he could lay down some bouncing bettys or claymores, then off course you would have automatic rifle man/grenader and team leader. This game should just stick to modern weaponery and no future gay ****. For example if there are mines in this game, they should not be stealthed so that you need a "stealth detector" to see them. The mines should be visible, but hard to see. They could be buried under the ground, but again would be able to be spotted. This game should strive to stick to realism, not so much as though it would ruin it, like that military guy that was talking about some weired stuff about economy and lts or stuff. It would get way to complicated for kids like me:D. here's his post if you want to see what i mean.

[Warhawk88]

http://www.uk.atari.com/third_party/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4496 :cool: forgot the link up above lol

[Warhawk88]

Dudes, also what would be super friggen awsome is that when you barracade units in a building, you could move them from room to room. You would be able to see throught the rooftop of the building to see your infantry in there. It would be sort of like "Code Name: Panzers", If any of you guys have every played it b4. Infantry should also be able to booby trap and ambush people from inside buildings.

[AgmLauncher]

Originally posted by Remote
[B]I disagree with horde bonuses and hordes in general. RTS games need to abandon this horde idea.
What are you talking about? As far as I know, Generals is the first and ONLY RTS game to implement a "horde bonus" type effect. Why are you generalizing it and saying "RTS games [in general] need to abandon this idea"?

I think hordes and horde bonuse are a lack of creativty that when you cant figure out another way to balance teams other then to give a horde bonus well its just lame and false
Lack of creativity? Are you nuts? It's called difference by design. China's entire design is centered around strength in numbers. Talk about real life, China has over a billion people, it's no suprise that one of China's strengths comes from numbers. It's not horde spam like Rome Total War, it's just more units than GLA or USA typically produce. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. So to keep in tune with this design philosohpy, they gave China the notion of having a bonus when units are in groups of 5 or more. A group of 5 units is hardly a horde or a mass of anything. Would you rather have them try and add some balance to China by doing just another bland improvement like extra damage to the Tank Hunter rockets or Battlemaster tank shells? I think the notion of the horde bonus is a GREAT idea when trying to give China a strength unique to ONLY that faction. It makes the faction diversity much much greater. There are far less creative ways that EA could have balanced out China.

I've always been a modern type war fair gamer. that means as close to real life vehicals, Infantry etc. Most importantly real life possiblities and real life physics. I dont mind some future/ fictional ideas as long as they follow most real life possibtities and laws of physics. . Your not ever gona get 5 real life M1 Abrams together then start fireing and moving faster or even flying for that matter.
It's called morale. That's all the horde bonus represents. It's better than the artificial morale health bar and anti-morale weapons you see in Dawn of War. A squad with high morale will be more lethal than a squad with low morale (in real life), the horde bonus in essence adds morale and lethality. The rocket soldiers reload their rockets faster. What's so unrealistic about that?

RTS's should follow more on the lines of this idea for ever unit like the M1 Abrams could switch from its cannon to a little man coming out of its hatch and fireing a 50 cal machine gun to protect its self from infantry. That way you can do more with less. Eliminating the need for a horde.
What does the notion of a "horde" have to do with the notion of multiple functions for units? The two concepts are totally and completely unrelated.

Here an idea about C&C I didnt like though how all US infantry could up grade to flash bang launchers
First of all, it wasnt ALL US Infantry, just the Rangers. Secondly, this multi-option thing is EXACTLY what you're talking about, so why dont you think this idea, but you like the idea of Abrams being able to switch fire modes from main guns to machine guns? Thirdly, they werent flashbang launchers. EA didnt have the time to add in an additional Ranger animation to illustrate throwing a grenade, so they opted to make it look like the gun was firing them instead.

I think something like that should only be givin to hero's like ( Burton ) or special units only.
Why? He can already rape infantry with his minigun and knife attack. He's a high tech unit, USA needs SOME kind of better and cheaper anti-infantry other than a single fragile hero unit. Rangers ARE special operations units. The flashbang thing suites them just fine, though out in the open flashbangs really should have been frag grenades, but that's a minor technicallity and besides the point.

See hordes are created by lack of options on units but at the same time you dont want to make a unit to powerful cause then you create an intimidation factor make the need for hordes again.
Not at all. You seem to have a really distorted notion of the idea of "horde bonus". It actually has little to do with balancing, but more of a design element for a particular faction to make it more unique than other factions.

[Remote]

When I generalized RTS's I meant the future of RTS games. As for the horde bonus thing Yeah it was sweet for China and the whole moral and propaganda thing but for the sake of argument I dont think it was nessasary in the sence where chinas men should've all been carrying AK-47's from start and I dont think massing should've been the way to aquire this horde bonus option. It should of been one of the general star upgrades and something to initiate when under attack or launching an offensive and would have effected all of chinas units not just a particular group. The horde word your right i do have a swisted image of it. Its such a ugly word that sounds like it means to much. Really i was just useing it because it was being used. Im just against massing units.

The horde notion in my opion still implies to massing units and i was suggesting more options on individaul units infanrty, tanks etc as a way to eliminate the need for massing or " hordes ". Making a bit smaller scale wars with more tactics.

My exsample with burton was in fact just an exsample suggesting the way to create such options because he has alot and them.

You right about burton though. Personaly he shouldnt have be equiped with a minigun. I think he should had the same as the rangers an M4. black lotus and china's Infantry should have all had AK-47's. Witch brings to US Rangers I just dont think Rangers being the stardard US infantry unit should all be equiped with flashbangs and if they have to be it should take longer to use. Their just to powerful and almost eliminating any cool fire fights.

I think standard infantry should only be equiped with standard issued rifels of that faction and have simple action option like capturing structures. Yes like you said there should be more special types of infanrty but give them more then just one purpose like the ones i suggested in a earlier post but here are a few more.

ROCKET MEN - had the rocket option for tanks and aircraft and a second option where he could seige down turning into a 1 man mortor crew for anti infantry. Giving him two purposes ( build as many as you like )

RADIO MAN - equiped with an M4 like any other standard troop but with options like calling in a 5 shell artilary strike and a second option being a multi option where he could call in one of several different type of airstikes depending on the situation and all of these options having a timed delay before it could be reused. ( Can only build one of this unit )

RANGER OR SEAL - all equiped with a standard M4 these unit can move faster,smim and steath when standin place only becoming visible when on the move. With a second option like a silenced M4 or MP5. ( build as many as you like )

SPECIAL RANGER OR SEAL - are like the rangers and seals i mention but also have options like sleath knife attack and planting a remote demo charge. Even a fanshbang option with a time delay before it can be used again. ( Can only build one of each unit )

WEAPONS EXPERT - equiped with a ( SAW ) heavy machine gun. with a second option of a LAW rocket that could distroy vehical in one hit but also has a timed delay before it can be used again. ( Can only build one )

All of these units could be used in any situation but try this on for size take (3) Rangers or Seals (1) Special Ranger or Seal call him a squad leader if you like. Also take the (Radio man) and the (Weapons expert) and you got a squad of some real bad boys.

Called in when things go bad

((( Remote Out )))

[AgmLauncher]

One of the problems that you'll run into with having too many variations of one unit type (too many infantry, too many airplanes, too many vehicles etc) is redundancy. Look at USA in Zero Hour for example. USA has a large number of garrison clearing options

1.) Chinook fast rope
2.) Flashbangs
3.) Microwave tank
4.) Bunker buster upgrade for Stealth Fighters

Or look at USA's anti-infantry capability:


1.) Rangers/flashbangs
2.) Humvee
3.) Comanche
4.) Paladin PDL
5.) Battle Drone/Hellfire drone
6.) Microwave tank
7.) Burton
8.) Pathfinder.
9.) Ambulance to run over rocket soldiers
10.) Sentry Drone (with upgrade)

All of those, ironically, are no where near as good as China's Gattling Tank in terms of killing infantry. They are all average at it. You often find that stuff like the microwave tank just goes unused. You already have other options for clearing garrisons and killing infantry. RTS play always boils down to the simplest unit combos in an effort to make production more efficient, as well as make micromanagement of the units you do have more efficient. Now that list of anti-infantry from USA is actually very diverse. It ranges from infantry based, to light vehicle based, to aircraft based platforms. Imagine if you had that same kind of redundancy in JUST infantry, and then on top of that, vehicles, and then aircraft. Lots of units would go unused. Sure it's nice to have options and SOME redundancy so that different people with different play styles can play a faction differently. But the real diversity in design should not be within one faction, but between the factions/armies. Look at the China faction in Zero Hour. It has a Tank General and an Infantry General. One army DOES rely on Infantry in basically all stages, with some artillery and air support as well. If you combined the power of infantry, and the power of Tank, such that you could win no matter what type of approach you wanted to take with that combined army, it would either be overpowered against another army, or an army used to match it would just be too hard to counter-balance. In short, the greater the diversity of available strategies within a particular army or faction, the harder it is to get it balanced. It would be far too difficult to balance a faction where you can win with JUST infantry, or JUST tanks, or JUST planes because it has access to enough of each. Because then there are all sorts of combinations to worry about. And again, players will quickly boil it down to, in this case, a significantly large number of lethal combinations rendering some units obsolete and useless.

A good RTS game that has managable balance should include no more than 4 or 5 factions, each having no more than 2 or 3 semi-unique strategies within that faction that it can employ to win. Those strategies should not be exlusive-based, but rather emphasis-based. If you want to use infantry tactics, then your strategy will have an EMPHASIS on infantry, with at least some vehicle/airplane/tech support. Or you can place an EMPHASIS on vehicles with some infantry support etc. That keeps the game interesting, but not impossible to balance.

[Remote]

I was only realy focused on infantry because thats what this thread is about and including meself I know how a lot of RTS gamer's feel about infantry being useless anymore I remember those heart pounding battles. Like the good old days in the first red alert where you could actually para drop 5 infantry soldiors into your enemys base distroying a power plant then exstracting them in a transport boat and with today technology it would only look sweeter. We just want that those days back again. Anyway lets talk bout other units. Jets and bombers who sez you need ten different kinds. Let take bombers for exsample you only need one kind but give it a # of bombing options like a ( tactical nuke, naplam, carpet bomb, emp, or give a path finder a second option of lazing a target now you use laser guided bomb or missles and finaly a # of different type free fall bombs ). All this diffent type of bombs came be purchusable upgrades and when purchuses now thier there to use. Just select a bomber then chose your bomb.

You mentioned those drone things I cant stand those silly things there so fake and over kill for that the tank should be able to run with both cannon and machine gun. Ok sure the spy drone is real but again that some thing that should be left where it also exsits in the general star upgrades acsessable from the side bar options use it when ready and if it must be on a vehical only the humvee.

And you mentioned something about to hard to balance factions are you a designer or behind this game or somthing cause who sez that unless the burdon is yours. thats like walkin into to a garage where a couple of guys are workin on a mustang and you notice that the engine been ported and it has new heads and a turbo charger then you say something like I dont know guys that gona be to d@rn fast or someones over clocking their grafix card making a game look and run sweeter and you say something like your gona fry your card dude. Now you my have a point and this are facts but whats wrong with wanting to see something run faster or look sweeter.

I say set the bar push it to the edge shoot to excel make the impossible possible.

Long Live The Fighters

((( Remote Out )))

[Cymru]

Squads are for noobs end of story. You can't have high level play with squads due to there sucky nature.

Example, A greater show of skill in Generals would be 10vs10 Rangers than 2v2 Crusaders as there is MORE to micro and you can do a LOT more in terms of micro and tactics with single units. You could NEVER afford to scout with a SQUAD in most RTSs as it is just TOO EXPENSIVE.

Squads = Bad idea for noobs.

[AgmLauncher]

I was only realy focused on infantry because thats what this thread is about and including meself I know how a lot of RTS gamer's feel about infantry being useless anymore I remember those heart pounding battles. Like the good old days in the first red alert where you could actually para drop 5 infantry soldiors into your enemys base distroying a power plant then exstracting them in a transport boat and with today technology it would only look sweeter. We just want that those days back again.

Sorry m8, play an RTS game a top level. If you think that 5 basic infantry standing around taking forever to kill an insignificant building is heart pounding, playing an RTS game against top players would give you a heart attack. Why would it look sweeter with today's technology? It would still be just a handful of guys using small arms weapons to try and destroy an armored structure. This game however is actually going to have a lot of those close combat infantry tactics with insertions and extractions, at least in the missions. But the missions are scripted, multiplay is more dynamic. If you think that inserting a group of basic infantry which will get slaughtered before they do any damage is worth risking a more expensive, non expendable unit like a Blackhawk transport, you've got some RTS gameplay learning to do.

Anyway lets talk bout other units. Jets and bombers who sez you need ten different kinds. Let take bombers for exsample you only need one kind but give it a # of bombing options like a ( tactical nuke, naplam, carpet bomb, emp, or give a path finder a second option of lazing a target now you use laser guided bomb or missles and finaly a # of different type free fall bombs ). All this diffent type of bombs came be purchusable upgrades and when purchuses now thier there to use. Just select a bomber then chose your bomb.

If you mean that one bomber can have access to all those upgrades at the same time, not only is that not even realistic (you seem to be focused on realism), it's also incredibly overpowered. It would become a super unit after it's been fully upgraded meaning it can counter more stuff than it's supposed to counter. If you mean that once you select the type of bomber it's going to be and youre stuck with it, what is so different about that and having multiple types of bomber units all with specific purposes? There is no difference at all, in fact it makes the game more interesting. A game would be boring if you had only a handful of units that could do anything. Besides, too many different upgrades can be a bad thing. Look at Rise of Nations. You spent more time upgrading than fighting. It was irritating. CCG and Zero Hour have a good proportion of individual unit upgrades, universal upgrades, and units.

You mentioned those drone things I cant stand those silly things there so fake and over kill for that the tank should be able to run with both cannon and machine gun.
So what? It makes it interesting. Besides the battle drone was more than a machine gun, it was a healer unit as well. Plus there is a subtle design element to it that distinguishes it from a built in machine gun on a tank. It can be killed. A Crusader Tank with a machine gun would be overpowered in Generals. In fact if you look through the .ini data, it actually DID have one at one point, but they removed it because it made USA too strong. But because the Battle Drone can be killed, it wasnt so overpowered.

Ok sure the spy drone is real but again that some thing that should be left where it also exsits in the general star upgrades acsessable from the side bar options use it when ready and if it must be on a vehical only the humvee.
Why?

And you mentioned something about to hard to balance factions are you a designer or behind this game or somthing cause who sez that unless the burdon is yours. thats like walkin into to a garage where a couple of guys are workin on a mustang and you notice that the engine been ported and it has new heads and a turbo charger then you say something like I dont know guys that gona be to d@rn fast or someones over clocking their grafix card making a game look and run sweeter and you say something like your gona fry your card dude. Now you my have a point and this are facts but whats wrong with wanting to see something run faster or look sweeter.

I have no idea what that whole analogy was trying to illustrate, but you dont need to be a designer to understanding that RTS game balance is difficult. It's just common sense. The more complicated you make the RTS game (i.e. by making each type of unit capable of beating every other type of unit without support from anything else), the harder it's going to be to balance. It's that simple. What's harder to drive? An automatic or a standard? The standard. Why? Because it's more complicated than the automatic. Anything that is more complicated is harder to understand/learn/do/create/manipulate etc. Take my word for it. I made a detailed balance mod for Zero Hour and it was VERY hard because each change you make impacts something else, and there are 12 different armies to worry about. And all I did was build off of an existing game, making MINOR changes. I didnt try and build the game from scratch.

This is how RTS games NEED to be made in order to make balancing possible:

-Each unit type should have a particular strength and weakness such that you need to mix other unit types to minimize weaknesses.
-Each unit WITHIN that unit type should also have it's own strength and weakness, but not so much that it makes up for every weakness within that entire unit type. Again, forcing you to mix other unit types.

If you made it so that 10 bombers or 1 bomber with 10 different types of bombs could win the game at all stages if used correctly, then it's overpowered because that whole unit type has no weakness. And balancing would be equally as hard if it was just 1 bomber. You would need to balance out all 10 different kinds of bombs which is really no different than balancing the 10 different kinds of aircraft.

[Remote]

Hahahahahaha lol heart attack thats funny. Yeah maybe we could put options in that to rofl. Thanks for all the info not sure yet if its useful to me at all but ill try to incorparate it in my options theory.

Hey i just thought of a new infantry unit only armed with a wrench he can disguise himself has enemy infantry and demoralieses them. By saying negitive stuff like ( there no way we can pull this off ) or ( the last guys that tried that they lost thier genitals ) forceing then to serender better yet start killing them selfs or each other. Or go with option (2) if an infantry unit really dose have a good plan or idea knock him in the head with the wrench and last but not lest option (3) if infantry is rendered useless and no longer exzist take the wrench and sabotage the vehicals lol thats to funny.

I agree with ( Cymru ) squads are for noobs

Call in when things go bad

Long Live The Fighters

((( Remote Out )))

[phoenixstar]

Originally posted by Warhawk88
Dudes, also what would be super friggen awsome is that when you barracade units in a building, you could move them from room to room. You would be able to see throught the rooftop of the building to see your infantry in there. It would be sort of like "Code Name: Panzers", If any of you guys have every played it b4. Infantry should also be able to booby trap and ambush people from inside buildings.

Great idea, although I think this should be an option only available to the Consortium because this seems to be more along the lines of how our enemies fight. It'll also help the problems that some worry about in terms of balancing. If the US has as it should high tech, over the top weapons, then the techniques and tactics of insurgents/guerillas should belong to the opposition. For those who say, the US would still be overpowered, I say look at the real world. Despite our advanced technology, the insurgents are doing more than just standing their ground.

[AgmLauncher]

No they arent, what makes you think that? The small squad tactics of US Navy Seals, Marine Force Recon, and Army Delta are the best in the world. I can assure you that the terrorists are NOT doing more than holding their ground. Room sweeping is an art that US special forces have down cold. A bunch of poorly trained, brainwashed fools wouldnt have half a clue how to stop an attack by US special forces.

The fact of the matter is that if this game were truely realistic, the US would completely dominate the game. They have to level the playing field to make the game balanced, but need to break a WHOLE LOT of rules and twist common sense in the process. What they should do to make it more realistic is to give the Consortium the ability to booby trap rooms that they enter. That's just about the only thing that can stop US room sweeping and building clearing tactics and technology.

[nastykiller]

Well i think i'll have to go with AgmLauncher, the game creators really have a tough time balancing games to make them perfect...

O and the comment about terrorist not being able to hold off US special forces i don't think that is true because you never know how good they are... and besides the terrorists know more about their own territory and they might've set up traps. But of course if they fight with both sides equiped and had the same amount of info in the place they are fighting teh US troops are definately going to win.

[Duncsta]

I agree that massing does take away from tactics and im now leaning away from squads although i do think blitzkreig did the whole squad bit realistic and well. Remote you mentioned ealier about giving units more options - yes this is interresting but it has to be kept realistic - an AT rocket or RPG trooper should not also be carrying a mortar on his back and be able to deploy that. That becomes alittle bit to unrealistic - although some of the other ideas where good. Does anyone know what type of damage system is present in AoW? Is it like Gen where tank cannons barely harm infantry or is the game more 1 shot kill like blitzkreig? Personally im more in favour of something in the middle ground - i diskliked how in generals infantry could shoot at each other for like 5 minutes (ok this is overexaggeration but you get the message).

[Remote]

The rocket launcher guy wouldnt be carring a mortor or extra weapon on his back. The mortor would be the rocket launcher its self and when you've selected the mortor option the guy would pretty much get down on one knee strike one end of rocket launcher in the ground becoming or tranforming looking like a one man mortor crew just to give the laucher unit a second purpose opposed to a second unit with one purpose. I mean in C&C take the infantry for exsample and when they capture a structure that little flag suddenly appears now he wasnt carring a flag on hes back.

Heres an idea that i like to call an exsagerated realism take C&C's tomahawk missle tank a nonexsitiant unit and carries a tomahawk missle when fired somehow manages to reload its self i didnt see any extra tomahawks mounted on the vehical. How bout that tank in ( Starcraft ) how its a tank then has an option to seige down into long range artilary unit. Yes yes i know starcraft was a sci-fi game but my point is both of these units dont exsit but come in handy and all these games some where some how all have a touch of exsagerated realism.

((( Remote out )))

[Duncsta]

But starcraft isnt really known for its realism now is it? The flag bit in CnC Gen is just to represent capturing buildings - it would be better if say infantry just entered the building and you had a progress bar to represent the capture time or soemthing like that - but anways I think this game is trying to be semi realistic based on real world units and all - and normally in the infantry, AT troops dont have mortars with them, or their guns dont turn into them. All im saying is that is abit to far out - now say squad leaders calling in air strikes or artillery barages is abit more realistic. Heck if they wanted to be really realistic the AT troopers (in some cases - the insurgents for examples normally are only seen with their AT rifles) they would have their own small arms or rifles. But that would be abit to unbalancing I think. . .