Red Alert : How to deactivate computers
VoXeL
Hey I need some help here....I'm in the level where you are inside the
atomic complex, you're supposed to send the engineers to deactivate
the computers before the nukes reach their targets, I can't figure out
how to use the engineers to do that......I've found a couple of
comupter terminals but the engineers cannot move or do anything with
them.......
Umm its the allied mission
TIA
Totally Useless Key (TM)
41 72 72 72 72 67 21 20 53 74 75 70 69 64 69 74 79 20 41 6C 65 72 74 21
Blabber Key(TM)
44 6F 68 21 20 57 68 65 72 65 27 73 20 6D 79 20 64 6F 6E 75 21 20 20 20
41 72 72 67 68 21 20 44 4F 4E 55 54 20 20 20 20 20 20
Andrew Pann
s460...@mercury.np.ac.sg (VoXeL) wrote:
>Hey I need some help here....I'm in the level where you are inside the
>atomic complex, you're supposed to send the engineers to deactivate
>the computers before the nukes reach their targets, I can't figure out
>how to use the engineers to do that......I've found a couple of
>comupter terminals but the engineers cannot move or do anything with
>them.......
The computer terminals are in large rooms -- you just need to move the
engineers into the room and it should say "Computer Deactivated" or
some such. There are four of these. Good luck -- it's rather hard.
:)
Oh, the enemy scientists may lead you to it.
Andrew
Anders Holm
VoXeL <s460...@mercury.np.ac.sg> wrote in article
<32aa19f3...@news.np.ac.sg>...
> Hey I need some help here....I'm in the level where you are inside the
> atomic complex, you're supposed to send the engineers to deactivate
> the computers before the nukes reach their targets, I can't figure out
> how to use the engineers to do that......I've found a couple of
> comupter terminals but the engineers cannot move or do anything with
> them.......
>
You just have to place the engineer in front of the panel. A voice will
tell you when each computer is deactivated.
VoXeL
aj...@cec.wustl.edu (Andrew Pann) wrote:
>
>s460...@mercury.np.ac.sg (VoXeL) wrote:
>
>>Hey I need some help here....I'm in the level where you are inside the
>>atomic complex, you're supposed to send the engineers to deactivate
>>the computers before the nukes reach their targets, I can't figure out
>>how to use the engineers to do that......I've found a couple of
>>comupter terminals but the engineers cannot move or do anything with
>>them.......
>
>The computer terminals are in large rooms -- you just need to move the
>engineers into the room and it should say "Computer Deactivated" or
>some such. There are four of these. Good luck -- it's rather hard.
>:)
Umm....each room has a concrete wall surrounding a round object with a
radiation sign on it??
VoXeL
"Anders Holm" <anders.h...@student.uu.se> wrote:
>VoXeL <s460...@mercury.np.ac.sg> wrote in article
><32aa19f3...@news.np.ac.sg>...
>> Hey I need some help here....I'm in the level where you are inside the
>> atomic complex, you're supposed to send the engineers to deactivate
>> the computers before the nukes reach their targets, I can't figure out
>> how to use the engineers to do that......I've found a couple of
>> comupter terminals but the engineers cannot move or do anything with
>> them.......
>> Umm its the allied mission
>>
>
>You just have to place the engineer in front of the panel. A voice will
>tell you when each computer is deactivated.
Umm......how lnng does it take before it tells you?
Maybe its because i'm playing without sound....in the dead of the
night, machine gun fire sounds conspicously loud! :)
Andrew Pann
s460...@mercury.np.ac.sg (VoXeL) wrote:
>aj...@cec.wustl.edu (Andrew Pann) wrote:
>>
>>s460...@mercury.np.ac.sg (VoXeL) wrote:
>>
>>>Hey I need some help here....I'm in the level where you are inside the
>>>atomic complex, you're supposed to send the engineers to deactivate
>>>the computers before the nukes reach their targets, I can't figure out
>>>how to use the engineers to do that......I've found a couple of
>>>comupter terminals but the engineers cannot move or do anything with
>>>them.......
>>
>>The computer terminals are in large rooms -- you just need to move the
>>engineers into the room and it should say "Computer Deactivated" or
>>some such. There are four of these. Good luck -- it's rather hard.
>>:)
>Umm....each room has a concrete wall surrounding a round object with a
>radiation sign on it??
No -- I've only managed to find one room -- it's toward the upper
right corner of the map. I found it by following an enemy scientist.
Moved my engineer ot the line of panels in that room and it said
"console deactivated".
Then my team got killed shortly afterwards, but that's not related to
the deactivation procedure itself. ;)
Andrew
Ed Boris
ks...@aol.com wrote:
>
> All this "Soviet Tank Rush" thing has got me thinking...
-snip-
> Did anyone notice any thing?
>
> Soviets have no ANTI-PERSONNEL defense except the AP mine layer.
What do you call the flame tower, anti-tank defense? Send in only
troops if you want to lose quick.
> To counter the Soviet Tank rush you can do the "Allied Human Wave Attack".
>
> In the time the Soviets can churn out the war factory and ten tanks you
> can
> churn out about 40 bazooka guys. Let's see... 40x300 = 12000 + barracks
> is 12300. Warfactory + 10 heavy tanks is 9500+2000=11500. The difference
> is you can train 40 bazooka guys a lot faster. :-)
First, soviets don't pay 950 for a heavy tank. Westwood, in all its
wisdom, actually gave the russians a price discount :(
Lots of infantry hiding around buildings and behind walls might
damage a tank or two, but it won't stop them from taking out whatever
building they want.
My friends and I have done some research on this and 6 heavy tanks can
take out a construction yard in 3 rounds. 3 rounds is almost
instantaneous!!!! You send in a 7th as a sacrifice or just wait till
the 4th round. There is just no way to stop the soviets from coming in
at the start of the game and taking out the construction yard and War
factory. No way period. And if you were able to put in enough
resources to do it, they could just go for your harvestors instead. The
allies can't defend there base so forget protecting those harvestors.
I've thought about this and thought about it and have come up with an
answer:
1. The Russians should get no price cut on units.
2. The Allies light tank should shoot a missle, like the rocket
infantry guy (or nod bike). Kinda like a slower armored nod bike. The
reason for this is because turrets don't hit moving targets. You can't
even hit those tanks until they stop. They just blow by your tanks even
if you're playing soviet vs soviet. Missles do it moving targets.
3. The Construction yard should take twice as many hits to take out as
it currenly does. At least do this for allies side.
4. Gap generators should be available as soon as radar built.
Your thoughts?
Ed
rupert smith
when playing allies the first thing i do (apart from buildings) is make
ten rocketmen and two medics. i put them on a shortcut key and have them
hang around near the construction yard; they are usually enough to mince
a tank in pretty short order...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rupert smith linc...@sable.ox.ac.uk http://info.ox.ac.uk/~linc0015
this statement is false.
Patrick Deupree
: Hey I need some help here....I'm in the level where you are inside the
: atomic complex, you're supposed to send the engineers to deactivate
: the computers before the nukes reach their targets, I can't figure out
: how to use the engineers to do that......I've found a couple of
: comupter terminals but the engineers cannot move or do anything with
: them.......
You just have to click right in front of the terminal as the engineer
destination and it should say something and deactivate the nuke. There is
no special cursor to target the terminal.
Jim Mercanti
rupert smith wrote:
>
> when playing allies the first thing i do (apart from buildings) is make
> ten rocketmen and two medics. i put them on a shortcut key and have them
> hang around near the construction yard; they are usually enough to mince
> a tank in pretty short order...
>
Well then you just lost. The idea isn't to kill a couple tanks, its to stop
the group of tanks from taking out your Construction yard and more. The
origonal poster is correct, its _impossible_ to do.
When I sent in my 7 or more tanks to your base, i'd take 2 of them and go
around squishing your rocketmen while the rest take out your construction
yard. One of coarse will park near your barracks so no Engineers get by.
Westwood please address this serious game imbalance.
VoXeL
aj...@cec.wustl.edu (Andrew Pann) wrote:
>>>The computer terminals are in large rooms -- you just need to move the
>>>engineers into the room and it should say "Computer Deactivated" or
>>>some such. There are four of these. Good luck -- it's rather hard.
>>>:)
>
>>Umm....each room has a concrete wall surrounding a round object with a
>>radiation sign on it??
>
>No -- I've only managed to find one room -- it's toward the upper
>right corner of the map. I found it by following an enemy scientist.
>
>Moved my engineer ot the line of panels in that room and it said
>"console deactivated".
>
>Then my team got killed shortly afterwards, but that's not related to
>the deactivation procedure itself. ;)
Hehe done it......The thing is that I played with sound off in the
dead of night, so when the engineers deactivated them I didn't know.
:)
I hate indoor maps, humans are just too perishable, I hate the guard
dogs, they have such a huge scouting range!
Kevin Chu
> I hate indoor maps, humans are just too perishable, I hate the guard
> dogs, they have such a huge scouting range!
I found that if your group stands still, they will take out the dogs
pretty easily. When they are moving, they either don't shoot, or have
terrible
aim.
--Kevin Chu Kevi...@Sun.COM
Walter
Jim Mercanti <Yank...@HotMaiL.com> wrote:
>When I sent in my 7 or more tanks to your base, i'd take 2 of them and go
>around squishing your rocketmen while the rest take out your construction
>yard. One of coarse will park near your barracks so no Engineers get by.
>Westwood please address this serious game imbalance.
The main problem causing this deficiency, IMHO, is the fact that
moving units take LOTS less damage now from weapon fire than they did
before.
In fact, healthy Heavy Tanks can move like the wind, really. Their
speed surprised the heck out of me when I first used them. Sure,
they're slow compared to light tanks, but they are FAST compared to
C&C tanks, I think. Certainly they're speed demons compared to
Mammoths.
They're fast enough to run past turrets, making them essentially
useless unless they are close to the construction yard or other
targets.
And they're fast enough to run past any base defenders taking minimal
damage, and get to the target usually still Green.
You couldn't do that before, I think. Your units would get annihilated
by the defensive fire. Not to mention that you never had a cheap unit
(relatively cheap) with so much firepower before.
Shawn Rycroft
voo...@dsuper.net wrote:
>
> Ed Boris wrote:
> >
> > ks...@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > All this "Soviet Tank Rush" thing has got me thinking...
> >
> > -snip-
> > allies can't defend there base so forget protecting those harvestors.
> >
> > I've thought about this and thought about it and have come up with an
> > answer:
> >
> > 1. The Russians should get no price cut on units.
I've got a problem with people who complain about this and have probably
haven't tried much beyond 2 games of multiplayer. Instead they give up
and cry "Unfair! Unfair!"
> > 2. The Allies light tank should shoot a missle, like the rocket
> > infantry guy (or nod bike). Kinda like a slower armored nod bike. The
> > reason for this is because turrets don't hit moving targets. You can't
> > even hit those tanks until they stop. They just blow by your tanks even
> > if you're playing soviet vs soviet. Missles do it moving targets.
Here's a wild suggestion: Throw in that old C@C cd and play it
instead. The game's units are different (tho, not very different) and
the difference in the units, I think, is great.
> > 3. The Construction yard should take twice as many hits to take out as
> > it currenly does. At least do this for allies side.
Oh! Oh! Unfair! Unfair! Why take something away from the Soviets,
and then add something to the Allies? Makes no sense. Modify it all
you want, but there's an inheriant challange and knowing how each unit
is to be used and deployed as was meant to be. I have a nagging feeling
that were it up to half the people, they'd make soviet tanks more
expensive, take longer to build, etc... These people probably build only
2 units in the game. Tanks, and air units. Wonder why they lose?
Because they're not using all their units at their disposal.
> > 4. Gap generators should be available as soon as radar built.
Whatever...
> Anti tank mines should slow down significantly any tank rush... I
> haven't tried multiplayer but mines seem like the best answer.
Anti tank mines work EXTREMELY well against tank rushes. I don't
recommend putting them in a straight line, more of either an X shape, or
multiple V shapes. This allows your units to "bait" your opponent and
it doesn't seem nearly so obvious that there is a line of 5 mines.
Problem with mines is, is that it's time consuming. If you can lower
speed once you got 'em, I'd recommend that.
RA is a combined arms game... people overlook a powerful asset
available to both sides - infantry. Soviets use their helies to
transport 'em, allies should use their transport. Deploy them before
you take them to battle and use them as fodder. (I'm usually refering
to rocket soldiers, but other infantry will do in a bind). Build tonnes
of these suckers. Each rocket infantry has the power of a light tank.
Use it!!!
Hit and run tactics are essential to the allies, combined with the odd
mine layer makes for a scary combo. Against a human player, unless he's
watching and knows what's coming a bunch of light tanks can get 1 shot
in, then flee to a safe location. Small groups (4 or less) work best,
otherwise you're tanks get in the way of each other and become target
practice.
Shawn
Mark Asher
Good point. As you also said in your other post, the Soviet player is not
penalized in any way by quickly building up a force of heavy tanks, even
though he may not rush them. There's nothing to lose for the Soviet player
to build tanks. In C&C, on the other hand, the two popular quick rush
tactics were engineers and apaches or orcas. Both of these were a gamble;
if you didn't pull it off, you'd be in an inferior position.
Another thing about the Soviet tank rush is that the game seems to
encourage it. The Allies grow in power as the game progresses, and can
shroud their base and lay a lot of deadly mines. The Soviet player is
better off attacking early and forcing the Allied player to build base
defenses rather than high-tech devices and spies, etc.
--
Mark Asher
-- Witty epigrams please apply here
Walter <les...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in article
<58s5lb$8...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>...
snip
voo...@dsuper.net
Ed Boris wrote:
>
> ks...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > All this "Soviet Tank Rush" thing has got me thinking...
>
> -snip-
The
> allies can't defend there base so forget protecting those harvestors.
>
> I've thought about this and thought about it and have come up with an
> answer:
>
> 1. The Russians should get no price cut on units.
>
> infantry guy (or nod bike). Kinda like a slower armored nod bike. The
> reason for this is because turrets don't hit moving targets. You can't
> even hit those tanks until they stop. They just blow by your tanks even
> if you're playing soviet vs soviet. Missles do it moving targets.
>
> it currenly does. At least do this for allies side.
>
>
> Ed
Michael Wong
In article <32AE44...@digital.net>, e...@digital.net says...
>> To counter the Soviet Tank rush you can do the "Allied Human Wave Attack".
>> In the time the Soviets can churn out the war factory and ten tanks you
>> can churn out about 40 bazooka guys. Let's see... 40x300 = 12000 + barracks
>> is 12300. Warfactory + 10 heavy tanks is 9500+2000=11500. The difference
>> is you can train 40 bazooka guys a lot faster. :-)
>First, soviets don't pay 950 for a heavy tank. Westwood, in all its
>wisdom, actually gave the russians a price discount :(
That's a game bug, and I have absolutely no doubt that it will be fixed
shortly. Westwood accidentally made the strength multipliers into divisors
instead, so Russia is supposed to pay $100 more but they actually pay $100
less, the French are supposed to shoot faster but they shoot slower, etc.
Think about it; add $200 to what you're paying now, and it not only costs more
to make your tank rush but it also takes longer. If 10 tanks cost $2000 more
than they do right now and take 10% longer to make, it does become more
difficult to create the rush.
Game balance is very delicate when you use two sides without identical unit
types like WC2, and I think that if they get rid of the $100 discount and
replace it with the $100 premium like they were supposed to in the first
place, that might just restore the balance of game play in RA. Let's not go
nuts on Westwood when it's quite obvious that they just left a little bug in
the program and they'll probably fix it soon.
>1. The Russians should get no price cut on units.
Like I said, that's actually a bug and they should be paying MORE for their
units. When the patch comes out, that problem will go away. All the allies
have to do is SURVIVE the Soviets long enough to build up their formidable
technological offensive and defensive capabilities, and they can win the game
IMHO, and an extra $200 per heavy tank would make the initial "survival period"
a lot easier for the Allies, IMHO.
>2. The Allies light tank should shoot a missle, like the rocket
>infantry guy (or nod bike). Kinda like a slower armored nod bike. The
>reason for this is because turrets don't hit moving targets. You can't
>even hit those tanks until they stop. They just blow by your tanks even
>if you're playing soviet vs soviet. Missles do it moving targets.
Or they could improve the targeting for moving objects, rather than risk
seriously upsetting game play by adding new weapons to existing vehicles and
structures. I don't know if that's a bug or a deliberate "feature" but it IS
rather frustrating to see massive cannonfire hitting the spot just BEHIND an
approaching unit :(
Jeff
>
>I've got a problem with people who complain about this and have probably
>haven't tried much beyond 2 games of multiplayer. Instead they give up
>and cry "Unfair! Unfair!"
>
Have you ever played on the Case ladder? If not you need to try it or a
similiar ladder before your remarks on the subject of multiplayer have any
merit IMHO. : ) There is nothing like the feeling that you are a top notch
multi-gamer and then trying the ladder and getting your ass kicked by someone
ranked 267 or worse........ My point is if the Case etc. people say the tank
rush is unbeatable then take it to the bank......
Walter
Shawn Rycroft <sryc...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>RA is a combined arms game... people overlook a powerful asset
>available to both sides - infantry. Soviets use their helies to
>transport 'em, allies should use their transport. Deploy them before
>you take them to battle and use them as fodder. (I'm usually refering
>to rocket soldiers, but other infantry will do in a bind). Build tonnes
>of these suckers. Each rocket infantry has the power of a light tank.
>Use it!!!
You know what makes infantry less useful in Red Alert? The speed of
the units, especially tanks.
Light tanks can *really* manuever. Infantry become no more than
interesting splotches on the ground when LTs are involved. As for
Heavys, well, frankly, it is impossible to kill them quicker than they
can kill your base, generally speaking.
Sure, Rocketmen have the firepower of a LT. But they do not have the
survivability and speed of a LT. If you built tonnes of little
infantrymen, I think I'd just laugh and squish 'em-they can't outrun
tanks by scattering, especially those speed demon LTs.
I've tried using an infantry screen before, but it does nothing to
stop the most popular (and only) strategy in Red Alert, the Tank Rush.
In a way, it's really quite sad. The Tank Rush means that this game
really should have been called Tank Alert. I've not yet seen any
really good player that ever uses nearly half the units avaliable to
you in the game.
All that's ever seen is Light Tanks, Heavy Tanks, and the occasional
Tanya in an APC.
Very sad. There is only one strategy left, and it's the Tank Rush.
But, who knows? Maybe someone will come up with a way to beat it one
of these days...
You speak of using Mines to stop a Tank Rush, but the truth of the
matter is that the people who are the best at Tank Rushes spend every
*single* second of the early game building. Not a single moment is
wasted.
You need a Tech Center to get the Mine Layer, and by the time you can
build *that*, well, I'd wager that 5-10 Heavy Tanks would be knocking
on the front door...
Jason Townsend
>
>Anti tank mines work EXTREMELY well against tank rushes. I don't
>recommend putting them in a straight line, more of either an X shape, or
>multiple V shapes. This allows your units to "bait" your opponent and
>it doesn't seem nearly so obvious that there is a line of 5 mines.
>Problem with mines is, is that it's time consuming. If you can lower
>speed once you got 'em, I'd recommend that.
>
>available to both sides - infantry. Soviets use their helies to
>transport 'em, allies should use their transport. Deploy them before
>you take them to battle and use them as fodder. (I'm usually refering
>to rocket soldiers, but other infantry will do in a bind). Build tonnes
>of these suckers. Each rocket infantry has the power of a light tank.
>Use it!!!
>
>mine layer makes for a scary combo. Against a human player, unless he's
>watching and knows what's coming a bunch of light tanks can get 1 shot
>in, then flee to a safe location. Small groups (4 or less) work best,
>otherwise you're tanks get in the way of each other and become target
>practice.
>
>Shawn
I debated all of this and more already, on the side of the allies.
I still play as the allies, but I have now faced the fact that there IS
nothing the allies can do about the tank rush. Infantry can be squished
FAR too easily by even heavy tanks, and is basically useless. Turrets
can't hit anything that's moving, practically. There's no way you can
stall long enough to get mine layers, let alone cruisers.
Here's the game balance: with no holds barred, the soviets WILL win with
the tank rush, period, against the allies in the first minute or two.
If the game goes past 10 minutes, the allies have a signifigant advantage
because of their powerful high end units.
I've always been against it, but I now think the following changes should
be made. The heavy tanks price should be upped by 150-200 dollars, the
allies should get gap after radar, and the armour on a turret should be
raised to make it a contender. A decrease in turret price by 100 might be
good, but playtesting would be needed there... turret values can be
critical. Anyway, I know the allies will jump on my back with schemes of
apcs and minelayers and cruisers, but there really isn't any satisfactory
early antiarmour weapons for the allies in the time it takes a russian to
build a tank horde.
Note- >3 player games are different, because tank rushes are suicidal.
--
Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.
---------------------Jason Townsend town...@netcom.ca
Brian Barnes
> I've always been against it, but I now think the following changes should
> be made. The heavy tanks price should be upped by 150-200 dollars, the
> allies should get gap after radar, and the armour on a turret should be
> raised to make it a contender. A decrease in turret price by 100 might be
> good, but playtesting would be needed there... turret values can be
> critical. Anyway, I know the allies will jump on my back with schemes of
> apcs and minelayers and cruisers, but there really isn't any satisfactory
> early antiarmour weapons for the allies in the time it takes a russian to
> build a tank horde.
No! The soviets are balanced in terms of their side's gameplay. The
only problem is this: allies must be made tougher to kill in the
beginning. How is this to be done?
A. slightly raise the armor on turrets. same price.
B. make minelayers available as soon as war factory/repair depot are
made.
C. lower price of concrete wall
D. raise capacity of minelayers
E. lower build time of selected allied structures (war factory, repair
depot)
This will increase early defensive advantages of the allies without
increasing their offensive capacities or disrupting late in the game
balance.
Brian
Felix Lo
Actually, just increasing the build time of allied defensive structures
by 2 times is enough. (turrets build too slow...)
Craig Fletcher
Felix Lo <nic...@hk.super.net> wrote in article
<32B5F7...@hk.super.net>...
> Actually, just increasing the build time of allied defensive structures
> by 2 times is enough. (turrets build too slow...)
>
If you can manage to get a 2nd const yard up fast enough you can build the
turrets fast.
Divine Intervention
As far as the tank rush is concerned I think there are other tactics for
multiplayer, my personal favs are:
1. Loads of Migs, about 16-40 with about 5 Hinds for taking out pesky
rocket infantry.
2. Loads of gun turrets and Tesla coils coupled with V-2`s or self
propelled artillery with a layer of mines about 5-12 squares from your
defensive lines.
3. Loads of Apaches / Hinds to take out tank attacks before they get to
your base.
4. If Allies build your base next to a coastline and have a couple of
destroyers standing by, their both accurate and deadly and can defend
themselves against air attacks. Maybe one cruiser as well for total mass
detruction when its close enough for decent accuracy.
5. Channel the sov's into only one way into your base and make it so it
is only one of two squares wide. Defend this heavily and you'll create a
killing ground.
6. Chronosphere a cruiser next to his base for a real laugh.
7. Transport heli with Tanya or two...
Finally remember that tanks aren't the only option...having a nuke ready
will really distract his attention from a major attack when half his base
is destroyed.
Tanks are very vunerable to counter attack and all that money on
offensive troops should mean his base is more or less defenceless.
The only real "unbeatable" tactics I've come across are the mass Mig air
attacks and chronosphering cruiser tactics.
From your very own Divine Intervention sent with hugs and kisses
from his rocket launcher and sawn-off shotgun. Send your dedications
requests, adverts to J.M.L....@Bradford.ac.uk and tune into
Let there be Rock on RamAir FM 945AM on Tuesdays 12pm till 2am.
Walter
Brian Barnes <bba...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>No! The soviets are balanced in terms of their side's gameplay. The
>only problem is this: allies must be made tougher to kill in the
>beginning. How is this to be done?
>A. slightly raise the armor on turrets. same price.
Hmm. Not much good it'll do to do this.
The Tanks involved in the Tank Rush will not be shooting at the
turrets, they will be shooting at the Ore Refinery/War Fact/Const.
Yard.
>C. lower price of concrete wall
The main problem with walls is not the money cost, it is the time
investment.
You spend a significant amount of time clicking and building
single-square walls. Perhaps there could be some sort of way in which
you could designate a certain area to be walled up, and then the
construction yard would compound the cost and build it.
Drag-and-click walls, that would help.
>E. lower build time of selected allied structures (war factory, repair
>depot)
Unfortunately, this would only make the Allied Tank Rush (with LTs
which can be rather fearsome, surprisingly enough) more dangerous.
A Lee
Felix Lo <nic...@hk.super.net> writes:
>Actually, just increasing the build time of allied defensive structures
>by 2 times is enough. (turrets build too slow...)
Or do you mean _decrease_ the building time...
--
Albert Lee alb...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Home Page: http://www.ualberta.ca/~alblee
Everyone is nuts but me and you, and sometimes I wonders about you.
Mark Asher
I think the problem with adjusting things so that the Soviets are penalized
is that it hurts the game balance later on in the game when the Allies have
some definite advantages in some areas.
--
Mark Asher
Shawn Rycroft
He...@there.com wrote:
>
> Now rather than spend so much time worrying what the Allies DON't
> have, try concentrating on what they Do. Play the allies with the
> intention of finding out why Westwood thinks it's (close to) balanced
> and some of this begins to make sense.
>
> Personally, I get frustrated when I am the victim of a "Rush". But if
> the Allies can keep the Soviets from building nothing but tanks for
> the first five/ten minutes or so, then the advantage swings the other
> way.
Well, I realize that this goes against many of peoples prefered building
order, but why not construction yard/power
plant/barracks/ore/whatever...
Building the barracks first will allow you to churn out rocket infantry
and such while waiting for the ore harvestor to be built. I'm not to
sure how many you can build (5 infantry?), but the time it takes to
build a barracks is insignificant really and could help you out in the
short run against a rush.
> 2) Turrets are not THAT expensive/weak. If you scout a little and
> build in all the right places, The Soviets will be eaten up by
> tanks/turrets.
I've noticed that if you plant walls behind the turrets, the enemy's
shots go after the wall first. I'm not too sure where the positioning
of them would have to be, but it could help. It also works if you have
tanks in front of them (the walls) as well.
> 3) Even the Threat of a Naval Yard will force the Slav's into wasting
> time/money on a Sub Pen and several Subs. Try just building a fake
> one out in the open.
Cool, never really thought of that. Or, partial wall in front of a fake
construction yard. Who knows? Anything to delay.
> 4) Use 1 or 2 packs of 5 light tanks to harrass the enemy ore trucks.
> Force the opponent to concentrate on protecting them. Maybe use a
> copter as well so he has to move both Tanks AND rocket men into the
> ore fields.
In the rules.ini your units go a different speed on different terrain.
Try to use it to your advantage. Units move slower thru rubble, ore.
Very quick on roads. Open areas are needed for the maneuvering of your
light tank packs. Try hit and run raids on his units as soon as you
have light tanks, go back and repair. As long as they're moving and you
catch your oppenent off guard I think you can hurt one fairly badly
before he can react. Also, pockets (2) rocketmen hidden behind trees
could get a number of shots off at a moving column, or put bigger groups
on ridges with an apc to get it out quickly if need be.
> The way to beat the so called Soviet Rush is to keep the Soviets off
> guard. The Allied player MUST dictate the pace of the game. It isn't
> really that difficult after a bit of practice.
>
> Alvin M.
If and when the allies get the tech center and the GPS up and running,
sell off your radar dome, it's no longer needed.
Shawn
hel...@worldaccess.nl
Can you tell me more about this Case ladder? Maybe a website? I would
like to play on it...
TIA
Paul Helmich
***************************************************
Email: hel...@worldaccess.nl
Member of UDIC, Caribbean Dragon.
*******************************************************
He...@there.com
Now rather than spend so much time worrying what the Allies DON't
have, try concentrating on what they Do. Play the allies with the
intention of finding out why Westwood thinks it's (close to) balanced
and some of this begins to make sense.
Personally, I get frustrated when I am the victim of a "Rush". But if
the Allies can keep the Soviets from building nothing but tanks for
the first five/ten minutes or so, then the advantage swings the other
way.
1) Once the Gap Generator / Tech Center combo is built, Soviets are
at a disadvantage, and their Air Superiority is out the window.
2) Turrets are not THAT expensive/weak. If you scout a little and
build in all the right places, The Soviets will be eaten up by
tanks/turrets.
3) Even the Threat of a Naval Yard will force the Slav's into wasting
time/money on a Sub Pen and several Subs. Try just building a fake
one out in the open.
4) Use 1 or 2 packs of 5 light tanks to harrass the enemy ore trucks.
Force the opponent to concentrate on protecting them. Maybe use a
copter as well so he has to move both Tanks AND rocket men into the
ore fields.
The way to beat the so called Soviet Rush is to keep the Soviets off
guard. The Allied player MUST dictate the pace of the game. It isn't
really that difficult after a bit of practice.
Alvin M.
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:17:17 -0600, Brian Barnes
<bba...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> I've always been against it, but I now think the following changes should
>> be made. The heavy tanks price should be upped by 150-200 dollars, the
>> allies should get gap after radar, and the armour on a turret should be
>> raised to make it a contender. A decrease in turret price by 100 might be
>> good, but playtesting would be needed there... turret values can be
>> critical. Anyway, I know the allies will jump on my back with schemes of
>> apcs and minelayers and cruisers, but there really isn't any satisfactory
>> early antiarmour weapons for the allies in the time it takes a russian to
>> build a tank horde.
>
>No! The soviets are balanced in terms of their side's gameplay. The
>only problem is this: allies must be made tougher to kill in the
>beginning. How is this to be done?
>
>A. slightly raise the armor on turrets. same price.
>B. make minelayers available as soon as war factory/repair depot are
>made.
>C. lower price of concrete wall
>D. raise capacity of minelayers
>E. lower build time of selected allied structures (war factory, repair
>depot)
>
Mark Asher
I think you've hit the key point: "But if the Allies can keep the Soviets
from building nothing but tanks for the first five/ten minutes or so, then
the advantage swings the other way."
The problem is, how do you keep them from building the tanks? The tanks are
such good units to have, there's no penalty for building them even if the
Soviet player doesn't rush you in the first 5 minutes.
Also, a smart Soviet player will realize that later in the game life gets
harder for him. This realization tends to encourage the quick, pre-emptive
tank rush.
--
Mark Asher
He...@there.com wrote in article
<32b69cdc...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> Now rather than spend so much time worrying what the Allies DON't
> have, try concentrating on what they Do. Play the allies with the
> intention of finding out why Westwood thinks it's (close to) balanced
> and some of this begins to make sense.
>
> Personally, I get frustrated when I am the victim of a "Rush". But if
> the Allies can keep the Soviets from building nothing but tanks for
> the first five/ten minutes or so, then the advantage swings the other
> way.
>
snip
Ong Boon Hean
>Personally, I get frustrated when I am the victim of a "Rush". But if
>the Allies can keep the Soviets from building nothing but tanks for
>the first five/ten minutes or so, then the advantage swings the other
>way.
Hmm, I always thought that a group of bazooka troops with walls in
front of them (And maybe sides too) which will prevent them from
getting *SQUISHED*, makes pretty good defense.... Also, as
long as the Soviets don't get your CYard, you still live =)
>1) Once the Gap Generator / Tech Center combo is built, Soviets are
>at a disadvantage, and their Air Superiority is out the window.
But MIGs like to go for your ole' Harvie in that ore field. Moving bazooka
troops over there is a pain too =) Maybe if the Allies had a fast-anti-air
unit (Biker Gang =) it'd be nice.
>2) Turrets are not THAT expensive/weak. If you scout a little and
>build in all the right places, The Soviets will be eaten up by
>tanks/turrets.
Heavy Tanks are not slow and can easily avoid cannon-fire (ie those
shots that go off and explode on moving targets). They only stay
put if they have reached their objective (CYard, Factory, Refinery). Also,
the Soviet player will probably be micromanaging his forces to get more
bang for buck.
>3) Even the Threat of a Naval Yard will force the Slav's into wasting
>time/money on a Sub Pen and several Subs. Try just building a fake
>one out in the open.
Nice trick =) Better still if you can get to kill the subbies too =)
>4) Use 1 or 2 packs of 5 light tanks to harrass the enemy ore trucks.
>Force the opponent to concentrate on protecting them. Maybe use a
>copter as well so he has to move both Tanks AND rocket men into the
>ore fields.
Uhm, the biggest disadvantage the Soviet player has in the long-term
game is that he doesn't have any mobile-anti-air... Not even rocket men ...
Only SAM Sites for base defense... So, if an Allied player can live
long enough to build 5 or so Apaches, goodbye Harvie...
>The way to beat the so called Soviet Rush is to keep the Soviets off
>guard. The Allied player MUST dictate the pace of the game. It isn't
>really that difficult after a bit of practice.
It's really surprising how fast the Soviet player can build heavy tanks
especially with the discount... =)
Michael Choi
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:42:47 GMT, He...@there.com wrote:
>Now rather than spend so much time worrying what the Allies DON't
>have, try concentrating on what they Do. Play the allies with the
>intention of finding out why Westwood thinks it's (close to) balanced
>and some of this begins to make sense.
>
>Personally, I get frustrated when I am the victim of a "Rush". But if
>the Allies can keep the Soviets from building nothing but tanks for
>the first five/ten minutes or so, then the advantage swings the other
>way.
>
>1) Once the Gap Generator / Tech Center combo is built, Soviets are
>at a disadvantage, and their Air Superiority is out the window.
That never happens in MP game. You die way before that.
>
>2) Turrets are not THAT expensive/weak. If you scout a little and
>build in all the right places, The Soviets will be eaten up by
>tanks/turrets.
Concentrated fire from columns of tanks will eat turrets one by one.
It's easier to control tanks than Turrets.
>3) Even the Threat of a Naval Yard will force the Slav's into wasting
>time/money on a Sub Pen and several Subs. Try just building a fake
>one out in the open.
I don't need Subpens, I take your naval yard with my migs or tanks.
>4) Use 1 or 2 packs of 5 light tanks to harrass the enemy ore trucks.
>Force the opponent to concentrate on protecting them. Maybe use a
>copter as well so he has to move both Tanks AND rocket men into the
>ore fields.
Lights tanks die by my hordes of heavy tanks guarding the harvestors.
Copters die by my rocketmen that follow my tanks around.
>The way to beat the so called Soviet Rush is to keep the Soviets off
>guard. The Allied player MUST dictate the pace of the game. It isn't
>really that difficult after a bit of practice.
Sneaky Tonya's die by my Tesla coils and regular Joes.
>Alvin M.
>
>
>
>On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:17:17 -0600, Brian Barnes
><bba...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
MC
The_Kid
I tend to agree with you. We just need the allies to have some extra
time in the beginning of the game. Or make the tank rush harder to
execute (i.e. make the construction yard harder to take out, more hit
points). Maybe make the Soviet War factory take longer to build. I
really think this is the answer. Add 50% to the build time of a soviet
war factory. Allied tanks are easy to kill and only have one turret. I
don't think there is really any threat of an alllied tank rush. But if
they tried it and they are only after your building, like the soviet
tank rush, then even a tesla coil can really help take them out. That
plus what large tanks you have would stop them. The allied tanks don't
have as much punch so it is _much_ harder to do an allied tank rush.
To summarize:
1. Give construction yards more hit points.
2. Soviet War Factory building should take longer to build (50%).
(I mean the building should take longer to be produced, not the
units that the war factory produces).
Ed
Laptop Smasher
Has everyone forgotten mines? This is very basic. Two mines can take out
a heavy tank. A few mine layers can get rid of ore trucks, too. Just mine
his ore fields. Try it.
Steven Michael Wilder
Shawn Rycroft (sryc...@chat.carleton.ca) wrote:
: He...@there.com wrote:
: >
: Well, I realize that this goes against many of peoples prefered building
: order, but why not construction yard/power
: plant/barracks/ore/whatever...
Excellent idea. I hear many people complaining that the rocket bike is
gone. What is almost as good is an APC full of bazooka dudes. I can get
10 bazookas by the time the first refinery is built. Take those bazooka
dudes and spread them all around your base (so any tanks that want to
squash them have to do it one at a time). Build a medic or two to heal
your bazooka dudes after you crush his rush.
The loading of APCs is now lightning fast compared to C&C. You can
deploy tons of rocket dudes all around the map because the APC is so damn
fast. If you had 15 bazookas and 3 APCs you could face _any_ threat (air,
infantry, armour, harvester*smirk*).
: Building the barracks first will allow you to churn out rocket infantry
: and such while waiting for the ore harvestor to be built. I'm not to
: sure how many you can build (5 infantry?), but the time it takes to
: build a barracks is insignificant really and could help you out in the
: short run against a rush.
I believe that it is 10 bazooka dudes. Though the entire building
process is a blur for me until the 2nd refinery.
: > 2) Turrets are not THAT expensive/weak. If you scout a little and
: > build in all the right places, The Soviets will be eaten up by
: > tanks/turrets.
I've never built turrets. For 100 more, you get a light tank that fires
almost 2x as fast and can move around.
: of them would have to be, but it could help. It also works if you have
: tanks in front of them (the walls) as well.
It _always_ helps to have tanks.
: > 3) Even the Threat of a Naval Yard will force the Slav's into wasting
: > time/money on a Sub Pen and several Subs. Try just building a fake
: > one out in the open.
650 is _nothing_, might as well build the REAL shipyard and start making
a couple destroyers.
: Cool, never really thought of that. Or, partial wall in front of a fake
: construction yard. Who knows? Anything to delay.
Cool idea. 3 mores shots apiece from my light and medium tanks. How
many shots will it take to destroy a fake structure?
: > 4) Use 1 or 2 packs of 5 light tanks to harrass the enemy ore trucks.
: > Force the opponent to concentrate on protecting them. Maybe use a
: > copter as well so he has to move both Tanks AND rocket men into the
: > ore fields.
If you have had time to build an apache, you have already won the game.
The Soviets early tank advantage evaporates. If he runs bazookas out into
the field, run them over with your light tanks. Light tanks are fast
enough to make short work of bazooka dudes.
: In the rules.ini your units go a different speed on different terrain.
: Try to use it to your advantage. Units move slower thru rubble, ore.
: Very quick on roads. Open areas are needed for the maneuvering of your
: light tank packs. Try hit and run raids on his units as soon as you
: have light tanks, go back and repair. As long as they're moving and you
: catch your oppenent off guard I think you can hurt one fairly badly
: before he can react. Also, pockets (2) rocketmen hidden behind trees
: could get a number of shots off at a moving column, or put bigger groups
: on ridges with an apc to get it out quickly if need be.
Both APCs and light tanks are faster than all of the soviet ground
forces. You must use the speed.
: If and when the allies get the tech center and the GPS up and running,
: sell off your radar dome, it's no longer needed.
Bad idea. You only get 500 back for selling the rader dome, and you'll
be 3x as screwed if the soviets take out your tech center. That's one of
the reasons why I always run a spy into the soviets radar dome quickly.
You don't need to see the entire map if you can see both your units and
his.
--
Steven Michael Wilder <wil...@cs.utexas.edu>
President UT ACM Student Chapter
Brian Lui
Geh... use the 'indirect strategy'...
build a fake construction yard away from your real one
then *important* build a normal POWER PLANT next to it
some camo pillboxes and AA guns
the enemy will 90/100 go for the fake one.
Steve Kwee
Ong Boon Hean wrote:
> Uhm, the biggest disadvantage the Soviet player has in the long-term
> game is that he doesn't have any mobile-anti-air... Not even rocket men ...
> Only SAM Sites for base defense... So, if an Allied player can live
> long enough to build 5 or so Apaches, goodbye Harvie...
Three Mammoth-Tanks can stand three APC with no problem and self-healing
while waitung for the next attack. Only solution I know.
Walter
He...@there.com wrote:
>1) Once the Gap Generator / Tech Center combo is built, Soviets are
>at a disadvantage, and their Air Superiority is out the window.
Yup... unfortunately, you generally have no time to build these
things.
>2) Turrets are not THAT expensive/weak. If you scout a little and
>build in all the right places, The Soviets will be eaten up by
>tanks/turrets.
Tanks, maybe. Turrets, definitely not. Cannons are woefully inaccurate
against Tanks...
You *really* need overwhelming firepower to survive a Tank Rush.
Remember, the Tank Rusher does not waste time engaging defensive
forces. They will race past your defensive screen and open fire at the
target.
>3) Even the Threat of a Naval Yard will force the Slav's into wasting
>time/money on a Sub Pen and several Subs. Try just building a fake
>one out in the open.
Doesn't work.
The Tank Rusher will be laughing his/her head off at the time you
wasted building the Naval Yard instead of Light Tanks. Plus, they'll
simply reason that if they destroy all your other buildings, they can
then destroy any naval units you've built at their leisure later.
>4) Use 1 or 2 packs of 5 light tanks to harrass the enemy ore trucks.
>Force the opponent to concentrate on protecting them. Maybe use a
>copter as well so he has to move both Tanks AND rocket men into the
>ore fields.
If you could build 10 LTs, I daresay they would be better used against
your opponent's base than Ore Trucks.
Besides which, if the Soviet player is halfway decent, they'll have 6
or so heavies by the time you have those 10 LTs, probably. Maybe more,
since they build tanks *exclusively*.
Trust me, once your base gets attacked, you'll suddenly realise that
while Ore Trucks are *expendable*, Construction Yards are NOT. If I
were trying to Tank Rush you, I'd ignore your attack on my harvesters.
It simply means that you have less to defend your base with... and if
I trash your base, even if I have no Ore Trucks left, I'm at an
advantage, ay?
>The way to beat the so called Soviet Rush is to keep the Soviets off
>guard. The Allied player MUST dictate the pace of the game. It isn't
>really that difficult after a bit of practice.
And the best way to dictate that pace is...?
The sad thing is that the best defense against the Tank Rush seems to
be to do it, faster. It's kind of like nuclear weapons in Real Life;
it's probably better to develop your own, instead of wasting time
developing countermeasures.
After all, Tanks are always useful. Turrets are only useful for
defense.
The thing to understand, I think, is that Tank Rushers do not react to
diversionary measures like Naval Yards or Harvester Attacks. They win
precisely because they do nothing but build tanks.
Plus, most of the creative ways people think of to defend themselves
requires time or a Tech Center... both of which you won't have during
a Rush.
Walter
J.M.L....@bradford.ac.uk (Divine Intervention) wrote:
>As far as the tank rush is concerned I think there are other tactics for
>multiplayer, my personal favs are:
>1. Loads of Migs, about 16-40 with about 5 Hinds for taking out pesky
>rocket infantry.
Gap generators shoot this one right in the foot.
Of course, you *could* attack harvestors... in which case a moving Gap
Generator would squish that idea.
>2. Loads of gun turrets and Tesla coils coupled with V-2`s or self
>propelled artillery with a layer of mines about 5-12 squares from your
>defensive lines.
In other words, hole up in your base? The problem with this is that
you can't build it fast enough to defend against a Tank Rush. The
other problem, of course, is that I'd avoid the base and strangle you
by killing Ore Trucks instead. :)
>3. Loads of Apaches / Hinds to take out tank attacks before they get to
>your base.
Tanks move really fast now. (did I say that already? :)
Not to mention that no one knows how to shoot at moving targets, and
helicopters take forever to position themselves for a shot as usual.
You'll be lucky if you take down even a single tank before they hit
you... and that's only if you have 5 or more Copters.
Overall, the helicopters/air units aren't as good as they should be,
and are still best for taking out buildings, harvestors, and naval
units.
>7. Transport heli with Tanya or two...
Nah... not a heli, an APC will do better. Remember, moving units are
nearly impossible to hit... but air units are embarrassingly weak.
>Finally remember that tanks aren't the only option...having a nuke ready
>will really distract his attention from a major attack when half his base
>is destroyed.
Nuke? Can't build one while those Heavies are pounding your C. Yard
even before you've built a Tech Center, you know...
>The only real "unbeatable" tactics I've come across are the mass Mig air
>attacks and chronosphering cruiser tactics.
Unfortunately, a quick cheap Tank Rush will prevent you from *ever*
trying out more interesting tactics like these...
Walter
Michae...@sar.hookup.net (Michael Wong) wrote:
>That's a game bug, and I have absolutely no doubt that it will be fixed
>shortly. Westwood accidentally made the strength multipliers into divisors
>instead, so Russia is supposed to pay $100 more but they actually pay $100
>less, the French are supposed to shoot faster but they shoot slower, etc.
>Think about it; add $200 to what you're paying now, and it not only costs more
>to make your tank rush but it also takes longer. If 10 tanks cost $2000 more
>than they do right now and take 10% longer to make, it does become more
>difficult to create the rush.
Wait... wait... why should Russia have to pay 10 percent more?
Does that mean that Ukraine will also have to pay more?
>Or they could improve the targeting for moving objects, rather than risk
>seriously upsetting game play by adding new weapons to existing vehicles and
>structures. I don't know if that's a bug or a deliberate "feature" but it IS
>rather frustrating to see massive cannonfire hitting the spot just BEHIND an
>approaching unit :(
Oh, it's a feature.
In the 'alternate past' of Red Alert, no one has EVER heard of the
concept of 'deflection shooting'. :)
koc...@db.erau.edu
Quick question.. what is this crusier chronosphering tactic he's
talking about? I can only transport cruisers over water, but not
inside bases...
Thanks
Mark Asher
I agree completely. I wonder if Westwood will do anything about this? There
seems to be a paucity of Soviet tactics also; you either tank rush or build
a massive tank force and protect your base from allied sneak attacks. Throw
in some MIGs as a diversionary tactic to make your opponent worry about air
defence, and I think that sums up the Soviet approach.
I think the problem is that the tank rush only affects us hardcore C&C
mutliplayer veterans. Westwood estimated that only 25% of the purchasers of
C&C ever played multiplayer. Out of those, how many do you think played it
in the cutthroat manner in which it is played on the kali servers? Not too
many, I'll wager.
The tank rush is probably a problem only to a very small percentage of Red
Alert owners.
--
Mark Asher
Walter <les...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in article
<598l0t$u...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>...
> He...@there.com wrote:
>
snip
Walter
"Laptop Smasher" <wats...@akronet.com> wrote:
Well, if you actually manage to lay more than 1 mine (if that many) by
the time the Red Armour starts knocking on your front door, I'll be
very surprised.
The thing many people don't get yet about the Tank Rush is the
*speed*.
Many of the more creative methods of defense simply will not work
because you will not have the time. No time. That's the real problem.
Walter
The_Kid <bor...@loonmt.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>I tend to agree with you. We just need the allies to have some extra
>time in the beginning of the game. Or make the tank rush harder to
>execute (i.e. make the construction yard harder to take out, more hit
>points). Maybe make the Soviet War factory take longer to build. I
>really think this is the answer. Add 50% to the build time of a soviet
>war factory. Allied tanks are easy to kill and only have one turret. I
>don't think there is really any threat of an alllied tank rush. But if
>they tried it and they are only after your building, like the soviet
>tank rush, then even a tesla coil can really help take them out. That
>plus what large tanks you have would stop them. The allied tanks don't
>have as much punch so it is _much_ harder to do an allied tank rush.
Much harder don't mean impossible.
There is something that's almost as fearsome as a Light Tank Rush.
That's the Tanya Rush.
No really, it's possible to crank out Tanya and an APC *real* quickly
IF you know what order to build in.
You should be able to get her over there just about the time the Heavy
Tanks start leaving for the attack on your base. Then it's boom! boom!
boom! boom! Ka-ching!
>To summarize:
> 1. Give construction yards more hit points.
> 2. Soviet War Factory building should take longer to build (50%).
> (I mean the building should take longer to be produced, not the
> units that the war factory produces).
This is probably a bad idea, that will make the Allied Tank Rush or
Tanya Rush too powerful.
Norton
Brian Lui (lu...@hkstar.com) wrote:
: Geh... use the 'indirect strategy'...
Doesn't work. In a huge tank rush, they could take down BOTH the real and
the fake in short work. Granted if they choose the wrong one first, it'll
take a little longer and MAYBE you'll have time to chew up the force
first, but 9/10 they get both.
Regards
Mark Norton
--
===================+=========================================================
Mark D. Norton | Gravity is a harsh mistress
Cheryl Norton |
mno...@netcom.com |
=============================================================================
Norton
Walter (les...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: The thing many people don't get yet about the Tank Rush is the
: *speed*.
: Many of the more creative methods of defense simply will not work
: because you will not have the time. No time. That's the real problem.
I think what will be necessary will be MAPS. Obviously, there is no
easy answer to tweaking the various units so that the Soviet Rush, or
the Allied Rush doesn't work. We're going to need experienced and
creative mapmakers that create GOOD multiplayer maps that defuse the
tank rush. I'm talking about the exact opposite of the North by
Northwest map ;)
They should include:
* Choke points - Allies need to buy themselves time. I guarantee that if
I have only two entrances to my base, Soviet or Ally, I can hold off a
tank rush of either sort. When only two tanks can cross a mudpath,
the defensive tanks will slaughter them. (Granted, the obvious solution
to this is to kill the harvestors and then attrition them to death, but
there isn't going to be a simple solution to everything.)
* Some water, but not too much
* Room to build
* Healthy ore supply
* Places to skirmish
* Lots of foliage for hidden bazooka's/infantry/tanks
The other answer to the tank rush is DON"T START WITH 10000 CREDITS. I
think it was be interesting to start with 3000. Enough to build a power
plant, refinery, and a barracks, and go from there.
If an allied player gives the soviet opponent 10000 credits to play with
at the beginning, they're just asking for trouble.
Steven Michael Wilder
Walter (les...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: "Laptop Smasher" <wats...@akronet.com> wrote:
: >Has everyone forgotten mines? This is very basic. Two mines can take out
: >a heavy tank. A few mine layers can get rid of ore trucks, too. Just mine
: >his ore fields. Try it.
: Well, if you actually manage to lay more than 1 mine (if that many) by
: the time the Red Armour starts knocking on your front door, I'll be
: very surprised.
This is absolutly correct. You must build a service depot before you can
lay mines. The only defenses you can get up in time are: turrets (isn't
such a hot idea unless you put them around the Soviet target), tanks (a
little better, but can't kill the Reds in time), bazooka dudes (aha!).
: The thing many people don't get yet about the Tank Rush is the
: *speed*.
: Many of the more creative methods of defense simply will not work
: because you will not have the time. No time. That's the real problem.
My solution would be to concurrently build lots of light tanks and
bazooka dudes at the same time. You can easily have 20 or more bazooka
dudes in your base by the time the tank rush starts. Just build your
barracks right after the first power plant.
1) C yard
2) power
3) barracks (start pumping bazookas)
4) refinery
5) weap fac etc.....
Douglas William Cole
Divine Intervention (J.M.L....@bradford.ac.uk) wrote:
: As far as the tank rush is concerned I think there are other tactics for
: multiplayer, my personal favs are:
: 1. Loads of Migs, about 16-40 with about 5 Hinds for taking out pesky
: rocket infantry.
: 2. Loads of gun turrets and Tesla coils coupled with V-2`s or self
: propelled artillery with a layer of mines about 5-12 squares from your
: defensive lines.
: 3. Loads of Apaches / Hinds to take out tank attacks before they get to
: your base.
: 4. If Allies build your base next to a coastline and have a couple of
: destroyers standing by, their both accurate and deadly and can defend
: themselves against air attacks. Maybe one cruiser as well for total mass
: detruction when its close enough for decent accuracy.
: 5. Channel the sov's into only one way into your base and make it so it
: is only one of two squares wide. Defend this heavily and you'll create a
: killing ground.
: 6. Chronosphere a cruiser next to his base for a real laugh.
: 7. Transport heli with Tanya or two...
: Finally remember that tanks aren't the only option...having a nuke ready
: will really distract his attention from a major attack when half his base
: is destroyed.
: Tanks are very vunerable to counter attack and all that money on
: offensive troops should mean his base is more or less defenceless.
: The only real "unbeatable" tactics I've come across are the mass Mig air
: attacks and chronosphering cruiser tactics.
Obviously, this guy has never played on Case's Ladder. :) Are
you playnig a wargame, or are you playing Sim City? What is your
opponent doing while you're building this "16-40 migs with 7 or so
yaks?" The problem is is there's around 5 heavy tanks knocking on your
base's door while you're building a RADAR DOME, usually. What to do then?
Roger Wong
[posted and mailed]
les...@singnet.com.sg (Walter) wrote:
>Trust me, once your base gets attacked, you'll suddenly realise that
>while Ore Trucks are *expendable*, Construction Yards are NOT.
I'd like to add my two pizzas to the discussion.
Construction yards are expendable, ore refinieries are not. The only way to
paralyze a tank builder is to cut off the money supply. Destroying the
construction yard will not affect your opponent's ability to wage war if
she already has her weapon factories.
So yes, an Allied player should rush first, and destroy the enemy
refineries (Tank rushers typically have more ore trucks than refineries.)
and then attack the heavy tanks themselves, using scatter tactics.
What to do when your opponent counter tank rushes is another topic.
-Roger
---
The Red Alert Internet Strategy Guide "My friend, this-a guide is-a
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~cncfaq worth TEN slice of a pizza."
Prepare to be transformed. -Benito Mussolini (1883-1945)
Xai
my addition to this thread,
the allies can't make a tank rush with their forces early in the game
(allies commanders don't really want to) instead the fast and cheap tanks
the allies have are the perfect "rush" preventors, an attacker is almost
always in a disadvantage against the same force defender, the med/light
tanks with several walls are working just fine to prevent a rush and defend
the allies for enough time.
works for me :)
if u are getting crushed by a raid of tanks your priorities are somehow
screwed.
IMHO, I think the entire game could have been more intrensting but.....it's
is the way it is, and in it's special way I think it's balanced enough.
--
Xai. <la...@netvision.net.il>
(Please reply to email)
Norton <mno...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<mnortonE...@netcom.com>...
> Brian Lui (lu...@hkstar.com) wrote:
> : Geh... use the 'indirect strategy'...
> : build a fake construction yard away from your real one
> : then *important* build a normal POWER PLANT next to it
> : some camo pillboxes and AA guns
> : the enemy will 90/100 go for the fake one.
>
> Doesn't work. In a huge tank rush, they could take down BOTH the real
and
> the fake in short work. Granted if they choose the wrong one first,
it'll
> take a little longer and MAYBE you'll have time to chew up the force
> first, but 9/10 they get both.
>
> Regards
> Mark Norton
>
> --
>
===================+========================================================
=
Stuart Rothman
"Mark Asher" <ma...@impacttech.com> wrote:
.I think the problem with adjusting things so that the Soviets are
penalized
.is that it hurts the game balance later on in the game when the
Allies have
.some definite advantages in some areas.
>--
>Mark Asher
I think that the price of units and building should fluctuate during
the game!
Alex Kubiak
On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 16:44:56 GMT, mno...@netcom.com (Norton) wrote:
>I think what will be necessary will be MAPS. Obviously, there is no
>easy answer to tweaking the various units so that the Soviet Rush, or
>the Allied Rush doesn't work. We're going to need experienced and
>creative mapmakers that create GOOD multiplayer maps that defuse the
>tank rush. I'm talking about the exact opposite of the North by
>Northwest map ;)
Isn't it interesting how Westwood seems to have changed their map
design philosophy? When I was making C&C maps, most of them ended up
very "wide-open", with multiple paths to take to any target and too
many bridge crossings to reliably guard; we wanted to experiment away
from the calculated tank/turret choke point battles that we usually
had with the built-in maps. Now it's just the opposite: we're longing
once again for choke points and channels of destruction, if only to
help counter the Soviet tank rush.
I for one think that there is a valid complaint concerning the Soviet
heavy tank. People used to complain similarly about the NOD bike in
C&C, but there was a difference: although the NOD bike was fast and
hit hard, it was also very vulnerable. The Soviet tank essentially
has no disadvantages: it hits very hard, is very well-armored, is not
significantly slower than the Allied medium tank, and, if you're
playing as the Russians, costs just slightly higher than the medium
tank. It's fearsome to see a group of them coming at you as the
Allies, because you know you can't stop the juggernaut. Typically, I
don't even try; I just crank out the light tanks and Tanyas/APCs and
blitzkrieg with 'em, hoping I distract my op enough so that he never
has the chance to strike at my unprotected base. If he rushes also,
it's a mutually assured destruction :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Kubiak
awku...@ucdavis.edu
Theodore Kang
> >Has everyone forgotten mines? This is very basic. Two mines can take out
> >a heavy tank. A few mine layers can get rid of ore trucks, too. Just mine
> the time the Red Armour starts knocking on your front door, I'll be
> very surprised.
> *speed*.
>
> Many of the more creative methods of defense simply will not work
> because you will not have the time. No time. That's the real problem.
On a large map there is usually plenty of time to lay some mines.
Starting with zero units. First find russian. Two, lay mines in path--as
many as possible. Build all tanks and rocket infantry.
Russian will still probably win. However, I figured that maybe the best
thing to do is not to engage the heavy tanks with your tanks but counter
rush all of your tanks at his base from a different direction. Kind of a
mutual suicide tactic--he goes all out tanks at your construction yard?
Wait till he commits then rush all your tanks at his? Have never tried
this mind you. But it's an idea.
Dave Blake
> >a heavy tank. A few mine layers can get rid of ore trucks, too. Just mine
>
> the time the Red Armour starts knocking on your front door, I'll be
> very surprised.
>
> The thing many people don't get yet about the Tank Rush is the
> *speed*.
>
> Many of the more creative methods of defense simply will not work
> because you will not have the time. No time. That's the real problem.
OUt of curiousity, what are the starting credits?? 10000 makes
it real easy to execute a tank ruch. It would seem that 3500 wouldn't.
Also, it would alevieate the time problem. Am I right or wrong??
Brad Barns
>In another thread, someone said:
>Once the Gap Generator / Tech Center combo is built, Soviets are
>at a disadvantage, and their Air Superiority is out the window.
I disagree. If the soviets use a Spy Plane then they can see (albeit for only
a moment or two) what you have in your base. I have played opponents who use
well timed spy planes with Migs / Choppers and then followed up with a Nuke.
That Spy Plane can effectively negate the Gap Generator (in SOME situations)
to almost useless. And all this seems to work no matter how many anti air
guns and bazookas I seem to have .....
-- Brad (Zone Shark) Barns | AARDVARK Public Access Internet
-- zsh...@aardvark.apana.org.au | Australia. Modem (613)+9670-9877
Brian Lui
Yeah! Like that starport in Dune II!
P.S. Bazookas surrounded by concrete walls!
Walter
wil...@cs.utexas.edu (Steven Michael Wilder) wrote:
>Walter (les...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
>: The thing many people don't get yet about the Tank Rush is the
>: *speed*.
>: Many of the more creative methods of defense simply will not work
>: because you will not have the time. No time. That's the real problem.
> My solution would be to concurrently build lots of light tanks and
>bazooka dudes at the same time. You can easily have 20 or more bazooka
>dudes in your base by the time the tank rush starts. Just build your
>barracks right after the first power plant.
Yes, I think Bazooka dudes have a chance of being able to hold things
off IF you can manage to keep them from getting crushed.
Can you really stop them from being rolled over?
I would say that the answer is NO. Vehicles move much faster in Red
Alert than in C&C, and infantry are consequently much more vulnerable.
They don't auto-scatter either, and so end up firing their bazookas
futilely to the end... SQUISH.
Heavy Tanks may not move as fast as Light Tanks, but their speed is
still more than adequate for squishing Bazookas.
Just think about it; If I squish 3 Bazookamen with my Heavy Tank, I
will have already evened the score, in terms of cost to build those
units.
And on average, I would say that I can definitely squish far more than
that!
So... problem is, how to keep Bazookas from going *squish*?
Walter
mno...@netcom.com (Norton) wrote:
>Brian Lui (lu...@hkstar.com) wrote:
>: Geh... use the 'indirect strategy'...
>: build a fake construction yard away from your real one
>: then *important* build a normal POWER PLANT next to it
>: some camo pillboxes and AA guns
>: the enemy will 90/100 go for the fake one.
>Doesn't work. In a huge tank rush, they could take down BOTH the real and
>the fake in short work. Granted if they choose the wrong one first, it'll
>take a little longer and MAYBE you'll have time to chew up the force
>first, but 9/10 they get both.
Hmm, yes, what has to be considered here is the time YOU waste
building the Fake Structure vs the time the opponent wastes shooting
at it.
Of course, I could go crazy and build 10 fake C. Yards one of these
days.... muhahahaha...
Walter
"Mark Asher" <ma...@impacttech.com> wrote:
>I agree completely. I wonder if Westwood will do anything about this? There
>seems to be a paucity of Soviet tactics also; you either tank rush or build
>a massive tank force and protect your base from allied sneak attacks. Throw
>in some MIGs as a diversionary tactic to make your opponent worry about air
>defence, and I think that sums up the Soviet approach.
Well, they ARE the Soviets after all, heh heh. One side is weak but
crafty; the other side is strong but not subtle.
I guess if you want more tactics, you could try the Allies.
But really, the main problem is that all the really good players have
gone Tank Rush crazy. At the very least, the majority of decent
players have gone Tank Rushin', and that by itself restricts
development of new, more challenging strategies, since to many the
Rush is the be-all and end-all of tactics. :(
Maybe once we get over the Rush, if we ever can get over the Rush, the
better stuff will come out of the woodwork.
>I think the problem is that the tank rush only affects us hardcore C&C
>mutliplayer veterans. Westwood estimated that only 25% of the purchasers of
>C&C ever played multiplayer. Out of those, how many do you think played it
>in the cutthroat manner in which it is played on the kali servers? Not too
>many, I'll wager.
Well, this all depends on how your friends view games. I have several
friends for whom winning is the primary issue. You know the type, when
you try to tell them that having fun is more important than winning
they'll tell you that winning IS the way they have fun.
(Ok, I don't like to lose either... heh heh :)
OTOH, if you have more relaxed friends, well, you might not have as
challenging games, but at least you probably won't see too many Tank
Rushes.
I wonder if C&C and the like were really designed with Multiplay in
mind from the ground up? It appears at times that they obviously were
not; it even appears as if their in-house Beta Testers didn't really
play Multi-play very often.
I mean, NOD Turrets and the Tank Rush are very OBVIOUS imbalances that
were picked up by C&C players in less than a month. Still, these are
the growing pains of a relatively new genre.
More C&C/WC clones are coming out all the time... just possibly there
might be a game out there which isn't breakable so easily.
>The tank rush is probably a problem only to a very small percentage of Red
>Alert owners.
Good points here.
I would advise all people who wish to retain the fun of 'friendly'
play to NEVER tell their non-internet using friends about the Tank
Rush.
Once the cancerous cells of the Rush spread, people never go back to
the old ways again... :P
Walter
mno...@netcom.com (Norton) wrote:
>The other answer to the tank rush is DON"T START WITH 10000 CREDITS. I
>think it was be interesting to start with 3000. Enough to build a power
>plant, refinery, and a barracks, and go from there.
Good point here. I've not tried any games with less that 10K, so I
don't know whether Tank Rush would be viable then.
I suspect it might not be viable, but you never know, those Tank
Rushers have made an art of that strategy. Strip it down to 3K and I
bet they'll figure out how have 10 Tanks knocking at your door in
minutes. :)
>If an allied player gives the soviet opponent 10000 credits to play with
>at the beginning, they're just asking for trouble.
Oh well, I suppose most of the people who play Tank Rushers nowadays
try to out-Tank Rush them. Sad. Of course, you *could* try building an
cunningly-designed, defensive base, but then your Ore Trucks would be
trashed as they ventured outside your defenses...
Lose-Lose situation. The Tank Rush is one of those strategies which is
so deadly, so offensive, that to defend against it you have to do it
yourself, or die. There are other games which have suffered from this
problem before. Red Alert certainly won't be the last, at least.
Walter
koc...@db.erau.edu wrote:
The Cruiser has a very long range main weapon. Therefore, it is not
necessary to transport the Cruiser into the Base per se, merely
transport it into a water patch that's near the Base.
Most bases have small water patches that can accomodate a Cruiser, but
aren't connected to the outside 'ocean' so your enemy won't build a
Sub Pen there, in all probability.
The Cruiser won't stay for long, but given the Cruiser's firepower, it
will stay long enough to destroy a few Adv. Power Plants probably...
Walter
Roger Wong wrote:
>
> [posted and mailed]
>
> les...@singnet.com.sg (Walter) wrote:
>
> >Trust me, once your base gets attacked, you'll suddenly realise that
> >while Ore Trucks are *expendable*, Construction Yards are NOT.
>
> I'd like to add my two pizzas to the discussion.
>
> Construction yards are expendable, ore refinieries are not. The only way to
> paralyze a tank builder is to cut off the money supply. Destroying the
> construction yard will not affect your opponent's ability to wage war if
> she already has her weapon factories.
Hmm... good point there.
I think what the original poster meant was to advocate attacking Ore
Trucks to try and stop a Tank Rusher.
I don't think that will work, probably because while you're beating up
on a couple of Ore Trucks which can usually take care of themselves the
Tank Rusher is busy beating up on your C. Yard. :)
Anyway, yes, I think it's probably a better idea to attack Ore
Refineries than Ore Trucks... the Refineries are less well armoured and
even if replaced, tend to make all the Ore Trucks jam up for a few
minutes... :)
> What to do when your opponent counter tank rushes is another topic.
> -Roger
Trouble is, everyone Tank Rushes now, simply because if you don't and
your opponent does, you're going to lose. :)
I wonder if all the niftier tactics will ever see the light of day
now...
Walter
gdb wrote:
> Y E S , theres nothing to do against a russian-opponent that makes
> a tank rush !!!
> The only way is to made yourself a tank rush .... so the game will be
> VERY boring .. tanks VS tanks is never very cool to watch...
Well, I suppose the Tank Rushers themselves are pretty happy with the
situation. I have a few friends who Rush, and they're quite happy with
it.
Granted, the rest of us aren't quite as happy, but... :)
> I had the experience when I played 5,6 ladder multiplayers...
> The alleged "good" players often use t.rushes...and theres really
> nothing to do when you're allies...
> pol...@ping.be
Well, let's just say that "good" player in terms of Red Alert these days
seems to mean 'good at Tank Rushing' OR 'good at tactic which is deadly
against Tank Rushers'.
While I'm not disputing that there are people out there who are *very*,
*very*, good at building Tanks so fast you'd be wondering whether he's
cheating or not, it doesn't say anything about how good they might be if
they didn't use the Rush.
While I would have oh, no objection to this IF Tanks and Ore Trucks were
the ONLY units in Red Alert, the fact is that they're NOT. And I'm
rather tired of seeing the same vehicles over and over again...
It's like playing chess with only the pawns or something.
Rob Dunlop
Shit, you just reminded me! How fucking cool was getting 5 vehicles at
bargain prices in Dune2! Sigh;)
Rob
Gandalf
zsh...@aardvark.apana.org.au (Brad Barns) wrote on Thu, 19 Dec 1996
08:38:28 Aus:
>>In another thread, someone said:
>>Once the Gap Generator / Tech Center combo is built, Soviets are
>>at a disadvantage, and their Air Superiority is out the window.
>
>I disagree. If the soviets use a Spy Plane then they can see (albeit for only
>a moment or two) what you have in your base. I have played opponents who use
>well timed spy planes with Migs / Choppers and then followed up with a Nuke.
>That Spy Plane can effectively negate the Gap Generator (in SOME situations)
>to almost useless. And all this seems to work no matter how many anti air
>guns and bazookas I seem to have .....
One tactic I have found useful is to employ mobile gap generators as
well -- the shroud apparently covers up much faster with MGGs than
standard GGs (probably because of the smaller area coverage), hence
preventing the player from targeting structures during the temporary
shroud lift. This is particularly useful for protecting the gap
generator itself. :)
=----------------------------=
Gandalf the Gray
=----------------------------=
Jeffrey Golds
In article <59a4if$d...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>,
Um, how about some concrete walls? Build some walls and put your bazooka
dudes behind them, you could even make the walls double think since they
have decent enough range and also the tanks will spend more time shooting
through walls than damaging other stuff.
I used to build walls a LOT on C&C to keep the enemy from seeing where my
base was. The only thing I would leave vulnerable was my refinery.
Of course, RA is different since you got spy planes and stuff, but now
we can use gap generators and stuff.
Jeff
jgo...@math.ohio-state.edu
Chris Becke
> wil...@cs.utexas.edu (Steven Michael Wilder) wrote:
>
> So... problem is, how to keep Bazookas from going *squish*?
erm, Alt-3 (bazooka dudes), Ctl-Click (take out that tank), XXXXXXXXXXXXX
(scatter while shooting at selected target). Does mean you have to spend
too much time micromanaging the bastards at a time your attention is sorely
needed elsewhere...
Chris.
Chris Becke
Its not hard to figure out. I mean I havn't played on Kali (yet), havn't
even played any Soviet missions yet (hey I'm supposed to *work* at work)
but I find that bumping out med tanks as fast as I can is all I need
against the PC. You say the russians are even better at tank rushes!?
cooool :)
hmmm, against a human it wouldn't work, but you can tak out any AI
controlled tank of your choice with any one tank you have available - eg.
select defending medium tank click attack on Iron Curtained attacking
Mammoth. Now hold down 'Q' and click around the mammoth. Moving tanks can
hit stationery targets quite well, and take almost no damage themselves.
Now I wonder how many defending Allies know to keep their defending tanks
moving at all times while defending from the attacking whatevers. hmmm I
wonder if the mammoth and heavy tanks can actually move fast enough to
avoid being taken out in this situation...
None the less, it simple looks like the Allies are like NOD in that they
require a faster mind with greater scope to micromanage to win - and win
they shall.
hmmm,
Chris.
Warren Tzu Hua Wang
Chris Becke (ch...@dbn.lia.net) wrote:
: Walter <les...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in article
: <59a4if$d...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>...
: > wil...@cs.utexas.edu (Steven Michael Wilder) wrote:
: >
: > So... problem is, how to keep Bazookas from going *squish*?
: erm, Alt-3 (bazooka dudes), Ctl-Click (take out that tank), XXXXXXXXXXXXX
: (scatter while shooting at selected target). Does mean you have to spend
: too much time micromanaging the bastards at a time your attention is sorely
: needed elsewhere...
Scatter all you want, it's still pathetically easy to squish them with
heavy tanks. You also have to remember, you're not trying to scatter from
one or two tanks here, an entire group of tanks, probably 10ish. Run all
you like, even if the Rusher is not trying to actively squish your troops,
by sheer number he will probably take out some.
Warren Wang, ww...@cs.utexas.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mulder: Imagine if you could come back and take out 5
people who had caused you to suffer. Who would they be?
Scully: I only get 5?
Mulder: I remembered your birthday this year, didn't I Scully?
*X-Files* The Truth is Out There
Mike
> The tank rush is probably a problem only to a very small percentage of > Red Alert owners.
Not really, there are some missions that I beat using this famous tank
rush, it works in multiplayer and in mission play
Norton
Walter (les...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: mno...@netcom.com (Norton) wrote:
: >Doesn't work. In a huge tank rush, they could take down BOTH the real and
: >the fake in short work. Granted if they choose the wrong one first, it'll
: >take a little longer and MAYBE you'll have time to chew up the force
: >first, but 9/10 they get both.
: Hmm, yes, what has to be considered here is the time YOU waste
: building the Fake Structure vs the time the opponent wastes shooting
: at it.
: Of course, I could go crazy and build 10 fake C. Yards one of these
: days.... muhahahaha...
I think this is hysterical! Just imagine the Soviet's surprise when
they sneak under the Gap cover and find a CY.... then another CY....
then another CY.... then another CY.... then another CY............
Somewhat reminiscent of those little dolls that fit inside each other.
Might work indeed!
Regards
Mark Norton
--
===================+=========================================================
Jeremy Corley
Are people talking about Heavy Tanks or Mammoth Tanks(MT)? I always
use
MTs and there isn't much of a reply unless you stop them from being
built in the first place.
MTs in RA always use their rockets on troups unlike C&C making them
nearly unstoppable. Mammoth tanks also heal. In packs of at least 6
they
chew helicopters to bits. Once I get about 10-12 tanks built I no
longer
care about my base, just keep pumping out tanks until some one wrecks
it.
If they try to just sit in their well defended base, go sit your
MTs on their Ore patches while you continue to build more tanks. As
long
as you keep them in a group there is not much that an enemy can do about
them.
I usually have 2 refineries, 3 weapon factories, and about 5-6 ore
trucks. Forget tesla coils. Build a bunch of rocket guys (10-20) to
protect
yourself from initial helicopter attacks, build a few flame towers to
handle
the odd engineer or Tonya. You need the Research Center and a Repair
pad to
build mammoths, but don't waste time or money building odds and ends for
buildings. The biggest mistake I see players make is the "one of
everything"
mentality.
RA will also allow you to leave a space between buildings. Do this
because the MTs are big and stupid and you want them to be able to move
around your base with ease.
General build order: (add PPs as needed, maybe 3-4 flame towers)
1. PP
2. Barracks (start building rocket guys)
3. Ore Ref.
4. War Factory (start building Ore Trucks)
5. Radar
6. Research
7. Repair pad (start building Mammoths, should have ~4 trucks by now)
8. Ore Ref
9. War Factory
10. War Factory
Never keep your MTs in packs less than 6. Try to rotate MTs that are
heavily damaged to the back of the pack so that they can heal.
Things that can screw you:
1. Ships (don't build near water if you can help it.) If you still
have a base and you get to 15+ MTs you can build some air power
to take care of this. If you have enough MTs you don't need your
base anymore, but then the game can turn to a draw as you wipe out
his base and have no way of getting to his ships.
2. Early heavy attacks on your base. Usually you can weather these
and sometimes if they time it poorly you will have a big enough
pack of MTs to trash their base after you wipe out most of their
attacking units.
3. Other people building MT factory bases. Sorry, just have to slug it
out. :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Senator Kennedy, what are you going to do about the abortion bill?"
"Pay it, I guess."
Jeremy Corley
Software Engineer XIT Systems
cor...@xit.com (206)720-6658
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Asher
Hard to say. Both sides are operating under the same constraints, so if a
lack of cash keeps the Soviet player from building tanks it also probably
keeps the allied player from building base defenses. Heavy tanks are $854
and medium tanks are $800. I think it probably just delays the rush. Ore is
very plentiful also, so it may not even delay the rush.
Mines are the best deterrent, but it's hard to get them down in the numbers
you need.
--
Mark Asher
Dave Blake <ro...@computer.net> wrote in article
<32B85A...@computer.net>...
Michel Santos
I agree. That it what I had as GDI to do to avoid my roommate's NOD
bike attacks.
Michel Santos
Dave Blake wrote:
>
> Walter wrote:
> >
> > "Laptop Smasher" <wats...@akronet.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Has everyone forgotten mines? This is very basic. Two mines can take out
> > >a heavy tank. A few mine layers can get rid of ore trucks, too. Just mine
> > >his ore fields. Try it.
> >
> > Well, if you actually manage to lay more than 1 mine (if that many) by
> > the time the Red Armour starts knocking on your front door, I'll be
> > very surprised.
> >
> > *speed*.
> >
> > Many of the more creative methods of defense simply will not work
> > because you will not have the time. No time. That's the real problem.
>
> it real easy to execute a tank ruch. It would seem that 3500 wouldn't.
> Also, it would alevieate the time problem. Am I right or wrong??
I agree. I prefer starting a game with 3500, that way both sides have
to slowly build up.
The alternative, of starting with 10000, is like an amphibious assault
where you have a set amount of equipment (in the form of initial cash)
that you should decide pretty much before hand how to distribute.
There's nothing wrong with that, but I prefer a strategic build up which
is easier to produce with 3500.
Michel
Michel Santos
Jeffrey Golds wrote:
>
> In article <59a4if$d...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>,
> Walter <les...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:
> >
> >>: The thing many people don't get yet about the Tank Rush is the
> >>: *speed*.
> >
> >>: Many of the more creative methods of defense simply will not work
> >>: because you will not have the time. No time. That's the real problem.
> >
> >>bazooka dudes at the same time. You can easily have 20 or more bazooka
> >>dudes in your base by the time the tank rush starts. Just build your
> >>barracks right after the first power plant.
> >
> >Yes, I think Bazooka dudes have a chance of being able to hold things
> >off IF you can manage to keep them from getting crushed.
> >
> >Can you really stop them from being rolled over?
> >
> >I would say that the answer is NO. Vehicles move much faster in Red
> >Alert than in C&C, and infantry are consequently much more vulnerable.
> >They don't auto-scatter either, and so end up firing their bazookas
> >futilely to the end... SQUISH.
> >
> >Heavy Tanks may not move as fast as Light Tanks, but their speed is
> >still more than adequate for squishing Bazookas.
> >
> >Just think about it; If I squish 3 Bazookamen with my Heavy Tank, I
> >will have already evened the score, in terms of cost to build those
> >units.
> >
> >And on average, I would say that I can definitely squish far more than
> >that!
> >
> >
>
> dudes behind them, you could even make the walls double think since they
> have decent enough range and also the tanks will spend more time shooting
> through walls than damaging other stuff.
>
> I used to build walls a LOT on C&C to keep the enemy from seeing where my
> base was. The only thing I would leave vulnerable was my refinery.
> Of course, RA is different since you got spy planes and stuff, but now
> we can use gap generators and stuff.
>
> Jeff
> jgo...@math.ohio-state.edu
I do the same thing for the Tesla coil. I just wasn't sure that the
bazzoka guys could shoot over the wall. It sort of becomes self-made
trenches/pill-boxes.
Michel
Dave Blake
Brian Lui wrote:
>
> Norton wrote:
> >
> > Walter (les...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
> > : mno...@netcom.com (Norton) wrote:
> > : >Doesn't work. In a huge tank rush, they could take down BOTH the real and
> > : >the fake in short work. Granted if they choose the wrong one first, it'll
> > : >take a little longer and MAYBE you'll have time to chew up the force
> > : >first, but 9/10 they get both.
> >
> > : Hmm, yes, what has to be considered here is the time YOU waste
> > : building the Fake Structure vs the time the opponent wastes shooting
> > : at it.
> >
> > : Of course, I could go crazy and build 10 fake C. Yards one of these
> > : days.... muhahahaha...
> >
> > I think this is hysterical! Just imagine the Soviet's surprise when
> > they sneak under the Gap cover and find a CY.... then another CY....
> > then another CY.... then another CY.... then another CY............
> >
> > Somewhat reminiscent of those little dolls that fit inside each other.
> > Might work indeed!
>
> thingies! They can't be run over, can be repaired (well, sometimes),
> more hitpoints that walls, cheaper per unit square. And the enemy always
> stops to shoot. Don't know about you, but my opponents always shoot
> fakes but never walls.
As fakes aren't powered, and nither are walls, you can't build walls
soley of fakes. You would need to have a backing of silo's behind them.
Dave Sherohman
The_Kid <bor...@loonmt.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Allied tanks are easy to kill and only have one turret. I
>don't think there is really any threat of an alllied tank rush. But if
>they tried it and they are only after your building, like the soviet
>tank rush, then even a tesla coil can really help take them out. That
>plus what large tanks you have would stop them. The allied tanks don't
>have as much punch so it is _much_ harder to do an allied tank rush.
Oh, yeah? Scope out the details in rules.ini...
Since this engaged my curiousity, I ran the numbers to get exact
figures instead of just the vague estimates which I've bee pondering
recently. Each dollar spent on light tanks nets 1% more firepower and
2% more hit points than if it were spent on heavy tanks (making them
essentially equivalent in firepower and durability) or 34% more
firepower and 18% more durability than if spent on mammoths. (For the
sake of simplicity, I ignored the tusk rockets. Since we're mostly
talking about tank-vs-tank battles, they would have minimal effects
anyhow. I also worked from the base prices without applying the
Russian discount; with the discount, heavy tanks become more
cost-effective than base-price lights, but the defender would still
have additional time in which to build tanks while the heavies rushed
and would also be able to build bazookas/defensive structures for
additional firepower while the war factory churns out lights.) Add in
the greater speed of light tanks, and one might claim that _light_
tanks are the best tank in the game...
(Then there was the time I picked up a crate that doubled the speed of
one of my light tanks... APCs may be good as Armored Personnel
Crushers, but this speed demon was fast enough to zip into the enemy
base, run over all the infantry (it was too fast for them to dodge),
and zip back out without taking hits from anything but
rifles/machineguns. A tesla coil would've been the only way to take
it out...)
--
I do not like net lags and spam
I do not like them, Sam I Am
Brian Lui
rus...@ihug.co.nz
Surely if both players agree a small truce period could be arranged ? I
know it sounds stupid, but I've heard lots of complaints about
'gamesmanship' in heaps of different games, and the people have solved
the complaints by establishing ground rules that stop the flaw in the
game.
Then again, anything in a game is legal, isn't it ?
What I really want to know is when a REAL-LIFE-REAL-TIME game will be
made. Steel Panthers meets Red Alert. None of this bullcrap where tanks
are damaged by rifles, and where they can survive fifteen bloody
rockets or so. Where ammo runs out, where units run away.. and I'm not
talking Close Combat.
Twin Ion Engine
I think the Soviet Tank rush problem would be solve if it is the Allies who
had Heavy Tank and Soviet had medium tank. This way, if the Allies does tank
rush, the Soviet has Mammoth and Tesla to counter. If the Soviet does medium
tank rush, the Allies at least have heavy tanks aided by turrets. If the
Soviet does a mammoth tank rush, then you ought to lose since you allowed him
to build so many mammoth.
On another side note, I countered a Allied tank rush not by building medium or
mammoth, but a combined arms. What I did was build a spread out force of
rocket guys and at the front is only about 1or 2 mammoth supported by 2 or 3
heavy's, a tesla coil and 2 or 3 flame turret against his 10 or 15 medium
tanks.
I think an alternative Allied strategy is to build an equal force of rocket,
turret and mediums (even if he doesn't use TR, you still have your basic
ground defense, air defence and mobile firebase. Add in 2 or 3 APCs to remove
any stray infantries and there you got a relatively good early defence. That
is when you start to mine the field if your opponent is going for the mammoth
tank rush.
Frankly speaking, the mine is really useful against the computer only since
they normally take the same path. And that you have to micromanage like hell.
Doug Radcliffe
Tank Rush Fix Theory..
If someone mentioned this before, sorry.. but here is an idea..
* I've always hated the way tanks and APCs and Harvesters can squish
infantry.. I mean, please.. it isn't that realistic.. In battle
situations, tanks don't go hunting down men to flatten them.
So either, make infantry unsquishable or
Have it so the computer automatically moves guys about to be squished..
much like the computer does against you (bastard)
This way, you can have the rocket guys in your base to defend against the
RUSH and they'll live long enough to hold up the home front (maybe)
against the rush.
I'm not sure if it will have other effects in gameplay.. the other
addition I might make infantry a bit easier to kill using a tank.. some
tanks take 6 shots to kill a guy.
Oh well.
Glenn Pearce
rus...@ihug.co.nz wrote in article <59ctc4$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
> What I really want to know is when a REAL-LIFE-REAL-TIME game will be
> made. Steel Panthers meets Red Alert. None of this bullcrap where tanks
> are damaged by rifles, and where they can survive fifteen bloody
> rockets or so. Where ammo runs out, where units run away.. and I'm not
> talking Close Combat.
A game like this would be great if you're into hardcore micro-management.
I think that level of detail would turn off most of the people who like
games like C&C and WarCraft.
There comes a level of complexity where a single person can no longer
handle the details in real time.
Walter
ww...@cs.utexas.edu (Warren Tzu Hua Wang) wrote:
>Scatter all you want, it's still pathetically easy to squish them with
>heavy tanks. You also have to remember, you're not trying to scatter from
>one or two tanks here, an entire group of tanks, probably 10ish. Run all
>you like, even if the Rusher is not trying to actively squish your troops,
>by sheer number he will probably take out some.
Oh yes, you are absolutely correct here.
If you bazookamen try to engage the Heavy Tanks before they have
reached the target, it is almost certain that they will all get
squished to a man as the Heavy Tanks roll over them in the attempt to
get to the target.
Heh heh...
"This is base command to strike force Alpha. Target and destroy the
Construction Yard."
"Da, Comrade. Advancing through enemy defenses."
*bump* *squish* *arrgh*
"What was that?"
"Must be the suspension, I did not have it serviced lately Comrade
Gunner..."
Again, the real problem here is the speed of many units compared to
C&C. Land units move much faster now.
Sergio Carvalho
On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Walter wrote:
> "Laptop Smasher" <wats...@akronet.com> wrote:
>
> >Has everyone forgotten mines? This is very basic. Two mines can take out
> >a heavy tank. A few mine layers can get rid of ore trucks, too. Just mine
> >his ore fields. Try it.
>
> Well, if you actually manage to lay more than 1 mine (if that many) by
> the time the Red Armour starts knocking on your front door, I'll be
> very surprised.
>
> The thing many people don't get yet about the Tank Rush is the
> *speed*.
>
> Many of the more creative methods of defense simply will not work
> because you will not have the time. No time. That's the real problem.
>
Don't you ever play games with human imposed rules? In C&C I played lots
of times with a rule which disallowed ANY attack on the first 10 min.
This allows for basic strucuture buildup, and after that, it's every man
for himself ... It's lots of fun, try it!
Sergio Carvalho lei...@tom.fe.up.pt
------------------------------------------------------
http://alf.fe.up.pt/aefewww/leic94/Welcome.html
Mark Asher
Some replies...
--
Mark Asher
Walter <les...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in article
<59a4id$d...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>...
> "Mark Asher" <ma...@impacttech.com> wrote:
>
> I guess if you want more tactics, you could try the Allies.
The problem is I never cared for using engineers and commandos. What I
enjoyed in C&C was the interesting battle for control of the tiberium
fields -- not rushing at the opponent's base with engineers and commandos.
In RA, it seems you have to use the sneaky stuff to offset the Soviet heavy
firepower. Gameplay style, I guess.
>
> But really, the main problem is that all the really good players have
> gone Tank Rush crazy. At the very least, the majority of decent
> players have gone Tank Rushin', and that by itself restricts
> development of new, more challenging strategies, since to many the
> Rush is the be-all and end-all of tactics. :(
Everyone's on some kind of damn ladder and worried about their ranking.
Plus, there's that fear of "rush or be rushed."
>
> I wonder if C&C and the like were really designed with Multiplay in
> mind from the ground up? It appears at times that they obviously were
> not; it even appears as if their in-house Beta Testers didn't really
> play Multi-play very often.
>
> I mean, NOD Turrets and the Tank Rush are very OBVIOUS imbalances that
> were picked up by C&C players in less than a month. Still, these are
> the growing pains of a relatively new genre.
Westwood testers obviously sit back and build for 15 or 20 minutes before
they get serious about attacking.
>
> More C&C/WC clones are coming out all the time... just possibly there
> might be a game out there which isn't breakable so easily.
I woudn't mind a game that started each side off in a prebuilt base. Think
about the allies surrounded by concrete walls with two turrets at each
corner to start. That would make the tank rush more problematic.
The problem with these games is that they are build and attack games, which
means that if one player can build faster or one side has a superior unit
(heavy tanks, for example) that he can build quickly, that player has an
immediate advantage. C&C -- by accident, I'm convinced -- had a nice
balance at the beginning. NOD was too lightly armored to mound any kind of
an immediate rush other than the trick tactics -- APCs with engineers or 4
or 5 apaches right off the bat, and GDI could get chewed up by NOD turrets
if they tried to tank rush early on. It kept both sides honest. Boy, heavy
tanks chew up and spit out turrets in RA, though.
>
> I would advise all people who wish to retain the fun of 'friendly'
> play to NEVER tell their non-internet using friends about the Tank
> Rush.
>
> Once the cancerous cells of the Rush spread, people never go back to
> the old ways again... :P
>
The genie is out of the bottle. Only Westwood can put it back in again. <g>
Norton
Mark Asher (ma...@impacttech.com) wrote:
: Everyone's on some kind of damn ladder and worried about their ranking.
: Plus, there's that fear of "rush or be rushed."
Yep, I think the Ladders have done a good thing in giving a somewhat
objective way to quantitativly measure how proficient someone is, however
it is annoying to have that be the PURPOSE of the game, rather than
just having fun.
The effect is somewhat similar to the effect that tournaments have had
on Magic: The Gathering. Everything got so serious so fast...
: I woudn't mind a game that started each side off in a prebuilt base. Think
: about the allies surrounded by concrete walls with two turrets at each
: corner to start. That would make the tank rush more problematic.
I think the right map would take care of it. A friend of mine made one
that obviously had this in mind. Basically one corner of the map is wide
open, and the other corner is closed in a bit, with a few choke points.
Obviously a Soviet and Allied corner.
I've held off tank rushes before if they have to come down a narrow path.
Mediums with focused fire can eat up heavies and mammoths pretty easily
with only a few losses. The problem is when they get into your base,
they can arrange themselves to use focused fire also and your buildings
go down.
: The genie is out of the bottle. Only Westwood can put it back in again. <g>
There hasn't been much evidence that they will do this though. I can
think of only one bug fix done to promote balanced play (the C&C turret
price increase).
Steven Michael Wilder
In article <01bbed84$56f0aca0$1f23...@ariel.dbn.lia.net> "Chris Becke" <ch...@dbn.lia.net> writes:
~Walter <les...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in article
~<59a4if$d...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>...
~> wil...@cs.utexas.edu (Steven Michael Wilder) wrote:
~>
~> So... problem is, how to keep Bazookas from going *squish*?
~
~erm, Alt-3 (bazooka dudes), Ctl-Click (take out that tank), XXXXXXXXXXXXX
~(scatter while shooting at selected target). Does mean you have to spend
~too much time micromanaging the bastards at a time your attention is sorely
~needed elsewhere...
~
~Chris.
~
Why would you stick your bazookas in the middle of your base? Wait
till the Soviets start attacking your construction yard then move the
bazookas in _behind_ them. Will they stop firing at the CYard to
squish your men?
Here's another idea too. Engineers. Post an engineer or two next to
your CYard (surrounded by concrete walls of course for no squish).
When the CYard is about to bite it, waltz the Engineer inside.
Alternativly, put the Engineers in APCs so that the Soviets don't know
that you have an engineer ready.
--
Steven Michael Wilder <wil...@cs.utexas.edu>
President UT ACM Student Chapter
--
Steven Michael Wilder <wil...@cs.utexas.edu>
President UT ACM Student Chapter
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
Some comments:
Norton <mno...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<mnortonE...@netcom.com>...
> Mark Asher (ma...@impacttech.com) wrote:
snip
> : I woudn't mind a game that started each side off in a prebuilt base.
Think
> : about the allies surrounded by concrete walls with two turrets at each
> : corner to start. That would make the tank rush more problematic.
>
> I think the right map would take care of it. A friend of mine made one
> that obviously had this in mind. Basically one corner of the map is wide
> open, and the other corner is closed in a bit, with a few choke points.
> Obviously a Soviet and Allied corner.
>
> I've held off tank rushes before if they have to come down a narrow path.
> Mediums with focused fire can eat up heavies and mammoths pretty easily
> with only a few losses. The problem is when they get into your base,
> they can arrange themselves to use focused fire also and your buildings
> go down.
Yeah, different types of maps would help. I don't know what your experience
is, but when I play someone, invariably we use a medium or large map. I
kind of miss the small maps. Ore would be something to fight over on a
small map. On the mediums and especially the large maps ore is too
plentiful I think.
> : The genie is out of the bottle. Only Westwood can put it back in again.
<g>
>
> There hasn't been much evidence that they will do this though. I can
> think of only one bug fix done to promote balanced play (the C&C turret
> price increase).
>
No, they don't like to fool with it too much. I think they really missed
their target with Red Alert, though. The tank rush is just about as
devastating as the creeping $200 turrets were.
The_Kid
Brad Barns wrote:
>
> >In another thread, someone said:
> >Once the Gap Generator / Tech Center combo is built, Soviets are
> >at a disadvantage, and their Air Superiority is out the window.
>
> I disagree. If the soviets use a Spy Plane then they can see (albeit for only
> a moment or two) what you have in your base. I have played opponents who use
> well timed spy planes with Migs / Choppers and then followed up with a Nuke.
> That Spy Plane can effectively negate the Gap Generator (in SOME situations)
> to almost useless. And all this seems to work no matter how many anti air
> guns and bazookas I seem to have .....
>
> -- zsh...@aardvark.apana.org.au | Australia. Modem (613)+9670-9877
Agreed. The spy plane lets you target any building under the gap
generator shroud. You only need to see it for a second to target a
building.
Ed
Norton
Mark Asher (ma...@impacttech.com) wrote:
: Norton <mno...@netcom.com> wrote in article
: >
: > I think the right map would take care of it. A friend of mine made one
: > that obviously had this in mind. Basically one corner of the map is wide
: > open, and the other corner is closed in a bit, with a few choke points.
: > Obviously a Soviet and Allied corner.
: >
: > I've held off tank rushes before if they have to come down a narrow path.
: > Mediums with focused fire can eat up heavies and mammoths pretty easily
: > with only a few losses. The problem is when they get into your base,
: > they can arrange themselves to use focused fire also and your buildings
: > go down.
: Yeah, different types of maps would help. I don't know what your experience
: is, but when I play someone, invariably we use a medium or large map. I
: kind of miss the small maps. Ore would be something to fight over on a
: small map. On the mediums and especially the large maps ore is too
: plentiful I think.
I don't mind the large maps at all. I always felt very crowded on the old
C&C maps. I invariably prefer the veryvery large maps. Granted it can take
a bit longer, but I play the Allies and I like the controlling aspect.
I want to choose when adn where and how I meet the enemy if at all possible
and larger maps have a much wider choice of options.
I do like the grass though. I dislike the snow terrain and wish they
could have brought back the sand.
: No, they don't like to fool with it too much. I think they really missed
: their target with Red Alert, though. The tank rush is just about as
: devastating as the creeping $200 turrets were.
Yes, but changing unit parameters is a tricky thing. Almost sort of like
open heart surgury when a little balloon surgery would have done the
trick (whatever tha'ts called, I've entirely forgotten the name for it).
Piers Samwell-Smith
In article <59b4v8$8...@mr-skullhead.cs.utexas.edu>
ww...@cs.utexas.edu "Warren Tzu Hua Wang" writes:
> Scatter all you want, it's still pathetically easy to squish them with
> heavy tanks. You also have to remember, you're not trying to scatter from
> one or two tanks here, an entire group of tanks, probably 10ish. Run all
> you like, even if the Rusher is not trying to actively squish your troops,
> by sheer number he will probably take out some.
Bazzoka dudes placed behind tanks, with approaches heavily mined. It
might even be worth using some as bait, right in the middle of a patch
of mines. The key would seem to be attrition, both the effect on the
actual force and the effect on the commander of seeing a significant
portion of his force dead before they even get to the base structure.
--
Suck The Goat
Mike Champagne
>I think the Soviet Tank rush problem would be solve if it is the Allies who
>had Heavy Tank and Soviet had medium tank. This way, if the Allies does tank
>rush, the Soviet has Mammoth and Tesla to counter. If the Soviet does medium
>tank rush, the Allies at least have heavy tanks aided by turrets. If the
>Soviet does a mammoth tank rush, then you ought to lose since you allowed him
>to build so many mammoth.
No way.. This would *completely* upset the gameplay to the other
side.. Then Allies would be the ones doing tank rushes.. I think
that the single best solution to this is for Westwood to implement a
feature where you can drag and click walls instead of only being able
to build a section at a time.. I also think this should be made
available to both sides. It would lengthen the gameplay by quite a
bit, but it would negate the tank rush, and it wouldn't upset the
overall balance of the game. The only problem being that along with
negating the effectiveness of the tank rush, it would also negate the
tanya, engineer/apc attack.
Mike
Jeff Rogers
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 21:50:19 GMT, mch...@ix.netcom.com (Mike
Champagne) wrote: RE THE TANK RUSH PROBLEM
> I think
>that the single best solution to this is for Westwood to implement a
>feature where you can drag and click walls instead of only being able
>to build a section at a time.. I also think this should be made
>available to both sides. It would lengthen the gameplay by quite a
>bit, but it would negate the tank rush, and it wouldn't upset the
>overall balance of the game. The only problem being that along with
>negating the effectiveness of the tank rush, it would also negate the
>tanya, engineer/apc attack.
Mike's got something here... maybe train an engineer, click the wall
button, then click and drag a line where you want the wall to be
built. The nearest engineer runs over and starts constructing the
wall where you ordered. Selecting multiple engineers speeds up wall
construction, but all wall construction actually could occur ON THE
MAP. Maybe even allow engineers to build walls anywhere on the map--
not just near your base. If someone attacks/kills the engineers
during wall construction, it stays unfinished until you direct more
engineers to continue construction. Destroyed walls could be repaired
by engineers... Hmmmm....
Jeff Rogers
http://www.mindspring.com/~jwrogers
Roll Tide, and Go Navy-Beat Army!
Brad
Dave Sherohman wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> >So either, make infantry unsquishable or
No need to bother westwood. In rulse.ini, there are two (amongst MANY
others) vaiables that control just what you want. one is something like
"squishable=" the default is yes, but if you change all the infantry to
squishable=no, gripe solved. the other one i was talking about is
called "tracked=", i think the default in no, but anyway, is controls if
a unit can squish squishable units (infantry usually)
> >Have it so the computer automatically moves guys about to be squished..
> >much like the computer does against you (bastard)
> This, however, can be done with a simple setting (PlayerScatter) in
> rules.ini.
True, try it!
> >I'm not sure if it will have other effects in gameplay.. the other
> >addition I might make infantry a bit easier to kill using a tank.. some
> >tanks take 6 shots to kill a guy.
>
> Give tanks an MG as a secondary weapon. Haven't tried it, but it
> shouldn't be too tough.
add to the units properties list:
...
Secondary=<name of weapon>
...
> --
> I do not like net lags and spam
> I do not like them, Sam I Am
Seconded!
-Brad
The Iron Curtain | C&C: RED ALERT
<http://www.best.com/~phenix/ra/index.html>
Command & Conquer
<http://www.best.com/~phenix/cc/index.html>
Home Page
<http://www.best.com/~phenix/index.html>
Dave Sherohman
Jeremy Corley <cor...@xit.com> wrote:
> If they try to just sit in their well defended base, go sit your
>MTs on their Ore patches while you continue to build more tanks. As
>long
>as you keep them in a group there is not much that an enemy can do about
>them.
See the analysis I posted yesterday. The money you spend on your pack
of 6 mammoths will buy me a pack of 17 lights (more actually, since I
won't need a service depot or tech center) with a third more
anti-armor firepower and a sixth more hit points. Add in their
ability to dodge your shots and they'll leave your mammoth pack in
little pieces scattered across the battlefield. (Yes, the lights can
be countered. My point isn't that light tanks are perfect, but rather
that there is no One Ultimate Strategy.)
Mammoths, for the most part, are merely useful as a psychological
weapon - many (most?) players get freaked out when they see mammoths
coming at them. They're not actually all that powerful and are best
used in a combined arms approach, not as the only thing you buy. Just
like everything else.
Dave Sherohman
do...@cdc.net (Doug Radcliffe) wrote:
>Tank Rush Fix Theory..
>
>If someone mentioned this before, sorry.. but here is an idea..
>
>* I've always hated the way tanks and APCs and Harvesters can squish
>infantry.. I mean, please.. it isn't that realistic.. In battle
>situations, tanks don't go hunting down men to flatten them.
True, but in RL tanks have machineguns on them, so they can actually
_shoot_ the infantry effectively. C&C/RA tanks just have cannons that
don't do squat to the gropos.
>So either, make infantry unsquishable or
You'd have to talk to Westwood for that one.
>Have it so the computer automatically moves guys about to be squished..
>much like the computer does against you (bastard)
This, however, can be done with a simple setting (PlayerScatter) in
rules.ini.
>I'm not sure if it will have other effects in gameplay.. the other
>addition I might make infantry a bit easier to kill using a tank.. some
>tanks take 6 shots to kill a guy.
Give tanks an MG as a secondary weapon. Haven't tried it, but it
shouldn't be too tough.
--
Rob Sanheim
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:13:42 -0800, Jeremy Corley <cor...@xit.com>
wrote:
>Are people talking about Heavy Tanks or Mammoth Tanks(MT)? I always
>use
>MTs and there isn't much of a reply unless you stop them from being
>built in the first place.
<SNIPPED>
can weather these
> and sometimes if they time it poorly you will have a big enough
> pack of MTs to trash their base after you wipe out most of their
> attacking units.
> 3. Other people building MT factory bases. Sorry, just have to slug it
>out. :)
>
Sorry to say, but Mammoth tanks suck. A light tank or probably even a
medium can run circles around them without getting hit. Heavy tanks
are the only way to go.
--------------------------------------------------------
[ Rob Sanheim - aka "Bez" rob...@execpc.com ]
[ http://www.execpc.com/~roberts/tankrush.html ]
[ the Tank Rush Tactics Page -- for Westwood's Red Alert ]
Brian Lui
> See the analysis I posted yesterday. The money you spend on your pack
> of 6 mammoths will buy me a pack of 17 lights (more actually, since I
> won't need a service depot or tech center) with a third more
> anti-armor firepower and a sixth more hit points. Add in their
> ability to dodge your shots and they'll leave your mammoth pack in
> little pieces scattered across the battlefield. (Yes, the lights can
> be countered. My point isn't that light tanks are perfect, but rather
> that there is no One Ultimate Strategy.)
>
> Mammoths, for the most part, are merely useful as a psychological
> weapon - many (most?) players get freaked out when they see mammoths
> coming at them. They're not actually all that powerful and are best
> used in a combined arms approach, not as the only thing you buy. Just
> like everything else.
I think that they suck. Even bazookas are better for air defense!
Whenever I see anyone building a bunch of Mammoths, I just laugh at them
and kill with lights running around.
Has anyone tried attacking with allies, with a harvester as a point? It
has the most hit points and can squish and auto-regenerate. Everyone
attacks the harvester first, too.