Jump to content

Ice

Staff
  • Content Count

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
  • Donations

    $0.00 

Ice last won the day on January 24 2019

Ice had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

46 Excellent

2 Followers

About Ice

  • Rank
    TD: Ground Zero Co-Producer & Lifetime RA-lism Advocate
  • Birthday 12/17/1991

Profile Information

  • Ingame Username
    Ice
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada
  • Interests
    Outdoor activities, airsoft/paintball, history & science literature, computer games, DIY projects
  • Icon
    none

Recent Profile Visitors

3,480 profile views
  1. I think if the Spy Plane and Spy Satellite were to be implemented into the game, the easiest way to initially balance them might be to simply have them function identically; Say, every five minutes, the plane/satellite does one "flyover/orbit" and reveals all units (except underground units for obvious reasons) on some kind of minimap for one minute, and this cycle could continue automatically until the Tech Centre is destroyed. (I know the Spy Plane was tied to the Airfield, but for balance reasons I think these two abilities should be tied to equivalent buildings between factions).
  2. Renegade was, at best, only loosely based on TD but with an entirely inferior different art style, and featured a ton of technologies and weapons/units which were never (visibly) present in TD. Personally I consider Renegade to be akin to a children's cartoon portrayal of the First Tiberium War. Ground Zero, on the other hand, is going to follow TD much more closely, both in style and in weapon/unit composition. In addition, the gameplay is also going to be entirely different; In contrast with Renegade's extremely arcadey gameplay, Ground Zero is going in the complete opposite directio
  3. Looks pretty cool! Would love to see a solid-colour version of it as well which would fit into the RA1 time period better, like a Dunkelgrau Allied version or a Protective Green 4BO Soviet version.
  4. If anything the most sensible choice would be the K-5/K-55 or K-8 (the missiles which the MiG's Kh-66/Kh-23 were originally developed from IRL), or perhaps the K-13. That being said, I personally don't think they should have an anti-air weapon since they're supposed to be a bomber, not a fighter (That's the Yak's job). It was described in cutscenes as 'essentially a bomber', and it can only shoot other aircraft while they're grounded or just taking off. Plus it shouldn't overshadow the Yak too much and the roles in which they excel should be divided nicely, with the Yak being primarily
  5. Yeah, MiG's in RA1 are strictly bombers so they're not supposed to be good against aircraft in APB. Personally I think their missiles (being Kh-23 air-to-ground missiles) shouldn't even be able to track aircraft at all lol (but on the flipside, getting a lucky hit on an aircraft should do massive damage if not outright destroy it). Do you mean aileron rolls (commonly confused with barrel rolls)? Granted, you can do both kinds of rolls and either way it's fun.
  6. Not only that, but realistically both the Allied tank classes (Light and Medium) would not be comprised of a single design each, but would in fact be a collection of many different (primarily if not exclusively European) designs, as each country would be using their own national tank designs; Germany producing Panzer-style light tanks, France further developing their R35/R40 series light tanks or perhaps producing something similar to an early-model AMX-13, England producing something similar to the Cromwell, etc. Medium tanks early in the war would likely be a mixed bag of mid-to-late 19
  7. While you're correct that there isn't really any homing mechanism for people, you're also assuming that the Mammoth's missiles are fire-and-forget, when they could just as easily be wire-guided manually by an operator with a controller (MCLOS and SACLOS), or even laser-guided. While using such missiles against infantry formations is usually redundant when there far more economical weapons for that job, it is quite possible to do if you really had to. This also depends on what exactly the missile pods are firing; Are they relatively inexpensive unguided fragmentation rockets being used aga
  8. Yeah an airfield would be a very important strategic target for both sides, and it would be a top priority for the Soviets to want to recapture/destroy one that the Allies had captured from them; not only would the Allies be denying its use to the Soviets (meaning that Soviet air support could be unavailable, or at least they would need to come from other airfields farther away, hampering response time and overall effectiveness, as well as using more fuel), but they would also be able to use it to repair/refuel their own aircraft (Bf 109's, Fw 190's, Spitfires, etc.) as well as bring in suppli
  9. Here's a crazy idea: Would we even need airfields in a planes-only map? What if players simply spawned already flying in the plane, similar to War Thunder or WoWP?
  10. An assault map based around air raiding is an interesting idea! Could be a neat way to change up the gameplay a bit. On the subject of air units, it was recently revealed to the public that airplane physics are getting an overhaul. When the new physics are complete, airplanes will handle a bit more closely to other flying games, and be capable of several new types of maneuvers; rolls, loops, etc. With this new system in place, true air-to-air combat may finally become technically possible. Of course, in RA1 airplanes weren't available to Allied players due to balancing and faction-variety
  11. Building on what Killing_You said, we want to offer something a bit different from the other W3D titles, and are intending for GZ's gameplay to be a bit more tactical and less "spammy". What exactly this entails is still largely up for debate, but in general you can expect longer combat ranges (likely up to several hundred metres!), more realistic (to an extent) weapons/vehicle handling (damage/RoF/reload speed, ballistics & shell drop, APB-style first-person vehicle cameras instead of the usual third-person ones, that sort of thing), and more "high risk, high reward" gameplay. Your decisi
  12. Remains of abandoned/destroyed bases are certainly a possibility! One of the things I really want to do in GZ is feature a lot of "reminders" of GWWII, much like how the real world has random WWI/WWII relics being found every so often. Some of these would be more subtle than others; An abandoned Allied Pillbox overgrown with moss, a long-dead Soviet Heavy Tank half-sunk in a swamp, a monument in a village dedicated to the Allied soldiers, an old Light Tank as a museum piece, stuff like that. Imagine you're sneaking through a forest in some obscure corner of the map, and you come across so
  13. The Medium Tank in RA1 is not an Abrams though; it only looks like one externally. Same with the Heavy Tank. While they look like certain modern tanks that we know, they're different "on the inside"; WWII-style steel armour instead of composite, more primitive electronics, different guns, etc. Make sense? Meanwhile, the GDI Medium Tank would be much closer to the real Abrams in terms of technology. Also because this is an alternate timeline, things developed a bit differently. So no, you don't need to make a tank exactly like its real-world counterpart. (otherwise the double-barreled Heav
  14. By the standards of the time period RA1 takes place in (1949 - 1953), a 105mm actually would often be considered to be a heavy tank gun, depending on a given country's definitions. Not only that, but RA1's rules.ini (the coding document from which Pushwall quoted the tank's stat's) specifically lists the Medium Tank's weapon as a 90mm, which by comparison also makes the Heavy Tank's gun, well, heavy, compared to the Medium Tank's. Plus it has TWO of the damn things, compared to the Medium Tank only having one. Also two 120mm - 130mm guns would be absolutely ridiculous for the RA1 Heavy Ta
×
×
  • Create New...