Ice
-
Posts
275 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4 -
Donations
0.00 USD
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Documentation
Bug Tracker
Downloads
Posts posted by Ice
-
-
On 11/6/2019 at 12:26 PM, NodGuy said:
I like the idea of RA taking place in the '70s but it doesn't make sense when it comes to Stalin. He would've been almost 100 years old by that time but he definitely doesn't look like it in the game.
Exactly, the whole 1970s comment really just seems like them speaking without putting any real thought into it in that regard. Regardless of any other factors, Stalin being alive and not visibly decrepit means that RA1 absolutely could not have taken place any later than the early 1960s (and even that's a stretch), although the 1950s is the most likely overall (personally I've always considered RA1 to take place from 1949 to 1953 and that's most likely never gonna change lol).
0 -
On 11/27/2022 at 3:52 PM, LeonardMT said:
Wait a minute.......... Swamp of illusions isn't new! It's just an update of Forest of illusions!
It's not really an update of FoI per se; it's more like a spiritual successor to it.
0 -
2 hours ago, 1000MammothTanks said:
Cool. Soviets were sorely missing a cheap vehicular anti-infantry unit.
How many infantry can the new unit carry?
Currently it doesn't carry passengers, although this wasn't always the case.
Originally it could carry three passengers in accordance with the vision of being a jack-of-all-trades middle ground between its more specialized Allied counterparts (the Ranger & APC), but unfortunately during testing it became apparent that this made the unit too powerful for its tier/price when combined with its other characteristics, so the current iteration of the unit is more akin to a 'heavy Ranger' rather than a 'light APC'.
But fret not, the unit is still a blast to drive!
It zips across the battlefield at a speed that no other Soviet ground unit can match, which makes it their best choice for ground scouting and harassment, and its powerful DShK machine gun gives it a firepower very reminiscent of the APC, making it perfect for punching holes in enemy aircraft or hunting down enemy infantry. While slightly bulkier and a bit slower than the Ranger, it's also a bit more durable which in combination with its firepower makes the unit more fitting of the Soviets' 'big & strong but slow' playstyle compared to the Soviet Ranger, which was merely a direct copy-paste of the Allied one and always seemed kinda at odds with the rest of the Soviet arsenal.
0 -
9 minutes ago, Killing_You said:
We're overlooking one of the most important questions here.
Will the new Artillery have a little bit of side-to-side pivot?
Yes, it's quite capable of this.
7 minutes ago, Chad1233 said:Speaking of the cold war asthetic I don't know if you seen my earlier topic here:
The Westwood staff during a early Q&A in February even said RA1 takes place in the 70s which puts the Allies more modern units like the Abrams and Apaches into perspective even though they were quite early prototypes at the time but being a alternative time line I could see them put into service earlier. Though in retail they seemed to of scrubbed any mention of this since Stalin would had been so old by which could of been the reason. :P
Practically all sources specifically place RA1 in the early 1950's. Even RA2 (which itself explicitly takes place in the early 1970's and 20 years after RA1) confirms this.
0 -
3 hours ago, Chad1233 said:
I prefer the B version to because it's more like the real thing which is what the old model was going for unlike the newer one which is based off the weird Remastered version and WW's ancient CGI model (Which it was modeled after the M107 abet poorly :P). Though the tracks arch down at the back on the B version for some reason and I can't find it doing that in the side profiles here: https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M107-self-propelled-gun.php
It's also important to remember that it's an alternate universe, so things aren't gonna be the same as in our world. In the case of the artillery, there are simply too many visual differences with the WW model for it to be an actual M107/M110, and it's better to embrace these differences as a product of the alternate timeline, rather than going the rather unimaginative route of simply copying something from our world. The goal is to look like the in-game sprite first and foremost, and augmenting that with whatever details we can get from other sources.
(For what it's worth, I agree that the Remastered artillery is... weird in several ways, which is why relatively few details were taken from it lol)3 -
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 -
1 hour ago, Rulue said:
We already have vanilla Renegade which sets in TD era and based on it, isn't it?
Renegade was, at best, only loosely based on TD but with an entirely
inferiordifferent 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 direction, with the goal of ultimately becoming the closest thing to a MilSim or tactical shooter ever made on the W3D engine.
0 -
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.
0 -
12 hours ago, NodFan said:
Your not alone. I have like 0 kills and 50 deaths with the Mig
@Ice I think the Migs should get a secondary weapon for A2A like maybe the R-73 Archer missile which is an A2A missile.
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).
12 hours ago, Cat said:The Mig in Red Alert can shoot airborne units though, but hard since we can't target air.
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 a maneuverable anti-air dogfighter and anti-infantry strafing unit, and the MiG specializing as a fast anti-vehicle and anti-building bomber unit.
0 -
10 hours ago, des1206 said:
- Migs aren't very good against planes. Use a Yak if you want to hunt air units.
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).
10 hours ago, des1206 said:- You can do barrell rolls with Migs by holding the direction button while flying.
Do you mean aileron rolls (commonly confused with barrel rolls)?
Granted, you can do both kinds of rolls and either way it's fun. 
0 -
6 hours ago, MPRA2 said:
Why do I see a pony on that tank?
Custom texture/emblem I guess?
0 -
On 11/12/2019 at 6:31 AM, Jeod said:
I wish people would stop trying to match C&C tanks to real-world counterparts. It's an alternate universe. The theater of war changed and the Allies are now having to cross Russian terrain, so obviously the blueprints of their vehicles would adapt to such a change. Westwood devs probably combined a few favorites of theirs into fictional designs.
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 1940's designs similar to the proposed E50/E50M. Later in the war as tank design changed, these earlier designs may be supplemented or replaced with something resembling the early-model Leopard 1 or AMX-30, and finally the Abrams-like tank shown in RA1 cutscenes could be one of the 'definitive' designs introduced near the end of the war.
IIRC there's also a cutscene in RA2 which briefly shows footage of Soviet troops surrendering to a Panzer III. Although obviously this tank would be completely obsolete in RA2's time period and thus not in service with any Allied country, it can be interpreted that the Allies were in fact reusing old stock footage from the previous war for propaganda purposes, and it's entirely possible that the Panzer III (or other similar designs), despite its obsolescence even back then, may have still been in limited/reserve service with some countries during RA1, especially in poorer or less-industrialized countries which lacked the means to produce/purchase more modern tanks at the time.
In any case, I don't see much need to change the existing Light Tank; it's clearly distinguished from the Medium and Heavy tanks in-game, it very clearly fits into its role, and suits the 'Light Tank' title perfectly, quite unlike the old APB Light Tank which was based on an M60 Main Battle Tank for some reason.
SpoilerAlthough personally, I'd have based the Allied Light Tank on something similar to the Panzer III/IV, which was a design proposed during WWII, essentially combining components of the Panzer III and Panzer IV into a single tank in order to simplify logistics and reduce overall costs. Some versions of this design also prominently featured sloped armour as well. With light armour, theoretically good mobility and armed with a 75mm cannon, in my opinion this tank would be a near-perfect representation of an Allied Light Tank during the early days of RA1:
0 -
On 6/10/2019 at 12:17 AM, delta said:
As for missiles, I don't think there'a any real-life situation where'd you want to use guided missiles against infantry (missiles are expensive and I don't think there's any homing mechanism to target people), especially when you can just fire HE shells. So that just leaves the anti-aircraft function...I think there's some tanks that can fire AA missiles out of their main guns, but I don't know how common that is. AA weapons are kinda delicate and fragile, so you probably want them mounted on separate vehicles rather than on main battle tanks (just like in real life!).
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 against infantry, or wire-guided anti-tank missiles, or sophisticated short-range anti-air missiles similar in size to the Strela-1?
One could assume that anything like a real-life GDI Mammoth Tank would be designed to be capable of firing several different types of rockets/missiles (possibly out of their own separate specialized pods; frag rockets in one and AA missiles in the other) for different kinds of threats, but this also depends on what roles such a vehicle would be designed for, and the underlying reasons for developing such a thing in the first place.
1 -
5 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:
I can see it kind of as some objective based map, where the Soviets have to destroy a captured airfield before the allies have a chance to analyze the designs or something.
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 supplies/reinforcements via cargo planes.
0 -
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?
0 -
On 1/13/2019 at 9:09 PM, KevinLancaster said:
Since this seems like enough of a general maps suggestions thread, would it be possible to do an air raid map? As the amount of planes available to players on the maps they are present is fairly limited, a map where they are the focus could be interesting. Allies try to defend like in Seamist.
[RA1 AA Gun cutscene]
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, but one thing I'd really like to try out is a special type of Deathmatch map where instead of fighting on foot, you dogfight in planes; Soviet Yaks and Allied "Yak clones" battling it out for 5 minutes or so.
Personally, I think this would make for an interesting experiment and potentially open the possibility of a new kind of gameplay in APB.
What do you guys think?
0 -
On 1/22/2019 at 12:46 PM, Threve said:
Just for clarity. Is this going to be leaning towards a
- PUBG
- APB
- Sole Survivor
or
- Battle Field
type of gameplay? From what I'm reading it is going to be a combo of some of these but I am still trying to understand which it's leaning more towards. Or is this going to be a completely new type of FPS gameplay?
On 1/22/2019 at 2:21 PM, Killing_You said:I can't exactly say for sure. We want to make something that leans towards teamwork and strategy, but paced somewhat slower. Kind of like a classic Tom Clancy game, but with vehicles and set in the C&C Universe. That's not to say that APB style mega tank rushes and intense combat won't happen, they just won't be the focus. And, of course, I'm speaking in generalities in case we need to tweak things down the line.
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 decisions will play a larger part on the outcome of the battle, and you'll want to carefully consider what sort of equipment you bring to the fight, and what you spend your credits on; For example, a tank could be an excellent investment in an open environment where it can shoot at enemies 300 or even 400 metres away, but could be a liability in an urban environment where enemy Rocket Soldiers could very easily ambush it, and the terrain will play a big factor in what weapons/vehicles/tactics work best.
Of course, as Killing_You said, large-scale classic tank rushes can certainly still happen; They just won't necessarily be the most effective tactic in every scenario. While tanks can be devastating in open country where they can fully take advantage of their long-range cannons, tanks tend to do poorly in heavy forest or in urban areas due to the limited mobility those kinds of areas impose, and the large potential for ambushes. In these sorts of environments, infantry and even light vehicles could very well have the advantage over tanks and other more cumbersome vehicles, even though the tanks may be significantly more powerful "on paper".
2 -
On 1/18/2019 at 1:05 PM, NodGuy said:
I would love to see a map or two have old abandoned or destroyed Allied or Soviet bases, like how in Tiberian Sun we saw old Tiberian Dawn bases. It’s so cool!
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 something like this:
Or this:
These are the kinds of things I want to feature a lot on maps whenever it makes sense; Subtle homages to RA1/APB, and reminders of the war that devastated the world 40 years before GZ's time.
2 -
2 hours ago, thedisclaimitory said:
yeah that is true ice but theres modern tanks in ra1 like an M1 Abrams, why there is I have no clue; and I think the heavy tank for the soviets is based off of the t-80 I forgot witch tank but these tanks are not from the 1940's to the 50's these tanks are cold war tanks not tanks from ww2 witch means you will have 100 to 130 mm guns or more, and if your going to have cold war tanks you must be true to keep to the information of the tank not just slap a 100mm gun to say idk a Sherman and say it was in the info now yes you did well on the Medium Tank for the allies but soviets they did not slap a 105 mm gun to what ever tank that was atleast maybe a 135mm gun maybe more
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 Heavy Tank wouldn't exist at all)
Another way to think of it: Imagine if someone traveled back in time with the Abrams/T-80 designs, and attempted to reproduce them with WWII-era technology, inevitably making numerous compromises in the process due to the limitations of the technology available at the time (less armour, weaker engines, more primitive electronics, etc.), as well as the cost of production. That's pretty much what the RA1 Medium/Heavy tanks could be characterized as.
3 -
On 12/26/2018 at 6:20 PM, thedisclaimitory said:
it does: and its a heavy tank it shouldn't have a 105 mm gun its should at least have a 120mm or 130mm gun bigger than the Medium Tank why because its classified as a heavy tank the gun has to count for the name heavy tank not just the tanks gun but armor; and a Medium Tank can easily shoot off its health I killed, 3 med tanks in like 1 min and 30 second's on top of a hill pLease upgrade the health armor and gun to the heavy tank and the Medium Tank needs a little bit better armor PLEASE, and in ra1 I was rushing with hts against an a1 allied player and med tanks can destroy ht rushes so I dont see your point there push wall
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 Tank. Even the Mammoth, a superheavy tank, "only" has 120mm guns.
Personally I've never had a problem playing Heavy Tanks. Their turret restriction is fine and doesn't need to be removed, and I'd rather not see the guns clip through the fuel barrels. A suitable alternative, however, would be to remove the turret restriction, but have the guns somehow be forced to elevate slightly when going over the fuel barrels, just high enough to clear them. If such a feature were technically possible, then this should also be applied, to a lesser degree, to the Medium Tank, to stop the gun from clipping through the engine deck.
0 -
18 hours ago, ganein14 said:
Please for the love of everyone's sanity, at least learn how to use periods.
And please break any large posts into smaller paragraphs and lists so the information is easier to process. Walls of text look overwhelming and could easily turn people off reading it at all.
Instead of this:
19 hours ago, thedisclaimitory said:I think The apb map should have a lot of content in the map because one it would not feel so bland two I think we should get mountains why because I dont like maps that feel bald or bland three we could have a tunnel system we could make also have a big river system for the naval units because I hear some were that some one wanted naval units Five maybe we could add a cap-able tech center that allows...
Try this:
19 hours ago, thedisclaimitory said:I think The APB map should have a lot of content in the map because:
1.) It would not feel so bland.
2.) I think we should get mountains. Why? Because I don't like maps that feel bald or bland.
3.) We could have a tunnel system.
4.) We could make also have a big river system for the naval units because I hear some were that some one wanted naval units.
5.) Maybe we could add a cap-able tech center that allows...
Looks a lot better and is much easier for everyone to read. Just some friendly advice for future posts
4 -
I'd love to see a new city map, something based on Stalingrad, Berlin or Moscow. A very war-torn looking WWII-style city map with lots of cover for infantry, and lots of places for house-to-house fighting. Overall a dark and grim theme, perfectly suited to RA1.
1 -
On 8/16/2018 at 12:18 AM, Pushwall said:
I don't really think we can have any more infantry-only maps than we already do. Had a big server clearout yesterday because 2 infantry maps got played in a row. The more infantry maps we have, the more likely that becomes.
I don't get what some people's problem is with infantry-only and nonstandard-gameplay maps. Personally I find only ever playing one game-mode to be very repetitive and draining, and it's nice to mix it up with other gameplay styles where you're not just constantly trying to destroy the enemy base again and again.
0 -
Please, no
I agree. Personally I don't want the APC to have a 360 degree turret. Not only would this give it more overlap with the Ranger, but it would also put the unit further away from its RA counterpart (which could only fire forwards) as well as not making sense from a realism/practical standpoint (the way the gun is mounted, combined with how boxy the vehicle is, should make effectively aiming towards the rear physically impossible, and allowing it to shoot through its own rear end like it did in certain previous versions of APB just looks ridiculous).
180 degrees is sufficient IMO, maybe even allowing up to 270, but it should NOT have a full 360 traverse.
0
Red Alert 1's Time Line
in Command & Conquer
Posted
RA2 has no connection to the Tiberium universe, so the extreme amount of crazy tech in RA2 isn't a problem in that sense; Westwood themselves even stated that RA2, although following on from RA1, takes place in its own separate universe where the world took a very different turn from that of the Tiberium universe. Both timelines canonically follow the Allied victory (with the Soviet campaign as a non-canon 'what-if' scenario), but something about the war itself or its aftermath was drastically altered to produce the RA2 timeline.
In fact, according to Westwood's internal drafts for Tiberian Incursion which EA later developed (albeit heavily changed/reworked) into C&C3, the RA2 universe was directly caused by time-travel shenanigans involving Yuri, similarly to how RA1 and the Tiberium timeline were caused by Einstein's time-travel shenanigans in the first place, making RA2 an 'alternate-alternate' universe. (Which is kinda funny since RA3 was also caused by time-travel shenanigans, making it an 'alternate-alternate-alternate' universe, with the general pattern seemingly being that every time history is changed, the world just gets progressively crazier
)