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
-
-
Have you tried the alternate view modes?
With all honesty, i hate that featureArtillery - cannon can now can now be rotated horizontally 1.25 degrees.
Makes my aiming with arty even worse because i cant freely move the camera without reticle moving left & right and forcing me to reposition to have clear shots.
0 -
The current mine-laying system is fine IMO. Don't fix what isn't broken.
0 -
even though ww2 didnt happen in RA it would still be the cold war than which is before the vietnam war but if that is so than why do the soviets still use propeller planes? by the end of ww2 jet were used everywhere. Although wars advance technology you say in the C&C universe without ww2 the world was forced to advanced much earlier.
RA1 *is* WWII in the C&C timeline. The world was changed, our WWII never happened, and RA took its place. Regarding aircraft, the Soviets used propeller planes because a.) they were relatively cheap and could be produced in massive numbers, and b.) they didn't develop their MiG jets (or at least, couldn't field them in sufficient numbers) until later in the war. Now, the most likely reason for certain technologies being more advanced in RA is probably a major economic/industrial boom in the late 30's through the 40's, and the lack of a major war to divert research from other areas.
in early ww2 the russians had much better tanks than the germans (also actually portrayed in the game) so without a massacre for the russians to walk to they could easily have achieve jets.
"Much better" is debatable at best (Russian tanks are generally known for cramped interiors, and early T-34's had bad internal layouts, poorly-designed turrets and were plagued with transmission failures and other problems), but I digress.
So im not sure if in RA the nations advanced faster or if it is set at a much later year or if is set at the year ww2 was supposed to happen.
RA1 is set in the 1950's, in a world where WWII as we know it didn't happen, and instead a bigger WWII between Europe and the USSR took place.
If the units in the game are supposed to be based of units used in ww2 than many cheap solutions used by the military werent even implemented. The americans loading AA onto their lorries or mortar or those artillery guns that have 2 wheels that infantry have to drag about. Snipers would be a unit commonly used but is missing in RA.
Simplistic gameplay; Generally speaking, every unit in a C&C game has a certain role to fill, and you can only have so many different units before each role is filled. It would be impractical to include every single kind of weapon/unit that would have been used in a real-life scenario. The amount of redundancy and overlap would be staggering, and the sidebar would be a total nightmare. Even just picking which tank (out of at least half a dozen or so per faction) to build would be frustrating, never mind the dozens of other combat vehicles (and all the non-combat vehicles as well!).
Aside from this, it would have been cool to see some of those things in the cutscenes (snipers, mortars, towed artillery, etc.). Tiberian Dawn had a couple of things in cutscenes which weren't available in the game (Hinds and mobile AA vehicles being notable examples).
Im not sure whether to go on C&C logic or real life logic when discussing these things. You say in real life GDI would easily beat soviets but in C&C logic they are both equal.
No, they're not. In-game representations have nothing to do with how these units would perform in a real-life scenario. If they existed in real life and faced each other on a real battlefield, the modern GDI Mammoth would almost always beat the now-outdated Soviet one (unless the Soviet crew had some amazing luck or something). Like it or not, 40 years of technological advancement is going to make a difference.
0 -
He does need a bigger explosion effect. The current one is way too small for his explosion radius, and makes it kinda hard to see where you're hitting - or at least does for me on my laptop. Especially important since he can't get hit markers.
What did you have in mind exactly? Keep in mind that real-life grenade explosions look pretty much the same; A loud pop and a spray of shrapnel.
0 -
Was away all last week for an army course. Got the traffic light unwrapped yesterday and have applied test textures to make sure everything is arranged correctly (i.e. the faces aren't flipped or something):
0 -
Too bad the actual RA one only has a lobbing range comparable to grenadiers (which aren't even the super-arm-strength bugged or APB grenadiers) and is actually more fragile than a Tanya or medic (uncrushability notwithstanding). It might as well be a medieval catapult.
Yeah, the arty's range in RA1 is pretty abysmal. It couldn't even out-range a Tesla Coil lol. One of the very first things I did when modding RA back in the day was increase the range of the arty, almost doubling it.
0 -
Pushwall is right; Cruisers have a multitude of reasons for not being needed or necessarily desirable in normal gameplay, and apart from scripted missions and/or co-op maps, the MCV would serve no purpose.
0 -
Any difference between a halt and a stop sign (we don't have halt signs around here, honestly curious if there is a difference)?
They're just various old-fashioned stop signs from different countries. From left to right: America, England, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Finland
0 -
Added a few minor details to the traffic light model. Now it's officially done and ready for unwrapping.
0 -
The bare-metal parts of the signs now have actual textures, instead of blank blue test fill-ins
0 -
Just showing a couple other things I've been working on lately; A WIP collection of old-fashioned stop signs with the traffic light from before (not quite to scale), and a Russian-style rural water tower:
0 -
I share the feeling that "he was in RA1 so don't take him out". Would it hurt anything to simply make changes to the other roles as suggested (a limited number of non-AT 'nades) but leave the grenadier in as well?
So why not make him a little bit like Volkov with dedicated AT and AP 'nades and see how that works for a test?
So have the current F1 grenade for anti-personnel, and an RPG-6 (an AT hand grenade, not to be confused with the other 'RPG') or RKG-3 for anti-tank (probably with shorter range than the F1)?
0 -
I completely disagree with the idea of removing the Grenadier. He's a Red Alert unit and needs to stay, and his removal would disrupt the infantry balance and require yet another grueling session of balance testing.
Aside from that, what exactly is people's problem with the Grenadier? He's a jack of all trades, which is exactly what I like about using him; He can fill multiple roles while not being too powerful in any single role, and doesn't need to be shoehorned into a specific niche. Plus I just generally find him fun to play as.
Personally I'd say leave him as-is. He's not causing any real issues, he fills multiple roles and doesn't seem OP in any particular way, and he offers a unique play-style. IMO it feels like people are just fishing for problems that don't actually exist.
2 -
When the grenades are well-aimed, I find they're good for defending buildings from infiltrators since they have longer range than Starshinas and are faster/cheaper than Kapitans, and the grenade's AoE allows it to easily harm multiple enemies at once. Instead of rushing straight into the MCT room to fight the attacker(s), chuck a few grenades in there first and the enemy will quickly find themselves in bad shape.
0 -
and what about supply trucks camos?
IMO that would seem pretty redundant for such a humble vehicle as the supply truck and other similar units. At most they should maybe get a tan-painted variant for the desert, but anything more is kind of excessive.
0 -
Ah, I see what you mean now
Okay I'll install gmax and try that.0 -
I've tried that but it doesn't recognize gmax files. :/ Is there a plugin I need or something?
0 -
Hi,
Just wondering how one would go about converting Gmax models to work in 3DS Max, for use in W3D games.
0 -
I would think that free-falling bombs should be easily possible in the RA engine, considering it's merely an updated version of the Tiberian Dawn engine, which featured A-10 airstrikes with free-fall napalm bombs. Plus I recall modding RA1 a couple years ago and messing around with various units/weapons via the rules.ini, and I'm pretty sure I got free-falling bombs to work in-game.I was talking about the original Red Alert engine. Free-falling bombs (from what I can tell) weren't possible in Red alert. So they decided to make parabombs instead, even though they make absolutely no sense for a dedicated bomber (they make sense for a very low-flying aircraft (typically not dedicated bombers) so they can evade the bombs, but you lose accuracy) and also all the cutscenes showed free-falling bombs. So if the bombs were implemented here, they really should be free-falling.
I always thought the decision to use parabombs in RA was mostly a balance choice; Allowing units time to escape the danger zone before the bombs impacted.
0 -
Overall good changes, although I don't know about the Destroyer's turret rotating 360 degrees; Looks pretty weird seeing it shoot missiles through itself.
0 -
Capturable structures (oil derricks, etc.), usable assets (Reward crates, pre-spawned Rangers/Supply Trucks like on some current maps, a 'pilotable' MG nest/AT gun position/AA battery, etc.), or even just more areas to take cover and mount a defence from (more trenches/foxholes, heavy vegetation, civilian buildings and ruins, small abandoned/destroyed bases, etc.), probably combined with the above two ideas would still be really cool to see. So far all the map revamps have been moving in the right direction with this, and I hope it continues.
2 -
Yeah, I agree that the camo choices would be best put in a specific order on a per-map basic, as long as the individual player retains the final choice in whether to use the 'primary' camo on that map, or choose one of the alternatives based on their own personal preferences and tactics; For example, using urban camo on their Heavy tank or desert camo on their Medium tank for the sake of RA nostalgia, or using forest camo on a diverse map if they plan on going through the forested area, and later using urban camo if they want to go through the village, etc.
I do, but I mean for maps where this isn't the case. Like in under, complex, or camos canyon.
Do you mean having the camo list being ordered on each map based on suitability, but still having choices available? Because this already the case on several maps.
Ditto, but I would like a camo preference for maps set up.
^ AgreedMaps like Zama or Stormy Valley, people might wanna choose the Woodlands or the Urban camo. Or in Ridge War, some choose Woodlands, some people choose the snow camo. I say the camo choice stays.
0 -
Do you mean having the camo list being ordered on each map based on suitability, but still having choices available? Because this already the case on several maps.
Ditto, but I would like a camo preference for maps set up.
^ AgreedMaps like Zama or Stormy Valley, people might wanna choose the Woodlands or the Urban camo. Or in Ridge War, some choose Woodlands, some people choose the snow camo. I say the camo choice stays.
0 -
^ AgreedMaps like Zama or Stormy Valley, people might wanna choose the Woodlands or the Urban camo. Or in Ridge War, some choose Woodlands, some people choose the snow camo. I say the camo choice stays.
0
Most nostalgic C&C song?
in Command & Conquer
Posted · Edited by Ice
I like pretty much every song in all the Westwood C&C's, it's so hard to choose. If I had to pick a few for each game, then:
TD: 'Act on Instinct', 'Air Strike' and 'Industrial'
RA1: Menu Theme, Map Theme, 'Trenches' and 'Dense'
TS: Menu Theme (TS, not FS, although that one's cool too), 'Timebomb' and 'Heroism'
RA2: 'Grinder', 'Burn' and 'Blow It Up'
Renegade: 'Command & Conquer'