harvester

Then don't use it, maybe? You're the one having problems with it.

well it's pretty annoying to have that thing shoved in your face when you already memorized them all

Best: Guard Duty. The simple layout, the dusk setting, the environment, the music (favorite music) and no campers hiding in gap generators. Worst: Forest Of Illusion. Not because of the unique objective-based style but the rampaging "unknown" thingy is silly and the transparent soldiers are annoying.

I dont know what you were doing there.

This isn't RA1, this is APB. The grenadier is playing its intended role (though it is a bit pricey and difficult to use, but it serves its purpose if used correctly).

I love harvesting too, sitting in the truck doing a noble volunteer job that benefits the entire team while watching the scoop moves up and down and playing with the horn is fun.

Or on maps with refineries, put a memo on the soviet silo telling any thieves they can't rob this silo and tell them to rob the refinery instead. Put a middle finger sign while you're at it.

This is why team needs to push out if ore trucks wanna harvest gem fields in the middle of maps, so they can protect them, attacking vulnerable harvesters foolish enough to wander alone can really make a difference on the enemy's game. Making the gems field far away would encourage more harvester attacking and defending so I hope the distance is worth it. The main problem is the distance of the gems whether is it worth to go harvesting an extra distance (with extra risks) just to get 3x reward. The slowness of the harvesters is slightly demotivating because some players get bored but I agree with the speed, you gotta put in more patience to earn those credits. At least the horn sound is fun to use in conjunction with the 'Get out of my way!" command. Now start harvesting! I would like to see teamwork with players protecting and attacking harvesters.

Grenade trooper is fine except he needs a lower cost.

Played Red Alert Aftermath map Island Wars Extreme on FFA skirmish once, the map with neutral AI hostile giant ants. One of the ants accidentally picked up an MCV crate and the Giant Ants team actually built up a base normally like other AI players (except the giant ants aren't hostile towards them, since they are the giant ant team). The weirdest part is a red coloured ant pick up the MCV crate so the MCV and the ant base is red, the same team color as mine(I was red too) so it's confusing for me. In the end, the giant ant base wrecked a lot of the last standing computer player enemy units (this actually helped me a lot because many of my buildings were destroyed and funds/ore fields were depleted). The ant base and unit count was like 10 times bigger than mine but I still won that skirmish since we don't have to destroy neutral stuffs to win.

I feel playing Renegade X is not any less time wasting.

That's the only co-op map people like. A map where you only sit at your base and defend against endless hordes of enemy invasion until time expires. I kinda want that too.

Can we make Field and Desert River have refinery and harvesters.

Yup, my faith in Pushwall's words he said before about the cruisers prevented me from falling for that.

Path beyond and some co-op maps with Giant Ants (probably not gonna happen).

It's already april here. Not a fan of cruiser.

1. Red Sky 2. Ion Storm 3. Act on instinct.

Personally, I like the old grenadier better as the lighter (faster,weaker and cheaper) version of the flamethrower (mainly because of RAlism) but let's face it, nobody uses them but me ( I use them to chase retreating enemy infantry or flush out snipers camping in towers), I rarely seen people using them, even in Fissure, the cheaper starshinas are far more common and people would rather play as rifle soldier to save money for flame soldiers. The old grenadier wasn't common because there is very little reason to buy him (only for his speed usually). I'm not sure how common this new grenadier is (he's still new, people need to get along more) but I definitely see more reasons to buy him. Maybe 500 is a bit much.

The grenadier is not for splash damaging anti infantry unit, you know. Quit telling yourself that. It has its own specialized role. Get a flametrooper if you want something like that. Try harassing buildings with it from a cliff, at least we don't need to spend extra 1000 on valkov that's unavailable on some maps. So... you want it to be the old one but a bit stronger. So you want a $160 unit to be exactly as good (or better) than a $300 one that was in the same role. I can't believe I never thought of that The guy just needs to get used to the new unit role instead of expecting the game to be the way he wants it to be. If we want to discuss how the game should be, it will be an endless source of bickering and whining since everybody has different opinions for the game.

An engineer costs 500, can demolish building but suck against enemies fighting him. No one seems to complained about them. The grenadier now costs 500, can harass building from a distance (no repair tools like the engineer but his unlimited grenades is a good trade off) and also suck against enemies (he is no longer suitable to fight now). I think he's alright now considering he's an anti-building-only artillery infantry unit. If we want a splash damaging unit at close range, we have flamethrowers and shotguns. I see now that the soviets have a new infantry class with a different role from others. Now all 4 volokov's weapon's role have its own individual infantry class. Who cares if can't fight vehicles or could kill himself at close range, his specialized role is anti-building.

It would discourage people from mine laying outside the base and confuse new players. Furthermore, we need a nerf for Tanya, not a nerf on her counter. The current mine laying system is fine, there is no team-hampering (except a few new players who would later learn of this and stop), and it's not breaking any game play or balance. (i know we're talking about team mine hampering but...)If mines are OP , nerf them such as increasing visibility range. Let players deal with the mines instead of having the server deal with them with no player effort.

Agree with delta, we don't need an advanced version of something when it has the same function as the generic version. It's redundant. Just assume the game's power plant can support the entire base - problem solved. If we were to implement everything from RA then we may as well be playing RA.

The power plant is fine, it just needs to appear on more maps with gap generators/tesla coils, anti-air defenses and radar dome so destroying it would affect the gameplay more, especially if Radar dome is important on the map (such as having tech buildings, abombs, etc). I remember someone saying RA_ToTheCore is too dependent on Power Plant for Soviets (not sure whether this is true but at least he sees the power plant very useful there). Changing production costs would be too much for the game. I like aesthetic changes like lights going out or emergency power lights but I understand if it couldn't be done due to lighting issues.

MCV is pointless, throwing things without any use would be unnecessarily time consuming that adds nothing to the game. Fixed wing aircraft, while cool isn't gonna happen because the game is fine without it. If anything is not broken, don't fix it. And......