Pushwall

Then we rename the RPG Trooper to the Grenadier since he would then be using two types of "grenades" plus the Strela. After all, the RPG Trooper wasn't a Red Alert unit. (Soviet Rocket Soldiers were, but only in multiplayer due to some misguided belief that the Soviets would be too weak if they were missing some unit that was insignificant due to not being called a Heavy Tank.) Citation needed. He gets used far too rarely for his existence to have any noteworthy impact on the balance. Just like the MRJ, but at least the MRJ does something that no other Allied unit does. Thing is, giving the RPG Trooper/Sniper limited grenades would just detract from what little uniqueness the Grenadier has if the Grenadier wasn't removed. What if the Engineer was given clearing charges? How do they fit the Grenadier at all? Might as well give him a medic kit and an MP5- Sure let's go on a wild goose chase for new models (the MP5 and F1 were at least already sitting around) while ignoring the facts that the Soviets have enough anti-tank infantry already and the Grenadier already has an anti-personnel weapon. Because then you basically have a less tanky Volkov for 10% of the price? Also because do the Soviets really need more anti-tank infantry?

If the engine actually handled "elasticity" on weapons in a remotely sensible manner, then Grenadiers would probably see more use in tight quarters. But as it stands, giving grenades elasticity just seems to cause them to slide along walls instead of bounce off them, and slide along floors until they touch a slight bump and get catapulted 20m into the air (remember ye olde Volknades?), instead of skipping off floors. Which is why grenades are now set to explode on impact, making them not so different from flamers. The Red Alert implementation doesn't leave much to the imagination either - they were basically the same thing as Flamethrowers but cheaper and faster and less powerful, and that's how they are here. Inventing a new niche for either unit is pretty hard when everything they could possibly do is already covered by all of the other Soviet infantry. Well, except for things that just don't make sense like making the grenade act like a medic kit, mechanic wrench or Tanya pistol. But the Grenadier is also horrible at damaging MCTs (worse than everything else except Volkov's AT gun) while the Starshina is tied with the Sergeant as one of the best. You greatly hamper their chances of a comeback by doing that. And if they were actually any good at MCT dismantling then they would, as you said, displace the Flamethrower. It was reduced from Gamma's "lol i nuke all intruders in my buildings with zero effort needed" damage for a reason. So I'm thinking: Remove Grenadier Have the RPG Trooper cannibalize his model, since the Grenadier has a unique one while the RPG Trooper just has a texture swap of the rifleman Replace RPG Trooper/Sniper's limited-ammo Makarov with limited-ammo Grenades (about 8-10?) Remove anti-tank damage from Grenades since they're now a pistol replacement RPG Troopers might be a bit more fearsome to infantry in close quarters as a result but Snipers will have to be careful due to the whole "splash damage is twice as effective with no armour" thing. And both have to be careful in buildings due to lag. Either way, grenades still exist and one of the two units they're attached to is still a "grenadier" in several respects.

Not conspicuous in the slightest

I could dredge them up from IRC but that'd only be helpful for the handful of games that I've actually been around to log IRC messages for.

There is no projectile blocker there, it's probably just the huge projectile extension on depth charges causing them to hit the side of the tunnel. See also: Naval combat around the glaciers on Hostile Waters. Taking those two into consideration... jeez fine I'll make them fire out of the cannon again. Never mind, that would involve allowing the cannon to aim so low that they'd still be worthless compared to the cannon.

Status update: a bunch of uneven maps managed to even out without the aid of a patch. Seems some people are mad that their team is looking bad on some maps. (Totally has nothing to do with more games meaning more chances for the underdog to strike back. ) Camos is now 17 Allies 10 Soviets (62.96% Allied favour) Coastal is now 8 Allies 16 Soviets (66.67% Soviet favour) KOTG is now 10 Allies 12 Soviets (54.55% Soviet favour) Pacific is now 8 Allies 10 Soviets (55.56% Soviet favour) Pipeline is now 13 Allies 10 Soviets (56.52% Allied favour) Zama is now 13 Allies 12 Soviets (52% Allied favour) Under is now 6 Allies 17 Soviets (73.91% Soviet favour)... well hey it's getting there! On the other hand though Guard Duty's being crushed by the Soviets now at 6 Allies to 15 Soviets (71.43% Soviet favour)...

I see a nuclear trefoil symbol on the side of that truck and it has 125 max health so...

Yeah, and since the targeting reticle is always aimed at the front since the LST obviously doesn't have a turret, you can use that to be sure about where you'll get off too.

Except with !swap in the state it's currently in, that would just mean that people who try to swap near the start and get denied will eventually get switched over by someone spiteful on the other team once the other team starts losing.

because we can't?

Still won't help them on any bigger map where they have to contend with pathfind grids that don't connect the two bases because large pathfind grids make LevelEdit go boom. Also won't help any small arms or C4-reliant infantry either. Also those target boxes have to be treated as vehicles or the AI doesn't notice them. Because you know what the netcode would love? Having to keep up with about a dozen extra "vehicles" per building. I'll definitely see about doing this for Camos Canyon Bots though since that is intended to be played offline (and is also designed specifically around the shortcomings of bots, i.e. allies can't buy spies, the map is small enough that it can all have pathfinding, there's so many bots that players will die trying to go solo and abuse the bots' predictable movement pattern, and currently the spawn rate is so high that neither team's bots can get close enough to the enemy base to realise that they can't attack it anyway)

Bots run in a straight line, don't attack buildings or spies (even if the spy is attacking them), and have all kinds of pathfinding issues, the only "good property" that could possibly compensate for this is turning them into aimbots, which still won't help them hit things that they can't attack or reach. The only reason Camos Canyon Bots is even able to work is because the map is small enough that the whole thing can have pathfinding sectors without causing any problems, and even then, it doesn't work work - the bots only attack each other and players and never attempt to attack the bases because they can't. The developer also has to worry about engine limitations. I would gladly add bots to aid uneven teams if there was a way to make it so they only appear when teams are unbalanced, if larger maps could have full pathfinding coverage, if a whole army of bots couldn't be shut down by one untargetable spy, and if bots were even remotely competent at anything other than looking directly at a target and moving forward and firing. But sadly none of these things are true so bots are too much hassle.

Game-changing events can still happen less than 3 minutes into a round (mainly on Seamist due to the possibility of Allies being bad and losing their vehicles almost instantly, or maps where the ore truck is exposed). I'd say no more than 1 minute. Aside from that, I completely agree with Einstein's angle. Giving ragequitters the power to spite people on the winning team by forcing them onto the losing team is not a good thing. And an auto-balancer doesn't completely benefit newbies either. Do you want serious-business players vote-kicking newbies off their team so that the auto-balancer replaces them with someone possibly more experienced? Well that's that then

I really like that idea. Especially since next version AT mines are going to be a fair bit more powerful due to an increased trigger radius - currently it's so small that tanks can sometimes drive right over them, making them pretty underwhelming on other maps.

I see the Soviets use them sometimes when there's no Allied navy or naval yard. Not so much the Allies who have to go through a nigh-unassailable flame tower for the 2 optimal landing spots (the sub pen and the Barracks pier, both of which can't be AP mined). Though back in 3.0.1.0 when the Medic MP5 was OP as fuck (it was basically a PKM on a class that also had the almighty medic kit and high speed) I remember partaking in a brazen 4-medic LST rush that landed on the ore silo beach and proceeded to decimate the entire Soviet base.

It takes a mere 7 seconds for the silo to boost your starting credits up to the point that you can buy kapitans, and 13 to buy RPGs, which is about as much time as it takes to walk from the WF/CY (if you spawn there) over to the Barracks, or even just to get out of the CY basement, so what are you even talking about? Maybe Soviets could start with a supply truck or two to quickly field their infantry I guess. Submerged subs take double damage from LBs next version (20 per rocket) so shooting them while they're submerged will definitely deter them if you have any gunboats around to finish them off.

Actually probably a better idea would be to delete those deep snow meshes. They do not play well with mines at all because the only things that can hit a mine buried completely inside them are things with penetrative splash damage (arties, v2s, flamers, and that's it)

Can't this same argument be made against shock trooper camping? They don't even heal to full almost instantly from any non-headshot damage. If you want gimmicky, see the Golden Wrench's secondary function in Gamma. I think maybe 10 out of the several thousand players actually knew that it was a minesweeper and most of them just never used it because Allied engineers had to be standing in an AP mine's blast radius for the wrench to blow it up. Clearing charges would be pretty transparent in their function from their name and would actually give players time to get out of death range. Though they do bring the Engineer's weapon count up from 4 to 5 and it's awkward enough to switch through all that at times.

To clear mines. Surely Allies can just take a medic+rockets team to the island and wreak havoc from there though if the Soviets are camping the front door?

Maybe this is a good time to bring clearing charges back?

So for Under I'm thinking of replacing the Power Plant with a Radar Dome if the coil/gap generator go. It's the only sensible replacement other than the Construction Yard, which is too big to feasibly find room for in either of the bases. And given how the small size of the map usually means that in the field you're spotting a lot of enemies through walls with your radar, this might just be another map where getting rid of enemy radar isn't totally useless. Of course there will be no MRJ because there is nowhere on the map that wouldn't be in jamming range of the Soviet dome.

A high base destruction rating is not a bad thing IMO, in fact it's a good thing because it means the bases are fragile enough for people to reliably accomplish the intended objective of destroying the base. The fact that demos factor into this so much is probably also heavily connected to the claustrophobic nature of the map that makes it hard to immediately detect and flank demos, not just the high income. Not sure why I bothered listing base destructions for seamist though because the nature of the objectives means that's the only way it can end.

Yeah I can just give them a custom building controller with 0 points for damaging/repairing. Could even jack up the kill points from 250 to 500 to compensate too.

Some map changes will take some time to do (like turning the CI vehicle spam peninsula into an island) so they might not make it into the next release right away because I don't want to delay it any further. But rest assured that I'll try to do something about them eventually.

The idea for this map was supposed to be that Naval is not a vital thing to worry about, that you can get by just fine if you lose the NY/pen as long as you can manage to maintain good field control while sacrificing a few people to watch for LSTs. Destroyers/Missubs would probably change that. Probably better to weaken the frontal defenses so that field control actually matters, rather than making naval more important on a map that's already designed to cater to LSTs (which will be even more apparent when that one flame tower goes). In the late 2.1 era there was an odd little thing on this map: the Barracks had a different armour type (the same as concrete walls) that made its exterior immune to flamethrowers and bullets. I'm not sure if this was intended or not as it also resulted in rocket soldiers doing about 3x damage and C4 being able to one-shot the building from the outside. Maybe there should be something like that only without the obvious bugs, so then victories go to the team with the biggest kills and most daring MCT attacks rather than the team that whored the outside walls the most? Remember Nuclear Winter? Check around the same area. It's not just him tbh, all I ever hear about those 4 maps is how X Allied unit is overpowered there. Can't be the case if it doesn't help them win.