Raap

Yeah I never saw any documentation on how tech centres should be so when I joined the team all hopeful and optimistic to get a lot more shit done than I did, I was imagining for Tech Centres to be tied into tech levels - like on a tech level 5 map, lose your tech centre and you drop down to 4. This was when Destroyers/Missile Subs were tech level 5 and I was hoping to get the Chrono Tank included, so you'd lose a lot more than just tanyas, demos and MADs. I took part of this idea and applied it to Radar Domes; now losing them means you just lose access to Tanyas and Volkovs which is still noticeable. If BHP had documentation, a lot more things would have been done more easily. We never had a single design document for development consistency either, something project leadership should have been more on the ball on. Everything just sort of went into various directions (hello Gamma). I know me and ChopBam tried to be consistent in some level design things, but we also never really wrote anything down.

I'm sure I lost my copy of Generals/ZH, pesky physical game files! Nice to see a release of this nonetheless. I remember trying this mod ages ago when Generals was still fresh. I think I've out-grown the RTS gameplay however (fancy talk for saying I'm sure I suck at it).

Player-controlled base building is fun in theory until you learn one fundamental lesson from it: Players are terrible architects and each map would look like a 6 year old was playing with LEGO blocks in it. You'd have defenses pile up everywhere, cause performance issues, and grind gameplay into a stalemate on every map that had the functionality enabled. It'd also be a massive departure from APB core gameplay, to the point where not even I would consider adding it to any map.

On Tech Centers: The original design intent prior and during my time on the team for this, was that it would work similar to the Missile Silo and provide two different support flares for each team. As far as I can remember, it'd be AI paratroopers and parabombs for the Soviets at different recharge timers and costs, and two other things for the Allies that I cannot remember at all anymore (Edit: I think off-shore Cruiser bombardement was the parabomb counter). This never came to be, like many things. I'm not sure if any of the once-planned content has ever been properly documented... A lack of documentation always bugged me during my time on the BHP team. Edit: Basically they would have been mini super-weapons primarily for maps with no Missile Silo, and nothing that would one-shot any primary buildings. I think such use of Tech Centers would actually work in Delta, especially when setting up parabombs/cruiser shell impacts to deal heavy damage to map objectives/key locations like bridges. They'd also be a decent "credits sink" on high-economy maps.

This is why captains still outrange the weakest defenses, sergeants still have almost unmatched MCT damage, and Supply Trucks are cheap enough to buy right away. You can still rush with those if you please, and it can work. I've seen captain and sergeant rushes work on KOTG and if it can happen there it can happen anywhere. But it's not fun. It's repetitive, predictable, and not always possible on every map before the first ore dump (see Ridge War). A problem one can solve in a few ways, some easy, some more difficult. But you'd have to agree on it being an issue, first.

APB tried the slower, economy focused approach once or twice prior to my involvement with BHP (This was the RA-lism period). It just wasn't fun to play. Even in Delta we got a few maps with a slow start-up gameplay that still essentially comes down to waiting for the first ore dump, and I personally consider that problem-maps for that reason. Waiting in a game isn't fun. The economy IS important, but it should be adding to the game rather than subtracting from it. Running out of cash mid game because you failed to defend your Refinary and/or you wasted your cash is a good and working effect of in-game economy. Waiting idle for 4 minutes because you got nothing else to do and it isn't in your control, is not. I do admit to not having tried the latest Reborn version, so I don't know how fast or slow that game plays compared to APB.

That spy-sub thread really set things off, didn't it...

"RA-lism" balance was tried for a while in older versions. Long story short, it didn't work and wasn't very fun. Look at APB as a game that is based on Red Alert, not as a complete copy. Besides, when I play APB, I find it difficult to not see it as a Red Alert inspired game, simply from the units alone. It just uses it's own set of balance changes and game additions that make sense to have in a shooter game setting. Even Westwood couldn't copy paste Tiberian Dawn for Renegade (although likely for different reasons than why APB didn't copy paste RA balance). Edit: The bottom line: Fun over RA-lism.

On the topic of map balance, now that Hostile Waters has been out for a while, how is it playing? I've unfortunately not had the opportunity to play a live match yet, so I cannot judge myself.

That keybinding should actually be a pop-up, since the chat goes away too fast and pressing U is more annoying than pressing a key that brings up a pop-up. I do agree that automatic pop-ups are aids, and should be avoided.

Just changing an image wouldn't quite solve the limitations or improve the new player experience.

The game would benefit of having an in-game help menu with clickable menu pages. I don't think the game can currently support this, but it might be worth exploring the options here. Besides, the help menu is in need of a few fixes anyhow. Edit: Then again, the GUI is one of my main issues with W3D. I wish it was more easy to customize, even on a per-map basis (level map, anyone?). Everything from the health bars to the chat system, it all has a lot of room for improvement.

That wouldn't help on Under or Coastal Influence though. Then my other suggestion would be to make Missile Subs deal damage to submerged subs, but then we still got Under having a problem. I don't think this is a problem worth solving, though, especially given the difficulty of solving it. Unless of course, following this thread, a wave of spy subs becomes a standard tactic... In which case you're probably going to have to give a land based unit a damage increase to submerged units, without messing up any other balance.

That should have earned that spy the ability to hold on to his stolen ride a little longer. If stolen subs really do become an issue (I doubt it), a band-aid solution can be found in raising Hind damage to submerged submarines, so they can go and seek them out and destroy them.

Don't do that unless you implement a mechanic that ends the game in situations where both teams lose all main production buildings. It'd just prolong a boring match even more, and empty the server, something which unfortunately does happen. If you did implement such a mechanic, though, then I agree that large maps need 5-10 minutes extra play time.

Nice shots. Is Soviet bias still a concern?

Volkov's damage against structures was extremely obvious on KotG. It absolutely needed adjusting. That said, with Demo Trucks now killing them, and their anti-infantry capacity reduced as well as their anti-structure capacity reduced, I'm finding it difficult to place Volkov's intended role. Perhaps to offset these 'nerfs', his primary AT weapon should be doing increased damage to base defenses, since he is extremely bad at destroying those right now (but in that case, his weapon warhead would have to be un-linked from the Gunboat).

Hope it is enjoyable. Did anything get changed after I handed the files over (besides the overlooked barrels and a twig)? As for the depth charge changes, no comment, I'd have to see it in action first (which is difficult for me, atm). I will say that, besides targeting issues and explosions randomly ignoring targets or doing 1/4th of the damage, I never had any other issues with depth charges. (Come to think of it, that really was/is way too many issues for one weapon...)

Crazy idea; Give the "Grenadier" an MP-5 equivalent (a weapon that sits between the standard rifle and officer machine gun), and turn the Grenades into ammo-limited, but more powerful explosives. This way, Flamethrowers maintain longer staying-power and building damage superiority, but it gives Grenadiers powerful burst damage potential, with a secondary backup weapon. In this case, it'd need a price bump to 200 or so.

It's a legacy thing. Back in the old days, APB has unit pricing which mirrored Red Alert unit prices. The Grenadiers seems to have slipped through the cracks of time and fallen into the "Wait, we got this unit?" category. Seriously, it's probably the second least used unit, following the Radar Jammer. But at least the Grenadier has it's use. I got an idea! It's ground breaking! here it comes! Let's lower the Grenadier cost, from 160, to... 150! This will totally make them a more regular appearance. (But it'll at least make unit costs more consistent across the game.)

If only their death explosions dealt damage to buildings...

If there were more programming contributors, all things used on W3D could be improved. W3D is quite an "open book" for most people here, but most people do not have the "writing skills" to add to it.

I just remember something; On Pacific Threat, the submarine tunnel has a projectile blocker which prevents depth charges from hitting subs. This effectively results in Missile Subs getting a safe-zone from which they can hit the Allied base.

As you can see, the ice effect has been completely redone, with new mesh and textures. It will no longer look like some weird blurry mirror. But yeah, nice screenshots.