A Path Beyond APB, no allied cruiser?

[System Error Message]

in red alert 1 there was the cruiser which had range and firepower

http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Cruiser

 

I think having this will help balance the allies as the artillery tank just doesnt compare to the soviet's V2 rocket and can damage submarines.

 

A few things that bothers me is that in red alert the imbalance between the allies and soviets required to soviets to use more numbers in tactics such as the mobile gap generator but in multiplayer there just isnt enough players if someone would always have to man the useless radar jammer or mobile gap generator just for them to work.

 

There are also some units i would like to see like the jets since it seems the harrier is working for apocalypse rising

[Pushwall]

I think having this will help balance the allies as the artillery tank just doesnt compare to the soviet's V2 rocket

Um, what? So far artilleries have killed 1116 infantry, 1007 vehicles and 571 buildings, and 1496 artilleries have been destroyed. Meanwhile, V2s have killed 708 infantry, 975 vehicles and 460 buildings, and 1539 V2s have been destroyed. Looks to me like artilleries are doing a lot better than V2s... Unless you're referring to the original Red Alert's total joke of an artillery which was basically a Grenadier with a vehicle-sized hitbox, no resistance to anti-tank weapons, and 4 times the price.

 

and can damage submarines.

The RA cruiser had to exploit a bug in order to target submarines. If you're conveniently overlooking that, why aren't you demanding for grenadiers to be able to fling grenades all the way across the map?

 

A few things that bothers me is that in red alert the imbalance between the allies and soviets required to soviets to use more numbers in tactics such as the mobile gap generator but in multiplayer there just isnt enough players if someone would always have to man the useless radar jammer or mobile gap generator just for them to work.

Have you ever... you know... actually bought a mobile radar jammer in this game? Getting in one prints a big unmissable message about how you can deploy it when near the enemy radar, get out, and have it do its job by itself. As for the MGG I can see where you're coming from but the MGG here is, unlike RA's, actually powerful enough that it might be worth using in some circumstances. Making it deployable as well would be overpowered... and run contrary to your "make everything exactly like RA because that's more important than fun or balance" mission.

 

If you're asking for Allies to get more players than the Soviets? Not possible. And not needed, considering they already have a decent win ratio.

 

There are also some units i would like to see like the jets since it seems the harrier is working for apocalypse rising

Harriers are VTOLs. Yaks and MiGs are not. We do not have fixed-wing aircraft physics. Also implementing them at this stage would require a grand rebalancing. Not happening.

 

And going back to the Cruiser. This has already been brought up before and there are many many reasons why we won't do it:

• We don't have a model for it.
• There would be no counter for it if the Submarine Pen was down.
• It would have to have only one turret because the game does not support multiple turrets unless the additional ones are AI-controlled (and the AI doesn't shoot buildings, which is what the Cruiser's main job is, so that would be pretty damn pointless).
• It would be too big to navigate Hostile Waters.
• Having to overhaul naval combat AGAIN.

[System Error Message]

I havent used a radar jammer recently, it was before w3d took over and RA APB was new. I only recently tried the game after i heard w3d had taken over. Before a lot of things and maps were different and i see a lot of props added to maps. Before the hind used an explosive cannon but now it is changed to a gattling gun.

 

The cruiser doesnt need to be available in all maps. Some maps even if they have a factory doesnt allow building all vehicles. The range of the cruiser can be limited so there can be a counter (V2 rockets?). Perhaps the 2nd turret could be tied to right click. One of the traits of the cruiser was that it was inaccurate.

 

but just for fun could you add the mobile construction vehicle?

[Pushwall]

We still have the MCV as a drivable vehicle ingame (not just a CY basement prop), it's just not used because it serves no purpose - it can't deploy because we can't cut holes in terrain in real-time to make room for new Construction Yards midgame. It actually used to be present on Stormy Valley, in the abandoned depot (the place that's shown on the loading screen), but I wound up removing it for some reason that I don't remember. But now that I've fixed my W3D importer problems I can probably take a look at re-rigging the MCV and put it back in that map for fun, and when I get around to finishing up the SDK, anyone can put it in their maps.

[System Error Message]

just because the MCV will be useless doesnt mean not to have it, Its a C&C unit so it should be in this game, at least the player can drive it around for fun.

 

A potential use for the MCV is as a heavily armoured unit with no weapons as it has a lot of health in the game. So it can than transport 2 players safely till for them to get out and get killed instantly by either pillboxes or tesla when they hop out.

Edited March 18, 2016 by System Error Message

[Pushwall]

A potential use for the MCV is as a heavily armoured unit with no weapons as it has a lot of health in the game. So it can than transport 2 players safely till they get out and nstantly killed by either pillboxes or tesla when they hop out.

 

Ore Trucks do the same thing.

Adding the MCV as an actual purchasable vehicle will give people the idea that it serves a purpose that isn't already covered by something else. I'd rather not confuse newbies like that.

[System Error Message]

but the MCV is thinner and longer than the ore truck and a little faster?.

 

Is it possible to create a new building in the game without digging holes in the ground?

Edited March 18, 2016 by System Error Message

[Pushwall]

Only if all of its floor is above ground level (such as any defensive structure). Try that with a construction yard and you'll get a lot of z-fighting on the ground floor and won't be able to get in or out of the basement because it's blocked off by earth.

Even then, if a building uses main building logic (i.e. required for base destruction victory), I'm pretty sure if you put that in midgame it doesn't function properly. Defensive structures certainly work though.

[Alstar]

just because the MCV will be useless doesnt mean not to have it, Its a C&C unit so it should be in this game, at least the player can drive it around for fun.

 

A potential use for the MCV is as a heavily armoured unit with no weapons as it has a lot of health in the game. So it can than transport 2 players safely till for them to get out and get killed instantly by either pillboxes or tesla when they hop out.

You must be joking. As MCV would not serve any purpose beside making your teammate useless craps by driving a vechicle which functinality is way below the cheapest vechicle right now - supply truck - for way bigger price then i suggest to rethink your propositions under cold shower.

 

Cruiser is already out of reach because of points mentioned by Pushwall.

Not to mention even Destroyers can get out of range of V2 and safely hit sub pen (on Coastal infulence at least)

 

And V2 being weaker than Arties? Damn, i gotta start building up better stats for V2

[VERTi60]

Hmm, we could have a map where we could script the mcv to activate some events, like two sides fighting for an abandoned mid base which would give the other team access to some technology, extra silos, working defence and refil pads.

It would be more fun to escort a whole mcv rather than just exploit engineers again for everything capturable as we do now.

We already have many props of abandoned bases on some maps, but they are not used. This could give the MCV some meaning after-all.

 

Also there were some interesting MCV coop missions on the zunnie's coop server, where you had to protect the MCV, not sure if the MCV had any ability or purpose back then though.

[delta]

I seem to recall the MCV being in Soviet Invasion where you had to protect it? Don't recall if it was able to deploy or anything, though.

 

As for the cruiser, well not every unit from Red Alert can actually be implemented, and even if they could it doesn't necessarily mean there's a practical use for them or that they'd be balanced.

[Ice]

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.

[harvester]

An mcv so when your construction yard is gone (or the map didn't start out with it), you can buy an mcv and transform it into a construction yard in your base? I don't think base building really fits in the game. Having them as specific objective units like in RA_Soviet_Invasion map (a co-op map that existed long ago) would be nice, but not in normal games.

 

I think having this will help balance the allies as the artillery tank just doesnt compare to the soviet's V2 rocket and can damage submarines.

 

lol

[System Error Message]

base building as something AI controlled that can be influenced by the player such as by getting more ore.

 

The buildings would obviously be built into the same location and unless the construction yard is destroyed than it will rebuild destroyed buildings.

 

i think this should be a gameplay mode that can be enabled/disabled.

 

For the cruiser the 2nd turret can just follow the first turret so it doesnt have to be player controlled but the player fires it with right click. Or the 2nd turret could be manned by another player

Edited March 19, 2016 by System Error Message

[Raap]

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.

[des1206]

What happened to cruiser strike and mig/yak airstrike beacons? Let them be purchasable but only do 1/3 of damage of nukes so players can weaken enemy bases during attacks.

[System Error Message]

player influenced in gathering ore but only the AI builds so it will still end up the same way on a map. Though it would be funny when players buy MCVs and spam construction yards lol.

 

I still think the cruiser should go into the game but make it a 2 player vehicle so 1 player per turret.

 

perhaps have strike options for bombers and fighters.

[Pushwall]

Read the reasons why we can't put the cruiser in a little harder.

[VERTi60]

 

I still think the cruiser should go into the game but make it a 2 player vehicle so 1 player per turret.

 

 

Back in BHP there were these ideas floating around, to have multiple people controlling the different turrets (same for MK2 in Reborn).

 

Personally I'm not really in such a favor but let's say the cruiser would be only a map prop (not a unit) as a special feature on a map, then fine.

 

Anyways everything still falls down to "we don't have the model" and "it can't be a normal unit anyway for every occasion due to reasons".

[Pushwall]

Yeah, if we did have a model I would definitely include it on Seamist at least, since right now the base just gets bombarded by shells coming from invisible objects in the distance fog...

[Einstein]

player influenced in gathering ore but only the AI builds so it will still end up the same way on a map. Though it would be funny when players buy MCVs and spam construction yards lol.

 

Forgive me if I misunderstand you....but doesn't this mean that the Construction Yard would be the only constructable building? The CY is the only structure of its type, in that has a deployable vehicle that transforms into a structure. Implementing this mechanic would not work, not only for the reasons mentioned above, but also because....what do we do about constructing every other structure?

[Isaac The Madd]

Disclaimer: This following idea will most likely not work.

We could have the Construction Yard build base defenses.

[SarahNautili]

I think the only way that'd work if it could only (re)build defenses either as a replacement for dead ones or in a few select spots around a base... and preferrably with a long build up time so a team can't just instantly patch a hole in their defenses the second it's broken open. And even then it'd run the risk of drawing out matches.

[delta]

What happened to cruiser strike and mig/yak airstrike beacons? Let them be purchasable but only do 1/3 of damage of nukes so players can weaken enemy bases during attacks.

It sounds cool being able to call in airstrikes, but I'd be worried about balance. Would this make killing buildings too easy? Like, if you've already got two enemy Volkovs in your War Factory and then they can just deploy a beacon to quickly subtract a quarter of the building's health?

[System Error Message]

my suggestion is to rebuild and repair for the construction yard.

My suggestion is that for some maps with construction yard the buildings are built automatically from included construction yard (how fast one bulding is built from another depends on how much ore is mined). In these maps player can build MCV and deploy to build buildings and defences but not in a way that they can place them, rather they would be given a list of buildings which build in a pre-specificied location. The player deployed MCV can also be captured by enemy. This way the extra constuction yards arent counted in win condition. When player builds/rebuilds a building they have to spend their own money instead.

[Pushwall]

Alternatively we could not make such a major alteration to the core gameplay because it works fine the way it is and the effort required for that massively outweighs whatever potential reward could come of it.

 

Did nobody get the memo about how major development is over so anything that requires spending ages completely redefining the core gameplay will not happen?

[Pushwall]

Also to even build an MCV you would need to start with a war factory, and to acquire the money to build one you would need to start with a refinery (or a silo but that takes longer and is less engaging because it involves protecting something that's inside your base rather than outside). So the end result of this is that you have to spend time and resources on unlocking infantry, air and naval, but not tanks or resource gathering. Infantry, air and naval would have to be pretty damn overpowered to encourage people to actually unlock them instead of just massing the war factory units that they can build right at the start, at the time when they would in fact be most useful because there would be no defenses to slow them down and no engineers to quick-repair buildings.

[OWA]

Having MCVs as a playable unit in the main game mode is utterly pointless. The unit serves no logical purpose.

 

However, having it as an objective that you have to defend or escort is a much more realistic way to implement it.

[harvester]

Is having yaks and migs a good thing? why do people keep asking for them. Then the allies should get an F-22 or something else since Migs and Yaks are Russian aircraft.

 

Also, why do we need Cruisers? Doesn't the Destroyer already serve the same purpose? Then what do we need to give the Soviets if the Allies had cruisers? A V2-missile platform warship?

[SarahNautili]

nah, the people pushing for Migs, Yaks, and Cruisers are doing so because they were in Red Alert. They'd probably throw just as big a fit if the Allies got a mig/yak counter since they didn't have one ingame (although the Mig is a MiG-23 Flogger ingame in Red Alert so we'd be looking for say an F-4 Phantom or F-15 for the allied equivalent, not a modern F-22)

 

Regardless, not gonna happen, fixed wing aircraft... aren't really possible in this engine. It can be done in theory in very "hacky" ways but in practice it doesn't play well, doesn't look right.