Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Begin the flame war. Unless you meant "CnC3 is EA's best CnC strategy game ever." Then your good.
Jerad Gray wrote on Mon, 26 November 2007 23:57 "CnC3 is EA's best CnC strategy game ever." that could be flamed also I still don't think EA has made one good C&C strategy game yet. C&C3 was alright but not the best one EA made. EA still can't make C&C games.
Yes, but it's still the best C&C RTS made by EA. It dosen't matter if it's bad, it's still the better of the bunch, so it's "the best".
They removed the walls. REMOVED THE WALLS. WHAT THE HELL! And Titans, too.
Well, I was missing the Mammoth Tank. It brought that back.
it's better than TS or RA2 imho.. probably not RA, and C&C95 gets a free pass anyway generals and ZH are way, way better than most people here give them credit for. if people thought westwood made it rather than EA, they'd see it for how good it is.
Spoony wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 00:53 it's better than TS or RA2 imho.. probably not RA, and C&C95 gets a free pass anyway I beg to differ. RA2 was superiorly better, Game play wise, for the most part. More than 3 factions, Awesome super weapons, Vehicle and infantry selection was sexy, too. My only complaint against RA2 was that the Single player was short (On the Soviet's disk, anyway.) I have a few complaints against TS, But I blame EA for one of them (TS crashes like a bitch)
RA2 had two factions and one greatly unbalanced one brought with the expansion. I don't count adding and removing one unit for a team a new faction. How could you even like TS? Gah, you just have your crap blown up every 4 seconds from a seeker mine or missile. God forbid you don't feel like placing concrete all over the damn place and you don't have anywhere to build. Time line: Game Starts 13sec Missile launch detected 15Sec Rebuild Power plant 17Sec Spring noise indicating seeker mine 19Sec Rebuild Power plant 22Sec Harvester under attack (Says it for every shot taken, over and over) 25Sec Missile launch detected 27Sec Spring noise 29Sec Low power 30Sec Concrete, concrete, concrete 32Sec Missile launch detected 35Sec Driving to Walmart to return this pile of crap 37Sec Spring noise RA1 was and still is the best RTS Westwood made.
Oblivion165 wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 01:22 RA2 had two factions and one greatly unbalanced one brought with the expansion. I don't count adding and removing one unit for a team a new faction. How could you even like TS? Gah, you just have your crap blown up every 4 seconds from a seeker mine or missile. God forbid you don't feel like placing concrete all over the damn place and you don't have anywhere to build. Time line: Game Starts 13sec Missile launch detected 15Sec Rebuild Power plant 17Sec Spring noise indicating seeker mine 19Sec Rebuild Power plant 22Sec Harvester under attack (Says it for every shot taken, over and over) 25Sec Missile launch detected 27Sec Spring noise 29Sec Low power 30Sec Concrete, concrete, concrete 32Sec Missile launch detected 35Sec Driving to Walmart to return this pile of crap 37Sec Spring noise RA1 was and still is the best RTS Westwood made. I agree with your TS rant, But RA2 had more teams to choose if you wanted to play online, you could choose the Brits, Americans, Germany, Russia, Libya, Iraq, France, and a few more. Never played Yuri's Revenge sadly, So I'll just wait.
C&C3 is simply a good RTS game. I don't think u can compare it with previous C&C RTS-games as there's been so much time between them. It's surely not my prefered one of all times but it's my prefered one of the moment .
Goztow wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 02:25 C&C3 is simply a good RTS game. I don't think u can compare it with previous C&C RTS-games as there's been so much time between them. It's surely not my prefered one of all times but it's my prefered one of the moment . It's just simply rock-paper-scissor balancing, Westwood changed the RTS world dramaticly with CNC95, and RA, as all the other RTS at the time (Warcraft 2, etc.) were all rock-paper-scissor, or...in the case of Warcraft 2, all the same units with difference graphics. So no, C&C 3 has it's good points, but there are more cons than pros.
Using how many factions RA2 has as a plus point is a little flawed, considering how ridiculously powerful Iraq is compared to all the others. Awesome superweapons? Not necessarily a good thing. Infantry? What's great about the infantry in RA2?
Spoony wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 07:54 Using how many factions RA2 has as a plus point is a little flawed, considering how ridiculously powerful Iraq is compared to all the others. Because of their DESOLATOR? A simple sniper can take them out, or if you want, anything thats armed with explosives.
have you ever played against a decent player using Iraq? (I already know the answer simply by reading your post)
Spoony wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 15:17 have you ever played against a decent player using Iraq? (I already know the answer simply by reading your post) LOL Iraq is simple PWNage! They own prism tanks and mirage tanks ^^.
anybody who thinks that westwood makes good RTS all the time and that a Westwood-CnC3 would be much better then EAs shall have a look at Empire at War. Then he may shoot himself for his hypocrisy. seriously, Patch 1.09 made the Game pretty fun actually. And Zero Hour is pretty cool with Community Patch 1.05c too.
It being 3d took away the fun of red alert, but it was fun,i still play it everyday with my friends online, we keep playing wiwi's blood arena since it's the only cool map after we got tired of EA's and our own custom maps.
Oblivion165 wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 00:22 RA2 had two factions and one greatly unbalanced one brought with the expansion. I don't count adding and removing one unit for a team a new faction. How could you even like TS? Gah, you just have your crap blown up every 4 seconds from a seeker mine or missile. God forbid you don't feel like placing concrete all over the damn place and you don't have anywhere to build. Time line: Game Starts 13sec Missile launch detected 15Sec Rebuild Power plant 17Sec Spring noise indicating seeker mine 19Sec Rebuild Power plant 22Sec Harvester under attack (Says it for every shot taken, over and over) 25Sec Missile launch detected 27Sec Spring noise 29Sec Low power 30Sec Concrete, concrete, concrete 32Sec Missile launch detected 35Sec Driving to Walmart to return this pile of crap 37Sec Spring noise RA1 was and still is the best RTS Westwood made. I agree, I wish Westwood was still around, because if they were they probably have redone the net code for it by now just so we could still play it on-line. Maybe we would have also been able to get them to go back and redo how wall placement worked, so it would be more like RA2. If you set the tech level back 1 on ts it should turn off all the super weapons. Yuri's Revenge was slightly more fun, they added a few more units in and it allowed the allies to be even with the rest.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No not really no. Reasons: A. It doesn't feature anything new B. it doesn't do anything betetr then previous games C. its littered with bugs -Ghost-
I've found a few camera glitches where the camera turna 180 and rather than seeing down, you see up, I've found ways to make the pitbull drive on cliffs, up and down them, I've glitched vehicles to walk on water as if it were soldi drivable/walkable land. I've found telling a gdi soldier to dig in on a bridge, tell him get out, then digi n at the same spot makes him sit on his dig in and keep digging for eternity.
Dawn of War is the best RTS ever. Disagree and face my Boltgun.
I still like Tiberian Dawn best tbh, but Renegade is my favourite C&C game.
I see it as one of the best C&C games. EA or not... it is still one of my most favorite games. My second favorite is TS, which is kind of tied with C&C3.(Ren is first, however under the C&C title. It obviously isn't my favorite C&C RTS) And I simply dislike the RA series... towards the fact of the concept of it. However I would love to see them tie RA and TD together... like they SHOULD be...
IronWarrior wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 09:50 Dawn of War is the best RTS ever. Disagree and face my Boltgun. Bolt gun me then because Company of Heroes on Annihilation mode is clearly the best RTS game ever. Disagree and face my MG42.
When I was watching all the EA rants saying that EA sucks I was agreeing now everyone is hyping over EA? Was EA finally able to brainwash you On second note: RA2 and YR are my favourite C&C games to date to say that C&C3 is better, is just dumb, just look at it when it was first released it was buggy as hell, and don't say "it's better now" because if a company releases a game it should be pretty perfect, other words not making around 10 patches for i. When I buy a game I expect it to be not buggy at all, sure a bug here or there is fine and if there is a need for a patch or 2 so be it but 10! that is just stupid. EDIT: forgot bout TS, TS was a fun game sure it was unbalanced but that is what made it so fun
Yes because making one patch (cough 1037 cough) and abandoning a buggy ass game forever is the way to go.
Yeah it was ok before patch 1.05... and i love tib sun the most lol, why i think reborn will be the best mod for ren.
renegade, sure it's buggy as hell but that does not keep many away does it? it is only so popular because of how unique it is there is no FPS like it I know of, C&C3 buggy as hell STILL after the 10th patch or so and you can find many RTS games like it.
TS had the best concept of the C&C games. Too bad I had to mod it to get rid of the annoying super weapons though.
Renegade had seven patches, and it was "abandoned" only involuntarily.
Yeah because EA killed westwood and started work on generals...
Oblivion165 wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 15:25 IronWarrior wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 09:50 Dawn of War is the best RTS ever. Disagree and face my Boltgun. Bolt gun me then because Company of Heroes on Annihilation mode is clearly the best RTS game ever. Disagree and face my MG42. Pff, your weapon is no match for my Bolter that fire explosive .75 calibre rocket-propelled rounds. ^^
I really liked TS. Yea, it's hard, but that's the fun of it. A challenge. RA2 was really fun. I enjoyed modding it and making my own super weapons to mess around with.
Oblivion165 wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 16:32 Yes because making one patch (cough 1037 cough) and abandoning a buggy ass game forever is the way to go. The bugs are what give the game character. If Renegade didn't have any bugs, it wouldn't be very interesting. What would of happened to the Bluehell Group over at APB? If there was never any Bluehell, what would they of called their group?
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 16:27 On second note: RA2 and YR are my favourite C&C games to date to say that C&C3 is better, is just dumb, just look at it when it was first released it was buggy as hell, and don't say "it's better now" because if a company releases a game it should be pretty perfect, other words not making around 10 patches for i. When I buy a game I expect it to be not buggy at all, sure a bug here or there is fine and if there is a need for a patch or 2 so be it but 10! that is just stupid. C&C3 had no more bugs and colossal balance fuckups than does Renegade, Tib Sun or RA2. The difference is with C&C3, they were making patches to fix them IMMEDIATELY (I'm talking on the same day of release) and carried on doing so, and still do. So by your own argument, EA > Westwood.
bugs that should have been solved by release time I'm sure Westwood would have solved bugs like that there was so many that EA had where they were probly thinking "oh they won't notice this bug no need to fix it" when the bug affected the game a great deal and made it even crappier even tho it still is crappy, in my book Westwood much better than EA.
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 22:00 bugs that should have been solved by release time I'm sure Westwood would have solved bugs like that But they didn't. {SB}Lone0001 wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 22:00 there was so many that EA had where they were probly thinking "oh they won't notice this bug no need to fix it" when the bug affected the game a great deal That's ridiculous and all the evidence points to the contrary.
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 22:00 bugs that should have been solved by release time I'm sure Westwood would have solved bugs like that there was so many that EA had where they were probly thinking "oh they won't notice this bug no need to fix it" when the bug affected the game a great deal and made it even crappier even tho it still is crappy, in my book Westwood much better than EA. name one
TS was the only Westwood C&C I didn't like that much. I thought all the others were great. I liked RA2/Yuri a lot. I didn't play a whole lot online with any of the games though except Renegade. And as for Empire at war, I like that game quite a bit as well :/ . I like C&C3 but not Generals so much. One of the most annoying things to me about generals was how I would orders units to an area and they would get attacked by all kinds of enemies longer ranged than them and not fight back or avoid or anything :/ . It wasn't a terrible game but I certainly did not replay it as much as any of the others aside from TS.
bisen11 wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 23:07 One of the most annoying things to me about generals was how I would orders units to an area and they would get attacked by all kinds of enemies longer ranged than them and not fight back or avoid or anything :/ that's what the Attack Move command is for, which none of the Westwood games had (IIRC)
I really liked generals. i don't know why so many people are on the bandwagon for hating because retard westwood didn't make it.
Renegade had mroe than one patch =/. 1.037 is just the final patch they appleid but there were quite a few out before they got to 1.037.
Goztow wrote on Wed, 28 November 2007 01:53 Renegade had mroe than one patch =/. 1.037 is just the final patch they appleid but there were quite a few out before they got to 1.037. Gee, you're always vigilant in reiterating my posts, eh? Rocko wrote on Wed, 28 November 2007 00:14 I really liked generals. i don't know why so many people are on the bandwagon for hating because retard westwood didn't make it. It was a pretty good game, but that doesn't mean it still wasn't uninspired and created solely for EA's benefit (and ended up dropping support for it anyway).
IronWarrior wrote on Wed, 28 November 2007 01:50 Dawn of War is the best RTS ever. Disagree and face my Boltgun. YES! YES! FUCK YES! Disagree and face my Gauss Cannons. They flay skin from your muscles, then muscles from your bones, then reduce bones and everything else in its path into constituent atoms WITHIN MILLISECONDS. Can you do better? No? Didn't think so. Maybe we'll put it in as a super-weapon in Ren40k neh? Also, I hate EA. Fullstop.
I completely disagree. CnC3 single player yah was fun. However to this day I still have not been able to play a game online from the official lobbies due to the suck that ea is.
grant89uk wrote on Wed, 28 November 2007 05:59 I completely disagree. CnC3 single player yah was fun. However to this day I still have not been able to play a game online from the official lobbies due to the suck that ea is. So far, a patch ruined a Nod mission, the one where you start with a crane and just got Flame Tanks. Plus, singleplayer story was not canon.
cmatt42 wrote on Wed, 28 November 2007 11:50 Goztow wrote on Wed, 28 November 2007 01:53 Renegade had mroe than one patch =/. 1.037 is just the final patch they appleid but there were quite a few out before they got to 1.037. Gee, you're always vigilant in reiterating my posts, eh? What u on about?
Rocko wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 22:29 {SB}Lone0001 wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 22:00 bugs that should have been solved by release time I'm sure Westwood would have solved bugs like that there was so many that EA had where they were probly thinking "oh they won't notice this bug no need to fix it" when the bug affected the game a great deal and made it even crappier even tho it still is crappy, in my book Westwood much better than EA. name one well technically if it was WW I'm sure they would make another renegade first, and I can name 1 very clear one that was present at C&C3's release the one where it was clear ground and everything and it would not let you build there that is a bug that should have been fixed by release. Spoony wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 22:05 {SB}Lone0001 wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 22:00 bugs that should have been solved by release time I'm sure Westwood would have solved bugs like that But they didn't. {SB}Lone0001 wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 22:00 there was so many that EA had where they were probly thinking "oh they won't notice this bug no need to fix it" when the bug affected the game a great deal That's ridiculous and all the evidence points to the contrary. The bug I just listed was an easily spotted bug and they did nothing to fix it by release
I lost my TS CD Somewhere in my house....But I loved RA2/YR the most, good gameplay. I love the AI Skirmish modes in YR the best, very real.
There are improvments in cnc3 such as line up, click both right and left mouse buttons and you can line up different vehicles/soldiers in a pattern for a better defense, rather than making them sit in one smallgroup with 500 guys in it.
Yes, buy the AI has not improved one bit from Generals. I played the demo, and the AI was so dumb that it felt nostalgic. Enemies still keep attacking with the same patterns, and so on... I expected some huge AI improvement, buy since the terms EA and Good AI can't possibly be said in the same sentence(or at least not any more), I was not really disappointed.
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Wed, 28 November 2007 11:58 well technically if it was WW I'm sure they would make another renegade first, and I can name 1 very clear one that was present at C&C3's release the one where it was clear ground and everything and it would not let you build there that is a bug that should have been fixed by release. What on earth are you talking about? The game had bugs, sure, but this...?
I am speaking of the bug that was present at release that would not let you build somewhere for no reason
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Wed, 28 November 2007 15:51 I am speaking of the bug that was present at release that would not let you build somewhere for no reason Actually it was because the ground was slightly inclined. If you're going to complain about bugs, get your facts right.
renegade > tiberiansun > all ya ren is best tiberiansun is second
Tiberian Dawn is the best IMO. Red Alert would be my next choice.
sure I might be or am wrong bout that but I have seen more when I first got it can't remember any tho(haven't played it in a while, have NEVER played online) but I still stand by the fact that it is like any other RTS.
IronWarrior wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 14:50 Dawn of War is the best RTS ever. Disagree and face my Boltgun. I agree that it is good, but the not the best. However it walks all over Company of Zeros. It's got to be RA2 for me, the characters, the graphical styling and the cool unit designs are really awesome
Yes, C&C3 is the worlds best RTS game ever made.
Terminator 101 wrote on Wed, 28 November 2007 13:25 Yes, buy the AI has not improved one bit from Generals. I played the demo, and the AI was so dumb that it felt nostalgic. Enemies still keep attacking with the same patterns, and so on... I expected some huge AI improvement, buy since the terms EA and Good AI can't possibly be said in the same sentence(or at least not any more), I was not really disappointed. The AI in the real game is alot better, I'm good in cnc3, but I still lose to the Brutal AI sometimes because they just rush to dang much, and it's a small rush too, they'll send a pred tank and 3 rocket soldiers and take down a building, then I defend it while I make more soldiers and tanks, then comes more rushes, the waves keep hitting, and after a while I lose money to a certain point I cant defend anymore.
AoBfrost wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 10:12 Terminator 101 wrote on Wed, 28 November 2007 13:25 Yes, buy the AI has not improved one bit from Generals. I played the demo, and the AI was so dumb that it felt nostalgic. Enemies still keep attacking with the same patterns, and so on... I expected some huge AI improvement, buy since the terms EA and Good AI can't possibly be said in the same sentence(or at least not any more), I was not really disappointed. The AI in the real game is alot better, I'm good in cnc3, but I still lose to the Brutal AI sometimes because they just rush to dang much, and it's a small rush too, they'll send a pred tank and 3 rocket soldiers and take down a building, then I defend it while I make more soldiers and tanks, then comes more rushes, the waves keep hitting, and after a while I lose money to a certain point I cant defend anymore. You can defeat the Brutal AI (balanced) in a 2v2 by rushing infantry (rockets) to their harvy and ref at the start.
I'm dumbstruck at how many people said RA2 over RA1. I'm pretty young myself (Just turned 18), but even I'm old enough to remember the glory that is RA1. RA2 is a parody, at best. A non-biased, side-by-side comparison: -RA1 had a serrious, realistic(ish), significant storyline. While playing, you could really believe that you are part of a war, and the outcome will change the world. -RA2 features antics such as Premier Rominov being caught in his underwear and Yuri being "locked up" for waging war on humanity and unleashing genetic abominations upon the earth. Also, potentially world-changing plot twists (President gets mind controled, Major US city gets nuked) are quickly blown off and dismissed, effectively ignored for the rest of the game. Wtf? -RA1 has a pretty clear timeline, and while there are a few things that pop out as having "not been invented yet" by 1950 (Iron curtain, gap generator, chrono tech), there are fictional creations only availible at the highest tech level, where canon explains their development. -RA2 has trouble deciding which time period it takes place in. The RA2 wikipedia states that RA2 takes place 20 years after RA1 yet, Tanya hasn't aged a bit in that time. The Sears Tower and World Trade Center were barely starting to be built by 1970, and since WWII never happened, it is silly to have WWII memorials in Pearl Harbor. -RA1 featured fairly balenced gameplay, and for every concieveable attack, there is a fairly effective counter. -RA2 Chronosphering nine iron-curtained prism tanks into the middle of an enemy base, destroying everything of any significance within 15 seconds and suffering no losses? Elite Deployed GIs can outrange Tesla Coils, and destroy them in no time? One soldier sinking an entire navy fleet? Give me a fucking break. -RA1's superweapons were not game makers or game breakers, but just something that could tip the scales in your favor or provide a slight temporary advantage. Calling them superweapons in itself is really a bit silly. The game is still won or lost by conventional RTS strategy and tactics, not turtle while you rush to build superweapons. -RA2's superweapons (And the superweapons of every game following TS) are just...wtf...
Dover wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 19:26 I'm dumbstruck at how many people said RA2 over RA1. I'm pretty young myself (Just turned 18), but even I'm old enough to remember the glory that is RA1. RA2 is a parody, at best. A non-biased, side-by-side comparison: -RA1 had a serrious, realistic(ish), significant storyline. While playing, you could really believe that you are part of a war, and the outcome will change the world. -RA2 features antics such as Premier Rominov being caught in his underwear and Yuri being "locked up" for waging war on humanity and unleashing genetic abominations upon the earth. Also, potentially world-changing plot twists (President gets mind controled, Major US city gets nuked) are quickly blown off and dismissed, effectively ignored for the rest of the game. Wtf? -RA1 has a pretty clear timeline, and while there are a few things that pop out as having "not been invented yet" by 1950 (Iron curtain, gap generator, chrono tech), there are fictional creations only availible at the highest tech level, where canon explains their development. -RA2 has trouble deciding which time period it takes place in. The RA2 wikipedia states that RA2 takes place 20 years after RA1 yet, Tanya hasn't aged a bit in that time. The Sears Tower and World Trade Center were barely starting to be built by 1970, and since WWII never happened, it is silly to have WWII memorials in Pearl Harbor. -RA1 featured fairly balenced gameplay, and for every concieveable attack, there is a fairly effective counter. -RA2 Chronosphering nine iron-curtained prism tanks into the middle of an enemy base, destroying everything of any significance within 15 seconds and suffering no losses? Elite Deployed GIs can outrange Tesla Coils, and destroy them in no time? One soldier sinking an entire navy fleet? Give me a fucking break. -RA1's superweapons were not game makers or game breakers, but just something that could tip the scales in your favor or provide a slight temporary advantage. Calling them superweapons in itself is really a bit silly. The game is still won or lost by conventional RTS strategy and tactics, not turtle while you rush to build superweapons. -RA2's superweapons (And the superweapons of every game following TS) are just...wtf... Very true.
Although to be honest, C&C 3 was pretty good, and Zero Hour would probably take my vote for second best C&C RTS.
IMPORTANT QUESTION ABOUT C&C3: Toggle Spoiler DO THEY HAVE NAVAL UNITS?
man EA brainwashes people quick, I still can't see how and I still stand by RA2 and YR as my favs.
Starbuzz wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 10:48 IMPORTANT QUESTION ABOUT C&C3: Toggle Spoiler DO THEY HAVE NAVAL UNITS? No, water is to hard for anyone that makes new games to figure out... I guess nopol10 wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 21:12 AoBfrost wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 10:12 Terminator 101 wrote on Wed, 28 November 2007 13:25 Yes, buy the AI has not improved one bit from Generals. I played the demo, and the AI was so dumb that it felt nostalgic. Enemies still keep attacking with the same patterns, and so on... I expected some huge AI improvement, buy since the terms EA and Good AI can't possibly be said in the same sentence(or at least not any more), I was not really disappointed. The AI in the real game is alot better, I'm good in cnc3, but I still lose to the Brutal AI sometimes because they just rush to dang much, and it's a small rush too, they'll send a pred tank and 3 rocket soldiers and take down a building, then I defend it while I make more soldiers and tanks, then comes more rushes, the waves keep hitting, and after a while I lose money to a certain point I cant defend anymore. You can defeat the Brutal AI (balanced) in a 2v2 by rushing infantry (rockets) to their harvy and ref at the start. I just out live them by building lots of obbys and air defenses until they run out of ore, and sense the AI's harvester ai still sucks so bad that it doesn't start harvesting again they screw themselves.
Starbuzz wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 11:48 IMPORTANT QUESTION ABOUT C&C3: Toggle Spoiler DO THEY HAVE NAVAL UNITS? there are one or two single player missions with a battleship you can control, but essentially no.
Jerad Gray wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 12:33 No, water is to hard for anyone that makes new games to figure out... I guess Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 14:24 there are one or two single player missions with a battleship you can control, but essentially no. That is ridiculous that's what I think. Naval units are a must in any RTS especially Command & Conquer. I sure hope they have some naval units in the KW expansion. What stupidity, no naval units! You would think that with most of the earth infested by Tiberium, they would have advanced naval units (at least GDI FFS). Thanks EA, bunch of money-mongering losers. See how they package TFD and C&C3TW to try to sell it off? Now they have C&C Saga...BS! And whatever happened to our Renegade sequel? I have no choice but to completely agree with Lone: {SB}Lone0001 wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 12:26 man EA brainwashes people quick, I still can't see how and I still stand by RA2 and YR as my favs. RA2/YR are the games I enjoyed the most.
RA2/YR were funny for about 10 minutes, then they started to annoy me like hell, having units like... dolphins.
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 12:26 man EA brainwashes people quick, I still can't see how and I still stand by RA2 and YR as my favs. k, anyone who points out the fact you're wrong about anything is "brainwashed"... you're smart.
Surth wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 09:12 RA2/YR were funny for about 10 minutes, then they started to annoy me like hell, having units like... dolphins. Squids are so fucking awesome, you can dominate any ship with them. For the Soviets, anyway.
Ryu wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 15:42 Surth wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 09:12 RA2/YR were funny for about 10 minutes, then they started to annoy me like hell, having units like... dolphins. Squids are so fucking awesome, you can dominate any ship with them. For the Soviets, anyway. Squids were just amazing units just as the dolphins. But Squids were more "awesome" in their attacks. But it was the Apocalypse tanks that kept me going. I always buy 5 Apocs and group them together...just five tanks and harrass. In like 20 minutes or so, all of them are elite pwnage tanks. Then the fun begins! What a great game!
Sir Kane wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 10:51 Naval units are boring. Shooo...Shooo...go away!
Prism tanks and mirage tanks FTW!
Starbuzz wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 11:58 Sir Kane wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 10:51 Naval units are boring. Shooo...Shooo...go away! The naval units in red alert 1/2 owned, they had extreme long range and did alot of damage, they were untouchable unless you made planes or they were close enough to be shot by soldiers/tanks on land. You could say the juggernaught is the naval force replacment, the juggernaught can shoot anywhere on the map as long as cordinates are given by snipers, this means you can own the nemy base from your own base, make tons of defenses to protect 5-6 juggernaughts, send 5-6 snipers to hide around the enemy base and tell the juggs to fire.
RA2 was cheap, dirty fun. CHEAP and DIRTY. So yeah, I enjoyed it. But I felt filthy afterwards.
I'm not surprised people dislike the Red Alert 2 games; I didn't either, simply because they were so over-the-top, and full of self-parody. But then again, the rest of the Command & Conquer series is full of self-parody as well, but it's much more subtle, and that's what I love about it.
nikki6ixx wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 10:00 I'm not surprised people dislike the Red Alert 2 games; I didn't either, simply because they were so over-the-top, and full of self-parody. But then again, the rest of the Command & Conquer series is full of self-parody as well, but it's much more subtle, and that's what I love about it. Blasphemy. Red Alert 1 was flawless.
Dover wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 12:06 nikki6ixx wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 10:00 I'm not surprised people dislike the Red Alert 2 games; I didn't either, simply because they were so over-the-top, and full of self-parody. But then again, the rest of the Command & Conquer series is full of self-parody as well, but it's much more subtle, and that's what I love about it. Blasphemy. Red Alert 1 was flawless. And it made plenty of jokes along the way too. What's the problem?
Dover wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 11:57 RA2 was cheap, dirty fun. CHEAP and DIRTY. So yeah, I enjoyed it. But I felt filthy afterwards. Hey, don't talk about RA2 like that! And yes, RA was good too.
Sir Kane wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 10:51 Naval units are boring.
Surth wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 13:27 Sir Kane wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 10:51 Naval units are boring. Shooo...Shooo...go away!
Surth wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 13:43 ok. bye
Shooo shooo, the shut the fuck up train is coming!
tschug tschug tschug tschug tschug tschug schuuuu schuuuu tschug tschug tschug tschug
Sir Kane wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 13:52 Shooo shooo, the shut the fuck up train is coming! Surth wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 13:55 tschug tschug tschug tschug tschug tschug schuuuu schuuuu tschug tschug tschug tschug ROFL...thanks for the laugh, funny Nazi's!
AoBfrost wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 21:12 Terminator 101 wrote on Wed, 28 November 2007 13:25 Yes, buy the AI has not improved one bit from Generals. I played the demo, and the AI was so dumb that it felt nostalgic. Enemies still keep attacking with the same patterns, and so on... I expected some huge AI improvement, buy since the terms EA and Good AI can't possibly be said in the same sentence(or at least not any more), I was not really disappointed. The AI in the real game is alot better, I'm good in cnc3, but I still lose to the Brutal AI sometimes because they just rush to dang much, and it's a small rush too, they'll send a pred tank and 3 rocket soldiers and take down a building, then I defend it while I make more soldiers and tanks, then comes more rushes, the waves keep hitting, and after a while I lose money to a certain point I cant defend anymore. By AI, I am also talking about your own units, not just the enemy. The only new thing that generals introduced was that your units would get out of the way if they were in the way. After playing C&C3, I can safely say that it brought absolutely no improvement to your units. The guard command is still as useless as ever, units NEVER retreat, etc.... Is it that difficult to make it easier for the player?
...you think your units not retreating automatically is a problem which should be solved?
i think renegade is bad, it has no inbuilt aimbot?
Spoony wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 15:36 ...you think your units not retreating automatically is a problem which should be solved? For sure it increases the player's micromanagement of the units but I would not say THAT is a problem.
spoony's right about generals and zero hour, they're both amazing games that a lot of people dislike by default because EA made them the only thing i dislike is when you send more than 4 or 5 tanks somewhere because they form a single file line and take 20 minutes to move i've beaten and played the shit out of every cnc game except tiberium wars; i can't even beat the campaigns because i can't get that into the game, and i haven't played it since last year a few weeks after i bought it red alert 2 is cool if you like fending off giant squids with attack dolphins, building ufos and teleporting spacemen, and turning masses of enemy infantry into the incredible hulk cnc1 and ra1 are way different from ts (ts is probably my favorite), and ts is closest to ra2 i don't even know if i'm gonna buy kane's wrath, is there even a point
Spoony wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 16:36 ...you think your units not retreating automatically is a problem which should be solved? I never said it was a problem. I said that they could have added option for it. I played a RTS game named Original War that had this option. It was not that useful, but since in that game, you could not buy any new infantry, plus, infantry did all the driving and fighting, so they kind of had to give you option to force them to pull back once their health got low. Or would not be nice to tell infantry to hide behind tanks, just like in real life? Or if they could at least attempt to dodge the tank shells, in order to take less damage, etc...
Terminator 101 wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 16:52 Or would not be nice to tell infantry to hide behind tanks, just like in real life? Or if they could at least attempt to dodge the tank shells, in order to take less damage, etc... Company of Heroes