Fallout Studios Forums

I don't even see this as situational in all honesty. If it mowed through things quickly then perhaps yes it would serve a purpose. But I pretty much agree with everything WARthog just said. If it didn't have to stand still to chew through something it might be useful.

...as in mow through tanks like they do with infantry? Hmm.

maybe its an early tech vehicle, it would be useful to have them before a super reactor.

It's not, it's listed as 'advanced anti-vehicle'.
An interesting unit, and I feel the current concept iteration far more accurately reflects a brutal, blunt-force-trauma unit like the Grinder than fancy three-arm models. I will agree that the animations are unspectacular. EA can do better... but to suggest they'll make a loss with Uprising is, I would have to content, misguided to say the least.

did anyone notice that the guardian tank stopped firing once grabbed?

 CommanderJB, on 6 Mar 2009, 18:02, said:

Of course they're not going to make a financial loss, but they're certainly losing fans.

I don't like how it stops and freezes the enemy. It should constantly push them. I wonder if it can attack buildings?

 WARthog, on 5 Mar 2009, 12:45, said:

That. Exactly.

I don't understand the point in this unit - there was never any place for it in the Soviet arsenal, and yet it's been shoved in anyways. The Soviets can already crush anything on the ground and in the water, so why add a unit that does a worse job than other units in the Soviet arsenal? My only thought is that if it disables units when attacking them, then it could be useful against more powerful units to stop them from getting involved - kind of like a close-range, damage inflicting ECM. Nevertheless though, the animation is not great, the unit is of poor design compared to the other concept arts, and the distance between the unit and grinder is absurd - surely the engine has progressed far enough to have actual debris fly off the attacked tank, even if it's actually just created by the grinder really and doesn't come off the tank at all? A half baked job by EA - whoever was responsible for that unit should hang their head in shame when compared to other work that has been done on the team.

 AZZKIKR, on 6 Mar 2009, 18:06, said:

Ah... yes?

Quote

 Alias, on 6 Mar 2009, 18:11, said:

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Command & Conquer is more popular now than ever and while I know it's not the case with everyone, yourself being a good example, Uprising is far, far more likely to attract fans rather than turn them away.
Edited by CommanderJB, 06 March 2009 - 08:08.

 CommanderJB, on 6 Mar 2009, 19:08, said:

More people may be buying it, but to be honest those who actually care about the Command and Conquer label (therefore 'fans' of the series) are decreasing. Just because a game is popular, doesn't mean the series is, in other words.

 CommanderJB, on 6 Mar 2009, 19:08, said:

Hardly an excuse for laziness, in all honesty.

What I meant was that the stopping of firing was intentional, which makes sense as targeting something chewing you to bits with giant whirling toothed metal wheels is likely more than a tad difficult, and what's more, it's an important gameplay feature. It would be 'lazier' to let it keep firing as that would require less code. I agree it's lazy not to give it a grinding animation that's even mildly interesting, and it would be much better looking if the target shook violently and got progressively smaller when ground, but stopping firing while it does is intentional and not in any way a bad thing.
As for fans, I don't believe that that's the case, but as I'm feeling extremely tired and suspect that nothing would be conclusive, these will remain our respective opinions and I am not going to argue about it.

The fire-stopping is the only reason you'd use it. If it works on base defences then that's actually not too bad.

...

In other news, here's a link to the leaked unit profile video for the Soviet Reaper:

http://na.llnet.cnc3tv.ea.com/u/f/eagames/...aperUnitVid.swf


Looks like we may get our answer to the problem of the the crappy Soviet ground-based AA.

ooh. so the guns are used in sec ability, which insta kills. seems ok. atleast soviets got better AA and anti infantry

I'm sure you know all unit damages are exaggerated in the vids

Lets hope that they get this when they get the sickle, I am so sick and tire of having to fend off a vindicator rush with flak troopers or rushed migs. Eh this isn't going to be multiplayer anyway so I guess it doesn't matter.

Now that thing is hot!!! Sickle on steroids finally i wont have to rely on aa-only bullfrogs anymore!

Do. Want. Now.

Very nice. That makes up for the silly Grinder no end. Though I would bet a lot it's not going to be early tech considering the sickle will have no role if it is replaced by that rocket-slinging beast early game.

And now the Reaper Profile is up:

http://www.commandandconquer.com/portal/si...ette.cachetoken

Feels good man

looks like they used original concepts from ra2 right?

IT CAME FROM RED ALERT 2

You mean this one? Yes, this unit called Centurion Meck from RA2 beta version.

I love the art for this one and the unit has been implemented very nicely. I'm also particularly interested to see that the concept was made by T. J. Frame, who produced a large amount of concept art for the alpha Generals versions which was very good indeed, and may have even worked on Red Alert 2 and its expansion if my memory hasn't failed me (which would explain its reappearance somewhat) and his latest interpretation of this is the best of them all. Definitely like it, and I chuckled at the lore, too.

Oh yes, I remember the Centurion fondly from the Mental Omega mod for RA2. Nice to see it make an appearance in RA3; the unit sounds pretty useful as well.