28 replies to this topic

[vader333]

Dear Dev's:

As they say, you only learn when you lose. So I'll skip the praise (good job, btw), and go to the suggestions:

Soviets:
1. The Reaper has become completely redundant. It can't even hit a moving Kirov without the homing, not to mention a Vindicator or Twinblade. And it can't force fire at the sky. What I propose is, either scrap the reaping issue from the game and use the model as a component/enhancement for an existing unit (apoc?), or get rid of the proto jump, and turn the Reaper into a MDV (Mobile Defence Vehicle) that has as high a defense as a VX defender, and the ability to deploy and undeploy repeatedly, like an MCV. Undo the grenade and missile changes (they're totally ruining the Reaper) and make the grenade more effective against infantry ( 1 volley KO). Either replace the Missile rack with a precision rocket turret that fires a single, HIGH damage rocket that can at least take out an IFV in one hit, or a *different* flak cannon

2. Nice V4 rocket speed boost. But I was wondering if you could give the V4 precision rocket a slightly larger AOE, or make it look as though it had a larger AOE. And could you please improve upon the explosions of the cluster bombs. They feel rather weak, even though they are good.

3. The desolator is still pretty useless as an anti-armour unit. Would it be possible to fix it by giving the desolator splatter thing an armour cancellation ability or a property that specifically increases the death spray's damage incrementally over time (like damage acceleration, not unlike the King Oni)

4. It is impossible to safely expand the normal way (packing up MCV and moving to expansion) without encountering the radar off-ing problem. It is very severe as sputnik expansion is not feasible early game. I suggest creating a radar structure that will serve as an alternative to the MCV as a Radar enabling structure (meaning, {either or} the Radar dish or the MCV has to be up to maintain the radar)

5. I am very impressed by the MiG's improvements. The attacking speed is just right. What needs working is now it's maneuvering. Is it possible to allow the MiG to move in a straight line as per vanilla when it is pursuing fast moving objects, and make those loops ONLY when it is significantly faster than the target such that it is always overtaking it.

6. Minor snag: Tsar Bomba always makes my com lag. Can you reduce the smoke?

7. Twinblade rockets have Neutron star effect. Making them drop, then home in on the location in a trajectory like a negative quadratic equation would be more realistic. This might need a larger range for the Twinblade's rockets as a by product. Then again, hellfire rockets have very long ranges on Apaches.

8. Make Kirov bigger?

Japanese:
1. I don't see the necessity of the Greater King Oni. Seems to be just some fancy addition like the Reaper.

2. I think I suggested once to allow the King Oni to climb cliffs? Is it possible?

3. Very good changes to VX striker. No longer so OP. You might want to increase reload time, though. Just a little.

4. Shogun battleship shell FX disproportionate to the damage it does, as is the Giga fortress.

5. Wave force artillery maximum charge up FX disproportionate to the firing FX. More bloom, fatter beam and a nice Neutron Star explosion at the end of the beam would be very filling.

6. Giga fortress landing splash FX error. Splashes before it hits the water.
You might want to try letting the Giga fortress transform in the water, then lifting up. Just for reality/fun sake?

7. I like how you've slowed down the transformations for VX Striker and Mecha Tengu. For balance, you might just want to slow it down further. 1.5 to 2 secs maybe?

8. Love the dewy Rocket Angel attacking FX. Mountain dewy!!

9. Giga Fortress reload time too long, and damage slightly low. Makes Giga fortress disproportionate, less useful and considerably less desirable. It's hard to explain, but giving the Giga fortress strategic weaknesses rather than nerfing its fire power is more appealing gameplay wise. See below.

10. Suggestion: tie the Giga fortress to the power supply. If you can, perhaps make it such that infiltrating or destroying the Nanocore Mainframe will disable all Giga fortresses? Would balance out the above suggested firepower increases.

Allies:

1. Pacifier FAV is just TOO inaccurate. It doesn't even change it's direction after the target has moved far far away! The damage is also too low. It took me four Pacifiers to destroy a refinery in the same time as vanilla.

2. I don't get the chronotank's proton attack. Isn't it too powerful and inconsistent with Chronology?

3. Harbinger is too accurate, and reload is too fast.

4. Was the damage of the Future tank decreased? Seems like it.

5. Could you please make the Proton Collider's damage increase not with the number of walls, but buildings? I suggest making powerplants explode would be good as a damage increasing factor.

[TheWorms]

Good, I can finally start:

Soviets:
1. Ok. So let me ask a question. When EA revealed the reaper, what was it supposed to do in your perspective?
Technically, my only problem with the reaper was why it had the horrible friendly fire setting. All its shells collide with own and friendly units.
The missile rack was a calliope model right? COH came into mind so I made it inaccurate. The grenades, I thought 3 clips were inappropriate.

I guess doing some changes when in turret mode should be a good start.

2. FX? sure, I can do that. The problem with the cluster one is that it does not hit the intended target area, I'm looking into that already.

3. Are you telling that, since it's goo, it can do more that just corrode metal and slow its movement?
Now that you mention it, I wondered why it's not 1 shot for infantry. Maybe tetanus can work.

4. We're discussing things with the radar now. Besides that, I wasn't aware that it doesn't go out when in low power, even on the old version.

5. The strafing depends on the state machine the object is using. And the locomotors are limited to the conditions EA devs defined.
So, I think this is impossible. Just look, it's not supposed to make an idle rotation movement when in a spot. But that's the consequence of replacing the stateAI.

6. I plan on changing the fx already, but I think you wouldn't like it (smirk)

7. I didn't know the twinblade was already being discussed here. Yeah, I've read about that in the thread.
Are you saying that the original arc of the missle was alright? I followed the one that uses the attack animation of it tilting so it looks better.

8. Nah, already big enough.


Empire:
1. I don't want the greater to outsource the king oni. But after hearing this, looks like I have a problem with putting in the Kenji custom.

2. Unless you want the charge to be removed, yes. Will it be like the sandstorm from TT? No. That's a different engine already.
My original plan was to revert the ability to the beta one, where it just charges head on without slowing at the start.

4. It was supposed to be a shell fired in high speeds, and not just a short beam burst. It just so happens that it was the model that EA devs made.
Well, considering a new fx isn't bad.

5. So you're also not a fan of the laser texture it originally has?
Btw, I can't change the fx that depends in the premature discharge. So having the smallest beam while having the same firing fx is the most I can do.

6. Ok, that's a problem on my part.

9-10. You have a good idea. I'm not sure if it is possible, but I'll see what the game engine can do.


Allies:
1. What's the use of an artillery anyway? It wasn't supposed to follow the target after each fired round, especially if it is in waves of shells.
I can't explain that very well. Anyway, I'm making it work like the grand cannon in RA2. I still have to study the weapon logic.

2. This is because the logic, no, the code for the chrono beam is too complex and very buggy.
So I gave it a new weapon, but I don't want just a tank cannon since it defeats the purpose of not having "a guardian that poofs anywhere."
And I've always wanted to try to recreate the proton gun from Ghostbusters, so it became my choice.

3. Ok, noted.

4. No. I haven't touched the weapon damage. It should be the same as with where the source it came from, Upheaval.

5. Elaborate the first one. Do note that the weapon logic behind the collider is the same with the Scrin Mothership.

[V.Metalic]

I have a few things to say.

This release was revealed to give the public a chance to help to balance the mod, so what you see is NOT 100%. Reaper's weaponry, I am a supporter of idea that the grenades should be replaced by normal guns so it would be more accurate, and the Katyusha should have stronger missiles.

And Chronology is science of the history. What you mean, is Chronotechnology. Thats big difference.

[TheWorms]

Since we're talking about dogfight and air superiority fighters, can you help with their weapon balance for the moment?
You're the one who suggested the hierarchy of the jets, right?

And yes, please list the balance changes you've proposed in the balance section.

Edited by TheWorms, 26 December 2010 - 11:26.

[Kamikaze]

(post deleted)

Edited by Kamikaze, 28 December 2010 - 13:55.

[vader333]

[quote name='TheWorms']Ok. So let me ask a question. When EA revealed the reaper, what was it supposed to do in your perspective?[/quote]
From the missile rack, it was more of a semi heavy anti-air unit with semi anti-infantry capacities. But RTS games aren't chummy with Semi-units.

[quote name='TheWorms']The missile rack was a calliope model right[/quote]
It would seem so, but the Calliope was an artillery unit. It had FAR greater range than the reaper, and Far greater AOE. If you want, you could also turn the Reaper into a Calliope or Katyusha rocket launcher. It is a feasible alternative to making the Reaper a mobile turret. Would give the Soviets a unique early artillery signature that is very fitting with their huge-rocket-monster-tank-industrial theme.

[quote name='TheWorms']Are you telling that, since it's goo, it can do more that just corrode metal and slow its movement?[/quote]
No, I'm saying that it can corrode metal. Once armour has been eaten through, the deathspray should be able to leak in and kill the crew, foul the engineering, and rust the metal. If not, consider the Deathspray to be a highly reactive chemical that reacts with the Splattershot to release radiation and mobile hydrogen ions (acid).

[quote name='TheWorms']I plan on changing the fx already, but I think you wouldn't like it (smirk)[/quote]
Imma like, running on i7 and a GeForce GTX 260 and I actually lag with Worms... But it's not that important, really. When the Tsar Bomba launches, your opponent (or your good self, if you're the recipient) probably won't want to look for the damage done =P Still, it is quite bad for multiplayer.

[quote name='TheWorms']Unless you want the charge to be removed, yes. Will it be like the sandstorm from TT? No. That's a different engine already.
My original plan was to revert the ability to the beta one, where it just charges head on without slowing at the start.[/quote]
No, I was thinking along the lines of Colossus for Starcraft II, where they can scale cliffs and the like. Means passive ability.

[quote]9-10. You have a good idea. I'm not sure if it is possible, but I'll see what the game engine can do.[/quote]
I thought you already did it for the Tesla Tank. Maybe not for the Nanocore Mainframe tether.

[quote]Elaborate the first one. Do note that the weapon logic behind the collider is the same with the Scrin Mothership.[/quote]
Well, the Proton Collider actually has an ability to make walls explode, dealing AOE damage. So when you wall up your Refinery, and don't have time to sell all of the walls in time, the refinery will be destroyed by the wall explosions. There's a youtube vid on this:
I have tried CNC3 once or twice, didn't really take to it well ( and thank someone I didn't have to buy it ), so I'm not too familiar with the Scrin Mothership logic. I only used it once, and it was like, insta-win before I knew anything.

[quote]Are you saying that the original arc of the missle was alright? I followed the one that uses the attack animation of it tilting so it looks better.[/quote]
EDIT: After doing further testing, I've found that it is actually very appealing. I think I missed the Twinblade yesterday =P. Sorry.

Edited by vader333, 27 December 2010 - 09:02.

[vader333]

Another point: I've found out that, without a certain degree of homing, it is impossible for land units like the Javelin to perform Anti-air functions. This homelessness affects the allies mostly, apart from the Reaper. Multigunner turrets, IFV's, Javelins are all not doing any damage at all.

The Chrono Tank is making the Guardian tank redundant. I think the Chrono Tank needs a topic of its own. So does the Reaper.

Edit: Gotta do more testing with Chrono Tank just so I don't look a fool

Edited by vader333, 27 December 2010 - 09:18.

[Destiny]

Scrin mothership logic - Catalyst Cannon: Anything destroyed by the Catalyst Cannon will impart a time-delayed insta-kill chain reaction to anything in it's range, units and structures. If the catalyst'd unit/structure explodes in range of other units and structures, the other structures will have the catalyst effect applied on it, and if they explode they'll impart the catalyst effect onto everything near them, and etc.

[V.Metalic]

So now you think of Reaper as artillery... what else should appear I really wonder. Technically Repaer would be a equivalent of Hammer, just more suited for defensive purposes.

Edited by V.Metalic, 27 December 2010 - 12:38.

[vader333]

You can lay off the sarcasm, V. How are we supposed to know if the Reaper is Truly 'Technically' Equivalent of Hammer? Because it is in the same tier? Because, it has a calliope missile rack, or a Katyusha Missile rack (which are arty, btw)? I didn't know the Reaper had stock piles of Anti-Tank Grenades, you know. Then, shouldn't the Reaper be doing this kind of damage:
Honestly, if you haven't proven something to QED, quit criticizing as though it is a known fact. It may be your translator that's making you blunt, so choose your words carefully.

Additionally, according to EA Dev's since you're so particular about story line and all,

"The price of punishment -- Because it is available in relatively short supply and packs so much firepower, the Reaper is fairly expensive to produce, even more so than a Soviet main battle tank. While most Soviet forces are considered to be specialized and efficient, the Reaper can be seen as something of a jack-of-all-trades, but while being a jack-of-all-trades, it is very effective in doing it's job, so the reaper can also be considered specialized ."

"Armament:
PKX40 grenade launcher x3
Katyusha rocket launcher"

According to Wikipedia:
"Katyusha multiple rocket launchers (Russian: Катюша) are a type of rocket artillery first built and fielded by the Soviet Union in World War II. Compared to other artillery, these multiple rocket launchers deliver a devastating amount of explosives to an area target quickly, but with lower accuracy and requiring a longer time to reload."

Storyline wise, Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

Edited by vader333, 28 December 2010 - 05:57.

[R3ven]

Egh, vader, V. doesn't use a translator, his primary language isn't English, but he knows most of it.

[vader333]

Buzzz......

Edited by vader333, 29 December 2010 - 05:02.

[V.Metalic]

I use translator only in case I dont know the word in English or cant remember it. Otherwise I know VERY WELL what I say, and there I know what you say.

If you are comparing RA3 Katyusha with real-life Katyusha, than show me a case when Katyusha in real-life was used against air threats. Katyusha was armed with un-guided rockets, so the only possibility of using it against aircrafts is to spray him with the volley of rockets, but that would be very hard, nearly impossible, and most of all, very consuming on ammunition. This means that Reaper actually dont have the same rocket launcher as Katyusha, only the name is same.

And my opinion is that Reaper should have instead of the grenade launchers a normal guns, or mortars, and Katyusha launcher should be stronger and in case of air targets more precise, making him a "walking and artillery equivalent of Hammer Tank", something what can keep up with Sickles and support them with larger firepower. But after this, you can be 100% this wont ever happen.

[R3ven]

vader333, on 28 Dec 2010, 3:41, said:

...Are you actually suggesting that the person which the combined and current interlocutors refer to is regularly of the proclivity to tend to field uncomfortable nouns, pronouns and future tenses?

If that wasn't flaming, I don't know what is.

[Com-Link]

R3ven, on 28 Dec 2010, 18:39, said:

vader333, on 28 Dec 2010, 3:41, said:

...Are you actually suggesting that the person which the combined and current interlocutors refer to is regularly of the proclivity to tend to field uncomfortable nouns, pronouns and future tenses?

If that wasn't flaming, I don't know what is.

I am not particularly pleased to see this topic turning into a flamewar.
Please stay on topic.

[vader333]

Buzzz...

Edited by vader333, 29 December 2010 - 13:56.

[Destiny]

Why not just make the AA chaingun only AA enough to kill helis and blimps? I don't see why air superiority fighters should be killed by what they're supposed to be killing.

[V.Metalic]

Destiny, on 29 Dec 2010, 8:04, said:

Why not just make the AA chaingun only AA enough to kill helis and blimps? I don't see why air superiority fighters should be killed by what they're supposed to be killing.

When you will be designing a heavy bomber, would you like to give it a protection against helis and blimps when it is in danger from air superiority fighters?

And vader, realism and RA3 lore are equal. In some cases realism prevails, in some RA3 lore. You must consider what fits to that balance and what not. And our fans? Their fans. I feel like I am, what we in Czech Republic say, "fifth gear of the car".

[vader333]

Destiny said:

Why not just make the AA chaingun only AA enough to kill helis and blimps? I don't see why air superiority fighters should be killed by what they're supposed to be killing.

That would be rather weird. The Harbinger is a heavy artillery unit, and the chain gun was for sweeps. I really don't see why the Harbinger would even NEED AA of its own, given that a good player should support it with Apollos. And making the chain gun able to kill twinblades and Kirovs (?!!) would mean actually INCREASING its fire power... I think scrapping the Harbinger AA wouldn't be too great a pity.

Destiny said:

I don't see why air superiority fighters should be killed by what they're supposed to be killing.

Especially for Air craft.

[NRedAlert]

vader333, on 28 Dec 2010, 23:06, said:

R3ven, on 29 Dec 2010, 1:39, said:

vader333, on 28 Dec 2010, 3:41, said:

...Are you actually suggesting that the person which the combined and current interlocutors refer to is regularly of the proclivity to tend to field uncomfortable nouns, pronouns and future tenses?

If that wasn't flaming, I don't know what is.

I was actually asking if he was in the habit of doing so, but seems my attempt at obscuring it from V out of politeness blew.
Oh well, I wasn't really meaning it as an offence, V. It's just that it would be nicer if you were more encouraging. After all, the more ideas the mod devs receive, the more they can choose from, right? If TheWorms gives the word, I can just download and play what is being made, be it good or bad.

V.Metallic said:

If you are comparing RA3 Katyusha with real-life Katyusha, than show me a case when Katyusha in real-life was used against air threats. Katyusha was armed with un-guided rockets, so the only possibility of using it against aircrafts is to spray him with the volley of rockets, but that would be very hard, nearly impossible, and most of all, very consuming on ammunition. This means that Reaper actually dont have the same rocket launcher as Katyusha, only the name is same.

With all due respect, this is becoming quite confusing for your fans. It would be very clarifying if the Dev's could outline the 'parameters' of suggestions, and whether they are taking EA's lore more seriously than real life.
1. Is realism more important, or RA3 lore more important
2. Does gameplay quality override logic (as in the case of the Harbinger Chain Gun's AA; I've done tests, and found that without the advanced aeronautics, the Harbinger can win 3 apollos, but destroy only 1 when engaged by 4; with advanced aeronautics, the Harbinger destroyed 1 Apollo before falling when engaged by 3 apollos. So I can't conclude it if is OP based on my previous suggested OP template yet)

Red Alert 3 lore takes priority over realism in this mod. Keep on topic or I will lock this topic.

Edited by NRedAlert, 29 December 2010 - 13:30.

[V.Metalic]

NRedAlert, on 29 Dec 2010, 14:27, said:

Red Alert 3 lore takes priority over realism in this mod. Keep on topic or I will lock this topic.

This is on-topic. We are talking about the stuff in the mod. Offtopic it will be when we will start talking about football and hockey, but we speak about the ideas and thoughts from 1.01c. And talking about realism/RA3-lore is very key point for fuhrther discussions and suggestions.

[vader333]

vader333, on 27 Dec 2010, 14:15, said:

TheWorms said:

Ok. So let me ask a question. When EA revealed the reaper, what was it supposed to do in your perspective?

From the missile rack, it was more of a semi heavy anti-air unit with semi anti-infantry capacities. But RTS games aren't chummy with Semi-units.

TheWorms said:

The missile rack was a calliope model right

It would seem so, but the Calliope was an artillery unit. It had FAR greater range than the reaper, and Far greater AOE. If you want, you could also turn the Reaper into a Calliope or Katyusha rocket launcher. It is a feasible alternative to making the Reaper a mobile turret. Would give the Soviets a unique early artillery signature that is very fitting with their huge-rocket-monster-tank-industrial theme.

TheWorms said:

Are you telling that, since it's goo, it can do more that just corrode metal and slow its movement?

No, I'm saying that it can corrode metal. Once armour has been eaten through, the deathspray should be able to leak in and kill the crew, foul the engineering, and rust the metal. If not, consider the Deathspray to be a highly reactive chemical that reacts with the Splattershot to release radiation and mobile hydrogen ions (acid).

TheWorms said:

I plan on changing the fx already, but I think you wouldn't like it (smirk)

Imma like, running on i7 and a GeForce GTX 260 and I actually lag with Worms... But it's not that important, really. When the Tsar Bomba launches, your opponent (or your good self, if you're the recipient) probably won't want to look for the damage done =P Still, it is quite bad for multiplayer.

TheWorms said:

Unless you want the charge to be removed, yes. Will it be like the sandstorm from TT? No. That's a different engine already.
My original plan was to revert the ability to the beta one, where it just charges head on without slowing at the start.

No, I was thinking along the lines of Colossus for Starcraft II, where they can scale cliffs and the like. Means passive ability.

Quote

9-10. You have a good idea. I'm not sure if it is possible, but I'll see what the game engine can do.

I thought you already did it for the Tesla Tank. Maybe not for the Nanocore Mainframe tether.

Quote

Elaborate the first one. Do note that the weapon logic behind the collider is the same with the Scrin Mothership.

Well, the Proton Collider actually has an ability to make walls explode, dealing AOE damage. So when you wall up your Refinery, and don't have time to sell all of the walls in time, the refinery will be destroyed by the wall explosions. There's a youtube vid on this: Buzz....
I have tried CNC3 once or twice, didn't really take to it well ( and thank someone I didn't have to buy it ), so I'm not too familiar with the Scrin Mothership logic. I only used it once, and it was like, insta-win before I knew anything.

Quote

Are you saying that the original arc of the missle was alright? I followed the one that uses the attack animation of it tilting so it looks better.

EDIT: After doing further testing, I've found that it is actually very appealing. I think I missed the Twinblade yesterday =P. Sorry.

Err, right, so the "Ideas and Suggestions" issue at hand was:

1. What we should do with the Reaper

2. What we can do to the Desolator

3. Whether making the Proton Collider's damage increase with the number of buildings, not walls, is balanced and desirable

Destiny, I think the dev's here would like you to post your views on the Harbinger in the balance section. Make a new post, if you like.


Summary:

For the Reaper, I think keeping the grenades is alright, it'll save you having to make new fx's and making the hammer tank redundant, so long as you make them more effective against infantry, give them a greater range than the sickle, and remove the friendly fire. As for the Katyusha rockets, I am in favor of either getting rid of the AA and turning it into proper artillery Katyusha rockets, with long range and good anti-armour damage (and not so many rockets), or making it a Matryoshka rocket launcher that can target multiple air units, but has a CONTROLLED inaccuracy and splash damage.

Alternatively, if some how or another one finds it isn't really realistic to load SAM missiles onto a tank that already has tonnes of Grenades, I don't mind scrapping the missile rack and placing a garrison-able bunker or flak turret on it (I like the one made by Helge ^_^).

I have to do more tests with the Proto Jump ability to see if we can do without it (without Shock Therapy's homelessness, of course), but I an in favor of replacing the proto jump with a deploy ability that will allow the Reaper to become both a repairable building and a re-deployable unit.

V.Metallic said:

So now you think of Reaper as artillery... what else should appear I really wonder. Technically Repaer would be a equivalent of Hammer, just more suited for defensive purposes.

Ignoring the first half, I'm quite interested as to your concept of 'More suited for defensive purposes' as well.

V.Metallic said:

And my opinion is that Reaper should have instead of the grenade launchers a normal guns, or mortars, and Katyusha launcher should be stronger and in case of air targets more precise, making him a "walking and artillery equivalent of Hammer Tank", something what can keep up with Sickles and support them with larger firepower.

Although, I have to say that giving the Reaper the same attack as the Hammer tank will Truly make the Hammer tank redundant beyond any other measure. I thought you were opposed to the idea of the Reaper being an Artillery unit. I may have misinterpreted. If I suggested that, should my Katyusha artillery rocket suggestion above (to increase the range and give it anti-armour powers) be taken on board, that the artillery would only be activated upon deploying the Reaper, what is your view?



P.S.: What happened to the Engineer Bunker?

Edited by vader333, 29 December 2010 - 14:42.

[V.Metalic]

vader333, on 29 Dec 2010, 15:22, said:

Summary:

For the Reaper, I think keeping the grenades is alright, it'll save you having to make new fx's and making the hammer tank redundant, so long as you make them more effective against infantry, give them a greater range than the sickle, and remove the friendly fire. As for the Katyusha rockets, I am in favor of either getting rid of the AA and turning it into proper artillery Katyusha rockets, with long range and good anti-armour damage (and not so many rockets), or making it a Matryoshka rocket launcher that can target multiple air units, but has a CONTROLLED inaccuracy and splash damage.

Alternatively, if some how or another one finds it isn't really realistic to load SAM missiles onto a tank that already has tonnes of Grenades, I don't mind scrapping the missile rack and placing a garrison-able bunker or flak turret on it (I like the one made by Helge ^_^).

I have to do more tests with the Proto Jump ability to see if we can do without it (without Shock Therapy's homelessness, of course), but I an in favor of replacing the proto jump with a deploy ability that will allow the Reaper to become both a repairable building and a re-deployable unit.

V.Metallic said:

So now you think of Reaper as artillery... what else should appear I really wonder. Technically Repaer would be a equivalent of Hammer, just more suited for defensive purposes.

Ignoring the first half, I'm quite interested as to your concept of 'More suited for defensive purposes' as well.

V.Metallic said:

And my opinion is that Reaper should have instead of the grenade launchers a normal guns, or mortars, and Katyusha launcher should be stronger and in case of air targets more precise, making him a "walking and artillery equivalent of Hammer Tank", something what can keep up with Sickles and support them with larger firepower.

Although, I have to say that giving the Reaper the same attack as the Hammer tank will Truly make the Hammer tank redundant beyond any other measure. I thought you were opposed to the idea of the Reaper being an Artillery unit. I may have misinterpreted. If I suggested that, should my Katyusha artillery rocket suggestion above (to increase the range and give it anti-armour powers) be taken on board, that the artillery would only be activated upon deploying the Reaper, what is your view?

Moment, you suggest that instead of making new FX Shock Therapy will edit the model of Reaper to take out its rocket launcher and replace it with bunker or flak, resulting in making even more FX? That doesnt make sense for me. And I havent said that it will serve as main battle unit, but more a support for Hammer and Sickle. Armed with normal cannons or mortars against infantry, because grenades as such sounds strange, unless the new FX of the grenades will be made like in present the grenade launchers. The mortars/guns/grenade launchers willbe against infantry and light vehicles, while Katyusha will be against air units and heavier vehicles like Guardian Tank. For defensive purposes, I mean that it will have Proto Jump, but why you cant pay some money to give it new legs? So instead of making it a permanent defense, you can move them when the frontline change its position. The rockets will supress the enemy and protect bunkers and other units against tanks and helis, but wont be strong enough to destroy easily heavy aircrafts and vehicles like King Oni.

[vader333]

V.Metallic said:

Moment, you suggest that instead of making new FX Shock Therapy will edit the model of Reaper to take out its rocket launcher and replace it with bunker or flak, resulting in making even more FX?

Please read again:

vader333 said:

For the Reaper, I think keeping the grenades is alright, it'll save you having to make new fx's

V.Metallic said:

And I havent said that it will serve as main battle unit

I never said that you did.

V.Metallic said:

mortars against infantry

What? I thought mortars were artillery?

V.Metallic said:

but more a support for Hammer and Sickle.

V.Metallic said:

Technically Repaer would be a equivalent of Hammer, just more suited for defensive purposes.

I don't see how the Reaper can support the Hammer and Sickle and still be considered Defensive?

V.metallic said:

For defensive purposes, I mean that it will have Proto Jump, but why you cant pay some money to give it new legs? So instead of making it a permanent defense, you can move them when the frontline change its position.

*Sigh* I am not utterly opposed to that, if you want to know, and if it can be coded, but would you please address my suggestions of doing any of the below:
1. Converting the Katyusha rockets into Katyusha rockets (based on real-life; artillery; fewer rockets, maybe only five or four; usable only when deployed)

2. Converting Katyusha rockets into Matryoshka rockets (multi-target ability; AA ONLY; flies like normal SAM missiles)


3. Replacing Katyusha Rockets with either a Bunker or an IFV turret or a FLAK cannon (a bunker will let multiple units garrison; an IFV turret will convert the garrisoned unit's attack into a specialised turret)

4. Replacing the Proto Jump ability with a deploy ability that will make the Reaper construct a 'pod' or 'tank bunker' for itself, and turn it into a repairable building (This will increase the defense of the Reaper Turret more than the Proto Jump; the Reaper will be able to abandon the 'pod' or 'Tank Bunker' and resume being a Reaper tank, but still be able to return to the constructed 'pod')

For onlookers of this discussion, I call upon you to cast a vote on the changes you think will make the Reaper, firstly and MOST IMPORTANTLY: "More Useful", and secondly, "More Interesting", along with anything you would like to suggest for Shock Therapy 1.01c. Please vote on the following, separate issues: Reaper's Missile rack change, whether you are in favor of changing the grenade launchers (as suggested by V.Metallic), and the changes to the Proto Jump (this means making three choices).


V.Metallic's suggestions, as far as I can ascertain, as most of the posts point to rather general and unspecific changes such as "the role of the Reaper":

1. Give Reaper turret ability to repair legs and regain mobility, at price.

2. Convert Grenade launchers to Mortars (anti-infantry(?))

@V: You are free to compile your own list of suggested changes if you think mine is inaccurate, biased, etc. Please be specific. Thank You.


I feel like the Athena Uplink: "Your Call is Important to Us."

Edited by vader333, 30 December 2010 - 08:14.

[vader333]

Oh, an one more bug report on 1.01c: When submarines like Akula's, Yari Mini attack, they sometimes just bob up and down rapidly, without attacking. Please fix this. If you need a screen shot, I may be able to take one.

Also, the AI seems to be unable to choose which defensive structure to build when faced with a force. This wasn't the case in Vanilla.

Will Shock Therapy Development Team Touch on AI? I have a mind to setup an AI improvement thread. One that will hopefully be less debate and more suggestions.

Edited by vader333, 30 December 2010 - 09:05.