AMHOL wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:56 am
I don't get the whole
staying true to the original argument, we have:
- unit veterancy
- pillbox veterancy
- spies that infiltrate buildings to gain unit veterancy (rather than just revealing what's currently being produced)
- fog of war
- husks
- mechanics
- hijackers
- flak trucks
- demo trucks
- artillery with 12 cell range and mad burst damage
- build queues
- a large array of hotkeys
- infantry as the damage dealer (rather than tanks)
- build radius
- custom production facility build rate increases with caps
I've probably missed some stuff, but you get the idea.
All of these things are improvements on the original, if I didn't think so, I'd be playing CnCNet.
Unit Veterancy was in Red Alert 2, and a lot of the basis of OpenRA seems to be taking functionality/improvements from RA2 and implementing them in RA1. Tabbed queues/UI -> having defense/superweapons in their own tab/build queue, separating infantry vehicles navy and air into separate tabs also follows this logic. Capturable neutral tech buildings is another example... I think nearly everyone agrees with these changes (I haven't seen a single person state otherwise) so it obviously makes sense to implement these functions from RA2 in to RA1.
The spies & hijacker is funny you mention because it directly relates to the discussion we're having now, and yes I am recommending that we make these 2 things more closely resemble the source material. I even think it would be cool to have the British spy and normal spy have different functions so we could still see both RA2 spy functionality as well as RA1 spy functionality + thieves, which would make the game more fun, open up more fun options for the player, and be more accurate & authentic.
Demo trucks & mechanics are in the original game so not sure what you mean by that. Build rate increases is also standard classic C&C functionality so not sure what you mean by that either.
All the other things you mention fall under the umbrella of general game balance, and for the most part, it seems like OpenRA has done a much better job of balancing the game out and giving under used units some functionality. I can only speak for myself, but for example I am glad that artillery has some range now.. it only makes sense. Artillery was nearly useless in the original RA... so was something like the MRJ... so it's nice to see underused units originally from the game get a revamp so they are now useful. I am hoping the thief also gets this treatment as he deserves his place in the roster IMO.
Of course the mobile flak is not in the original game, but it seems to be very well implemented, it's based on a RA2 unit so it feels familiar and appropriate, and it is quite necessary for game balance so there is justification for this exception.
Sleipnir wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:45 pm
I guess that the confusion comes from equating
staying true to the original to
identical to the original, which completely changes the meaning of the statement. I'm not aware of anybody who is seriously suggesting that OpenRA should be a direct clone of the original games, except as a straw-man to then argue against.
To be precise, when I use words like "staying true to the spirit of the original" I mean "restrict changes to things that intuitively make sense within the game universe and pass the
principle of least astonishment test". I won't claim to speak for others who say similar things, but I suspect that they would agree more or less with this too.
Sleipnir sums it up quite well with this comment... I think it is important for OpenRA to be as true to the original game(s) as possible, but we obviously aren't looking for it to be an exact clone. I feel we also have to mention that RAclassic mod exists and seems to be actively being worked on which is nice to see :-) While still not an exact clone, RAClassic goes a few steps further to mimicking the original while still providing many engine enhancements over the original game.
A frequently seen retort is "well just go play the original if you like it so much" or "go play RAclassic then" but I think generally, people do want to see capturable tech buildings, they want to see the streamlined tabbed UI interface, they want to play in HD resolutions, they want to be able to power down structures etc., but they also want to play something that feels like it is truly Red Alert and doesn't have unnecessary arbitrary changes.
Sleipnir wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:45 pm
It is not usual in conventional warfare (alternative history or not) to train and deploy commandos exclusively to sneak into enemy vehicles, assassinate their crew, and then drive off with them. This makes sense in C&C Generals and Tiberian Sun because the factions that used them (GLA / the mutants) were explicitly portrayed as terrorists / outcasts that use guerilla tactics, but makes no sense and is very surprising to see in the world of RA.
I agree with this to an extent, but it particularly seems out of place to see the hijacker not just in Red Alert, but also as a Soviet unit, since it really doesn't fit their faction profile at all.
Sorry for being such a big C&C nerd (I assume we all are to a degree if we are on this discussion board) but I would like to reference the original Red Alert's "Field Manual" Allied Forces Summary description:
MILITARY STRENGTH: Enlisted forces about 3.4 million. Non-regular forces, including guerrilla and resistance forces, about 1.7 million. Armament classified per DEFCOM document 177.4, Allied Defense Regulations.
If you remember, in one of the earlier cutscenes in the game, General Gunter von Esling refers to Tanya as a "professional... volunteer." To some extent, the Allies are made up of rag-tag "Non-regular" "guerrilla" "volunteer" "resistance forces." If you were to see a unit such as a thief/hijacker in Red Alert, it makes sense that it would be part of the rag-tag component of the Allies forces. This is why I am continuously recommending we see the thief reintroduced as it obviously is how the original game was, but also makes sense in regards to the lore & documentation of the game. If people really want to see the hijacker's abilities stay in the game, it makes sense to have a unit on the Allies side have them, and it makes sense to give them to the thief in my opinion.
Sleipnir wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:45 pm
(bonus round) Allied hinds can be explained in a way that makes sense in the game universe, but this badly breaks the principle of least astonishment as the Hind is one of the most iconic soviet military vehicles ever.
Again this is a separate discussion so I don't want to keep weighing this thread down with what should really be probably 3 separate discussions, but I obviously have expressed my feelings with this before and have offered what I think is a worthwhile solution to this topic. I plan to update my thread in the near future regarding this.
Sleipnir wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:45 pm
FYI multi-factory bonuses, mechanics, and demo trucks were all part of the original game (mechanics and demo trucks in the Aftermath expansion).
Oops looks like you already covered this but yes these are all right in the original game.