OpenRA

Also adding a new unit to fix what the Missile sub should do in the first place? The Missile Sub is designed/intended for long range ground bombardment. The anti-air ability was only tacked on because of a balance problem in the original game. There is no reason you can't say, "actually, this isn't...

Also adding a new unit to fix what the Missile sub should do in the first place? The Missile Sub is designed/intended for long range ground bombardment. The anti-air ability was only tacked on because of a balance problem in the original game. There is no reason you can't say, "actually, this isn't...

[quote="eskimo" post_id="305603"]Sircake has a a build that has some changes like flak sub in the map testing thread worth look at.[/quote]

I have played one of his maps. The way the flak sub worked was interesting with you deciding when to submerge it.

It's probably reasonable to also take account of air power in addition to naval. On any water map, you will probably be using both in combination. Is it too easy for allies to destroy sub pens with helis? Until you have at least a couple of missile subs (which means teching up first) they are pretty...

What do people think?

It's balanced?

It's not balanced, but can be fixed just by tinkering with the original units?

It's not balanced, and the only way to fix the issue is with an extra (non-original) unit being given to Soviets? Is a flak sub needed, or something like that?

Until they are fixed, maybe switch the camo pillbox over to France only, as someone suggested a while back. You wouldn't see them as much obviously.

There are bugs with them, although sometimes dogs can really save you from troop rushing. It's hit and miss but a dog can kill like 20 troops sometimes.

Happy wrote: ↑ Yaks and planes disapearing off the map

Has this problem suddenly been created by the new release? I thought they fixed this issue previously, but with the new release I think I have noticed some strange stuff with yaks.

Rocket troops, for the same price as flame, are pretty good vs buildings, but also are great vs tanks and have an anti-air role also. I don't see why flame troops couldn't be given more of an anti-infantry role then, especially as dogs are very hit and miss, and only really work in the right circums...

Also the damage output against buildings should maybe be a bit reduced. Loosing a mainbase against 5 flamers so fast is just annoying especially with the slower mcv speed. I used to think the same. Now I think that flamers have just the right amount of power vs buildings. There are ways to counter ...

AoAGeneral1 wrote: ↑Im assuming this is mainly about RA flamers?

Yes.

Flame troops are a good unit and have a nice niche as a powerful weapon for destroying buildings, in APC attacks or whatever else. But they don't seem to be that great on the battlefield generally imo. Is it worth improving them vs other troops? e.g. they could work better defending against large nu...

I'm sure many would find this game interesting. RAGL match between myself and T. Added it to the shortlist! This week's shoutcast is a true masterclass on how to counter artillery spam: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yb5ttwoxZFk SoScared versus Smitty on Pitfight. The old master versus the new maste...

OK I worked it out -- I had map folders in two different locations without realizing it under different users...

Subs are good very early game, and they do give some useful vision. However they cost 1000$ I think, can't do any damage to land units or air units, (unlike destroyers), and are really quite easily destroyed by allies air when they surface to fire.