OpenRA

Should Volkov and Chitzkoi be added to Soviets or a particular Soviet faction?

There could be a build limit of one at a time so basically the Soviet equivalent of Tanya. Although they were never part of the original multiplayer game, apparently the Soviets originally had access to Tanya.

Chitzkoi would presumably be something like pay 1000 or whatever for a super tough dog. An anti-infantry weapon.

Volkov would have to be tougher than Tanya for it to make sense him being a cyborg and all. Of course he doesn't have to have the exact same specifications as in the missions. So I guess that means he either has to cost a lot more or he has to be weaker in other areas.

This has been discussed plenty before:

https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/issues/9819
https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/issues/7199

There is simply no need for another special infantry unit. If people want to complain about the Soviets not having a special unit then take a unit that is already in the game and has a questionable role - such as the mammoth tank or MAD tank - and give a it a build limit of one as a well as huge buff. But again, its not needed.

Giving mammoths a big buff and a build limit of one would be fairly crazy stuff. That would be a major change to the original game and I'm thinking would be heavily objected to!

I don't see how you can really suggest that as an alternative; even a "not needed" alternative.

I think countering mass infantry is maybe harder for Soviets. They don't have artillery. They don't have Tanya. You don't see flame towers spammed in the same way as pillboxes.

They do have the option of iron curtain to APC and running over them or using a demo truck, but a super tough dog could be an interesting addition and also give dogs more of a late game role even if it's a hero dog.

As for Volkov, you tend to see most Soviet APC attacks in the early game. Volkov could give Soviets another option for later use of them.

The mammoth is just an example of what could be done. Take a unit whose role isn't well defined or isn't used often and make it fill a role that needs filled rather than adding units.

Also, V2s are criminally underused. They are insanely good vs infantry blobs when used well. I don't think Soviets lack anti-infantry, remember when people were complaining about apcs running over blobs?

V2 can work but I wouldn't say they are great compared to helis, pillbox, and a few artillery.

I think Soviets are fine the way they are. I really dislike balancing units based on limit of 1 available at one time.

However, I could see Volkov for 3rd Soviet faction if such a thing is ever added.

Also, hugely powerful hero units tend to be too much of a hit or miss - they either outperform and kill several times their net worth or get squashed instantly. That can lead to lame and anticlimatic finishes in games (fair and even game until someone gets lucky with a hero unit).

A faction doesn't need to be good at everything, in fact a game tends to be worse if factions are symmetric.

As hinted at above, for me it's a simple question of wether we want the factions to be distinctive or not.

Allies are individualists - they have heroes, you root for them. they also focus on technology and specialized traits and units.

Soviets are conformists - its' people are cannon fodder, its' prominent leaders are constantly replaced. they focus on material superiority. they don't give a shit about individuals, and when playing as Soviet, nether should we.

Tanya don't need an adversary - she's not even the focus of the main story, she's representative of the Alles' strength.

SoScared wrote: ↑As hinted at above, for me it's a simple question of wether we want the factions to be distinctive or not.

Allies are individualists - they have heroes, you root for them. they also focus on technology and specialized traits and units.

Soviets are conformists - its' people are cannon fodder, its' prominent leaders are constantly replaced. they focus on material superiority. they don't give a shit about individuals, and when playing as Soviet, nether should we.

Tanya don't need an adversary - she's not even the focus of the main story, she's representative of the Alles' strength.

In terms of the game, Soviets had access to Tanya. In terms of the game story, the Soviet side created Volkov and Chitzkoi. It's difficult to then see their inclusion as any real violation of the spirit of Red Alert or of the Soviet army.

Including them could make one Soviet sub-faction more distinctive.

Doomsday wrote: ↑I think Soviets are fine the way they are. I really dislike balancing units based on limit of 1 available at one time.

However, I could see Volkov for 3rd Soviet faction if such a thing is ever added.

Also, hugely powerful hero units tend to be too much of a hit or miss - they either outperform and kill several times their net worth or get squashed instantly. That can lead to lame and anticlimatic finishes in games (fair and even game until someone gets lucky with a hero unit).

They can be hit or miss but I'm not sure that is the same as "lucky". A lot of things are going to be in play. Has the enemy properly defended parts of their base? Have you carried out reconnaissance? Have you worn down the enemy forces in general, or at least worked to take out particular defences? Have you picked your moment and the right target? Have you created a distraction with a seperate attack?

Of course maybe there is still an element of luck, but there may be some luck involved in various parts of the game.

Also, would you like to see Tanya removed? Or the allies should have the option of some "hit and miss luck" but the soviet side shouldn't get that?

Murto the Ray wrote: ↑A faction doesn't need to be good at everything, in fact a game tends to be worse if factions are symmetric.

Yes you don't want them to be identical.

But I would look at it more like, there needs to be a balance between teching up and investing in a mobile army. In soviet vs soviet games, teching up should pay off at least some of the time. On more open maps the advantage should go to players that invest in armies and expansion. But you don't want it to be too easy to roll over a player that is teching up early.

Also including them would be a way to make a sub-faction distinctive.

Since when did teching up not benefit soviets?

When it comes to the game and story I'm generally biased towards the core Red Alert story - take away 'Counterstrike' and 'Aftermath' as they were released to give the fans something more to do. My thoughts above were also more bound to interpretations of what it means to be Allies or Soviets. Ideology, style...

Volkov and Chitzkoi simply doesn't do it for me. Originally cheap add-ons - no cut-scenes, no voice-overs to support the characters.

edit: Wait, when did Soviet have access to Tanya?