Flak track carry 5 troops like RA2, give Allies their APC

[avalach21]

Can someone explain why Allies do not have their APC? Not sure I understand why that happened... but anyways, what would people think about Allies having their APC back and having the soviet Flack track function as a unit transport as it does in RA2? My motivation for this suggestion is keeping the game closer to its original source(s) while opening up strategic possibilities without totally disrupting balance.

[FRenzy]

Chinooks ! (and Phase transports if you're England)

[avalach21]

Chinooks ! (and Phase transports if you're England)

Lol, I think both teams should have Chinooks.. as they did in the original, which I contemplated including in my OP, but that has been brought up many times before.

So yes, I think both teams should have transport helicopter, Allies should have APC, and Soviets should have a Flak Track with 5 infantry spots as the Flak track in RA2 did to keep things more in line with the Westwood originals. I don't think it would be that hard to balance this.

[WhoCares]

It's an asymetric feature.

Allies get great scout at tech 0 : the rangers which give them superiority on scouting and line of sight, they get transport at thier 2 with helipad and chinook

Soviet : they get transport at tech 0 with apc but nothing really valuable to scout. they got best scouting at tech 2 with airfield with yak and spyplane.

So both get different gameplay wich in a way is balanced, depends of your gamestyle.


(I can stand corrected if i'm wrong in what i just said)

[FRenzy]

It's an asymetric feature.

Agree to that !

So yes, I think both teams should have transport helicopter

This is a Pandora box, if we try to give each unit its equivalent in the other factions. Should we then do that for all units ?

Discussing your specific example, let's say the flak truck carries infantry. Flaks are fragile, have little vision and speed for a light unit (compared to the ranger for instance), and therefore it will be extremely dangerous and costly to transport infantry with it.

APCs can somehow go blindly into enemy base with their heavy armor, but it's still risky if they pass by rocket soldiers, or 1-shot by Tesla. Chinooks have enough vision to compensate their light armor, but can die if they're chased by flaks, and can't soak damage without armor.
Flaks would have both disadvantages.

I think using Flaks for this usage would be a losing trade for Soviets IMO

[Clockwork]

With every why don't x have y you always have to look at the bigger picture. Allies having APC means soviets now have one less unique vehicle. Allies can now use APCs to do rocket drops and harassment that was only for soviets. This really skews faction balance. APC's made up for the fact soviets don't have a good early scout like the ranger as they're fast durable and run over a lot of inf.

[avalach21]

It's an asymetric feature.

Agree to that !

So yes, I think both teams should have transport helicopter

This is a Pandora box, if we try to give each unit its equivalent in the other factions. Should we then do that for all units ?

Discussing your specific example, let's say the flak truck carries infantry. Flaks are fragile, have little vision and speed for a light unit (compared to the ranger for instance), and therefore it will be extremely dangerous and costly to transport infantry with it.

APCs can somehow go blindly into enemy base with their heavy armor, but it's still risky if they pass by rocket soldiers, or 1-shot by Tesla. Chinooks have enough vision to compensate their light armor, but can die if they're chased by flaks, and can't soak damage without armor.
Flaks would have both disadvantages.

I think using Flaks for this usage would be a losing trade for Soviets IMO

With every why don't x have y you always have to look at the bigger picture. Allies having APC means soviets now have one less unique vehicle. Allies can now use APCs to do rocket drops and harassment that was only for soviets. This really skews faction balance. APC's made up for the fact soviets don't have a good early scout like the ranger as they're fast durable and run over a lot of inf.

You guys bring up good points. I was actually admiring the cheatsheet r0b0v posted and looking at the armor types for different units and noticed the Flak has L armor where the APC has H.

I have to be honest that its annoying how many team games end early because 5 grenadiers or more so flames are packed into an APC and someone gets cheesed off early, (I rarely let this happen to myself... honest!) so I might actually prefer the Soviets having more difficulty with that early on and then having the transport helicopter for later game troop tactics.

I have always appreciated the Asymmetric qualities of Red Alert and C&C games, as that made them really stand out at a time when other games (ex. War2, which is also a phenomenal game) had basically symmetrical teams. At the same time, symmetric units were always and still are a thing in RA96 and OpenRA. Let's get rid of rocket troops for the Soviets then, since that's a symmetric unit... which they didn't have in the original (for sake of discussion :-p) Rifle Infantry are a symmetric unit. Naval Transport is symmetric... why can't the transport helicopter be (as it originally was)? A generic transport unit shouldn't be an issue when it is symmetric, so at the least we could discuss the Allies having access to their own APC, even if the Soviets keep theirs as is.

I appreciate everything OpenRA has done and think it has made so many improvements over the original game. From my point of view though I think that each teams unit composition should try to closely match the original game as best as possible and changes should only be made when there is absolutely no way to balance it with stat tweaking. I'm not saying there isn't a good reason things are the way they are now, I just like to hear why from others smarter and more experienced than me :-)

[FRenzy]

I have to be honest that its annoying how many team games end early because 5 grenadiers or more so flames are packed into an APC and someone gets cheesed off early, (I rarely let this happen to myself... honest!) so I might actually prefer the Soviets having more difficulty with that early on and then having the transport helicopter for later game troop tactics.

I think it's easier to fend off in a team game, as there will always be a defence ready, and someone scouting. If not, that's just bad teamplay, not the fault of the game :p

Yet on 1v1, rushes can be strong. But like WhoCares stated, Allies on the other hand can have a ranger very early and for very cheap. So an APC drop can be easily detected, and prepared for.

I'm not fan of the idea of nerfing something as soon as it can be strong. Because it will just reduce the momentum and the pleasure of the game IMO. Instead, I think there should be a counter to each strong unit / tactic. And like I said, scouting is already a good counter to APC drops.

I have always appreciated the Asymmetric qualities of Red Alert and C&C games, as that made them really stand out at a time when other games (ex. War2, which is also a phenomenal game) had basically symmetrical teams. At the same time, symmetric units were always and still are a thing in RA96 and OpenRA. Let's get rid of rocket troops for the Soviets then, since that's a symmetric unit... which they didn't have in the original (for sake of discussion :-p) Rifle Infantry are a symmetric unit. Naval Transport is symmetric... why can't the transport helicopter be (as it originally was)? A generic transport unit shouldn't be an issue when it is symmetric, so at the least we could discuss the Allies having access to their own APC, even if the Soviets keep theirs as is.

Of course, it can be an idea to test out (giving Allies an APC-like unit), as long as we verify it doesn't handicap 1 faction over another, and not bring imbalance into the game.

IMO, as I see the game, currently Soviets is the aggressive, mobile faction, and this balances the lack of valuable units that Allies have (spies, tech units). By giving Allies the possibility to be equally aggressive, this would mean we're nerfing Soviets over Allies, and making them unspecific.

I think this is a subjective issue and I've no answer to whether a game should be asymetrical or not.
Nevertheless, the assymetry here is more about when such units are accessible, again like WhoCares stated. In the end, both factions will have scouting units, and transport units at tech 2.

I think there is way more assymetry in units like medics, spies, tanya, ... for instance.

I appreciate everything OpenRA has done and think it has made so many improvements over the original game. From my point of view though I think that each teams unit composition should try to closely match the original game as best as possible and changes should only be made when there is absolutely no way to balance it with stat tweaking. I'm not saying there isn't a good reason things are the way they are now, I just like to hear why from others smarter and more experienced than me :-)

I don't remember how was Vanilla RA tbh ^_^

[zinc]

Yep I agree with the folks making the point that you don't just want the different factions having more or less equivalent unit types; but rather you want to balance them even though they have genuinely different capabilities and strengths.

Although that brings up the question of Soviet naval, about which people will say you have to do a lot of work just to deny allies, and there isn't an equivalent to the destroyer which can attack land targets at mid tech. (Although subs give a bit of vision and transporting demo trucks by sea can be pretty lethal on occasion.)

Do we just go, "That's ok, as Soviets make up for it in other areas outside of navy"?

Or is this a case where the original game was just never properly balanced for human vs human games, and there is a need for a flak boat (or other solution) to give something like a parallel ability?

[WhoCares]

There is others threads discussing naval balance with great ideas/discussions/playtests, i suggest you to look for it if the subject moves you.

[zinc]

The issue mentioned is not so much naval balance, but above that-- whether it should be balanced, and is the game as a whole balanced to the point that you don't need to balance naval.

But yeah, it's probably an off topic tangent for this thread.

[FRenzy]

IMO navy needs to be treated separately (or maybe taking aircraft into account), as you can't compensate a lack of naval capability with land units.

[fernoe]

Chinooks ! (and Phase transports if you're England)

Lol, I think both teams should have Chinooks.. as they did in the original, which I contemplated including in my OP, but that has been brought up many times before.

So yes, I think both teams should have transport helicopter, Allies should have APC, and Soviets should have a Flak Track with 5 infantry spots as the Flak track in RA2 did to keep things more in line with the Westwood originals. I don't think it would be that hard to balance this.

they didnt both have chinook in the original, allies had APC soviets had chinook