🚀 go-pugleaf

Burghy wrote:
> 
> Arthur Tse wrote:
> 
> > Oh, look, look at all the reviews around, true the some elements in the
> > game was not quite so good but I have to say it is still the best
> > strategy game around, and could you please specify what you do not like
> > and why you felt you did not get the value you expected.
> >
> > Thanks
> 
> Ur welcome.  C&C had a stone-paper-scissors balance.  RA doesn't,
> because the infantry-tank-anti infantry is upset, because the tanks are
> good against everything.  Therefore there is no use for anti-infantry
> which is vulnerable to tanks (e.g. ranger), and infantry is ineffective
> (except sometimes bazookas.)

yeah i agree. 
C&C had a good balance between GDI and NOD and the units separatly, RA
doesn't. Infantry is nothing in RA ( only maybe in beginning but it is
rare that a player wins by sending a good infantry attack to the ennemy
--> beginning with 0 units. ) 
The tanks are just too powerfull in RA, the only winning unit in RA is
the tank. If u dont build tanks and the other does, u lose. 
With C&C the tactics were different. Ok u had the bike humvees/buggy
atacks but u could also build a chopper in the beginning and immediately
a transport with an engineer. Or send infantry  with ur troops too (
flamers or grendaiers agaisnt bikes ) or build a apc with a engineer.
If u build an apc and 5 engineers in RA and the other only tanks the
other will win even if he has only got 3 tanks more than u .

Gizmo

Gizmo