🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 23:11:42 +0100, jelle groen <jmg...@caiw.nl> wrote:

>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 .

That's very true.  I love the balance that's in C&C, and I do not see the
same level of balance in RA, but it is halfway there.  I have one dozens of
games buy sending an ACP in with Tanya and 2-4 thiefs into the enemy base,
and in C&C I have one a lot by sending an ACP with infantry.  I think that
the infantry in C&C is amazing, while the infantry in RA stinks.  Same goes
for the tanks, but the tanks in C&C don't stink, they're just more rounded
to a specific thing, i.e. blow buildings up or take out infantry, and each
side (GDI and NOD) has it's own kind of tank, not a tank that can do
EVERYTHING.  Just goes to show making a game isn't easy.

Justin Bakst
ev...@ntr.net