🚀 go-pugleaf

"Fremebondo" <freme...@inwind.it> wrote in
news:5ZJ3a.187479$0v.52...@news1.tin.it: 

> in the introduction there is the tomahawk missile fired from a
> ship but in the game ..... where are the ships???? how can i
> construct them???? Help please!!!!

you can't.
I think there's a scene where your troops land on a beach, with fire 
support from a few ships, but you can't use those ships yourself, and 
you can't build them.

-- 
The Inane Dirk
http://dirk.blankenburg.bei.t-online.de

Dirk [10-09-1998, "Will there be mammoth tanks in TS]:
"I hope there will be mammoths, just because "little gray" says there 
won't be mammoths and I don't like him..."

:-(
NOOOOOO!!!!
It can't be!!!!
In all C&C there was ships!!!!! why they've cut out ????
:-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(

"The Inane Dirk" <dirk.bla...@t-online.de> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:Xns932478E6FC705fuzzle@62.153.159.134...
> "Fremebondo" <freme...@inwind.it> wrote in
> news:5ZJ3a.187479$0v.52...@news1.tin.it:
>
> > in the introduction there is the tomahawk missile fired from a
> > ship but in the game ..... where are the ships???? how can i
> > construct them???? Help please!!!!
>
> you can't.
> I think there's a scene where your troops land on a beach, with fire
> support from a few ships, but you can't use those ships yourself, and
> you can't build them.
>
> --
> The Inane Dirk
> http://dirk.blankenburg.bei.t-online.de
>
> Dirk [10-09-1998, "Will there be mammoth tanks in TS]:
> "I hope there will be mammoths, just because "little gray" says there
> won't be mammoths and I don't like him..."

In article <XbK3a.250288$AA2.9...@news2.tin.it>, but only after
serious contemplation, Fremebondo <freme...@inwind.it> put finger to
keyboard and produced the following;
>In all C&C there was ships!!!!!

I think not.

BTW - please place your replies *under* the original post.

-- 
Cheers,

Chas.

"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination".

"Fremebondo" <freme...@inwind.it> wrote in message
news:XbK3a.250288$AA2.9665749@news2.tin.it...
> :-(
> NOOOOOO!!!!
> It can't be!!!!
> In all C&C there was ships!!!!! why they've cut out ????
> :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(

Red Alert series has ships, Tiberium Series does not.
I like ships but EA seems not to.

Douglas A. Shrader <dshr...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Fremebondo" <freme...@inwind.it> wrote in message
> news:XbK3a.250288$AA2.9665749@news2.tin.it...
>> :-(
>> NOOOOOO!!!!
>> It can't be!!!!
>> In all C&C there was ships!!!!! why they've cut out ????
>> :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(

> Red Alert series has ships, Tiberium Series does not.
> I like ships but EA seems not to.


>From what I have heard the Generals engine is capable of naval units, but I think that EA is just too tight and want to save something for the addon, maybe?

"Daniel Morrison" <damo...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3e653ff2@itsawnews.its.rmit.edu.au...
> Douglas A. Shrader <dshr...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Fremebondo" <freme...@inwind.it> wrote in message
> > news:XbK3a.250288$AA2.9665749@news2.tin.it...
> >> :-(
> >> NOOOOOO!!!!
> >> It can't be!!!!
> >> In all C&C there was ships!!!!! why they've cut out ????
> >> :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(
>
> > Red Alert series has ships, Tiberium Series does not.
> > I like ships but EA seems not to.
>
>
> From what I have heard the Generals engine is capable of naval units, but
I think that EA is just too tight and want to save something for the addon,
maybe?

They seem not to like ships. I read once that a concern of theirs is that if
a player were destroyed on land but had one ship, and his opponent was
unable to build ships (for who knows what reason), then it would make him
impossible to beat. Thus they try to avoid ships when they can.
I like ships, but in most battlles I don't seem to have the time to build a
good Navy and a good ground force, so the Navy is not used anyway, unless it
is a map designed for Naval battles.

Douglas A. Shrader <dshr...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Daniel Morrison" <damo...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3e653ff2@itsawnews.its.rmit.edu.au...
>> Douglas A. Shrader <dshr...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Fremebondo" <freme...@inwind.it> wrote in message
>> > news:XbK3a.250288$AA2.9665749@news2.tin.it...
>> >> :-(
>> >> NOOOOOO!!!!
>> >> It can't be!!!!
>> >> In all C&C there was ships!!!!! why they've cut out ????
>> >> :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(
>>
>> > Red Alert series has ships, Tiberium Series does not.
>> > I like ships but EA seems not to.
>>
>>
>> From what I have heard the Generals engine is capable of naval units, but
> I think that EA is just too tight and want to save something for the addon,
> maybe?

> They seem not to like ships. I read once that a concern of theirs is that if
> a player were destroyed on land but had one ship, and his opponent was
> unable to build ships (for who knows what reason), then it would make him
> impossible to beat. Thus they try to avoid ships when they can.
> I like ships, but in most battlles I don't seem to have the time to build a
> good Navy and a good ground force, so the Navy is not used anyway, unless it
> is a map designed for Naval battles.

The Carriers in RA2 were so cool, I always tried to build a couple to annoy my opponent with, if the map allows as you said. But some long-range naval artillery would be a nice addition to Generals.

"Daniel Morrison" <damo...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3e667722@itsawnews.its.rmit.edu.au...
> The Carriers in RA2 were so cool, I always tried to build a couple to
annoy my opponent with, if the map allows as you said. But some long-range
naval artillery would be a nice addition to Generals.

Fair comment. Trouble is that against any sort of opponent you then need air
defence for the carriers, then AS defence for the Aegis, then anti squid
defence for the destroyers and before yo uknow it, all you resources have
been sucked out of the land battle, where, IMHO, you can win it without
carriers.

Also, I never build superweapons, but allow my skirmish opponents to. Keeps
the adrenaline flowing.

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing the hard way.

;o)

Neil A

"Neil Adamson" <ada...@uk.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:b47529$1mbc$1@sp15at20.hursley.ibm.com...
>
> "Daniel Morrison" <damo...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3e667722@itsawnews.its.rmit.edu.au...
> > The Carriers in RA2 were so cool, I always tried to build a couple to
> annoy my opponent with, if the map allows as you said. But some long-range
> naval artillery would be a nice addition to Generals.
>
> Fair comment. Trouble is that against any sort of opponent you then need
air
> defence for the carriers, then AS defence for the Aegis, then anti squid
> defence for the destroyers and before yo uknow it, all you resources have
> been sucked out of the land battle, where, IMHO, you can win it without
> carriers.

Exactly. You have to choose between the Navy or the ground force and since
here is a limit to how far inland the Navy can hit I generally don't build
it. Carriers are great, lots of fire power and the planes are replaced free
when they get shot down, but then you have to support them. Aegis are great
Anti air machines, they can bring down a Kirov in a few shots, and the
destroyers are good against subs with Dolphins to help.
But building the Naval yard means you must build a fleet of ships quickly
just to protect, using resources that are needed for your ground force.

>
> Also, I never build superweapons, but allow my skirmish opponents to.
Keeps
> the adrenaline flowing.
>
> If it's worth doing, it's worth doing the hard way.
>
> ;o)
>
> Neil A
>
>

Neil Adamson <ada...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:

Yeah, I only blow hard earned credits on ships if it dosn't matter. Ships are only support units, you can't win anything unless you have tanks and troops on the ground.

> Fair comment. Trouble is that against any sort of opponent you then need air
> defence for the carriers, then AS defence for the Aegis, then anti squid
> defence for the destroyers and before yo uknow it, all you resources have
> been sucked out of the land battle, where, IMHO, you can win it without
> carriers.

> Also, I never build superweapons, but allow my skirmish opponents to. Keeps
> the adrenaline flowing.

> If it's worth doing, it's worth doing the hard way.

> ;o)

> Neil A



-- 
Daniel 'Veldrin' Morrison
damo...@cs.rmit.edu.au
s305...@student.rmit.edu.au
MG42 wh0re

"Neil Adamson" <ada...@uk.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:b47529$1mbc$1@sp15at20.hursley.ibm.com...
>
> "Daniel Morrison" <damo...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3e667722@itsawnews.its.rmit.edu.au...
> > The Carriers in RA2 were so cool, I always tried to build a couple to
> annoy my opponent with, if the map allows as you said. But some long-range
> naval artillery would be a nice addition to Generals.
>
> Fair comment. Trouble is that against any sort of opponent you then need
air
> defence for the carriers, then AS defence for the Aegis, then anti squid
> defence for the destroyers and before yo uknow it, all you resources have
> been sucked out of the land battle, where, IMHO, you can win it without
> carriers.
>
> Also, I never build superweapons, but allow my skirmish opponents to.
Keeps
> the adrenaline flowing.
>
> If it's worth doing, it's worth doing the hard way.
>
> ;o)
>
> Neil A
>
I agree
if it was easy, it wouldnt be fun.
--
Fight Win Prevail
But Never Cheat

"Douglas A. Shrader" <dshr...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<v6ev0u9...@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Neil Adamson" <ada...@uk.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:b47529$1mbc$1@sp15at20.hursley.ibm.com...
> >
> > "Daniel Morrison" <damo...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:3e667722@itsawnews.its.rmit.edu.au...
> > > The Carriers in RA2 were so cool, I always tried to build a couple to
> > annoy my opponent with, if the map allows as you said. But some long-range
> > naval artillery would be a nice addition to Generals.
> >
> > Fair comment. Trouble is that against any sort of opponent you then need
>  air
> > defence for the carriers, then AS defence for the Aegis, then anti squid
> > defence for the destroyers and before yo uknow it, all you resources have
> > been sucked out of the land battle, where, IMHO, you can win it without
> > carriers.
> 
> Exactly. You have to choose between the Navy or the ground force and since
> here is a limit to how far inland the Navy can hit I generally don't build
> it. Carriers are great, lots of fire power and the planes are replaced free
> when they get shot down, but then you have to support them. Aegis are great
> Anti air machines, they can bring down a Kirov in a few shots, and the
> destroyers are good against subs with Dolphins to help.
> But building the Naval yard means you must build a fleet of ships quickly
> just to protect, using resources that are needed for your ground force.
> 
> >
> > Also, I never build superweapons, but allow my skirmish opponents to.
>  Keeps
> > the adrenaline flowing.
> >
> > If it's worth doing, it's worth doing the hard way.
> >
> > ;o)
> >
> > Neil A
> >
> >

In my opinion that is the entire point of the game! The game is
intended to be a war simulation. In war both sides can determine what
they want to have in terms of a Sea/Land based military. This is a
simulation game and the point is to simulate the true problems that
arise when builing a military force. No nation will ever be truly
dominant without both presences, so IMHO the game should include an
extensive naval selection of units and weapons equally as indepth as
the ground forces.

This is a good game and could be a GREAT game if it included the naval
aspect.

Once they add that, this game will be worth it to actually buy and
quit playing my pirated copy....


Just Kidding!!!!

~Blake~

Right, nothing rocks the boat like a Navy Seal planting a sweet little
explosive underneath it.

--
Jason Silva
BSIT - Univeristy of Phoenix Online
Jason...@email.uophx.edu
silva...@metrocast.net

"Waffleguy" <waff...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bd8462fb.0303301114.2d4c8646@posting.google.com...
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshr...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<v6ev0u9...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Neil Adamson" <ada...@uk.ibm.com> wrote in message
> > news:b47529$1mbc$1@sp15at20.hursley.ibm.com...
> > >
> > > "Daniel Morrison" <damo...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
> > > news:3e667722@itsawnews.its.rmit.edu.au...
> > > > The Carriers in RA2 were so cool, I always tried to build a couple
to
> > > annoy my opponent with, if the map allows as you said. But some
long-range
> > > naval artillery would be a nice addition to Generals.
> > >
> > > Fair comment. Trouble is that against any sort of opponent you then
need
> >  air
> > > defence for the carriers, then AS defence for the Aegis, then anti
squid
> > > defence for the destroyers and before yo uknow it, all you resources
have
> > > been sucked out of the land battle, where, IMHO, you can win it
without
> > > carriers.
> >
> > Exactly. You have to choose between the Navy or the ground force and
since
> > here is a limit to how far inland the Navy can hit I generally don't
build
> > it. Carriers are great, lots of fire power and the planes are replaced
free
> > when they get shot down, but then you have to support them. Aegis are
great
> > Anti air machines, they can bring down a Kirov in a few shots, and the
> > destroyers are good against subs with Dolphins to help.
> > But building the Naval yard means you must build a fleet of ships
quickly
> > just to protect, using resources that are needed for your ground force.
> >
> > >
> > > Also, I never build superweapons, but allow my skirmish opponents to.
> >  Keeps
> > > the adrenaline flowing.
> > >
> > > If it's worth doing, it's worth doing the hard way.
> > >
> > > ;o)
> > >
> > > Neil A
> > >
> > >
>
> In my opinion that is the entire point of the game! The game is
> intended to be a war simulation. In war both sides can determine what
> they want to have in terms of a Sea/Land based military. This is a
> simulation game and the point is to simulate the true problems that
> arise when builing a military force. No nation will ever be truly
> dominant without both presences, so IMHO the game should include an
> extensive naval selection of units and weapons equally as indepth as
> the ground forces.
>
> This is a good game and could be a GREAT game if it included the naval
> aspect.
>
> Once they add that, this game will be worth it to actually buy and
> quit playing my pirated copy....
>
>
> Just Kidding!!!!
>
> ~Blake~

"Waffleguy" <waff...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bd8462fb.0303301114.2d4c8646@posting.google.com...
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshr...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> In my opinion that is the entire point of the game! The game is
> intended to be a war simulation. In war both sides can determine what
> they want to have in terms of a Sea/Land based military. This is a
> simulation game and the point is to simulate the true problems that
> arise when builing a military force.

Are you refering to RA2 or Generals here?
The problem with the Navy in RA2  is that it is often rendered useless.
Without refueling planes in the game the fighters are limited on how far
from the ship they can travel, and there are no missles on any of them to
strike the long range targets, further reducing Naval effectiveness.

No nation will ever be truly
> dominant without both presences, so IMHO the game should include an
> extensive naval selection of units and weapons equally as indepth as
> the ground forces.
>
If it did I agree it would make a far better game. But having a truly
realistic Naval and land AND air force to micromanage may be beyond the
abilities of most players. In real life there are scores of people working
to keep all three forces working together smoothly.Be fun if they can make
it work though.


> This is a good game and could be a GREAT game if it included the naval
> aspect.
>
> Once they add that, this game will be worth it to actually buy and
> quit playing my pirated copy....
>
>
> Just Kidding!!!!
>
> ~Blake~