🚀 go-pugleaf

The Prism (a...@prism.netkonect.co.uk) wrote:
: 1.	Pathing for units, such as in Warcraft 2 -  Effectively
: patrolling units etc.
YES! That would be great!

: 2.	Stronger troops, with funtions such as mine laying, anti-tank
: barriers and other stuff.
Stronger? Use CCEDIT.
Mine laying YES! And other stuff would be cool too!

: 3.	Air strikes with SAM's still up.
And SAMS that DESROY airstikes!

: 5.	Fortification.
And what would that do?

: 6.	Offensive/Defencive construciton anywhere.
Nope. You could build a obelisk into enemy's base...
How about this: A unit like MCV that comes out from the const-yard.
                You can deploy it, and it would build there the
                building.

: 7.	Purchase of MAPS for the areas, sabotage of buildings and also
: mercinaries, from locals or such others.
No map purchasing.
But that bribing of locals sounds good...

: 8.	Campaigns with other controllers of forces on YOUR side. ie.
: You are one of Nelson's generals, with his and other commanders forces
: fighting with you. You ONLY controll your own.
Yep. Allies would be cool!

: 9.	Several objective with variables, so it's kind-of multiple-
: choice!
Naaah.

: 10.	More turrets and chemical weapons, natural resouces help
: weapon productions.
No natural resources... but turrets and chem. weapons would be great!

: 11.	More interactivity of the Background, slow forest crossing
: (but possible), blowing up bridges, hiding in hills etc. Also mining
: ORE builds TANKS, where as metal or wood builds bridges, boats
: etc......
Oh No! No bridge blowing... or yes, but then also bridge REPAIRING/building.
Oh, and infantry should be able to swim.

: 12.	Several sides, with only a few common or similar weapons.
Yep!

: 14.	Selections of bombs on Airstrikes.
Nope. Airstrike is airstrike.

: 15.	Suecide options od nearly dead units, such as the DEVESTARTOR
: on Dune 2.
That wouldn't be good.

: 16.	Naval battles with controll of Destroyers, SUBS etc.
YES YES YES YES YES!

: 17.	Camoflage option, ie. for extra money a troop blends into a
: background.
Hmm... why not.

: 18.	The ability to repair troops.
Yep, but in a hospital... or why not in the repair centre :)

: 19.	The ability to dig tunnels and plant bombs. Such as WW1 trench
: warfare.
No tunnel digging!

: 21.	Sudden funding from countries/supporters. A kind of supprise.
Naaaaah. Wouldn't be good.

: 23.	The removal of weapons as stong as NUKE's, or just make them
: weaker, put more ground units in, in comparison to 'special units'. As
: GDI you can harvest spice and then buils an ACC, and ION the enemy.
: With the NUKE removed, you are screwed! With the NUKE in, GDI are
: screwed! (generally!)
No. Possibility to destroy NUKE with sams or something.

: 24.	Campaigns ALL over the world. You can chose weapons from the
: last 100 years or so, with scenarios for different times. This would
: make it HUGE though. Maybe that is a bit too much!
Yep. A BIT too much...

: 25.	Apparently in 'Z', out soon...... or so it has been for the
: last year!, if troops are in a pretty bad situation, or if they are
: ordered to enter a battle,  if they feel heavly out numbered, they
: flee!  Basically, the troops think for themselfes!
YES YES YESYESYES!

: 26.	The ground 'dissapears' after a little while. Like in Warcraft
: 2, basically. You have to 're-discover' land to see units cross it.
: This is MUCH more like reality.
Oh, you mean the FOG OF WAR, huh?
Now THAT would be something!

: 27.	The price of troops goes up, and weapons goes down. Basically,
: troops drive tanks etc. When they are going to blow, you save the
[CLIPPETY CLIP]
: you then BRAINWASH and train a troop to be loyal to YOU from the
: opposition, in an EXPENSIVE, special building maybe?
Yes. It would be REALISTIC, but so what... That kinda thing
would begin to hurt gameplay, and we don't want that, do we?

So, no!

: 28.	The ability to have a cease-fire, or make allies with
: multiple-forces (or single) on the battle field, to dessert to the
: other side as an enemy general, and other similar stuff. Also the
: abillity to borrow money form foriegn or military (enemy or your own
: sides) power(s).
Yep yep yep, but again, remember gameplay!
So, again no!

: 29.	Coming back to chemical warfare slightly, why not have a
: return of the Dune 2 ORDOS deviator, as a weapon or a turret, and
: other 'non-damaging' stuff.
Yep. That would be REALLY cool!


: Well, enough from me. Please forgive my spelling and send me comments,
: or you ideas etc.

So, what have we got now:

31: Building a bit like in WC2. (the MCV thingy).

32: Swimming units.

33: The famous FOG OF WAR! It's the only thing that blows up the C&C
    multiplayer games!

34: Weapon that temporary (say, 30 seconds in middle game speed) disables
    all kinds of turrets and defence.

35: Tanks should be able to go over cyclone fences and sandbag barriers

36: Walls should be repaiable.

37: Turrets should be able to take over/disable with engineers.

38: Taking over a building should take some time (15 secs?).

39: Unit that could take over other units, like tanks and stuff.

40: Warning message from units and flying units approaching the base.

41: All warning messages to text if sound is turned off!

42: BETTER HARVESTER AI!!!

43: Funny little animals wandering around like in WC2.

44: Bigger levels! Built-in level editor!

Enough?

--
*********( Contact me ! )*********
Real Life : Ilari Kajaste
IRC       : Imp / Imp2
E-Mail    : blh...@uta.fi
/\/\/\/\/\______________/\/\/\/\/\

a...@prism.netkonect.co.uk (The Prism) wrote:

>I have thought of some personal updates for C&C 2. Why don't you mail
>your views to me, all of you, and I will compose them all, send a form
>to vote for the top 100 improvements, and then send them to Westwood.
>This would let YOU help to develop C&C.

>Please give me ideas/feedback etc.

>On with the show:

The things I would like to see are:

The ability to set an ambush where your troops and armour are
'invisible' until the enemy approaches.  You would be able to trigger
the ambush manually or set it to trigger automatically.  Also, the
ability to set claymores and anti-personnel mines.

A 'terrorist' for the NOD side.  This unit would look like a civilian
but be able to take over a harvester and make it a car bomb, or just
become a human bomb himself.

Mobile SAM Units.

Medics.

The requirement to have to resupply units outside your base.  Out of
base units would have limited life and mobility without a supply line.
Cut the supply line and you can trap and kill units with limitted
battle necessary.

Ability to break down construction yard to advance or retreat a base.

C-130 and paratroopers.  C-130 should be able to hold at least 20
paratroops.




////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
* Roger W. Lynn      - Roger...@aol.com                      *
*                      75603...@compuserve.com               *
*  "If not me, who?  If not now, when?                         *
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Hanna T{hti wrote:
 
> The Prism (a...@prism.netkonect.co.uk) wrote:
> : 1.    Pathing for units, such as in Warcraft 2 -  Effectively
> : patrolling units etc.
> YES! That would be great! 
> : 2.    Stronger troops, with funtions such as mine laying, anti-tank
> : barriers and other stuff.
> Stronger? Use CCEDIT.
> Mine laying YES! And other stuff would be cool too!

Mine layers, mine detectors yeah...

> : 3.    Air strikes with SAM's still up.
> And SAMS that DESROY airstikes!they already do. But you have to have a lot of SAMs close together.

> : 5.    Fortification.
> And what would that do?As in bigger stronger walls? and gates? Oh, hehehe if Westwood was really 
wild, they could make drawbridges? hmmm
 
> : 6.    Offensive/Defencive construciton anywhere.
> Nope. You could build a obelisk into enemy's base...
> How about this: A unit like MCV that comes out from the const-yard.
>                 You can deploy it, and it would build there the
>                 building.

deployable buildings.... maybe..

> : 7.    Purchase of MAPS for the areas, sabotage of buildings and also
> : mercinaries, from locals or such others.
> No map purchasing.

If u purchase a map, it would only show the landscape, not the enemy.

> But that bribing of locals sounds good...hahaha... 
 
> : 8.    Campaigns with other controllers of forces on YOUR side. ie.
> : You are one of Nelson's generals, with his and other commanders forces
> : fighting with you. You ONLY controll your own.
> Yep. Allies would be cool!Cool... multiplayer with ur self! 8-)
 
> : 9.    Several objective with variables, so it's kind-of multiple-
> : choice!
> Naaah. 
> : 10.   More turrets and chemical weapons, natural resouces help
> : weapon productions.

Why would it? You BUY the parts. If you wanted natural recources, u would 
have to build an iron ore plant thingy and all sorts of factories that would 
make C&C2 more like Sim city.

> No natural resources... but turrets and chem. weapons would be great!

C&C already has turrets. Chem weapons..... yeah.. and BIO missiles which make 
all the infantry SICK to death.... hmm.
 
> : 11.   More interactivity of the Background, slow forest crossing
> : (but possible), blowing up bridges, hiding in hills etc. Also mining

Background interaction sounds good though... Chopping down trees coz they 
PISS ME OFF when I'm trying to build my base.... 8-) 

> : ORE builds TANKS, where as metal or wood builds bridges, boats
> : etc......

Warcrafty = crap gameplay. 

> Oh No! No bridge blowing... or yes, but then also bridge > REPAIRING/building.

Bridge blowing would kick ass!!! 

> Oh, and infantry should be able to swim.

Some may swim, like scubamen who plant water mines or something... but not 
all of them... 
 
> : 12.   Several sides, with only a few common or similar weapons.
> Yep! 
> : 14.   Selections of bombs on Airstrikes.
> Nope. Airstrike is airstrike.

BUT selection of planes..... see the cutscene with the jets dropping bombs 
NOT the A10s dropping napalm.... This could be used with the multi sides 
thing... like GDI = napalm and Nod = bombs etc.
 
> : 15.   Suecide options od nearly dead units, such as the DEVESTARTOR
> : on Dune 2.
> That wouldn't be good.

why not? HEY! wait.. how about a commando that lays bombs and doesn't blow it 
up immedietely.... place all the bombs, run away then BOOM. 8-)
 
> : 16.   Naval battles with controll of Destroyers, SUBS etc.
> YES YES YES YES YES!

Then the bridges have to be PROPER bridges... ie the boats can go under them.
Unlike the cheap tactics of Warcraft 2.
 
> : 17.   Camoflage option, ie. for extra money a troop blends into a
> : background.
> Hmm... why not.

becoz it would be very very strange to see a shrub blowing up ur cons yard.
Stealthing more vehicles however.....
 
> : 18.   The ability to repair troops.
> Yep, but in a hospital... or why not in the repair centre :) 
> : 19.   The ability to dig tunnels and plant bombs. Such as WW1 trench
> : warfare.
> No tunnel digging!

no tunnels,... but trenches and traps... Tanks can fall into trenches that 
have been covered up... cool.
 
> : 21.   Sudden funding from countries/supporters. A kind of supprise.
> Naaaaah. Wouldn't be good.
> 
> : 23.   The removal of weapons as stong as NUKE's, or just make them
> : weaker, put more ground units in, in comparison to 'special units'. As
> : GDI you can harvest spice and then buils an ACC, and ION the enemy.
> : With the NUKE removed, you are screwed! With the NUKE in, GDI are
> : screwed! (generally!)
> No. Possibility to destroy NUKE with sams or something.

Jeez. Well... nuke isn't very realistic in C&C... nukes should do damage to 
troops becoz of radiation... not buildings! They have bombs which do that.
HOw about SCUD launchers? like nuke in C&C 1 but weaker, and have a certain 
range...

> 
> : 24.   Campaigns ALL over the world. You can chose weapons from the
> : last 100 years or so, with scenarios for different times. This would
> : make it HUGE though. Maybe that is a bit too much!
> Yep. A BIT too much...

tsk tsk tsk

> 
> : 25.   Apparently in 'Z', out soon...... or so it has been for the
> : last year!, if troops are in a pretty bad situation, or if they are
> : ordered to enter a battle,  if they feel heavly out numbered, they
> : flee!  Basically, the troops think for themselfes!
> YES YES YESYESYES!

?!?!?! oh yes, lets do that... "Ok, guys, you've been briefed... LETS GO!!!"
"No! we want a pay rise... screw u! STRIKE! STRIKE!" jeez.

> : 26.   The ground 'dissapears' after a little while. Like in Warcraft
> : 2, basically. You have to 're-discover' land to see units cross it.
> : This is MUCH more like reality.
> Oh, you mean the FOG OF WAR, huh?
> Now THAT would be something!no it wouldn't... an option for FOW... becoz a lot of people don't like it.
 
> : 27.   The price of troops goes up, and weapons goes down. Basically,
> : troops drive tanks etc. When they are going to blow, you save the
> [CLIPPETY CLIP]
> : you then BRAINWASH and train a troop to be loyal to YOU from the
> : opposition, in an EXPENSIVE, special building maybe?
> Yes. It would be REALISTIC, but so what... That kinda thing
> would begin to hurt gameplay, and we don't want that, do we?u'd spend half an hour training one guy and making him drive around in a tank 
with all the works.. u come back to ur base.... WHERE IS IT?! too 
complicated.
 
> So, no! 
> : 28.   The ability to have a cease-fire, or make allies with
> : multiple-forces (or single) on the battle field, to dessert to the
> : other side as an enemy general, and other similar stuff. Also the
> : abillity to borrow money form foriegn or military (enemy or your own
> : sides) power(s).
> Yep yep yep, but again, remember gameplay!
> So, again no!

go play sim city.

> 
> : 29.   Coming back to chemical warfare slightly, why not have a
> : return of the Dune 2 ORDOS deviator, as a weapon or a turret, and
> : other 'non-damaging' stuff.
> Yep. That would be REALLY cool!

Or... engineers for units? have these men that go into units and take them 
over!
 
> : Well, enough from me. Please forgive my spelling and send me comments,
> : or you ideas etc. 
> So, what have we got now: 
> 31: Building a bit like in WC2. (the MCV thingy).

i think that might hurt game play... but it might not... make it really 
expensive and fragile.  

> 32: Swimming units.

> 33: The famous FOG OF WAR! It's the only thing that blows up the C&C
>     multiplayer games!

No it isn't. If u want reallism, don't play C&C.

> 34: Weapon that temporary (say, 30 seconds in middle game speed) disables
>     all kinds of turrets and defence.

huh?! well u could just knock out their power u noe.

> 35: Tanks should be able to go over cyclone fences and sandbag barriers

yes. 

> 36: Walls should be repaiable.yeah... the walls are huge and have turrets on top of them or something..

> 37: Turrets should be able to take over/disable with engineers. 
> 38: Taking over a building should take some time (15 secs?).hmm.. maybe
 
> 39: Unit that could take over other units, like tanks and stuff.wow... ESP

> 40: Warning message from units and flying units approaching the base.RADAR DETECTS AIR UNITS?! thats what a RADAR is isn't it?

> 41: All warning messages to text if sound is turned off!

yeah...
 
> 42: BETTER HARVESTER AI!!!Harvester ROUTE so that they won't get blown up by straying to the enemy base
 
> 43: Funny little animals wandering around like in WC2.

Civies... I would rather blow them up... hahahahaahah
 
> 44: Bigger levels! Built-in level editor!Yeah... but that would result in crap levels coz everyone would build their 
own levels and think it's the greatest when they simply AREN'T.

> 
> Enough?my suggestions..
1) All of the above stuff i suggested.

2) This *might* hurt gameplay.. but it would probably not though..
RESEARCH CENTRES!!! u click on them and you can research steal tech for more 
units.... u can research STUFF. 

3) When u put people into APCs or Chinooks, make them all go in. I hate 
having to select each man to go in.

4) Super duper unit that costs a bitch.... 5 turrets on it with a huge cannon 
and the works.. and don't stick a VolksWagen beatle motor on it like in the 
mammoth tank. With all that power and the cost of the investment, PUT A 
DESCENT MOTOR ON IT!!!!!!!!!

5) Back to the research thing... Bigger harvies... a bit like the warcraft2 
upgrades.

6) More air units... jets that blow up buildings. Ability to target air 
units.

7) Scouting units.. like small robot buggies which are really light/fast/ 
have bloody huge dcout radius.

8) OH... back to the fog of war... that is not great but if u could build 
jammers? (unrealistic but who says C&C is realistic?) Jam the enemy's radar 
so he can't see ur base.... 

9) Not my suggestion but it is a good one: Cliff scaling men and men who have 
jump jets which fly for short periods of time.

10) Chinook transports vehicles.

11) Electrified fences to kill infantry?

12) A bit crazy but.... A really fast unit with flamer and is pretty badly 
armoured.. but is VERY fast... specialised troop killer. SQUISH BURN SQUISH 
BURN... etc.

13) Camouflaged snipers........ hide here and there and can pick off enemy 
troops.

14) Distinction between MACHINE gunners and MINI gunners.. mini gunners 
should be pumped and really cool... awesome destructive power.

15) SCUD launchers.

16) MAYBE night and day... Launch night time attacks and it'll be pretty 
cool!!!!

17) Maybe a bit too violent but have war in city areas where civies are 
running around with cars and sky scrapers? hmm..

18) I'm all out of ideas.

-Josh
-=DISCLAIMER=-
If you are offended by my news, DON'T READ IT. 
Joshua Widjaya claims NO responsibility regarding any illegal activity
concerning this news article, or indirectly related to this news article.
-=COPYRIGHT NOTICE=-
There isn't any, but just try not to be an unoriginal copycat. *humf*

Otherwise, have a nice day. -Josh s180...@singnet.com.sg

Josh Widjaya (s180...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
> Hanna T{hti wrote:
>  

<first 31+20 snipped>

> > 
> > Enough?my suggestions..
> 1) All of the above stuff i suggested.

> 2) This *might* hurt gameplay.. but it would probably not though..
> RESEARCH CENTRES!!! u click on them and you can research steal tech for more 
> units.... u can research STUFF. 

	Aaack.  This is what I hated with Warcraft II- a unit should just 
be a unit.  You could have different _kinds_ of gunners, tanks, etc., but 
don't have them all look the same!  It gets silly when their Footmen are 
hacking yours to bits, and they look just the same.	

> 3) When u put people into APCs or Chinooks, make them all go in. I hate 
> having to select each man to go in.

Absolutely.

> 4) Super duper unit that costs a bitch.... 5 turrets on it with a huge cannon 
> and the works.. and don't stick a VolksWagen beatle motor on it like in the 
> mammoth tank. With all that power and the cost of the investment, PUT A 
> DESCENT MOTOR ON IT!!!!!!!!!

	A Descent motor?  You mean make it even harder to control, and 
give it polygon graphics?  (Sorry, couldn't resist)  
	
	Really, the game doesn't need any more BIG units- mammoths start 
to suck after a while, because that's all you're doing, either building 
them or trying to blow them up.  Same thing with Obelisks- 

> 5) Back to the research thing... Bigger harvies... a bit like the warcraft2 
> upgrades.

	Bigger, smarter, FASTER harvesters.  Those things really slow 
down a game.

> 6) More air units... jets that blow up buildings. Ability to target air 
> units.

	I liked the earlier stuff about having an airfield.  Then you 
just build planes like with the heli pad.  Have light recon craft, jets, 
bombers, Hercules transports (load up some tanks, have fun)

> 7) Scouting units.. like small robot buggies which are really light/fast/ 
> have bloody huge dcout radius.

	Bikes/Humvees are pretty good for this already.

> 8) OH... back to the fog of war... that is not great but if u could build 
> jammers? (unrealistic but who says C&C is realistic?) Jam the enemy's radar 
> so he can't see ur base.... 

	YES!  Have stationary and portable jamming units- the other 
player won't be fooled long, but they'll have to send someone to see what 
you're hiding.

> 9) Not my suggestion but it is a good one: Cliff scaling men and men who have 
> jump jets which fly for short periods of time.

	Just use aircraft.

> 10) Chinook transports vehicles.

	See above.

> 11) Electrified fences to kill infantry?

	But also, infantry that can take out the fences (insulated wire 
cutters!)  Have a sort of super-sneaky Commando (I think someone 
mentioned a Terrorist for Nod) who can steal vehicles, cut down fences, 
set explosive devices and detonate them by remote, and generally be a 
pain long enough for your actual forces to attack.

> 12) A bit crazy but.... A really fast unit with flamer and is pretty badly 
> armoured.. but is VERY fast... specialised troop killer. SQUISH BURN SQUISH 
> BURN... etc.

> 13) Camouflaged snipers........ hide here and there and can pick off enemy 
> troops.

	You can kind of do this with a commando- find a patch of trees 
for him to hide behind, or a building.

> 14) Distinction between MACHINE gunners and MINI gunners.. mini gunners 
> should be pumped and really cool... awesome destructive power.

> 15) SCUD launchers.

	I thought that's what SSM's were for?

> 16) MAYBE night and day... Launch night time attacks and it'll be pretty 
> cool!!!!

	Night would be freaky- have tracer rounds lighting up the sky and 
light sourcing around fires & explosions.

> 17) Maybe a bit too violent but have war in city areas where civies are 
> running around with cars and sky scrapers? hmm..

	I thought about this myself- You could make technicians useful 
here, taking over existing buildings and converting them to your needs, 
or a demolitions squad who could reduce areas to rubble and provide an 
open area to set up your base.  Then have war in the streets, with 
snipers, barricades, overturned cars (even a few trying to flee), and 
lots of damage to buildings.  Heck, you could even add nice touches like 
a park or a zoo (12 Monkeys maneuver- release the animals to attack your 
enemy) and have them burn down.

> 18) I'm all out of ideas.

	And you took most of mine :)

	Maybe a few more

1) Have more varied landforms- an overgrown jungle area with 
machete-wielding troops clearing areas for your constructions, and planes 
dropping Agent Orange.  A true desert, with dunes and sandstorms.  
(Westwood should be able to handle that)  Heavily mountainous regions, 
with steep slopes (which units could fall from and die), high peaks, 
narrow crevasses, boulders perched atop ledges (shoot them and they 
fall?), and mountain climbing troops. (Forget Capture the Flag- try King 
of the Mountain!)  An alien landscape with squishy, bouncy ground and 
infantry-eating beasts.

2) Along with #1, have multi-layered maps, with underwater, various 
elevations of land, air and maybe space (satellites, orbital lasers, 
space station research facilities) layers that can be switched between.  

3) I'll come up with some more later.  

							Nathan


> -Josh
> -=DISCLAIMER=-
> If you are offended by my news, DON'T READ IT. 
> Joshua Widjaya claims NO responsibility regarding any illegal activity
> concerning this news article, or indirectly related to this news article.
> -=COPYRIGHT NOTICE=-
> There isn't any, but just try not to be an unoriginal copycat. *humf*

> Otherwise, have a nice day. -Josh s180...@singnet.com.sg

>3) When u put people into APCs or Chinooks, make them all go in. I hate 
>having to select each man to go in.

Definitely....


>6) More air units... jets that blow up buildings. Ability to target air 
>units.

How about cruise missles.  Can be knocked down by SAM's or Stingers
but only if you manually target them.


>13) Camouflaged snipers........ hide here and there and can pick off enemy 
>troops.

Ambushes... Yes.


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
* Roger W. Lynn      - Roger...@aol.com                      *
*                      75603...@compuserve.com               *
*  "If not me, who?  If not now, when?                         *
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

blh...@kielo.uta.fi (Hanna T{hti) wrote:


>33: The famous FOG OF WAR! It's the only thing that blows up the C&C
>    multiplayer games!

For FOG OF WAR how about a vehicle that acts sort of like a land based
Wild Weasel.  In other words, a jammer.  Would be able to 'blot' out a
part of the map while unit is active.  It would also be mobile so you
would be able to move it with an advancing force.  Of course I would
make it very weakly armoured but it would make for some fun strategy.
Would allow you to do all sorts of fun things.


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
* Roger W. Lynn      - Roger...@aol.com                      *
*                      75603...@compuserve.com               *
*  "If not me, who?  If not now, when?                         *
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

>So, what have we got now:

>31: Building a bit like in WC2. (the MCV thingy).

>32: Swimming units.

>33: The famous FOG OF WAR! It's the only thing that blows up the C&C
>    multiplayer games!

>34: Weapon that temporary (say, 30 seconds in middle game speed) disables
>    all kinds of turrets and defence.

>35: Tanks should be able to go over cyclone fences and sandbag barriers

>36: Walls should be repaiable.

>37: Turrets should be able to take over/disable with engineers.

>38: Taking over a building should take some time (15 secs?).

>39: Unit that could take over other units, like tanks and stuff.

>40: Warning message from units and flying units approaching the base.

>41: All warning messages to text if sound is turned off!

>42: BETTER HARVESTER AI!!!

>43: Funny little animals wandering around like in WC2.

>44: Bigger levels! Built-in level editor!

>Enough?

How about;

* The ability to jump to units being attacked? I hate hearing my units
dying and not getting to them in time to have them react (since the ai
is so inept that even if a unit is attacked, it will not fight back
unless on guard duty)

Tony

********************************
"Never laugh at live dragons..."
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit
*********************************

On Mon, 08 Apr 1996 19:01:51 GMT, a...@prism.netkonect.co.uk (The
Prism) wrote:

>26.	The ground 'dissapears' after a little while. Like in Warcraft
>2, basically. You have to 're-discover' land to see units cross it.
>This is MUCH more like reality.

In reality most people make maps and remember terrain. Who the heck
thought of that one? That would be EXTREMELY annoying!




Paul - C...@TERMINUS.COM

"The inherent problem with this technology is that a single
 pair of eyes focuses on a single screen, and by some electronic
 extension, you are connected to somebody else--but it's in the
 abstract. The danger is that we become enamored with the 
 abstract and forget that life is really touchy-feely."
 -- William Shatner
 

c...@terminus.com (Paul) wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Apr 1996 19:01:51 GMT, a...@prism.netkonect.co.uk (The
>Prism) wrote:

>>26.	The ground 'dissapears' after a little while. Like in Warcraft
>>2, basically. You have to 're-discover' land to see units cross it.
>>This is MUCH more like reality.

>In reality most people make maps and remember terrain. Who the heck
>thought of that one? That would be EXTREMELY annoying!

Ok.  Here are my suggestions.  Hope they aren't a bit longwinded.

1)  Paratroops.  I love chinooks, but they take too long to land and
take off.  How about the ability to train all your troops to land as
paratroops.  They could take a second or two to hit the ground, and
would be succeptable to gunners, but not SAM's and bazookas.  (Can you
imagine a SAM trying to hit a paratrooper?)  This would require that
you keep some minigunners or the like around your buildings.  Even if
you wanted to make it a lightly armed, but cheaper unit, that would be
cool too.  But I would love these guys as engineers!!!  Or, if they
were cheap enough, I'd drop a group behind a force that was trying to
retreat to finish them off.  There would have to be some kind of an
effective base defense for this, though.  Perhaps AA guns.  They would
tear through a paratroop group.

2)  Not my idea, but to have some kind of an entrenchment value, or
the ability to dig foxholes.  Maybe some kind of specialized troop to
build these fortifications would be better.  I get so tired of having
to stick a relatively undefended tank on a bridge to stop advancing
troops.

3)  relating to the 2nd idea, how about these tanks move back into
place if a harvester crosses the bridge.  I will often just place a
tank on a bridge, and assume that if I dont' hear any fire, that
entrance is sealed.  Then my harvester goes through, and next thing I
know, here comes a humvee to scout my base.  It really pisses me off!

4)  I must comment on the Fog of War.  I think it would suck to have a
land mass just dissapear.  But I do think that it's rather silly for
me to be able to see you massing troops in your base just because I
once traveled there.  I think the solution is to not black out an area
after you haven't traveled there, but to dim it or make it off-color
and in this area, you can't see troops coming, but you can see the
terrain.  This would make sentries neccessary.  It would also allow
you to get the coordinates, say of that pesky oblisk to ION, or
whatever, but you wouldn't be able to see new buildings or troop
mobilizations.  I'm much in favor of this.  And I can't see how it can
hurt gameplay a bit.  Just alter strategies a little.


>Paul - C...@TERMINUS.COM

>"The inherent problem with this technology is that a single
> pair of eyes focuses on a single screen, and by some electronic
> extension, you are connected to somebody else--but it's in the
> abstract. The danger is that we become enamored with the 
> abstract and forget that life is really touchy-feely."
> -- William Shatner
> 

In article <4ke0to$i...@elf.wang.com>, "Roger W. Lynn"
<Roger...@aol.com> writes
>a...@prism.netkonect.co.uk (The Prism) wrote:
>
>>I have thought of some personal updates for C&C 2. Why don't you mail
>>your views to me, all of you, and I will compose them all, send a form
>>to vote for the top 100 improvements, and then send them to Westwood.
>>This would let YOU help to develop C&C.
>
>>Please give me ideas/feedback etc.
>
>>On with the show:
>
>The things I would like to see are:
>
>The ability to set an ambush where your troops and armour are
>'invisible' until the enemy approaches.  You would be able to trigger
>the ambush manually or set it to trigger automatically.  Also, the
>ability to set claymores and anti-personnel mines.
>
>A 'terrorist' for the NOD side.  This unit would look like a civilian
>but be able to take over a harvester and make it a car bomb, or just
>become a human bomb himself.
>
>Mobile SAM Units.
>
>Medics.
>
>The requirement to have to resupply units outside your base.  Out of
>base units would have limited life and mobility without a supply line.
>Cut the supply line and you can trap and kill units with limitted
>battle necessary.
>
>Ability to break down construction yard to advance or retreat a base.
>
>C-130 and paratroopers.  C-130 should be able to hold at least 20
>paratroops.
>
>
>Go into caves and screen changes to inside the cave.

selection of weaponary for men e.g auto-rifles, miniguns or shotguns or
all on one man.

Cant wait to hear more.
>
>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>* Roger W. Lynn      - Roger...@aol.com                      *
>*                      75603...@compuserve.com               *
>*  "If not me, who?  If not now, when?                         *
>///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>

-- 
Aidan Pryde

Paul (c...@terminus.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 08 Apr 1996 19:01:51 GMT, a...@prism.netkonect.co.uk (The
: Prism) wrote:
: 
: >26.	The ground 'dissapears' after a little while. Like in Warcraft
: >2, basically. You have to 're-discover' land to see units cross it.
: >This is MUCH more like reality.
: In reality most people make maps and remember terrain. Who the heck
: thought of that one? That would be EXTREMELY annoying!

Actually, it remembers the terrain, just not where the troops are... 
The function is called "Fog of War". And you are right. It *IS* 
annoying...

-- 
<*><*><*><*><*>Greg Boug (s940...@minyos.xx.rmit.edu.au)<*><*><*><*><*><*>
              WWW: http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~gboug/ 
                            BOFH in Training
Babylon 5 quote for the day:
"You can start by helping me understand the precise nature of conflict
    between the two sides that you've set up."
'Green.'
`Purple.`
"No, I understand that there are two factions, but what is your point of
    contention? Where do you disagree with each other?"
`Purple.`
'Green.'
        -- Ivanova, Purple Drazi, and Green Drazi, "The Geometry of Shadows"

Aidan Pryde wrote:
> 
> In article <4ke0to$i...@elf.wang.com>, "Roger W. Lynn"
> <Roger...@aol.com> writes
> >a...@prism.netkonect.co.uk (The Prism) wrote:
> >
> >>I have thought of some personal updates for C&C 2. Why don't you mail
> >>your views to me, all of you, and I will compose them all, send a form
> >>to vote for the top 100 improvements, and then send them to Westwood.
> >>This would let YOU help to develop C&C.
> >
> >>Please give me ideas/feedback etc.
> >
> >>On with the show:

I'd like the various missile weapons to be a bit more effective 
against armor and structures. I'm referring to the SSM and 
MLRS specifically here. I can't believe that a wimpy bike can destroy
an M1 without being scratched while a dedicated missile launcher can
hardly dent it. Also, I think that SSMs should be somewhat more 
destructive. I mean, it only takes a couple of well-placed scuds to
destroy a heavily armored factory so...

Moke the effect of a direct bazooka hit on infantry stronger. The 
wonderboys of the C&C team seem able to withstand bazooka hits that
would leave ordinary soldiers in pieces. Also make the effect of 
flamethrowers on tanks smaller as well. Odlly enough, these units 
are probably the best units to kill tanks with when playing the 
computer. Ditto for the chem spray. The whole mission "Tiberium Strain"
seems to operate on this premise that while a small guy with a chem 
gun can survive being hit in the chest with a 120mm armor piercing 
shell, a state-of-the art tank cannot withstand its a fine spray of
noxious chemicals.

Swamps would be nice. So would nice dense forests, making infantry
and stealth that much more important. Along these lines, a difference 
in speed of units depending on the terrain they move in would also 
be pretty nice.

Since people are so fussy on the realism of radar, from what I've heard,
radar will show movements very well in open country. In forests, it's
impossible to track infantry movement, unless you have some guy in the 
forest watching the other guys in the forest... and even then, the
range of sight will still stink. So, please do not show all enemy 
units on the radar. I refer to levels like Jurassic Park four which 
become cakewalks because all the nasty little surprises in the forest
are revealed magically by the radar and then get blown to bits by
remotely directed helicopters.

Let units in concealing terrain only be seen by units on the ground.

Adjust the range of sight of units according to the type of terrain
they're in. I found it odd that the great commando was blessed with 
the ability to see right over mountain ranges After all, if he can't
climb over it, how come he can see over it? I mean, these are mountains 
right? Not huge chasms.

Give engineers a slightly more important role, like clearing away 
the concertina wire, laying mines, clearing mines, destroying bridges
etc. Better yet, make the engineers solely good for the work in the 
field and make those wimpy little "technicians" able to hijack 
structures and planes.

Give those minigunners ordinary grenades like most ordinary infantry 
currently use. Give grenadiers different grenades like smoke, 
phosphorus etc.

  BC

How about different lighting/weather conditions. 

Imagine a night battle where the light was so dim it is difficult to see
enemy units, especially infantry.

To counteract this, your guard towers, and units on guard would have to be
capable of firing flares or star shells from time to time. 

Of course, your base would be illuminated. However, if the enemy destroys
some of your power stations, bzzt, lights out. Imagine trying to defend 
your base when you can't see that infiltrating engineer!

Firefights at night would be kinda spectacular if they added tracers, 
etc. 

Weather effects could include snow, rain, and fog. These have similar 
effects on visibility. Imagine a battle at night in a snowstorm!

Could be interesting.

/bruce

--
*******************************************************************************
* Bruce Rennie          		Q: Are We Not Men ?                   *
* bre...@interlog.com, bru...@numetrix.com				      *
*									      *
*******************************************************************************

: > : 7.    Purchase of MAPS for the areas, sabotage of buildings and also
: > : mercinaries, from locals or such others.
: > No map purchasing.
: If u purchase a map, it would only show the landscape, not the enemy.
Guess that would be okay...

: > : 14.   Selections of bombs on Airstrikes.
: > Nope. Airstrike is airstrike.

: BUT selection of planes..... see the cutscene with the jets dropping bombs 
: NOT the A10s dropping napalm.... This could be used with the multi sides 
: thing... like GDI = napalm and Nod = bombs etc.
Hmm... Maybe NOD=napalm GDI=bombs... but yeah, why not.

: > : 17.   Camoflage option, ie. for extra money a troop blends into a
: > : background.
: > Hmm... why not.
: becoz it would be very very strange to see a shrub blowing up ur cons yard.
: Stealthing more vehicles however.....
Yes... But those units would be detected from a short distance...

: > : 19.   The ability to dig tunnels and plant bombs. Such as WW1 trench
: > : warfare.
: > No tunnel digging!
: no tunnels,... but trenches and traps... Tanks can fall into trenches that 
: have been covered up... cool.
Yes, that would be cool!

: HOw about SCUD launchers? like nuke in C&C 1 but weaker, and have a certain 
: range...
Why not...

: > : 25.   Apparently in 'Z', out soon...... or so it has been for the
: > : last year!, if troops are in a pretty bad situation, or if they are
: > : ordered to enter a battle,  if they feel heavly out numbered, they
: > : flee!  Basically, the troops think for themselfes!
: > YES YES YESYESYES!

: ?!?!?! oh yes, lets do that... "Ok, guys, you've been briefed... LETS GO!!!"
: "No! we want a pay rise... screw u! STRIKE! STRIKE!" jeez.
No... I mean, C&C isn't meant to be realistic, but if you send a troop 
alone to enemy base, it sould flee... and get executed at base :)
Or maybe these guys just are so stupid, that if you say "Go to that base! Do
it for the world!!!" (GDI) they go there... maybe... Or they may also have
a little tiny microchip in their brains...

: > Oh, you mean the FOG OF WAR, huh?
: > Now THAT would be something!
: no it wouldn't... an option for FOW... becoz a lot of people don't like it.
I meant an option...

: Or... engineers for units? have these men that go into units and take
: them over!
Yes, that would be much better!

: > 31: Building a bit like in WC2. (the MCV thingy). 

: i think that might hurt game play... but it might not... make it really 
: expensive and fragile.  
It wouldn't hurt the gameplay, I think...

: > 33: The famous FOG OF WAR! It's the only thing that blows up the C&C
: >     multiplayer games!

: No it isn't. If u want reallism, don't play C&C.
Hey! I don't want it because it's realistic! I want to build my base 
wtihout opponent seeing it all the time!
I want to build another base without enemy destroying it ass soon as 
possible.
I want to make suprise attacks and all that kinda stuff!
I mean in C&C you always know when the opponent will attack! You really
shouldn't know that.

: > 34: Weapon that temporary (say, 30 seconds in middle game speed) disables
: >     all kinds of turrets and defence.

: huh?! well u could just knock out their power u noe.
And if they have enough exess power???

: > 43: Funny little animals wandering around like in WC2.

: Civies... I would rather blow them up... hahahahaahah
No, little cute animals... and civies protecting them.. that would be FUN!
Shoot an animal and civilian shouts "HEy! That was my dog! I'm gonna kill 
ya!", and then shoot the civilian!

: 2) This *might* hurt gameplay.. but it would probably not though..
: RESEARCH CENTRES!!! u click on them and you can research steal tech for more 
: units.... u can research STUFF. 
I don't think it would hurt gameplay... and it would be cool.

: 3) When u put people into APCs or Chinooks, make them all go in. I hate 
: having to select each man to go in.
Yes, and they would go in a lot faster!

: 4) Super duper unit that costs a bitch.... 5 turrets on it with a huge cannon 
: and the works.. and don't stick a VolksWagen beatle motor on it like in the 
: mammoth tank. With all that power and the cost of the investment, PUT A 
: DESCENT MOTOR ON IT!!!!!!!!!
And then both sides would start bulding only those units...

It wouldn't work!

: 5) Back to the research thing... Bigger harvies... a bit like the warcraft2 
: upgrades.
Yep. Would be cool.

: 6) More air units... jets that blow up buildings. Ability to target air 
: units.
DEFINATELY YES!

: 7) Scouting units.. like small robot buggies which are really light/fast/ 
: have bloody huge dcout radius.
Yep.

: 8) OH... back to the fog of war... that is not great but if u could build 
: jammers? (unrealistic but who says C&C is realistic?) Jam the enemy's radar 
: so he can't see ur base.... 
Umh... I don't think enemy should see your base anyway, so...

: 9) Not my suggestion but it is a good one: Cliff scaling men and men who have 
: jump jets which fly for short periods of time.
Yep yep yep.

: 10) Chinook transports vehicles.
Yes, somekinda transport plane.

: 11) Electrified fences to kill infantry?
Heheheee. ZZZZZZTTT! Uaaarrrghhh!

: 12) A bit crazy but.... A really fast unit with flamer and is pretty badly 
: armoured.. but is VERY fast... specialised troop killer. SQUISH BURN SQUISH 
: BURN... etc.
Hmm... no... then troops wouldn't be good anymore...

: 13) Camouflaged snipers........ hide here and there and can pick off enemy 
: troops.
Yes.

: 14) Distinction between MACHINE gunners and MINI gunners.. mini gunners 
: should be pumped and really cool... awesome destructive power.
Why not.

: 15) SCUD launchers.
You already said that...

: 16) MAYBE night and day... Launch night time attacks and it'll be pretty 
: cool!!!!
Yes. Should be possible to select from multiplayer menu.

: 17) Maybe a bit too violent but have war in city areas where civies are 
: running around with cars and sky scrapers? hmm..
Too violent???? Nope. It would be COOL!

: 18) I'm all out of ideas.
And so am I.

--
               /////
               O  O
-----------oOo--()--oOo-----------
Real Life : Ilari Kajaste
IRC       : Imp / Imp2
E-Mail    : i...@sci.fi    
/\/\/\/\/\______________/\/\/\/\/\

Tony T wrote:
> 
> >So, what have we got now:
> 
> >31: Building a bit like in WC2. (the MCV thingy).
> 
> >32: Swimming units.
> 
> >33: The famous FOG OF WAR! It's the only thing that blows up the C&C
> >    multiplayer games!
> 
> >34: Weapon that temporary (say, 30 seconds in middle game speed) disables
> >    all kinds of turrets and defence.
> 
> >35: Tanks should be able to go over cyclone fences and sandbag barriers
> 
> >36: Walls should be repaiable.
> 
> >37: Turrets should be able to take over/disable with engineers.
> 
> >38: Taking over a building should take some time (15 secs?).
> 
> >39: Unit that could take over other units, like tanks and stuff.
> 
> >40: Warning message from units and flying units approaching the base.
> 
> >41: All warning messages to text if sound is turned off!
> 
> >42: BETTER HARVESTER AI!!!
> 
> >43: Funny little animals wandering around like in WC2.
> 
> >44: Bigger levels! Built-in level editor!
> 
> >Enough?
> 
> How about;
> 
> * The ability to jump to units being attacked? I hate hearing my units
> dying and not getting to them in time to have them react (since the ai
> is so inept that even if a unit is attacked, it will not fight back
> unless on guard duty)
> 
> Tony

46: More cool warning sounds eg. "Warning Warning... Harvesters are under attack", "Construction 
yard is taking heavy damage", "...!!@%%!#@%....HELP COMMANDER WE'RE GETTING 
SLAUGHTERED...BOOM..ARRRRRGGHHH...$#%#@%%%#..."

47: The ability to put security forces INSIDE your buildings, so he has to send in about an equal 
number of Foot Soldiers to beat them before sending in the engineer, he doesn't find out how many 
men in until he attacks, and if he fails and say 3 men remain it will not change till he attacks 
again( even if you have filled it up ), this would actually make the minigunners useful.

48: Mingunners should = Light infantry.   Minigun My ASS those guy suck shit!!! They just have 
M-16's or something Go watch T2 or better yet PREDATOR and see what a real minigun does!

49: Minigunners, REAL Minigunners, MOW THE SHIT OUT OF EVERYTHING, VERY COOL ELECTRIC WHIRRING 
SOUND.

50: OK how bout this, say you have 3 infantry PRESETs, you right click on the INF build box and 
you can equip them with various equipment, eg. M-16 And Grenade launcher(forget grenadiers) and 
claymores or Sniper rifles or flamethrowers or DISPOSABLE R.L.s or MINIGUNS or other cool 
stuff... of course they could only carry say 2 items and they'd have varying costs, Same could be 
done with tanks or anything, eg: a Cannon STANDARD, AA: RL check box, 20mm Anti-Infantry cannon 
check box.

51: Machine guns of varying calibre have some anti-aircraft capabilities. One of THE MOST LETHAL 
close quarters Anti-Aircraft system is not the missile it is a high speed computer targeted 
Minigun standard on many modern warships.

52: PUT THE FUCKING AIRCRAFT ON THE RADAR!!!













.

Aidan Pryde wrote:
> 
> In article <4ke0to$i...@elf.wang.com>, "Roger W. Lynn"
> <Roger...@aol.com> writes
> >a...@prism.netkonect.co.uk (The Prism) wrote:
> >
> >>I have thought of some personal updates for C&C 2. Why don't you mail
> >>your views to me, all of you, and I will compose them all, send a form
> >>to vote for the top 100 improvements, and then send them to Westwood.
> >>This would let YOU help to develop C&C.
> >
> >>Please give me ideas/feedback etc.
> >
> >>On with the show:
> >
> >The things I would like to see are:
> >
> >The ability to set an ambush where your troops and armour are
> >'invisible' until the enemy approaches.  You would be able to trigger
> >the ambush manually or set it to trigger automatically.  Also, the
> >ability to set claymores and anti-personnel mines.
> >
> >A 'terrorist' for the NOD side.  This unit would look like a civilian
> >but be able to take over a harvester and make it a car bomb, or just
> >become a human bomb himself.
> >
> >Mobile SAM Units.
> >
> >Medics.
> >
> >The requirement to have to resupply units outside your base.  Out of
> >base units would have limited life and mobility without a supply line.
> >Cut the supply line and you can trap and kill units with limitted
> >battle necessary.

Maybe, I'd say ammunition only, and only for <SUPER POWERFUL> units.

> >Ability to break down construction yard to advance or retreat a base.

Cool idea.

> >C-130 and paratroopers.  C-130 should be able to hold at least 20
> >paratroops.
> >
> >
> >Go into caves and screen changes to inside the cave.
> 
> selection of weaponary for men e.g auto-rifles, miniguns or shotguns or
> all on one man.
> 
> Cant wait to hear more.

1: Make the men more intelligent, they are fucking idiots at the moment, do you honestly see 
future infantry wars being won by who has the most APCs the squish the most troops, squishing is 
stupid, they must be morons to get run over, in real life an APC is only about 3 metres across, 
could it really run over 5 trained men so easily? At least make them actively avoid squishing, at 
the moment men suck shit big time. They all die unless you click on each individual guy and go 
<click> = "hey you don't get run over"
<click> = "hey you don't get run over"
<click> = "hey you don't get run over"
<click> = "hey you don't get run over"

2:  This IMO is a big problem with C&C and there has been virtually no improvement on this since 
DUNE2, it would involve quite a lot of work for the game engine. 

Making guys actually move around defensively a fair bit while they were attacking 
eg: 
a: A tank moving parrellel to its target while bombarding it.
b: Infantry use duck and cover methods of attack(moving up from behind trees and wreckages)
c: Bikes race towards the base fire missiles, then do a spectacular slide/180 and race out of 
range and get ready for another attack.
d: HumVees Circle around stranded units, with their MG's bearing on them.

I WANT STUFF TO FEAR FOR ITS LIFE, The activity is actually shit-dull compared to what would be 
going on in real life, I mean 20 tanks don't just move up to 20 other tanks and sit there going 
<bang bang bang> shooting each other at point-blank range, their doing their best to stay alive 
and kill their enemys at the same time, in real life a tank can only take 1 maybe 2 hits from 
another tank.
This could make the whole thing more spectacular, counters towards this would be BIGGER GUNS =)

3:Also the random element would be good, say one shot one kill, with higher Res. The maps can be 
made larger and all units could have an increased range to compensate, so a tank could miss men 
virtually all the time, but if THEY DID HIT THEM <SPLAT>.

In article <317718...@arkon.co.nz>, Former Human Sargeant
<cr...@arkon.co.nz> wrote:
> Tony T wrote:
> > 
> > >So, what have we got now:
> > 
> > >31: Building a bit like in WC2. (the MCV thingy).
huh? we already HAVE a MCV thingy, and in Red Alert the buildings can be a
certain radius apart, depending on their type.

> > >32: Swimming units.

The rivers are meant to be obstacles. When desiging a game the object is not to
design a cool map engine with ridges and rivers, etc, and then design hundreds on
units to simply overcome those obstacles, and reduce the map to a flat concrete
surface with cool graphics painted on.

> > >33: The famous FOG OF WAR! It's the only thing that blows up the C&C
> > >    multiplayer games!

Why the F*** do we call this concept the "Fog of War". Its a bloody stupid term
for the simple concept that you can't see something unless you're looking at it.
Anyway, in the world of C&C there are precision orbital Ion cannons. In order to
hit a dude on the ground, it must be able to see him in the crosshairs - you cant
aim over 200km's blind, and hope to hit within a meter tolerance. Therefore, the
C&C map should _ALWAYS_ be totally visible, at least as soon as the comcenter is
build to download the satelite feeds.

> > >34: Weapon that temporary (say, 30 seconds in middle game speed) disables
> > >    all kinds of turrets and defence.

What do you want? sleeping gass? There is a turret. Inside is a man, and the
backend of a cannon. You drive past, and he fires the cannon. This is just plain
stupid.

> > >35: Tanks should be able to go over cyclone fences and sandbag barriers

They can (sometimes), anyway, its easier just to shoot the thing. Anyway, that
fence cost a lot to build. Now you want it to not actually protect my base - yeah
sure.
 
> > >36: Walls should be repaiable.
> > 
> > >37: Turrets should be able to take over/disable with engineers.

Here is a turret. It has a couple of soldiers in it. They are armed with guns.
Here is an engineer. He manages not to get gunned down by the turret. He opens
the door. He has no gun. *bang* *thud*

> > >38: Taking over a building should take some time (15 secs?).

why? what exactly is this gonna do for the game?
 
> > >39: Unit that could take over other units, like tanks and stuff.

Um, tanks have doors that the guy's inside keep shut (and locked :) 

> > >40: Warning message from units and flying units approaching the base.

There's a lot of stuff happening on the map. How is the computer supposed to
determine that that particular unit is "approaching" the base?
 
> > >41: All warning messages to text if sound is turned off!

Sound turned off? What, are you playing at work or something?
 
> > >42: BETTER HARVESTER AI!!!

heh, who can argue with this one :)
 
> > >43: Funny little animals wandering around like in WC2.

And if you click on them too much thay blow up?
 
> > >44: Bigger levels! Built-in level editor!

Its called Red Alert, and yes, its (possably) going to have a level editor.

> 46: More cool warning sounds eg. "Warning Warning... Harvesters are under
> attack", "Construction yard is taking heavy damage", "...!!@%%!#@%....HELP
> COMMANDER WE'RE GETTING SLAUGHTERED...BOOM..ARRRRRGGHHH...$#%#@%%%#..."

If you want witty speech, play wc2, or get Z when it comes out.

> 47: The ability to put security forces INSIDE your buildings, so he has to
> send in about an equal number of Foot Soldiers to beat them before sending in
> the engineer, he doesn't find out how many men in until he attacks, and if he
> fails and say 3 men remain it will not change till he attacks again( even if
> you have filled it up ), this would actually make the minigunners useful.

The buildings ALREADY have troops in them (as can be seen when you blow them up).
I have never quite grasped what the engineer does upon entering a building, to
instantly convert them to his cause.

> 48: Mingunners should = Light infantry.   Minigun My ASS those guy suck
> shit!!! They just have M-16's or something Go watch T2 or better yet PREDATOR
> and see what a real minigun does!
 
> 49: Minigunners, REAL Minigunners, MOW THE SHIT OUT OF EVERYTHING, VERY COOL
> ELECTRIC WHIRRING SOUND.

Are all you interested in, in adding more "Super Weapons" to the game. Too many
and the game becomes uncool very quickly.
 
> 50: OK how bout this, say you have 3 infantry PRESETs, you right click on the
> INF build box and you can equip them with various equipment, eg. M-16 And
> Grenade launcher(forget grenadiers) and claymores or Sniper rifles or
> flamethrowers or DISPOSABLE R.L.s or MINIGUNS or other cool 
> stuff... of course they could only carry say 2 items and they'd have varying
> costs, Same could be 
> done with tanks or anything, eg: a Cannon STANDARD, AA: RL check box, 20mm
> Anti-Infantry cannon check box.

If you want troops with a mix of skills, make a mix of troops. Same goes for the
tanks.
 
> 51: Machine guns of varying calibre have some anti-aircraft capabilities. One
> of THE MOST LETHAL close quarters Anti-Aircraft system is not the missile it is
> a high speed computer targeted Minigun standard on many modern warships.

Yes, and A10's don't usually drop napalm, etc, etc. You will notice that while
C&C is very cool, and uses many weapons you may have heard of before from real
life , C&C does not (and cannot) simulate reality. The choices of weapons carried
by the troops, and uses those weapons may be put to were made to enhance the
playability of a _GAME_.
 
> 52: PUT THE FUCKING AIRCRAFT ON THE RADAR!!!
Its not a real radar. Normal radar are not that good at picking up stuff on the
ground. How would this actually help anyway?


--
chr...@vironix.co.za         <http://www.vironix.co.za/chrisb> 
==============================================================
        "We have waited centuries for this moment.     
 The rivers will flow with the blood of those who oppose us."                   
                                                  
      Kane, suspected leader of the Brotherhood of Nod                  
==============================================================

In article <317714...@arkon.co.nz>, Former Human Sargeant
<cr...@arkon.co.nz> wrote:
> > >The requirement to have to resupply units outside your base.  Out of
> > >base units would have limited life and mobility without a supply line.
> > >Cut the supply line and you can trap and kill units with limitted
> > >battle necessary.
> Maybe, I'd say ammunition only, and only for <SUPER POWERFUL> units.

C&C (current version) is a limited scale engagement simulation. You are not
controlling the war, just overseeing a localized scirmish. In a full scale war
simulation you worry about getting ammo to the troops. In a small scale scenario
like C&C trying to simulate supply lines is a fallacy.
 
> > >Ability to break down construction yard to advance or retreat a base.
> Cool idea.

Its called an MCV. You build it, you drive it, you park it.
 
> 1: Make the men more intelligent, they are fucking idiots at the moment, do
> you honestly see future infantry wars being won by who has the most APCs the
> squish the most troops, squishing is stupid, they must be morons to get run
> over, in real life an APC is only about 3 metres across, could it really run
> over 5 trained men so easily? At least make them actively avoid squishing, at
> the moment men suck shit big time. They all die unless you click on each
> individual guy and go 
> <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
> <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
> <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
> <click> = "hey you don't get run over"

I belive if you tell the troops to guard, they will use the AI's avoid squish
routine. Anyway, C&C is a game about controll individual units. Like with point
2 below, implementation of these features, while they sound cool, leaves you,
the player with nothing to do during the battle, other than watch the troops
manuver themselves.
 
> 2:  This IMO is a big problem with C&C and there has been virtually no
> improvement on this since DUNE2, it would involve quite a lot of work for the
> game engine. 
 
> Making guys actually move around defensively a fair bit while they were
> attacking 
> eg: 
> a: A tank moving parrellel to its target while bombarding it.
They do this already if you know how.
> b: Infantry use duck and cover methods of attack(moving up from behind trees
> and wreckages)
> c: Bikes race towards the base fire missiles, then do a spectacular slide/180
> and race out of range and get ready for another attack.
Like bikes arn't powerfull enough in a group already.
> d: HumVees Circle around stranded units, with their MG's bearing on them.

Not to repeat myself, but when I play C&C I have a sense of controll, because I
controll the actions of my troops.  HAving the computer do all this stuff for me
means I have very little to do, other than figure out what I want to build next.

> I WANT STUFF TO FEAR FOR ITS LIFE, The activity is actually shit-dull compared
> to what would be going on in real life, I mean 20 tanks don't just move up to
> 20 other tanks and sit there going <bang bang bang> shooting each other at
> point-blank range, their doing their best to stay alive and kill their enemys
> at the same time, in real life a tank can only take 1 maybe 2 hits from
> another tank. This could make the whole thing more spectacular, counters
> towards this would be BIGGER GUNS =)

Oh great. You know how quickly a harvester would be taken out then. The gun's
are at the strength they are to keep the game balanced (ie playable). I _Dont_
need a stealth tank decloacking, firing 1 missile, and wassting my harvester. I
_dont_ need two light tanks destroying a Powerstation with each shot, because my
Mammoth tank is two sec's slow from rolling into range.

> 3:Also the random element would be good, say one shot one kill, with higher
> Res. The maps can be made larger and all units could have an increased range
> to compensate, so a tank could miss men virtually all the time, but if THEY
> DID HIT THEM <SPLAT>.

Its called "Red-Alert", the map is 2x as large in the X & Y directions. The idea
is not to scale the units up aswell, because then you get left where you started
at. Finally, if tanks became good at killing men, then men would have NO use in
the game at all.

Chris.

--
chr...@vironix.co.za         <http://www.vironix.co.za/chrisb> 
==============================================================
        "We have waited centuries for this moment.     
 The rivers will flow with the blood of those who oppose us."                   
                                                  
      Kane, suspected leader of the Brotherhood of Nod                  
==============================================================

Former Human Sargeant (cr...@arkon.co.nz) wrote:
: Aidan Pryde wrote:
: > 
: > In article <4ke0to$i...@elf.wang.com>, "Roger W. Lynn"
: > <Roger...@aol.com> writes
: > >a...@prism.netkonect.co.uk (The Prism) wrote:
: > >
: > >>I have thought of some personal updates for C&C 2. Why don't you mail
: > >>your views to me, all of you, and I will compose them all, send a form
: > >>to vote for the top 100 improvements, and then send them to Westwood.
: > >>This would let YOU help to develop C&C.
 
Just thought i'd add my own suggestion to improve C&C2
What P's me off when attacking using a group of tanks or whatever is that 
they get all strung out in a line and stop or start fartin around in 
general. What i'd like to see is that if you line up 4 tanks and tell them 
to attack something straight ahead, they kept there formation. This would 
be cool if you had a row of tanks followed by rocket tanks E.g. heavy 
armour is protescting weeker armour at back. Also the faster units not to 
fang round the outside and overtaake the slower units.
Another option might be the tactical retreat where units retreat while 
still being able to target specific units which are chasing your units. 
Then again who retreats in C&C all missions are suicide missions :)
Also somethin for a future game would be a cross between C&C and 
Civilisation. Where you produce units from a city or many cities and the 
battle is done C&C style without the building facilities. Therefore 
instead of 1 icon killing another icon as in CIV you have a proper battle 
Eg group ten megatanks and 10 whatevers with airsupport against a enemy 
group. Therefore as you progress in the game you still make use of your 
past units that have been produced and the teritorrity gained. Thats 
somethin that always bugged me in Dune2 and C&C, you've taken control of 
everythng on the map and your bosses give you shit to try and kill the 
badguy in the end when you have the whole planets resources in your hands. 
Of course as the game progress you also get new technology etc. 
So basically instead of having some dumb map which means squat between 
missions your in a permanent game to the death :).

Hammer

In article <4kts34$7...@steel.interlog.com>, bre...@gold.interlog.com 
says...
>><
>><How about different lighting/weather conditions. 
>><
>><Imagine a night battle where the light was so dim it is difficult 
<<<to see
>><enemy units, especially infantry.
>><
>><To counteract this, your guard towers, and units on guard would 
<<<have to be
><<>Of course, your base would be illuminated. However, if the enemy 
<<<destroys
><<some of your power stations, bzzt, lights out. Imagine trying to 
<<<defend 
><your base when you can't see that infiltrating engineer!
><
><Firefights at night would be kinda spectacular if they added 
tracers, 
><etc. 
><
><Weather effects could include snow, rain, and fog. These have 
<similar 
><effects on visibility. Imagine a battle at night in a snowstorm!
><
><Could be interesting.
><>
></bruce
><
><--
i have an idea too imagine u trying to attack the enemy harvester 
and she shout on u laser! the idea is thats u can change the arm 
of units to upgrade him!!!!

>Here is a turret. It has a couple of soldiers in it. They are armed with guns.
>Here is an engineer. He manages not to get gunned down by the turret. He opens
>the door. He has no gun. *bang* *thud*

What! You mean he cant whip his slide ruler at them and take em out?
;-)

Tony

********************************
"Never laugh at live dragons..."
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit
*********************************

> > > >Ability to break down construction yard to advance or retreat a base.
> > Cool idea.

> Its called an MCV. You build it, you drive it, you park it.

	Sort of.  I'd also like to see an option for packing up your MCV 
again and moving it to a new location.  (possibly for a price)

> > I WANT STUFF TO FEAR FOR ITS LIFE, The activity is actually shit-dull compared
> > to what would be going on in real life, I mean 20 tanks don't just move up to
> > 20 other tanks and sit there going <bang bang bang> shooting each other at
> > point-blank range, their doing their best to stay alive and kill their enemys
> > at the same time, in real life a tank can only take 1 maybe 2 hits from
> > another tank. This could make the whole thing more spectacular, counters
> > towards this would be BIGGER GUNS =)

> Oh great. You know how quickly a harvester would be taken out then. The gun's
> are at the strength they are to keep the game balanced (ie playable). I _Dont_
> need a stealth tank decloacking, firing 1 missile, and wassting my harvester. I
> _dont_ need two light tanks destroying a Powerstation with each shot, because my
> Mammoth tank is two sec's slow from rolling into range.

	Also, what's this crud about "real life".  Real wars ARE a lot of 
slow advances and retreats, with scattered fire, punctuated by actual 
combats on occasion.  It's called strategy.  Also, if you wanted 
realistic, 1 _grenade_, 1 _rocket_ could take out your tank, if it was a 
good shot- it happens in real life.  Also, buildings would last a whole 
lot longer.

chr...@vironix.co.za (Chris Becke) wrote:

>
>> a: A tank moving parrellel to its target while bombarding it.
>They do this already if you know how.

Care to elaborate? 
Or is this classified info?

Tony
********************************
"Never laugh at live dragons..."
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit
*********************************

In article <317714...@arkon.co.nz>, Former Human Sargeant
<cr...@arkon.co.nz> writes
>Aidan Pryde wrote:
>
>1: Make the men more intelligent, they are fucking idiots at the moment, do you 
>honestly see 
>future infantry wars being won by who has the most APCs the squish the most 
>troops, squishing is 
>stupid, they must be morons to get run over, in real life an APC is only about 3 
>metres across, 
>could it really run over 5 trained men so easily? At least make them actively 
>avoid squishing, at 
>the moment men suck shit big time. They all die unless you click on each 
>individual guy and go 
><click> = "hey you don't get run over"
><click> = "hey you don't get run over"
><click> = "hey you don't get run over"
><click> = "hey you don't get run over"

Hmm... I dunno, that'd make men a bit *too* good if you couldn't run
them over at all. Maybe make them have slower reactions so that they can
be run over if it's timed correctly.

>2:  This IMO is a big problem with C&C and there has been virtually no 
>improvement on this since 
>DUNE2, it would involve quite a lot of work for the game engine. 
>
>Making guys actually move around defensively a fair bit while they were 
>attacking 
>eg: 
>a: A tank moving parrellel to its target while bombarding it.
>b: Infantry use duck and cover methods of attack(moving up from behind trees and 
>wreckages)
>c: Bikes race towards the base fire missiles, then do a spectacular slide/180 
>and race out of 
>range and get ready for another attack.
>d: HumVees Circle around stranded units, with their MG's bearing on them.

Excellent! Agreed compeltely - build in some actual combat strategies
that you can select using keys or something (Just like Star Trek;
"Evasive pattern delta" (-: ). Different strategies suited for different
unit types. Would make a much more exciting game.

-- 
Yoav Zingher

In article <4laihr$n...@styx.uwa.edu.au>, Hamish Borthen
<hbor...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> writes
>Just thought i'd add my own suggestion to improve C&C2
>What P's me off when attacking using a group of tanks or whatever is that 
>they get all strung out in a line and stop or start fartin around in 
>general. What i'd like to see is that if you line up 4 tanks and tell them 
>to attack something straight ahead, they kept there formation. This would 
>be cool if you had a row of tanks followed by rocket tanks E.g. heavy 
>armour is protescting weeker armour at back. Also the faster units not to 
>fang round the outside and overtaake the slower units.

 Good news then. In Red Alert you will be able to make groups and
frmations. Groups go to wherever you tell them to go like C&C.
Formations will move at the same speed and stay in formation, except
when crossing bridges and stuff. The obvious disadvantage is say in C&C
you have Mammoths, APC's and Humvees and they attack in formation then
the APC's and the Humvees will move at the same speed as the Mamoth. It
wouldn't be much of a lightning fast strike. 
David
 

In article <4l822p$i...@hermes.is.co.za>, Chris Becke
<chr...@vironix.co.za> writes
> They all die unless you click on each
>> individual guy and go 
>> <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
>> <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
>> <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
>> <click> = "hey you don't get run over"

Highlight the group, then when your going toget quashed press x, your
units will all scramble in different directions.
-- 
David

But you still lose most of them even if you use x. I would like to see
x = runs away from the tank

David <Da...@Demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <4l822p$i...@hermes.is.co.za>, Chris Becke
><chr...@vironix.co.za> writes
>> They all die unless you click on each
>>> individual guy and go 
>>> <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
>>> <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
>>> <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
>>> <click> = "hey you don't get run over"

>Highlight the group, then when your going toget quashed press x, your
>units will all scramble in different directions.
>-- 
>David

Former Human Sargeant <cr...@arkon.co.nz> wrote:

>48: Mingunners should = Light infantry.   Minigun My ASS those guy suck shit!!! They just have 
>M-16's or something Go watch T2 or better yet PREDATOR and see what a real minigun does!


>51: Machine guns of varying calibre have some anti-aircraft capabilities. One of THE MOST LETHAL 
>close quarters Anti-Aircraft system is not the missile it is a high speed computer targeted 
>Minigun standard on many modern warships.

Miniguns on WARSHIPS? You mean Phalanx guns? Nothing very mini about
them (they fire what? 20mm shells? Something like that?)... nor is
there anything very mini about a real mini gun, either. In T2 it was a
superhuman robot and in Predator, it was Arnold the Barbarian... in
Real Life (tm) the mini guns that are mounted on choppers weigh like
300 pounds. So do mini gunners come trained in 5 seconds with cybentic
limbs and spinal cord to hold those guns? Or  is the name and weapon
simply a conciet that we should understand to mean 'nasty light
machine gun' as 'man portable' it aint and it certinaly doesn't refer
to the mini guns of the 80's and 90's.

The only mini gun-like-gun that I know of that' man portable is the
one featured in DooM... but you know about that one right?

>52: PUT THE FUCKING AIRCRAFT ON THE RADAR!!!

And on that we can agree on... I would go a step further though and
require a second kind of radar base to see air targets (to see ground
forces, you have satellite transmissions... to see planes, you should
be able to get a radar system up and running).

Clay-



_________________________________________________________________________
-Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistibuting this work in any form,
in whole or in part. Copyright, Clayton A. Cahill, 1996
-License to distribute this post is available for $1,000. Posting
without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.
-Please send notices of violation to postm...@microsoft.com

In article <3180be83...@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>, Clay Cahill
<Cha...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>Former Human Sargeant <cr...@arkon.co.nz> wrote:
>
>... nor is
>there anything very mini about a real mini gun, either. In T2 it was a
>superhuman robot and in Predator, it was Arnold the Barbarian... in
>Real Life (tm) the mini guns that are mounted on choppers weigh like
>300 pounds. So do mini gunners come trained in 5 seconds with cybentic
>limbs and spinal cord to hold those guns? Or  is the name and weapon
>simply a conciet that we should understand to mean 'nasty light
>machine gun' as 'man portable' it aint and it certinaly doesn't refer
>to the mini guns of the 80's and 90's.
>

Actually it was the cowboy type person who owned the Mini-gun in
Predator, and he was not superman!  And even if he was, the other guy
who used it was not superman either - so mini-gunners should just be
quite strong.  The mini-gun that is mounted on choppers etc are
probbably Vulcan Cannons which ARE VERY HEAVY!!
-- 
David Mackintosh
Clwyd, Wales

David Mackintosh <da...@ndmack.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <3180be83...@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>, Clay Cahill
><Cha...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>>Former Human Sargeant <cr...@arkon.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>... nor is
>>there anything very mini about a real mini gun, either. In T2 it was a
>>superhuman robot and in Predator, it was Arnold the Barbarian... in
>>Real Life (tm) the mini guns that are mounted on choppers weigh like
>>300 pounds. So do mini gunners come trained in 5 seconds with cybentic
>>limbs and spinal cord to hold those guns? Or  is the name and weapon
>>simply a conciet that we should understand to mean 'nasty light
>>machine gun' as 'man portable' it aint and it certinaly doesn't refer
>>to the mini guns of the 80's and 90's.
>>

>Actually it was the cowboy type person who owned the Mini-gun in
>Predator, and he was not superman!  And even if he was, the other guy
>who used it was not superman either - so mini-gunners should just be
>quite strong.  The mini-gun that is mounted on choppers etc are
>probbably Vulcan Cannons which ARE VERY HEAVY!!

No, Clay was right.  The minigun used in Predator, T2, etc, is a 7.62
minigun that is mounted on helicopters such as the OH-58 Kiowa and the
infamous LOACH.  These are light observation helicopters that can't
afford the huge weight of a 30mm gun or the massive Vulcan cannons.
(Although I guess you COULD call these a Vulcan, they are much smaller
than the REAL Vulcan.)  I don't know how much they weigh, but having
carried belts of 7.62 ammo for the M-60, I know you would NEVER be
able to carry the weapon and enough ammo to make it worthwhile for any
distance of importance.  The way that thing was humped around in
Predator was totally farcical.  But it was still cool.  =)

Someone wrote:
> 1: Make the men more intelligent, they are fucking idiots at the moment, do you honestly see future infantry wars being won by who has the 
most APCs the squish the most troops, squishing is stupid, they must be 
morons to get run over, in real life an APC is only about 3 metres 
across, could it really run over 5 trained men so easily? At least make 
them actively avoid squishing, at the moment men suck shit big time. They 
all die unless you click on each individual guy and go
> > <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
> > <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
> > <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
> > <click> = "hey you don't get run over"

So do you think C&C men are stupid, ah? I should check the Warcraft 2 
ones, 'cause they don't avoid obstacles and when I say them to go to an 
area, the GO to that area, even if there are enemies attacking them. C&C 
are more smart, if the know they're are being attacked, they reply.

FireBlast <pti...@ibm.net> wrote:

>Someone wrote:
>> 1: Make the men more intelligent, they are fucking idiots at the moment, do you honestly see future infantry wars being won by who has the 
>most APCs the squish the most troops, squishing is stupid, they must be 
>morons to get run over, in real life an APC is only about 3 metres 
>across, could it really run over 5 trained men so easily? At least make 
>them actively avoid squishing, at the moment men suck shit big time. They 
>all die unless you click on each individual guy and go
>> > <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
>> > <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
>> > <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
>> > <click> = "hey you don't get run over"

It isn't that they are STUPID, they're just following orders. Granted,
it's at the expense of LIVING, but hey, they're fanatics, I guess. ;)

The WORST thing about infantry is the result of standing IN THE LINE
OF FIRE of a flamethrower as s/he flambe's a target. <Shrugs> Tiberium
sure must sap the will to live. ;)

>So do you think C&C men are stupid, ah? I should check the Warcraft 2 
>ones, 'cause they don't avoid obstacles and when I say them to go to an 
>area, the GO to that area, even if there are enemies attacking them. C&C 
>are more smart, if the know they're are being attacked, they reply.

WarCraft II, though glitzy, isn't as good as C&C overall. However, I
think their AI is a bit better -- the units actually FIGHT and RUN
when they encounter someone and the peons/peasants actually RUN
somewhere when attacked. ;)

Matt V. wrote:
> 
> David Mackintosh <da...@ndmack.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >In article <3180be83...@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>, Clay Cahill
> ><Cha...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >>Former Human Sargeant <cr...@arkon.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >>... nor is
> >>there anything very mini about a real mini gun, either. In T2 it was a
> >>superhuman robot and in Predator, it was Arnold the Barbarian... in
> >>Real Life (tm) the mini guns that are mounted on choppers weigh like
> >>300 pounds. So do mini gunners come trained in 5 seconds with cybentic
> >>limbs and spinal cord to hold those guns? Or  is the name and weapon
> >>simply a conciet that we should understand to mean 'nasty light
> >>machine gun' as 'man portable' it aint and it certinaly doesn't refer
> >>to the mini guns of the 80's and 90's.
> >>
> 
> >Actually it was the cowboy type person who owned the Mini-gun in
> >Predator, and he was not superman!  And even if he was, the other guy
> >who used it was not superman either - so mini-gunners should just be
> >quite strong.  The mini-gun that is mounted on choppers etc are
> >probbably Vulcan Cannons which ARE VERY HEAVY!!
> 
> No, Clay was right.  The minigun used in Predator, T2, etc, is a 7.62
> minigun that is mounted on helicopters such as the OH-58 Kiowa and the
> infamous LOACH.  These are light observation helicopters that can't
> afford the huge weight of a 30mm gun or the massive Vulcan cannons.
> (Although I guess you COULD call these a Vulcan, they are much smaller
> than the REAL Vulcan.)  I don't know how much they weigh, but having
> carried belts of 7.62 ammo for the M-60, I know you would NEVER be
> able to carry the weapon and enough ammo to make it worthwhile for any
> distance of importance.  The way that thing was humped around in
> Predator was totally farcical.  But it was still cool.  =)



WHEN THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO UNDERSTAND IT IS A FU#$@N 
GAME??!?!

I come on this newsgroup for info about Red Alert or some current C&C 
strategys and all i hear is people arguing about how real the game is?
By the way if you are basing your facts on movies you need to get out 
more often. With regards to the Vulcan cannon; vulcan cannons are 6 
barreled 20mm electric cannons, they are on aircraft such as the F-15s, 
F-16s, F-14s and F-18s. Also please remember that this game is supposed 
to be in the near FUTURE, if you are that worried about reality. The 
M-60 weighs 26 pounds empty, but a few years ago the US army released 
the SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) and it only weighs about 15 pounds 
loaded, and is a 5.56mm weapon. So if you want to be ridiculous, you 
could alway argue that technology decreased the weight of the minigun 
enough so that it was as standard as the M-16s of today! Please start 
posting some worthwhile things here now!

PITS

Here are some my ideas for C&C2:

1) Make the infantry a bit smarter..They shouldn't stand there stupidly 
as a medium tank runs them over. I can understand getting flattened by a 
stealth tank, but..Also, APC's shouldn't flatten people..

2) Make the HARVESTERS the least bit smart..They're like dogs..Turn 
around 3 times..enter the Tiberium refinery..

3) GDI should get something that let's them call in airstrikes.

4) Put in the Hospitals. I really do hate how they took them out after 
the beta.

Orpheus
-- 
////////////////////////////////?!Warning!?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
                 This message has left a mail bomb on your computer.
                 If your computer goes over 50MHz, the bomb is armed.
                 If it goes under 50MHz, or you upload any files off 
                 your computer, it will explode. It's a virus, Jack.
                 It lives to explode.
///////////////////////////////?!SPEED 95!?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

BlackFire wrote:
> 
> FireBlast <pti...@ibm.net> wrote:
> 
> >Someone wrote:
> >> 1: Make the men more intelligent, they are fucking idiots at the moment, do you honestly see future infantry wars being won by who has the
> >most APCs the squish the most troops, squishing is stupid, they must be
> >morons to get run over, in real life an APC is only about 3 metres
> >across, could it really run over 5 trained men so easily? At least make
> >them actively avoid squishing, at the moment men suck shit big time. They
> >all die unless you click on each individual guy and go
> >> > <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
> >> > <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
> >> > <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
> >> > <click> = "hey you don't get run over"
> 
> It isn't that they are STUPID, they're just following orders. Granted,
> it's at the expense of LIVING, but hey, they're fanatics, I guess. ;)
> 
> The WORST thing about infantry is the result of standing IN THE LINE
> OF FIRE of a flamethrower as s/he flambe's a target. <Shrugs> Tiberium
> sure must sap the will to live. ;)
> 
> >So do you think C&C men are stupid, ah? I should check the Warcraft 2
> >ones, 'cause they don't avoid obstacles and when I say them to go to an
> >area, the GO to that area, even if there are enemies attacking them. C&C
> >are more smart, if the know they're are being attacked, they reply.
> 
> WarCraft II, though glitzy, isn't as good as C&C overall. However, I
> think their AI is a bit better -- the units actually FIGHT and RUN
> when they encounter someone and the peons/peasants actually RUN
> somewhere when attacked. ;)


What????? Warcraft 2 AI is bestter than C&C? What are you, blind??
Have you ACTUALLY played war2????
You see, when I tell a unit to go to the other side of a lake/river, he just go to the margin and stops there. 
I have MANUALLY direct him to the other side. It's damn stupid. Another stupid thing is when I say them to go 
to an area, the GO to that area, even if there are enemies attacking them. It's too damn stupid!!!

In article <4m86oe$9...@news10.erols.com>,
   Orpheus <far...@mail.erols.com> wrote:
>2) Make the HARVESTERS the least bit smart..They're like dogs..Turn 
>around 3 times..enter the Tiberium refinery..

I especially love it when the harvesters just up and stop.  By the time you 
see them slacking off, you may have missed an entire payload.

I am not sure how many people here have played the game Modem Wars.  It's 
about 8-10 years old, but there were MANY features of the game that, still to 
this day, have not been bettered.

1.  C&C sighting is absurd.  Just because a unit has traversed an area 
shouldn't mean that you can see what happens in that area for the rest of the 
game.  In Modem Wars, you could see areas where your pieces could see *at that 
moment*.  I find it frustrating that my usual C&C opponent often takes a quick 
trip through my base before I have a defense up and can then see my base for 
the duration of the game.

2.  Modem Wars also offered game films.  This is great fun.  A post-game 
cigarette if you will.  Both you can your opponent could watch a game film 
with the entire map exposed, or see what you or your opponent saw during the 
game.  Great tool for analyzing and refining strategies.  You could also save 
the game films to relive glorious victories time and time again.

3.  In Modem Wars you could also define group formations.  In C&C a group is, 
more or less, a blob of pieces.

Don't get me wrong, I love to play C&C.  It's graphics and sounds are head and 
shoulders better than Modem Wars, not to mention there is a lot more variety 
to C&C.  However, there definitely is room for improvement in C&C.

Brian Stricherz

: Miniguns on WARSHIPS? You mean Phalanx guns? Nothing very mini about
: them (they fire what? 20mm shells? Something like that?)... nor is
: there anything very mini about a real mini gun, either. In T2 it was a
: superhuman robot and in Predator, it was Arnold the Barbarian... in
: Real Life (tm) the mini guns that are mounted on choppers weigh like
: 300 pounds. So do mini gunners come trained in 5 seconds with cybentic
: limbs and spinal cord to hold those guns? Or  is the name and weapon
: simply a conciet that we should understand to mean 'nasty light
: machine gun' as 'man portable' it aint and it certinaly doesn't refer
: to the mini guns of the 80's and 90's.

Actually, the miniguns in question could concievable be the XM-214, a 
5.56 mm version of the 20mm Vulcan cannon used in the phalanx system.
The XM-214 weighs about 30 pounds, needs a battery pack for loading 
purposes, and then ammunition. 

I think that the AI in both is aabout equivelent.  In WC2, they are 
smart, about atacking back, and running away from danger.  In C&C they  
are smart about moving around object, but Dome as shit about  being 
under atack, and  getting to the place where you want to.  I.E. tell a 
steath tank to infaltrate a ase, and as sure as the sun shines it will 
start to fire at the enemy beofre you can see their whole base.  I.E. 
(II) they like to stop, and sit their loging like dumb asses while under 
fire, and they don't like to figh back. ( mabey they are actively 
protesting this war?)

In WC2 Theyre so damn slow, about mocing around things.  These gus don't 
seem to realize distance.  if you can go a round one farm to get to 
where your going, you don't need to walk around your entire base to get 
any where.  

> > >So do you think C&C men are stupid, ah? I should check the Warcraft 2
> > >ones, 'cause they don't avoid obstacles and when I say them to go to an
> > >area, the GO to that area, even if there are enemies attacking them. C&C
> > >are more smart, if the know they're are being attacked, they reply.
> >
> > WarCraft II, though glitzy, isn't as good as C&C overall. However, I
> > think their AI is a bit better -- the units actually FIGHT and RUN
> > when they encounter someone and the peons/peasants actually RUN
> > somewhere when attacked. ;)
> 
> What????? Warcraft 2 AI is bestter than C&C? What are you, blind??
> Have you ACTUALLY played war2????
> You see, when I tell a unit to go to the other side of a lake/river, he just go to the margin and stops there.
> I have MANUALLY direct him to the other side. It's damn stupid. Another stupid thing is when I say them to go
> to an area, the GO to that area, even if there are enemies attacking them. It's too damn stupid!!!

Aaron Block <abl...@onramp.net> wrote:

<Snip>
>under atack, and  getting to the place where you want to.  I.E. tell a 
>steath tank to infaltrate a ase, and as sure as the sun shines it will 
>start to fire at the enemy beofre you can see their whole base.  I.E. 
<Snip>

Try "force move". Alt+move. They will not stop then!

I really hate the AI for the harvesters though. I mean, what are those
guys thinking with? "Heh let's like take a short cut through the enemy
base." Really fuckin' clever strategy.

Perhaps make them follow a certain route?

There should also be an option so you could use the chopters for
guarding. (Ie they fly around in the air, engaging enemies as they
approach.)

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of
people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
     - from: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

Marcus Hast   marcu...@mailbox.swipnet.se
Living long, and prosperous...