Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3

[Darth Wong]

The problem with this game is not the silliness; it's the poor game engine. It's funny that you mention RA1; in terms of the behaviour of the units, it might as well be RA1. When you hear that you're being attacked, jump over to the scene of the battle, and find that your uinits are sitting there passively taking fire from someone who seems to be only a stone's throw away, that's frustrating. When you order air units to bomb a target and then they sit there afterwards, flying around in circles while being shot at because the AI is utterly brain-damaged, that's frustrating. I shouldn't have to micromanage all of that.

[Covenant]

The problem with this game is not the silliness; it's the poor game engine. It's funny that you mention RA1; in terms of the behaviour of the units, it might as well be RA1. When you hear that you're being attacked, jump over to the scene of the battle, and find that your uinits are sitting there passively taking fire from someone who seems to be only a stone's throw away, that's frustrating. When you order air units to bomb a target and then they sit there afterwards, flying around in circles while being shot at because the AI is utterly brain-damaged, that's frustrating. I shouldn't have to micromanage all of that.

This is incredibly frustrating for me too, as I dearly want to use bombers in a close air support fashion, but once the target of the bombing dies, the unit just sits around so long as it has bombs remaining. Since you expect them to bomb and fly off, and because the camera is so cramped you often can't tell, and since instead of little Wing icons they're just blocks on your radar like everything else, you can't tell they're flying in circles. Even if you could, you shouldn't have to.

Also, unless the target dies, units will forget the order of their orders... and do really stupid things. Like, I gave my bombers a specific set of move orders with the waypoint mode to fly them down a corridor I'd cleared of the enemy, so they could strike the Iron Curtain generators that the stupid computer had set up to guard the last mission's base. Well, they made a pass at it, but failed to kill it because they came at it at an angle where the idiot carpetbombs didn't connect enough. So instead of turning around and heading back the same way I told them to come, their waypoints broke and they flew home through the Land of Flak, dying in hilarious fashion.

[Shinova]

Which game do you guys think has the better gameplay so far, this one or CnC 3?

[Covenant]

Which game do you guys think has the better gameplay so far, this one or CnC 3?

Hmm. Well, that's an interesting question. This will look like a long read, but I promise you it'll only be like 2 minutes.

Both of them have balance issues, and their Unit design is braindead on both games. But much to my chagrin, I'd probably say CnC3 before the expansion has better gameplay, but RA3 will have a longer lifespan and is more fun. I find CnC's gameplay to be more satisfying, given that the few units you should actually bother to use are relatively well balanced and you get a variety of fun special powers to use, you get a bunch of possible upgrade powers, and the fights tend to be bigger and last longer, making combined-arms warfare more important to do. However, one of my biggest combination gripes is the lack of strategic map control, which includes a few features that encourage people to fight their battles outside bases and away from your buildings. This is when you actually get strategy coming into the real time strategy game.

I really liked all the "Generals Powers" you had to use, I call them clickies, the special powers from the power tabs to summon guys or call down strikes, or whatnot. Especially fun was the infantry self-transport power which let you charge a little cash to call down a one-way transport ship to a location elsewhere. This kept units really mobile without all the amphibious units, and added a layer of strategic depth to it. Summonable strikes in RA3 are occasionally quite good, but you don't get many and you don't get them often, so it's more like a second nuke than just a strike... not really good. We don't need MORE game-enders. We need more game. Aside from the huge superweapons, most of the clickies in CnC3 were nonlethal to a base, so it could either be harassment or used against an army, and that made it a bit of cleverness in how you deploy your powers.

The game also had a greater deal of strategic necessity in it via the Tiberium fields, which forced you to do area control on more than just a small resource truck. This was annoying due to the slowness and randomness of the harvesting operation, but it also encouraged people to expand and defend at once, and into areas outside their base. Not so much in RA3, even if there are some base expansion areas. CnC also had easier access to base expansion units, so it was less painful to expand. Combine that with the good base defenses I mentioned earlier and you have an interesting strategic land-control battle, and that's good for gameplay. Combine those BOTH with clickies that you can drop/summon anywhere and you make the entire field in-play at any time, and that's kinda fun. CoH has that too, and better for many of it's factions, but it's something I miss in RA3. Where's my Off-the-Map Chrono Team Deployment? I know I get the 'time bomb' but that's just a strike, like the balloon bombs. In RA3 all sides get a tactical unit-killing power, a nonlethal harassment power, and a strategic area assault power. CnC was more varied by far. I loved using the Scrin Wormhole for all sorts of operations, and the badguys could even repel your attack and drive through it right into your base. That's pretty cool.

Red Alert 3's clickies are really unimpressive graphically, not too variable in purpose, and often too strong in a stupid brute-force way. I think a lot of the fun comes from the wargame immersion factor, and the effects in RA3 are really terrible, even if I do like the art. It kinda reminds me of Team Fortress 2, and I'd be interested in seeing a TF2 artstyle RTS. But they're even strategically stupid, since there's so little you can do with them. Notable exception is the Chronosphere, which I still love. Notable Ultimate Failure power is the fucking space magnet, which is the lol you lose button for raiding harvesters, with the extra insult of dropping them back down on the enemy with the satlauncher.

Finally, RA3 gameplay is very quick. This is good, and bad. It's good that we skip the bullshit, but we could in CnC3 as well. However, this is bad because sometimes it's just wrong wrong wrong. The Japanese getting hit by aircraft bombers before they even have infantry deployed? That sucks. Add in that they have no anti-air early infantry, and you have some real problems. Games can take a very quick path to failure, giving you Starcraft-style "I've lost, and playing for another 8 minutes would just make it take too long, so I'm going to quit" sour grapes gameplay. Unless you get off that good start, it's over. The game is very much emphasizing advancement and rushing to higher tier units to get some of the game-breaking guys, which means you spend most of your time managing econ and doing tight build orders to get your necessary units out in time. There's very little raiding ability due to the poorness of early infantry overall and the significant improvement that adding some vehicles is. The most fun time is that early on period when you're combining Soviet Sickles with Flak Troopers and a few bears and making a cheap, low mobility mob of guys that feels very retro and requires smarts to use right. It's lots of fun. And the window of viability is like 10 seconds, because then someone will have already gotten something able to smash that to bits. The Rock Paper Scissors element of play also means that it behooves you to make the most of the one thing your enemy can't handle well (versus Japan, that'd be Flak) and stop him from ever reaching the tech level where he can make Rock.

But why then do I say RA3 is maybe more fun? CnC, despite having superior gameplay, was very boring in addition to being not very good. It could have been excellent, and it just wasn't, it was mediocre. But it went from mediocre to awful when you figured out the game's gaping unit imbalances and just spammed those to death. RA3 is not dissimilair from what you've heard me say, but all the units have powers, so at least it's somewhat more enjoyable stupid spam, and the units are colorful and have a lot more personality. It's also so wacky that I'm not sure anyone is going to be able to play it properly for quite some time, since so many stupid things happen, and it's so hard to control what's going on, let alone actually view the map and such. Eventually they'll patch it into boring stupidity, but right now it's terrible and wrong and somewhat fun while also being entirely frustrating. If you can borrow a copy, it's good for an afternoon, but it's one of those things you probably wouldn't want to buy and actually try to learn how to play properly. That way lies madness.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

And after all this, I'm still in charge of every other function of my base and troop movements. You basically have no time for anything, and this necessitates the game be simplistic. So in order to accomidate the stupidity of micromanagement, we need to dumb down the game. Great trade!

The "pro" players moan non-stop that, compared to C&C3, Red Alert 3 plays "at a snails pace" and the micro has been too "dumbed down". Seriously - there have been huge petition threads that the speed of the game needs to be "doubled" for it to be playable.

Which game do you guys think has the better gameplay so far, this one or CnC 3?

I personally find RA3 vastly easier to play "competitively" than C&C3 -the pace of the game is slower and there is markedly less economy management and base management which allows you to spend much more time commanding your forces. In my experience the vast majority of C&C3 matches just boiled down to "Grab Tiberian fields, super charge economy with multiple refineries per field, build 30 of unit X, win" - even the "exciting" replays they show on the official C&C video webcasts all look like this. However in RA3 I have experienced a use of much more varied tactics due to the inability of either player to "boom" their economy early (because the rate at which you can harvest ore is strictly limited) overwhelming the enemy with numbers and the whole naval aspect to gameplay plus the more fully developed aircraft add many new options. On certain maps, for example, it is a viable (though risky) strategy to build up your starting base, then just pack up your MCV and move it off to the water - and continue to fight the whole game from there with naval and air units.

To be clear: I am still having lots of fun with this RA3 despite the piles of other great new games on my desk, and I would recommend it to anyone who has had enjoyed a previous C&C game. Some of the flaws being discussed here are definitely valid criticisms, but they have all basically existed (often much more severely) in past C&C games. I have to say though, that I have not started playing it competitively online since the beta (which I did play online heavily) and I'm not sure I ever will - the vast majority of the the fun I derive from RTS games is the singleplayer campaign initially, followed by playing against the AI with friends - and of course in RA3 you can now also play the campaign with friends.

[Covenant]

And after all this, I'm still in charge of every other function of my base and troop movements. You basically have no time for anything, and this necessitates the game be simplistic. So in order to accomidate the stupidity of micromanagement, we need to dumb down the game. Great trade!

The "pro" players moan non-stop that, compared to C&C3, Red Alert 3 plays "at a snails pace" and the micro has been too "dumbed down". Seriously - there have been huge petition threads that the speed of the game needs to be "doubled" for it to be playable.

man wat

I don't even understand how that makes any sense. Do they mean the tech-up speed or the combat speed? How can they even justify this position? Anyone who tells me the micro in this game has been dumbed down, with the amount of manually selected special powers, is going to be forced to eat bricks. What more could they possibly want to micro? I assume they're talking about the economy, yes? It's true that they dumbed down the economy, to the point that having any economy structures AT ALL is a bit vestigal, but there always was a most efficent setup. All they've done is remove like two seconds of work. Create refinery, click the make extra truck button when I made a factory, done. This is hardcore?

Aside from a slow econ, which only slows the game down a bit, nothing about the game is slow. Apoc tanks die in an alpha strike from my mirages, or spontaneously explode from my bombers. Fighters tear though things in 2 seconds. Hundreds of infantry die the moment a sickle is produced, and a thousand kittens are strangled by Jesus whenever the third minute of gameplay rolls by and some strategic bombers show up in your base. Or battleships! The econ is slow, but it's equal. You can't really push the rate of harvesting, but nobody can, so it's not like anyone is worse off. It just means you can't spam your top-tier unit, which is pretty reasonable, I'd say. Making 3 factories to pump out apocolypse tanks is dumb. I applaud a slightly tighter econ, even if it hurts me inside, because it is some SMALL way of encouraging people to use mid-range mixed forces rather than just the top-level units in massive swarms.

[Chris OFarrell]

The problem with this game is not the silliness; it's the poor game engine.

Fundamentally yes, but I've had poorly done games in the past hold my attention because I found the universe or story or SOMETHING to be engrossing to me. The combination of horrible graphics compared to other games, lack of strategic depth, uber cheese and design just makes it impossible for me.

Of course, the opposite is far more true, a lot of games -like supreme commander- have a rather basic storyline, but the gameplay itself is so great that I don't give a hoot.

It's funny that you mention RA1; in terms of the behaviour of the units, it might as well be RA1. When you hear that you're being attacked, jump over to the scene of the battle, and find that your uinits are sitting there passively taking fire from someone who seems to be only a stone's throw away, that's frustrating. When you order air units to bomb a target and then they sit there afterwards, flying around in circles while being shot at because the AI is utterly brain-damaged, that's frustrating. I shouldn't have to micromanage all of that.

Tell me about it. I just tried to give the game another go and almost kicked the computer out of sheer frustration at having to click at speeds beyond even Starcraft to MICROMANNAGE EVERY SINGLE BLOODY UNIT IN EVERY SINGLE PLACE AT THE SAME TIME to do BASIC stuff, let alone be EFFECTIVE. No I can't group a unit of naval warships together and leave them there with the hope they'll be able to, within reason, look after themselves. No I have to rapidly use special abilities in very specific sequecnces to make them even partially effective. Meanwhile, my base I thought heavily defended is being smashed by a couple of small units just outside of defenseive range because my guard units are busy doing SFA....

In hindsight I think you're right, the basic game engine has NOT changed since RA1, which was just an upgraded version of the C&C 1 engine...

[K. A. Pital]

The graphic engine sucks donkey balls, as does game management. I have by now played a little for all three factions and seriously, WTF? This game looks, feels and operates - from unit command to AI - like a 1999 RTS, not a 2008 RTS...

Only playable for the fun factor.

[Covenant]

The graphic engine sucks donkey balls, as does game management. I have by now played a little for all three factions and seriously, WTF? This game looks, feels and operates - from unit command to AI - like a 1999 RTS, not a 2008 RTS...

Only playable for the fun factor.

That was most likely partially their intent, as the Micromanagement Cult really pushes for that kind of gameplay. I don't mind it overall, but I'm not a fan of R.P.S. gameplay mechanics. I can see some of the things they were going for--slow trickle econ forces you to get out of your base to expand... all the wacky powers and unbalanced, braindead units allows you to come back from a crushing defeat with a handful of "hard counters." I get it. But I think that's shitty. I like soft counters and non-expansion expansion. I'm less of a fan of base creep than I am of tactical deployment. For this reason alone I am huge fans of the Japanese, since I can send a mine, without needing to send a whole expansion base, to start up a distant resourcing operation.

However, it's still a pain. Harvesters and refineries are so easy to smash dead with some bombers that it's almost not worth the aggrivation, ya' know? I like epic and fun--I want to not be concerned with econ so long as I am winning the fight. Econ should be easy to queue up and get back to battle. If I have to spend 30 seconds placing an outpost... building the refinery... setting up a defense wall, putting down a single air-defense turret.... and so forth, I've wasted a lot of time, and that sucks. I can handle micro, but I want my attention on the combat, not the stupid econ.

[starfury]

Tell me about it. I just tried to give the game another go and almost kicked the computer out of sheer frustration at having to click at speeds beyond even Starcraft to MICROMANNAGE EVERY SINGLE BLOODY UNIT IN EVERY SINGLE PLACE AT THE SAME TIME to do BASIC stuff, let alone be EFFECTIVE. No I can't group a unit of naval warships together and leave them there with the hope they'll be able to, within reason, look after themselves. No I have to rapidly use special abilities in very specific sequecnces to make them even partially effective. Meanwhile, my base I thought heavily defended is being smashed by a couple of small units just outside of defenseive range because my guard units are busy doing SFA....

In hindsight I think you're right, the basic game engine has NOT changed since RA1, which was just an upgraded version of the C&C 1 engine...

It will be Freaking Ironic when Starcraft 2 comes and is critized for being having too little micro compared to Red Alert 3, when the original Red Alert at least had the fun Tank rush versus the relatively micro heavy starcraft, which only allowed the Zerg to easily rush.

[open_sketchbook]

I can't understand people whining about the graphics. Personally, I really like the slightly vague appearance everything has, how none of the infantry have faces and the vehicles aren't quite to scale. As much as I love, say, World in Conflict or Company of Heroes, I don't think you need to see each of your conscript's shocked faces as Tanya guns them down; I think the detail level is just right. Things are recognizable and clear, each unit can be instantly picked out from one another, and my screen (and tactical ability) is never obscured by huge explosions of dust and dirt every time somebody fires an artillery piece. It looks like RA2 in 3d, which in my opinion is just great.

As for the silly nature of it, well, maybe I just have a high threshold for suspension of disbelief, because I didn't really find anything game-breaking for me. Personally, I really find the idea fantastic, so instead of everyone having a tank, a jeep, an artillery piece, etc, there is a ton a freedom to give each side insane and unique units fitting this characture of their historical counterpart, be it Japanese mecha, American retro-futuristic Cyro Copters or Soviet armoured bears. It also lets them do things that, while it doesn't make realistic sense, are simply freaking awesome, like the man cannon on the Bullfrog, personally one of my favorite units that I've gotten a lot of use out of. One of the problems I've had with recent realistic games is that tactics are a lot more mundane; you don't get to use tunnel APCs to drop cyborg commandos inside bases anymore. RA3 grants a very diverse set of tactical options to the player, expecially when mixed with strategic assets and superweapons. A recent game I played with the Empire involved driving a big group of King Oni and Striker VX up to the enemy base, then putting the superweapon shield around them at the last minute, and rushing in with Tengu, Sudden filled with Shinobi, and Tsunami on the other side of his base. He had to pull his units over to that side and beat my small distraction force, knowing that they'd wreck havoc otherwise, but also knowing I could leap out and attack with my Oni at any time after he left. Despite him having a bigger defense force then my offensive forces combined, I was able to strike his weakened defensive force with a fresh one that basically started their attack inside the enemy base. He ended up splinting his forces to keep his eye on the Oni, and I beat him piecemeal. Afterwards, I was struck at how cool that was, how I was able to use a superweapon to buy time and split the enemy force, and I remembered why I liked RTSs again.

As for the Micro, I don't mind it, because I rarely find myself running, you know, more than ten separate groups of units. Group what you use, and press F. Bingo, micro solved. If you're having trouble with your guys not attacking enemy's near them, just set them to aggressive stance.

[Nephtys]

Know what's absolutely miserable? That C&C Generals: Shockwave, a fan-made mod that has 15 subfactions... is a better game than this. It has greater depths of strategy, unit diversity, differing styles of play between factions, and most important of all... balance.

It's just a better designed game. And that alone blows my mind. I mean, the units respond intelligently, there's less useless garbage, and fighting the enemy is more than just massing. A battle between two bases can go back and forth, with devastation on both sides until one player gains the upper hand and penetrates to destroy the enemy. That's fun. Watching your opponent out APM you for a bunch of idiotic clickypowers is not.

RA3 really is an inferior update to RA2. All the new gimmick units make minimal additions to the game tactically, and the resourcing system is straight out of Warcraft 1. What's the point of even HAVING a harvester, when it only drives like two inches on screen to the mine, fills up and comes home?

[Nephtys]

Afterwards, I was struck at how cool that was, how I was able to use a superweapon to buy time and split the enemy force, and I remembered why I liked RTSs again.

You mean like, how you could do the exact same thing in CNC3 with the Scrin Stasis Bubble?

[open_sketchbook]

Barely played C&C3 thanks. It did dreadful things to my beloved Tiberium series.

[Covenant]

Some of the things that were removed, like tunnelling transports, were removed because it invalidated aspects of gameplay that were fun and important to the enjoyment factor. For example: I just had an incredibly frustrating experience where my mixed force batallion of Bullfrogs, Twinblades, MiGs and Kirovs got torn apart by a bunch of incredibly frustrating Japanese unit spam, and then my strikeforce of 5 Kirovs that managed to survive the Japanese attack (with a few escorts around) got PULLED OUT OF THE SKY one after another by Goddamn Yuriko without a single thing I could do. My twinblades couldn't penetate their AA screen, but my Kirovs should have been able to do fine, if they hadn't gotten yanked from the clouds by the most broken commando power I have ever seen--right up there with using your sniper power to KO my Aircraft carrier. I'm sorry, you can't snipe everyone in an aircraft carrier.

This is why some of the 'mundane' aspects are in there, it allows you to plan out things in a way that isn't going to be hard countered out of the blue. It encourages actual strategizing, rather than picking 3 types of units and spamming the shit out of them as fast as possible. Personally, I find the "Baby's First Explosion" type of effects very underwhelming, and I like the dirt going everywhere when I drop a bomb. Honestly, this is why CoH has the tactical overlay mode, so you can plan out very complicated land-grab maneuvers in the best, easiest fashion and then go back to watching it play out and control directly. RA3 splits it down the center, forcing your camera far in but also removing the fine controls, which is basically the worst of both worlds.

The singleplayer campaign is braindead easy, and I've nearly beaten all three in the span of about two days, and this is on hard, mind you. The multiplayer parts, however, are absurd. You need very specific Rock Paper Scissors hard counters in order to stave off an attack by X or Y, and if you didn't build 10 of Z, you're fucked now. Like, in the game I just mentioned, I wanted to take the sea first. This was a water map (Reef Madness) so I felt this was a good idea. Before I could build a single attack naval unit the Japanese had four Yari subs bombing the shit out of my Sub pen. That cost me a lot of time. I build aircraft instead, but twinblades are rather pricey--moreso than sea wings--and my MiGs couldn't hit the seablades while they were submerged. For me to combat them I needed Akulas, which I couldn't get, or more twinblades. But I can't afford to make that many twinblades because then I can't defend my guys from the flying form of the seawing, or from the rocket angels. The unit balance here... is so broken, on so many levels. It astounds me.

And what does this do? It removes types of play and elements of fun from the game. when you add gimmicks or features or special whizbang bullshit powers, you need to do it to add something interesting and fun, not just to do something cool. Tunnelling transports in a game about building sturdy bases, like CNC2 was, is a terrible idea. It violates the trust the gamer has with the game that if you play in good faith your units and buildings will do their job. Defenses that can't defend are worthless, and so you have to ask, what's the point of providing base defenses as a major gameplay aspect if you're going to also provide things to make them pointless? Why not just let people beat defenses with units and artilery, causing actual gameplay instead of gimmick-play?

[open_sketchbook]

That's why there were scanner arrays to counter it, and why only certain units (devils tongue and infantry) could go through. Have units standing by to counter if need be, have air ready to scramble, etc. I'm sorry, but I really disagree with you on this. RA3, to me, plays exactly how I think it should, and while I admit there are some balance issue, I think things work out pretty good for the most part, and it certainly isn't as broken as a lot of other games, nothing some patching can't fix. If you really dislike the gameplay so much, don't play and don't buy the inevitable expansion. There is no point to arguing on teh interwebs about this one.

[ray245]

Is it just me or am I correct about the fact that C&C games are very base centric?

I think I noticed one think that makes the C&C games, and Red alert 3 less fun. There is no manoeuvre warfare. None at all, everything depends on you hitting the enemy base hard enough, and the battlefield usually occurs in the areas surrounding the base.

You have one big map, and it is hard to have a game, where armies meet in the middle of the map, away from the base, and conduct manoeuvre warfare, flanking manoeuvre and so on.

[Darth Raptor]

I'm sorry, you can't snipe everyone in an aircraft carrier.

Clearly, you snipe the captain. Then no one takes command for fear of getting sniped too. The ship is crippled by chaos.

[Covenant]

Raptor, clearly that's what happened. What I still find astounding is that I can't headshot infantry. I actually had my Natasha killed by Yuriko Omega because it took several rounds to put the fuckin' Psychic down. You'd think that if I could punch a hole in a tank, I'd be allowed to kill any infantry in the game, especially a commando.

Ray, Old-school gametypes are indeed very base-centric, and it's long been a gripe of a specific set of RTS gamers. I'm clearly a fan of those open-field maneuvers, but that's hard to do well in an RTS format. Modern games are getting better at giving people strategic objectives other than base destroying, but take and hold or 'countdown' victory types are pretty unpopular as a whole, and honestly don't change much. Base-centric games aren't terribly bad, so long as there's a real motivation to get out of the base, such as the need to bring siege weapons over to crack their defenses, and therefore the opposite need to stop your opponent from setting those up. Therefore, combat would occur BETWEEN bases more often, as people vie for that middle ground. If the siege arty in question had fairly significant range, such as half of the map, you can see why it would be hard to just putter around behind your walls. A lot of games use those kinds of mechanics--be it catapults or ballistae or such, but it's usually short ranged. RA3 has something similar with their Naval units, but those are a whole kettle of fish different, and plus, the base defenses in RA3 are pretty poor when it comes to aircraft anyway. That makes it too easy to turtle in your base and make bombers.

If you really dislike the gameplay so much, don't play and don't buy the inevitable expansion. There is no point to arguing on teh interwebs about this one.

I'm not even going to buy this one, I'm just lucky to have gotten a chance to play it this weekend. But there's always room to argue, Sketch. You're new here so I won't just lay into you for that, but just because people have a difference of opinion doesn't mean you should stop discussing your opinions, especially when designers make games based off of what they think people might want to buy. If we can convince them that they'll be losing a significant amount of money by creating a game with Feature X, then that's less likely to show up. If the argument isn't interesting to you, you're more than free to stop defending the features and simply vote quietly with your wallet.

I have to wonder how you even play it the way you state: do you play against other humans, or strictly the singleplayer campaign mode? Things happen so fast during combat that simply having a few AA units on hand won't cut it during a concerted bomber rush, and you won't have the luxury of preparing for it retroactively. By the time you or your units can react, combat has already taken a toll. Plus, no matter how you play, certain things will always be bad. Throw in the human factor and relatively small balance problems will get blown way out of proportion. Your nanobubble example seems pretty standard par-for-the-course stuff. We've all used chronospheres to teleport enemy battleships onto the hillside, for example, and I also use it as a last-ditch commando killer since chronowhatzit is lethal. That's not the problem. If the entire game was played out in clever little skirmishes between units, I'd love it too.

The problem is what Ray was hitting on, how it's basically just a base-swap game over again. The time it takes for a unit, even a big unit, seems too quick in many cases. It makes it hard to re-deploy, and puts too great of an emphasis on huge masses of units that strike in rushes and get to the base. You may like the gameplay the way it is, and hey, that's fine for you. But you can't honestly tell me this is a cerebral sort of game, and that's really the complaint I have. It's not that the game is somehow missing something, it's that the complete, final version of the game as we see it is just far too much of a lunchbreak game and not nearly enough of a serious wargame. Maybe it is just a lunchbreak game, for a good 10-15 minutes of mindless fun per match, but that isn't an excuse why I shouldn't critique it, just an admission that it had a lower standard to shoot for.

[open_sketchbook]

I will admit, it's not terribly "cerebral". It's a sort of instincts game, figuring out a quick set of strategies for yourself and executing them while attempting to keep the enemy from pulling the common ones back on you, a series of actions and counters until one side runs out of tricks. The reason the super-powered attacks like the mag sat exist is to give you a breather when your enemy pulls something you can't stop conventionally, for example, using it to suck out an attacking forces AA so you can run the copters over them. It's not terribly intellectual, again, it's a simple puzzle with a few dozen interlocking sets of pieces, plus weirdness, but I personally find it fun, and if you don't, well then you don't, and there is nothing to be discussed about it. I like a good argument as much as the next guy, but arguing preference is just silly.

[Covenant]

My preference is based on a theory of gameplay that I can dredge up examples for, and point to a historic progression, but I do admit I'm not trying to convert you anyway. If you like the game then that's great, and I hope that someone continues to make a little money providing arcade/action RTS games like this, since there's still a small niche for them at least, and probably larger than the hardcore "open field" RTS people like me. I was just sayin', no reason not to talk about it. If all we do is spout fanboyism, we're not giving any informed criticism. It also allows people who think the same things to realize there is a subset of people who think the same way, and we can all swap the name of good games.

I saw on one board discussing RA3 (I was looking for advice on beating the last allied mission) that people hadn't even heard of Company of Heroes or World in Conflict or Dawn of War, or at least didn't even consider them "good" RTS games. That's a real shame, so people should be open and talk. You never know what game might do well based on word of mouth that normally wouldn't, and a game company might take that as a disincentive to make further games of that type. Game Producers generally prefer gradual evolution to innovation, so getting anyone to greenlight a "different" type of game with an unknown demographic is next to impossible. It's important to be open and honest about opinions, and buy games you like--or like the idea of--so that you show where the money is. It's also important to get people not to buy the shitty ones. Game companies will do just fine so long as someone is buying something, there's more money in Games than in Movies, and nobody talks about Hollywood going out of business.

[ray245]

Although the gaming community as a whole is a very very conservative base. The majority of the gamers don't like new ideas and new gameplay that was added in their francise. Most people concern is graphics, as opposed to gameplay.

[erik_t]

Well sketchbook, as someone who has greatly enjoyed previous Westwood RTS games, even if neither you nor Covenant are able (or even intend) to "convert" each other, I appreciate you both expressing your views on this. It beats bullshit "we give this game a 98.72/100" reviews that you tend to see online.

[Darth Raptor]

Is it bad that I *just now* made the Natasha-Boris Yuriko-Yuri connection? Christ, I'm dense.

[Covenant]

Okay, so, I've now beaten all three campaigns. Interestingly, I believe the most compelling option for further progression is based on a Soviet victory, since it leaves the most questions left unaswered and the most avenues to explore. I can also say that while the Co-Commander option is often more frustrating than it is fun, I see a lot of possibility in this route for further games. While normally the singleplayer is an interesting but irrelevent feature, RA3 makes it entirely plausible to play the singleplayer game in a multiplayer fashion entirely in lieu of competitive online play. For those who enjoy "comp stomp" matches, this is certainly a fun toy.

The AI needs work. The fan-produced Sorian AI is far superior, but would be easy to copy. The AI needs to specify to me when they're planning on attacking, and who they're focusing on. This is a simple task, just grab the namevar of the target they're going after, so I know. Let them tell me when they're going on the attack or going on defense. And one thing RA3 did that was entirely new and awesome is the little green holo-circles to give co-commander orders like "build bullfrogs to fire engineers here." If this was better implimented, it'd be great. But it works alright already. What it needs though is a simple "attack/defense" switch. What I wanted most of all is for the ally to simply hold his ground from the enemy, or to handle the defenses while I handled the attack. A simple green context bubble in his base that says "order your co-commander to build base defenses and set up patrols" would be perfect, especially if it included "...until ordered otherwise." That would be so good.

However, in multiplayer mode, this isn't an issue. You can obviously coordinate well then, and sometimes it's just two of the same faction killing guys. Sometimes, however, the missions are entirely different. One had me striking land and air, with my ally being forced to defend against sea targets. Sometimes, in the joint force missions, you get an opportunity to play as a different factio, which is kinda fun too. And the commando missions are very interesting with the way you support each other.

I think EA has a real opportunity to expand on this in a sequel or expansion pack, and I hope Blizzard takes note. Offering multiplayer scenario missions like this could really tap into a crowd that's searching for more than just competitive gaming, but cooperative gaming. I really enjoy playing games with my buddies, and not always against them. Iinstead of making comp-stomp matches out of bland, symmetrical arena maps... we could have scenarios, campaigns, and other little structured skirmishes that are played multiplayer and challenge the player to overcome the challenge of more than just another player. I think there's really some possibilities there. People do love co-op play, and a lot of people love the singleplayer EA campaigns and are still leery of online play against the wolves. Offering them a different sort of friendly challenge, to be played at their speed with their friends, might really be an RTS innovation. From EA. Who'd have thought.