The Value of Tactical Gameplay Mechanics.

[oompah]

Not only that, but tank warfare hugely revolves around elevation - the tanks that can shield itself behind a hill has the advantage

you guys do realize this is a video game right?

[robinson01]

Am I the only person on those forums which thinks that actual tactical combat is not only immersive but also fun?

The best parts of C&C are the fights, especialy those which aren't dealt with in 20 seconds and you have actualy two forces struggling over said area of the map for a longer period time. I dislike the majority of the game being "send units to point A -> go to base do x y z then order units at point B to do f -> check the result of combat at point A". I enjoy multitasking, base building and C&C economy, but the fight themselves are too often a short, tactic-less result of your pre-fight actions. Not that preparing for a fight doesn't matter, but it's just sad that combat has such a relatively small screentime in a war game - Too often fights are taking place offscreen when you are busy with something else.

My best memories are from RA3 when I menaged to stop an assult of Apocalypse tanks on my defensless base with a good micro of just a few rocket troopers at max. I think such things take place too rarely.

Tactics? RA3? Micromanaging? Do you WANT C&C4???

[P1nkalicious]

Tactics? RA3? Micromanaging? Do you WANT C&C4???

You have got to be a troll, because C&C4 was a tactical game without tactics. All you do is spam. There's no complex cover system, no suppression, no outflanking, no fields of fire, the game is shite.

you guys do realize this is a video game right?

Tank cover mechanics and tactical armoured warfare has never really been done before in an RTS. It's a novel and interesting idea.

[robinson01]

You have got to be a troll, because C&C4 was a tactical game without tactics. All you do is spam. There's no complex cover system, no suppression, no outflanking, no fields of fire, the game is shite.

You say that like I support C&C4. Also, I never said anything about cover, suppression, outflanking, or fields of fire. I simply said that what he's saying sounds like C&C4.

[Borreh]

You say that like I support C&C4. Also, I never said anything about cover, suppression, outflanking, or fields of fire. I simply said that what he's saying sounds like C&C4.

... so you say that mentioning tactics is reminescent of C&C4, which was a game without tactics?

And how on Earth has my post anything to do with C&C4, when that game consisted of two crawlers deploying next to each other and spawning tons of expendable units, and the one who won was the one who spawned the correct counters faster?

What has that got to do with those two-three rockets troopers stopping six or seven apocalypse tanks because I micro'd them a lot?

Seriously, can "YOU WANT C&C4 ALL OVER AGAIN?!" be the counter-argument for anything, regardless of what you are talking about? "I like resource collection" - "YOU WANT C&C4 ALL OVER AGAIN?!" ?..

[oompah]

c&c 4 was only tactical wasn't it? I didn't play it so maybe I'm misinformed?

[Garbarsardar]

I watched some games on YouTube. It tries to be tactical.

[Borreh]

c&c 4 was only tactical wasn't it? I didn't play it so maybe I'm misinformed?

By tactical I do not mean "it has less enomomy and focuses on action instead", I mean "there are tactical reasons for you to control the battle like unit special powers, cover mechanics and simillar things, you do not focus on the battle because you have no base and therefore nothing else to focus on instead".

Come to think of it, taking away the base and changing nothing in basic unit mechanics is the cheapest and dumbest way of "forcing" the player to focus on "tactics" possible..

[oompah]

By tactical I do not mean "it has less enomomy and focuses on action instead", I mean "there are tactical reasons for you to control the battle like unit special powers, cover mechanics and simillar things, you do not focus on the battle because you have no base and therefore nothing else to focus on instead".

Come to think of it, taking away the base and changing nothing in basic unit mechanics is the cheapest and dumbest way of "forcing" the player to focus on "tactics" possible..

tactical to me means the real time combat, the microing of units, flanking etc... strategy is the teching, build order, decisions to make plots of land important and trying to hold those, deciding to rush or econ boom etc...

am I wrong?

C&C 4 was largely about microing your units tactically right?

[NastyNick]

CnC4 was largely about the $$$$$. EA wanted some and wanted to exert minimal effort to get the $$$$$$. You gotta admire that. They could have crapped in a box and labeled it CNC4. People would have bought it. At least they made a video game.

This time around the $$$$ is going to be more elusive. You guys want a Generals remake from what i'm hearing. I want a game that I will personally enjoy, because i'm a ####.

I want bigger guns then my opponents. I want giant font sizes for my text messages so i can write embarassing messages that my opponent won't be able to ignore. I want to pay real $$$$ to be better than my opposition. If i sit my pet monkey down and rub peanut butter on the keyboard, i still want to win 90% of my games because of my sweet gear. That right there is your baseline, EA. Your measure of success.

Please add lots of explosions too, and guys doing cartwheels in the air. That stuff is wicked cool.