Command and Conquer 5 Multiplayer/skirmish Gameplay

[dudalous1986]

Bring back older C&C, make tiberium sun of today with walls and firestorm generators and everything that made C&C gr8 the base building abilities.

I loved Tiberium Sun for base building yet as it progressed that was lost you cant make walls or lay path which i think ruins the gameplay GDI just has a steam roller feel as that's all you can really do and i think that stops real turtling. Also i think the stile people now play GDI makes playing as nod much the same you don't really use guerrilla warfare which is what I thought nod was about. I know this is a fundamental game idea so its hard to really add great description into how the game should be but i hope people may read this and remember the great games we used to play and how today games made under the same franchise seem to be completely different games i.e. diablo 3 which took away a lot of character customization so all characters are now generic and your only advantage is gear. For me i enjoyed tiberium wars but it wasn't adding features to tiberium sun it only took away.

Pros- Making a strategy game have STRATEGY not just learning how to steam roll opponents.
Putting back game-play features that weren't added upon only taken away or replaced.

Cons- eeerrrrrrrrmmmmmmm. . . . . game producers having to learn the franchise they are trying to make and doing real work by actually ADDING new features instead of essentially making a new game that seems similar and slapping an old name on it.

[Quadhelix]

Cons- eeerrrrrrrrmmmmmmm. . . . . game producers having to learn the franchise they are trying to make and doing real work by actually ADDING new features instead of essentially making a new game that seems similar and slapping an old name on it.

When some lists a con like this, that is a "con" that has nothing to do with the merits of the idea but is rather a thinly veiled insult at the developers, it generally signals that the person hasn't actually given the idea much thought. For example, this idea - to add back walls, Firestorm defenses, and pavement - has a number of cons that are not listed here.

First, I have to say that the pavement mechanic in Tiberian Sun was one of the most annoying, inconvenient, and frustrating mechanics I have every had the misfortune of experiencing, and its critical role in stopping subterranean units made it all the more annoying. Among other problems with TS's pavement mechanic, it had the problem that you couldn't put it under buildings already on the battlefield, meaning that you had to start playing musical buildings when subterranean units came into play. I do not believe that it is a coincidence that TS was the only Command & Conquer game to use that mechanic.

As for walls, they are not quite so much a problem, as implied by the fact that Generals and Tiberium Wars are the only games in the franchise that have base-building without walls. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that walls have the same effect implied by the above idea. The idea suggests that the steamroller tactics caused by the lack of walls is responsible for Nod shifting away from guerrilla attacks. However, the steam roller tactics are likely the result, not of a lack of walls, but rather plentiful money combined with the ability to queue units from multiple production structures.

Additionally, although I must admit that I am not the best player, my suspicion is that walls should impede guerrilla tactics. Without walls, a player could, in principle, rush a medium-sized attack force through a weak spot in the base defenses to take out an important structure - the attackers could reach the structure by ignoring the defenses. With walls in place, however, you have to destroy the wall to reach your target, buying time for the defender to rally his/her forces to stop the raid.

[UH60L]

Yeah, the insults should not be veiled at all, they deserve to hear the truth. They made a mistake.

[Quadhelix]

Yeah, the insults should not be veiled at all, they deserve to hear the truth. They made a mistake.

Letting someone know that they made a mistake and insulting them are two different things. That was letting you know that you are mistaken.

Also, I'm wondering just what the mistake was. It obviously wasn't removing the pavement mechanic. Quite frankly, because of Tiberian Sun's pavement mechanic and how essential it is to defending against subterranean units, I probably wouldn't have a hard time ranking C&C4 as a better game. As I mentioned, it's no coincidence that Tiberian Sun was the only C&C game with pavement.

Was it removing walls? In that case, I have to wonder why that was a mistake, other than the fact that it ticked off some fanatical, closed-minded fans of the older games. Walls do have their use in a game, but there are also legitimate reasons not to include them. For one, walls make turtling easier by creating choke points that aren't naturally part of the map. They also make guerilla attacks, which the thread-starter seemed to be an important ability of Nod's, a lot harder by forcing the attacker to destroy the wall before moving in, which allows the defender to respond.

[=LEVIATHEN=]

^ Excellent point Quadhelix. However, I must point out that I'm pretty sure they've added walls to the new game:



Unless that's only a part of that particular map, and I'm missing something.

Otherwise, I'm going with what Quadhelix is saying almost entirely, though I do so like walls. They can be disadvantage to some, but they look very cool.

[nodforev]

Letting someone know that they made a mistake and insulting them are two different things. That was letting you know that you are mistaken.

Also, I'm wondering just what the mistake was. It obviously wasn't removing the pavement mechanic. Quite frankly, because of Tiberian Sun's pavement mechanic and how essential it is to defending against subterranean units, I probably wouldn't have a hard time ranking C&C4 as a better game. As I mentioned, it's no coincidence that Tiberian Sun was the only C&C game with pavement.

If you want to be fair Tiberian Sun was the only game to have subterranean units so it was the only game that required a defense against it like pavement so you honestly have compared something to nothing.

[Quadhelix]

If you want to be fair Tiberian Sun was the only game to have subterranean units so it was the only game that required a defense against it like pavement so you honestly have compared something to nothing.

Then ask yourself this: why was Tiberian Sun the only game with subterranean units? After all, the real Soviet Union created an actual subterranean vehicle, so why wasn't there some sort of Soviet subterranean unit in Red Alert 2, or a Yuri subterranean unit in Yuri's Revenge?

[nodforev]

Then ask yourself this: why was Tiberian Sun the only game with subterranean units? After all, the real Soviet Union created an actual subterranean vehicle, so why wasn't there some sort of Soviet subterranean unit in Red Alert 2, or a Yuri subterranean unit in Yuri's Revenge?

Most likely because Westwood felt that it wouldn't fit into either technology style for any of the factions. As in general the Soviets in RA2/YR are a different history compared to the real one. Also as you said the real Soviet Union did make one but the game version also did not.

[Keriu]

Hey QuadHelix, you seem to not only know what you're talking about as well as articulate and objective enough to create a reasonable and well thought out, honest opinion, any way I could convince you to read my thing before I post it? I'm still fairly new to posting, but command and conquer, that is another story, and perhaps it might be slightly in part due to it being 1:38 AM, but I feel I have thought my points through very thoroughly, although I know myself well enough to know I may have missed something that I have rationalized for my own interests :'(

And I would like it to be nothing less than objective and reasonable ^_^ lol, in any case thank you for your time and have a wonderful day

[Perfectsamuri101]

Additionally, although I must admit that I am not the best player, my suspicion is that walls should impede guerrilla tactics. Without walls, a player could, in principle, rush a medium-sized attack force through a weak spot in the base defenses to take out an important structure - the attackers could reach the structure by ignoring the defenses. With walls in place, however, you have to destroy the wall to reach your target, buying time for the defender to rally his/her forces to stop the raid.

I must say Guerrilla tactics are a good excuse to keep Walls out of the game however it kills base builders. Many base builders may love the addition of walls heck; they did it with RA3 why can’t they do it with C&C? Though they should make the walls look appropriate for the factions like they usually do.

And to your example, A raid on a medium sized base with Walls: Raiders take out a significant part of the defender’s force, take a bit of time to destroy the wall and allows for the defendant to rally troops to defend his base.

Your excuse is completely against the defendant. Now a raid on a small army or transport or something, now that makes sense