Forums
Featured Places
Tiberium Alliances General Discussion
Talk with other players about what is going on in your Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances game.
Tiberium Alliances Tips & Guides
Share gameplay guides, how-to's and tips about Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances with other players.
Tiberium Alliances Technical Issues
Having problems running the game or a script? Get help with Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances with the community!
Tiberium Alliances Game Info Hub
Check out the latest news and patch notes from the Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances team.
Tiberium Alliances Public Test Environment
Share bugs and talk about your experiences with the Tiberium Alliances Public Test Environment.
Command & Conquer Franchise Discussion
Chat about your favorite games in the Command and Conquer franchise and get help from the player community.Important Links
- EE_kalyn1 month ago
Envision Team
- EA_David2 years ago
Community Admin
Generals/Zero Hour: "Failed to fetch Steam App Name" – root cause found
Since September 24, the Steam versions of C&C Generals (AppID 2229870) and Zero Hour (AppID 2732960) no longer start for anyone, on Windows and Linux alike. The game shows "Failed to fetch Steam App Name!" and hangs. Many reports here: https://steamcommunity.com/app/2229870/discussions/0/594068102507033860/ Root cause (traced with network logging): Right after SteamAPI_Init, game.dat requests https://store.steampowered.com/api/appdetails?appids=2229870 Steam answers HTTP 200 with the correct data ("steam_appid":2229870, "name":"Command & Conquer™ Generals"), but the JSON object is now keyed by "2408250" instead of "2229870". The game looks up its own AppID as the key, finds nothing and fails. Zero Hour is affected the same way: appids=2732960 comes back keyed as "2748390". Anyone can verify this by opening the URL above in a browser. So reinstalling, verifying files or updating drivers won't help. Suggested fix for the game: don't depend on the undocumented store web API for the app name. Use the Steamworks client API (ISteamApps) instead, or fall back gracefully if the lookup fails. @EA team: could you please forward this to the developers (EA Pacific)? Thanks!31Views1like0CommentsOutpost invasion
Hi EA, What’s all this nonsense? Since the last update, a ridiculous number of outposts are now being generated. Camps for farming can no longer be generated. Is this intentional, or is it just another one of the usual bugs? It’s particularly bad on older worlds: Tiberian70 Firestorm12 usw...64Views0likes2CommentsFeature Request: Limit PvP Influence After Alliance Has Destroyed the Fortress
I’d like to suggest a change to what happens after an alliance has successfully destroyed the Fortress and secured the #1 position on a world. The problem At present, an alliance can effectively win the world and then continue dominating it. On a number of worlds, we’ve seen very strong, organised groups destroy the Fortress and secure #1, but instead of considering their campaign complete, they remain heavily involved in PvP and centre progression. This allows the winning alliance to: Police access to the centre and attack alliances that are still trying to progress. Use Support Weapons and high-level players to determine which alliances are allowed through. Escort weaker wings or friendly alliances into the remaining ranking positions. Prevent genuinely competitive independent alliances from progressing. Effectively decide who receives the #2, #3, #4, #5, etc. badges after already securing #1 themselves. The result can be absurd. Strong alliances containing active players who have invested considerable time and money into the world can be forced to wait, fight an alliance that has already won, or simply quit, while considerably weaker wings are escorted through to ranking positions they could never achieve independently. It also encourages the creation of large multi-alliance blocs. Winning isn't necessarily the end goal anymore; controlling the world after winning becomes part of the strategy. Proposed solution: “Victor” status Once an alliance destroys the Fortress, the players who participated in that victory should enter a Victor status for the remainder of that world. They should still be able to play. I do not think they should simply be removed from the world or made completely inactive. However, their ability to influence the remaining competitive rankings should be restricted. For example, players with Victor status could: No longer initiate or participate in PvP against players who are still competing for their ranking. No longer use Support Weapons to assist PvP or centre progression for other alliances. Continue playing PvE content, farming, chatting and participating in other non-competitive activities. Crucially, Victor status should attach to the individual player/account, not simply the alliance. Otherwise the obvious workaround would be: Destroy Fortress → leave winning alliance → join wing → continue fighting on their behalf. A player who participated in the Fortress victory should therefore retain Victor status even if they subsequently change alliances. Why? Destroying the Fortress and securing #1 should mean you have won the world. The reward for winning should be the #1 badge and the associated rewards—not the ability to spend the remainder of the world deciding who is permitted to finish #2–5. This would also make the remaining rankings far more meaningful. After #1 has completed the Fortress, the next strongest alliances would have to compete against each other, rather than against the already victorious alliance and its network of wings. It would reduce server policing, discourage dominant groups from dragging multiple weak wings through the rankings, and give independent alliances a genuine reason to continue playing after the Fortress falls. Most importantly, it doesn't punish the winners by removing them from a world they've invested time and money into. It simply recognises that their competitive campaign is complete and prevents them from continuing to determine everybody else's result. I think this would make worlds considerably more competitive and enjoyable, particularly in the period after the first Fortress destruction.200Views6likes8CommentsRed Alert 2 Steam: Custom Map Creation Broken + Graphics Issues
I am posting about EA case 254182856 regarding Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and Yuri’s Revenge on Steam. My main problem is the in-game custom map creation feature. I cannot properly create my own custom maps from inside the game. This is not a minor feature for me; custom map creation is one of the main reasons I still play Red Alert 2. I also have serious graphical problems. Interface and graphical elements are misaligned or displaced, and display scaling/zoom does not work correctly on my Windows PC. I have been dealing with these problems for approximately three months. I have tried the commonly suggested fixes available online, including compatibility settings, resolution and display adjustments, configuration changes, and community fixes. None of them solved the custom map creation problem or the graphical issues. The support process has also been extremely disappointing. I purchased the game through Steam. Steam Support reviewed my case twice and directed me to EA because the problem is related to the game itself. I contacted EA Support, and my first request received no response. Later, EA advisor Rishabh discussed the issue with his team and told me that the custom map problem, graphical misalignment and scaling issues would be reported as a bug to the game team. Now, when I try to follow up on case 254182856 and ask what happened to that bug report, EA Help tells me that this issue is not supported by advisors and sends me to the forums. So after three months, I still cannot create custom maps in Red Alert 2, the graphics are still broken, Steam sends me to EA, EA previously said it reported the issue as a bug, and now EA Help sends me to the forums instead of providing a status update. This game is still being commercially sold. A paying customer should not have to spend months moving between Steam Support, EA Support, automated help systems and community forums simply to find out whether a formally reported bug is actually being investigated. Please review case 254182856, confirm the status of the bug report, and forward the in-game custom map creation issue and the graphics/scaling problems to the appropriate Command & Conquer team.38Views0likes1Commentwhy make a malus world but give more poi?
i feel like the idea kinda cancels itself out? malus worlds in any suck so bad. i feel for anyone trying to play a level 80 world like that 😅 more pain that having to read a mail from redmatch when he is acting like he is getting ready to invade poland, uncontrollable laughter is dangerous, i almost died 😂35Views1like0CommentsSuggestion - marker on base in range of fortress
Hi all and Devs, Following a recent Fortress kill where bases in range get targetted if not moved I considered whether it might be of interest to have something like a little red flashing marker on bases that are in range similar to that where a base is due to be destroyed by a satellite impact? What do you think?28Views0likes0CommentsNew Firestorm 34 World starts on September 24th, 2026
Greetings Commanders, A new world is about to start soon! Firestorm 34 will open September 24th, 2026, at 4 p.m. UTC. The world has 5.000 slots. The Forgotten will attack and your forces will be affected by a morale malus. But there is great news: there will be more POIs and they will give you more bonuses than usual. Player levels will cap at 80. Ruleset: Uprising Prepare yourself and your alliance and be ready when the new world launches to get the best chances to claim the top of the ranking and be the first to beat the fortress! See you on the battlefield, Commanders!391Views0likes0CommentsStill seeing Level 66 Camps
I thought the 26.1 patch was supposed to fix this rounding error. Account: BeeDoug World: Vetrans World 2016 Date/Time: 9/2/2026 14:33 (CDT) Browser (Version)/ Operating System: FireFox (155.0 (64-bit)) / Windows 11 Describe the Bug/ what happened: Still seeing Level 66 camps on a L65 max world. Not really a problem, or is this just a Spinal Tap inside joke ?47Views1like1CommentUnable to Install Red Alert 3
I tried all of the support options. whenever I try to download Red alert 3 it keeps giving me an error that I don't own the game despite me owning the game. this might be relevant or even be the cause, in my library it only shows the base game even though I should have the dlc too from the command and conquer collection.65Views0likes1CommentFirestorm 32 - forgotten base regeneration
Hello, as you are aware this server was not supposed to have forgotten attacks, but reduced timers and morale, however, as you know, FG attacks somehow got included. Today several bases were regenerated in our area, some we just recently killed! How does the FG base regeneration work ? was this also apart of reduced timers ? How often do bases respawn ? If this continually is going to happen seems like this world will take forever160Views0likes5Comments60 / 15 players
Recently there have been a ton of players in bronze, silver and gold with a 60 experience and 10+ for armies. Not sure how they accomplished it but now can a true bronze compete when these guys have aerial assault that you cannot counter? in the last few weeks 8 out of 10 battles have been against 60/15 cheats. I’ve reported each one but don’t see the developers removing these accounts. Is this a hack or what?108Views0likes5Comments
About Command and Conquer
Talk about the legendary Command and Conquer franchise. Share your favorite moments and get installation help.