My complaints with this game...
I’d like to start off by saying that I absolutely LOVE the old school Command & Conquer games. This game got me through many a college night back on PC. And when we finally figured out how to play ea...
Forum Discussion
I'm with you on #2 but the other ones are all part of the game ESPECIALLY #1! As for #3 specifically - this is a very very legitimate strategy. Consider the strategy of making boat loads of infantry and maybe a missile or two. Hunt their harvesters- try taking on their distrupter/flamer 2v1 with 10 tib infantry. Right - you keep going - maybe you don't even kill their guys - leave them at low health - target healthy ones. Maybe he gets 4.... 5?!... on the board. If you we just pumping 10 tib units - you could then - with 0 pop - bust out with a WHOLE bunch of air units (or whatever) and just make sure you don't kill a single flamers - or do - but then you now have 3-4 air units and they have nothing. Messing with the pop cap is a fantastic strategy.
As far as #2 - yeah - I do it too - but because it's part of the game and you do what you can to win. But I don't like it one bit. It's a) - cheap, b) - makes no sense, c) - isn't really defensible and if both sides are doing it, then you have this stupid game delay as helicopters do fly-bys... really? d) this game is about 'battlefield control' (EVA says it every game, no?)... flying over like that is not controlling anything.
As far as #2 - yeah - I do it too - but because it's part of the game and you do what you can to win. But I don't like it one bit. It's a) - cheap, b) - makes no sense, c) - isn't really defensible and if both sides are doing it, then you have this stupid game delay as helicopters do fly-bys... really? d) this game is about 'battlefield control' (EVA says it every game, no?)... flying over like that is not controlling anything.
Yeah, fair enough I can see how those things can be considered part of the strategy of the game, but there’s still problems.
1) this means that raider is actually not an advantage for some units. If I have a pitbull, and I want it to attack a banshee, but it fires a rocket at some infantry, that’s just dumb. Like fair enough, use the infantry to suck up a rocket from the pit, but that’s exactly the problem - you can’t instruct the pitbull NOT to fire, and to only attack the banshee. Getting that first rocket can make a big difference. So considering the pitbull is meant to be the GDI war factory anti air unit, that’s a waste. It means the unit doesn’t do the job it’s primarily there for. If I tell it to move, it will attack anything close to it. If I tell it to attack specifically one unit, it will stop moving when it’s in range. If I tell it to move again, it reverts back to “attack anything nearby” - sometimes changing its target from the thing I’ve tasked it on. What’s the point? What’s the advantage?
3) I’d be fine with this if units were always on a level playing field. But if you consider a fairly standard shock/flame trooper infantry battle to start, if you’ve got units a level (or more) below your opponent, you generally have to bring greater numbers to win the battle. So you’re locked into a scenario of committing more pop cap space to win that battle. And because you have to pick your cards before the fight, you might be locked into that sort of a fight. It’s not that you have a weaker strategy, it’s simply that you’re out levelled. You’re not “out strategizing” your opponent if they end up with lots of weak units and no pop cap space and you bring out something that takes advantage of that. The game is about moves and counter moves. If I can terminate a unit, then I can play a counter unit, and the cost is that I lose that first unit and whatever tib it cost...
