TripleCP

It's really a pretty minor change compared to, say, the addition of the Crane and the Surveyor in C&C3 (which did break the economy - notice how Harvesters are gradually being "peonized" though armor and income nerfs)? I don't see how anyone could argue that this rewards camping, either, unless its the old "defenses should always be pathetic" argument. If someone spams defenses in front of an attack, they'll be fairly weak. However, if someone had the presence of mind to strategically place defenses well before any attack is made, they will be more effective. Take a second look at the reasoning behind both the Power Plants and Refineries. It's nothing drastic. The numbers wouldn't be anything set in stone, either...that's what the beta is for. It would give the devs the flexibility they need to adjust the game speed so games can reach the desired 20 minute mark they're aiming for without having them drag on forever. If you harass effectively and keep knocking down your opponents structures without him doing the same to you, you'll get the upper hand. This will compliment the similar rewards of unit veterancy...do a better job of keeping your units alive and leveling them up and it won't matter how much cash your opponent has. We know EA won't be making Red Alert 2 in 3D, but the veteran C&C community has been tagged by some as closed-minded to any innovation. I don't think that's true...it's only bad innovations. I always thought the Crane and Surveyors were terrible ideas and wanted the option to disable them, not because I'm a total purist but I could see how they would totally undermine the MCV system. I hope they're gone from RA3. However, there are some ideas from other games that are worth looking at...this being one of them. Doing away with insta-build in favor of select-place-build is another one worth considering; certainly better than proposed alternatives like moving closer to a Dozer system.

Have to disagree on BFME2's pay to upgrade system being better than BFME's time/usage based one. Time is the hidden secondary resource in every RTS game. This system better takes that into account - if you harass your opponent effectively and force him to sell buildings while preventing him from doing the same to him you'll gain a significant edge in the time game. Hopefully RA3 won't have C&C3's runaway economy, but even if it does this system would help control it somewhat. Huge cashflow won't automatically mean you can just carelessly place buildings and fully upgrade them off the bat whenever you want. It also addresses the problem of keeping structures and defenses from being used offensively in place of units without making buildings/defenses ridiculously weak. Most importantly, the system adds considerable depth without burdening the player with a lot of extra management, an issue RTS games have struggled with.

Thanks. If you like the ideas, please keep chiming in on the official boards. http://forums.ea.com/mboards/thread.jspa?t...30&tstart=0 Refineries: slowly gain efficiency depending on the level of ore processed there. Let’s assume that a full load of Ore is $1000. When a single refinery has refined $15,000 worth of ore, it goes to Level 2. At 30,000, Level 3. Level 2 - +20% health, +25% income ($1250 per Ore load) Level 3 - +40% health, +50% income ($1500 per Ore load), and either a Repair Drone like C&C3 War Factories (unless Miners auto-repair again) or faster Ore unloading (again, depends if Miners just drop off ore like in RA2 or slowly unload like C&C3). Refineries are often a target of choice, though as with Power Plants most of the better players do tend to just spam and sell them as needed. Since replacing a destroyed/sold Refinery gives another Miner anyway, it isn’t too painful to sell one that’s under attack. Often, it is not even a matter of saving it from being destroyed. Once Ore in one area is depleted, the initial Refinery is built and a new one is place closer to the next Ore field (again, with an extra Miner to boot). The efficiency system mixes things up a bit. If RA2 is the model, then Ore will replenish slowly and Gems not at all. This will mean that it is important to have an efficient economy in the late game. However, many players will still opt for the fastest resource gathering possible to try to establish dominance in the early game. This would potentially add a lot more depth to the economy. Do you stick with the usual ratio of roughly one Refinery per two Miners, or do you opt for fewer but more efficient Refineries (provided you keep them standing)? Keep using your starting Level 2 and 3 Refineries, or build new and less efficient ones closer to the next ore field? You have two Refineries near the same field: one at Level 3 and another at Level 1 – do you favor the Level 3 Refinery for more immediate income, or do you try to level up the one at level 1? You have a Gem field near your base – collect it first, or wait until you have a Level 3 Refinery? Best of all, all that depth of speed vs. efficiency can be added without making players really concentrate a lot more attention on econ management. The health increases remain somewhat modest (and only beta testing will really determine optimal levels for these kinds of things), since Refineries should remain fairly vulnerable. They’re going to need a boost, though, because a Level 3 Refinery is going to attract a whole lot more unwanted attention from your opponents than a Level 1 one.

Well, glad there's some support. I'll post more specific examples along with my rationale, and would appreciate any feedback: Power Plants: slowly gain efficiency with time. [Maybe this should be “time powered up,” but it wouldn’t matter too much given that power plants are only rarely shut down (for short durations, at that) by things such as EMP strikes.] Level 2 - +10% health, +25% power output. Level 3 - +25% health, +50% power output. (Possibly an additional feature such as slow self-repair or a defensive encasement which would give bunker-style armor when closed but also shut down the plant.) Harassing your opponent’s power is fun, but rarely all that effective. When experienced players fear losing a power plant, they often just sell and replace them since the net loss is minor. This feature would make it more worthwhile to both attack and to defend power plants. Players who keep their power plants alive will have to worry less about hearing “Low Power” and spend less time & money on constructing new ones. On the other hand, having a group of Level 3 reactors taken out by a super-weapon will be that much more painful because you’ll have to build 50% more new ones to replace them. I think it would be a mistake to give power plants too large a bonus outside of greater efficiency. Power should remain fairly vulnerable throughout the game, so too much additional armor would be bad. The additional power efficiency bonuses would stack with purchasable upgrades such as Turbines (just beware of relying too much on 2 or 3 super power plants!).

MoK for me.

They could give her an interesting role as an Allied officer of Japanese descent, trying to do her job under a cloud of suspicion, but I doubt that they want to touch on any actual controversies such as that. I think they'll find actual Japanese actors and actresses for the Empire roles, though. In any case, Tia is the same age as Kari Wuhrer and so is presumably also "outside the demographic."

Yeah, I appreciate the support. Do me a favor and keep chiming in on that thread, though, otherwise it will get buried by the endless threads bickering about storyline and how to make a "true Red Alert" game.

If you played BFME, you may remember how resource producing and unit producing structures gained in levels over time and usage. A level 3 Farm produced more income than a brand new one, a Level 3 barracks produced units faster, etc. Buildings also became stronger and in some cases gained their own (weak to moderate) defensive armament at Level 3. Why not try it in RA3? 1) Power Plants - slowly gain in efficiency over time. +25% at Level 2 and +50% at level 3. Keep your starting Power Plants alive and you'll get fewer "Low Power" annoyances. 2) Refineries - increased cashflow per return load, either over time or (better) depending on how much income it has generated (10,000 for level 2 and 20,000 for level 3, for example). Let’s say a Tier 1 Refinery gives 1000 per ore load, then a Tier 2 would be 1250 and a Tier 3 would be 1500. 3) Radar - could increase its detection range/LOS with each level. 4) Barracks/War Factories - Slightly faster build times and reduced costs the more it is used. Again, allows the devs to slow down early game spamming without dragging out the late game. Tier 3 Factories could also produce Veteran units. 5) Neutral Tech Structures could also work the same way. The longer you take and hold an Oil Derricks, the more income it will generate. 6) Defenses - becomes more durable over time and/or increases in range and firepower. Less problems with tower crawling/spiderbasing, but still allows for potent base defenses provided that they're positioned well in advance of attacks. Tier 1 defenses could also become more viable into the late game. Benefits: 1) Allows the devs to set a slower pace for early game resource gathering and build times but still move it closer to C&C3's pace in the later phases to avoid drawn out games. 2) Rewards harassment more - if you take out a couple of your opponents' starting Power or Econ structures, the damage is greater than simply the replacement cost. Also gives more incentive to protect those buildings rather than just buying and selling them whenever convenient. 3) In general, this system takes the gameplay benefits of unit veterancy and applies them to structures, as well. This could compliment, rather than replace, existing purchasable building upgrades or specialized structures like the Ore Purifier. Thoughts?

I have to eat some of my words, because the Tacitus Thursday preview info sounds & looks rather promising.

It seems like the bigger named actors don't get into the roles, as well. Sure, James Earl Jones was cool because he is James Earl Jones, but he could've put a little more heart into it. RA1's were all good , and I can't even tell you who they are (thought Stavros and von Essling kinda sucked, though - could be pro-Soviet bias. With Red Alert games, especially, you need people who have fun doing the roles.

Per Apoc and IGN, Global Conquest is in KW but they're being awfully reserved about it. When Mike Verdu and Jim Vessella first unveiled Kane's Wrath last summer, GC was was billed as its "biggest gameplay addition." They were going to go beyond past metagame systems like BFME2's or DoW:Dark Crusade's, making it feel less like a series of linked skirmishes and more interactive and dynamic. Better still, the campaign was supposed to incorporate this feature so that it could be less linear. Now it looks like they are not so enthused about it. The IGN preview mentioned it almost in passing and likened it to Dark Crusade and all but called it a series of linked skirmishes. All the hype lately has been on the epic units. Sounds like those of us who were anticipating a cool Global Conquest mode are going to end up with a port of BFME2's WotR to C&C3. Disappointing.

Well, EA needs to come clean this time if the worst is true. They'll get a hell of a lot more respect from everyone if they just admit their failings then to pretend that GC never existed.

Yeah, mechs are just out of place in the series which invented the tank rush. I really don't much of what we've seen so far for RA3. Cyberbears and Samurai Jedi? You'd think between Japan's actual WWII military, the stuff they experimented with, and the postwar Japanese electronics innovations there would be plenty of semi-realistic source material to work with. Instead, some of what's been described sounds like it leaped out of an amime program.

Would North & South Korea exist in this timeline (not that it really matters in a world with airborne cyberbears)? Korea as a Japanese subfaction would result in a joint declaration of war by N. and S. Korea against EA. Unfortunately, based on the Russian magazine preview I think the subfactions will be based on different generals rather than different nations.

Well, WotR was made somewhat decent with RotWK, but from the sounds of things they were going to overhaul the meta game system completely (which I imagine is why it wasn't included in vanilla C&C3). For one thing, there would be no Risk-style set territories. I dunno, though. EA's silence is worrisome.