Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lazygecko

Unit ranks - good or bad?

Recommended Posts

This isn't really about any particular game in the franchise, but since there isn't any forum for general C&C discussion I am putting it here.

 

What do you think about the unit rank up mechanics? They were introduced in Tiberian Sun, and solidified into what we're familiar with in Red Alert 2 with much better stats, self-healing and sometimes a new weapon. Initially this was something I really liked, but when I think further about it, I realize that it ended up changing my gameplay style, as I would give more attention to units that gained a rank and would micro-manage them more to get more kills than the others and stay alive so they can reach max rank. Ultimately i came to view this as a kind of obsessive compulsive behavior and added a dynamic to the gameplay that I don't really want.


Do you think the series would be better off without this, or could the system be tweaked to be better, or is it just fine as it is?

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the veterancy system introduced in TS, but never really gave into the obsessive compulsive thing about the units who ranked up. If they survived the trip back to base, I'd just use them as an elite backup force, a last defensive line or something like that. But in a fight, I just leave it up to them to survive if they can, provided it isn't some kind of campaign mission where I have to watch my units more carefully.

Share this post


Link to post

For those that are trying the Acto of Agression Beta/early access.....the new AoA doesnt use unit ranking....and it feels wrong imo. You might be partially right about obsessing more on individual units but i personaly feel as that veterancy is a intricate part of RTS. It feels like it belongs in any kind of game that tries to convice you you are playing with lives over resources.

Having "elite" units makes you consider them more then "expendable" and in any kind of story based scenario that involves flesh and blood soldiers you should "to an extend i guess" care about wether they live or die. That emotional bond is rather hard or none existing toward a pixelated piece of code. But it becomes the closest best thing when your combat unit gets a more value out of it.

 

I am rather inclined to believe that wether someone cares for veterancy ranks is depended on his playstyle or even game type. This might be sloppy generalisation but multiplayer foccused players care less about veterancy, they foccus more on the outcome of skirmishes. Its a numbers and outcome game for them.

 

While single player/story foccused players tend to see their units as part of the narrative, keeping them alive feeds their personal involvement in the story. You assume the role of your "commander" alot more then you would in a multiplayer game where starting position and color pallet mean more then, obviously, the none existant story.

 

Wether veterancy fits in todays RTS is predomantly decided by how you play imo.

Edited by Ravendark

Share this post


Link to post

I like ranks, though I do think elite units in RA2 were too much of an improvement over basic units. I know that's what the developers had in mind, that elite units would be crazy overpowered, but I don't agree with the choice.

 

I tend to feel the same way as Ravendark in that ranking has become a part of the RTS standard, and games that don't have ranks seem like they are missing a key feature.

 

Even units that are robots and logically shouldn't gain personal combat experience are more fun when they do, like in Supreme Commander.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×