Why is this game more realistic then Red alert 2 ?

[gimlikos84]

Is it me or Red alert 1 is more realistic , and has more strategy then Red alert 2 ?.For me red alert 2 is more like starcraft game.
When I see battles in red alert 1 , I see chaos , and randomness , you have no idea what will happen next , and I love it.Red alert 2 is more like rock ,scissor , paper like in Starcraft.

[Garrec]

If you're comparing RA2 to Starcraft, that's basically an admission that RA2 has more strategy than RA1. RA2 at least encourages some experimentation with units and unit compositions, where RA1 is largely just mass tank and win. I'd say C&C1 is much more strategic than RA1. At least different units maintain usefulness in their respective roles.

Concerning realism, RA1 wins just from its presentation. RA2 intentionally tries to be absurd and comical, taken to the extreme with Yuri and mind control. But RA1 wins more than presentation too.

From a story perspective, RA1's premise is more realistic as an alternative timeline where World War 2 never happened. From a gameplay perspective, if you subtract the obviously outlandish things like superweapons, tesla/prism tech, and weaponized oceanic creatures, RA1 is left with a larger base of realistically inspired units and weapons.

[Cat]

Originally posted by gimlikos84:

When I see battles in red alert 1 , I see chaos , and randomness , you have no idea what will happen next , and I love it.Red alert 2 is more like rock ,scissor , paper like in Starcraft.

Red Alert is more about tank spamming so it's more predictable of what's going to happen. Rock paper scissors is more random because you are forced to switch often. This was more emphasized on in later C&C games to prevent matches to go down to spamming 1 type of unit like in red alert.

As to why Red Alert is more realistic than Red Alert 2. That's like asking why C&C1 is more realistic than C&C3. It was the design choice and it happened to be that way?

[gimlikos84]

Originally posted by Garrec:

If you're comparing RA2 to Starcraft, that's basically an admission that RA2 has more strategy than RA1. RA2 at least encourages some experimentation with units and unit compositions, where RA1 is largely just mass tank and win. I'd say C&C1 is much more strategic than RA1. At least different units maintain usefulness in their respective roles.

Concerning realism, RA1 wins just from its presentation. RA2 intentionally tries to be absurd and comical, taken to the extreme with Yuri and mind control. But RA1 wins more than presentation too.

From a story perspective, RA1's premise is more realistic as an alternative timeline where World War 2 never happened. From a gameplay perspective, if you subtract the obviously outlandish things like superweapons, tesla/prism tech, and weaponized oceanic creatures, RA1 is left with a larger base of realistically inspired units and weapons.

When a soldier from Red alert 1 trow the granate , or use the flame thrower , you know that its going to be a mass destruction in the enemy units.You dont see that in Red alert 2 at all.Tiberiun Sun is actually on another level of realism and I love it.Red alert 2 is static , and very much predictible and arcade.

[Cat]

Originally posted by gimlikos84:

When a soldier from Red alert 1 trow the granate , or use the flame thrower , you know that its going to be a mass destruction in the enemy units.

Yeah about that...

[Garrec]

Mass destruction of your own units, maybe. Chain reaction deaths is something I always mod out of RA1 when I play casually. The entire mechanic of splash damage is a delicate balance which is executed more proficiently in C&C1, since that game is less about massing units. It's boring and annoying in RA1. Downright tedious in Tiberian Sun, where nearly every explosion produces fire and shrapnel that damages and kills nearby units. How an infantry unit will catch fire, run around in a frenzy, catching other units on fire. When everything is expendable, just mass more units. Realistic? Maybe. Fun? No.

I would agree that RA2 is arcade, but that's a stylistic choice. I disagree with that choice, and it's why I ultimately prefer RA1 over RA2. But that's how they made it. It doesn't make RA2 less strategic though.

[gimlikos84]

Originally posted by Garrec:

Mass destruction of your own units, maybe. Chain reaction deaths is something I always mod out of RA1 when I play casually. The entire mechanic of splash damage is a delicate balance which is executed more proficiently in C&C1, since that game is less about massing units. It's boring and annoying in RA1. Downright tedious in Tiberian Sun, where nearly every explosion produces fire and shrapnel that damages and kills nearby units. How an infantry unit will catch fire, run around in a frenzy, catching other units on fire. When everything is expendable, just mass more units. Realistic? Maybe. Fun? No.

I would agree that RA2 is arcade, but that's a stylistic choice. I disagree with that choice, and it's why I ultimately prefer RA1 over RA2. But that's how they made it. It doesn't make RA2 less strategic though.

Realistic yes ! Fun also super YES !

[Nyerguds]

RA1 is a lot more gritty than RA2. When you're leading your cannon fodder troops through the snow, with a music track like "Trenches" playing, you can just feel the whole bleak hopelessness of war. And then there's cutscenes like the frozen soldier in his foxhole... they really wanted you to feel that "horrors of war" ambience.

RA2 took the same concept of weird urban legend technology, but put it all in a much more silly setting. I'm honestly not sure why.

[delta]

So which of the C&C's was the most balanced?

[Bovril Brigadier]

Originally posted by Nyerguds:

RA2 took the same concept of weird urban legend technology, but put it all in a much more silly setting. I'm honestly not sure why.

If you look as far back as the concept art for Tib Dawn its like they had locked the guy in the closet whose job it was to go "Cool but can we dial it back and stop snorting so much cocaine?"

Originally posted by delta:

So which of the C&C's was the most balanced?

In terms of Westwood and I assume you mean for Skirmish/Multiplayer? Tib Dawn was surprisingly well balanced all things considered and base RA2.
If including the EA era stuff then I'd say Zero Hour though it can be heavily map dependent.

[Vogel]

My first thought on why they went in that direction for RA2, is maybe because Tiberian Sun was so post apocalyptic and dark even by C&C standards. That they wanted to make Red Alert 2 more bright and cartoony to stand apart. This being said I never really looked into the development of RA2 or Tiberian Sun, just played the games

[Cat]

Originally posted by delta:

So which of the C&C's was the most balanced?

In terms of balance between the factions would be Red Alert because basic tanks carry almost all of the weight for both sides, making it less asymmetrical although the speed and cost for Allies light tank can be a huge difference and things like cruisers, gap generator and airfields can be relevant but not most of the time. Other things are almost obsolete.

In terms of unit usefulness is Tiberian Dawn. Almost all units have their use. Even the repair bay is super valuable in situations where tiberium have run out on the map.

[Nyerguds]

The Artillery is kinda useless in TD though. Its speed and turn speed are ridiculously slow. The unit is much better in RA...

...or, it would be, if the RA version would actually outrange the Tesla Coils. Why even have artillery if it's no more long range than the enemy defenses?

[Bovril Brigadier]

Originally posted by Cat:

In terms of balance between the factions would be Red Alert because basic tanks carry almost all of the weight for both sides,

There's a strong argument that if you are losing as Allies in RA1 you're just playing poorly. Soviets struggle to compete against Allies competitively just by sheer cost effectiveness and well micro'd Light Tanks.

Originally posted by Nyerguds:

Why even have artillery if it's no more long range than the enemy defenses?

Ask GDI?

As for the Artillery in Tib Dawn I think you are being a little bit unfair. At least it in theory can outrange the Advanced Guard Tower depending on the direction you attack it from and if you use attack ground.

[Nyerguds]

Originally posted by Strayed:

Originally posted by Nyerguds:

Why even have artillery if it's no more long range than the enemy defenses?

Ask GDI?

Was talking about the RA artillery there, but yea, the MLRS is also kind of awful. Costs way too much and is basically a glass cannon only useful against infantry and air units. You can literally take it down with two flamethrowers as long as you do a two-pronged attack on it.

The Mammoth Tank can do everything the MLRS can, and better.

Originally posted by Strayed:

As for the Artillery in Tib Dawn I think you are being a little bit unfair. At least it in theory can outrange the Advanced Guard Tower depending on the direction you attack it from and if you use attack ground.

Sure, but in the remaster they made the Artillery the prime targets for Airstrikes. So they will never even reach their target.

[Garrec]

I like the artillery and MLRS in TD campaigns.

Artillery backing up my tank lines against infantry, and outranging advanced guard towers from the right cells. Inaccurate, but they pack a punch when they land a shot, even against armor.

MLRS to back up my mammoths so I don't need to micro them against infantry. They're just cool. I like them for the same reason I like the advanced guard tower. Big, loud explosions. Even if the damage is lacking.

At least the TD artillery were somewhat cost effective. Complete trash in RA though. More expensive, less powerful.