Random thoughts on SP balance 1.0 vs 1.9

[OldMemes.biz]

I've had TW for a long time, though I am not sure from release. Doubt I initially played before 1.9; I've replayed it a ton over the years, always on Hard, so it's safe to say I've always played 1.9. It was always a b-tch but I always managed to eventually do every campaign mission, GDI and Nod on Hard with all bonus and intel.

Recently I decided to give the 1.0 experience a try (followed Cloudyy's guide to get that to work) and I have to say, I almost feel Hard is too easy. I've been blowing through the GDI campaign like it's nothing.

Now I don't know if it feels too easy because 1.0 balancing IS "too easy" or if it's because I just got so used to having to play balls to the walls with 1.9. Probably the later.

The number 1 factor I feel is the original tib eco; 2400 per green load/4200 (or 4800?) per blue load plus tib fields that regrow faster than 1.9 allows me to start most missions rushing to mammoths with rail guns and being able to mass produce them, while still being able to successfully defend from being attacked while doing so.

I've completed 2 of the missions so far that I thought were going to be a pain in the -ss (because they always are in 1.9), Croatia (low power base) and Sarajevo and I was startled by just how "easy" they were (compared to 1.9) this time around. For Croatia, the 1.0 tib eco allowed me to spam preds and apcs which when used as mobile defense made the "don't lose a base defense" bonus easy, PLUS 1.0's GDI towers working as intended made it so that I didn't have to babysit them nearly as much (since in 1.0 rules they WILL auto target rocket troops at the max range).

For Sarajevo, the tib eco made it possible for me to just turtle up and mass produce (and I mean really mass produce) mammoths (I swear over the course of the mission I must have built damn near 40 of them) which while massing were used as defense (supplemented by some AA and rigs to keep the mammoths in top shape while waiting). Once I had a legion of mammoths ready I just strolled right in obliterating everything (the only pain was microing enough to get a commando to kill an avatar).

I know 1.9 had MP in mind (so much so that they basically broke how SP was intended to be), however the ease of which I am knocking out the GDI campaign on hard leads me to wonder if 1.0 could be considered as having been broken heavily in the player's favor, thus necessitating some rebalancing?

Or have I just played so much 1.9 that my thoughts or skewed? Not going to say I'm a "pro" (I mean we're talking SP here lmao) but having played 1.9 so much have I just become accustomed to playing a certain way that under 1.0 rules just ends up being pure cheese?

I feel like there's some middle ground to be had somewhere in this years old 1.0 vs. 1.9 debate. 1.9 was definitely a poor patch, not for what it did but rather that they didn't bother to define its MP-centric aspects to JUST MP (since it was supposed to be for MP purposes); however 1.0 just seems... like it's a given you're going to win with little issue on the first try, where the only thing that isn't a given is how quickly you steamroll or how slow your buildup is.

Thoughts?

[Cat]

I know having a campaign that is so easy even on your first try takes away the fun and challenge, but I bet it's way better than forcing you to exploit around and win missions the way it wasn't intended.

[OldMemes.biz]

Originally posted by Cat:

I know having a campaign that is so easy even on your first try takes away the fun and challenge, but I bet it's way better than forcing you to exploit around and win missions the way it wasn't intended.

Yes that is a good point to bring up; choosing to exploit is one thing but when you're basically FORCED to exploit or fail it's bad. So definitely 1.0 wins over 1.9 in that regard.






I recently finished the 1.0 Nod Hard campaign and, while more difficult by default, was still soooooooo much easier than 1.9 Nod Hard. Though the one most notable thing that didn't change much and still required cheesey exploiting was Kane's Tower, but then, that's just how that mission is lol. Well that and Stiletto just before it.

[Crypto Gamer]

Croatia you likely intended to have 1 harvester getting income forever in 1.0 so the defence can hold"forever" and you can eventually attack a base or get the MCV back.
And you get more income too per harvester.Applies to other missions too.

1.9 you income/tib field will run dry, the enemy attack waves are the same STR as 1.0,you need to micro watchtowers to kill rocketman.You basically have to attack and capture the tank base on hard to win in an okay fashion.

So likely 1.0 was the intended balance,1.9 nerfed eco VERY hard(for MP) changed some unit stats,but scripted attack waves are the same and saving,loading very often breaks missions in 1.9. AI logic derps sometimes they just do nothing,or only produce but not attack so you will have 100 enemy units massed at the base when attacking.

So 1.9 campaign of TW is MUCH harder than Red alert 3 on hard.And likely both of them supposed to have roughly the same difficulty for SP.
Some campaign has resources so 1.9 will also affect their attack waves.

In warcraft 3 and starcaft 2 units have different balance(eg. stats) for the campaign,so MP patches do not break the balance.EA did not care Tib War failed as an Esport and got abbandoned(just like RA 3).

[KaveMan]

I remember the best patch was between 1.03 and 1.05 back in the day for the best gameplay for singleplayer and skirmish, before it everything got unbalanced by later patches.

It's been such a long time ago, still have the discs since the 90's, EA gave me free C&C Ultimate collection to convert my CD's to digital, But wish i had it on steam instead.

[Cat]

The GDI mission where you divert power for defenses with Nod has 3 bases and you have to rescue the MCV convoy: It's one of the mission i beat the unintended way. I left the convoy pinned down the whole mission, capture the armor base and use that factory to finish off the Nods.

The GDI night mission with the river separating two of your forces where you fought Scrin and need to recover a damaged base north, I just used a commando to jumpjet across the river and suicide run to C4 their HQ and win without needing to build an army.

I tried the intended way for most missions and it's not fun with 1.9. it is possible but frustrating so it's way better cheezing the damn missions.

[OldMemes.biz]

Originally posted by Cat:

The GDI mission where you divert power for defenses with Nod has 3 bases and you have to rescue the MCV convoy: It's one of the mission i beat the unintended way. I left the convoy pinned down the whole mission, capture the armor base and use that factory to finish off the Nods.

The GDI night mission with the river separating two of your forces where you fought Scrin and need to recover a damaged base north, I just used a commando to jumpjet across the river and suicide run to C4 their HQ and win without needing to build an army.

I tried the intended way for most missions and it's not fun with 1.9. it is possible but frustrating so it's way better cheezing the damn missions.

That mission even in 1.0 the best option is to do what you did (in my humble opinion of course). It just removes all risk from failing that bonus objective.

[kiwikev]

I think the person who did the balance had ADHD and never actually played this game.

Some missions are extreme even on easy.