1.6

[Noodleman]

http://messagebrd.westwood.ea.com/cgi-bin/boards/gen/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000010

this should be live VERY soon, (next few hours)

so, get updating, and lets go go go ^_^

EDIT:

this is now live when doing the update within the game, The exe isnt on the ftp yet.

[phil]

/me grumbles about China getting screwed over in 1.6

[Zakalwe]

/me laughs at the fearsome new china rush....

[Noodleman]

lol

China havent been screwed over, i think it's pritty legit. China were rock hard.

I like the +25% damage thought to the GLA's scud storm with the relavent upgrades though

Now your f**cked

[cyberdude]

ahhhhhhhhhh

;-)


Cd

[phil]

Originally posted by Noodleman
lol

China havent been screwed over, i think it's pritty legit. China were rock hard.

I like the +25% damage thought to the GLA's scud storm with the relavent upgrades though

Now your f**cked

I agree that the migs and gattlings needed toning downa bit, but on both cases they went ott.

Migs go up by 20% cost, fair enough. Mig armour also going up by 100% is not.

Gattlings were probably too powerful as an early unit, but again they went too far with cost increase / los firing and speed reduction.

GLA's scrud storm is just too powerful. They should have kept the damage the same, but either increased the time between launches or increased the time between calling the strike and impact.

[Noodleman]

The damage is the same.

It's only upgraded if you get the toxin upgrades. Which is how it should have been.

[afty]

Originally posted by phil
I agree that the migs and gattlings needed toning downa bit, but on both cases they went ott.

Migs go up by 20% cost, fair enough. Mig armour also going up by 100% is not.

I disagree, at $500 the armour was insanely cheap, and worth purchasing as soon as you had 1 airbase full of Migs...

Gatling weapons definitely needed to become LOS only as they could be used to take out units defending near the edge of ridges that couldn't fire back, and their speed nerf was only when extremely damaged - it was a bugfix.

They were and still are very powerful, and usually defeat other sides equivalent units.

[Noodleman]

Agreed, the armour was very cheap in comparison to other upgrades that other teams can purchase.

[phil]

Originally posted by afty
I disagree, at $500 the armour was insanely cheap, and worth purchasing as soon as you had 1 airbase full of Migs...

Gatling weapons definitely needed to become LOS only as they could be used to take out units defending near the edge of ridges that couldn't fire back, and their speed nerf was only when extremely damaged - it was a bugfix.

They were and still are very powerful, and usually defeat other sides equivalent units.

$500 is cheap, but I always saw it as a required upgrade. Without it the migs go down too easy and it's basically a suicide mission. The way I think of it is an extra cost on your first airbase.

I don't see that being able to fire at things that can't fire back is a reason to remove a unit ability. If that was the case then tomahawks should be removed because they can fire at tanks which can't fire back. Same with the speed thing - yes it was a bug (an earlier version had nuke cannons actually speed up when injured), but you learn to use them in your favour and it's all part of how the teams balance. The thing about gattlings and migs for China is that they are the only reasonably fast units they have...

I'm not saying that things shouldn't have been evened out slightly, I just think they went too far. China's slow response was always a little annoying, and now the their only quick response and decent base defence (Edit: base defence as in spec op defence) units have been toned down.

[bvark]

Gattling turrets can still force fire through buildings.

[afty]

Originally posted by phil
$500 is cheap, but I always saw it as a required upgrade. Without it the migs go down too easy and it's basically a suicide mission. The way I think of it is an extra cost on your first airbase.

It was only a 25% improvement and tbh isn't that necessary. Migs have little enough armour that if fired upon they rarely "just" make it out of range, or "just" die - it's often clear cut. Worse for Apaches of course if you're USA :)

Originally posted by phil
I don't see that being able to fire at things that can't fire back is a reason to remove a unit ability. If that was the case then tomahawks should be removed because they can fire at tanks which can't fire back.

The difference is that Tomahawks are SUPPOSED to be able to fire at tanks out of range - their weapon is a high arc projectile (well, guided missile) - the Gattling cannons are direct fire projectiles, so it doesn't make sense for them to be able to fire at units that aren't in LOS, and was an unintended bug. Furthermore, the Gattling tanks are significantly overpowered when facing off against any other nations equivalent.

Hummvees are raped by Gatts unless they have the TOW upgrade, and Quad Cannons are always slapped down too - they were also quicker. My reading of the Patch Upgrade Docs is that they have NOT slowed down Gatts overall, just Gatts that are damaged, which seems reasonable to me.

The whole point about Chinas land forces being generally slow is a good one, and also intentional. They simply have too many cheap, powerful units to do damage with. They are not supposed to be a flexible, fast response force. The fact that since Generals inception online, China almost always have the highest or joint highest weekly winning percentage speaks volumes.

[Noodleman]

I used to play as china a lot,

The point being, they are rock hard without any upgrades.

To make GLA rock hard, you need to go through about 12k of upgrades. Not cheap.

[Excalibur]

buggery poo poo buggery.

nevermind. i was thinking of trying to master USA anyway. looks like my china days are numbered.

[Noodleman]

not really excal,

Just means your gonna have to learn to play without h4x ;)

[phil]

Originally posted by afty
The difference is that Tomahawks are SUPPOSED to be able to fire at tanks out of range - their weapon is a high arc projectile (well, guided missile) - the Gattling cannons are direct fire projectiles, so it doesn't make sense for them to be able to fire at units that aren't in LOS, and was an unintended bug.

If we're going down the realism route, I'm not sure scuds firing the length of four tanks would be a very good long term tactic ;)

Clearly the gattling is firing in one window of the building and out the other :)

[afty]

Originally posted by phil
Clearly the gattling is firing in one window of the building and out the other :)

And I can emphatically deny the reports of on-base chinese catering and clerical staff being injured during Gattling Cannon training - they are entirely false. In fact, the opposite is true - when we train our Gattling gunners more cooks and desk jockeys are born.

[phil]

Originally posted by afty
And I can emphatically deny the reports of on-base chinese catering and clerical staff being injured during Gattling Cannon training - they are entirely false. In fact, the opposite is true - when we train our Gattling gunners more cooks and desk jockeys are born.

Ahh, but you see as soon as they hear "I have many bullets to spare" or "chaingun spinning up" they get their heads down. It's amazing how quickly you learn when you've got a hail of lead rushing towards you on a regular basis.

[andyf]

Not phased by 1.6, I wasn't hardcore enough to note the new changes.


EXCEPT until last night when some MPUK'ers had a 4v4 against randoms. I can say for sheer certainty that Scud Storms are now extremely extremely extremely UNDESIRABLE to have attacking you, especially with anthrax beta. Took me riiiight out of the game :(

[Noodleman]

I love the GLA ^_^

Ur allll in da **** now lol.

Well, prob not but good for a windup init

[phil]

Originally posted by andyf
I can say for sheer certainty that Scud Storms are now extremely extremely extremely UNDESIRABLE to have attacking you, especially with anthrax beta. Took me riiiight out of the game :(

I'm saying this as someone who never plays GLA (haven't even finished the single player GLA campaign) so I have a clear bias, but I really do think the scud needs a longer timer between firing or a longer launch-to-land time.

[Noodleman]

the scud WAS the least powerful of all the super weapons.

Now, with the upgrades, GLA kick ass!

the upgrade should have been in the game from the start, but for some reason it wasnt.

I think the anthrax beta upgrade is £2500 and gives +25% damage to all anthrax weapons. So it will really help the GLA. The problem with the scud, is that although it would spread anthrax over a large area, the only real damage was done where the actual missiles hit.

So, imho it's a fair upgrade.

Ive yet to play 1.6 as ive been quite busy latley, im hoping to have a go at the weekend.

[afty]

Personally I feel the Ion Cannon is by far the weakest of the super weapons.

[bvark]

Me too - although multiple ion cannons (to take down SWs) can be a fairly effective tactic

[Noodleman]

the Ion cannon isnt as powerful as other weapons, but it is a lot more strategic.

Also, the countdown for an Ion cannon is much less than other super weapons, so can be used more frequently. I believe its only 3 mins, compared to 5/6 mins for all others.

[phil]

Originally posted by bvark
Me too - although multiple ion cannons (to take down SWs) can be a fairly effective tactic

I agree. I'd say it's best use is as a deterent to land attack. If someone is sat there with 0:00 on their ion cannon timer there is no way I'm sending in a procession of large tanks.

[afty]

Originally posted by bvark
Me too - although multiple ion cannons (to take down SWs) can be a fairly effective tactic

But multiple *any* superweapons is a fairly effectively tictac.

2 nukes or 2 scud storms are both insanely powerful.

[Noodleman]

and if you let the enemy build multiple super weapons, then it's your own fault ^_^

[10acious]

yes it is (http://forums.multiplay.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=16705)