Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:43 am Post subject:
GDI vs Nod Units Tiers
I know this was debated before but I'd just like too perhaps get a clearer view on the staff's opinion on this issue. Why is the balance so skewered towards Nod? If the said Nod player is good enough he can easily destroy GDI with almost no effort.
In regards too infantry, armored units or vehicles it's pretty much the same GDI stands no chance later in game. To sum it up I just want too know why is it skewered so much against GDI? I know GDI lost the first war but it's not really a reason too make it so unbalanced against GDI. QUICK_EDIT
IMO GDI has already well-balanced in this game. They have Siege infantries which is thumbs up for me, Anti surface Railgun tank and even a terrifying Mammoth Armature. Do you play GDI frequently? QUICK_EDIT
I'm playing Nod more frequently but that doesn't mean I don't know how GDI works though. I'm talking about on a overall scale and total base GDI is far too weak in a actual match against Nod.
That and the units you listed can easily be crushed by just the cyborgs alone that's not even counting the other units Nod has at there disposal. Mammoth Armature can easily be disposed of via banshees. QUICK_EDIT
I haven't played TI against human players for over a year so I can't say if it's exactly balanced, but what I can say is that it's now much more balanced than it was a few years ago. Nod units were generally much stronger against GDI units back in the first 2-3 Public beta versions than they are now; since then, many essential Nod units like the Eclipse and Banshee Bomber have got significant nerfs while some GDI units like the Goliath have mainly become stronger.
There are some exceptions to this like GDI's EMP having a shorter duration and Nod's Rocket Infantry being much stronger (which I believe might be OP considering how poor Scatterpacks actually are; it especially sucks how they cannot fire over slopes) than it used to be, but generally TI's balance has improved a lot during its development. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
Thinking about it the main issue left I feel is the artillery and bombardment units. What GDI needs 2- 3 units too do Nod has it done with just 1.
I guess that's why it feels so off. But if you kill the power on the mole you pretty much kill off almost half of Nod's defensive strength because a great deal relies on the moles. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:05 pm Post subject:
I think early game GDI is superior because of Grenadiers being pretty much anti-everything, and Nod's counter to them requires a Radar (besides spamming Militia). Scatterpacks may be fragile and lacking when used in hilly terrain, they can deal tons of damage to even tanks and structures. Combined with Goliaths they can take on many things, including air to some regard. The most lacking point of GDI is a way to take on Nod bases guarded by Artilleries, which most Nod players (including AI sometimes) do because it is so effective. MRLS Walkers lack the range, large armies and the Mammoth get obliterated before they can do something useful, and air attacks are mostly suicide attacks.
Nod on the other hand has 2 strong points: the above mentioned Artilleries (both in defence and offence) and cyborgs. Artilleries because they outrange everything and cyborgs because they are walking tanks, only cheaper and faster to produce with several Hand of Nods to support your Hall of Faith.
One of my favourite tactics are waves of Cyborgs (all variants) supported by Artilleries, Mobile SAMs and repair vehicles. This strategy does have some slight flaws against GDI though, due to 2 units: the MRLS Walker and the Immobilizer. Although, your Artilleries outrange the MRLS Walkers, and the Mobile SAMs can quickly take out the Immobilizers before much damage can be done. From the few battles I did online, I can say that especially the Mobile SAMs are very useful units, as I lost a battle due to my army being disabled by Immobilizers and then smashed to pulp by pretty much everything
Anyways, short said: the major point is that GDI lacks a good way to deal with Artilleries, which was the same problem in TS. This is (most likely) why WW introduced the Juggernaut in FS as a counter to the Artillery (as the Hover MRLS was hardly worth its name). QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:30 pm Post subject:
Dunno. Staff forums has been rather quiet lately due to school, work and other RL priorities (I assume). We did discuss the matter of the MRLS Walker's underperformance, but I can't remember what the result was. There was some interest in the resurrection of a Juggernaut-esque unit, but not everyone liked the original Juggernaut idea. Time will tell QUICK_EDIT
An idea perhaps you can entertain is making MRLS Walker's range as far as the regular Juggernaut? This includes strengths and weakness as well.Since Siege infantry is meant too take the position for Mid range artillery like Nod's howitzer, you can make MRLS Walker take the Ultra Long range position. QUICK_EDIT
Anyways, short said: the major point is that GDI lacks a good way to deal with Artilleries, which was the same problem in TS. This is (most likely) why WW introduced the Juggernaut in FS as a counter to the Artillery (as the Hover MRLS was hardly worth its name).
This reminds me of an idea that I've had for awhile now - a weak, artillery range "tank destroyer" for GDI.
This is consistent with the idea that GDI doesn't have artillery - its weapon is extremely weak against structures and infantry, and against vehicles isn't much stronger than a normal tank. In other words, it isn't artillery, it's counter-artillery.
The problem would be to keep it from tearing apart enemy tank columns the way current artillery does. Maybe make it effective only against light armor? Only effective against heavy armor? Effective against one while mobile and the other once deployed? QUICK_EDIT
It's not really per say of not having an artillery but rather a stationary one. If they have one it's mobile thus the seige infantry and MLRS Walker. Which is why I proposed changing MLRS Walkers range too that of Nod's Mole Artillery or maybe just a bit less.
GDI isn't the vain type of people who would leave a critical point of weakness out there for enemies too exploit and not fix it. Especially when they have Globotech as backers. QUICK_EDIT
GDI isn't the vain type of people who would leave a critical point of weakness out there for enemies too exploit and not fix it. Especially when they have Globotech as backers.
It all depends on how you frame it - e.g., "GDI doesn't use most forms of artillery because they have an unacceptable risk of collateral damage against civilian targets" or something along those lines, which is definitely consistent with GDI's "we're the good guys" mentality. QUICK_EDIT
But it doesn't mean they don't or won't use them. All they need too do is use the other more safer units that falls within acceptable range of risk. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Location: North America Posts: You cannot comprehend...
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 1:23 am Post subject:
GDI does have to charge more often than Nod. GDI needs to keep pushing, to make sure it gets clear of Nod campers. Nod can set up camps when they push, so GDI has to counter push extra hard to cut out the campers and the front line tanks. Nod can sit back and deploy moles behind their charge of tanks. GDI needs to be hitting Nod encampments of Moles and mobile AA with MLRS and immobilizers before moving in for base kills.
They both kinda even out on offense and defense, with GDI's bases having more component guns than Nod's obelisks and sams, but Nod has mole. GDI needs to push harder than Nod theoretically, to close the gap, to get within range of moles. They've got some tough units to do it though, Goliaths and walkers are heavily armored, and the Immobilzer plus Bomber for Cyborg rushes and sitting duck moles. Nod has to micro the SAMs to not get pwned by GDI tanks, and Nod has to set up moles. The micro Nod takes to set up its shit equals the micro GDI takes to push its wave into range, though Nod could have the initial advantage of having Moles set up at a checkpoint, if the Checkpoint is farther away from GDI base and closer to the Nod base, GDI could be winning if they have pushed closer to Nod's starting base on the map, being further towards Nod's base than GDI's. _________________ Destroy to create. All for the hunt to dominate!
I don't even bother most of the time with what you said I just suicide bomb all the enemies construction yard and war factories then proceed to bomb there refineries. Nod just makes it a lot more annoying with the stealth. After that I just take my time torturing said person or AI too death or til I'm satisfied. Also with this method you don't have too worry about leaving your base undefended.
Edit:Just too answer DarkVen in a more direct way GDI is not well balanced compared too Nod they can get easily crushed. railgun tanks and mammoth can't even put a dent on a NOD base thats guarded by Artillery.
That is just Artillery not counting the infantry and cyborgs that could easily faceroll nearly entire GDI's arsenal. So ya GDI being well balanced is nothing but a joke. As for Seige infantry that can just as easily be facerolled by cyborgs or Banshee Bombers.
Of course I am aware GDI is capable of doing this too a lesser or greater degree. but in regards too everything added together GDI is worth nothing compared too Nod. QUICK_EDIT
IIRC most of GDI's wins in online games were scored with early attacks, since their Kazuars, Grenadiers, Goliaths and Jumpjets (if those manage to surprise a Nod player) are pretty powerful compared to Nod's early offensive units. Lategame it mostly depended on the EMP and an elite MMKII killing structures from afar with its massive railgun (and also soloing a dozen Eclipses with ease thanks to its own EMP)). Of course, the MMKII only worked if GDI managed to keep the Nod player under pressure so Nod wasn't able to deploy a line of Moles under a stealth generator immediately after teching up.
I also have to say that when we still played online, Nod was more popular than GDI, partially because I mostly played as only Nod since I was trying to prove how broken the balance was back then (and well, also because of TF playing only as Nod). Now I'd also be tempted to try GDI just out of interest though, since the balance is in a much better state than it used to be. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
As you said you can see for your self GDI's only chance of victory against Nod is early game - mid game. As the game goes on your chance of victory only continues too decrease.
AlsoDutchy you should try editing one of the maps so both you and the AI have several Purple Tiberium spreader. The AI proves too be a lot more challenging when they don't have a money issue. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:59 pm Post subject:
DeathlyRose wrote:
As you said you can see for your self GDI's only chance of victory against Nod is early game - mid game. As the game goes on your chance of victory only continues too decrease.
AlsoDutchy you should try editing one of the maps so both you and the AI have several Purple Tiberium spreader. The AI proves too be a lot more challenging when they don't have a money issue.
I know that. If I could port one feature from RA2 to TS, it would be the Virtual Ore Purifiers so the AI gets a bonus with all the cash it gathers, instead of a single bonus at the start of the match (which it wastes pretty quick). This would make the AI much more challenging. QUICK_EDIT
With AI levels 0 and 2 it's less of an issue since you can just edit the [Easy] and [Difficult] Rules.ini sections so the AI gets a significant cost reduction for everything it builds. Of course, it doesn't work for AI level 1, and it's also problematic for campaign missions which have all difficulty levels used by human players. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:38 pm Post subject:
^Rampastein wrote:
With AI levels 0 and 2 it's less of an issue since you can just edit the [Easy] and [Difficult] Rules.ini sections so the AI gets a significant cost reduction for everything it builds. Of course, it doesn't work for AI level 1, and it's also problematic for campaign missions which have all difficulty levels used by human players.
Even when I set the values to something ludicrous like 100x multiply it won't help. Hell, the only thing that will happen is that the AI is more annoying in the beginning as it has a tonload of cash to spend instead of having little like a player has. QUICK_EDIT
The MLRS has been brought up earlier in the thread but why does it exists? It's a cool showpiece, but I'd laugh if you told me it is a siege weapon. It can out-range Nod defenses, but it can't do any real damage.
Quadhelix wrote:
It all depends on how you frame it - e.g., "GDI doesn't use most forms of artillery because they have an unacceptable risk of collateral damage against civilian targets" or something along those lines, which is definitely consistent with GDI's "we're the good guys" mentality.
That doesn't make logical sense. It makes sense when in a civilian area, but this war isn't all urban warfare. It would be silly for them to not have a good artillery piece. However, I can see them using air support more than artillery support.
I guess what I mean is, GDI needs to be diversified. I can agree with them having good units like the Goliath, Scatterpack, and Grenadier. However, the MLRS is essentially useless.
(I'm just kind of curious also, it seems like TI ditched Nod's weaker units vs GDI's stronger units. They have a heavy tank, good air power, and cyborg infantry. It just doesn't really remind me of TD's Nod, but maybe I'm missing something.) QUICK_EDIT
The problem with MLRS Walker is that if an enemy unit gets within a certain range the MLRS almost certainly hits itself that and the range it needs too get to it's target is far too short to make it of any use. QUICK_EDIT
Even when I set the values to something ludicrous like 100x multiply it won't help. Hell, the only thing that will happen is that the AI is more annoying in the beginning as it has a tonload of cash to spend instead of having little like a player has.
If you set Cost=0.5 in [Easy], it has pretty much the same end result as having virtual tiberium purifiers doubling the AI's income since instead of the AI receiving twice as many credits as normally, everything costs half as much as normally for the AI (with the exception that the AI's starting cash does indeed last longer). If you set Cost= low enough, the AI is even able to constantly spam units even if it has only a single tiberium tree or most of its harvesters get destroyed by human players before they get to unload their collected tiberium. For example, with Cost=0.2 you shouldn't really see the AI lacking money at any point unless its harvesters are being strongly harassed or the map simply has no regrowing tiberium. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
cyborgs because they are walking tanks, only cheaper and faster to produce with several Hand of Nods to support your Hall of Faith.
I just want to mention that using lots of HoNs to pump out masses of cyborgs from a single HoF (Hall of Faith) won't work anymore when i finished the HoF.
Then you have to build several HoFs to produce Cyborgs faster. _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
It's not an issue for me though since i always build 4- 6 HOF. Another reason being that it's annoying too lose your production queue when you need it. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:01 pm Post subject:
^Rampastein wrote:
Dutchygamer wrote:
Even when I set the values to something ludicrous like 100x multiply it won't help. Hell, the only thing that will happen is that the AI is more annoying in the beginning as it has a tonload of cash to spend instead of having little like a player has.
If you set Cost=0.5 in [Easy], it has pretty much the same end result as having virtual tiberium purifiers doubling the AI's income since instead of the AI receiving twice as many credits as normally, everything costs half as much as normally for the AI (with the exception that the AI's starting cash does indeed last longer). If you set Cost= low enough, the AI is even able to constantly spam units even if it has only a single tiberium tree or most of its harvesters get destroyed by human players before they get to unload their collected tiberium. For example, with Cost=0.2 you shouldn't really see the AI lacking money at any point unless its harvesters are being strongly harassed or the map simply has no regrowing tiberium.
Maybe I should try with those more extreme values then instead of the values I'm using now. Would be nice if I actually got some feedback about the current AI, but that is more a matter for Staff forums.
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
Dutchygamer wrote:
cyborgs because they are walking tanks, only cheaper and faster to produce with several Hand of Nods to support your Hall of Faith.
I just want to mention that using lots of HoNs to pump out masses of cyborgs from a single HoF (Hall of Faith) won't work anymore when i finished the HoF.
Then you have to build several HoFs to produce Cyborgs faster.
Still cheaper and takes less space then spamming WFs. And cyborgs are also cheaper then tanks QUICK_EDIT
The MLRS has been brought up earlier in the thread but why does it exists? It's a cool showpiece, but I'd laugh if you told me it is a siege weapon. It can out-range Nod defenses, but it can't do any real damage.
I think it's supposed to be something of a force-multiplier - a "rocket shotgun" if you will.
Darkstorm wrote:
That doesn't make logical sense. It makes sense when in a civilian area, but this war isn't all urban warfare. It would be silly for them to not have a good artillery piece. However, I can see them using air support more than artillery support.
It's a fig leaf to paper over why GDI doesn't have artillery.
In other words, it's an excuse for why GDI doesn't have artillery, not an argument that they should not. QUICK_EDIT
The MLRS is more of a mass army softener with its spread out damage than ultimate siege tool or direct one target killer.
Ideology is just slightly different instead of direct counterparts but admittedly the reaper logic damaging friendlies makes it dangerous for all QUICK_EDIT
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum