Red Alert 3

The imbalance in this mu is, allies need to build power plant to get airport, soviet needs reactor, ore refinary and super reactor and then the air vs air figths favors the allie player.

This game allie player was just a better player tho.

I still agree with Iaguz, I'm not sure that it is possible to adapt with soviets in time, due to the fact that even if you scout, you cannot see which building they are making. This dictates your mix of troops, and you just can't afford to wait to see whether its AF or WF before building your own stuff. If you pre-empt (which is pretty much the only thing you can do) then half of the time you get it wrong and struggle to pull out the other build order from the one that you started on.

dont think this game said much, high mind just played much better. fun watch.

um, no...look at all good RTS. STarcraft? Is teching up autowin? Nope...you need to get military units, even tier1/2 can win the game if the opponent techs up too quick to carriers or battlecruisiers.

but this is not starcraft, and that is now how tech works here. You guys are saying teching up should be autowin? um no...



probably. and whoever said i'm an allies fanboi, how am I an allies fanboi when I play both allies, soviets, and empire?

I'll take anyone here soviets vs allies if you want and you'll see what you're doing wrong.

WHy just chill with the bears istead of trying to attack right away to get some pointers? you didnt even try to scout

anyway, did a vidcast on this game, lets see if it uploads allright

Plus, i think Advanced Aeronautics should probably be a 2 Point skill. Or Cindicators nto getting the extra bomb before advanced Aero + T2

You're looking at the wrong matchups (also, for the record, in TvT, battle cruisers are uncommon, but usable). For starters, disregard Protoss for this discussion. Protoss don't tech 'up', more then tech 'sideways' in three different directions.

Look at TvZ. Imagine if in that matchup, the Terran could instantly counter everything the Zerg threw at him, from mutas, to ultras and defilers and cracklings and lurkers just with MnM, firebats, the odd turret and bunker here and there and never have to tech up to Tanks or Vessels because they are unnecessary.

On the flip side, imagine if Speedlings and Hydras could counter everything Terran had, from MnM to Tanks and vessals and their rare mech builds, thus not necessitating a Lair or Hive tech, and the acquisition of higher teched units.

It'd be madness! People wouldn't stand for it! Well, they do because it's starcraft and it's the benchmark for RTS's everywhere.

(for the record, it could be fairly argued that some of Starcraft's matchups are 'broken', primarily Zerg mirrors but also to some extent the TvP matchup, where for the Terrans its mostly just factories after a few early marines. Very little of their unit base is explored, it's usually just tanks and vultures with a few goliaths, maybe a drop and perhaps a science vessel. The Protoss is required to sideways tech once, twice or even three times to win.)

Still, you can never justify that an army which has only accessed it's most earliest and basic of teching structure should compare to one who has accessed the latest of their tech, even if the higher teched person is a wee bit off economically. The whole point of higher teched stuff is that it has a bitch-killing/cost ratio of less then lower tech stuff anyway.

Remember, my qualm isn't necessarily about balance or not, it's about how the game works, and if Allied t1 can fight off Soviet t3 then RA3 is doing it wrong.


-EDIT, oh, and about those bears. I decided NOT to play my hand because he had an equal number of dogs plus PK's near his rax, which could also easily churn out more dogs if needed. Would have just got a bunch of bears killed for no reason. I decided to just continue flak production because I figured I'd need it when the vindicators came. I know Avilo says "Soviet players need to build more bears" but I do wonder how more bears would have helped in a situation where my foe has got a War fac instead, and PK IFV's. Bears are tough, but not THAT tough.

The other thing which has been frustrating me about this matchup is that the allied building method makes it hard to scout them properly. Let's give a common example (I had this in a game against [dN]maniek). I have just finished my first ref, and my bear is just about to take a look inside the enemy base. I have no knowledge about what my enemy is doing, but I know 2 things:

1) If he goes War fac opening, then I'm going to need a war fac of my own to counter it, as PK IFV just rips infantry apart.

2) If he has an airfield, comfortably continue building those flak troopers that you need to counter the vindis, and start your second ref.

PROBLEM, there is absolutely no way I can tell that he has any of these, even with a bear in his base (some maps are too large to permit this in a good time, because buildings build too quick as compared to say, Starcraft and worker scouting), until they are finished. By then, it's a little too late as I'm probably halfway through something of my own and I need to either cancel it (which is bad) or keep going with it (which might be suicidal).

Hence, BO poker, hence a (conceptually, not necessarily balance) buggered matchup. I don't want a game where scouting is useless, but I don't want a game where your first few choices dictate the entire game, especially because that is an advantage that allies have over Soviets (for two reasons, 1) they have more options and 2) theirs are more flexible and are more aggressive. The Soviets react to them, not the other way around.)

Who the fuck said it should be an autowin to tech to T3? Nobody. Who the fuck said T1 play shouldn't beat someone who techs too fast? Nobody.

This, however, is a 24 minute match where the allied player deliberately ignores teching for the entire game because they know that they just plain don't have to tech, no matter whether the other guy techs or not. He just plain ignores it because it just plain doesn't matter. It gives him nothing he needs, nothing worth the cost.

Lol at comparing that to Starcraft. Just LOL. Your example defeats its own purpose. See, I agree; in Starcraft if someone techs too fast, they might be giving a military advantage to a lower tech player, too late and they take a tech disadvantage. Whether you rush tech or eco or put the pressure on is a series of strategic decisions. That's good shit for an RTS to have.

But if you can happily just ignore tech even in a long, high eco game like this because you don't need fucking need it, well then there goes that, then.

Replay showcases two things:

1. Build order bingo against Allies consists of two entirely different units used to counter two entirely different things. Either is the hard counter to the other and there is nothing a Soviet can do to scout.

1a. It's easy to feign one build order (PK) and then go the other (air).

2. Allies T1 is able to counter soviets T3 ground superiority.

Meh shadow terran had the advantage all game with his constant harassment.. he shouldn't have to tech. Reminded me of GDI in tib wars.. constantly nabbing buildings while harassing with manspam and some tanks. Just because one of the best allies players wins a game vs sov where a harv is killed in in the very beginning does not mean "omg tech loses" Seemed to me by watching this replay that sovs should normally own allies.

P.S. you cant base balance on 1 shitty map

Hahaha

Btw, I think it's great that the reds have to work harder than the blue to win...for a change