Red Alert 3

Well, if we're going around waving replays in front of people's faces as if to prove points, allow me to show you an Allied vs Soviet game that shows why the matchup still has some problems. Actually, I really just have one major arguement with what transpires here:

ST2 stays at t1. The entire game. And wins.

I'm sorry, but this breaks one of RTS's core principles, that teching = massive advantage. Here, it doesn't do shit. I cannot break through the endless tides of infantry, turrets and vindicators with even T3 units, and mostly even economy

There's also the other problem with the matchup, seen in the early game. That is BO poker, which currently favours allies methinks. I've actually seen this in a match I had vs Crunk. I knew that he spammed tons of dogs to counter my bears, so I just went fast War Fac for a quick TD and all his dogs (at least 10) were worthless. This build would be ineffective against a fast airfield though, as the TD's would be mostly useless and just be picked off, and bullfrogs are expensive counters (also leaves me vulnerable to other tricks too)

In this game, I do the usual counter inf/vindis build. But forsooth! ST2 has instead opted for a War Fac with a PK IFV instead, which slaughters all my wonderful flak troopers, and also destroys any hope of a heavy infantry opening! Cannot have predicted that before spending too much on flaks and not enough on a war fac of my own, now can I?

With a bit of chain reasoning, I can blame PK's (and possibly even Advanced Aeronautics too!) for the BO poker. Why? Read on!

In the Crunk game, my terror drone counters all the dogs, which counter all the bears, which counters all the PK's. Why do I feel the urge to counter a threat which isn't even real before I've even scouted it? Because they are so powerful, I feel I must be prepared to fight it even if it's not there yet. If a unit or strategy holds such a Sword of Damocles grip in a matchup, there's a good chance that it is broken.

HOWEVER, this also brings up the arguement that Allied T2 and 3 is made of crap, and their expanding/teching methods are counter-intuitive. I believe that if you were to nerf PK's (and even vindis), then these should also be fixed too.

At the very least, if a T3 army cannot even defeat a T1 army with mostly equal economies, then you have a serious problem.

Discuss.

Rename ffs

And for the people who laughed at me when i said BO poker is big in AvS.....

I watched this game and didn't really see any major problems. The only reason he was able to push you back was because he killed a harv so early. Pretty hard to judge balance in any game where a harv is lost so fast. If you had gone war fac before super reactor I think you would have been fine with a sickel or 2. You played really well the rest of the game and almost came back but I think this replay showed me that either faction can win. I do agree it sucks allies hafta stay at t1 but this is just 1 map where there is only 1 choke point. This strat only works here tbh and you still could have won with some walls or if u saved that harv early.

I agree with your assessment but also part of the problem is the map.

Both players had some half-open opportunities they maybe could've taken, in the end the difference was allies click and points being far superior.

I also think this endorses the theory that soviets have to work a lot harder than allies on this map, unless you call loading up a hover every 2 minutes with an engi hard work

i'll have to watch, but you already gave the reason of why you lost in your own description of the game:

You put money into countering units that don't even exist on the field yet lol...

you have to scout and build units according to the info you get, not what of what doesn't even exist yet.

and lol trojan, sigh, another scrub.
I've been playing a lot of soviets vs allies games, and it isn't as hard as you guys make it out AT ALL.

also keep in mind, you are playing one of the best allies players -> shadowterran, he simply may be a better player than you are.

At least watch the damn game before you pontificate on it.

Iaguz had a bad start due to build order poker, sure, but he came back enough to get 4 refs to the allies 3, and be at T3 to the allies T1. It's ridiculous that T1 gives allies everything they need to fight off a T3 soviet.

In any properly balanced RTS game if a player gets out teched to the maximum, then they should lose. Period. Tech level should not be meaningless, and we all know that.

Allied T1 needs a nerf, it simply should not give allies everything they need, even against a T3 opponent. If you can't see that that is ridiculous, then I'm going to call you out for what you are, a blatant allied fanboy.

Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't iaguz have pushed when at one point he had 9 hammer tanks, 3 bull frogs and 1 mig. At that point ST had only 1 multigunner turret up, half a dozen inf and had lost all his apollos and vidicators. I think there was just a lack of agressive play from Iaguz but some really good harrasement from ST which sealed his win.

Actually it is a lot harder, Highmind just floats away and he barely does anything (this is every game he plays) apart from move his mcv and his infantry and build towers, his vindicator use is very ordinary.

Meanwhile the soviets player is always constantly on the back foot (to no fault of their own, it just happens with instant deploy) and having to pick perfect timing on when to charge, when to fall back, when to try and hold with towers, what to actually build.

In theory it is impossible for it to be easier to play soviets due to the nature of instant deploy towers.



Yes, this was his half opportunity. High Mind's was at the very start when he could have just guardian pushed.