An Analysis of Red Alert 3's Economy System | Game Design Analysis
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge gameplay footage provided by Zain Haider: / @zainhaider
Welcome to our first C&C game design analysis video! Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 has a controversial method of resource collection - Here, collectors / prospectors mine from static ore nodes, while most players prefer the harvesters from Red Alert 2 as well as most other CnC games that mine from ore fields / Tiberium fields wide spread across the map. Are the ore nodes in RA3 really that bad of a design decision, or have we fallen prey to pre-established conventions? Let's examine whether the economy systems of RA2 or RA3 is better, and go over some advantages of RA3's ore nodes from a game designer's perspective!
Music used in this video:
Experimental Test Subject Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
Chillin Hard Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
Crusade - Heavy Industry Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
An absolutely fantastic, well-presented and well-reasoned video! However, I wanted to weigh in a little on the ending.
While I don't disagree with the notion of people not liking change, and that people disliked the way RA3 defied resource conventions is entirely true, I think there may be more to it than that. I understand your points that from a competitive perspective the ore nodes allow for the exacerbation in scale of small differences in skill, but from every other perspective than competitive the ore nodes are just significantly less interesting a tool to play with.
An ore node has an optimal location to place the ref, and an optimal number of harvesters required for harvesting; 1. You can't do any better than that for that node.
A resource field (I'm talking about all C&C games of this type and not solely RA2 BTW) feels far more organic, more 'analogue' and less 'digital'. The size of the field changes as it is harvested. This forces the distance between the field and the ref to change, making longer-distance harvesting an ongoing decision you have to weigh. As a field is depleted, you then shift your harvesters to another field you have expanded to, or in dire straights long-distance mine. You can rush in all your harvesters to steal a small field of gems or vinifera. You can use harvesters as 'goalies' to soak up damage from oncoming attacks. There's also just something viscerally, indefinably satisfying about sending your harvs to 'mow the lawn', giving a very definite visual indicator for how much value is in the field (in size and colour) and how much is remaining, while ore nodes are just oil derricks with more steps.
With a resource field, you can pretty much always do better; have more harvesters and be closer to where the field, at first, starts. You also constantly have to weigh whether to use your build queues on improving your forces, or improving the efficiency of your economy. As the field depletes, move your harvesters. You could have too many harvesters for the size of the field, you could buy loads of harvesters to take a field quickly but have to weigh in the cost of the additional harvesters and if they were actually needed, but the way this flows is organic. With an ore node on the other hand, you instead start at optimal efficiency and can only do worse, which feels more aggravating and far less rewarding. You can't improve the efficiency of your economy, all you can do is expand to predetermined locations. Resource fields have a much larger area of intrinsic value around them, while with the ore nodes you know exactly where the ref will be placed.
Dune's Spice is perhaps the most elegant piece of resource design in all of RTS, as the value in gameplay to the player goes hand-in-hand with the story value. Tiberium works almost as well, mixing in the danger to infantry as a gameplay mechanic rather than just a story thing. Red Alert's ore is just Tiberium from a gameplay perspective without the damage to units, and doesn't play into the story. That's fair, the gameplay needed a resource, but it's somewhat less inelegant for it. Still, I think it works well, and I reckon OpenRA's Red Alert presents a competitive-friendly variant of the classic resource field-centric C&C gameplay. Ore nodes are good as a tool for Red Alert 3's competitive sandbox for all the reasons you presented so well in this video, but for those of us who didn't play competitively it always felt like a downgrade to something less engaging, where there is only one right option.
Besides which, I think there's a case to be made for the allowance of upsets and comebacks in a competitive setting. Not in the sense of the Blue Shell as raised here, but more so in the sense that the death of the early-game engineer, while yes being a setback, not being the factor that decides the entire game. Take fighting games; if you start a combo, you have the opportunity to deal a massive amount of damage if you can pull it off correctly. However, the game isn't over until your opponent's health bar is depleted, or all your stocks are taken. If they're good enough, a player on the back foot still has the chance to take the game, and so a losing player can keep fighting. I'm under the impression that classic C&C allows for this more so than other RTSs, and I've seen matches (OpenRA, shoutout again to FiveAces) where a player had an early advantage but then slipped back and lost traction. This allows massive armies to clash in an actual simulation of a war between two bases, rather than the smaller MOBA-like micro-intensive engagements between only a few units.
To continue the fighting game analogy, I think of ore nodes as like traditional fighting games; I get why they work, but the combos are pre-made by the developers. If you don't play the way the developer wanted the character to be played, you're doing it wrong. Resource fields on the other hand are like Melee; combos are freeform and more inventive; they weren't laid out by the developer, they emerge from the interplay of game mechanics and allow for a greater freedom of expression and creativity in your tactics. A curated experience might make for a stronger competitive sandbox, but allowing gameplay to arise from the interplay of mechanics in the sandbox feels more organic, and I think more interesting.
WOW NO STRINGS PRD! I'm a huge fan 😍😍😍😍 This is easily the most intellectual comment I've ever gotten!
You brought up VERY logical & insightful points - This is totally brilliant! There's so much to be considered with a game's resource collection and so much byproducts that come with the design. Your analogy of fighting games got me to make a connection between this and level design: Linear levels are better for controlled, crafted-to-detail experiences, while a lot of agency & organic-feel are cut off in the trade-off. In this extremely competitive game, the devs were most likely tempted to control exactly how much resources each player has at their disposal at any given time (to facilitate pre-designed & carefully-measured build orders & economic choices) - Giving players too much economic freedom would tamper with such a disciplined system.
The choice RA3 devs made were right in the context of this game only because it was built around competitive, while a lot got lost for the casual audience, plus tons of creative emergence killed. (Dang, why didn't I think of those when I was making this video 😅) And like you mentioned, stealing "vinifera" is a pretty good move in competitive, so Ore Nodes lost quite some potential competitive implications as well.
I can tell how into C&C you are just by your use of the term "vinifera" ;)
RA2 resource system goes in line with the games design philosophy of spamming. Spam ore collectors to spam war factories to spam tanks. The economy system is a lot less punishing in RA2 compare to RA3, because losing 1 or 2 harvesters when you have 11 is much less painful than losing 1 collector when you only have 3, and I feel many players just couldn't cope with that. RA3 is a harder, much more competitive game and the limited ore nodes basically meant players couldn't turtle their way to victory resulting in far more dynamic matches, while RA2's generous, a bit too generous, offering of resources meant it was easier to "hide" some resource collectors away from the beaten path
All in all he says it, RA2 ore is better for casuals but for competitive game play Ore nodes is superior for it's limited nature, thus forcing players to duke it out for map control, resulting in better spectator game and thats besides the superior tactical depth of the games units, having bigger clashes of army isn't always better especially when all it comes down to is blobbing one certain unit and steamrolling, you say simulation of wars, but wars aren't won by just steamrolling with a bunch of tanks
@@xyhc-cnc Hah, I have nothing more to add, I entirely agree! Linear/open world levels are a good analogy
Thank you for your kind words btw :) Greatly enjoyed the video
I was legimately intrigued by your words, then you mentioned Melee and compared it to traditional fighters and my eyes proceeded to roll so far into the back of my head that I actually saw my optic nerves.
@@src175 That sounds like it could be a problem
11:26 Completely true. I hated the unorthodoxy and changes in RA3 when I first transitioned from RA2. But as I learned and opened up more my mind to it I realized RA3 is such great a game.
exactly, its more fun. for me honestly ra3 is a good game the only minus for me is the cartoonish graphics, the game play both online offline is quite great.
I was 4 when I changed from RA2 to RA 3 and I didn't even understand how to play but now I learned that this was a good game but had a few struggles with money but overcame in with the system xyhc published
No it's not - the tanks look like kid's toys.
I never knew there was so much strategy in refs thanks helped alot
12:50 legend has it they're still circling the trees till this day
Great video as usual. I wonder though - How much of RA3's bad rep comes from the already at the time growing discontent with EA? I mean, they did meddle as usual, and basically EA was EA even back then, and I am no friend of theirs (Westwood lives in death!) but I personally always liked RA3, despite being into the series since Tib. Dawn days. (The Ore node thing never much bothered me, as I was always more into the base construction and combat aspect, than looking after the harvester armada) So I wonder if RA3's bad rep is just partially, as a game, a kind of an unfortunate victim due to the growing dislike/hate for EA?
Nah. In 2008 EA, or at least it's reputation, were good. It was time of Spore and Sims 3, not SW:Battlefront 2 or Sims 4. Not even SimCity 2013. RA3 has a lot to hate even by itself.
All you really need to answer this question is a quick look at how rapid-fire the second decade of C&C was. They started out really strong, but everything EA did after Tiberium Wars 1.04 operated under the same principles of fast development and planned obsoletion that their other esports hit (the yearly FIFA series) had championed, and so after a teased-and-cancelled TW 1.10, Kane's Wrath only had one patch and it was woefully insufficient and late for what should have been a thriving follow-up. The second decade also showcased a series of bizarre and unpopular experiments in DRM, which became disastrously bad by the release of C&C4 in 2010.
During this entire period Korean StarCraft was hitting its peak and WarCraft III was the biggest competitive RTS in the world. We saw what good support and developer transparency looked like and we expected it from Blizzard's main rival in competitive RTS. The C&C community hadn't been on good terms with EA since the closure of Westwood, but there was a feeling that things were going to get better as soon as TW had been announced, and a feeling of sustained betrayal when they continuously spent more money and resources on promotion than support. Throughout this period EA spent little time listening to top player complaints and banned anyone who wrote too thoughtful a response on their official forums.
RA3, itself a heavily-advertised, dumbed-down RTS intended to have broader appeal than any C&C before it, was a DIRECT VICTIM of everything EA was doing wrong, not of "the growing dislike/hate for EA". RA3 has polish that earlier games lack because it was given marginally more development time and was supported in better faith right from its open beta, but the damage had been done in TW/KW by the time RA3 went on sale. Then Wings of Liberty came out and the thoroughly sabotaged C&C series, which had been strong enough to overshadow Supreme Commander in 2007, lost all its market niches overnight.
Nah. Many strongly disliked RA3 however it is an unique experience in its own and had its own fan base despite some find it sucks.
Slapping the C&C tittle into... this thing is one of the reasons the EA hate began to begin with.
@@deaclavilis6760 Vocal minority though, the game has more positive reception than negative
i liked the Generals resource collection more than RA2 or RA3, it is a mix of both and easy to manage.
Eh..Its pretty much identical to RA3s except you need 2 harvs instead of 1.
Generals economy in the late game is broken. It gives an unfair advantage to GLA and hinders china's economy. GLA can earn cash for every kill and can spam black markets that can withstand a single hit explosion like nuke and MOAB. USA uses supply drop zones that require electricity and are vulnerable to any sort of general power or superweapons. China can fit 8 hackers into one internet center, beyond that, they will have to work outside which makes them very vulnerable especially to the Anthrax attack.
@@zarifnader Because that's the point. GLA armed forced is inferior than the US and China and required a lot of micro-management to win a head on battle against them.
@@johncarter4956 No. Just blindly spam GLA units and win in late game. GLA is OP in generals. In the rise of reds mod however, things seem a bit different.
@@deaclavilis6760 ROTR adresses the game's issues and still affords to add new and enjoyable stuff, but Generals itself was a lot more enjoyable than plain RA3, you're not hooking many modders with a mediocre vanilla experience.
Ah, if only the balance between factions was also this intricately thought of 😔
lol balancing is really hard. Even today Allies appear "too weak" to most fans ;)
i feel they are very balanced, i play the three faction allies have cryo which is kinda super weapon for those who know how to micro, russia has leach and drones also super weapon if u know how to play it and japan got honorable discharge ninja to steal money and spy truck which i usually win a lot with it in 2V2V2 or 3V3 not usefull though on 1V1 cuz easy to catch
Cryogeddon is stupid, almost like a superweapon.
@@xyhc-cnc lol dude what? Allies are op af
@@yerr234 thats a joke, hence the quotation marks
Ore mine is the only reason why you can build ore refinary and gether resource in water.
#TiberiumAlgea
@@xyhc-cnc This game is like try to make naval focus. Force people to expand their base. Not spam a lot of units. And ore mine is answer to this problem
You could have fields on land and nodes on water. Also oil derricks.
That actually makes a lot sense that the economy design of RA3 is for competitive purposes while RA2 is for efficient but slow economy design
Honestly this video needs a continuation, not just in RA Universe, but also for Tiberium series, & Generals series, including CNC4.
Because I never understood why EALA remove the economy system in CNC4, why Generals & Generals 2 had similar economy system like Starcraft (although certain factions doesn't use workers like USA and APA).
Plus, there should be more UA-camrs do topics like this. We rarely see people talk about RTS designs, or deep dive/behind the game design of C&C other then GeneralsGentlemen. This is worth for future developers to take note, if they're planning to revive the C&C style or Starcraft style of RTS.
I'm afraid of getting killed by the fan base for talking about C&C4 ;)
Generals Gentlemen also make videos on RTS design. Definitely check them out if you haven't!
@@xyhc-cnc it will hurt my soul but I am okay with listening to you bashing c&c 4. Hell, I am also okay with you talking about the good things of c&c4.
If EA has even a tiny bit of decency left they should leave the franchise alone, we've been insulted enough with the latest deliveries, especially that mobile abomination.
@@tanostrelok2323 They don't have decency they want money. How do you think Communism got so popular? Hatred for greed is an easy hatred to gain
Onto CnC4, myself and a friend played CnC4 with a mod that granted us extra buildspace during coop missions and we played it to DEATH. We had fun on CnC4. We had MORE fun on CnC3, RA3 and Age of Empires 3 but I think CnC4 has that 'it's so bad it's good' but just falls short of being THAT bad. we had fun on CnC4. Granted most of it was laughing at the game but still!
Actrices were fucking awful though, not gonna lie.
@@commissarkordoshky219 Not pissing customers off is a basic thing for a business, doesn't matter if one weirdo likes it if 100 leave at the same time.
I think there are 3 categories you can put the c and c games in, just casual, competitive, or a near perfect blend of the 2, the casual games are red alert 1 and 2, tiberium dawn and Tiberian sun, the competitive games are red alert 3 and Tiberian twilight, and the near perfect blend being generals and it's dlc zero hour, and tiberium wars and Kane's wrath. Each of the casual c and c games follow the design of using what are called "cheese" strategies to win a battle, that is what makes the casual games fun for many, the competitive, like red alert 3 and Tiberian sun, use the design that every move you make is like a game of chess, one move can make or break the game, and the near perfect balance between the 2 styles, generals and tiberium war and their dlc, are their so that both competitive and casual players can play like they like to but can grow more efficient and even compete with other players while at the same time they can use a "cheese" strategy like hording avatars or black hand or quad cannons, Humvees with missile defenders or battle master tanks, or at least, these are my opinions of what the command and conquer games are divided into these 3 separate yet fun for their groups, and in my opinion, the perfect command and conquers are generals and Tiberium wars with their respective dlc's though many will not agree with me on the generals side of things, these two command and conquers appeal to both sides of the fan base, the competitive, and the casual more so then any other, they blend the 2 together almost perfectly besides some balancing issues that mod makers have since fixed with many unofficial patches. Though these thoughts are just my opinions. Anyone.can disagree if they want to, it's just what I interpreted from these games and from the gameplay I've watched from multiple channels on all these games over 5 years. And from others opinions as well
Why the hell is your comment so long?
Considering TD and RA1's difficulty, I'd hardly categorize them as "casual."
It would be cool if there was like a gem node or something that offered 500 per load in the center of the map. It would make players choose between expanding to the farther and riskier but more valuable gems, or expanding to the safer but less valuable ore.
Imagine spending months thinking your brains out about the economy system and coming up with a bulletproof idea/system and that gets absolutely rejected just because the players are not as open minded as the devs expected
people are retards who would've known.. Ra3 is a good game, people just like shitting on things that are different.
That what happens when you don't respect your core audience. Starcraft has killed many RTS franchise because game developer wants to be the next StarCraft. EA instead of taking responsibility for their disrespect of the CNC core audience terminated the series. It not like EA didn't have the money to cater to both casual and competive RTS fans.
I always refer C&C Kane's Wrath for RA2 successor. The war is epic and massive. Rather than single artilery athena or wave tank.
I'm three years too late to tell you i 100% agree with you. I play Kane's Wrath almost every day, either solo or co-op. No other RTS to surpass it, even after all these years. And between Nod stealth harvesting, ZOCOM rocket harvesters and Scrin harvesters that heal in tiberium fields or even have shields (Reaper faction), the field-harvesting game in Kane is so crucial and fun.
Funny enough, RA3's ore node design didn't really bother me, and my first C&C was Generals lol.
Right, but Generals node system was much better than RA3, not to mention it had a secondary economy in place (Hackers, Black Market, you get the point) so you could still amass large forces to steamroll the enemies with.
Not to mention that, in general, ZH is the best game in terms of gameplay, especially with great mods like Rise of the Reds, regardless of you're playing against people or the AI.
@@tanostrelok2323 Idk that Generals had a better node system. The only difference was you could gather faster by adding more gatherers.
I think the fact there isn't a secondary economy is actually a strength, not a weakness. It makes RA3 like the other C&C games. The late game is low eco, so you have to be careful about not wasting resources. It punishes you for wasting men in the mid game.
ZH is hardly the best as far as gameplay goes. That title goes to RA2. ZH does have really good mods, but RA2 has always been far more fun to play imo. C&C3 has really good gameplay too. I actually find ZH to be a little lacking in that department.
@@Chr0n0s38 More gatherers means faster collection, which translates into either larger armies or the ability to properly fortify your expansions as you build them, dedicated building units also help on this.
Both turtling and amassing large armies is a lot easier in generals than on RA3.
@@tanostrelok2323 I know. That's not necessarily better. Turtling is boring.
@@Chr0n0s38 Turtling is boring to some players, yes. Others, like myself, love to just sit down and construct the Great Wall of China (now with nukes!) to watch the AI shatter upon.
While yes RA 3 economy design by no means being bad, it force you to spread your base while punish you for being turtling, you gain less money if you didn't start spreading. It is a turn off for some people (myself included), especially if they love turtling, since it changes the way they play the game since they love playing C&C game with turtling since begining.
Altough i prefer base spreading gameplay now, the change of RA3 when i was first playing it was bittersweet.
I love how command and conquer fans complain about how RA3 gives you less resources when they haven't played COH2.
I played both games casually, so I have never spammed collectors, or used rush tactics.
I prefer RA2s system however, since it made money making much riskier and thus more exiting.
@@Hound851 I think the video did an excellent explanation of why money is riskier and more exciting in RA3.
As per usual, great video !
I hope you get to have 10k subscribers soon man, and beyond that more !
High quality video as always
Also, after thinking about it for a while, I've realized that you haven't mentioned oil derricks. How do those fit into this picture? Also, refinery depletion, low health collectors?
Generals had them, but you could collect cash much faster and when the nodes depleted you could build units/buildings that would still generate cash for you.
Actually RA3 was the first C&C game I came in contact with, and the manner of its gameplay never bothered me.
The the most annoying thing was hoveringly the blatant fanservice in it, no wonder literally every female commander got replaced in the Uprising DLC, because they were interchangeable...
@Brennan Lu
Except for the Soviet campaign,
There You get to be prime minister, while you drink some vodka with your remaining comrades.
There's literally nothing wrong with the fanservice mate
@@weeabooman2867
Considering your profile pic, I get an idea where that came from... I feel quite different about the topic
@@Beleidigen-ist-Pflicht :)
@@Beleidigen-ist-Pflicht Judging from your profile name, I get an idea where your distaste for attractive women comes from.
The harvester mechanic even goes back to Dune 2 where it was a well worked out part of the lore by Westwood. C&C just followed through on that by replacing spice with Tiberium and cutting the murderous sandworms. :)
Your video is on point and a good design explanation. It does place a lot of emphasis on the competitive play while seemingly "casually" dismissing the "casuals". Those 12 or 14 harvesters in RA2 or that RA3 tank battle you explained for example is way above the attention level of most RTS players. It's cool to have such intricate play available of course but in my opinion it isn't a must. Hell, most RTS players don't even play online matches and for very, very good reasons. Skirmish play (with longer game sessions) and campaigns are the gist of RTS gaming and that's not what the pro players want to hear. You might say it's one of the bigger taboos in this genre and also one of the reasons many players have given up on (online) RTSs in general. :( The loudest voices want a competitive e-sports scene in every RTS while I think that should just be a bonus (that doesn't exclude an RTS being varied, balanced or fun to play at the same time). Most people don't play RTS games in order to grow a second brain, they just want to relax which is counterintuitive to what the competitive online scene thinks. See the comments here where players dare to admit they don't play with many harvesters in RA2. Madness, online pro players would say. Relax, any playing style is valid I'd say.
C&C: Generals got away with the backlash because it was a new offspring of the C&C series though it certainly never felt like a real C&C game but it did its own thing and that gained it a lot of respect. RA3 went for the StarCraft throne while not realising that most C&C players don't care about StarCraft and rightfully so. The awful changes to the lore (yes, fans care about that too) and EA's reputation didn't help either. EA has forgotten how to support older games until the recent excellent C&C Remastered.
Again, online play can liven up an RTS but no game has ever truly managed to convert the majority of skirmish/campaign players. StarCraft II tried really hard to get people of all skill levels in their different leagues but the game itself (like the original) just isn't casual-friendly and it never has been. Ranking boards don't interest those skirmish players, unique mods might though (full props to StarCraft II for that one) or a good online meta-campaign filled with lore or the equivalent of an MMORTS. Getting those people involved online is the real holy grail of the genre but too many loud voices just want to emulate a 1998 game that got big in South-Korea. MOBA's provided an alternative by simplifying the gameplay and removing the daunting 1-on-1 aspect. No-one can deny that they had a lot of success with it.
Now for regular RTS gaming to find an online formula that can appeal to all crowds...
I am a casual skirmish/campaign player and I strongly agree. I like turtling and then finding the most fun way to destroy enemies (using arty, superweapons, or any other high-tech unit). I really dislike the competitive RTS scene in general because it's so micro-intensive and punishing for little choices, just to get the satisfaction of watching your enemies' base explode and winning a game. (Like at the end of it, is it really worth it?)
I also agree that a main reason for the backlash is that RA3 simply wasn't faithful to the franchise, and might have been better off just being called something else. Even the Empire itself (and the Uprising expansion) feels like a major detraction from what was supposed to be a series about cheesy soviets. (Though admittedly the Empire's theme is pretty well-executed, and the soviet march is as good as ever. Some parts, like the empire and soviet engineer quotes, conscript quotes, battle bears, hydrofoil accent, Tim Curry's SPAYCE, and Mt Rushmore, are also little tidbits of fun.)
I find RA3's economy mechanic not that great but still ok, but that's not the main reason why I dislike the game. The main reasons are that RA3 1) screws the lore and fun in favour of getting actors to hardly do more than pace around a briefing room and rubbing fanservice in your face, and also adding more bright lights to the units, and 2) just not as spammy and kinda feels less reactive as well, like even the UI feels zoomed in in that less units fit on the map.
You know what would be interesting? A co-op PvE (MMO)RTS...
I don't think that replacing ore fileds with nodes was so far a bad idea. As also a long-time fan of C&C Franchise but espiacally a fan of Generals and Red Alert series I have to say that i even preffer mining methods in RA3 than RA2, it does as it was said in video it really makes the game more strategic and fast. I understand that people don't liked the changes in RA3 but I don't think they totally ruined the RA3. I have to admit that I hate when I see someone saying "Kane's Wrath was last good c&c from EA", In my opinion it was Uprising :)
BTW some things did not cahnged that much - Tank Spam is now Tegnu spam... And holy cow thats a lot of Tengus
Tengu spam is more of a thing in EvE. Against Allies, Empire is kinda forced to build Tengus to contend with their air, so it's not really a choice. Against Soviets, you shouldn't get too many Tengus before transitioning, since harassments become hard past early game.
On Carville, spam Tengus. By all means, SPAM THEM
@@xyhc-cnc Yeah against Allies its probably the only effective tactic, as you said in Empires standard build order queueing "A MILION TENGUS" is necessary. About Carville - I once saw a match where One guy just made a horde of Tengus and VX Choppers and almost won the battle so it is probably the only tactic there as Empire.
Preach. Uprising was a banger.
RA3 was good but Uprising should never had existed, espiecally the fourth campaign.
I think it's kinda? a problem in RA3 that you only have 2 to 3 big harvesting units per game.
In Starcraft 2, you need 18 workers to fully saturate all 6 mineral fields at your base. They are cheap to produce and don't have many hit points. Kinda like ants. But ore miners in CnC are slow, heavy-armored and expensive units. If you lose one, it's kinda a big deal (unless you already have spammed out 5 or more). It can even happen that you can't afford to build another harvester since they are so expensive. Then you have to sell buildings (or if you cant, you are screwed).
The CnC wiki says that in RA2, a Soviet war miner can carry 1000$ worth of ore (2000$ if only gems). It takes about 15 seconds at game speed 6 for a war miner to fill up. Add another 10 seonds for driving and unloading, and you get 1000$/25sec or 40$/sec. A war miner costs 1400$ at the war factory, so you need 1400$ / 40$/sec = 35sec of "miner time" to afford a new harvester. Now let's compare it to SC2: Every worker costs 50$ (minerals). Liquipedia says, a single worker mines 1$/s. So you need 50sec of "worker time" to afford a new worker. The difference is that SC2 gives you 12 workers at the start of a match. So you effectively have to mine for 4.2 seconds to afford a new worker. In RA2, you start out with a single harvester, so to get the second miner, you need to invest 35sec of miner time. **tl;dr:** it's a big deal to lose a miner in CnC because they cost a lot of money + time to produce.
But you brought up an interesting point: In RA2 you have to spend war factory production time on harvesters. Or you build refineries and sell them. Thats kinda interesing, because you either build up micro or you build up macro. Compare it to RA3 or Generals, where the harvesters are built at the refinery. Idk what that means. I guess it's just pretty hard to get your economy going in RA2.
7:05 Me vs AI: MORE TANK, MORE AIR! We have to kill them all before they spamming us with archer and Robot!
Personally, I do like the ore node system and how it streamlines resource collection, because it lets you focus more on building your base and forces. That said, I think it would have been a good idea to include maps that have ore fields and RA2/CC3 style unique miners for each faction.
Yes EA could have Easly cater to casual aduances
I just don't think most people like to micro an army and abilities as much as they like to expand their base and micro their economy. RA3 making the economy simple so you could focus on those things left behind the majority of the audience.
hence it being a mistake for EA to have decided to make the game mainly for competitive, when the majority of the existing playbase was casual.
Insanely great analysis! Red Alert 3's game design is severely underrated, both in terms of the resource overhaul and the multitude of roles any single unit can perform. Really de-emphasized the unit spams in favour of more tactical, less choring gameplay.
However, in 13:30 I strongly disagree. Having newer Command and Conquer games revert the old system would not make a lot of people happy. In fact, I'd see it as a downgrade, and so much so is true for other players that either started CnC with Red Alert 3 - a surprising amount of people - or just saw the benefits of it in general. This former category is one some veteran CnC fans casually forget: that while they didn't like the game for how cheesy it is, the new ore system, the new emphasis on small unit combats or just out of throwing a tantrum, a huge amount of people did. It was well reviewed, well aclaimed and is, 12 years later, a big reference for RTS games.
Just to emphasize, as someone that played a lot of Generals, Tib Wars and RA3 I've never managed to squeeze out as much enjoyment out of the former that I did from the latter. Not saying one is necessarily better than another, but the traditional fanbase opinion that RA3 is out of context and just bad, as shown in the Reddit screenshot (10:58), is very out of touch with reality both in general and for a lot of people that really liked RA3. Honestly, after playing RA3, I will hardly ever get myself into playing any CnC future games where units don't have special abilities.
Divulgences over, If EA has to compromise, I hope they opt for a system similar to Generals, including alternative sources of income. The basic "have your glorified forklifts heap rocks from the ground" doesn't motivate the player to think tactically and artificially overvalues micro, and having this in mind is important considering the franchise is a good 30 years old and needs to incorporate more dynamic elements if it wants not to become a relic.
Very insightful video! I really liked the old resource collection method, having grown up with RA2 and CnC Generals, but I can see why the RA3 collection nodes are actually a step forward in design (with CnC Generals feeling almost like an in-between of the classic CnC style and the RA3 style)
I also remember being super confused when I first picked up RA3 with how little an extra harvester actually helped my economy.
Otherwise, I was incredibly impressed with how RA3 was able to get the endgame away from simply smashing your gigantic tank army onto the enemy's tank army and buildings. Honestly it started to feel more like Age of Empires, where you couldn't just spam knights forever, because they'd get overwhelmed by spear infantry and etc
I love this game but I wish red alert 3 and Tib 3 had a secondary economy like generals did. It stalls late game for casual and competitive
When is the next analysis of RA3 mechanics?
If I may suggest, can you discuss special abilities units have and discuss their impact on gameplay.
I heard many RA1/2 gamers say those abilities are rarely useful, and even useless
Ah. Hearing Red Alert 4 so amazing. I think Uprising leads the Allies villain. But soviets are soviets how they will not be villains huh. Just interesting civil war? future tech(ft) not bad guys? or as usual time machine doing his job? additional protocols as new things? time merges, researches find yuri like ft was doing something strangely in Romania? And Allied, Empire campaigns just messed up not to be main campaign as RA1, 2. Idk just wondering
Well probably like Emperor: Battle of Dune Harkonnen campaign where you end up siding with one subfaction over the other. So, RA4 may give you the same option. For example in the Soviet campaign, there would be a civil war between two vying premiers. One side have the traditional conquer and rule the world by force Soviet premier while the other takes more of a liberal approach a.k.a. winning the hearts of the masses until communism is accepted and the bourgeoise are overthrown by revolution. The Allies would also have something like that with one leader being Superweapon happy while the other doesn't want to sacrifice civilian lives.
Red alert 4 could have been about futuretech defecting from the allies to fund their own interests.
Basically red alert 2 and yr, but on the allied side this time
A Generals game wouldn't be a Generals game to me if it switched from nodes to fields.
and a RedAlert/Tiberian game wouldn't be a RedAlert/Tiberian game to me if it switched from fields to nodes.
or just imagine a Cnc game that altogether removed things like resource collecting, basebuilding, and running over infantry, I'd just pretend it doesn't exist at that point
Red Alert 2 : ore fields
Red Alert 3 : ore nodes
Me who plays an RTS with no resource harvesting : hmmmm.....I guess it's a good thing I don't hve to deal with this?
TL;DW: RA3 is better, but people are stubborn so they think RA2 is better even though it's actually not.
It's a good video.
The objectively right point of view right here. Red Alert 3 has been out for 12 years, people need to let go of their tantrums.
Except it's not
The first C&C game I ever played was Generals/Zero Hour, so the RA3 economy just felt like a simplified version of that and was super easy to understand. Then when I tried to play RA2/C&C3 years laters I was confused why I was constantly running out of money(I was always operating on 1 or 2 collectors 😂).
It's okay, "Insufficent Funds" is the most commonly-heard quote even for those who build 10 harvs
Excellent analysis! I agree with you. Would like to add that the fans not liking the game should also be attributed to the different art style and the micro vs normally in C&C more macro oriented gameplay. Every unit has a special ability, that is not normal in C&C. While economy is more simple, combat is more tactical and complex. Generals was a little bit simpler regarding special abilities in combat and there was secondary economy to manage.
3:22 sad i loved turtling
In retrospect, RA3 and Warcraft 3 employ a similar economy system. The name of the game is to make small yet effective fighting forces, rather than fortifying bases.
Very informative video. But is the voice filter necessary? It kinda doesn't sound pleasant in my case
To be honest, I've only played Red Alert 3 in the entirety of the C&C games. I grew up with RA3 unlike many others here who have played the previous C&C games. So I was introduced with this system of economy and to me, it made the most sense. Similar to the AZERTY keyboard argument, I am accustomed to the RA3 economy system and if somehow Red Alert 4 is announced and they revert back to the old economy system, I would be super turned off by it because simply, I'm not accustomed to it.
I like RA3 way, I mostly watch pro versus on Sybert, and those harrassment moment is high light of the those vid.
Without that, Ra3 would not be RA3.
Some of the key points of making a match faster paced make sense for thier decisions, focusing more of units and such.
But I find I'm a person that prefers more of a slow roll to RTS's, as I myself never usually care for rush tactics. Slow buildiup, teching up, and classhing of more varieties of units is what I love.
So when they designed games to be faster, it naturally fell off for me. Age of Empires 2 is a good example of where I feel comfortable at pacing wise, as there's a lot you can do to extend match time and have more fun playing.
I do agree that resource management in Command and Conquer is too tedious pre- RA3 just cuz, most people aren't playing the game really to stare at harvesters. So it was a smart choice to change how it worked overall. But the playstyles it led to for the sake of esports and meta and fast matches didn't appeal to myself personally.
There's something about the more slow movement in Kane's wrath and all the things you can do to get around situations that have appealed to my sense of gameplay preference.
And this isn't to say either is wrong, It's just really fascinating how different preferences can make a change such as this really push some folk away. While also appealling to others instead!
as a newer player that has never played red alert 1 and 2 i like the ore system in red alert 3 i think it is more new player friendly
i don’t play competitive so don’t take my opinion as the truth
I disagree with regards to catch-up mechanics. They are good for preventing situations which are mostly just prolonged matches with a foregone conclusion, and it seems unfair to talk about them as 'rewarding people for losing' when they are available to everybody (as in, in the case 'losing' is advantageous it's not really 'losing', it's just another tool that can be employed).
Great point in the end. Snowballing & catch-up can both be considered illusional, because if 'losing' is advantageous, then the apparent loser isn't losing at all. Skilled players usually see past the excitement of comebacks if they knew how a game truly functions, thus shattering the game's surface level heuristics such as ranking / army size / who is ahead. This is a huge danger of catch-up mechanics.
"Sometimes catch-up features are so strong that it is better to be second, or at the very least it does not hurt to be second. Race games with lots of ways to hurt the leader, shoot the person in front of you, speed up if you are behind, and so on, can have this problem. Highly political games tend to be this way, due to the “pile on the leader” tendency almost all playgroups have. Over-catch-up tends to be frustrating-people want to pump up their score, or get ahead in the race, and they do not want to be punished for it. In theory, jockeying for second (or should it be third?) and then jumping to win at the end can be a reasonable game, but in practice it is not much fun if it happens all the time. And games of this type tend to have all the play choices other than those near the very end of the game be irrelevant to the outcome."
- Elias, George Skaff, et al. Characteristics of Games
Fair point. In SC2 for example, the distance between bases are made so that any early rush doesn't instantly translate into a win, and early worker kills doesn't mean the game is over. The defending side can have newly produced units joining the battle as soon as they finishes, thus granting a temporary advantage against attackers. The only exception is Protoss, which is famous for their variety of cheese tactics since you can warp in units directly to enemy's doorstep, but their gateway units in turn scales very poorly into the late game, and your opponent can turn the table on you if they managed to survive the rush and tech up.
As a side note, it's significantly harder to deal the killing blow in SC2 if both sides know their stuff than people would usually do in RA3, which is partially the source of frustration.
12:01 (Shocked Pikachu face)
(AZERTY is even a default keyboard on some European countries.)
If you have 3 refs in RA3, you'll get 750 (instead of 500 with 2) at one collection, and one collection in every 5 seconds. So simple. Easier to calculate the game's economic advantages.
If you have increase of 4 harvesters from 8, the only thing different is the percentage of the ores you're getting at one go, and not at a certain amount of time. You can have long range mining, at the cost of longer time to get back. Which is more complicated to calculate.
People who plays RA3 already know their enemies' economical advantages, but RA2 players can't or hardly know the advantage that can change all in a second. Maybe the RA3 also can change depends on harvester destruction/ore node creation. Heck, hat's why we're scouting. And, the terrain on RA2 is not visible at the start, so you can't get some early references if you don't know the map.
RA2 players have no problem knowing that advantage. Everything of value gets scouted early on, fog of war never regrows, and miners are a lot easier to count (and more readily counted/reported by commentators) than this video implies
the extreme map diversity does represent a severe challenge to brand new RA2 players, but the community embraces this
I grew up with the mobile version of RA2
You build a refinery on top of a neutral refinery.
BEST MECHCANIC 10/10
I kinda disagree with the ressources collection thing being boring. Age of Empire games ( by example ) needs intensive micro on your economy at least early on and that makes the game really cool ( imo, although i don't think that someone can tell that AoE are bad games ).
I personnaly feel like it's rewarding to set his economy properly and get it rolling so you can then launch your army into combat.
Just personnal feeling.
For the story I started C&C with Red Alert 3 and Generals, i discovered the older games ( and basically the whole tiberium saga ) way after.
Aoe2 gathering is fun. Ra2 not so much
@Aryana Hazzry Even the very easy AI knows the value of resources, and always devours
everything with villager swarm in AoE2.
I got so used to RA3 system that I dislike the economy system of RA2, thus confirming your view in a opposite way.
RA3 was the first game I've ever played, I've come to love ore nodes and hate ore fields. RA3 is pretty easy to understand. You think RA3 is competitive? Have you even played COH2?
@@中华民国万岁-c4g I love Coh2, actually. I dont play online rts at all, in fact. I just like watching pros.
Great video, thanks for the insights! :)
In a sense there's an intensive amount of micro involved in both RA2 and 3 to be successful. Its just the previous focuses on economic micro and the latter on the combat micro.
I have to challenge though that economic micro is to be considered "busy work", there is satisfaction to be had with being able to become more efficient with building up your resources.
For me, one advantage of RA3's system is that it's more tidy. Large resource fields are fun, but can also lead to harvesters going off in all sorts of directions and becoming hard to keep track of. And then they can become easy prey to roaming enemy units. With RA3's system at least you always know exactly where your harvesters are.
Economy aside, I've always had much fun with this game. I suspect a lot of people hate it just because of the EA logo, and for no other reason.
heres the thing i like red alert 3s designs and kinda like the story but the decision to focus and force an esports economy ruins it for me i prefer the ore field and i think that if they wanted node then they should have did what the did in generals.
I think it would also fair to throw into this dicussion CnC 3 Tyb wars.
It has Tyb fields like old games but more contained like ore nodes in Ra3
Most casuals don't even interact with their ore fields/mines. They just build a few harvesters/refineries, maybe they expand and then they call it a day. So the complaints are something I feel is completely unwarranted against RA3. Even if it breaks the norms, its core isn't changed one bit by it changing the harvesting system slightly. It is a bit agitating to see people dunk on the game for i
"Ah yes, when I play C&C I don't think of cool modern/sci fi militaries and factions battling out with crazy units. I think of how my harvester gathers their resources, that's a dealbreaker for me!"
Anyway this is a great video.
I think the ore nodes might be acceptable if they put on the water while the ore field either finite or infinite capacity should be place on the land I guess.
And also, I kinda don't like the ore nodes because they're depletable, unlike the previous CnC titles (except Generals) most of their resource field (tiberium or ore fields) have their own variation like the bonus income resource fields (blue tiberium or gem fields) and slow but replenishable resource fields.
As an additional comment - Generals did not have open ore fields - they had deposits that were used similarly to RA3's - the only addendum is they sometimes also had small caches around the map. Except for most factions, you still needed to optimize the amount of harvesters required, different factions had access to different resource collection techniques - easy mention is USA could long distance mine somewhat efficiently. China could place their depo allowing one truck to be static between the depot and the deposit and constantly cycle funds. Then GLA were, well GLA. Funds were spread out. There were also alternative resource gathering methods that could perpetuate an eternal end game, which wasn't necessarily good game design. Though that game also established itself as *not* Red Alert/Tiberium Wars. Which meant it was reviewed more for what it was, than what people wanted it to be.
Catch-up mechanics don't reward you for losing, they reward you for looting an enemy who has grown fat from victory. CnC rewards you for _capturing_ a full silo, which is a catch-up mechanic in some contexts. League of Legends gives shut down bonuses for _killing_ the player that snowballs. Blue shells are handicaps more similar to starting with more resources at the begin, because they don't activate based on your actions eg. aiming or getting a revenge kill. If anything, using a catch-up mechanic requires more skill because you only get the reward after winning an uphill battle.
Yeah, really good points. What I'm saying here is that catch-up mechanics manipulate the heuristics of who has a higher chance of winning. It puts winners at a disadvantage and makes it so that the winner was never truly "ahead" int he first place.
"Sometimes catch-up features are so strong that it is better to be second, or at the very least it does not hurt to be second. Race games with lots of ways to hurt the leader, shoot the person in front of you, speed up if you are behind, and so on, can have this problem. Highly political games tend to be this way, due to the “pile on the leader” tendency almost all playgroups have. Over-catch-up tends to be frustrating-people want to pump up their score, or get ahead in the race, and they do not want to be punished for it. In theory, jockeying for second (or should it be third?) and then jumping to win at the end can be a reasonable game, but in practice it is not much fun if it happens all the time. And games of this type tend to have all the play choices other than those near the very end of the game be irrelevant to the outcome."
- Elias, George Skaff, et al. Characteristics of Games
@@xyhc-cnc Elias describes mechanics that either reverses or renders ambiguous the definition of "being ahead in the match", and does not mention the role of snowballing in his hypothetical situations. If both players have to decide whether to take the lead, that means being in the lead is ambiguous, and this has nothing to do with rewarding losing. This is not a catch-up mechanic that balances snowballing: Marathon runners and Tour de France have to decide to conserve strength (and catch-up by expending strength later) or take the lead position and try to keep it, they do not snowball in either case and it's not necessary to create "catch-up" bonuses or penalties for any participants.
@@xyhc-cnc I understand what you're saying and maybe I should stop trying to tell everyone how to define catch-up mechanics. All I'm saying is there's a difference between stealing away a victory, and be given a victory when you're losing. You and Elias only refer to the latter, but personally I think those are sudden death and/or handicap mechanics (you are rewarded based how much you lose), and catch-up mechanics are better defined as the former (you are rewarded for fighting an uphill battle)
Okay, I see that you are talking about a different kind of catch-up. The factor of stealing a victory & the Marathon runners preserving strength example cleared things up a lot :)
Not sure if you played Rivals, but the missile steal move in it, typically considered a catch-up mechanic, can work either way. It could be done accidentally by a player who is behind, thus handing all the progress of the previous winner to the losing player. Or it can often be done strategically, as in I cue up and position all my units then intentionally allow my opponent to charge up a missile. Then I can steal the missile at the opportune time and kill them off right there without sacrificing much of my forces during a prolonged contest. I guess a lot of catch-up mechanics can work both ways - either grant an advantage to the loser, or allow for a strategic /skillful comeback. (If I'm understanding what you're saying right...) And revenge kill is usually a better way to handle catch-up, since it rewards fighting an uphill battle instead of blindly handing advantages to losers.
Anyhow, hey you're good! I'm assuming you're in the industry?
@@xyhc-cnc Exactly, I'm only trying to separate different types of catch-up mechanics. Some reward losing a lot (or too much) and some are more balanced. And I'm not saying catch-up is good and linear snowballing is bad, it's just different. I'm not in the industry I just really enjoy digging into the details. Appreciate your time, keep up the good work chief!
How do you feel about Tib Wars competitive?
I love it!
The surprising thing is that I'm forum-mates of one of the Paradox Mod modders and he made an ESSAY about how RTS does economies simply enforce a turtling/risk avoidance mindset...
I'm fine with either, I adapted quickly to Red Alert 3's changes thanks to another game: Generals. As someone who mains US I literally put my Supply Depots right beside the resource node because of one thing: US resource collectors are flying units and doesn't need to land. Whereas China and GLA Resourse Collectors have to travel by land. Twice painful for GLA where an Early Sniper Build will murder your economy if someone goes to rush even just one Sniper. Because they are Infantry instead of Trucks(China) or Helicopters (USA). Fucking finally I can put walls between my Refinery (Supply Depot in Generals) and the Resource Node
Heck in the bottom line resource collection will devolve from fields to nodes in both Tiberium Wars and Red Alert 2 as it depletes leaving a tiny square of regenerating Ore/Tiberium in the Middle that you can safely wall, specially if you're a Yuri player.
RA3's economy system makes me wanna retrospect on CNC Generals. You see, Generals basically took from RA2/Tiberium and RA3. If you're China or America in Generals, your economy system is basically the same as that for RA3. Only one supply truck or transport chopper is allowed to gather supplies from a Supply Pile at a time. That said, you can probably build multiple supply centers and resource gatherers to siphon resources from the same Supply Pile. If you're GLA though, your economy system is basically identical to, say, that of Kane's Wrath or RA2.
I wasn't surprised at all that CnC took this direction with Red Alert 3, it seemed like it was gradually trying to curb tank spam at least since Yuri's Revenge with the nerf to main battle tank build time and the new powerful tier 1 anti-tank infantry.
I think even base game Red Alert 2's Yuri clone and Chrono Legionniare were intended for anti-armor rushes with their mutual ability to instantly neutralize a single enemy unit, although that only solved the problem late game.
All of the changes in Red Alert 3 from even a layman's perspective I think are an obvious natural extension of this creeping anti-spam philosophy alone, though as your video states it's more faceted than that.
It's like how you deal with change. Either you adapt to the new system or "boo" the new system because you appreciate more the old and nostalgic system and get an "okay boomer" reply.
"It's the nature of time
That the old ways must give in
It's the nature of time
That the new ways comes in sin
When the new meets the old
It always end the ancient ways
And as history told
The old ways go out in a blaze"
-sabaton
Thanks for the video, it is truely something I was looking forward to
But the only point in favour of the ra2 economy system is "people are used to it". I do not think it is the way to go, ra3 is still a CnC game, and a pretty cool game. I take this like the switch to ooen world for zelda, it is new, and people Loved it.
But perhaps rts are too much a niche genra of games, thus making the community more biased ?
Generals uses a resource node system and it got a warm welcome by the fanbase, being the most modded game of the franchise, this pos doesn't just kill the traditional economy, it tried so hard to copy Starcraft that ended up ruining the gameplay, the lore, and pretty much everything.
I prefer ore fields for how open the made a map feel.
I think a solution of mixing in both could have been cooler. Instead of nodes, you just make patches with very limited amount that can have deposited, though very quickly regenerate - so if you were to place a refinery right next to one, you'd have the most efficient gathering process, though around areas that would otherwise not be as strategically important, you make larger fields - so the short route to your enemy is only valuable for getting to their base, while the long windy paths have resources.
I love the idea of long distance mining, so maybe the terrian has lots of indentations that make it hard to place a close refinery, so we get plenty of harvesters as each side tried to max out their refineries.
The small fields should obviously give a faster return on investment, at least until their store runs out like in RA3, and then they might become long distance patches. Maybe players can make really cheap nodes to remove the FoW for one harvester to track when the refineries to track, or set up zones that you can assign harversters to so they can secure these patches when they regen without deviating to a contested field, maybe even just place the faster regening fields away from the large patches so harvesters don't create harvester logic to get to them.
Makes for an easier to read game-state and incentivises fighting the corners of the maps.
Tank meta IMO is also preferable to air meta with this sort of development - while it's probably just me, I loved seeing two enemy harvesters collect ore next to each other - like "
Hey jim hows the ki" before being obliterated by the enemy - Air dominance makes that very likely not cost effective, thugh Air'd probably always have a place for harvester harrassment, just if you focus too much on killing harvesters, you get base rushed.
I was looking for the answer to: "how the hell do you get your harvesters in and out when the ore node is surrounded by walls ?" I have seen it on replays quite a lot but never made it happen...
order it to move through ore nodes / refs while it's loading/unloading inside them
@@xyhc-cnc man you are my saviour thanks !!
Nice intiate design! Keep up the good work!
A lot in RA3 changes to the point it becomes not the best, micromanaging is best left to Starcraft, we always create masses of tanks just to steamroll. True, just like your Star Wars example.
RA3 is just another "The Last Jedi" but Generals pulled it off first, dividing the fanbase completely. C&C4 did "Rise of the Skywalker" instead.
It reminds me of the whole loss aversion problem with _The Sims 4_ where long-time fans balked at the regressions in it like the lack of pools, toddlers and most especially an open world, making Sims more or less locked down to their homes as if the pandemic hit their locale. I agree that people tend to stick to what they've gone accustomed to and would not sit well with any drastic change, and it accounts for why we've been driving cars more or less the same way for a century already. And yet companies like Ubisoft had to resort to drastic changes such as in _Splinter Cell: Conviction_ with its John Wick-esque gameplay which translated to more sales than the slow but tense stealth mechanics the oldschool SC games are known for.
As far as the ore harvesting mechanic is concerned, I guess streamlining resource collection for players to get straight into actual gameplay is, if done correctly, better than have players go "Heigh-Ho" on an ore/gem field or two then use those funds to build and send an army. Imagine if chess had a more elaborate setup phase than actually going straight up, no BS required, and I'm sure that accounts for a rather disinteresting game. Though honestly I have no problem with either approach even if by my admission I'm only a casual RTS player.
Whoa now. The problem with the change in Sims 4 is that it results in **less** depth than its predecessors.
Managing our harvesters just to harvest the nearest patch of ore is still an issue, but I received word that the devs is attempting to fix this decades-long problem in C&C Remastered so they'll be smart enough to harvest like real humans would harvest.
Havent played the remasters here but from what ive seen the bug still exists, mainly the one where the harvesters constantly bump on each other
I played other RTS games like Rise of Nations and AOE2 before trying out Red Alert 3, so the conventional way of getting resources did not trouble me, as I did not know how RA2 and previous titles function. And I gotta say, I enjoy the unit models much more than the low-poly models that RA2 had. I don't care about changes.
Let's be real here, we all gonna rot on 1-2 games till the end of time nowadays and rarely play like 10-15 games like how the public think of what "gamers" do.
Better example than the qwerty/azerty keyboards: the imperial/SI unit of measurement system :)
indeed
c&c generals is kinda in between you can spam tons of harvester and there are resource nodes
I have mixed feelings on this topic. The first time I ever played RA3 it was so weird to see a miner do 10m back and forth between the ore mine and the refinery. I did like that we have base expansions now, like in Starcraft - I was no longer trying to B-line towards other ore fields with some power plants or more refineries.
What I didn't like is that there's usually not enough of them on maps and as a result it's a very low economy RTS. Like you said, getting just a single expansion takes massive effort. Having more than 1 factory or barracks in RA3 is basically unheard of. If you manage to get just 1 tier 3 unit out of the factory, you feel like you've won the game. Meanwhile in SC you always get a "natural expansion" that's almost right next to yours, so you always expand to it very easily and that makes sure you have enough money to get your economy up and running. Very few maps have that in RA3. I get that in C&C you'd have way too many units running around this way, which is why SC has a unit cap, but I do think that could be solved with more upgrade branching.
It might be appropriate to say that both resource collection systems try to generate interest in map control and expansion, but they go about it (and encounter shortcomings) different ways?
in the older resource-field system, the resources are literally out there on the map, and greater cash supplies take more literal space. You can't accurately predict where the enemy chooses to expand resourcing operations to and the vector they take to secure them, making scouting valuable, and the resource fields become points of interest that wax and wane in importance as the battle progresses. The disadvantages of this... this video already covers in good detail.
In a resource node system, expansion is a very binary thing. The video gives excellent advantages, and no Strings Prd gives excellent disadvantages, so there's not much point repeating their respective points.
On balance... I think i prefer the resource field method? It incentivises field armies and quick-reaction forces better, and promotes a more organic approach to creating areas of control and base defence that force players to consider the map's layout and terrain features. Nodes risk turning the battlefield into a series of arbitrary paths between fixed points to fortify, bringing the skill ceiling away from strategic decisions and towards strictly unit and power micro.
While RA3's economy is interesting I do prefer CnC3's economy just a slight bit since it gives more urgency and risk-reward when there is only one massive Tiberium field and they contest for it
Your video definitely shifted my thoughts about RA3 eco system, but there's more than just eco that players find less enjoyable than CnC 3 (I even heard some people saying things like:"Kane's Wrath was the last good RTS game from EA"). I, personally, don't get it why they didn't implemented some features from previous games like structures power control, so you can just turn the building down and build power plant at normal speed instead of just waiting additional seconds with disabled radar and defensive structures. Also I prefer CnC 3 upgrades because they do more noticeable changes and they are visible on units and tech structures. And promotion in CnC 3 has more impact because units gain veterancy slightly slower and have more distinctive boost therefore promoted units have more value.
But that's just my personal opinion based on my experience as a new player :P
Good points. I personally think power control throws in too much learning cost & added an unnecessary complexity to the game, while selling a structure is already a slightly more punishing alternative. Lots of build orders require selling structures at specific time to preserve power, and they'd get OP if they could simply get powered down here. More Veterancy value is more rewarding, but just makes the snowballing of the game much more unmanageable, especially since you get fewer units here (and a veteran can just kill'em all). There are some units that benefit a lot from promotions, such as Vindicators becoming able to one-shot Bullfrogs, Javelins being able to reach water refs on Infinity Isle, etc.
@@xyhc-cnc "Unnecessary complexity" and yet every unit in the game has some sort of active ability that you have to activate. Toggling power is far more intuitive than getting Akulas into position to snipe dockyards from across the map.
For me, the RA3 ressouce nods made less sense in a universe perspective. Haveing automated ore and daimond mines that later one going be collected and processed, looked alot more believeable then several Ore depose sitting in the middel of nowhere. In general, RA3´s Competitive design made alot of things look "artifical" and harmed the immersion for me.
Yeah and giant ore fields in the middle of a city and tiberium fields make sense.
@@中华民国万岁-c4g Mining operation in the middle of a city ? Sounds red alert to me. Storing it in the middle of nowhere, its crazy too, but why? I see the point of mining it. They want that ore. There is a understandable reason. But i don´t see the point of storing it in the middle of nowhere, in little storages all over the World. There is just no reason for that.
In case of Tiberium. Its Tiberium darn it. Its the baseline of the whole story that they can´t contain its spread.
@@MeowMeowMeowMeowMeowMeowMeowww Not much of a mining operation when there are literally ore deposits littering everywhere throughout a map and cities on the surface of a map. In what world does that make any more sense than ore that is stored in containers left behind in cities.
@@中华民国万岁-c4g Its RA universe, its crazy, both things. But, so far as i know, in RA2, the drills are small automated mines. In RA3 they are ore depose.
In RA2 they simply plug there hyper advanced automated power drill there and scub by with an harvester every now and then. Its crazy hightech stuff, typical RA universe, but its also self explaining why they do it. They want to mine the ore.
But in RA3, all those ressource points are ore depose, already excavated. What reason do they have to ship and park already mined ore in the middle of nowhere ? I never saw a reason for that.
So crazy RA2 was, there was still a reason behind it why they did things. In RA3, things are sometimes just being crazy to be crazy. What is just silly.
@@MeowMeowMeowMeowMeowMeowMeowww Seems more like someone nick picking a game on every little detail because they don't like the game becauseit wasn'tthe sequelyou wanted. All Rts games make no sense. Units don't take 20 seconds to manufacture and take a variety of resources.
Great video! liked and subscribed. Man i miss ra3
I wish you'd speak in your unit guides 😭your commentary feels more enlightening that way
True, always wanted to experiment with a commentated unit guide. Most of my audiences don't speak english - the unit guides are way easier for people to translate if they're just concise texts
@@xyhc-cnc Either way I greatly appreciate them! I'd be excited to see unit guides for other C&C games, at least 50% of what you discuss I've never heard of and it's a perspective that brings me back to the series consistently to 'personally simulate the latest XYHC gospel' lmfao❤
@@dreadsmite3345 thanks a lot!
I can see why numbers of people who played RA3 (and C&C4, if i'm allowed to say lol) stated that while the game alone is quite good RTS on its own, it just didn't deserve to be in the same franchise of its prequels.
I means, if they decided to revolutionalize those game mechanics and release as a new franchise, they might get less initial awareness due to the title is new, but perhaps more recognition as the players get to experience the game's unique design.
There is a mod that recreates the RA2 game using the RA3 engine, called The Red Alert. The units and mining are from the old game with new graphics, its not bad.
No that one recreates RA1 in the RA3 engine. There is a mod for RA2 in the RA3 engine being developed but who knows if it'll ever be finished.
It wasn't as big of an issue in generals because you could have a ton of harvesters harvesting from one slot at once where RA3 basically took that ability away and locked you down with one unit at a time zZzZz.
In Generals, 2 chinooks, 2 trucks, or 7 workers was optimal. You never built anything different.
Unless you are Yuri, my God, that infinite income from the Brutes Mutation+infantries and Slave Traders was toxic because if you left Yuri and not rushing them immediately? The combo won because of how much economic lead Yuri has and that Yuri Clone, Prime Yuri+UFO.....Good Luck.
I love ur vids
I do not mind the change, but really there is a lot I like about RA3 that feel different, but I didn't mind the method of resource harvesting however I feel like its too easy to defense to a degree, like I never fully use the harvester's special ability aside from delaying the end.
The ally harvester maybe the only one that comes to my mind but I think that that for method of resources, I feel like these mines and a field of resources can coexist.
Maybe one is small but easy to defend while the ore fields are harder to defend but far more plentiful and can replenish, but part of me already miss the gem fields.
However as of RA3, there is no reason to build a harvester out of the war factory, no reason to build an additional harvester unless your the allies.
However this maybe my bias towards Starcraft 2 where the resources are more spread in, but I won't bash Red alert 3's merit as much like Starcraft 2, I feel like these games are great for a quick match. Some RTS multiplayer is usually catered in certain ways, is it made for short yet high octane action, or long term planning and resource hoarding?
Though my point is, I liked the idea of a harvester having a sort of "personality", specifically, in RA2, allies can teleport and Russians can shoot things, in CnC3, GDI can shoot, Nod Stealths, and scrinn heals (yea its not that fascinating when I say it but trust me it makes a huge difference, sure it took some damage and blemishes but that means It cna continue harvesting and repair.)
I think making refineries build on top of the ore mines without harvesters on the ground and an oil platform on water would be little better than we have now
I like RA3 economy system coz make more sense than Diamonds, Jewels and Ore on the ground wtf
First c&c game i played was RA3. Really like the ore systems. Played Red alert 1 remastered when it released. It's fine for me. I don't say i hate it nor love it, judt felt mid imo
this defying of classic CnC Convention is a brilliant dissections of why Red Alert 3 and CNC 4 failed to atteact their rather large fanbase.
They tried to copy Starcraft too much, and shoved down the theoretically superior mining system and fast paced gameplay in exchange for stupidly long but fun games of trolling and carefully harassing your opponent base, all while the players themselves turtle up and shit nukes several times.
Red Alert games was simulation of a rather large, strategic War theatre. it was supposed to be long and ended up in attrition warfare.
StarCraft Games were the simulation of smaller squads, and skirmishes with limited numbers of units. not believe me? there's a unit cap on StarCraft but there's not on all CNC except CNC4.
This explains why I get crashed my medium ai whenever I play skirmish... I take things so slowly
Ok, I am going to put my 2 cents in: while I was offput by the change in how ore worked in RA3, I was not too bothered by it on a fundamental level. HOWEVER, the system was implemented horribly.
There is little depth to it- the only way to increase your income is to expand and build more refineries (outside of crates and a few top secret protocols that can be played around (Cash bounty) or too late game for it to reliably be used in all games (Free trade and indirectly, Mass production), and the empire doesn't get any means of boosting it period), and the income stream is so darn slow.
There are several ways to make this more interesting:
- First, make "gem" nodes that provide more Ore than normal per Trip, making them much more valuable to control.
- Second, make it so that Ore Nodes, Harvesters, or Refineries can be "upgraded" to provide more ore. Virtually all RTSs that use the Node based harvesting method have some form of this: in StarCraft up to 3 workers can be tasked per node and in dawn of war, resource nodes can be upgraded, first to prevent some enemy from waltzing up to capture them when your units are away, then to defend themselves, all the while providing more resources.
--- This could, when combined with how the various factions work, be used to create an interesting interesting change in how the factions work in terms of how they expand and gain resources- Soviets for example could focus more on improving their own ore Nodes in order to gain resources more quickly as they could maybe get a cheaper upgrade/more ore per upgrade, while the empire would be forced to go all in on getting poorly defended refineries all over the map as their nanocores can be sent out anywhere at a reasonable price, but they have a harder time getting as much umph out of upgrading individual refineries as their competitors
-- third, have some reliable late game method of boosting the economy like in cnc generals
Ps: I do not consider making a ton of harvesters as soon as you get a factory, busy work. You want busy work, look at Starcraft 2's macro mechanics.
Have you even played COH2?
I think the ore's storage should have been keep for Urban Area because since Ore is supposed to be dangerous for health civilians shouldn't have access to this place. Maps in the wild or Military base like could have field of ore.
The sad thing is they have the perfect title to expand on using this type of economy system with Generals but they chose to apply it to Red Alert instead, breaking tradition and expectation. Yes it's not e-sports worthy but I had tons of fun with RA2 being unbalanced and spectator-unfriendly as it was. It kind of takes the fun out of it to think of games as something purely made for spectatorship with every aspect designed to maximize action and excitement instead of just having a few basic concepts and let the meta emerge organically.
I love a lot of games because of the immersion they provide and things like flaws and imperfections like "slow and boring early game" or having to tend to some chores is sort of the thing you expect to come naturally. When every part is optimized towards a certain outcome it's jarring and you can notice what sort of things the game want to steer you towards doing like how every single units have impactful abilities requiring you to micromanage them, limited economy growth further reinforcing the idea of small manageable groups. It's pretty obvious that the game's trying to be Starcraft in which case why not just play the real thing? You can't expect to be better than Starcraft at being Starcraft. Let Red Alert stays Red Alert and Tiberium stays Tiberium (looking at you, 4). Generals are there for things like this but now it's just a wasted potential.
i dunno if u guys realise it, but ea was trying to simplfy cnc all the way in ra3. Cnc was supposed to be a rivals or cnc4 in ea's eyes. ra3 simple mining system was just the start.
You haven't played RA3 online have you?
XYHC i did and its very enjoyable actually . i wasn't hating on ra3 i actually genuenly enjoy it.
@@sovietairstrip7642 Yeah I was just implying that RA3 is not simple at all. Most fans say it's too complicated actually
XYHC yeah i was only talkin about hoe mining was toned down. good video and keep up the good work!
@@sovietairstrip7642 yup thanks!
12:50 - This hurts to watch
I play a shit load of RTS how to get more resources is different in every game. My first RTS is Rise of Nations in the game you'll have unlimited resources but how big the resources plie it is. Star Empire at War already get resources and no gathers to increase resources you have to get another refinery. In Company of Heroes your resources must be gain by territory. As you can see I play many RTS's. Also some game's has one to gather to multiple types of resources, are the accessible, are they toxic. For the most part are they more experimentally or they like a similar play style.
I also think that familiarity isn't the only reason long-time fans enjoy the old economy mechanics. Yes it plays a role, but some players simply enjoy busywork before/during/in-between periods of action, even competitive players and spectators, and some of those players are able to set aside negative first impressions and still decide they like the old model better. That said, I think your technical analysis of how each of these systems play out during a match is excellent.
Yeah it's definitely true. I dropped a cliffhanger in the beginning on how making the game drastically competitive was a bad decision, but I didn't want to expand on the topic in this video. The game's biggest problem is really the kind of audience it's targeting. Like you said, casual players totally would "enjoy busywork before/during/in-between periods of action" - There's really no formula to fun. So even if some got past the initial bad impressions of RA3, this still isn't a game they'd grow to like at all.
@@xyhc-cnc I can't blame you because I think the majority of players agree with you (edit: I mean they focus on competitive and spectator, even if they are old-school economy fans) and you can't possibly cover every angle, and the gameplay analysis is spot-on.
I like RA3 way , its more clear and comfortable, but the whole game is way too compettive for average player to have fun. micro are too important, air meta, op infantry and op allies units,,,economy are too tiny and fragile, we need 3 ore and 1 oil in order to make the factory fully in production, thats way too unromantic . units are few and fragile , being take down so quickly , makes the whole game too fraustrating to play with .
I always see this economy like the one in generals but restricted in one direction.
well if they focused more on making RA3 more of what RA2 was, they might even have been able to compete with SC2. Instead we got candy crush rts edition. Hope they remaster everything up to Generals and then let the corpse of C&C rest.