Concerns about mines Thread - Red Alert 3 Paradox mod for C&C: Red Alert 3

Not sure if anybody else noticed this, but mines have been nerfed pretty hard from the first release on the fact that their defensive weapons. My main concern is that mines now can be cleared easily by engineers, a number of vehicles, and you have to be a mile away from a building just to use them. Is the building clearing and prime time necessary? My personal thoughts are that the Confederates need to use every weapon they have even if its unorthodox, so if you let mines get placed on your doorstep you should suffer the consequences of not having scouts and a means to destroy the minelayers. Any thoughts on the issue are welcome on this thread.

Well, those mechanics are in because of some good reasons that showed up in play-testing.

Buildings clearing enemy mines is there partly because a Minelayer could lock off a production structure and damage it if it tried to make anything easilly, which was a bit frustrating for the victims- and partially because using Minedrop on an enemy base was really, really cheesy.

Prime Time only applies to Minedrop, not the Minelayer, I think, and was put in to keep it from being used as an anti-surface kill power while encouraging using it for area denial.

(On a side note, laying mines directly on enemies with the Minelayer is cheesy as heck- a nerf like that will be needed if just preventing laying mines when enemies are that close is uncodable. Or its already coded and I didn't notice.)

As far as clearing mines, there are three options; which to me are reasonably balanced:

1. Engineer- Slow moving, fragile, and easily countered by Snipers: but with a radius where mines blow up with no harm to them. Its not hard to defend a minefield against them, but besides that they are very efficient at mine clearing.

2. Mine-Clearer Vehicles- With the possible exception of the ARVN Beagle variant, these things are just highly resistant to mines, not immune. They can run over them to clear, but trying to run over an entire mine patch will do some damage to their health. Its good for letting them ignore a mine field, but rather bad at clearing them.

3. Artillery- A slow, safe way to clear mines from long range. If the enemy had to pump out artillery and wait for them to arrive to clear your mine field, it was successful as a stalling tactic.

As far as the Confederates needing it, they actually aren't as reliant on stealth as some seem to think- some players including myself often focus on getting a strong economy and using early rushes and constant pressure to win in a more direct way. The Confederates are a bit slow to build critical mass, but they are pretty solid for rushes and pressure tactics.

Edited by: Galgus

But my main problem is why there are both mine clearing mechanisms and the fact that one can no longer put mines in a mile radius of a building. I kinda thought that one should pay the consequences of having mines layed on their doorstep, especially if engineers can simply pop out of a nearby barracks and disarm them all. So my main question is why are we removing confederate tactics, even if they are cheesy (they are supposed to excel at such things).

You are probably right that the mine clearing radius of production structures may be a little too big to apply to both the visable airdrop mines and the regular minelayer one. What if the buildings only cleared airdrop mines?

It could work, but it could also revert things to the time where a craft Minelayer that makes it to an enemy production structure wins the game.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but its a debatable issue.

Because they're cheese tactics. Not valid IC dirty tricks.

A dirty tactic would be placing mines along obvious pathways, forcing columns to bring vulnerable scouts and protect them, before sniping the scout then Hawkering the nearest tanks. A cheese tactic would be using the RA3 engine to give yourself an advantage - like mining buildings because units can't actually get out on the field any other way.

The problem with the Confederates is that they use risky IC tactics, which translate to unorthodox game tactics. But there's a difference between gaming the engine and legitimately pulling off a good trap.

In summary, cheese tactics makes Factions hideous OP.

Mines, ambushes, etc. should all do you well in the open ground, but base wise use conventional units for crackin' when playing with the Confederates. They don't have half bad conventional forces themselves. I kinda thought that one should be able to slim-slam-thank-you-ma'am crush the Confederates into the dirt if you actually managed to neutralize their dirty tricks personally, but...not really.

Edited by: ProudAmerikan

Cheese tactics are a part of every faction, or at least were in normal RA3.

Not saying thats a good thing, though: eliminating cheese tactics may be good for the game.

(Meaning tactics that win the game quickly if not scouted and expected, but can be countered. Like Cryo rush with a turret push. They are typically rather "lame" to fight against and lead to locked build orders.)

I don't mind the idea of buildings only clearing airdropped mines, as that is somewhat easy to do. Using Minelayers to put mines on the enemy doorstep is somewhat difficult, so I think a commander should get rewards from succeeding in such a strategy.

Galgus wrote: Cheese tactics are a part of every faction, or at least were in normal RA3.

Not saying thats a good thing, though: eliminating cheese tactics may be good for the game.

(Meaning tactics that win the game quickly if not scouted and expected, but can be countered. Like Cryo rush with a turret push. They are typically rather "lame" to fight against and lead to locked build orders.)

Not good. Cheese is bad.

There's a difference between being legitimately beaten because for all your effort the other player was just better, and being beaten because you got Engidroned.

As I said, removing cheese tactics may be good for the game.

(I'm not entirely sure that Minelayer's locking off buildings are cheese though- quite possibly they are since they can turn a mildly successful early game rush into a lethal lock-down.)

They typically have a poor fun/anti-fun ratio and tend to lead to locked build orders: both of which are goo reasons to remove them.

That said, I don't see the problem with victories due to Engineer captures: thats more often due to one player's carelessness, and seems like a legitimate trick tactic as-is.

I support the non-removal of minelayer laid mines on production structures. Mostly because if you are playing against me (PAWI) or Gregester (Mines!) if you don't have scouts to detect PAWI'd units already, that is sad. If you don't notice a Minelayer entering the base, that is also sad.

Another note, as Sketch said, engineers are being made more viable in game. They defuse mines, set charges on walls, ect. You should always have one around.

just have to point out, as it is now the engineer basicly only cleares a mine he steps on. not a huge radious but tiny. he is useless at it.

norm0616 wrote: I don't mind the idea of buildings only clearing airdropped mines, as that is somewhat easy to do. Using Minelayers to put mines on the enemy doorstep is somewhat difficult, so I think a commander should get rewards from succeeding in such a strategy.

and it's not, unit healths in RA3 is very high and your units can easily touch the enemy base, before blowing up. but regular tanks often dies before doing damage, the fact the minelayer have no deploy time maked it op.

the current way it work is to get a mineclearer early game when the enemy have infantry, like crush them and plant mines for insta kill on the collector. No other early unit hit so hard against collectors or have so much health or speed.

I disagree GriffinZ: from my experience, its a quite decent clearing radius.

Albeit I think we all agree that the Minelayer shouldn't be able to lay mines directly on enemies.

Edited by: Galgus

Galgus wrote: As I said, removing cheese tactics may be good for the game.They typically have a poor fun/anti-fun ratio and tend to lead to locked build orders: both of which are goo reasons to remove them.

Cheese requires ingenuity and surprise to achieve, cheese in all games is easily counter-able and once you do you win. It is a genuine tactic in all rts games, try as you much people will still try to find ways to cheese. It's just that everyone gets butthurt after losing to a cheese tactic until I play the same bastard in the next game and destroy him.

btw build orders will always be there, they will be most efficient build orders to achieve a certain and counter tiers, don't dish em.

but I do agree that mines was pretty damn OP and seriously, mines outside a production structure would be OP unless the minelayers are given a long mine deployment time then no.

Edited by: IFork

Cheese tactics can lead to overly locked build orders, due to fear of cheese.

Honestly, its not something that can be resolved in a sweeping change, but that must be judged on a case by case basis.

A key goal of Paradox is to totally destroy the concept of locked build orders- where most of what you will do is known once the factions are seen. All the new units and options were made to accomplish this goal: or at least thats my understanding.

If you can sell buildings and build units you can cheese, it's not entirely locked in early game either btw just so you know most build orders are ones to start you off faster building a unit

I don't really know of anything aside early game I'd call a cheese tactic.

They are typically ways to win the game very early if the enemy does not scout and use a certain build order against.

cheese = all in tactic, selling all your buildings to make that final push

Isn't a cheese a tactic that is dangerous if unexpected and absolutely no threat if the target has any warning whatsoever? kinda like a rush?

I think that buildings should clear all types of mines. The radius of mineclearing should be the same size of the current soviet expansion radius.

A cheese tactic is a tactic that is too reliable, one that always works, and is difficult to counter. Cheese tactics are also widespread throughout a faction.

The difference between a good tactic and a cheese tactic is that cheese tactics will still be effective even if the enemy has already built defenses against it.

Wrong, when you know he's cheesing you win unless you are either already losing or just really bad. Cheesing is when you sell everything essential for the long-term and go all in to win. It's a final assault that wins or loses the game, you can either have it early in the game to get a cheap win or do it to end the game when you know you've got your opponent in the chokehold and you just need a little bit more pressure. (btw Cheese is not reliable)

A rush is definitely not like cheese, unlike cheese you don't harm your economy

Uhh...almost every rush I've ever heard of involves skipping most of the economic and defensive steps necessary for a long-term game, as the goal of a rush is to end the match very early. Isn't this harmful to your own economy?

I think what IFork is trying to say is that a cheese tactic is one that would require selling your MCV, building no Ore Refineries, or some such tactic that leaves you completely hopeless if it doesn't work. Rushes don't necessarily ruin you for the entire game if they don't work. If what I have been reading has been correct, than the minelayer can't really use mines near enemy bases because it's considered cheese. I do want to point out that in most cases mines near the enemy base are easily counter-able, or avoidable. From what I have read this is not cheese by anyone's definition.

And we repeat that mines was before totally OP and caused stalemates almost impossible to win.

(sarcasm)Cheese is when you lose(/sarcasm)

Anyway, back on topic.

Edited by: g.a