[demoraptor]

We all know that GLA is more weak than USA & China(don't say it's not because it is). If not money resource than what shuld Deezire do in his mod for GLA???

[ComradeJ]

They ain't weaker :| .

[CCGISME]

GLA has the most vehicles and infantry, for a cheaper price.

Whatever Deezire does to Pro:gen is fine, as long as they make all the sides equal...AS INTENDED FROM EA GAMES!!! The point of the game is strategy, not being stronger or anything. They all have the same level of everything, in their own unique way. It's how good or expeirenced the player is that matters.

Example: Nuke is the strongest SW so it takes the longest, Then scud storm which is a bit weaker and time shortened, and then particle cannon, the weakest but the fastest. NOTE: THEY ARE ALL THE SAME PRICE!!!

PS. Although they are intended equal, there may be some (very few) acceptions.

ONE MORE THING: OPINIONS ARE WHAT ONE PERSON THINKS AND FEELS ABOUT SOMETHING. YOU SHOULD RESPECT THEM, AND IF YOU STATE YOURS DO IT IN A FRIENDLY WAY. AND NO I AM NOT THE PRESIDENT JUST SOME STUPID TEEN. SO DONT MESS YALL!!!

[The_Phantastic]

Sighs when will peeps learn that EA basically perfected this game at balancing it with all the sides... While the stats for all the china units are stronger than that of GLA's, I mostly see GLA peeps killin them easily, just look at the win stat online...

[toysLus]

That is true... the sides are so close that on any given random match, any of the "races" can beat any other. However, I don't think that this means they are "perfectly" balanced. Player skill, obviously, has a lot to do with it.

When the discussion turns to balance for any RTS game, I look at it this way: Every side ALWAYS has an optimal strategy. The way these games are designed, with each side having a unique "strength," there is always a mathematically "best" build order which complements that strength. This can be easily witnessed by watching the "top" players in action. Without fail, there is always a dominant strat used by the best players of any given side. Mathematically, it gives them the best odds of winning when you don't know what your opponent is gonna do. (The most obvious of this can be seen in WarcraftIII, where EVERY high ranking game is a replay of the same strats going against each other.)

By comparing the success of these "master builds," it gives IMHO the best indicator of balance. And how do we guage the success of the builds? By seeing who the best predominantly play as. Since these guys' #1 priority is winning, they will rarely choose the side they think is "neat-o." They will pick the side that, based on the master builds, will give them the best odds of winning. In the case of Generals, we can see that the GLA make up a minority of the top ranked armies. This, to me, demonstrates that the GLA are a bit underpowered.

[CCGISME]

Exactly as i said...GLA may be slightly underpowered but in general, it may just be that one might like or dislike a certain army.

Such as: If you are american, then your first choice would probably be america. If you are asian, than you would probably prefer china. But if your from the middle east, (which i dont think anyone who has this game is) would pick GLA. MOST OF THE TIME!

Sometimes, if you play as one army and win once or twice, then you stay with that specific army all the time, and hardly consider other options, unless you get bored.

But, in truth, there really is no huge difference between them :| , which is why when I go online, i choose random and then stick with that army, until i feel i should create a new account because of boredem or unsuccesfulness with them.

And a brief summary of that is...IT"S BASED ON YOUR OPINION AND YOU!!! NOT THE ARMIES OR THE FEATURES THEY HAVE!

PS. sometimes it is also based on the missions, or skirmish's.

Oh an toyLus, not to offend you but the word "races" is kind of being a racist. :dead:

[toysLus]

Sorry :S Meant no disrespect. I was playing AoM the other day so guess I got the terminology mixed up. Technically I guess it's valid (the race thing) but still... it's kinda crude when applied to the Generals factions. I guess it just depends on the way the games are presented. Anyways, simple mistunderstanding... :S

[SCUD]

Originally Posted by SCUD

That's good idea. Deezire should do something like that in his mod!

Ok. So you are saying that GLA shuld not be as strong as China or USA only because there is no moslem players? My favorite is USA, however I DON'T hate asian or people from middle east.

ComradeJ ,pardon, but you are wrong. GLA is little weaker then it's friends.

Here is my solution:
GLA needs something to keep enemy out of base. Stinger Site is toooo weak. Some upgrade to make rockets better and/or sniper in S. Site to take down infantry. Meybe some upgrades for tanks to put mines on field.(this is meybe preferably for china.

Please say it here!

[ComradeJ]

There's one fact; The GLA is harder to play, just as Yuri was in YR. US and China use rushes and there are n00bs (I don't think I need to name people), that obviously can't win with other tactics and scream the GLA is the weakest.

I usually play with China or the US, because I think the GLA is a little too effective against an AI.

[SCUD]

We have same situation like in RA2 YR. Soviet and A. VS YR.----USA and China VS GLA. Only Yuri was stronger in RA2 then GLA is in Generals...