[Waraddict]

It's time EA asked the question 'What have we learned?', when it comes to C&C editing, unsure of course where to put this topic I thought it would suite best here as this topic asks the question 'Why didn't EA finally support what players will obviously try to code in C&C Generals?'

Specifically this refers to diehard C&C fans that always want to replicate the old classics in the latest C&C engine...

- In TS the engine lacked the ability to make proper chrono-technology similar to Red Alert and any other special Red Alert feature such as the iron curtain, no big deal, we could still do practically everything else but could it not have hurt to include those abilities?

- in Red Alert 2, despite a nice bow to Red Alert we still couldn't get things done such as multi turreted vehicles such as the cruiser, not to forget we still coudln't code something that acted exactly like the chronotank, I mean, how hard is it to make the engine support the ability to give a recharge for any deploy act and then make that act modifable to any specialty such as a transport move?

- And of course we get to C&C Generals, nice big juciy 3D engine, game barely similar to C&C, so you guys (EA) wanted to be original (more like conforming to the general style of RTS), that was bad enough, but couldn't you go that little further and make the engine a bit more flexible to the extent that fans could replicate their own favorites? No apparently, do yourself a favor EA, if you want to keep your C&C fans on the increase, make the next C&C flexible enough to replicate all the previous C&Cs to a tea, you can over advertise that on the box if you want, even make that excuse to charge more, but I want C&Cs from now to seem almost like an 'update' to us old C&C replicators, and I'm sure there are plenty more behind me.

On another note, I would like general suggestions on flexibility of game code, I understand EA can't allow us right at the code of the engine but how could ini code be made more flexible?

Here's what I suggest, keep the module method, but make modules more generalised in name and more code-like in its body, such as...

Instead of this...

Behavior = StealthUpdate ModuleTag_07
    StealthDelay                = 2500 ; msec
    StealthForbiddenConditions  = ATTACKING USING_ABILITY
    MoveThresholdSpeed          = 3
    InnateStealth               = No ;Requires upgrade first
    OrderIdleEnemiesToAttackMeUponReveal  = Yes
  End

this...

Module NameItAnythingYouLike
  Conditions
    ObjectConditionType  = ALL -ATTACKING -USING_ABILITY
  End
  Actions = StealthUpdate
    StealthDelay                = 2500 ; msec
    MoveThresholdSpeed          = 3
    OrderIdleEnemiesToAttackMeUponReveal  = Yes
  End
End

So that you could even do this...

Module NameItAnythingYouLike
  Conditions
    Upgrade = Upgrade_StealthUpgrade
    ObjectConditionType = ALL -ATTACKING -USING_ABILITY
  End
  Actions = StealthUpdate
    StealthDelay                = 2500 ; msec
    MoveThresholdSpeed          = 3
    OrderIdleEnemiesToAttackMeUponReveal  = Yes
  End
End

And we could expand it further like this...

Module NameItAnythingYouLike
  Conditions = x              ; meet x conditions and action will be taken
    Condition_1
      Upgrade = Upgrade_StealthUpgrade
      ObjectConditionType = ALL -ATTACKING -USING_ABILITY
    End
    Condition_2
      ObjectConidtionType = FIRING_PRIMARY
    End
  End
  Actions = x              ; x random actions execute
    Action_1 = StealthUpdate
      StealthDelay                = 2500 ; msec
      MoveThresholdSpeed          = 3
      OrderIdleEnemiesToAttackMeUponReveal  = Yes
    End
    Action_2 = ArmorUpdate
      armor = +50%
    End
  End
End

Which I believe would allow tons of different possibilities, basically how that above module would work is that out of the two conditions specified under the Conditions part, you can specify how many you need to meet, once conditions are met it will then, depending on whether the number of actions to take are set to 1 or 2, stealth the unit or give it an armor upgrade, or do both.

[CodeCat]

I completely agree. We're doing a RA TC so you must understand how hard it is not being able to do "simple" things like strafe runs, Iron Curtain and ships without either buggy behaviour or even no working code at all.

[Waraddict]

I suggest, that when EA announces its next C&C, we demand engine support of previous C&C features and hopefully more flexibility too.

[mastermind2003]

They will not add features like this just because you ask for them. They take too long to develop, and are not useful for what they are trying to do. If you ever want to even see the next C&C, you would not get all of these features. The more features you add, the longer it takes to write, and the longer it takes to test.

[Waraddict]

I agree, but it's kind of like selling yourself to an employer, aim high and you are bound to get something.

[smurfbizkit]

It isn't going to happen. EA's policy of ditching their games right after they hit the shelves doesn't mesh with modding. Longevity is not something they look for, and thus mod support suffers.

It is sad when we cannot even get something as basic as a mod swapper.

[Waspo]

the word is "Sad".

[key0p]

Originally Posted by mastermind2003";p=&quot

They will not add features like this just because you ask for them. They take too long to develop, and are not useful for what they are trying to do. If you ever want to even see the next C&C, you would not get all of these features. The more features you add, the longer it takes to write, and the longer it takes to test.

Im no programmer so I dont understand the fine details, but couldnt they do something like Half-Life, where people are able to add their own functions - things like metamod and its various plugins?

[Phoib]

Without giving away the very valuable source-codes; no.

[RedLeader]

i tottaly agree...sa immoman said an RA tc can barly, if not impossibly, replicate chrono codes....It suxs...and it needs to change..Right NOW!