Btw if you're fixing target search logic - have you noticed there's another bug in that logic?
It calculates target "value" for units but it doesn't save this value, so units almost always attack the most southern unit among close ones. Even if there were units with better value.

I fixed it long ago but I also have an entire new system that makes units choose target they're good against, so tanks don't shoot at infantry if there are other tanks nearby, etc.
But maybe you'd want to fix it too, at least as a setting?

I've reinstalled the game and mod to start a new campaign run. It's been quite some time since I actually did so and I haven't actually kept up with the development of the mod too much.

It will take me a week or so due to real life to finish this campaign run but I plan doing all available missions and documenting everything. However, I've gone into the game for a test run and I've hit some very minor annoyances and I was wondering if this mod addresses them, as I was not able to glean this info right away from the redux.ini or the wiki.

First, EA renamed classic units to generic garbage and I'd like to change them back. Things like the MLRS being named simply "Rocket Launcher" and other things.

Second, is the Commando supposed to be a multiple-build unit and not a unique like in future games? I discovered I could spam them in my skirmish test run.

Thirdly, I sold a building and got a civilian/technician out of it, decided to send him on a scouting suicide mission only to find out he has no vision radius at all.

Fourth, aircraft having no airborne vision and not being able to be ordered to go into fog has always been frustrating.

I know at least the last two issues are vanilla behavior but are they addressable now or perhaps in the future in our mod?

I'd like to change these problems to increase my campaign enjoyment, if at all possible.

Thank you kindly for your work!

EDIT: Is it normal for the casualties and buildings lost numbers in the post-missions screen to only show for the enemy and not me?

EDIT 2: For some reason, in GDI 4 A (Stolen Property Belarus), one of the starting APCs starts out damaged. Not sure if intended.

@zerobyte666:

It calculates target "value" for units but it doesn't save this value

I'm not sure I follow. Are you talking about TechnoClass::Greatest_Threat()? It's not as obvious as it could be, but TechnoClass::Evaluate_Object() takes its "value" parameter by reference and alters it. So the value of "value" is getting updated when those loops iterate in Greatest_Threat().

Or are you talking about another function that's picking targets?

Edit: I'm thinking about adding that kind of target picking for the multiplayer AI overhaul. (But just for the skirmish AIs, not for the human player(s) and not for the single player AI.)

@Tayo:
1. This unit was always named "rocket launcher" in game, even in 1995.
2. Commando has always been limit-one in single player and unlimited in multiplayer, even in 1995. (Same with Tanya in RA, which feels really weird because she's portrayed as one specific person in the cutscenes.)
3. Civilians have always had 0 sight radius, even in 1995. This is absolutely necessary for single player because civilians having sight radius would break missions. I suppose I could give them sight in multiplayer. But I'm not sure I should. There seems to be some design intent that civilian crew are a sort of booby prize. Anyone else care to weigh in?
4. Aircraft having flyover sight would trivialize the shroud mechanic and be wildly unbalanced.
5. The singleplayer score screen shows losses for both sides. The multiplayer screen shows kills for each player. In any event, the score screens are part of the GlyphX client, so I can't change them.

Edit: Yes, if you look at the mission ini file[nyerguds.arsaneus-design.com] you can see that one of the APCs starts with 93.75% health (240/256ths).

So I did some digging, the rocket launcher was indeed me misremembering, but they renamed the Humm-Vee, Apache and Chinook in TD to Light Scout, Attack Helicopter and Transport Helicopter. In RA they renamed the Longbow to Attack Helicopter again, but didn't bother to rename the Chinook for some reason.

Example: https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Longbow_(Red_Alert_1) . I am a fan of the old names personally.

As for giving civilians/technicians sight that could break missions, that is unfortunate, but perhaps fixable if it's not much effort? It would just be a very nice minor QoL thing, not really that important. But if you do go ahead, I'd be willing to test out those potential missions for breakage.

As for aircraft, I do think it may be slightly unbalanced, but as a toggle for SP, I think it would be cool, if of course it's not too much hassle. Every game since Tiberian Sun fixes this issue, scouting is one of the things they are meant to do after all.

It would really enhance the experience, much like many of the cool things your mod does. Also it would perhaps allow 100% map reveal percentages on some maps for score screen completionists haha.

As for the SP score screen, here is what I mean: https://imgur.com/a/wvD0CTL an example of a bugged score screen and proper one. I am specifically referring to the number to the right of the bars. The GDI bar shows casualties have actually happened. But the number does not always appear.

Initially I suspected it was tied to specific missions, but I've reloaded different saves a few times and it appears it's not mission specific, number appears and disappears without a noticeable pattern yet, so I'm not sure what triggers it. I also suspect I should be seeing numbers next to the buildings lost as well but I've yet to see any for either side once.

As for the APC health, perhaps a toggle fix if possible? Mission is hard enough as it is without cheesing it and suicide rushing the nuke parts.

And since we're on the topic, I've done the 3 "small team" GDI 4 mission variants, but I doubt they count as proper test cases for your bugfix. Granted, I rushed through the two Stolen Property variants but I'll attempt to redo them once I get some rest.

Also a more theoretical question, is it possible to increase the speed at which units get into and out of transports, perhaps on per transport type basis? Vanilla's is painfully slow.

@Tayo

When I have time, I'll pull out C&C95 and compare the unit names. If I can figure out how to override existing names in the GlyphX UI, I'll set stuff back to its old names.

I'm still not convinced civilian sight range is a good idea, but I can make a toggle to enable it in multiplayer.

Aircraft scouting would be wildly overpowered in TD and RA. I'm not budging on this.

The SP score screen sure does look like a bug, but it's a GlyphX component so I can't do anything about it.

The APC health isn't bugged. For whatever reason, the original devs purposefully gave that one APC less than full health. (Probably to make the mission a bit harder.) It's working exactly as they intended. (If you really, really don't like it, you can modify that ini file locally for your installation.)

Starting with test build 6 there are some changes that make loading smoother.

@Tayo
I did figure out how to change names. However, upon further research, a few things came up:

1. The manual and presumably version 1.0 say "Humm-vee." At some point this got changed to "Hum-vee." The most common spelling is "Humvee." So, which should it be?
   
2. The original game has text on the icons and text on the tooltips, and they aren't always the same. Remastered only has one name for each unit, and this gives rise to a line length problem. The original game had very short line length for the icons, and often quite long lines for the tooltips. A lot of Remastered's names are compromises that are longer than the original icon text, shorter than the original tooltips, and fit into 1 or 2 lines on the Remastered icons.
   
3. "Apache" and "Chinook" were from Nyerguds' unofficial 1.06 patch. See here. That text never appeared in the official original game. Nevertheless, a lot of people seem to prefer them. (Those names did appear in the CNC Gold manual though.)

I was aware of Nyerguds changing the names to the ones from the manual, since presumably the manual names were the intended names due to the fact that almost all vehicles and aircraft are modeled after real life equivalents.

In the case of the Humm-vee, it's modeled after the real life Humvee, so for its ingame name, (although this is a bit of dev intent revisionism on my part) I would also err on the side of Humvee, for both real life equivalent consistency, proper spelling and parity with the CNC Generals combat vehicle of the same name and combat role.

In terms of the Apache, I'm all for consistency with the CNC Gold manual. It's both the name listed on the cameo icon and is not in parenthesis in the manual like the Chinook is.

In case of the Chinook, both TD and RA units were modeled after the real life Chinook, both in TD and in RA. It was properly named as such ingame in RA, and given the story link between Nod and the Soviets, it is safe to assume Nod is simply using leftover Soviet equipment they acquired or already had in their inventory after the Allied-Soviet war, just like they do with their Artillery vehicle. This makes a lot of sense as a lot of military vehicles see service for multiple decades, especially aircraft. Hell, Russia is using USSR equipment even today in the Ukraine war.

I'm not quite sure I follow your meaning at point 2. Given that the "new" names would simply be single word renames, there shouldn't be any line length problem, if anything Chinook is a helluvalot shorter than Transport Helicopter heh. I wasn't proposing that we use the full names from the manual, I doubt anybody wants to see "Transport "Chinook" Helicopter" anywhere.

In the case of the Humm-vee, it's modeled after the real life Humvee, so for its ingame name, (although this is a bit of dev intent revisionism on my part) I would also err on the side of Humvee, for both real life equivalent consistency, proper spelling and parity with the CNC Generals combat vehicle of the same name and combat role.

Well, it's "HMMWV." "Humvee" is just a quasi-phonetic spelling of how people pronounce that. I don't care about consistency with Generals, at all. Do do care a bit about being consistent with the common spelling, but, on the other hand, that spelling was never used in any version of the original.

In case of the Chinook... given the story link between Nod and the Soviets, it is safe to assume Nod is simply using leftover Soviet equipment

The Nod-Soviet link is somewhere between a retcon and a fan theory. Page 2 of the C&C Gold manual says Nod got their gear from corrupt US defense contractors. (Which is, if anything, a better reason why Nod would have Apaches and Chinooks.)

I'm not quite sure I follow your meaning at point 2. Given that the "new" names would simply be single word renames, there shouldn't be any line length problem, if anything Chinook is a helluvalot shorter than Transport Helicopter heh. I wasn't proposing that we use the full names from the manual, I doubt anybody wants to see "Transport "Chinook" Helicopter" anywhere.

I wasn't referring specifically to the helicopters. Here's an example: In the original, the building that gives radar's icon says "Communications" and its tooltip says "Communications Center." In Remastered, its singular name is "Comm Center." That's a sort of compromise name because "Communications Center" doesn't fit on a single line on the Remastered icon, and having a jammed top line wold block a lot of the artwork.

Though we do sort of have a case like that with the Chinook. The 1.06 icon name is "Transport" and the tooltip is "Chinook Transport." "Chinook Transport" would take two lines on the Remastered icon. Just "Chinook" would only take one line, but it's the least faithful to any version of the original.

not sure if it's happening in release version, but this breaks Nod 9A. somethin is borked with aggro range and the initial rocket troops get immediately targeted by the grenadier on the bridge, which is not supposed to happen.

Thank you XxSTOZZYxX, that is exactly what I was looking for. Nod 9A does indeed depend on the buggy search range. If the fix is enabled for THREAT_AREA, the grenadier finds them immediately; if the fix is disabled, he does not.

I'm going to have to think for a bit about possible workarounds that would enable the fix generally without breaking missions, and what default is best if there isn't one.

I also noticed a problem with the AI attacking its own walls, so I'll need to sort that out too.

I've implemented a tweak for the search range fix. In single player, all pre-placed units and all CPU-controlled units start out with a flag that disables the search radius fix for those specific units. Once those units acquire a target, get set to mission_hunt, or have a mission set by the player, the flag is cleared and the search range fix applies normally to those units. This should give the benefit of the search range fix most of time, without breaking missions. I tested it in Nod9a and it worked. (Thank you again XxSTOZZYxX!)

The one situation I can imagine where this tweak wouldn't fix the problem is if you're supposed to aggro a unit without killing it, then narrowly sneak past it later. Can anyone think of a mission that involves doing that? It's probably going to take another test build to iron out.

Did a complete rework of "advanced wall ownership." The new system looks at who owns nearby buildings, weighted by (a constant minus) the square of their distance, with a bonus for the wall's current owner. Walls test for flipping ownership once at the start of the game, and whenever a nearby building is constructed, destroyed, sold, or captured. So far, it looks like this still serves the core purposes of (1) flipping ownership of walls when you capture a base, and (2) giving the wall-shooting/crushing AI decent guidance about *which* walls to shoot/crush, while fixing the problems with the prior implementation.

The prior implementation propagated ownership from buildings within building-gap distance of a wall down lines of connected wall segments. Ownership changes took several ticks to fully propagate. Unfortunately, this didn't work well with Nod9a (and probably other missions too), where the CPU-controlled soldiers decided to start shooting the walls around their base faster than ownership could propagate to those wall segments.

Hey Chthon,

Just wanted to say keep up the great work. I'm on board for all of your tweaks so far.

引用自 Chthon：

The one situation I can imagine where this tweak wouldn't fix the problem is if you're supposed to aggro a unit without killing it, then narrowly sneak past it later. Can anyone think of a mission that involves doing that? It's probably going to take another test build to iron out.

I cannot think of any instance of my having had to do this at any point, and I've played the campaigns many times over the past 25 years. I only played the Covert Ops missions once (four years ago when the remaster came out), but I also don't remember having had to do this in those.

Sorry for the late reply, just wanted to chime in. I finished all campaign and covert ops missions just fine. Nod 9A is still doable if you immediately order the rocket troops into a different cell away from the grenadiers.

The AI does indeed attack its own walls in quite a lot of missions, it's funny as hell.

I'm going through the N64 missions and Funpark afterwards as well.

"The one situation I can imagine where this tweak wouldn't fix the problem is if you're supposed to aggro a unit without killing it, then narrowly sneak past it later. Can anyone think of a mission that involves doing that? It's probably going to take another test build to iron out."

Didn't notice any mission from my playthrough yet. Will update after finishing N64 and Funpark.

Test build 8 is now up.