FABIO wrote:

Senor Barborito wrote:

Here since you need special attention:

Senor Barborito wrote:

FABIO wrote:

Senor Barborito wrote:

C&C 1 HAD STRATEGY...

...There was no cure whatsoever for the mammoth tank.

You just rebutted yourself

The point was there is no rock/paper/scissors cure for the mammoth tank - obviously they CAN be destroyed.

You go off on some bi-polar crazed diatribe (because it's HILLARIOUSLY in character! keep it coming!) on there being no strategy in click-fest RTS's then hold up the no-weakspots mammoth tank as the holy grail cure to this ailment. What the fuck? How does the Napoleonic genius of "build more mammoths than your opponent" beat out rock/paper/scissors?

The point is, there are multiple equally viable solutions to the mammoth tank rush.

You remind me of one of those ADD (another mental disorder! TEH COMEDY!) afflicted fanboys who bitch that they can't win at starcraft by sitting back and building all battlecruisers. So, me building more Battlecruisers than you is the ideal solution rather than laughing at you as my goliaths tear up your BC's at one-third the cost because you were too stupid to build an army consisting of more than one type of unit? Christ almighty I'm GLAD games like C&C generals finally specialized the anti-air/infantry/tank roles of units even further so people can't get away with simple tank rushes anymore.

No, that's entirely my point reversed.

A game in which 1-2 units mass-produced will ALWAYS WIN, and in which there is a predetermined BEST build order is no longer a game - it is a clicking contest because nothing you actually think matters.

--SB