DFD-R2: 1099 vs. 1074, 1147 vs. 1068

[Renegade]

Fight 1

---

I don't have anything against the LightingRod request, especially not considering requests like #957, in fact, I think actual lightning rod buildings or building upgrades could be a neat little tactical addition to the game - just like in TS, when you played against Nod, you could choose to invest into pavement to keep out subterranean units, in this case, if you played against Allies, you could consider building lightning rods, to deflect damage during a lightning storm away from your important buildings.
It would be a passive defense structure, just like walls or pavement.

However, as much as I think #1099 is a valid request with a good usage case, the fact of the matter is that #1047 helps making the AI more "human-like", and games with a number of AIs less predictable.
Ideally, we could also ensure that AIs form distinct alliances among each other, dependent on their strength, position, etc., to give their alliance-behavior a very "human" feel.

I don't know how feasible #1047 is just yet, but I do think if we can get it to work, it'd be appreciated more than lightning rods.

Kill: #1099
Support: #1047

Fight 2

---

This is one of those fights where I'd like to kill both issues.

The streaks request is one of those "yeah...no" requests. It's a valid request with an understandable desire, but it simply doesn't fit into YR's gameplay and it's way too much effort for way too little gain with way too much unwanted silliness.

The SubjectToEverythingUnderTheSun request is one of those "omg let's add more complexity!!" requests. Sure, ideally, we'd have 100% accurate physics, a pixel-perfect collision system, dynamic, gameplay-relevant lighting and unit-individual lines of sight.
But we don't. YR is vastly simplified, and not all of these simplifications are made to be removed.
Yes, it's questionable that machine gun bullets happily fly through tanks and hit their target. But for the vast majority of projectiles, the system makes perfect sense, players usually happily suspend their disbelief and just enjoy the game, and, last but not least, it has been this way for over a decade.
Seriously.
It's not like this is a sudden development, and before, all was 100% realistic.

The point is: I understand the request. I see where it's coming from, I admit it'd be nice if stuff behaved "realistically". But ultimately, the current system has been in place since at least Tiberian Sun, and this is the first time it's seriously being questioned.

Which, by the way, generates a whole new side to this: People could get confused when they expect their C&C to behave like C&C has always behaved, send their Sniper to attack a bunch of conscripts, and then wonder why the fuck the units don't get damaged - not realizing the bullet is caught by the Rhino in the middle.

There is, by the way, a reason I only use bullets as examples: The request exaggerates the amount of unrealism. Independent from the fact that weird beams and battle-grade, tank-mounted lasers don't exist just yet anyway, even if they did, you don't know how powerful they'd be.
I mean, seriously - if a Prism is powerful enough to significantly damage a tank, don't you think it could happily melt through a Conscript and still hit the target?
Don't you think that a Magnetron's "beam" is maybe just an illustration for the player, and that an actual anti-gravitation beam might just be invisible and depend on other factors than line of sight?

When arguing about things unrealistic in C&C, you always have to remember that C&C isn't realistic. Arguing about realistic bullet behavior is one thing. Arguing about realistic behavior of fantasy weapons is kind of ridiculous.
Not saying I've never been guilty of that, just saying it's something to remember when doing that.

But there's more!
This request, if implemented, would be the start of a slippery slope.
Today, it's "We already have SubjectToBuildings, we should also have SubjectToInfantry|Units|Aircraft!"
Tomorrow, it's "It's illogical a human can stop a bullet, but a rock can't - we should have SubjectToRocks!"
The day after, it's "We already have SubjectToRocks, could we also get SubjectToTrees?"
Next, it's SubjectToSlopes, then it's SubjectToClouds, then it's SubjectToBeams, that gets extended to SubjectToProjectiles, and ultimately, we'll end up at stupid shit like SubjectToAir because someone proposes a vacuum overlay type.

Point is: Sometimes, a simple extension is enough.
The gain of this request would be insignificantly little, and the number of additional development effort and ingame computation required stands in no comparison to it. It's just not worth it.

And even if all the above weren't true: It still wouldn't make a goddamn difference.
Why?
AI.
Because you just know, if we code it in a way that a trooper happily keeps firing against the obstacle instead of repositioning himself, we'll get a bug report demanding a fix within a day.
So with the next patch, units simply wouldn't fire against the obstacles anymore. They'd go "There's my target! Damn, there's a conscript in the way! *steps to the side* CRUSH KILL DESTROY!!!". The truth is, once properly implemented, the pathfinding of all units would simply ensure the units wouldn't shoot against obstacles anyway. So if there's a passing Conscript running into the line of fire, they'd just move to the next cell and fire as before, and if a line of Conscripts were built to catch the fire, they'd just treat them like they've treated walls for a decade: They'd look for a better position to shoot from.
(Which, of course, would draw new bug reports about how pathfinding/AI is broken, since units walk away instead of attacking, but hey, you don't have to deal with those, right?)

And the funny thing is, even all that, even the more realistic scenario of how SubjectToVictims would play out if it were implemented perfectly as imagine by its proponents, is still irrelevant.
Why?
Because the simple fact is, ingame, the damn difference would be exactly one shot.
You would shoot at the target.
You would hit the Conscript standing in the way.
Scatter= would kick in, the Conscript would move, because he doesn't like being hit.
The line of fire, from your current position, would be perfectly free and you could go on hitting your target without any change of your own behavior.

You built a wall of Conscripts to take the damage? Good for you! I hit each of them once and your damn "wall" looks like a swiss cheese running around in panic.

If the modder activated PlayerScatter=, this will even work on your own units.
Which, by the way, poses an entirely new issue: Has any of the proponents ever thought about how exactly groups of units are supposed to work with this?
YR doesn't have formations.
You would constantly have to manually keep your units in one straight line in order to keep everyone effective. Otherwise, the last line of your units will happily massacre the entire rest of your army, or only the first line will fire while the rest of your army spends the battle walking around looking for a better spot to fire from.

As said, I understand the thinking and the spirit behind this request, but as should be visible from the above, it is riddled with inevitable problems that simply make this feature completely unfeasible - even if it were implemented perfectly and as requested, it would damage gameplay, significantly obstruct the flow of the game, and dramatically reduce the effectiveness and intelligence of all units in the game.

As such, I have no other choice but going with the streaks request.

Kill: #1068
Support: #1147