Talk:Command & Conquer: Red Alert
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
CVG To-do:
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Retaliation
Does anyone know the names of the commanders in the Retaliation cut scenes? --63.65.45.102 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alternate History
I was one of the people against the fictional storyline but If anyone still has a copy of the story line from Red Alert I think it would make a very good edition to the alternate history wikicities page. Either post it directly on the althistory wikicities pages as an althistory or post it on the talk page and I'll do it. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Red_Napoelon --Gary123 20:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
In Yuri's Revenge, the Dominator on Alzatraz was not destroyed by allied force, it was disabled by an airstrike order by the president. Your team goes back after all hope has been lost to wage war with yuri; at this point,when you arrive in the past, you destroy the dominator.
[edit] Interface
"Red Alert was praised for its user interface, which was much more developed than other games at the time. For example, there are no limitations on the number of units one can select. One also can give a unit many orders at once, which it can execute in sequence."
The first part is true; the second isn't - in the original RA, you could only select a certain amount of units at once, but it was a lot larger than any other game at the time (around 40-50, I think.) Also, I'm not sure about the multiple orders: Tiberian Sun, RA2 and later games in the series might have had waypoints, multiple orders and so on, but I don't remember anything of the sort in the original RA.
-CamTarn
Reply to above: Yes, in fact, there is. By pressing and holding the Q key, you can (with selected unit/s) click on multiple locations and the unit/s will follow that route.
-Wikster E
Red Alert is not a spin-off to the Tiberian series; the first Red Alert is the prequel (the first game in the series, chronologically) to C&C Tiberian Dawn. This has been debated many times, but is confirmed by the presence of Kane, the implication of Nod and last but not least; the official C&C Tiberian Dawn Readme file. The file also confirms the name "Tiberian Dawn" for the first C&C game.
Red Alert 2 is another story, so to speak. That game seems to depart from the Tiberian series, continuing the clash between the Allies and the Soviets, but without the elements of Kane, Nod and tiberium, going on instead to Yuri and his army. Though this is, to my knowledge, not entirely clear yet. I suppose it is possible that the story does take place between Red Alert (1960's) and Tiberian Dawn (1995-). Still, the game seemingly contains no references to the Tiberian storyline. With the release of the newly announced Red Alert 3, the situation may become more clear.
-Wikster E
- I'm pretty sure, that the canonical ending of RA1 results in the Soviets winning and conquering Europe, and this leads on to C&C. Then RA2 is an alternate timeline, which involved the Allies winning the War, and continued on into the present day. This makes sense, as there is so much technology in RA2 that is not present in the Tiberium games - it wouldn't make sense to throw it away. --210.246.47.28 04:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Unless Westwood/EA/whoever has said something official, we can't say anything. Besides, IMO, if the Soviets won in RA, the world would be too messed up for C&C to happen. IMO, C&C assumes that the timeline goes like our world after the Allied victory over the Soviets in WWII, except with weaker Soviets.
Also, it's probably worth noting that RA2 takes place in the 70s :D
The Frederick 19:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WTC
I don't know maybe it was changed later but, I am playing the 2nd Red Alert and the level with the WTC, there is no objective stating you have to destroy the WTC. I finished this level happily without having to do that. I felt a sense of taboo and figure also, that if one was forced as an objective to do so, Red Alert 2 would no doubt have been removed from the shelves completly.
- You don't have to destroy the WTC (although you could you don't need to at all), but destroying the Pentagon is a required mission objective.
Yeah, you don't have to destroy the WTC. It's not even a mission objective. Just sort of a side-objective. The Soviet Premier requests that you capture the "pathetic capitalist shrine" known as the WTC :D
The Frederick 20:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History
Where did all the background on RA1 come from? RA 2 is clearly from the game, but I remember nothing in RA1 about paratroop landings in London, an invasion in Northumbria, the Royal Navy being decimated in Scandinavia, Portugal assisting Turkey, the Spanish Civil War, etc. etc. Are there sources for this? Wally 17:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Red Alert History
The written history of RA1 presented on this page is an example of creative writing. Red Alert is a fictional game - actual history only features once in the entire Red Alert universe, when Hitler is released from Landsberg prison in 1924. Beyond that, everything in Red Alert is completely fictional. This provides the ideal setting for counterfactual history. In writing a history of RA1, I have attempted to depict a possible alternate history for the world if Hitler had never come into power. Of course, there are an infinite number of alternate realities - this one simply ties in with the fictional storyline of Red Alert.
As the entire Red Alert universe is fictional, there are no sources to quote. The sources for RA2 are correctly taken from either the in-game storyline or the official RA2 website, but as the game is completely fictional, these "sources" are just as counterfactual as any sources which I cite in my history of RA1.
I have nevertheless tried to keep the RA1 section as close to reality as possible. The first two paragraphs recount actual historical events in Europe (with the exception of the creation of the EEC) - the Spanish Civil War was an actual event, as were the Wall Street Crash, the impact of the First World War on European nations, and the formation of the European Union. Many sections of my historical documentary on RA1 are therefore tied as closely as possible to reality, and reflect a possible tangent of historical events if Hitler had not come to power. Most of my historical discussion is completely fictional - I base this on 1) artistic licence, and 2) as the USSR would never have invaded Europe with or without Hitler, it seems reasonable to make up whatever story I choose. Red Alert is not fact - the entire story is pure fiction. I have simply padded out the thin background of RA1 with, at its very lowest level, a piece of imaginative storytelling.
I have written the history of RA1 in the style of a textbook entry, in order to heighten the effect of recounting actual historical events (the whole point of Red Alert "history"). As the history of RA1 provided by Westwood is so vague, one can neither confirm nor deny my version of events as being correct or false according to the canon of Red Alert. I understand that my historical version of RA1 may confuse Red Alert purists, but I have recieved many commendations from Red Alert fans for producing a believable background to the entire Red Alert univers, and I urge fans to let me know their views on the counterfactual historical backgrounds that I have written. And at the end of the day, it is simply a story. It never happened, it never will happen, and as no-one can either substantiate nor contradict my version of RA1 history, why pick faults with it? It is a piece of creative writing using artistic licence, nothing more.
Rusty2005 :)
NO, we should only base things on what actually appears in the missions of Red Alert. The purpose of an encyclopedia is only to list factual information, so that fanfic can be based off of it. However, I must say that I do like logically though out stuff, so I won't delete what you've put in, just please don't do it too much in the future.---Ricimer
I agree with Ricimer's comments, so in future I'll avoid putting in more fictional material. But please remember that the actual RA1 game gives us very little info. I have written the piece in order to pad out the gap in between Einstein's elimination of Hitler and the beginning of the Red War. Nothing that I have written can be contradicted by the events shown in the actual game. Indeed, I have done my utmost to tie in my version of RA1 history with the events revealed to us in the game, whilst simultaneously trying to present the events of RA1 in a believable background. Thankyou for your compliments Ricimer, I appreciate them! - Rusty2005 :)
Who removed the historical sections on RA1 and RA2? And why?
Rusty2005
Sorry my mistake, I see they've only been moved!
Rusty2005
[edit] Ants
What about the secret ant level in Red Alert 1, which I believe had a ruined Nod on the map. I only vaguely remember this. Can someone check that out and see what it could mean for the storyline? (that is Nod buildings, which should be later in time, are present in red alert)
The ants mean nothing. They're just a bit of fun, and should never, ever, be considered part of the RA storyline.
The Frederick 19:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] G8 Nations
In Tiberian dawn, the reference is made to the G7 nations.
Excuse me but where exactly did you move the red alert history
The term G8 and G7 nations has to do with Group7 and Group8. This is an economic alliance of the most powerful economies in the world. These being the 7 and 8 most powerful economies in the world. No communist country has ever nor can ever become a G7 country. G7 itself is an alliance that can only exist if the the USSR lost in RA1 and RA2. Alyeska 03:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Links to Tiberian Dawn
Tiberian Dawn does NOT follow the Soviet campaign of RA, as Russia is clearly shown as GDI territory. If the Soviets had won, then all of Europe would be Soviet and therefore under Nod's control, which is clearly not the case in TD. Mrbowtie 13:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thats not a certainty, alot could happen in between TD and RA. Im definatley going with the Soviet ending being the one leading up to TD, as Nadia reveals the brotherhood of Nod and Kane's statement: "Comrade chairman i am the future" As a matter of fact, C&C renegade strenghthens the Soviet ending theory, as the temple of Nod contains images of soviet tanks amongst others.
-
- Not really. All that those paintings in Renegade really proved was that there is in fact a direct and established connection between Red Alert 1, and the original Command & Conquer released in 1995. It shows that Westwood does consider Red Alert to be the prequel to Command & Conquer 1995 in one way or another, but stating anything further down this line at this point would be speculation entirely. 81.240.53.236 15:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
== Where's the History == I still want to know where you put the history of Red Alert I still want some responce to my question, please I'm asking you nicely, were did you put the History article
- The history section was deleted after some debate (see above), quite a while ago. I've still got it if you want to read it. It was actually used at a seminar on counterfactualism! Not bad eh ;-) Rusty2005 16:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] hell march debate
We want war, wake Up! says the composer, what son of a mother argues it? you can (with some moderate sound equipment) hear it, so why do people insist on something other?
- Because it's simply not true. You can tell very clearly that it's a German officer shouting out commands. Listen for yourself: http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/play/port_lofi.cfm?sound_iid=204970 ~
- Hard to say if it's really German. I can't make out a single word, although I'm a native speaker of German. - Jack's Revenge 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I thought he was saying "Vive l'Empereur" Rusty2005 16:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds a bit like he's saying "Vive l'Empereur, links, rechts!" >_> The Frederick 04:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
He could always be shouting in Russian I suppose? Rusty2005 16:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Man, Stupid EA didn't make Red alert 3
Man, if EA really look at the succefulness of Red alert, they should make one in Red alert not Tiburium, And General is a failure in gameplay simply the tanks are 2 big and man units looks disgusting like stick figures. What were they thinking!!!!
[edit] Improving the article
I'll be making a CVG to-do and some other notes so we can figure out how this article can be improved. Red Alert and most the other C&C game articles deserve much better treatment than this. --Zeality 16:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gameplay - Unit comparisons
I'd like to dispute the accuracy of most of the claims made under gameplay as to the comparisons with real-life units. Keep in mind that the game takes place in 1949, so a "Double barreled T-80U " is out of the question. More likely it is an entirely unique creation for the game, perhaps a double barrelled T-10 or T-55. It has dual 105mm cannons, remember, and the T-80U has a 125mm cannon. Also, the "light tank" being an up-gunned bradley is absurd for the similar reason of the tech level being all wrong. The "light tank" is in fact almost identical to the M-4 Sherman, or perhaps the up-gunned Sherman Firefly, which had the same 75mm gun as the light tank. Also, there is a comment saying "the in-game cruiser does not exist", which I don't understand since there is a cruiser in the game (and it's buckets of fun, too!). Also, the medium tank could be more reasonably labeled the M-48, with its comprable 90mm gun. Any thoughts on this before I go and edit the article? May I ask what the source was for the previous comparisons? Cheers, -AGT
- I'm sure they've taken some creative liberties: after all, they clearly show things like MiG-29 Fulcrums, ballistic missile submarines, effective SAM sites, guided missiles, and nuclear missile silos. They're clearly not sticking to the real life time-frame of the mid 40's, though it's probably reasonable to assume that technology has advanced somewhat quicker than it did in real life: notice Einstein (and Tesla's) success. And that doesn't even include the Mammoth Tank. PolarisSLBM 19:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please note that in FMVs the Soviet Heavy Tanks are very similar to T-80BV not T-80U (the T-80U has a second generation ERA Kontakt-V whilst the T-80BV has a first generation Kontakt ERA ("bricks"). Then note that soviet bombers have close resemblance to B-52, V2 rocket launchers are very similar to SCUD launchers, and the allied destroyers are similar to british Broadsword type destroyers. And so - the Yak plane is must the real Yak-9, but it`s absurd - Yak-9 was a fighter, not CAS - the real soviet CAS was IL-2 Sturmovik.
