A Path beyond 2020: www.redalert.one

Yoyo folks. Since most of you guys and girls know: Our old website ra1-guides.com had some struggles in the last weeks and went offline. ...

11/15/2020

Critical report about a German imposter

Hopefully this critical report can be read by FunkyFr3sh or the game administrators, because there is an imposter of German origin [WP]God that he is insulting very strongly all the players of the game and even the members of the WP and now he is using the name of [WP]AnDeRsN one of our WP co-leader. That German player [WP]God is not an official member of the WP. This impostor is leaving the WP family and the Peruvian player [WP]AnDeRsN in a bad way. The WP family has received complaints and claims about this imposter. I ([WP]Entidad) and the WP family are promising not to insult other players again and that is on our official page. I spoke with CnCNet_95 and ChanServ to report the case, but they have not responded yet. This tragedy began on Thursday, November 12, 2019. I have enough evidence about this German imposter. All the official members of the WP have reported to me and complained about this critical case. I hope this imposter will be banned from the game completely, otherwise I and the WP family will feel bad about this game, as I have appreciated Red Alert since I was born…


This is the German imposter. The real [WP] AnDeRsN is Peruvian


The real [WP]AnDeRsN is claiming to the imposter


The real [WP] AnDeRsN and [WP] xFullon are defending the WP Family about this imposter.


[WP]xFullon reports to [WP]Entidad of this imposter through these images


The real [WP]AnDeRsN is claiming to the imposter


[WP]xFullon reports to [WP]Entidad by Whatsapp urgently!


[WP]Benjami and [WP]Doomed are claiming by the official Whatsapp group


[WP] Saxon is talking to the fake [WP]AnDeRsN

[WP]Entidad reports to CnCNet 95, but they do not give an answer

That's the impostor data. The real [WP]AnDeRsN is Peruvian


Other victim of the impostor!


More evidence!

I just hope that justice is served here!

This claim was written by [WP] Entidad 11/15/2020

10/22/2020

6/11/2019

On Power and Production


by heraclitus


“Whoever produces the most the fastest wins”

Introduction

Most RA players who have read about strategy will know this quote from Milo234, and I think it guides the way the game is being played to a great extent. However, is it always perfectly clear what to produce? Like Andrew Ford calculated earlier, a light tank does more damage per minute than a medium tank, and is also produced faster and cheaper. Would you make light tanks only then? No, because they have less health points. But how much less? And does this mean that just producing the most the fastest isn't enough?

Or how about mammoth tanks? They are useful when you’re being attacked by air, as they possess anti-air defense, and they self-heal up to 50%. Yet their production speed is a little underwhelming, to say the least. In long games, like for example a balanced match on the map "Liquid", some players prepare for the moment when the maximum number of vehicles for the map will be reached by making mammoths instead of heavies. Mammoths have better offensive and defensive powers than any other tank, and this helps these players win the end game. But how many war factories do you need to produce mammoths as fast as heavy tanks? Or is it even possible to make them faster?

Others laid the groundwork for this analysis. Roger Wong wrote an extensive Red Alert Strategy Guide in 1996, wherein he included a list with unit data (like fire rate, health points, attack points) that I use for this analysis. In 2001, JCFarmer (aka ORA-NGUTAN) created a website where he was the first to publish production speeds of units per number of war factories. And Andrew Ford was the first to report on the damage-per-second characteristic of units, writing about it on his blog and the cncnet forums since at least 2015.

Here I aim to make a more comprehensive assessment. How much damage-per-minute does each unit deliver? I call this the offensive power. And how many health points do they have? I call this the defensive power. And how many units of each tank can be produced per minute, per number of war factories? And how does this translate into offensive power produced per minute? And what do we see when we throw both the offensive and the defensive power into the mix and calculate the total power; what tank would deliver the most power, per number of war factories?

Then, for the builders amongst us, how much offensive power from buildings (e.g. teslas, turrets, flames) can be generated per minute, per number of construction yards? And what if we correct this number for their defensive power, to calculate the total power? I suspect a builder with 10 CYs can produce more power per minute than a tanker with 7 wars, but is this actually true? And if so, what is the size of this difference?

Methods and Materials

Firstly I wanted to make sure the data supplied by Wong concerning the unit characteristics were correct. All my test results matched these data (e.g. 15 light tank shots to take out a medium tank, 10 medium tank shots to take out a light tank, 1 tesla shot to take out a light tank, 3 V2 shots to take out a tesla). I have not tested all possibilities however, so some mistakes may have slipped through. It would bring me pleasure if someone could confirm or correct this crucial set of information.

Offensive power
Each weapon inflicts a different amount of damage points on different targets, depending on the type of armor. Most combat structures and vehicles are heavily armored (like the tesla, turret and all tanks except V2s and artillery), and only 2 units are lightly armored (V2 and artillery). All infantry is unarmored and most buildings are made of wood (except for the construction yard that has heavy armor). 

To calculate the offensive power I used the amount of damage a unit or building inflicts per shot on targets with heavy armor. This I multiplied by the shot rate per minute. The result is the amount of hit points that the units/buildings could give per minute; its offensive power.

The hit points for heavy armor (instead of light armor or no armor) were chosen because almost all battle targets that matter possess heavy armor. Choosing this type of armor will closely reflect the game reality.

Defensive power
The unit data sheet from Roger Wong and the cnc.fandom wikipedia page were used to discover the health points for each unit and building. I did not include the type of armor in the analysis for defensive power, as paradoxically light armor in many cases is beneficial. Medium and heavy tanks actually do 35% less damage to lightly armored targets than to heavily armored targets. The main problem of lightly armored vehicles is that they have few health points (V2: 150HP, artillery: 75HP); their light armor is in practice protective, except for fire from enemy infantry or pillboxes.

Total power
The attacking power is multiplied by the defensive power, and the result is uniformly scaled to a more relatable number. Numbers for units and buildings are comparable.

Production speed
I measured the production speeds myself by logging in for an online multiplayer game, and then playing on a random map on my own (speed 7, no AI). Afterwards I compared my results with JCFarmer’s results. JCFarmer measured production speeds not in seconds or minutes, but in units produced per time it took to produce one war factory. I calculated it took a war factory 22 seconds to be built (on 1 CY), and confirmed this in a ladder game I had a recording of. Based on this number I could extrapolate his production speeds. Our results matched in >90% of the cases, however with V2 production speeds we differed significantly. My data was used for this analysis.

It should be said that measuring speed in regular time units like seconds or minutes is problematic, as the game speed depends on several factors, including game settings, type of game (multiplayer vs skirmish), internet connection/lag, et cetera. JCFarmer’s approach to measure it in “war factory production time” makes therefore sense. I did however choose to use a regular time unit here as it makes it more relatable for the reader. All speeds are measured in the same way, so I trust we will be able to make fair comparisons between the different units/buildings, and use the tables and graphs for decision making.

Analysis
All calculations were done in Excel.

Results

Unit Characteristics

*As reported by cousinclaus, may be inconsistent (different guard range in different situation) #Fire rate multiplied by damage per shot, specified per type of target armor

Building Characteristics

*Fire rate multiplied by damage per shot, specified per type of target armor



CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Offensive strength (attacking points per minute) divided by cost, in the right image corrected for defensive strength (both factors weighed equally)

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
*Y-axis represents power measured in hit points per minute for targets with heavy armor, X-axis represents number of war factories / construction yards

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

*Y-axis represents power measured in hit points per minute for targets with heavy armor, X-axis represents number of war factories / construction yards

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

*Offensive and defensive power weighed equally for this calculation. X-axis represents number of war factories / construction yards

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
*Offensive and defensive power weighed equally for this calculation. X-axis represents number of war factories / construction yards

Discussion

Interpretation
Unit Characteristics
It is interesting to see how much damage those small artillery vehicles can do. I guess it’s a good thing they have only 75 health points, or else all we would see in this game would be artillery. Other noteworthy things are that the light and medium tank inflict about the same amount of damage per minute (like Ford reported), and that the mammoth tank only inflicts like 11% more damage than the heavy tank per minute. The mammoth nonetheless has 50% more health points.

Value for Money
It fits with the gaming reality that the medium and heavy tanks and tesla are the best "total package" deals in the game. Hence their popularity I guess.

Pure Offensive Power
Up to 6 war factories, producing artillery and light tanks will actually provide you with an army that can deliver the greatest amount of hit points to the enemy per minute. For Allied players, artillery clearly stands out until the 4th war, and light tanks clearly at the 5th war. With 6 war factories, the medium and light tank sort of share the first place. For Soviet players, heavy tanks create most offensive strength from the first up to the twelfth war factory, at which point the mammoth tank takes first place. The advantage from the mammoth over the heavy is only incremental though (56k vs 50k hit points per minute), so one could argue they share first place.

As I expected and – being a tanker – feared, the offensive power for builders reaches a much greater size. With 10 CYs, the maximum offensive power generated per minute is 60% (!!!) greater than a Soviet tanker generates with 7 wars pumping out heavy tanks. From 7 CYs on, building teslas gives more attacking strength than any tanker possibly could.

Strikingly, the power production does not grow linearly with the number of war factories / construction yards. Notably from the 4th to 5th war there is no increased production speed for the medium tank, and the same holds true for the 5th to 6th war for the heavy tank, for the 7th to 11th war for the mammoth tank, and for the 7th to 9th CY for teslas. This non-linear production speed algorithm has implications for gameplay; you probably shouldn't wait too long to build your 6th war after the 5th as an Allied force, or to build the 7th after the 6th as a Soviet, etc. Vice versa, Allies could consider building a service depot after the 4th war as their enemy is not expected to increase their tank production anytime soon, assuming they play as an Allied country as well (on the "V3 Ribbon gems" map for example).

Also noteworthy; at each number of construction yards teslas outperform pills, camo pills, turrets and flames (even glossing over tesla's superior shot range).

Total Power
When we correct the offensive power for the defensive power (weighing both values equally) we see that the artillery and light tanks are outperformed by heavy tanks for the first 3 war factories, by medium tanks at 4 and 6 war factories, and by the mammoth tank at 5 war factories. The heavy tank remains the number one strongest tank to produce in terms of total power from the 7th until the 11th war factory. With 12 war factories the mammoth tank has a clear advantage, being 60% more powerful than heavy tanks. This is due to its production speed doubling from the 11th to the 12th war factory, and its having 50% more health points.

For buildings it's no surprise that tesla retains its number one position, as only the camouflaged pillbox has more health points than the tesla. It’s interesting that the mammoth outperforms tesla here, which can be explained by the mammoth’s higher number of health points (600 vs 400). However, I don’t take this finding serious due to the mammoth’s slow moving speed and tesla’s greater shot range, which will undo the mammoth advantage in game reality. In my view the tesla remains vastly superior.

Limitations
I did the speed tests myself and only once, which will have caused some inaccuracy.

Obviously, economics frequently limit production, which has not been taken into account by this analysis. Applicability is therefore for infinite ore and gems maps, where you want the strongest army the fastest no matter the costs.

Another important limitation is the lack of shot accuracy data. For example a turret is notoriously inaccurate on moving targets, thus inflicting less damage, while a tesla is 100% accurate. Likewise splash damage, unit speed and shot range are disregarded.

About the lack of armor in the assessment: like mentioned earlier, >90% of targets in most games will be heavily armored (light/medium/heavy tanks, mammoths, teslas and turrets), and most offensive units and buildings actually inflict more damage on heavily armored targets than on lightly armored targets.

Naval and aerial units are left aside as well. See here for a list with damage-per-minute information for these forces.

The importance of this subject will be minor compared to things like build order, Qing, clicking speed and accuracy, map knowledge, strategy et cetera.

Strengths
It is shown that certain units (e.g. heavy tanks, teslas) are more cost effective than others (e.g. artillery, pillbox).

Useful unit information is provided which can help in specific situations. For example knowing that a flame has the most powerful attack against wooden structures can give you the edge in certain situations (like in the map "KOTG"). Also knowing that the V2 has a greater shot range than the tesla (10 vs 8.5) can make an important difference in some circumstances.

Graphs are provided for decision making. For example Allies could choose to make lighties with 5 wars, and mediums with 6 wars. Soviets could make heavies until they have 12 wars, when they can switch to mammoths. 

The importance of reaching certain thresholds for production speeds is elicited; like 7 wars for heavy tanks, 12 wars for mammoths, 10 CYs for teslas. Quite frequently that last war factory or construction yard causes a major bump in production speed.

This analysis clearly shows how the early game is a tanker's game, and how from 5-7 CYs on it becomes a builder's game. 

Conclusion

Each combat unit has a unique profile of strengths and weaknesses which, combined with a non-linear production speed algorithm, challenges the player. Strategy needs to be continuously adapted to the opponent's actions, by building and producing wisely. The maximum power output for a Soviet builder is notably greater than that of a tanker, which explains the successful tesla strategies in infinite ore or gems maps. Both skill and knowledge are required for competitive play, and the above supplied tables and graphs can help a player improve his or her game.


Sources

Tables with data that were the basis for the graphs https://imgur.com/a/JBF8HzA
Milo234 Red Alert Guide https://funkyfr3sh.cnc-comm.com/milo/ra.html
Cousinclaus’ report of the Guard Range http://www.redalert.one/2019/05/gq.html
JCFarmer's website with production speeds http://members.tripod.com/red_alert_website/
The Original RA manual with some info on unit armor (although supposedly some is incorrect) https://web.archive.org/web/20160314122728/http://redalert1.com/files/ramanual.pdf
Command and Conquer Fandom Wikipedia with Unit information https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Portal:Red_Alert

5/21/2019

GQ


Guarded Q as indirect Tanking - Including a new Theory about Ranges


0. Disclaimer

Again, overobviously i haven´t invented GQ in the first place, nor did i push its use to a new level of tanking. Like previously, i just try to get the storm in my head into an organized structure with hopes to help other players along this journey. 

An outmost thankful recognition goes to my favorite testing partner C|ommander! During game-mechanical tests on the actual function of GQ with him - the results of the three ranges, meaning: including a NEEEEEW third one, came out. Those results i would dare to call: RAvolutionary :D

A special thanks goes to ButcheR as well, for last minute testing details with me!

This guide is continuing the general ON Q article with focus on the single Q-combination GQ, so stuff i wrote there is presumed here. By the way, i would like to thank my readers, that they deal so fine with my..... öhm.... crazy way of writing. I am sorry. It is pure me. Cannot change it. Be happy u not reading my university paper On Nothingnesses ^^.

Followingly, we will discuss GQ first of all basically: How it works in an ideal, simple way. Deeper asking secondly, an analysis of the real function needs to be done. The outcome of this analysis leads to the theory of ranges. Last but not least, i will try to compare the GQ way of tanking with the normal Q, to see pros and cons of its usage. Have fun.


1. Basic Idea of GQ - Defensive and Offensive Using


G stands for guard-mode and means an automated attack, done with the name-same hotkey by clicking it. The idea is to have a unit, select it, then click G and click to the ground next to it. This will switch the unit into a guard-mode, so if an enemy unit comes into range, your unit would attack. You see, guard is the sis-bro of escort-hotkey. The original RA-Manual explains G this way:



This is super-interesting! Why the fuck are guarded units explained as "looking for trouble" and "much more aggressive"? And why it doesn't work with air-units? And why isn't every player using G to get more aggressive units? Don't we all desire automated fights with less clicks? Automated wins then? Seems random, that G is in a way seen and not-used like a lost son - brother of Escort. Nobody seems to care about this aggression´s plus!
The Manual doesn't answer it, but this article will. 

The traditional milo-ehy-guide is vague and ambiguous here. It actually says "Do not use to guard", while mentioning its possible using in tank fights! Read yourself:


The information is true though: If u think stationary and u bring a riffle into guard mode: he get´s killed, because he has to move first a step ahead before can attack himself - in this time the enemy already shot him down. But why? Why gets the "more aggressive" riffle shot down much easier without any trouble-seeking bonus? And why some guys seem to use it with tanks? Are not the same rules applying to soldiers and tanks?

Ah wait, the guide mentions a Basic Skill Section - what u can read about G there? 


Super-interesting again! Milo-ehy-guide says: "you can defend your base easier" with G and then Q your tanks. Wowowowowowow. But why? What does G add to a good Q, what a good Q without G hasn't? We get no answer on this. 

To name another honorable guide, jcFarmer also mentioned this usage shortly, but without clearly answering the function. However, mentioning it year 200x, so early, is a thing deserving respect on its own:


Although, nothing more is explained here, we can get the impression that GQ using has a very very long history, we are unconscious of. Way back to 2000 and even earlier. JcF sums it up under his Tips and Tricks List, meaning: as a special thing. 

---

Guide-history doesn't help us. In order to get a clearer focus in the GQ-issue, let´s face some true examples of using it. The honor goes to andrewford here . He re-actualized it, used it, trained it, beat high-pro opponents with it. He is not the only player using it, examply x.kronic uses the above mentioned defensive-G. And i personally know, that ora-boy uses an individual version of it also. But truly, andrewford brought GQ back on the table of tanking options. 

The version ora-boy sometimes uses is: G + click-away. Meaning: Instead of G + Q-away he just does a click on the ground, which works also same. Only difference is, that only this one click-order is followed by the tanks, whereas with GQ u could give your tanks multiple memorized following points to drive, while guardedly firing. 

Before now showing the first video-example of defensive GQ use, your spec-eyes need an important lesson: If somebody uses G with tanks, he doesn't attack in a direct way, meaning: he does not click ON an enemy target. Instead, the GQ-er will select his tanks, press G and then Q-away into an "open space" but close to the enemy tanks. Therefor i named it "indirect tanking", because u not directly attack, u attack in an in-direct guarded manner. So, if you are specing and seeing somebody´s tanks moving and firing (normally a sign for Q use), but without a direct path to one targeted tank, and more likely targeting multiple tanks at the same time, you can be sure some G is included.
See now a part of a full video example of defensive GQ back-base, and focus on where Andrew is clicking indirectly, while building and repairing:





Andrew finally won this by an uber amount of tanks left versus his opponent. Such a defensive style seems to be meant by the milo-ehy-guide. See a second example:



But GQ doesn't halt here. All weapons u can use in defense, ofc u can make them offensive as well. A quick clip from the last Qmaster-Tournament; between Qing, Andrew added some GQ into pure tank fighting:



The indirect Q-ing even proofs to be strong enough to master the GoldMedalChallenge on its singly use! See C|ommander beating the AI by only using Guard+Q:





2. Analysis: Real G-Functionality

The shown examples may be enough to transport the general idea behind GQ with tanks. However, the question still is up to answer: How does this guard order really work? The following analyses all started with a very simple, but funnily great question:

Can you send guard-q-ed soldier-scouts through the map? 

Meaning: While they walk and scout, they have the guard order, so if an enemy scout walks across, your own scout would automatically guard-fire and kill it - instead of normally only run past the enemy´s scout without killing it. Imagine this funny idea used on maps like arena or hjk hehehehe. So i tested it in a mindset like: "Claus, u just invented scouting 2.0!"

Sad, so sad: it didn't work that way with guard. Guard-q-ed scouts wouldn't attack enemy scouts. No 2.0-scouting for poor Clausi. Sounds devastating, but from there the question on the real G-mechanic was up! How does it work?

Another main idea i had was bonded to the related Escort-Function, because both "guard" in a similar way. If u already read the Escort-article you will know there are 2 different types of ranges: an attack range and a visibility range. And extraordinarily the Escort mode uses the second one, which is wider for some certain units, which gives you a bonus. My suspicion and premise with guard modus was same way: Guard uses the for some units wider range type. So, to test this was my goal. Thanks again for C|ommander´s patience on this hehe.

The testing frame was easy: Map ribbon, C|ommander and me, each a side, sending units with different click orders: Guarded, unguarded. Guarded with grouping-number #1 before, and without it just selected. Several Q waypoints or just a click as move order. Different types of units: soldiers, tanks and dogs. Here are the results:

a) Grouped together or just selected by mouse makes no effect. Works both ways.

b) Like mentioned before: Guard didn't work on no unit on a long distance, like used as scouts.

c) You can press G once then Qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq as with normal Q also: No Q-uantity of waypoints make a difference, the guard order stays intact. Even if u shift new units into that group the old GQ-orders are followed and your new ones given are memorized added to it. Only thing u need to do: press one time again G after adding new tanks to the group or before giving new q-waypoints.

d) If u GQ with tanks in a tank fight, there seems to be NO clear pattern of targeting: Neither the weakest enemy tank, nor the closest enemy tank was targeted indirectly. Saying: Random enemy tanks have been targeted and shot at and the focus was not on one tank than next one, but .... random.

e) THEN we discovered, that sometimes... not all tanks actually attacked the enemy, they just drove. Meaning: GQ was clicked, but some tanks back the group (not at front) just drove to the point of click, but without shooting!

This brought us to this trial: Making with silos a measure stick in the mid and place the tanks coordinated by ranges, each square a tank in line and then just press G so see, from which range onwards tanks start to attack automatically, and to be able to count by silos the squares = ranges. This pure horizontal way keeps the south-advantage out in testing.

f) If u click GQ with a group, only your tanks in-range to a possible enemy will attack! The other tanks outside-range won't attack, but only drive followingly to the place u clicked the move order! This is the answer for: why scouting GQ doesn't work. Because the time, when u click GQ with the scout, a possible enemy isn't in-range, so doesn't work. hohoho

---This is a huge difference to normal Q: If u Q fight tanks, your tanks would start firing, when they got into attack range. But if u GQ only your tanks already in-range will attack! Meaning: It could be very well of a cleverness to double or triple click a sequence like GQ...GQ...GQ to get in the meanwhile closer driven tanks also to fire! ---

Like explained above, the premise was: Guard mode uses the visability range. The numbers of range-squares per different unit can be seen in jcfarmer´s production-guide. So we tested several types of units with the expected vis-range-attack-radius.

Example 1: Normal attack range of a Medium tank is 4.75, and his vis-range (reveal the shroud range, or better: scout-range) is 5.00. The idea now was: IF vis-range is used, a 5 squares away placed tank would start fire when u just click G - and reversed: would not start firing, when normal attack range is contrarily used, because then enemy tank is 0.25 too far away, not in-range. The tank attacked. Meaning: Not the normal attack range was in use, but another wider one. So the suspicion was kinda true.

But example 2: However, we tested it for even farer distance-ranges and just G with mind-blowing results: We placed the Medium tank 6 squares away: still worked. Then 7: still worked. Then 8: still still fuckin worked. We tested the farer distances with other unit types, still worked. Lol.

⇉ Now the #crazyshit starts: Either the numbers of jcfarmers guide are wrong, or me too stupid to get the right scale. But the guide doesn't mention any scales, just numbers of ranges. If u calculate the test-given numbers into another index system (like :2) u just don't come to the same resulting numbers in relation. A third option is: neither normal-attack-range nor vis-range is used! The idea of a third new range type emerged.

And, to bond this back to the introduction: Now we get the answering on the manual´s "trouble seeking more aggressive units" with G. hehehehehe


Wait. U find this idea silly and nubish? See, what jcfarmer says about dogs:


Dog has attack range ("shot range" here named) of 2.2, but vis-range (only "vis" named) of 5. BUT, get a wtf-moment of his guide´s last line:


lolololololololol...... . "Guard range". Hahahahahaha... already mentioned. :D Please go to that page, and take an own look, with which randomness at the end this point is added-on.



3. CrazyShit Synthesis: On 3 Range Types


So we tested even deeper: Having a scale of silos in mid to count the squares between attacking-tank and enemy-tank, seeing the range-limit because of the tanks lined-up each square. Just by pressing G. Meaning: testing it "stationary" and not in movingly GQ-manner. To purely see the actual G-used-range.
This frame we counter-tested with the normal-attack-range: To drive a tank square by square closer to a standing enemy tank, in order to see from which range onwards the tank normally would attack it - without any hotkeys in use. Just by driving step by step. Horizontally, to keep interferences with south advantage out. So we collected the upcoming numbers of ranges, both ways: normal attack range and new G-range, and compared to jcfarmer´s numbers.
The tabulated results are:

However, different people did test it and the outcome was mixed. Meaning one time a bit weird wider range other time no difference at all. So I keep this information up for reading without arguing for its truth.


Range Type:
Vis-Range to jcf
Normal Attack Range to jcf
Tested Normal Range
Tested 
G-Range
Range bonus with G
Unit Type:





Light Tank
4
4
4
7
+3
Medium Tank
5
4,75
5
10
+5
Heavy Tank
5
4,75
4 (!)
10
+6
Mammoth
6
4,75
5
10
+5





STRANGE

Notes:

* Counting: squares between the two vehicles plus +1 for the square the enemy tank stood. So the G-Range 8 examply means: a distance of 7 squares between attacker and target is the maximal range for a possible guarded attack; or 8, if u count the target´s place into it too.

* As far, i have no suspicion that the visability/scouting range differs, so it is intact, only this range type is not in use when G-ing. So it is named, but left beside untouched.

* U can test it yourself, and you will see a clear difference in attack-ranges between with and without Guard. My miscounting can only be +/-1, but not in general! So even u come up with more accurate numbers, then i am happy to change the results :). But the tendency in +range bonus with Guard is not deniable!

* In the Escort-article i assumed, because obviously after tests, units used there a wider range than the normal attack range, that they must use the vis-range. However, i was maybe wrong, based on the assumption of only 2 range types. If there really seems to be a third type of range, which is also wider, than possibly the new G-Range is the Escort-Range also. This efforts a new testing, which i will do soon and write on it here.

* The tested unit sorts aren't all possible ones. Neither we tested it with soldiers in detail, nor on aircraft and ships. Aircraft won´t be guard-able, as the manual explains. But ships could be very interesting. Because the vis-range of cruisers is extremely shorter - as an exception ! - i guided to not use Escort with ships, but now the story could be different. It very well could be that a possible G-Range for cruisers is wider than assumed, tho pro-ship-using with GQ could be the crazyshit. So, RAguides need a future article On Shipping. 

--------------


4. Discourse: Pros and Cons of GQ compared to "normal" Q

It is part of the essence of discourse that one´s opinions may differ. This is my way of evaluation GQ, yours may be alternative, which is a great thing. :)


PROS: +

a) One cannot negate the G-Range plus u get with GQ. This seems to be one of the main reason for its effectivity.

b) Then u cannot - by definition - mistarget or misclick. Indirect tanking means that your tanks target automatically.

c) And you gain a plus in the amount of targets the same time. Multiple-targeting deals greater damage over the time, than single-targeting summed up. Why? Imagine a QM-maxispeed-game. If your production is maximal and u only target one tank, than obviously several targets at the same time can get u ahead in numbers.

d) Here i assume an additional plus in so-called "splash-damage". Meaning: A shot not only damages the target, but 1 square around it all targets as well. So several targets shot at should resume in several splash-damages done at several locations of your enemy´s tanking group. hehehe. 


CONS: -

a) Remember the targets-in-range-anomally. Your GQ-ed tanks only fire, if the targets are in range when u click this order, otherwise they just drive. Q let your tanks first drive to the target to fire, then drive the Q-waypoint away. 

b) You certainly use direct tank control, which is the No.1 tanking skill overall: To speedy get your tanks manually each and every click do what u want them to do. Imagine getting lazy after tremendous GQ-using, and losing your better Q u once had. 

c) Probably, u need a bigger tank group than just 4-6. Like plus-15 tanks, then u can start to get the effect of multiple-targeting for your outnumbering. Direct Q would win indirect GQ in low-amount groups by faster picking out tank by tank, instead of damaging all a bit, but take out none or just 1-2. 

d) You need a certain sense of "negative/empty rooms", meaning: the GQ-eometry where u click your guarded tanks. But, you cannot use GQ-back very often, because of the in-range-disadvantage. So, u need go (if done offensively) more ahead, and many into or through ya enemy´s group in order to divide them and pick out lost tanks after such a maneuver. Anyway, that certain sense needs to see "open doors" to guard-into. 

e) If it works better, the more tanks u have, wouldn't that mean: You outtanked your enemy even so?! 


---

The moral of On Q seems to repeat itself here: Tanking ever is, always was and will be a very individual thing. To only GQ from now one gives you, besides obvious bonuses in some parts, obvious disadvantages in others also. How to deal with it, stays subjective. Some tankers may combine more this and more that together situational. I strongly tend to see GQ as a sometimes useful add-on to tanking skills generally, but not THE master secret u will win from now on always and forever. However, it is nice-to-know it :)



------

Merry Q-ristmas & A Happy New Tanking-Season,

(was the original line from the afo-guide,)

 Claus