Comments - ProudAmerikan

If possible, send me a pm direct over moddb (if you have an account). That way there is no trouble with putting your email address out here for everyone to see. If you can pm me privately over ModDb, then I can let you know the password of the account once one has been set up.

Is there a particular user name you would like to be referred to as? We can refer you to one of the wiki admins in order to help create one.

As noted before by others, this mod is NOT fully released, and the downloads available are NOT finished or fully developed releases. There is NO way to play as the Chinese, Talon, Syndicate, or Protectorate, the unfinished Confederates are only in Beta 0.9, and the most fully updated versions of the Allies and Soviets are in Open Alpha 3.2

One more time for emphasis...this mod is not FINISHED, it is not released, and these betas and open alphas were/are intended for bug reporting and testing.

Though unofficial and not directly affiliated with the Red Alert 3 Paradox modification, the Echoes fanwiki Technocratic Combine does indeed utilize the Big Bertha (though it's the Big Betty currently) as a strategic artillery piece. That might be the closest you get however, unless it shows up as a Confederate campaign piece or something.

This is definitely true. These jokers just can't get anything done.

Oh, the Cult of the Black Hand is implied to be connected to/be the Brotherhood of Nod...only it isn't, because history doesn't always go the way we think it did, especially as far as time anomalies are concerned. If the Messiah never came in the first place, after all, then how could the Brotherhood ever form...?

This is pretty cool! Love the distinctive look of the QF 1 pounders, the gunshield for the operator, and the subtle way you integrated the art/geometric/deco style of the faction into the appearance in particular.

Where did you find such a reference? I've done the lore for the Burst Drone page, and unless it's in the Tactical Analysis I can safely say that, as I've never looked at RvB, any reference there is entirely coincidental.

As for the possibility that God exists, that's my point: There is the possibility that the Christian God exists. There is the possibility that no gods exist. There is the possibility that your heart will be weighed against a feather and Ammit will eat if if you were not faithful and moral. There is the possibility that Jesus was merely a prophet and the Jewish God is in fact running things.

These can all possibly be true, but you cannot claim to have proof that your side is the true side at this point in time and space. No matter how plausible one side may seem, you do. not. have. proof.

And the sooner everyone realizes that fact, the sooner everyone can stop bickering and trying to prosthelytize people who really aren't interested or circlejerking with fellow believers/unbelievers, because ultimately it all comes down to faith, and that's something too personal for you to interfere with.

In other words: Believe whatever you want, because there's nothing saying you're wrong. On the other hand, there's also nothing saying you're right, so don't try and claim the higher ground no matter what you believe in.

No, it cannot be by coincidence that every living thing has the same structure and formula of DNA, yet has uniqueness to it, because the theories of abiogenesis do not explain it as coincidence. According to that area of study, life itself as we know it (DNA and RNA and carbon-based) is suggested to have emerged by a factor of the right conditions, chemical reactions, and developments taking place over millions of years, with any number of possibilities for false starts, earlier life-form die-offs, and other developments that were so far back and left so little evidence that we could not hope to see if they were right. But that does not preclude the existence or nonexistence of god.

The fallacy in your argument is that you are claiming knowledge or proof of the existence of God being correct when there is no sufficient evidence to actually back that claim up, and there can be none with our level of understanding at this time. "It's more plausible" is not sufficient evidence - it was more plausible for the Greeks and Romans to believe the sun revolved around the Earth based on what they knew, but it was not until better technology and a way to actually view what lay in the heavens that that belief could be confirmed or denied.

And that's why it's called faith. You have faith that something is true, that a deity or deities does or does not exist. You have faith in the absense of proof, not because of it. You do not have proof, because no one has proof. Science is not on your side nor on the athiest side, because science is about what we can test and predict about the universe, and the reality or unreality of God can not be tested, predicted, or verified within the constraints of the universe. We will only have total proof when we have exhausted and revised all possible opposing theories and proposals. As one of those proposals (note it is not a theory, as it lacks a sufficient body of evidence to support its claim) is that a deity (or, if you wish, no deities) exists outside of the universe, we will only be able to fully prove that god or a lack of god exists when multiple sources can move outside of the universe, come back, and verify the existence or non-existence to the wider scientific community and receive confirmation by others conducting their own, independent tests. Science, in this instance, backs no one but the agnostic.

TL;DR: There is no proof you are right and there is no proof you are wrong. All you can do is have faith that you are right, accept that there is no way to be sure until after death, and go about your life trusting your feelings. Have faith, and don't try to 'prove' your side to anyone, Christian, Athiest, Muslim, what have you.

And to answer the intro premise, both sides are wrong and the mysterious third party in the white mask and top hat is right until humanity can move in and out of the universe freely to examine what's there.

3. 'That is why I believe in athiesm. No matter what any Christian says there is no proof of God's existence and saying otherwise doesn't make it so. The abolute non-existence of deities is true, and I could go on for shiiving paragraphs exploring more and more counter- proof,but that one is the one you have to deal with my Christian friend'

A bit crude, but it should hopefully get the point across. While your entire argument actually made some good points, it all fell apart here. No one has any proof of anything – atheists cannot prove that deities do not exist, Christians cannot prove that their and only their God exists, and the ancient Egytians could not prove that your heart would weigh lighter than a feather when it was free of sin in the afterlife. With our current level of understanding, and our current entire human bank of knowledge, we still cannot say one way or another that scientifically and factually speaking, any one religion is wrong.

1. It tells us nothing at all. There is no way to prove that there is a god or isn't a god, because we have no ability to tell the state of existence before the universe came into existence. We must stick with the universe as the point of reference. Going on, there are actually several different theorums and any number of less proposals on the study of abiogenesis, most notably the most famous two being the arrival of nucleic acids first theory and the arrival of biochemical reactions first theory, among others such as the RNA world proposal. It is not statistically impossible, only extremely statistically improbable with our level of knowledge, given what we know about planetary conditions within our local hamlet of the galaxy. Also, you cannot say that those random processes don't actually work in the first place because there has never been an attempt to replicate the conditions under which life was theorized to form under abiogenisis and then watch to see the result – as such, it is indeed impossible to determine whether or not the theories are 'true', but as scientific theories they are generally accepted as true because of our current level of understanding and evidence collected via various methods and other theories.

2. And that would be an invalid argument and thus cannot be taken as evidence of anything, for this assumes a monotheistic religion with a deity-centered proclamation of morals. Funnily enough, there are many religions out there are that not monotheistic, accepting numerous gods and other various deities, and a good many religions in which morals are not dictated by a deity but formed on another basis of ethics. As such, you cannot make the claim for all religions except one failing, for your explanation for it is not based on valid premises in the first place.

1. "Well, it tells us that their is no rational and scientific explanation for how it got there (here? blargh grammar) by itself. It tells us that life is cannot arise from non-life, nor gain new genetic information. It tells us that this universe is incredibly complex, and that it is literally impossible to have arisen by random processes, both because of probability, and because those random processes don't actually work in the first place. It tells us that someone had to have made this."

2. "This is where all religions save one (and my you are going to protest the exclusion of the one) fail, because they make assumptions. They say "well, I think God is like this (and the "this" is often "us"), and if we do this that or the other thing we can please him/her/it/them and go to a nice place after we die."

3. “That is why I believe in Christianity. No matter what any atheist says their is proof of God's existence and saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Christianity is true, and I could go on for flakking paragraphs exploring more and more proof, but that one is the one you have to deal with my atheist friend”

Let's see, let's see...I could always forward this to a public forum I frequent if you'd like, there's plenty of athiests and agnostics alike there who could argure your points without the limitaton of characters. But...as an agnostic, these are the areas I'll point to and my responses. Warning: TL;DR ahead.

And in the end...which would be more awesome: a mod full of factions that are at the same level of completion and quality as in the 0.921 release, released six months to a year from now....or a mod full of factions that are all as high quality as Apocalypse and the new textures three-four years from now?

Now, don't take this as a slight against you, or anyone else - its not meant to be accusatory, but just an attempt at an explanation for why the Paradox team is so slow.

Think of two games - Team Fortress 2, and...well, I'm going to use CnC4, but from comments in the past just substitute any CnC game from 1 onwards if you feel like it.

Team Fortress 2 took seven years to get done, and in that time period went through several overhaul revisions, all in an attempt to get it just right. Then they released it, and damn it was good. Oh yes, there were still bugs and glitches and imbalance, but they were constantly being ironed out, and overall it was "Worth the wait."

Now compare CnC4 (or other game of choice). While it wasn't a terrible game, it got a very, very, very cold reception, because among other things it was rushed. It is a common complaint amongst gaming audiences that there are these anticipated games that turn out terrible or just not living up to their potential because "the executives rushed the game makers and forced them to make the game in under two years and release it in exchange for profits."

While that is true...consider how insidious that reasoning can be. More than just you have asked the team in the past "When will you get it done? When will it be released?" Obviously, you want to play the mod not make a profit from it, but all the same it is still that subtle pressure to try and rush the release, to get it done quicker.

Oddly enough, that's the exact idea behind it - the Allied Peacekeeping Forces are getting so tense that they are demanding these new wonder weapons NOW, and so they have turned to taking these advanced technologies and strapping them to the nearest working vehicle they had on hand. Explains why they're so Glass Cannonish in-game skirmish wise.

What? Who says the units aren't meant to be that detailed? Not everyone likes fighting with hunks of bluish/reddish pixels (Early CnC games) or polygons (Gens.), and sometimes it' just good to go into a solo skirmish game, disable the AI, and spend some time looking at all the pretty graphics people put into the game so your battlefield pictures can look epic and/or pretty.

The VC and ARVN boats, along with I believe the Salamander, will not be in the Apocalypse Mini-mod. They will be in come vanilla Paradox.

Yep - Hawkers might be old, but the ARVN and Reservists still use them in active service.

Looks pretty damn cool.

BOOOOSSSSSHHHHHHH!!!

Red Alert 3: Firestorm :v

Yep - that was brought up, you can change the voices depending on model.

Lighter one is normal Allied Guardian colors. Pahits have a sandy brown base from what I can remember.

My only concern is that, from looking at in-game shots of Chinese units, the grey is a little dark, even verging on black in the more shadowed areas - it could be confused for China. Other than that, though....well, I stand by my previous statement.

The finished piece looks pretty awesome!

This....this is freaking awesome.

Thanks, Sorata! It looks incredible!

Currently, Wiikii is experiencing updates. The reports indicated we have about two and a half days to go until we can edits the wikis again.