Talk:Command & Conquer: Red Alert/Archive 1

The Crysis modification

Please stop adding the info about the Crysis modification. Just because it was promoted on the official page doesn't mean it's official in terms of the universe continuity, it's not sanctioned in any way by Electronic Arts. Other mods will be featured on the main page in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.100.112 (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to look up the precise definition of the word "sanctioned" in a respectable online dictionary. When the legal owners of intellectual property are both acknowledging and promoting a work in an official capacity, as Electronic Arts has done with this Crysis mod and as the reference provided verifies, this work will achieve official status as far as canon is concerned. From the Wikipedia perspective, the fact that this Crysis mod has not been produced by an actual Electronic Arts team does not alter the mod content's sanctioned position within the C&C storyarc. By that line of reasoning, the Tiberium Wars novel would have to be dismissed as well since it was never written by one of the original script writers of the Tiberium Wars title. And as appealing as following that avenue of thought may be to me, personally, it would nonetheless remain incorrect from a Wikipedian standpoint.

I've noticed that in the recent past, IP addresses quite similar to your own have made edits to other Red Alert-related articles, stating that "no connection between the Tiberian and Red Alert universes appears to exist", even when reference to official documentation was already in place to confirm the contrary. With this looming in the background, I'm sure you will understand I regard your edits to Red Alert-related articles with a measure of skepticism, especially if they are made to a section such as "Connections to the Tiberian series". 84.192.118.42 08:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Those edits were not done by me, I fully accept the connection between Red Alert 1 and the Tiberian universe. As for the Dead 6 mod, yes, it was featured on the main page for Command & Conquer 3. However, this does not make the story presented therein a part of the canon. Again, I ask you to seek confirmation for this with Cypher, the lead of this mod. Cypher is a moderator on the official EA boards for Command & Conquer, which may have influenced the fact that his mod got promoted on the official website, however Cypher will surely confirm that his work is not part of the official canon. And if for some obscure reason you think that EA might incorporate the mod into official canon without Cypher knowing it, ask Apoc, the Command & Conquer community manager, an official EALA employee. Unless you get an answer stating that yes, the mod is canon, please do not add this misinformation again to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.100.132 (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me further underline a key issue that you apparently are unable to fully grasp, let alone appreciate;

It is not realistically viable to attempt to make the case that a piece of storytelling - which explicitely states it is to establish a link between Red Alert 1 and the Tiberium universe - is not able to pass as sanctioned or even adopted canon material when 1) it has already been openly acknowleged by the current owners of the intellectual property that is C&C even before its completion, and 2) when it is being actively promoted on the official website of these owners as a story that is to bridge the titles of RA1 and TD. Indeed, the mere fact that Electronic Arts is acknowledging as well as promoting the content of this mod in their capacity as the intellectual owners of the entire storyarc is of such significance, from the Wikipedian standpoint, that the word of this Cypher middle-man would not be sufficient in contradicting it anymore than yours is; instead, I'd have to see a declaration from a genuine EA representative which states that Electronic Arts has, in retrospect, decided to distance themselves from this mod's content and that it thus is to be regarded as an elaborate work of fan-fiction from this point on, and nothing more.

As it is, no such formal statement has been issued by EA on this matter as of yet. In fact, their actions to date are in direct contradiction to the point of view which you propagate. As the result, your claim that this sourced and verified content is supposedly "misinformation" borderlines on the distribution of misinformation itself, and your repeated removals remain unwarranted and thus objectable. Until a formal statement from an actual EA representative is forthcoming to clear up the confusion on this issue, I emplore you to keep this well in mind and to cease these continued removals, as you currently are not able to provide any legitimate proof with which to support your claim.

I will stress that I am not necessarily stating that you are wrong, I only conclude that at present you have no proof which can meet Wikipedia's requirements with regards to legitimate sourcing. As such, I will continue to revert your removals. 84.192.118.42 16:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm tired of this edit war, so I'll just let it be. But you do have to know that if EA really does treat the mod as an official part of the continuity, then this is something unprecedented in the history of gaming. Yes, there were cases where a publisher would pick up a fan-made mod and publish it officially (and even then such mods are usually not treated as a part of the official continuities) but so far this is not the case with Command & Crysis: The Dead Six. For one, the modification is not for a Command & Conquer game. Secondly, it remains an independent mod, not sold by EA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.99.37 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Technology

Are we honestly expected to believe that technology that lets you make your men totally invincible for a short period of time was somehow lost in 20 years because they didn't have the money? In any case, if there was a worldwide economic recession, then weather control should have been MORE common to help agriculture. I reckon there's no way that these two series (Red alert and Tiberian Sun) could be linked. Red Alert is an alternate PAST. Tiberian Dawn started an alternate future of the world we are in now. If Red Alert ever was a prequel, they obviously let it get out of hand.

The projects could have become untennable and unusable due to loss of blueprints etc. so the Iron Curtain and Chronosphere would demand huge amount of resources to continue running. There could also have been subterfuge involved with the changing of hands of technology such as the Mammoth Tank being used by the GDI in TD. Weather Control would have been too unstable to use as it would endanger people, property and livestock so would have likely been abandoned. However that is used in RA2 which is seen as a spin off and alternate timeline to that of Tiberian Dawn so in actuality, would never have been created. (Termnus77 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Thanks 4 your feedback. I'd like to see how they managed to lose all the blueprints for that technology though. If that's the level of competence of the human race, I'm not looking forward to the outcome of the scrin invasion. Even if there was subterfuge, there should still have been backups (note: Russia is GDI, so that would be why GDI has the mammoth tank). There's also a lot of other things that were lost, such as anti grav (in robot tanks- the GDI sort of has it, but not as good), lasers (GDI countries had prism towers; GDI doesn't), tesla weapons etc. Also remember that the Tiberian series makes no reference to telepathy, which quite obviously exists in Red Alert. Even if projects became unusable, I'm sure that if there was a serious issue, say a massive war with an international superpower and/or an alien invasion, they could probably have found some way of keeping it running.

We've got to keep in mind that they were probably going to be linked in Renegade 2. And then there are those pictures of Apocalypse tanks in the Temple of Nod in Renegade... Obviously, Westwood had something planned.

But I doubt we'll ever know what it was now.

I will to go into the entire storyline in detail, but merely explain how technology can be lost. In Red Alert, the Chronosphere and Iron Curtain technology were pathetic, being able to transport or protect 1 unit.

According to the much agreed upon storyline where C&C proceeds from the victory of the Soviets in Red Alert, we can very much understand how the Allies or eventually GDI abandoned the stagnent Chronosphere project. We must understand that the progression of technology is usualy a single stroke of brilliance that may or may not happen. Couple this uncertainty with the situation, victory of Soviets, it is likely that the Allies or GDI immediately abandoned the project in search for an alternative solution - the Ion Cannon.

Based on a similar argument, the Iron Curtain was never further advanced in C&C. Considering the nature of the Ion Cannon and the technology behind Iron Curtain, we can safely assume that Iron Curtain is completely ineffective when faced with the Ion Cannon. Intelligence of GDI's research on rail weaponry probably further cast doubts on the feasibility of continuing with Iron Curtain.

On the other hand, when the Allies assumed victory, there was world peace and both the Allies and Soviets (puppet state nonetheless) were free to continue their research of their own super weapons, developing them into the resultant forms in Red Alert 2.

Regarding other insignificant technology swaps such as the Mammoth Tank migrating from Soviets to GDI, it can be easily explained as Russia joining the Allies to form the GDI when NODs ascension proves too great for the communist state to handle. In Red Alert 2, the Mammoth Tank evolves into the Apocalypse Tank which still belongs to the Soviets.

Generals would be an untempered world which Red Alert split off from when Einstein eliminated Hitler.

Retaliation

Does anyone know the names of the commanders in the Retaliation cut scenes? --63.65.45.102 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

General Carville for Allied and General Topolov for the Soviets. Incidentally, I think this is the only Red Alert game EVER where the Soviets have a real Russian actor as commander :p

--Nyerguds 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternate History

(72.39.135.193 18:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)) (72.39.135.193 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)) - January 7, 2007 I'm new to wiki, first off, but I've got a degree in European History, and i'm also a huge fan of Red Alert. That being said, i'd like to post an idea regarding a possible alternative history that might explain how this conflict could come about, prior to the First World War, in a real life setting. It is actually not that far fetched to imagine a European conflict involving the USSR with Hitler removed. Communism in Germany during the 1920's and 1930's stood a real chance of establishing a government, and the German communists took orders from the Comintern. (An international communist organization established in Russia, that was desigined to promote communist revoultion across the world.)European governments would not have allowed a communist government to take hold over Germany. or at least, probably would not have, which could have led to Anglo-French intervention in a German civil war, and Russian interferance. More on this later. I will address before anything else the problems with the game as it meshes with real life history, and provide later soultions to these problems. Of course, we have to suspend reality: tesla coils, iron curtain machines...these are impossible. But the basic premise of the game isn't.

Firstly, the game totally ignored the situation in Asia, which Russia was keenly interested in, especally considering the communist revolution that was occuring in China, and the Sino-Japanese war that might (thats a big maybe) have ended in Japenese victory if not for the Second World War. The game kind of ignores the Depression, which i will connect with the Asian situation. Second, the creation of the United Nations, as it is mentioned, could not have happened without the collapse of the League of Nations, and without a western alliance including the United States. Third, the reason for American involvement in this war. Why would they intervene, if it had not been for Pearl Harbour the United States would not have joined World War Two. The game makes no mention of any kind of Russian attack on America, nor would they have had the capacity to do so, given the time frame. Fourth, the entrance of all of Europe, Turkey included, into this war. Certainly England would have supported France, but the Balkans had strong communist parties of their own. Mussolini, in Italy, was an opportunist who was dissapointed with the European status quo, and one can assume he would have still come to power. Why would the Soviet Union have attacked Italy? Fifth, The Balkan war, and the war in Greece. Invading the Balkans as anything but a liberator probably would have had no appeal to Russia, Russians, or Stalin, except for a potential Russian interest in establishing a naval presence in the Mediterranean, but in the midst of a full scale war in Germany, this could not have been a priority. Lastly, the Atomic Bomb was invented by the United States, and not the USSR. How did they get it?

First, to the outbreak of war, then I will break down these problems one by one. Germany, during the Depression, recovered under foreign minister Constantine Von Neurath's guidance. He organized a deal at the 1920's Locarno peace talks that resolved (supposedly) the problems of Versaille, and led to a massive loan arrangement with the United States, that would aid German recovery. When the stock market crashed, and the world economy collapsed, Germany stopped paying reperations to the Allies, and when Hitler came to power, informed the world they would not be repaying their loans to the United States. Without Hitler, this probably would not have occured, and so the German recovery would not have been as swift. We can assume in the Red Alert timeframe this would not have happened, and throughout the 1940's the world would have been attempting to recover from the Depression. The way to do this would have been military buildup, and Sino-Japense war would have been a good excuse for this. With no threat in Europe, it is plausable that the USSR would have intervened in the Sino-Japense war on the side of the Communist rebels. In turn, the United States would most likely have sent aid to the Chinese nationalist side, or perhaps even the Japense, if the USSR intervened directly. Either way, we see an American military buildup and the growth of American industry - enough to possibly pull that country out of it's depression. As Red Alert does not state weather or not the USSR intervened in China, we will say that they sent military aid in the form of advisors and material. The siutation in Europe, by the middle of the 1940's with no war to reinvigorate the French of British economy, would have been weak. Communism and communist rebellion would most likely have run rampant throughout the Balkans, and Poland and in Germany. We know from the Second World War that the USSR had plans to reconquer Finland, which they did. We will assume the USSR, in the Red Alert timeline, did so as well, citing support for Finnish Communist parties as their reason for invasion. The European powers would accept this because their situation would have been quite weak, in all likelyhood Stalin would have been able to bully Poland as well, perhaps even doing the same thing in that country. With no Facist aid in the Spanish Civil War, accept perhaps the aid sent by Italy, Franco would probably not have won, and the communists might have. We will say by the mid 1940's, Finland, Poland and Spain would have been communist countries, perhaps not taking direct orders from the Commintern, but certainly in a close relationship with the Soviet Union. The need for European military buildup would spark a 1940's recovery from the Depression. This could be the spark of the war. European fear of Communism, an increasingly powerfull USSR, and a possible civil war between republican, nationalist and communist soldiers in Germany. A communist Germany would be unacceptable to France and Great Britian. We will say that German communist soldiers capture Albert Enstien and return him to the USSR. A Communist Germany would have been a massive coup for the USSR in Europe, and so the French and British would intervene in Germany on the side of anyone but the communists, and the USSR would in turn interfere on the side of Communism. Stalin, seeing the European situation as weak, might have engaged the Anglo-French soliders directly in Germany. Here we have our war.

Problem 1 - the situation in Asia. Lets assume during the 1940's the Sino-Japense conflict continues, and is not mentioned because it is unimportant to the events in Europe. Sending arms to aid either side, we will say, is what pulls the USA out of the Great Depression. Problem 2 - The creation of the United Nations. How could this have happened without World War Two, with a facist in charge of Italy and with the world in the midst of a depression? The only answer is fear of communism. An anti-Communist league, centered in New York City, called the United Nations develops. This UN could possibly have had American membership, and would vow to fight communism throughout the world, probably through peacefull means such as economic sanctions and blockades, or diplomatic pressure. Problem 3 - American invlovement. What would provoke the USA, we need here a Pearl Harbour incident. One could possibly imagine Soviet Submarine activity operating out of Spain to crush the aid Great Britian and France would have been reciving from their empires, but their combined navy and army would have ended a Spanish threat very quickly, and they would have avoided attacking the USA. We turn again to fear of Communism. With a communist victory apparant after the fall of Germany and what looked like a spearhead into Paris on the Red Alert map, America would have to invent a pretext. They could possibly claim that their advisors and peaceful envoys in China were attacked by the USSR. In all likelyhood this would be a lie, but regardless, the USA would intervene. Problem 4 - The entrance of all of Europe into this war. Let us assume here the USSR invaded Turkey just as they did Finland, and Poland. The Allies might not interfere, either way, this would bring that country into the war. Italy would enter based on a fear of Communism and because of a war in the Balkans, which we will deal with next. Italy desired an empire in Europe, and might have saw opprotunity in a Soviet invasion of the Balkans to build one at the close of the war. Italy's power at this time would actually have been close to France and Britain, considering their invasion of Abyssinnia would have been sucessfull quicker without the sale of German arms to that country, and their military buildup during Mussolini's reign would have allowed them to avoid the Great Depression. Problem 5 - Invasion of the Balkans. They would only have invaded the Balkans if they expected a fast victory, and had the strong support of local communist parties. We will have to assume they did, but overestimated the Balkan support they would recieve, and ended up bogged down in that area, fighting the Italians and the rest of the Balkan nations. Problem 6 - The Atomic Bomb. Enstien suggested the creation of this bomb to President Roosevelt, it is possible he would have suggested the same thing to European leaders without Hitler's coming to power, this information could have gotten back to Stalin and since Russia has it's own supply of plutonium, it is feasable to imagine they would have developed this bomb before anyone else. European victory in this war, even with American aid, would have taken at least 10 years, given the size and strength of Russia and the huge problems associated with fighting a land war in that country. The entire British and French empires would have needed to be involved, and they would have to manouver well to be able to win a war against the USSR. (72.39.135.193 18:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)) - Mike

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.

The problems themselves could be solved by the RA1 timeline and/or FMV sequences as well as history itself: Problem 1: Stalin in one of the FMV sequences is talking to General Gradenko and mentions that he was 'at his side' at the takeover of China, showing that they may well have occupied the country and would explain Russian need to expand to the west. Problem 2: The UN would have been formed eventually due to the lack of power of the League of Nations and thus showing the world that a new organisation would have to be formed, albeit with different aims in this timeline and also at a later stage in history. Problem 3: American involvement would have been inevitable as a European conflict would damage their own interests and their safety as Britain was used as a buffer against invasion from the east and they were protected from the west by an extensive air field network. Problem 4: The RA1 timeline assumes that Mussolini joined the Allies in fear of a Soviet invasion of Italy and also history shows that Russia intended to invade most of southern and eastern Europe long before it had any plans to invade western Europe. Problem 5: In the RA1 timeline, and by this point, the addition of China to the Soviet Union would have provided a huge boost to industrial output and therefore allowed more equipment as well as a higher level of conscription to be achieved and an invasion in the Balkans would be swift and easy with the gained military power. Problem 6: Russia did develop the Atomic bomb along with America, however since America dropped this on Hiroshima before the Russians could properly develop this technology, it led to the Cold War in our history. In RA1 history the Atomic bomb would have been developed by both nations by this point as it may well be set during the late 1940's or early to mid 1950's allowing this to be possible.(Termnus77 00:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

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)

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)

---

I'm sorry? I thought this was a Red Alert page, not a Red Alert 2 page? Please delete this section ('WTC'). NitroX infinity 11:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You're supposed to destroy the Allied Battle Lab and set up a Psychic Beacon. The WTC has nothing to do with it, save for the fact that the Battle Lab is in between the two buildings. The WTC can be garrisoned, but surprisingly, only with a handful of soldiers. Kind of impossible to fill it to capacity, though. AndarielHalo (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

No, the Ants section should be included, the dinosaur levels in Covert Ops ('funpark') were considered worth mentioning and these are the equivalent. 121.45.124.147 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Afer the victory of Russia, Kane gained influence, but he is not the only one in power. It can be easily explained that an internal struggle within Russia occured between NOD and the communist state. Eventually, the communist state was forced to accept the Allied's assistance or succum to NOD domination. So, the Soviets decided to go to the allies and form the GDI instead of remaining under NOD, thus throwing Russia into GDI's territory. This also explains why Russia is not NOD's native territory. EA/Westwood pointed to Africa as NOD's base and this is very possibly the original base of operations before Kane decided to attempt to step up and take Russia. All I can say is that Kane eventually lost and thats why C&C:TD started with Africa.

- 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)

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)

Speaking of German, can someone post an English translation of the German conversation in the opening movie when Einstein goes back to 1924? Thx. Eamon03 06:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the conversation is as follows:

Einstein: Mr Hitler? Hitler: Yes? What is it? I haven't got time to stand around here. Einstein: Yes, I understand.... [offers hand]

The problem is that the scene was removed from the German version. Because it contains Hitler... - Jack's Revenge 16:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.

Expansion

It was originally going to be an expansion for Tiberian Dawn but they chose to make it a stand alone product we should probabley mention it. Jamhaw 20:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

Source? Mikael GRizzly 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• The first decade bonus DVD. Jamhaw 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)jamhaw

The connection between Red Alert and the Tiberian series being re-established by EA itself?

http://www.ea.com/commandandconquer/news.jsp?id=7

The above link features an official document published by Electronic Arts which pertains to the storyline of the upcoming Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, the third canonical game set in the Tiberian series. On the fifth featured page (or otherwise the page labelled with the number '5', a direct reference is made to an archived CIA document, which mentions the existence of a person closely resembling Kane as early as the 1950s. This in turn seems to be a direct reference to the Soviet campaign cutscenes of Red Alert featuring Kane, indicating that Electronic Arts may be seeking to re-establish the connection between RA and the Tiberium series originally layed out by Westwood Studios. I've added this new information to the appropriate section of the article, along with a reference link to the document on www.commandandconquer.com. I think I have butterflies... 84.192.125.204 11:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Red Alert 2...

Some of the data on this im almost positive is from RA:2... like the gap generator... i could be wrong by im gonna try to install the games tonight to test this out.

---

Gap Generator is also present in the original. NitroX infinity 11:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

External links & edit warring

I've watched for a while as the external links of this page have been removed and there is a steady edit war between user User:Fogeltje and an IP address who wants to add a link to this article. We must look at WP:EL for a policy in this matter. I believe that the guideline for inclusion of external links for this site and it falls under 'Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews...' I don't see how this is pure 'spam' since it's not a paysite. It's not the most clearly worded site I've ever seen, but that doesn't particularly matter. I believe that youtube should be deleted. But Lets look at some examples. Lets go look at a featured article... Doom... or Deus Ex or Duke_Nukem_Forever#External_links which was a reviewed Good Article that had fansites. I don't see a reason that we can't have links to external sites outside of the official site from westwood/EA. I'm hoping to come to a consensus on linking for this article before we go and have a continuous edit war. MrMacMan ^Talk 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying all unofficial site should be deleted. Said link only provides information on how to play a game online. I fail to see how that can be considered relevant. Sure, reviews and interviews that give some background information are useful, but including a link on how to play a game adds nothing. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, game guides have no place in it. Any external links to unofficial sites should add something to the article in regards of encyclopedic value, a game guide doesn't do that. And it doesn't satisfy any of the criteria for "links to be considered" in WP:EL. --Fogeltje 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I'm the other guy from the link war. I was playing red alert since 95 , when I was 8 years old. Also used to play it online at the westwood chat program , till they closed it. I really thought the game died , until I have seen some post in a strange board claiming that it is possible to play online. So I created that webpage and included all the necessary software. Even if it is not "the most clearly worded site"[MrMacMan] , it means much to many people that once could play it and now can't. In fact I get about 3 thankful mails every week from people that were looking for the game and how to play in online. If it is not related to this Wikipedia article, I don't know what is. [realcr] 17:46 , 28 April 2007.

If you made the page yourself, you shouldn't have added it in the first place, concerning neutrality per WP:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest. I explained why I think it should not be linked in external links, wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for many links regarding anything on the subject. Your site offers information on how to play a game, which is in my eyes not the function of wikipedia. A real encyclopedia would not explain how to play Red Alert online. --Fogeltje 15:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the page includes a guide to play C&C:RA online, whereas the 1st party online support died a long time ago. Without a 3rd party you could not play it online and a guide I think would be useful. IMHO some of the sites are even more useful like the red alert archive which I'm pretty sure is the largest site out there, as well as one of the more popular for the original RA. MrMacMan ^Talk 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Skirmish

Was it just me or when playing in skirmish mode against AI did the comp never, ever build a navy...no matter what the difficulty setting? it was kinda dumb, all you had to do was play a map with a narrow bridge or a body of water down the middle and it was almost impossible to lose.Trottsky 14:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Another odd thing in Skirmish mode. I was playing and let the game sit for a couple hours after beating my enemy down to a couple buildings. I came back and found a strange section of the terain that was swirling around and shooting lightning bolts at everything! Has this happend to anyone else? 23:31, 18 May 2007

The AI will never build a Radar Dome for some reason, and therefore never builds anything that has the Radar Dome as a prerequisite. If you manually remove the Radar Dome requirements, then they will build more advanced units & structures. Vortices are caused by the Chronosphere, iirc. 144.138.89.238 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They eventually do build a Radar Dome and a Tech Center, but they don't seem to progress much further than the Radar Dome for most part, and don't really do anything else. AllStarZ 01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The AI in Red Alert is absolutely no match for the best human players. Before I became good enough to easily make top 100 in the westwood online tournaments I could easily beat 7 of the ais at once on any of the standard maps. There are many other limitations built into the ai other than the ones mentioned. If you read the rules.ini file that comes with the game you will see that the AI has a bunch of restrictions on the proportions of buildings in its base as well as maximum number of units it can produce and other things. Even editing these settings doesn't make the ai much better but editing them can make it harder. It is still no match for a good human opponent unless you create special scenarios that allow the ai to take advantage of its ability to produce faster than a human player, however I don't see a lot of point to that.

I loved playing RA online in multiplayer however I never played the actual story mode of the game. I think writing a section about Red Alert Tactics might be interesting.

Does anyone think adding a page about Red Alert multiplayer tactics would be interesting?

Lets just keep subsidiary pages at technology. I think 3 articles are enough for one game. This isn't a strategy guide. 99.246.218.119 02:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That thing that shoots out lighting is called a chronostorm.It apears when you use the chronosphere

too many times or when ones destroyed.

Article pollution

I just removed some article pollution in the 'Setting & story' part.

...here he meets Adolf Hitler when he is being... first said: Adolf little cock Hitler

...Einstein removes Hitler from our dimension... first said: removes his trousers Hitler

Cut down

I just made the article a lot shorter and a lot better. However I don't know nearly enough about the background of the game and its development to do much more. AllStarZ 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to devote a third of the article talking about the units in game, strategies, etc. AllStarZ 17:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what's going on here, but I can't seem to reply directly to this section since it apparently "doesn't exist". Anyhow, I would have to agree with AllStarZ that this article reads like one of Piggyback's strategy guides. Fair enough that we have information on characters, overview of the plot and such, but we really don't need comprehensive battle tactics for land, sea and air assualts and how to successfully use each and every unit available. Gamer Junkie 02:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)