Oh that one. Fixing it now. Though you know you could do that yourself.

And I just noticed that I can edit it without a wiki account now

Should have done that earlier.

Anyone got any idea about what to do with this page?

Component Tower

I like this as well

That said Rather than Main battle tank we maybe should use a more WWII style system such as this

Light tanks: Hopper, Rhino, ?pandur?, Scorpion
Medium Tank: Crusader, Battlemaster, Cheetah, Leopard, ?Kodiak?, ?Marauder?
Heavy Tanks: ?Kodiak? Golem, Paladin, ?Marauder?, ?Overlord?
Super-Heavy Tanks: Sentinel, ?Overlord?, Manticore

Infantry tanks: Tesla, Toxin, Dragon, Microwave
APC: Troop Crawler, Battlebus,, Miska, Lynx
IFV: Bradley, BMP-3, BMD-3
Wheeled Personal Carriers: Humvee, Technical

Marauder is more of an SPG rather than a tank.

Golem shouldn't be in the same group with Paladin, since it's much more bulkier and it's usage is very different.

The Paladin is much more like an MBT, the lore even said that it is what the Abrams is in RL.

Mine should be like this:

Light tanks: Hopper, Scorpion, Cheetah.
Medium Tank: Crusader, Battlemaster, Leopard, Rhino.
Heavy Tanks: Kodiak, Paladin.
Super-Heavy Tanks: Sentinel, Overlord, Golem, Manticore.
Tank Destroyers: Marauder, Jagdmamut, Sprut.

Pandur should be in the IFV list. It isn't as tough as a tank.

Miska is a scout unit.

BTW, some question regarding exclusive units for the generals in 2.0.

The KA-52 Aligator will still be the exclusive heli for Orlov which will make the werewolf gone forever, isn't it?

Does Thorn still get the LOSAT humvee?

And wouldn't it be too soon to reveal them in the wiki right now?

Figured that as well, However SPG is a rather small section in ROTR


I would keep them both as heavies, the Golem is just a shade to light to be Super-Heavy and the Paladin has too much armor and PD to really be treated as anything less

Yes and no. Their usage is very much the same, acting as damage soaks-- though admittedly in different ways-- and both are amazingly resilient.

Maybe it is based off the Abrams, I certainly can't recall.
However its armor, Drone repair, and PD laser give it the Resilience of a heavy tank
That said I will agree it has is under-gunned for a heavy tank, doing damage more in line with a Medium tank--though bombardment or Search and Destroy alleviate this somewhat


I would still push Golem into top tier Heavy, and since the Fully upgraded the Cheetah(currently scorpion) is on par with most medium tanks and even before upgrades is comparable to a Rhino I would still move it up one tier.

I hesitate with the Rhino being a medium, but that probably is right.

Its just that without Reactive Armor it seems much lighter when compared to other Russian tanks....Especially since by the time you grab that power it is probably going against halfway upgraded tanks of other factions

Tank destroyers is causing me the most issues thought since Sprut is very lightly armored and really is lightly armed too( Medium tank gun), whereas Jagdmamut and marauder are very well armed and armored. May be move Sprut into either light tank or ,if it can still carry infantry, into IFV?

I used the Designation IFV for well armed and armored vehicles that could transport. so Pandur really doesn't quite fit

Also use 3-4 Pandurs loaded with either Grenade launchers or Panzerfausts and use them against Hoppers or any of the medium tanks.
Its hard to argue that they don't at least somewhat qualify as Light tank with that loadout


Your right. For some reason I thought it transported more than one infantryman

Actually, it's a Tank Destroyer.

The Golem fits as a Heavy Rather than Superheavy due to a few things.

It's not a one-tank army that can stomp multiple tanks in short time.
It's durable enough to withstand alot of punishment nontheless.
It's slower than usual.
It's feasable to use en-mass without a major economic blow.

Lets compare this to real life.

Sentinel
Large enough to crush most tanks
Serious threat just by itself
Impractical to use en mass due to cost

Golem
Mobile enough for simpler logistics
Not a pants-crapper by itself
practical to use En Mass

Panzer VIII Maus
Large enough to crush most tanks
Serious threat just by itself
Impractical to use en mass due to cost

Tiger II
Mobile enough for simpler logistics
Can be swarmed fairly easily
Practical to be built in large numbers.

It is use to shield your faster Kodiak and BMPs, as well as providing fire support.

It is the only tank that can fight in areas full of Radiation and Toxin. It is the only tank that can soak up Nuke Cannon shell and fight on.

It is alots bigger and heavier than an MBT, so I don't think it should be in the same list.



No, Sprut's gun is the same as kodiak's gun.

While your overall gist is correct, you should never ever use terms like 'mobile', 'simpler logistics' and 'large numbers' in regard to the Tiger II AKA Koenigstiger. A more appropriate comparison would be the Panther or, if you're feeling generous, the Tiger I.

Someone literally entirely copied Fallout wiki's content on US and some Russian structures. So what to do with these now?

And is it too early to add LOSAT Humvee in Thorn's unit list? It's mentioned in the ini file though.

There won't be a LOSAT Humvee. That's an obsolete leftover in the files.

Also, general rule for everyone: Do NOT -ever- copy-paste FSDB content onto this Wiki. Their information is largely outdated, we are not affiliated and we absolutely WANT ours to be different.

Fixed. Didn't know about that.

We're comparing it to the Maus.
The Maus is so godamn hard to build, they were only gonna build 150ish BEFORE the bombing cut the orders.

So how should the roles of the units be classified? By the way they are now (ie Crusader is an MBT) or by this WW2 esque way that got proposed (ie Crusader is a medium tank)?

It's all fair and dandy to throw around these technical terms in regards to lore but if we're talking functions/roles, we should keep things simple and comprehensible:

Crusader, Leopard, Kodiak, Battlemaster, Scorpion = Main Battle Tank
Paladin, Golem, Marauder = Heavy Tank
Manticore, Sentinel, Overlord = Super-Heavy Tank
Hopper = Light Tank
Jagdmammut = Tank Destroyer

Wouldn't the marauder be a Tank Destroyer due to lack of turret?

In RL terms yes, but unlike the Jagdmammut, it isn't designed to excel at anti-tank combat in its actual gameplay role. It may have a static turret, but overall, it's really just a mobile gun to bolster your standard GLA attack force.

The way I see it the Marauder probably counts as an assault gun more than anything else. It doesn't have the range of a tank destroyer or turret of real tanks.

Anyway isn't Marauder scheduled for one hell of a makeover in the future? Maybe there is no need to pinpoint the role of a unit that's gonna be changed eventually.

I think it will have a better model, and nothing more for the sake of original.

GLA is the complete opposite of Russia, for they only use 2 tanks. And only 1 of them is available without the need of a GP.

Funny thing is that it isn't a heavy tank even if it's been classified as 1. Without turret and crappy armor plus weak firepower as start unlike Jagdmamut, it is not good for fighting enemy tanks head on like scorpions with rockets.

To make matter worse, it will be exculsive to Warlord. And that's mean the others only have 1 kind of tank, and it's a light tank.......

It's way too early to say that mate.

And I am pretty sure it was said that the Marauder will get a significant rework and not only some cosmetic change. Something that makes it worthy of being a gen exclusive unit.

Ofc obviously GLA are the opposite of Russia. One is all about brute force, the other are the sneaky guys.

My list :

Light Tanks : Hoppers, Scorpions
Medium Tanks : Crusaders, ?Battlemaster?
MBTs : Kodiak, ?Battlemaster?, Leopard, Paladin
Heavy Tank : Golem
Super-Heavy Tank : Manticore, Sentinel, Overlord

Jagdmammut seems like an assault gun AND a tank destroyer. Marauder is more like an assault gun.

IFV : Bradley, BMP-3, BMD-3, Pandur
APCs : Lynx, Battlebus, Troop Crawler
Anti-Infantry Tanks : Toxin Tractor, Tesla Tank, Dragon Tank, Microwave Tank, ?Buratino?

IMO the Marauder is neither a Heavy Tank, nor a Tank Destroyer. Its rather light for a heavy tank/ tank destroyer, but it has no turret. therefore, I would classify it as an Assault Gun. Similar to the German Stumgeschutz in World War II

Also, I would classify the Crusader as a light or cavalry tank, and the Paladin as a Main Battle Tank. The Hopper is a Tankette, which is essentially, a minitank.
So my list goes kinda like -

Tankettes - Hopper
Cavalry tanks - Crusader, Scorpion
Assault Guns - Marauder
MBTs - Paladin, Battlemaster, Kodiak, Rhino, Leopard
Heavy Tanks - Golem
Tank Destroyers - Jagdmammutt
Super Heavy Tanks - Sentinel, Overlord, Manticore

But my list might be a bit too technical.

Marauder looks like something that posses more civilian vehicles parts than military ones.
Its fixed turret makes it even more a one improvised combat vehicle,since making rotating turret would
require lot more effort from GLA underground chop-shop "engineers".
And although little bulky by its appearance,it is clearly not a heavy vehicle . . . Maybe medium.
You forgot to include BRDM-1 armed with AT Rockets from Russian GP,and VDVs Sprut-SD in list of Tank Destroyers.

The BRDM should be in the same class as rocket buggy, I think.

Well version ingame is based after RL Tank Destroyer,AT3 Sagger (9K11) BRDM-1. . .
And as for buggy . . . Well it is siege unit,same as for example . . . Well Mole Minelayer,although Mole is a Multitask unit,
since it can place all kinds of mines,and clear the same,but it is at same time siege unit.

Except for 1 thing, both rocket buggy and BRDM are hit and run rocket armed vehicles, while the mole is not.

I don't know for BRDM-1,but buggy is for sure,but again,Rocket Buggy is improvised combat vehicle,
aka armed civilian vehicle,so because of that it is little bit harder to just classify it with in same group of other factions vehicles.
Almost whole GLA Arms Dealer list is based on that kind of vehicles,off course,except Scorpions and Grad's . . .

I need a bit of help here - can anyone clarify the difference between "siege" and "artillery" units?

And is Mortar Track gonna be Charles's tier 1 arty?

The term "siege" and "artillery" has virtually the same meaning, some call the artillery pieces of "siege artillery", but "artillery" sounds like something more modern to designate a mobile mechanized unit, in the Middle Ages the weapons of artillery were called "siege weapons" because they were mounted and positioned around towns and fortifications in order to break the enemy structures, in the context of today artillery units are much more versatile and can be used to attack varied targets, from infantry until the vehicles in motion with a huge precision, so I would say that "artillery" became a more specific name for modern warfare, although "siege" is still used.

This is how I define them.

a Siege unit, is a unit whos purpose is to destroy defenses and lay siege
an Artillary Unit is a unit that outranges most units and provides fire support

Their roles are simlar though, but a Mole is really only a siege unit, and the ECA Howitzer is only artillary.

Anyone got any cool idea about what should be the background of the wikia?

I've got something in the works, it has RF units on the left and ECA units on the right.

Maybe on top it has the Rise of the Reds Moddb headlinebackgroundthing ?

I have a somewhat neg commect to add here. So ill ask if people want to hear it first before stating it. (if u got nothing nice to say.....)

Say what you want to say. Beating around the bush ony creates the impression that whatever you have on your mind is much worse than it actually is. Go ahead. "When you've got nothing nice to say, say it anyway because one-sided, universally positive feedback is generally useless"

the screenshots of late almost feel like they belone to an US 1930's doc.
EG: The defences,

For the US ones u missed a option of showing off the missle defence shooting over others and the "target-link" thingie. US cannon defence u could of show of the independet shooting of units inside it and the longer range of the cannon.
The China Def, you could of show one shooting a passing plane and the other shooting the ground off screen.

instead it almost feel like those old US doc. "this is the unit, it turns left, it right, it has a gun to shoot"
I would prefer to see unit and others stuff (o.0) doing what it does best or like u would see in todays doc's or doing something better then "Look at billy shooting, isnt bill a good soldier"

anyway thats my 2 cent...

@ MARS
I'm going to use that quote one, no some, no every, no every-other day. Thank you.

@ Massey
You're more than welcome to take the time to screen-grab such images of "better" quality; the ideas you've listed sound good. But at least such current screenshots show what the unit/ structure looks like in-game. It's a start and is something to use until a "better" image comes along. [There's to be a "gallery" section for a reason though, so dare I say "the more the merrier" in this case.]

Edit: Addition of (hopefully well conveyed) something or another [you know, when you are unable to think of the proper word to convey what you intend to mean...].

I'd be more than happy to create some good gameplay for the screenshots via multiplayer and hamachi. If you want, you guys can PM me, and we might be able to arrange a game just for the sake of taking screenshots

I really ain't sure if there is any real point in giving more effort behind getting better screenshots when most pages don't have description, tactics etc sections written.

Anyways naturally it would still be nice to get more feedback on the screenshots.

Spectre is right for the most part. If Massey has done nothing on the Wiki, and the screenshots are something he wants to do, he should do it. It's (hopefully) improving the experience when people visit the wiki, and it can lead to more participation later on.

Also, we are missing a large amount of the content in Rise of the Reds, be it structures, upgrades, or the new gameplay mechanics. It currently seems as though the only things happening are people going back and forth on the units.

Descriptive content currently takes priority over cosmetics and lore.

Could you please elaborate on what is Descriptive content? Is it just what the unit does (functions, weapons, abilities)?

The in-game aspects of a unit. Who gets it and how, what it is, what it does, how it's supposed to be used, what it's countered by; all that kind of stuff. Right now, we have to set this up as a wiki that contains all the information that are relevant to gameplay so that people can look into it if they need an official manual. Story, fluff and lore can and should be added in later.

The lore usually goes in first, because its the easiest to get ahold of. Tactics and Strategies are harder to write, because people tend to disagree.

If you ask me, right now the wiki has plenty of lore and maybe more than plenty of pics needed for a wiki in it's primary state. But in-game description, tactics etc are almost non-existent. Yeah people may disagree on the tactics but that shouldn't stop a player from putting his own observation of that unit's usage. If it's inaccurate then it can always be fixed later.

I haven't tried it out myself cause I don't think I qualify. I pretty much stopped playing RTS games quite a while ago, recently I more or less stopped on almost all kinds of games. This is something for regular players.

Would be really nice to have every unit with a short description what it can do. Weapons, passenger abilities, special features. Possible Upgrades too.


If I occasionally look something up, I only find the lore. The Wiki is nice nevertheless.

I have been doing a little work adding all the upgrades and abilities. It seems as though the upgrades often get put in the abilities portion of the infobox.

Okay since someone has to do it I went ahead and gave writing Kodiak's unit description a shot,

Kodiak Tank

So how is it? Any suggestions? Feel free to laugh at it but please mention which parts you're laughing at.

No complaints.
Also, in RL, Russian tanks are generally lighter than their Western counterparts but for the sake of simplicity, we can refer to the in-game Kodiak as a heavy MBT type vehicle.
The only aspect that should occasionally take real world characteristics into account should be the lore. For a technical description, this looks good.

Funny thing is.....The Kodiak is still lighter and faster than the Paladin, which is a newer Abrams.

It is considered as heavy because most of it's counter parts are way too light.

Battlemaster is just a Type 59 which is old and doesn't fit the standard of RL MBT, and Crusader is more like a Patton, a medium tank.

Though is true that Leopard 3 is downgraded to a medium tank that is worse than a Russian MBT.