Suggestion: Nurf fire-ports units

[NGMZero]

Hello, I read this in Reddit and would like to suggest nurfing fire-port/bunker units.

Mid to late game in zerohour it is always almost fireport unit spam no matter what faction in play (USA spam humvee, China Spam helixes, GLA Spam quads+battle busses) because shooting while maintaining distance is too good in Zero hour. and it lead to slower heavier vehicles like tanks to rarely being good value.

I suggest nurfing them by making rocket/terrorist/hero/sniper infantries take TWO slots inside garrisons instead of ONE. this will heavily nurf the units mentioned above to half.

If that happen, I also suggest:

• adding crusader tanks to both SW and Air generals.
• Buff China bunkers defensive structure units slots
• buff China listening out-post units slots.

hopefully this should stop the answer to everything is rocket-vees ,helixes and combat busses.

[RetroMous3]

Hi NGMZero

1. Fireport Units Are a Core Mechanic: In Zero Hour, mobile garrisons are a defining feature of each faction’s identity—Humvees for USA’s mobility, Helixes for China’s air superiority, and Battle Buses for GLA’s guerrilla chaos. Nerfing them too hard could dilute what makes the game unique. Doubling slot costs might make these units borderline useless, as their firepower-per-cost ratio would tank. Theres also the Logic against it:
   Premise 1 one sniper = one person,
   premise 2 one person = one slot
   conclusion : one person cant logically fill two slots

2.Tanks Aren’t Always the Answer: Tanks are already situational counters to fireport spam—e.g., Gattling Tanks shred Helixes, and Marauders can outlast Humvees if supported. The issue might not be fireports being too strong, but players not adapting with the right counters (like artillery, air strikes, or stealth units). Buffing bunkers and outposts could just shift the spam to static defenses instead.

3. Balance Ripple Effects: Halving fireport capacity could disproportionately weaken certain factions. For example, GLA relies heavily on Battle Buses loaded with rocket troops or terrorists for late-game punch. Cutting their slots might cripple them against USA’s laser defenses or China’s tank swarms, unless compensatory buffs (e.g., cheaper units) are added elsewhere.

4. Pace of Play: Zero Hour thrives on its fast, aggressive tempo. Forcing players into slower, tank-heavy compositions might bog down matches, especially in multiplayer where quick decisive strikes are king.

Is It Worth Doing?
It depends on your goal. If you’re modding the game for personal enjoyment or a small community, who gives a toss do what you like, this could be a fun experiment to shake up the meta—especially if you playtest and tweak it (e.g., maybe 1.5 slots instead of 2 to soften the nerf). Your additional suggestions (Crusaders for SW/Air, buffed China defenses) could help balance it out, though they’d need fine-tuning to avoid overcompensating.

However, if we’re talking official community balance patches to make (what Xezon calls "to make the best game ever") this could be considered overreach and not in the best interests of Zero Hour players as a whole, the counterargument suggests a lighter touch might suffice—say, slightly increasing infantry upkeep costs or reducing fireport unit health. This keeps their role intact while giving tanks and counters more breathing room.

[NGMZero]

there was a detailed comment here that for some reason I can no longer "view" it, I appreciate the details that was put into it. after rethinking about it. when I and family get together for zero-hour sessions, we do end up using Shock Wave mod, which is more balanced toward how we prefer things to be (although my personal opinion that mod can be cluttered with units or add units that I consider too out of place). If the multiplayer community enjoy the fire port units spam as a core of zero hour, then that is great too.

Out of topic question, is it preferred to add suggestions as "Issues" or open a Discussion about it first?
Thank you for all your work.

[xezon]

I expect that this will never be changed. It is highly controversial and deviates from the original design very noticably.

You can open discussions yes.