supreme commander

[Starbuck1975]

The better players out there are finishing games within 15-20 minutes.

Yeah, but they also still live in their mom's basement and work at Chucky Cheese.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
That being said, going on the offensive drives me absolutely insane...I can build a 300 unit, well balanced force, and watch it get wiped out in a matter of seconds...not because I am poor at micro managing units in combat, but rather because it is nearly impossible to locate units once they are in the combat fray...that, and the unit pathfinding is terrible...the formations option is absolutely essential, but good luck getting your units to stay in formation when moving...if they encounter a hill, obstacle or any other object in their path, they tend to scramble...and become easy pickings for enemy units.

That is what I was referring to when I said it needs "patching and balancing". The ground units are pretty much useless except for skirmishes in small numbers or raiding. All serious offense is done by either building forward defensive structures or masses of aircraft (mostly gunships).

 

[LintMan]

I think the proto-typical game is:
- early scramble for resources and to control the map
- tech up to higher levels and strengthen base defenses while scouting your opponent to detect and counter threats (ie: an early nuke build, or a stealth ninja commander)
- if a standoff is reached, start developing the ultimate weapons to break the stalemate: nukes, experimental units, upgraded SCU's.

Base defenses are strong, so it takes seriously massed units or (preferably) higher tech units to defeat them. A mindless tank rush that sends a stream of some unit at the enemy will fail spectactularly. But you can't just turtle early because you'll lose the economy war and get out-teched and out-produced.

 

[BD2003]

It's mainly a game for true hardcore RTS fans. Casual RTS players aren't going to find much to like about it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's mainly a game for true hardcore RTS fans. Casual RTS players aren't going to find much to like about it.

Well, SC does follow the tried and true formula of controlling choke points and key areas on the map to ensure victory.

The problem I have with this is that it essentially translates into using the same exact tactics, regardless of the mission or opponent...build turtle base, develop resource infrastructure, build defenses along map chokepoint, watch enemy AI impale itself on said defenses, build own strike force in relative safety, tech up, and finally attack...rinse, wash, repeat.

What I found so refreshing about Company of Heroes and Dawn of War is that the maps don't have choke points...and the need to capture strategic points almost forces you to constantly work both defense and offense...because the enemy can strike from any direction at any time, those games do not lend themselves to standard RTS tactics.

I have lost track of the number of times the AI of those two games caught me off guard, either because I didn't balance my defenses or my force build.

I don't hate SC...in fact, I am enjoying its simplicity...but I wouldn't call it a hardcore RTS...if anything, it is a uber, steroid injected version of the RTS games that defined the genre in the late 90s.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

It's mainly a game for true hardcore RTS fans. Casual RTS players aren't going to find much to like about it.

Well, SC does follow the tried and true formula of controlling choke points and key areas on the map to ensure victory.

The problem I have with this is that it essentially translates into using the same exact tactics, regardless of the mission or opponent...build turtle base, develop resource infrastructure, build defenses along map chokepoint, watch enemy AI impale itself on said defenses, build own strike force in relative safety, tech up, and finally attack...rinse, wash, repeat.

What I found so refreshing about Company of Heroes and Dawn of War is that the maps don't have choke points...and the need to capture strategic points almost forces you to constantly work both defense and offense...because the enemy can strike from any direction at any time, those games do not lend themselves to standard RTS tactics.

I have lost track of the number of times the AI of those two games caught me off guard, either because I didn't balance my defenses or my force build.

I don't hate SC...in fact, I am enjoying its simplicity...but I wouldn't call it a hardcore RTS...if anything, it is a uber, steroid injected version of the RTS games that defined the genre in the late 90s.

Maybe if you only play against AI opponents but in most MP games there is going to be a serious tech I rush and if you try to turtle like that you will be owned in a very serious fashion.

The hardest part about this game for me was getting my economy going and resisting the urge to tech up right away. I have played every major RTS since Dune II and I was really struggling and generally getting worked over very badly.

This is not a game for the faint of heart and there are many many strategies available, the possibly avenues to victory are almost endless.

For me it's everything I hoped for and then some.

As for performance, unless you want to run min settings, I would advise those without dual core rigs to stay away from MP.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

It's mainly a game for true hardcore RTS fans. Casual RTS players aren't going to find much to like about it.

Well, SC does follow the tried and true formula of controlling choke points and key areas on the map to ensure victory.

The problem I have with this is that it essentially translates into using the same exact tactics, regardless of the mission or opponent...build turtle base, develop resource infrastructure, build defenses along map chokepoint, watch enemy AI impale itself on said defenses, build own strike force in relative safety, tech up, and finally attack...rinse, wash, repeat.

What I found so refreshing about Company of Heroes and Dawn of War is that the maps don't have choke points...and the need to capture strategic points almost forces you to constantly work both defense and offense...because the enemy can strike from any direction at any time, those games do not lend themselves to standard RTS tactics.

I have lost track of the number of times the AI of those two games caught me off guard, either because I didn't balance my defenses or my force build.

I don't hate SC...in fact, I am enjoying its simplicity...but I wouldn't call it a hardcore RTS...if anything, it is a uber, steroid injected version of the RTS games that defined the genre in the late 90s.

Well, I call it hardcore in the sense that there is at first glance a LOT to manage, a huge map, and since your units are mostly throwaways, a lot of the game comes down to the fastest clicker.

I'm personally of the opinion that a good RTS should be more about strategy and less about clicking and reflexes. Playing SC, I never felt like I could outwit my enemy - the only effective strategy was to outbuild him in whatever way possible - as long as you outbuilded him, you'll win, no matter the mix of units.

My personal favorite RTS is still Warcraft 3. Every race and unit was unique and special and could be used effectively in several ways, and the heroes only added to it. Combined with a smart UI that could autocast spells for you, leaving you to manage strategy rather than forcing you to click like a madman on various icons. A lot of it still came down to building fast, but there were various unique and creative ways to defeat your opponents, and unless their strategy was rarely completely nullified by yours, there was always a way to get back at them if you knew what you were doing.

 

[Starbuck1975]

My favorite RTS to date is Homeworld...the 3D component of the battlefield, and the ability to capture enemy ships, definitely added an interesting aspect to strategy...on highest difficulty, resources were scarce, and every tech upgrade or build decision was a difficult one.

Also, fleet balance was highly important, and the varied nature of mission structure always kept things interesting.

I also liked that your fleet carried over from one mission to the next, which eliminated the build up nature of most RTS missions, and focused instead on strategy.

Next favorite RTS is a toss up between Dawn of War and Company of Heroes.

Third favorite was Rise of Nations, followed by Rome: Total War.

 

[Ichigo]

This is exactly like the TC of the UT2004 thread. Not liking a game because they don't really know how to play. Turtle bases, drawn out games, etc. are not the best strategies right now. Just as the guy who didn't like UT2004 was complaining, same stuff.

And outwitting your opponent is about more than a simple mix of units. Unit movement/placement, air/ground/naval focus, aggressive/defensive styles, there's huge potential. But as someone said, it's not for casual gamers who don't like to think.

 

[Chaotic42]

You know, something else that I really like about SC is that it uses somewhat familiar units. They aren't giant slimy creatures or gnomes, they're tanks, MRLS systems, and airplanes.

It's nice.

 

[Starbuck1975]

And outwitting your opponent is about more than a simple mix of units. Unit movement/placement, air/ground/naval focus, aggressive/defensive styles, there's huge potential. But as someone said, it's not for casual gamers who don't like to think.

Of course, this requires that the game interface and pathfinding enables complex unit movements and placement...while the scale of Supreme Commander is ambitious, the ability to quickly and efficiently deploy unit attack groups does become problematic due to the same pathfinding issues that plague most RTS games.

SC does provide some innovative tools for managing an army, but that doesnt mean the units always do what you tell them to.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I love Supreme Commander.
I don't know if I like it as much as I loved Total Annihilation though.
I think I like it better than Spring.

I liked the original Command and Conquer and Warcraft 2, but once Total Annihilation came out, I lost interest in all other RTS games.
I don't care for small bumrushes or zergs, I want a HUGE base and a huge army. I want to think, I want the game to be tough, and I want a game to last about 3 or 4 hours. Supreme Commander, thus far, has proven to be excellent to me.

Perfomance is far from optimal on my machine, however, It runs good enough.
I run an AMD X2 4000+, 2GB of PC3200 DDR, and an ATI X1800XT. The graphics settings are for the most part set to low, however, I am running it in dual screen mode, with the main monitor at 1920x1200, and the secondary display just at 1024x768. The UI in this game is the best UI I think I've ever seen in any game. I can't wait until mods start coming out for it ..... If my opinion of this game doesn't change, I might consider this my personal favorite game since 1997, when Total Annihilation came out.

 

[chazdraves]

Seconded! The pathfinding can be atrocious. Perhaps there's a reason most RTS's don't offer this kind of scale. Let's all pause and pray for a patch

Other than that it's enjoyable. Games can go anywhere from 7 minutes to about an equal number of hours. It seems to allow you whatever you like. I do wish the units had a bit more personality. In contrast to something like WCIII or even C&C 3 they seem very lifeless. They are merely your mindless minions to do just as you please.

- Chaz

 

[tuteja1986]

okay i will explain this : !

If you had a system like :

Quad core QX6600 @ 3.0Ghz , 7900GT , 2GB vs Intel E6600 @ 3.0Ghz , 7900GTX , 2GB vs AMD X2 5000 @ 3.0Ghz , 8800GTX , 2GB

You would see a huge performance leap on Quad core system then you would with a system like AMD X2 @ 3.0Ghz with a 8800GTX.

The game is heavily multi-threaded and upgrading your graphic card ain't going to see huge performance leap but upgrading your CPU you would see an awesome performance leap.

http://au.gamespot.com/features/6166198/p-6.html << AMD Single core vs AMD Dual core vs Intel Dual core vs Intel Quad core in supreme commander.

 

[The Sly Syl]

Originally posted by: chazdraves
Seconded! The pathfinding can be atrocious. Perhaps there's a reason most RTS's don't offer this kind of scale. Let's all pause and pray for a patch

Other than that it's enjoyable. Games can go anywhere from 7 minutes to about an equal number of hours. It seems to allow you whatever you like. I do wish the units had a bit more personality. In contrast to something like WCIII or even C&C 3 they seem very lifeless. They are merely your mindless minions to do just as you please.

- Chaz

Actually, SupCom's patches are some of the nicest things i've seen. Go onto the "gpgnet" and download some of them, things like the "micro" UI are incredibly improvements over the original, (nearly) the same functionality, far less space and it's even see-through to boot. Likewise, they apparently have fixed some balancing issues with the game i was unaware of.

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: chazdraves
Seconded! The pathfinding can be atrocious. Perhaps there's a reason most RTS's don't offer this kind of scale. Let's all pause and pray for a patch

Other than that it's enjoyable. Games can go anywhere from 7 minutes to about an equal number of hours. It seems to allow you whatever you like. I do wish the units had a bit more personality. In contrast to something like WCIII or even C&C 3 they seem very lifeless. They are merely your mindless minions to do just as you please.

- Chaz

Well all the units except ACU's are supposed to be just robots. And given the game's scale, they're meant to be expendable. Being lifeless at least fits the context of the game.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: chazdraves
Seconded! The pathfinding can be atrocious. Perhaps there's a reason most RTS's don't offer this kind of scale. Let's all pause and pray for a patch

Other than that it's enjoyable. Games can go anywhere from 7 minutes to about an equal number of hours. It seems to allow you whatever you like. I do wish the units had a bit more personality. In contrast to something like WCIII or even C&C 3 they seem very lifeless. They are merely your mindless minions to do just as you please.
- Chaz

Well all the units except ACU's are supposed to be just robots. And given the game's scale, they're meant to be expendable. Being lifeless at least fits the context of the game.

Seriously.
This isnt D&D folks.
You are the SUPREME COMMANDER of a vast army spanning thousands of planets.
Your units are not Fred and Bill and Georgie.
They are nameless masses of cannon fodder for your ultimate conquest.
You should not be getting attached to individuals nor should you be micro-managing them.
Build them by the hundreds and send them to their doom.

 

[wazzledoozle]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: chazdraves
Seconded! The pathfinding can be atrocious. Perhaps there's a reason most RTS's don't offer this kind of scale. Let's all pause and pray for a patch

Other than that it's enjoyable. Games can go anywhere from 7 minutes to about an equal number of hours. It seems to allow you whatever you like. I do wish the units had a bit more personality. In contrast to something like WCIII or even C&C 3 they seem very lifeless. They are merely your mindless minions to do just as you please.
- Chaz

Well all the units except ACU's are supposed to be just robots. And given the game's scale, they're meant to be expendable. Being lifeless at least fits the context of the game.

Seriously.
This isnt D&D folks.
You are the SUPREME COMMANDER of a vast army spanning thousands of planets.
Your units are not Fred and Bill and Georgie.
They are nameless masses of cannon fodder for your ultimate conquest.
You should not be getting attached to individuals nor should you be micro-managing them.
Build them the hundreds and send them to their doom.

:thumbsup:

 

[gizbug]

Is there a way to find out how many people / servers are playing this online? Dont want to buy it if there isnt a huge community out there

 

[chazdraves]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: chazdraves
Seconded! The pathfinding can be atrocious. Perhaps there's a reason most RTS's don't offer this kind of scale. Let's all pause and pray for a patch

Other than that it's enjoyable. Games can go anywhere from 7 minutes to about an equal number of hours. It seems to allow you whatever you like. I do wish the units had a bit more personality. In contrast to something like WCIII or even C&C 3 they seem very lifeless. They are merely your mindless minions to do just as you please.
- Chaz

Well all the units except ACU's are supposed to be just robots. And given the game's scale, they're meant to be expendable. Being lifeless at least fits the context of the game.

Seriously.
This isnt D&D folks.
You are the SUPREME COMMANDER of a vast army spanning thousands of planets.
Your units are not Fred and Bill and Georgie.
They are nameless masses of cannon fodder for your ultimate conquest.
You should not be getting attached to individuals nor should you be micro-managing them.
Build them the hundreds and send them to their doom.

:thumbsup:

Yeah, but they all lack personality. Maybe they just need beefier sound effects? I know what you're saying, and I'm capable of enjoying the game as is, but it would be nice if they did something. It makes them seem devoid of intelligible thought - something only exaggerated by the poor pathfinding. I want to feel as though I'm commanding a competent army - not floating toasters with laser beams.

Is there a way to find out how many people / servers are playing this online? Dont want to buy it if there isnt a huge community out there

Total players online 1276

Players in games 761

Games available to join now 24

Games in progress 298

Total players to date 77144

Ranked games completed to date 88364

Total game sessions to date 293766

As of 12:20PDT 3/26/07

 

[gizbug]

Thanks. those stats from a website or ingame?

 

[chazdraves]

Part of the game.

- Chaz

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: BD2003

A lot of it still came down to building fast, but there were various unique and creative ways to defeat your opponents, and unless their strategy was rarely completely nullified by yours, there was always a way to get back at them if you knew what you were doing.

Building fast and out-teching and outbuilding is a strategy, speed is a strategy, it's a strategy used in the real world: Look at everyone who raced to build nukes first. Many countries were forced to participate in the race to build the first nukes.

The truth is you like games that go at the pace of your reflexes. The less control you have over how fast you can build and if you can even micro your units, the less strategy is involved. AI's are not yet advanced enough to give individual units the smarts you really need to for many strategies. The truth is most RTS games suffer from poor modeling since modeling real war is a complicated business.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Ichigo
This is exactly like the TC of the UT2004 thread. Not liking a game because they don't really know how to play. Turtle bases, drawn out games, etc. are not the best strategies right now. Just as the guy who didn't like UT2004 was complaining, same stuff.

And outwitting your opponent is about more than a simple mix of units. Unit movement/placement, air/ground/naval focus, aggressive/defensive styles, there's huge potential. But as someone said, it's not for casual gamers who don't like to think.

Don't you mean incapable of logistics thinking?? I notice many strategy players are able to either : automatically do number crunching in their head (i.e. just "know" which units to build logistically) or are have very highly developed sense of mathematics. Some go even as far as to calculate the destructive power of units and their efficiencies, etc.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: Ichigo
This is exactly like the TC of the UT2004 thread. Not liking a game because they don't really know how to play. Turtle bases, drawn out games, etc. are not the best strategies right now. Just as the guy who didn't like UT2004 was complaining, same stuff.

And outwitting your opponent is about more than a simple mix of units. Unit movement/placement, air/ground/naval focus, aggressive/defensive styles, there's huge potential. But as someone said, it's not for casual gamers who don't like to think.

Don't you mean incapable of logistics thinking?? I notice many strategy players are able to either : automatically do number crunching in their head (i.e. just "know" which units to build logistically) or are have very highly developed sense of mathematics. Some go even as far as to calculate the destructive power of units and their efficiencies, etc.

One of the main complaints of Chris Taylor is that most so-called "strategy" games are really just resource wars. WarCraft and StarCraft being the two most notable offenders.
Very few people can handle a game with genuine strategy elements. Grognard games are especially difficult for the average gamer to enjoy.
When he designed TA he tried to simplify the resourcing and the tech tree as much as possible so folks could actually focus on the real strategy of the combat.
Thats why in the first game you had such a wide variety of combat units and so few builders.
TA Kingdoms was the same way.