Supreme Commander

[Grey Paladin]

The first RTS ever made, given the fact it makes all others look like RTT games thanks to its massive scale, complexity, and brilliant economy system.

Thoughts? advice? Anyone playing it here? discuss!

[Tweekinator]

I tried it out, and didn't like it. Felt like "build up billion units and fight the other guys' billion units". Didn't feel especially good or revolutionary or anything.

I did like the story for the world and factions, though.

[Grey Paladin]

Large amounts of units are nesesery simply because the game is rather realistic in that aspect, you simply must treat every 20 units as a single one, most people that dislike it are simply too used to smaller scale battles, while other RT"S" games are in scale with skirmishes (tactics) Supreme Commander is truly a full fledged war (and a strategy game)

Secondly, its the most skill intensive RTS since starcraft.

edit: fixed some spelling mistakes

[Tweekinator]

I don't think they did it that well, is all. I remember AoE 1 and 2 both having large amounts of units, yet the resource system was decent, combat/control was good and battle hinged more on what you did with your troops instead of how many troops you had.

I'll agree that Starcraft was a pretty skill intensive game. I recall defeating retarded mass battlecruiser/carrier enemies with a single wraith squadron and some marines.

[Grey Paladin]

AoE cannot handle 1000 units per a side.

And the resource system in Supreme Commander is the best one to date, in my opinion of course.

And battle is not about massing your most powerful unit and simply marching in, nor is it about numbers, in one online game, I have killed 160 of his units and he has killed 30 of mine yet he demolished me with a well timed attack and a couple of tactical missles.

Consider that hitting and missing is based on newtonic physics and you'll see that manuvering here actually has a meaning given the fact attacks don't home here . .

I have no problems with you saying you dislike the game but dislike it for what it is and not for flaws that are not there.

[Tweekinator]

I only played a few of the campaign missions. Perhaps the single player aspect was different from the multiplayer, or I didn't get far enough into it.

But, I never said it was massing your single most powerful unit, it appeared to me to be about massing a large number of different units and sending your massive (and varied) army out against his while simultaneously building up your 2nd attack force.

Never knew about the maneuvering aspect of it, except to have my ground units flee when bombers were coming in and the AA hadn't gotten there yet. Sounds pretty cool.

But that was another issue I had with it. When give my tanks an order, I don't want them to sit there for 10 seconds while they consider it and then attempt to move staggeringly towards their objective, I want them to go now.

What flaws have I brought up that weren't there? I merely stated my impressions of the game and compared it to other RTS games which were, in my opinion, better. There are some cool things in it, but mainly I dislike it precisely for what it is.

[Grey Paladin]

My mistake then, I thought you were stating "facts" rather then merely your opinion.

The tanks take time to move specificly because it uses physics so it takes time to accelerate.

And if you have only played the Campaign I completely understand your view, it sucked hard, the only point of buying Supreme Commander is the multiplayer aspect, where you actually need to use tactics that are not the brute force that wins you the Campaign to merely survive.

[ZombieEl]

It is too much trouble to play. I like it though I will not buy it.

[Thervold]

I enjoy this game. 90% of the game mechanics are identical to Total Annihilation which was up there with Age of Empires as my favorite RTS games to play with friends.

[Murongo]

Whats this about not massing units? *cough* tech 3 mechs and tech 1 interceptors *cough*. The only problem is that Cybran are too weak. They can't even begin to match UEF or Aeon air. Aeon sea is pretty much unbeatable except by massed UEF subs, whereas Cybran have no good sea units.

It seems like they got obsessed with the "well Cybran ships can walk on land and their mechs can distract tech 2 nukes and their spiderbots can repair themselves if you bother to click every one" and nerfed their stats in order to have those advantages, which are more than often useless.

In the end Cybran land is the only thing that can hold up against either of the other two factions, so its only good on small ground-based maps. Its a good thing I prefer UEF.

Funny story- for those who don't know in Supreme Commander every unit is capable of "gaining experience" based on a simple "how many kills do you have" level, and it gives a slight bonus to hp and damage. One time my enemy was mass producing engineers (basic builders) at his naval base (every kind of building can make engineers, who hover). I had a frigate that bombarded this base, and the engineer in construction would die, then the next one would begin, die, the next one, etc

Basically in the end I had a tech 1 frigate with like 750 kills and more hp than your average tech 2 monstrosity, it would rival a tech 3 capital ship. I nicknamed it "el diablo" and it survived the whole game. Good times.

[Thrawn183]

Pro's:
- Resource system: Scales well and really forces players to be constantly building units or expanding or upgrading existing structures. Does not allow players to concentrate only on a battle and return to their base afterwards to see that they have a nice little stockpile of resources stored up.
- Combat system: Air units that make sense. Units can miss, making it Extremely useful to micro.
- Construction system: Construction units can assist others (this isn't new but many games don't have it). Construction units on patrol will automatically repair structures and assist factories with building units.
- HUGE armies (this is one part I love. Gotta be honest.)
- Advantage to having mixed unit types is effectivness in combat, not something silly where one type of unit "doesn't hurt" another because it has the wrong armor or something rediculous like that.

Con's:
- Graphic/Processor intensive. My friends comp. couldn't run the demo well with all settings on absolute lowest. I expect this to become even more imortant in long duration matches with many, many units and players.
- um... still thinking, having a little difficulty here... its just sooo good.

[Irenicus]

It's an excellent game, I must say... however, I think it's main problem lies in the fact that the system requirements are so high, and multiplayer can become a huge pain in the arse because of the lag issue.

[Grey Paladin]

My system is completely subpar, but it runs the game in High settings with NO LAG at all, nearly unoticeable lag in multiplayer, All because of my Dual Core ^^

Murongo: Meh, Interceptors are overrated- I use T2 AA instead, and Tech 3 Mechs, while the strongest land units beside experimentals, cannot match the might of a Turtle.
And your Frigate has likely survived because most units get to repair 2 HP/second at 750 kills (along with the previous bonuses: mad damage or +1450 HP)

Cybarns have two saving graces: their power generators are smaller, and they get the best Experimental in the game: the Monkeylord

Anyone here up for a match? though I am very much a newbie at this point I'd like to improve.

[Murongo]

Yeah monkeylords are awesome but that assumes you get that late in the game. The power generators are good but they're so frail that stray tech 1 bombs will knock em out. Not that building them again is particularly difficult, but it absorbs time.

[Grey Paladin]

Personaly I build a shield genrator the moment I reach Tech 2, then again Cybar shields suck too =/