Supreme Commander : How is it?

[SolkaTruesilver]

Hi there. Title says it all. I don't trust 100% critics, and I like to hear from actual fans who've played it.

Just wanted to know if it's worth the money I might pay for.. what's good, not good about it? Something incredible? Is it real fun?

[Penguinizer]

I played the demo. It was ok. Google it for the demo.

[NEO|Phyte]

Its on my '**** to buy when I have money and a computer that can run it worth a damn' list

[Miles Invictus]

It's pretty neat -- very strategic, compared to a stereotypical RTS. The single player campaign is pretty easy, though, once you get your defenses up to par. I haven't tried multiplayer, and thus won't comment on that.

[Icewalker]

My brother got it. Looked pretty impressive, huge maps, nukes are actually like NUKES, looked fun. I didn't get a chance to play it though.

[Grey Paladin]

Awesome, the ONLY RTS in existence, all others are now Real Time Skirmishes.

If you prefer simple and mindless fun RTS games play C&C 3, if you want an actualy (multiplayer, single player sucks) challenge, play Supreme Commander

[Thervold]

I enjoy it. If you liked Total Annihilation like I did, you'll very likely like it.

[Murongo]

Cybrans are far and beyond worse than Aeon and UEF but thats my only gripe, the resource system, unit system, building system, epic scale, strategies and everything else is fantastic.

[Grey Paladin]

Cybarns have their bag of tricks, the UEF are not used by pros at all

[Fuzzy_Juan]

After playing the demo, I can say that I love the game concept. I don't know how it will play in multiplayer, but I do like the massive scale. Micromanagement becomes a bit of a problem and you often just build multiple things, set them for a certian ratio of forces and then just forget them...massing troops as you need them.

In this game, he who is most creative with placement, defenses, and fast building has the advantage. Also, it pays to be unpredictable...

As in TA, Air superiority is a MUST...interceptors should be given priority and massively produced into an automatic patrol over your base, near strategic points, and along avenues of approch/transports. Have air to ground autoattackers join the patrol in good numbers as well...

If you can get a good air screen into place quickly, you can expand and stay safe while stopping any tenative advances by your opponent. A good air screen can give you the time you need to build high tech units and mass a good sized force for victory....

A fun thing to note about this game...if you build fast enough, and manage resources properly, you can build units at a rate so fast that you literally can send endless waves at your opponent. In the demo I had several transports auto loading 100 small bots and transporting them to a staging area for an assault on the enemy base...by the time I was done managing the first 200 and the air strike, I had 300 more units sitting around and they had been joined by 100 more that had been told to wander over from the medium bot bays...The transports could barely keep up with production.

With the massive scale possible...you play alot of the game in 'global' mode setting waypoints...the 'traditional' view is mainly for building and analyzing terrain...it is actually a strategic game...not as much a tactical one like most RTS...just be aware of that fact. There is a difference between small squad tactics and small turtleing and truely global warfare.

[Murongo]

Cybarns have their bag of tricks, the UEF are not used by pros at all

Cybrans have tricks in all the wrong places. Loyalists can redirect tier 2 nukes? Nobody uses 'em, and especially not so late that their enemy has T3 mechs. Stealth T3 planes? Who doesn't have omni by that point? T1 spider mechs can repair each other if you individually click each one (which is ridiculous given the sheer numbers you have to use of those to be effective) And their straight combat stats suffer because of their random buffs. Walking battleships, while insanely cool, just aren't efficient or effective.

UEF isn't bad, it's just that pros tend to play fast games that rarely branch into T3, let alone experimental, which is where UEF really shines. Although a lot of pros still use UEF on big maps or when they play other groups of pros and they know it will be drawn out.

I'm a big aeon fan myself.

[Ishmael]

If there is anything I could say against the game, it is the fact that it takes forever to get anything done. With the truly massive scale, against a good opponent you are looking at hours and hours of gameplay, all nonstop action. It's a damn intensive game, with many things happening at once. Though, that's also a good thing.

[Fuzzy_Juan]

Hmm...I don't have the full version so maybe someone could answer...

in the full version, are there any multiplayer maps big enough for 4+ players? Also...do any of the maps have a wrap around global style? or are all of them flat?

[Rincewind]

I don't think the game is really that great. I mean, strategy and units and all that freedom with strategy making is great, but the game takes a lot of time. It takes no less than an hour to simply finish the first level, and 2 to 3 hours on other scenarios...

[Murongo]

Exactly. Theres only 6 missions in each campaign, but the map constantly expands and adds new challenges in every mission so that you don't have to build a new base from scratch every ten minutes.

[Weezer]

I really like the game, especially the coolness of the experimental units. That actual strategy as opposed to tactical swarming is nessecary makes it a major plus over games like C&C3 or other more traditional RTS's

[Fuzzy_Juan]

I will say this from the demo...

the one thing that kinda sucks is that while the camera is able to give you some detailed kick ass views of the battle...you are rarely if ever able to just sit back and watch the gameplay because you are constantly issuing orders and setting waypoints in the big map that reduces everything to symbols.

If you take 3 minutes to marvel at the scenery, you may have building units stop, 100 extra troops sitting around, or miss an enemy flanking manuver. Some of the only times it is good to watch battles close up is to see terrain effects and to see how units perform against enemy defenses. If the terrain blocks lines of fire from your approach it is a mixed blessing, if the enemy has a tight defense network and your men cannot mass fast enough to put a dent on the outer defense grid, then it is time for plan B...

Sometimes, you feel more like you are playing a big game of risk...even the biggest adavntage of the game (unlimited resources and auto build functions) can work against you, making an established base a very boring thing that you just forget about until you get hit hard.

A fun game, it just is a very different experience judging from the demo.

[Indon]

It wasn't bad. The scale was impressive and the automation level is very high to match.

I found some of the UI elements too awkward to micromanage, though, and I'm a big micromanager in my RTS games, so I never really got into the game.

[Thervold]

...you are constantly issuing orders and setting waypoints in the big map that reduces everything to symbols.

For those who have two displays connected to their computer, the game is designed so that one can be used entirely as a replacement to the minimap, allowing a huge strategic map so you can focus on the zoomed in tactical map. Technically you can do this on the minimap too, but things are a lot more cluttered then.

[Dragor]

Supreme Commander, hmm. It's certainly Real, it takes up a lot of your time and is packed to the brim with Strategy. In comparison, most standard fare RTS's quiver in its wake.

Like above people said, if you loved TA, you'll fall in love with SC. The sheer scale of the game, as well as the nukes (ooooh yeah) can woo anybody. The experimental units are cool and the story is also good, compared to most RTS's.

The only thing I don't like about SC is how slow it is, and how resource management-based it can be sometimes. On addition to that, units getting stuck on hills is extremely annoying- it leaves them blindingly open to air attack.

If you've got the rig and got the time, SC is worth it.

[Shai'Hulud]

Awesome game, TA held a loyal following for 13 years, now that following will break, Supcom is the first RTS yet to combine all the awesome **** in TA with all the awesome **** they didn't have the computing power to do when TA came out.

When you trump something that has been considered by many the best RTS ever for 13 years, it means something.

[Penguinizer]

Gah. The only problem I have with it is the humongous micro management need. And I'm not too good at it.

[Fuzzy_Juan]

Hee...I loved playing TA on the huge multiplayer maps with the unit cap pretty much removed...

My friend hated that I first came up with the idea to set my stealth aircraft in such a patrol that they held an automatic perimiter around my base, and every unit produced at 4 different airfields joined the patrol...to make matters worse for him, their waypoints took them across a field of 10 repair bays that would automaticaly service damaged aircraft...since the stealth fighters were pretty durable and repairs so fast, I rarely lost a fighter and the repair bays were nearly always enough.

Combined with ground artillary placed behind hills and out of LOS from ground units he couldn't approach my base on the ground without being pounded and by the time he realized how many air units I had, the screen was impenetrable...his ground based defense grid was useless...heh...that was one hell of a fight...he soon learned to build lots of multipurpose defenses and anti air defense as well.

One thing that puzzeled him though...He never realized until much later that I had sent construction aircraft to the far corners of the map behind his base to build skirmish units...It always kept him guessing why I always kept comming from different directions but he could never see my units moving across 'no man's land' with his scouts...heh...surpises are fun.

[J_Muller]

I played the beta and demo for this. Too much micromanagement for my tastes. Give me a nice C&C game any day.

[Penguinizer]

Heh. Once you get enough t3 stuff. You're un-beatable. I had a wall MADE from 2 rows of tech 1 and 2 turrets with the same for aa behind them. Combine that with enough t 2 and 3 artillery. t2 nukes and a couple of t3 nukes and youre almost un-beatable. Then I had my around 100 patrolling units attack.:smallbiggrin:

[416365416c]

I've played it a lot, and think it's a very good game. As has been remarked it's an improvement on TA, a great and classic game, which makes Supreme Commander even more great, and classic-ness may come with time.

It is more strategic and requires more thought than most other games too, especially on the really really huge maps (which I haven't played too many multiplayer games on, on account that those games are almost guaranteed to take several hours).

I actually thought the single player campaigns were quite good, especially as a way to gradually be introduced to the game.

I would disagree with those who say there it too much micromanagement in it though. I would say it has less micromanagement than most games, and more strategic management. This is because it has a large enough scale and is focused on strategy rather than tactics. I can only think of one unit with a special ability that you need to activate manually, and you can only have one of that unit (commander), which is an interesting comparison to Warcraft 3 where a lot of units require you to active their abilities in the heat of battle, sometimes multiple abilities, and that's a lot of micromanagement. With the possible exception of building I find little micromanagement in this game, as I am dealing with the broad movement of large armies all the time. I interpret micromanagement as having the player give small orders to individual units frequently in order to lead to an effective outcome. This interpretation may be where the disagreement lies.