All these arguments remind me of when DoW II came out...
Eh, I feel like this is a bit harder to contextualize than DoW II. Especially when that game had the beta and this one has a two mission demo that generates reviewer apologetics. Those don't spontaneously create themselves!
Okay, I've played part of the demo (darn thing keeps crashing my computer!) and while I'm not a fan of the resource management system, I like not having to wait a year and a day for my new naval factory to be upgraded before I can build a battleship. I also appreciate the better ACU-upgrade UI (which is yes, the tech tree).
I get that, but that's why I linked point 6, the weak experimentals, with point 5, the lack of engineer-assist.
...wait, there's no assisting? No wonder I couldn't get that working in the demo.
There is, it's just been limited to (AFAIK) 3 engineers per factory to cut down on the ludicrous engineer fleets you'd end up carting around. To be honest, I can only say I'm happy about that one. In SupCom 1, out of my unit cap the majority would be taken up by Pgens, Mass fabs and engineers engineers engineers.
In the SupCom1 expansion as the UEF, I'd just build huge numbers of those auto-repair towers. Then I'd start up an experimental in the range of them and walk off. 15 seconds later I'd have a fat boy. By the end of the campaign, I was literally building nothing but experimentals, maxxed out units of them. I'd just set them to waypoint to the enemy base and spent all my time microing my economics and triple shield defenses. Basically I felt that all experimentals in the expansion got the worth taken out of them.
All these arguments remind me of when DoW II came out...
Eh, I feel like this is a bit harder to contextualize than DoW II. Especially when that game had the beta and this one has a two mission demo that generates reviewer apologetics. Those don't spontaneously create themselves!
The reviewer made a post because he felt the game was already getting a raw deal from a hostile fanbase that is frankly, decrying minor points which either weren't showcased in the demo, or were largely changed for good reasons. It's not apologetics, it's asking to give the game a fair chance without NMA like reaction.
Whilst it's true that the demo could have been a limited skirmish demo instead, the arguments would've been exactly the same either way. Most of this information we already knew long before the demo.
This is very much reminiscent of the reaction to Tribes 2.
Or for that matter, the shear amount of crap that went with the changes when Supreme Commander came out. Any and all changes destroyed the "purity" of Total Annihilation. Three sides. Increasing differences between them that "unbalanced" the game. Where the crap is my specific K-bot factory, now it's just been replaced by a single all purpose LAND factory, how does that make the game BETTER?! Why isn't there a mine layer unit? What happened to our mobile anti-Nuke? Force fields dumb down the gameplay and make it less strategic, before you couldn't just hide behind impenetrable RECHARGING energy barriers, the defenders had to be a LOT more active. Plus I can think of a hundred different purely hypothetical situations in which they're completely broken. It's like they're taking this franchise BACKWARDS, dumbing down EVERYTHING that made the game so brilliant just to appeal to someone other than us, the true fans!
After playing SupCom1 again I find a lot of the complaints about SupCom2 to be full of shit. Aircraft generally don't live long enough for fuel to matter, AI Cybran players spam experimental gunships and monkeylords like candy, and experimentals don't seem to survive any better than in SupCom2 (The Czar has like 5000HP for fucks sake) but on the other hand experimentals in 1 had a lot more DPS.
One thing I thought was a clear step back was the removal of the "Strong against x, y, and z, but has no a, b, or c against d, e, or f"
Like, ok, I'm assuming that my Fighters can't attack ground targets and my Bombers can't attack air units, but how am I supposed to know what "Cruisers" are good/bad against?
I thought the old SupCom was clunky and outdated, and I'm glad they streamlined it and added in features to make it more accessible to the gaming public in general.
BRING IT
Haven't even tried the demo actually, but I want to see who is seriously nerdraging over trying to make SupCom less niche, and you know, sell well.
One thing I thought was a clear step back was the removal of the "Strong against x, y, and z, but has no a, b, or c against d, e, or f"
Like, ok, I'm assuming that my Fighters can't attack ground targets and my Bombers can't attack air units, but how am I supposed to know what "Cruisers" are good/bad against?
The exact same role they had in SupCom 1. Anti-air and general support.
Played the demo last night, it was a lot of fun. Huge improvement over the first game...all the annoying bullshit seems to be gone and the 'fun factor' is far higher.
You can still turtle like a little bitch too, and I love that.
Graphically, the game looks amazing, neat designs too. The UEF air stuff reminded me of Avatar.
Played the demo last night, it was a lot of fun. Huge improvement over the first game...all the annoying bullshit seems to be gone and the 'fun factor' is far higher.
You can still turtle like a little bitch too, and I love that.
Graphically, the game looks amazing, neat designs too. The UEF air stuff reminded me of Avatar.
The big gunship right? It's not really the most original design, but I had the same impression when I saw it.
Also as an aside, apparently paint-select is in the full version of the game (they talk about that in the 360 interview). Which is pretty cool.
...wait, there's no assisting? No wonder I couldn't get that working in the demo.
There is, it's just been limited to (AFAIK) 3 engineers per factory to cut down on the ludicrous engineer fleets you'd end up carting around. To be honest, I can only say I'm happy about that one. In SupCom 1, out of my unit cap the majority would be taken up by Pgens, Mass fabs and engineers engineers engineers.
Interesting. Chris Taylor has been quoted as saying that only one engineer would be able to assist a factory, but in the demo it seems you can have up to three of them assisting. Hopefully that will stay, and I agree that three is a sensible limit. However, in the demo it's not possible to have any additional engineers assist in the construction of any buildings or the experimental aircraft carrier - I know that because I tried it and the second engineer just wobbled around a bit looking useless.
So naval (and land?) experimentals can only have a single engineer construction stream, but air experimentals (which come from a special factory) can be built with four construction streams, one from the factory and 3 from engineers. Very strange...
After playing SupCom1 again I find a lot of the complaints about SupCom2 to be full of shit. Aircraft generally don't live long enough for fuel to matter, AI Cybran players spam experimental gunships and monkeylords like candy, and experimentals don't seem to survive any better than in SupCom2 (The Czar has like 5000HP for fucks sake) but on the other hand experimentals in 1 had a lot more DPS.
Either you missed a zero from the health of the CZAR or you're not playing with the Forged Alliance expansion - CZARs in FA have 48000 hp (more with veterancy), not 5000. If your aircraft never survive long enough to need refuelling then you're not using them properly, if you're letting Cybran AI spam experimental gunships then you're not pushing them hard enough and if your experimentals aren't surviving then you're not supporting them properly.
I'll point out again that I wasn't saying in my post that I think the game is bad. It's not bad, though it does have flaws that hopefully will be ironed out. It's just that, honestly, a lot of the things they've changed or removed were the very things that drew me to Supreme Commander (and Total Annihilation) in the first place. In changing it they probably have made it more accessible to new players, and maybe it'll even be more successful as a result of being more generic and less distinctive.
I'm hoping that the modding support will be extensive enough that things that I (and many Supreme Commander players) really don't like, such as up-front payments and auto-pausing build queues, can be changed. If that happens I'll be happy enough, personally. The stats and build times on the experimentals should be easy to mod, and hopefully engineer-assist on building and experiemental construction can be altered too. Those four things are really all it would take for me to have a serious interest in SupCom2, but without them it's just too watered down. I understand "simplification to encourage a wider audience", but there's such a thing as going too far.
CommandoXXX on
0
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
There's clutching close to your predecessor and refusing to let go (Starcraft 2), to warping the game to the point where you wonder why you're still using the same branding (C&C4). SupCom 2 honestly sounds like it's in the middle in the grand scheme of things.
"Streamlining," yes, but at least it's not nearly as bad as what happened to other some other series I care to name (*cough* Rainbow Six).
One thing I thought was a clear step back was the removal of the "Strong against x, y, and z, but has no a, b, or c against d, e, or f"
Like, ok, I'm assuming that my Fighters can't attack ground targets and my Bombers can't attack air units, but how am I supposed to know what "Cruisers" are good/bad against?
The exact same role they had in SupCom 1. Anti-air and general support.
Yeah, ok, I didn't remember that, because I looked at the little thing that said "Anti-air" and the description that said "Anti-air"
I don't know what I'm supposed to know off the top of my head that cruisers in the first game were anti-air while playing the second game and trying to figure out what to build. Because unless I'm wrong, there was another ship type of the same tier in the original that was direct fire. And one anti-sub for one or two factions.
One thing I thought was a clear step back was the removal of the "Strong against x, y, and z, but has no a, b, or c against d, e, or f"
Like, ok, I'm assuming that my Fighters can't attack ground targets and my Bombers can't attack air units, but how am I supposed to know what "Cruisers" are good/bad against?
The exact same role they had in SupCom 1. Anti-air and general support.
Yeah, ok, I didn't remember that, because I looked at the little thing that said "Anti-air" and the description that said "Anti-air"
I don't know what I'm supposed to know off the top of my head that cruisers in the first game were anti-air while playing the second game and trying to figure out what to build. Because unless I'm wrong, there was another ship type of the same tier in the original that was direct fire. And one anti-sub for one or two factions.
I think I understand what you're saying.
In general, I'd actually say unit roles are a lot more obvious now though, because there's fewer of them but they all have a stated purpose. A few of the unit descriptions aren't too helpful (like the aforementioned cruiser), but for the most part everything's described as is. I look at an icon and it says fighter or bomber. Sometimes some of the other more specific stuff would be less self evident and need to be learned (why you'd want a bot instead of a tank maybe), but that's true in all RTS's.
Maybe I'm just speaking from a different background here, but it's a heck of a lot more understandable than most other RTS's I've played. I mean if I queue up a Science Vessel in Starcraft how am I suppose to know what that's supposed to do? What are the variations between Grenadier, Volksgrenadier and Stormtrooper squads in CoH, they're all direct fire infantry squads.
That is the Voldemort of video games. WE DO NOT SPEAK ITS NAME.
I actually facepalmed when that Cybran commander started talking in the first demo mission, not to mention his glass domepiece. I'm still heavily on the fence with this one, while it's nice to have your tanks not become insta-obsolete, it seems kind of lame to have a "great against all things" unit if you plop all your tech into it.
That is the Voldemort of video games. WE DO NOT SPEAK ITS NAME.
I actually facepalmed when that Cybran commander started talking in the first demo mission, not to mention his glass domepiece. I'm still heavily on the fence with this one, while it's nice to have your tanks not become insta-obsolete, it seems kind of lame to have a "great against all things" unit if you plop all your tech into it.
It'll be interesting to see how good the upgrades actually are. Because the basic land AA unit in the demo was horrible. Sure, it could fire at aircraft, but for the most part it just got wasted without doing any appreciable damage.
Heck, even the base defense AA was bad. I had a number of fighter wave duels over my base's horrible AA screaming "I'm helping, I'm helping!"
If any of those fighters had been bombers or gunships, I'm pretty sure my ground AA would have bit it with zero kills to their name.
That is the Voldemort of video games. WE DO NOT SPEAK ITS NAME.
I actually facepalmed when that Cybran commander started talking in the first demo mission, not to mention his glass domepiece. I'm still heavily on the fence with this one, while it's nice to have your tanks not become insta-obsolete, it seems kind of lame to have a "great against all things" unit if you plop all your tech into it.
It'll be interesting to see how good the upgrades actually are. Because the basic land AA unit in the demo was horrible. Sure, it could fire at aircraft, but for the most part it just got wasted without doing any appreciable damage.
Heck, even the base defense AA was bad. I had a number of fighter wave duels over my base's horrible AA screaming "I'm helping, I'm helping!"
If any of those fighters had been bombers or gunships, I'm pretty sure my ground AA would have bit it with zero kills to their name.
I believe there will be research you can use to upgrade your AA units and static defenses so that they won't bite it as quickly, as well as crush any air units within range.
That is the Voldemort of video games. WE DO NOT SPEAK ITS NAME.
I actually facepalmed when that Cybran commander started talking in the first demo mission, not to mention his glass domepiece. I'm still heavily on the fence with this one, while it's nice to have your tanks not become insta-obsolete, it seems kind of lame to have a "great against all things" unit if you plop all your tech into it.
It'll be interesting to see how good the upgrades actually are. Because the basic land AA unit in the demo was horrible. Sure, it could fire at aircraft, but for the most part it just got wasted without doing any appreciable damage.
Heck, even the base defense AA was bad. I had a number of fighter wave duels over my base's horrible AA screaming "I'm helping, I'm helping!"
If any of those fighters had been bombers or gunships, I'm pretty sure my ground AA would have bit it with zero kills to their name.
I believe there will be research you can use to upgrade your AA units and static defenses so that they won't bite it as quickly, as well as crush any air units within range.
Are you talking about the last mission? Because I thought the ground AA was getting chewed up by aircraft, when it was the fatboys lobbing shit at long range all along.
I think he was but he never said his AA units died, he said they weren't doing jack shit to the enemy air units and that if those units HAD been bombers they would have been fucked.
That is the Voldemort of video games. WE DO NOT SPEAK ITS NAME.
I actually facepalmed when that Cybran commander started talking in the first demo mission, not to mention his glass domepiece. I'm still heavily on the fence with this one, while it's nice to have your tanks not become insta-obsolete, it seems kind of lame to have a "great against all things" unit if you plop all your tech into it.
It'll be interesting to see how good the upgrades actually are. Because the basic land AA unit in the demo was horrible. Sure, it could fire at aircraft, but for the most part it just got wasted without doing any appreciable damage.
Heck, even the base defense AA was bad. I had a number of fighter wave duels over my base's horrible AA screaming "I'm helping, I'm helping!"
If any of those fighters had been bombers or gunships, I'm pretty sure my ground AA would have bit it with zero kills to their name.
I believe there will be research you can use to upgrade your AA units and static defenses so that they won't bite it as quickly, as well as crush any air units within range.
Are you talking about the last mission? Because I thought the ground AA was getting chewed up by aircraft, when it was the fatboys lobbing shit at long range all along.
Nah, I could see the fatboy fire easily. The main issue I had was in a 30-40 AA truck vs 20 gunship lineup, the gunships would waste the ground AA in about 15 seconds with minimal losses.
Now yeah, a lot of this had to do with the lack of good ground unit upgrades in that mission, but I'm thinking the rockhead AA will be of the 'trivial AA ability' type, not 'rocks the heck out of everything' type.
I think he was but he never said his AA units died, he said they weren't doing jack shit to the enemy air units and that if those units HAD been bombers they would have been fucked.
And alternatively, base AA was terribly useless. I hope the base upgrade tree fixes that well enough. I really liked the demo gameplay, I just wasn't sure what to think of effectively defending a base with Supcom1's idea of tier 1 AA units. They didn't do much at all.
edit: also disappointing: air experimentals didn't seem to get the air unit upgrades. I can't tell about the damage output, but it decidedly didn't get shields.
kildy on
0
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
although this phrase made me wonder " Rest assured, though, that while it's nowhere near as exacting as (and this is the last time I'll make the comparison) StarCraft II, victory does require a keen strategy brain." while SC2, like the original is all about the micro, with very little strategy required.
One thing I thought was a clear step back was the removal of the "Strong against x, y, and z, but has no a, b, or c against d, e, or f"
Like, ok, I'm assuming that my Fighters can't attack ground targets and my Bombers can't attack air units, but how am I supposed to know what "Cruisers" are good/bad against?
The exact same role they had in SupCom 1. Anti-air and general support.
Yeah, ok, I didn't remember that, because I looked at the little thing that said "Anti-air" and the description that said "Anti-air"
I don't know what I'm supposed to know off the top of my head that cruisers in the first game were anti-air while playing the second game and trying to figure out what to build. Because unless I'm wrong, there was another ship type of the same tier in the original that was direct fire. And one anti-sub for one or two factions.
I think I understand what you're saying.
In general, I'd actually say unit roles are a lot more obvious now though, because there's fewer of them but they all have a stated purpose. A few of the unit descriptions aren't too helpful (like the aforementioned cruiser), but for the most part everything's described as is. I look at an icon and it says fighter or bomber. Sometimes some of the other more specific stuff would be less self evident and need to be learned (why you'd want a bot instead of a tank maybe), but that's true in all RTS's.
Maybe I'm just speaking from a different background here, but it's a heck of a lot more understandable than most other RTS's I've played. I mean if I queue up a Science Vessel in Starcraft how am I suppose to know what that's supposed to do? What are the variations between Grenadier, Volksgrenadier and Stormtrooper squads in CoH, they're all direct fire infantry squads.
I mean, yeah, there are other strategy games that also don't have unit descriptions...
But SupCom 1 did and it was really useful. I just don't see why I have to go from glancing at a description to know what I'm building if I don't know off the top of my head to building it and seeing.
Like, sure, it's not a deal breaker, but it was in the first game and was really useful in the first game. It's not like it's more streamlined and mainstream to offer no explanation as to the use of units.
One thing I thought was a clear step back was the removal of the "Strong against x, y, and z, but has no a, b, or c against d, e, or f"
Like, ok, I'm assuming that my Fighters can't attack ground targets and my Bombers can't attack air units, but how am I supposed to know what "Cruisers" are good/bad against?
The exact same role they had in SupCom 1. Anti-air and general support.
Yeah, ok, I didn't remember that, because I looked at the little thing that said "Anti-air" and the description that said "Anti-air"
I don't know what I'm supposed to know off the top of my head that cruisers in the first game were anti-air while playing the second game and trying to figure out what to build. Because unless I'm wrong, there was another ship type of the same tier in the original that was direct fire. And one anti-sub for one or two factions.
I think I understand what you're saying.
In general, I'd actually say unit roles are a lot more obvious now though, because there's fewer of them but they all have a stated purpose. A few of the unit descriptions aren't too helpful (like the aforementioned cruiser), but for the most part everything's described as is. I look at an icon and it says fighter or bomber. Sometimes some of the other more specific stuff would be less self evident and need to be learned (why you'd want a bot instead of a tank maybe), but that's true in all RTS's.
Maybe I'm just speaking from a different background here, but it's a heck of a lot more understandable than most other RTS's I've played. I mean if I queue up a Science Vessel in Starcraft how am I suppose to know what that's supposed to do? What are the variations between Grenadier, Volksgrenadier and Stormtrooper squads in CoH, they're all direct fire infantry squads.
I mean, yeah, there are other strategy games that also don't have unit descriptions...
But SupCom 1 did and it was really useful. I just don't see why I have to go from glancing at a description to know what I'm building if I don't know off the top of my head to building it and seeing.
Like, sure, it's not a deal breaker, but it was in the first game and was really useful in the first game. It's not like it's more streamlined and mainstream to offer no explanation as to the use of units.
Most of them do, the majority have self-explanatory tags. It's just that a one or two have slightly more complex roles and the names given don't give an accurate idea of what they do. The cruiser for example isn't just AA, depending on side (in SupCom 1) it's also a long-range missile system and an ant-missile system.
I'll agree it could have been done better, but realistically it seems like quite a minor thing. You need to learn the unit types and functions in any RTS. SupCom 1 may have had them, but honestly I almost never looked at them (which is why I was confused by your first post, I'd forgotten they were even there). I just built a mix of units and soon it was obvious what did what.
About the biggest problem I had was figuring why the delineation between missile systems and artillery, but it looks like those are likely to be more sharply defined roles this time around.
Posts
Eh, I feel like this is a bit harder to contextualize than DoW II. Especially when that game had the beta and this one has a two mission demo that generates reviewer apologetics. Those don't spontaneously create themselves!
On the black screen
The rest I'm not sure on.
The reviewer made a post because he felt the game was already getting a raw deal from a hostile fanbase that is frankly, decrying minor points which either weren't showcased in the demo, or were largely changed for good reasons. It's not apologetics, it's asking to give the game a fair chance without NMA like reaction.
Whilst it's true that the demo could have been a limited skirmish demo instead, the arguments would've been exactly the same either way. Most of this information we already knew long before the demo.
This is very much reminiscent of the reaction to Tribes 2.
Or for that matter, the shear amount of crap that went with the changes when Supreme Commander came out. Any and all changes destroyed the "purity" of Total Annihilation. Three sides. Increasing differences between them that "unbalanced" the game. Where the crap is my specific K-bot factory, now it's just been replaced by a single all purpose LAND factory, how does that make the game BETTER?! Why isn't there a mine layer unit? What happened to our mobile anti-Nuke? Force fields dumb down the gameplay and make it less strategic, before you couldn't just hide behind impenetrable RECHARGING energy barriers, the defenders had to be a LOT more active. Plus I can think of a hundred different purely hypothetical situations in which they're completely broken. It's like they're taking this franchise BACKWARDS, dumbing down EVERYTHING that made the game so brilliant just to appeal to someone other than us, the true fans!
Like, ok, I'm assuming that my Fighters can't attack ground targets and my Bombers can't attack air units, but how am I supposed to know what "Cruisers" are good/bad against?
BRING IT
oh you silly goose
you just have the best jokes
The exact same role they had in SupCom 1. Anti-air and general support.
Yes, you.
You can still turtle like a little bitch too, and I love that.
Graphically, the game looks amazing, neat designs too. The UEF air stuff reminded me of Avatar.
The big gunship right? It's not really the most original design, but I had the same impression when I saw it.
Also as an aside, apparently paint-select is in the full version of the game (they talk about that in the 360 interview). Which is pretty cool.
Interesting. Chris Taylor has been quoted as saying that only one engineer would be able to assist a factory, but in the demo it seems you can have up to three of them assisting. Hopefully that will stay, and I agree that three is a sensible limit. However, in the demo it's not possible to have any additional engineers assist in the construction of any buildings or the experimental aircraft carrier - I know that because I tried it and the second engineer just wobbled around a bit looking useless.
So naval (and land?) experimentals can only have a single engineer construction stream, but air experimentals (which come from a special factory) can be built with four construction streams, one from the factory and 3 from engineers. Very strange...
Either you missed a zero from the health of the CZAR or you're not playing with the Forged Alliance expansion - CZARs in FA have 48000 hp (more with veterancy), not 5000. If your aircraft never survive long enough to need refuelling then you're not using them properly, if you're letting Cybran AI spam experimental gunships then you're not pushing them hard enough and if your experimentals aren't surviving then you're not supporting them properly.
I'll point out again that I wasn't saying in my post that I think the game is bad. It's not bad, though it does have flaws that hopefully will be ironed out. It's just that, honestly, a lot of the things they've changed or removed were the very things that drew me to Supreme Commander (and Total Annihilation) in the first place. In changing it they probably have made it more accessible to new players, and maybe it'll even be more successful as a result of being more generic and less distinctive.
I'm hoping that the modding support will be extensive enough that things that I (and many Supreme Commander players) really don't like, such as up-front payments and auto-pausing build queues, can be changed. If that happens I'll be happy enough, personally. The stats and build times on the experimentals should be easy to mod, and hopefully engineer-assist on building and experiemental construction can be altered too. Those four things are really all it would take for me to have a serious interest in SupCom2, but without them it's just too watered down. I understand "simplification to encourage a wider audience", but there's such a thing as going too far.
"Streamlining," yes, but at least it's not nearly as bad as what happened to other some other series I care to name (*cough* Rainbow Six).
Yeah, ok, I didn't remember that, because I looked at the little thing that said "Anti-air" and the description that said "Anti-air"
I don't know what I'm supposed to know off the top of my head that cruisers in the first game were anti-air while playing the second game and trying to figure out what to build. Because unless I'm wrong, there was another ship type of the same tier in the original that was direct fire. And one anti-sub for one or two factions.
I think I understand what you're saying.
In general, I'd actually say unit roles are a lot more obvious now though, because there's fewer of them but they all have a stated purpose. A few of the unit descriptions aren't too helpful (like the aforementioned cruiser), but for the most part everything's described as is. I look at an icon and it says fighter or bomber. Sometimes some of the other more specific stuff would be less self evident and need to be learned (why you'd want a bot instead of a tank maybe), but that's true in all RTS's.
Maybe I'm just speaking from a different background here, but it's a heck of a lot more understandable than most other RTS's I've played. I mean if I queue up a Science Vessel in Starcraft how am I suppose to know what that's supposed to do? What are the variations between Grenadier, Volksgrenadier and Stormtrooper squads in CoH, they're all direct fire infantry squads.
That is the Voldemort of video games. WE DO NOT SPEAK ITS NAME.
I actually facepalmed when that Cybran commander started talking in the first demo mission, not to mention his glass domepiece. I'm still heavily on the fence with this one, while it's nice to have your tanks not become insta-obsolete, it seems kind of lame to have a "great against all things" unit if you plop all your tech into it.
It'll be interesting to see how good the upgrades actually are. Because the basic land AA unit in the demo was horrible. Sure, it could fire at aircraft, but for the most part it just got wasted without doing any appreciable damage.
Heck, even the base defense AA was bad. I had a number of fighter wave duels over my base's horrible AA screaming "I'm helping, I'm helping!"
If any of those fighters had been bombers or gunships, I'm pretty sure my ground AA would have bit it with zero kills to their name.
I believe there will be research you can use to upgrade your AA units and static defenses so that they won't bite it as quickly, as well as crush any air units within range.
Are you talking about the last mission? Because I thought the ground AA was getting chewed up by aircraft, when it was the fatboys lobbing shit at long range all along.
Nah, I could see the fatboy fire easily. The main issue I had was in a 30-40 AA truck vs 20 gunship lineup, the gunships would waste the ground AA in about 15 seconds with minimal losses.
Now yeah, a lot of this had to do with the lack of good ground unit upgrades in that mission, but I'm thinking the rockhead AA will be of the 'trivial AA ability' type, not 'rocks the heck out of everything' type.
And alternatively, base AA was terribly useless. I hope the base upgrade tree fixes that well enough. I really liked the demo gameplay, I just wasn't sure what to think of effectively defending a base with Supcom1's idea of tier 1 AA units. They didn't do much at all.
edit: also disappointing: air experimentals didn't seem to get the air unit upgrades. I can't tell about the damage output, but it decidedly didn't get shields.
You build fifty
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/supreme-commander-2-review
although this phrase made me wonder " Rest assured, though, that while it's nowhere near as exacting as (and this is the last time I'll make the comparison) StarCraft II, victory does require a keen strategy brain." while SC2, like the original is all about the micro, with very little strategy required.
I mean, yeah, there are other strategy games that also don't have unit descriptions...
But SupCom 1 did and it was really useful. I just don't see why I have to go from glancing at a description to know what I'm building if I don't know off the top of my head to building it and seeing.
Like, sure, it's not a deal breaker, but it was in the first game and was really useful in the first game. It's not like it's more streamlined and mainstream to offer no explanation as to the use of units.
Most of them do, the majority have self-explanatory tags. It's just that a one or two have slightly more complex roles and the names given don't give an accurate idea of what they do. The cruiser for example isn't just AA, depending on side (in SupCom 1) it's also a long-range missile system and an ant-missile system.
I'll agree it could have been done better, but realistically it seems like quite a minor thing. You need to learn the unit types and functions in any RTS. SupCom 1 may have had them, but honestly I almost never looked at them (which is why I was confused by your first post, I'd forgotten they were even there). I just built a mix of units and soon it was obvious what did what.
About the biggest problem I had was figuring why the delineation between missile systems and artillery, but it looks like those are likely to be more sharply defined roles this time around.