Without at least some kind of tier 2 and 3 base defences, this is not Supreme Commander. All else can be forgiven, but if the buildings we see (no matter if there are upgrades available for them) are the best base defence units available then how am I supposed to build a fun base?
Without at least some kind of tier 2 and 3 base defences, this is not Supreme Commander. All else can be forgiven, but if the buildings we see (no matter if there are upgrades available for them) are the best base defence units available then how am I supposed to build a fun base?
What do you mean? If you can build your AA and point defense and then upgrade them to a tier 2 and/or 3 level then what does it matter? They'll serve the same purpose and will keep you from having to go back and remove your old shit and build new ones (or just waste space and pile the new around the old).
From looking around for research tree info, it seems like the trick at least with the UEF is to put AA/PD on every structure you build, right down to power gens. In SupCom you built a few high tier AA to thin out the incoming from range. It seems that's changed to making solid walls of guns to try and fight back. Plus, lacking the shield gens didn't help at all.
I was trying to play it the way it used to play: 10 AA guns should help against 10-15 fighters. It doesn't seem to work like that anymore.
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.
Wow, that is quite literally my nightmare of a review, looks like the defence of 'it's just like this in single player' (ie, and shallow and silly game where there is no economic management or reward for achievement which bears no relation to previous titles in the series) is a total lie.
Without at least some kind of tier 2 and 3 base defences, this is not Supreme Commander. All else can be forgiven, but if the buildings we see (no matter if there are upgrades available for them) are the best base defence units available then how am I supposed to build a fun base?
What do you mean? If you can build your AA and point defense and then upgrade them to a tier 2 and/or 3 level then what does it matter? They'll serve the same purpose and will keep you from having to go back and remove your old shit and build new ones (or just waste space and pile the new around the old).
Clearly you never turtled in TA or SC1. TA was best for this, since each AA gun had a different purpose. Flakkers worked great against bombers, but tracked too slowly to be of great use against fighters. Missile pods were great against everything, but not against swarms and were kinda expensive and so on.
Building a base in TA or SC1 was a fun exercise in overlapping fields of fire, dragons teeth, managing approaches, careful placement of shields and use of space. In this it's just 'build one more boring box which looks like crap and does nothing cool'
In SC1 and TA you could build battleship turrets and massive laser cannons. In this I can build some kind of square pod which plinks away at stuff within 10 feet.
And how do we know that the one AA gun in the demo was the only AA gun in the game again?
We don't. I simply said that if it was, then it was an unforgivable mistake unlike the other mistakes, which could be barely tolerated if this was still a SupCom style game. However, most of the tree has been exposed in the missions we play. Unless there is a bottom branch leading to the experimental artillery which reads...
"Better base defences - Unlocks tier 2 defences"
"Better shields - Unlocks tier 2 defence shields"
"Basic defensive artillery - Unlocks long ranged artillery piece"
"Experimental mega cannon - Unlocks the experimental cannon"
If you want a game that plays like SupCom1, then play SupCom1. If you want a game that plays like SupCom2, then play SupCom2. You would have to be 15 kinds of retarded to want the sequel to be exactly like the first game but with nicer graphics, a few new maps, units, etc. You can mod SupCom1 if that's all you want. They're making a sequel because they want to change how the game plays entirely, not copy the first game.
Don't take this as me saying your complaints aren't valid though, if you don't like things in this game then that's fine, you shouldn't have to like anything you don't want to. Just remember that your opinion is just that, an opinion.
Don't you see? He's already got this game figured out man.
Don't you see, that perhaps you should read the first post in an exchange before commenting.
We don't know there aren't more base defence units, if there are, then great. Perhaps the game can work. However, do you really think there are like 4 or 5 more base defence units hiding in that tree?
If you want a game that plays like SupCom1, then play SupCom1. If you want a game that plays like SupCom2, then play SupCom2. You would have to be 15 kinds of retarded to want the sequel to be exactly like the first game but with nicer graphics, a few new maps, units, etc. You can mod SupCom1 if that's all you want. They're making a sequel because they want to change how the game plays entirely, not copy the first game.
Don't take this as me saying your complaints aren't valid though, if you don't like things in this game then that's fine, you shouldn't have to like anything you don't want to. Just remember that your opinion is just that, an opinion.
If you want a game which plays like Starcraft 2, then go play Starcraft 2. Why does every game have to be the same? SupCom 2 isn't some bold innovation, it's like it's predecessor a little bit, but much more like every RTS from around 2000. If in Sup Com 2 they had introduced some exciting new feature (like designing your own units) then your point would stand, heck, I like the research stuff it's kinda fun and a great idea if it was implemented alongside Supreme Commander style resource gathering and large scale conflicts.
Did anyone who played SupCom or TA say "Yeah, its good, but what I really want is for things to be WAY smaller"
Don't you see? He's already got this game figured out man.
Well he is right on the AA thing. There's only the one structure per side IIRC. Upgrading structures gives them extra damage and HP, and lowers their cost / build time so you can get more of them out. There's other different types of defences you unlock though, such as shields (which are still really crucial).
The thing is, I find them pretty useful, especially the building based AA. Fighter's don't go down instantaneously like they did in SupCom 1, but then all the units seem to last a little longer. The fighters and gunships that hit my AA never really survived long to do much damage.
I especially disagree about the mobile AA, I found those really useful for escorting my gunship fleets.
Essentially the question is whether or not this is sensible evolution or just a completely different direction, and it's going to be very hard to answer that until people have access to the full game. No one is arguing for Supcom 1.5, but they want to know that what they liked about the first game will still be present in the sequel.
And the things they liked might well, be! The more I think about it the more I see the sequel as a pretty okay direction of the series, assuming they've executed their ideas well. Again, they should have released a skirmish demo. If people still hated the direction the game went, fine, but it's better to hate with perfect knowledge than to maybe hate it if it turns out this way I mean I dunno I guess it could be okay.
I know this is the absolute stupidest thing to complain about, but the voice and characters from the demo were fucking embarrassing. Your guy is such a doof!
But yeah, loving this more than the first, so great making fat juicy experimental units.
If you want a game that plays like SupCom1, then play SupCom1. If you want a game that plays like SupCom2, then play SupCom2. You would have to be 15 kinds of retarded to want the sequel to be exactly like the first game but with nicer graphics, a few new maps, units, etc. You can mod SupCom1 if that's all you want. They're making a sequel because they want to change how the game plays entirely, not copy the first game.
Don't take this as me saying your complaints aren't valid though, if you don't like things in this game then that's fine, you shouldn't have to like anything you don't want to. Just remember that your opinion is just that, an opinion.
If you want a game which plays like Starcraft 2, then go play Starcraft 2. Why does every game have to be the same? SupCom 2 isn't some bold innovation, it's like it's predecessor a little bit, but much more like every RTS from around 2000. If in Sup Com 2 they had introduced some exciting new feature (like designing your own units) then your point would stand, heck, I like the research stuff it's kinda fun and a great idea if it was implemented alongside Supreme Commander style resource gathering and large scale conflicts.
Did anyone who played SupCom or TA say "Yeah, its good, but what I really want is for things to be WAY smaller"
Well to begin with, the reduction in scale is pretty small. Comparisons to games like SC and C&C are still just nutty, because it's maybe a couple orders of magnitude bigger than that.
But yes, in a sense, I did want a smaller game. Actually smaller isn't the right word. I'll happily say I was a big fan of the first game, but it was desperately in need of streamlining because of how bloated everything was. Games needed to be more immediate, and that's what the changes provide. The gameplay is actually going to be faster paced, which is something I can get behind. It doesn't mean I'm losing out on the massive battle-royales with hundreds of units clashing across land, sea and air. For me that was the defining aspect of the TA / SupCom series. What's changing is that I don't need to play for as long in order to get to that point, which is a change I'm really behind.
I can see why the review said it was going to be polarising as a game. Because there are a lot of fans who view the extra long game times as a good thing. For me, it wasn't practical for a multiplayer game and a lot of it was busywork instead of actual strategic decision making or combat. In the sequel, the strategic decisions you make have been given an overhaul and a new angle with the research system, and the combat comes about with just as much clashing of metal.
Making everything "bigger" just for the sake of it isn't always the best approach. It needs to be big with a purpose, and that size has to be supported by how focussed the gampeplay is at any one point. I felt that SupCom actually grew a bit too big in size and couldn't keep everything flowing as well as it could have. I want to say that TA before it had a better mix, but I honestly can't say that because I think I'd just be talking with rose tinted glasses there.
And I can't really say whether it's appropriate in SC2 until I try the full game.
TA was worse with too many units, and a lot of them being completely useless 5 minutes into a game. SupCom had a few more useless units towards the end of a match, and SupCom2 seems to be trying to streamline out the "this is your t1 unit. Enjoy it, because you're never going to see it in the t3 game" kind of things.
I'm still really iffy on the lack of an Aeon navy, but just because I LIKED their navy.
TA was worse with too many units, and a lot of them being completely useless 5 minutes into a game. SupCom had a few more useless units towards the end of a match, and SupCom2 seems to be trying to streamline out the "this is your t1 unit. Enjoy it, because you're never going to see it in the t3 game" kind of things.
I'm still really iffy on the lack of an Aeon navy, but just because I LIKED their navy.
Well They've got hover-vehicles instead, so they can transition between land and sea with ease.
So can Cybrans, but that's because their entire naval fleet has robot spider legs*.
From what I've been seeing about the UEF, they seem to have the most units with the most specialised roles. The other two sides have fighter/bombers. The UEF have separate, dedicated fighters and bombers.
If you want a game that plays like SupCom1, then play SupCom1. If you want a game that plays like SupCom2, then play SupCom2. You would have to be 15 kinds of retarded to want the sequel to be exactly like the first game but with nicer graphics, a few new maps, units, etc. You can mod SupCom1 if that's all you want. They're making a sequel because they want to change how the game plays entirely, not copy the first game.
Don't take this as me saying your complaints aren't valid though, if you don't like things in this game then that's fine, you shouldn't have to like anything you don't want to. Just remember that your opinion is just that, an opinion.
If you want a game which plays like Starcraft 2, then go play Starcraft 2. Why does every game have to be the same? SupCom 2 isn't some bold innovation, it's like it's predecessor a little bit, but much more like every RTS from around 2000. If in Sup Com 2 they had introduced some exciting new feature (like designing your own units) then your point would stand, heck, I like the research stuff it's kinda fun and a great idea if it was implemented alongside Supreme Commander style resource gathering and large scale conflicts.
Did anyone who played SupCom or TA say "Yeah, its good, but what I really want is for things to be WAY smaller"
Well to begin with, the reduction in scale is pretty small. Comparisons to games like SC and C&C are still just nutty, because it's maybe a couple orders of magnitude bigger than that.
But yes, in a sense, I did want a smaller game. Actually smaller isn't the right word. I'll happily say I was a big fan of the first game, but it was desperately in need of streamlining because of how bloated everything was. Games needed to be more immediate, and that's what the changes provide. The gameplay is actually going to be faster paced, which is something I can get behind. It doesn't mean I'm losing out on the massive battle-royales with hundreds of units clashing across land, sea and air. For me that was the defining aspect of the TA / SupCom series. What's changing is that I don't need to play for as long in order to get to that point, which is a change I'm really behind.
I can see why the review said it was going to be polarising as a game. Because there are a lot of fans who view the extra long game times as a good thing. For me, it wasn't practical for a multiplayer game and a lot of it was busywork instead of actual strategic decision making or combat. In the sequel, the strategic decisions you make have been given an overhaul and a new angle with the research system, and the combat comes about with just as much clashing of metal.
Making everything "bigger" just for the sake of it isn't always the best approach. It needs to be big with a purpose, and that size has to be supported by how focussed the gampeplay is at any one point. I felt that SupCom actually grew a bit too big in size and couldn't keep everything flowing as well as it could have. I want to say that TA before it had a better mix, but I honestly can't say that because I think I'd just be talking with rose tinted glasses there.
And I can't really say whether it's appropriate in SC2 until I try the full game.
I mean, I LIKE streamlined RTS games. I like DoW2, I'll probably buy SC2. I like lots of games where I throw together a force, sheperd it across a teeny map and fight into the opponents base with ease after breaking his army. But there are dozens of games coming out just like that. I think I am fully justified in being pissed off that the only series which really was nothing like that (TA -> SupCom) has now been reduced to being much the same.
I like lots of units, I like ordering a ground attack knowing the units won't arrive for 30 minutes. I like the fact that control of terrain was vital, and that transport networks and supply lines (for new units in the field) were a vital part of the game. Other games do not have this, and I think it's a real shame that SupCom has now lost it too.
If you want a game that plays like SupCom1, then play SupCom1. If you want a game that plays like SupCom2, then play SupCom2. You would have to be 15 kinds of retarded to want the sequel to be exactly like the first game but with nicer graphics, a few new maps, units, etc. You can mod SupCom1 if that's all you want. They're making a sequel because they want to change how the game plays entirely, not copy the first game.
Don't take this as me saying your complaints aren't valid though, if you don't like things in this game then that's fine, you shouldn't have to like anything you don't want to. Just remember that your opinion is just that, an opinion.
If you want a game which plays like Starcraft 2, then go play Starcraft 2. Why does every game have to be the same? SupCom 2 isn't some bold innovation, it's like it's predecessor a little bit, but much more like every RTS from around 2000. If in Sup Com 2 they had introduced some exciting new feature (like designing your own units) then your point would stand, heck, I like the research stuff it's kinda fun and a great idea if it was implemented alongside Supreme Commander style resource gathering and large scale conflicts.
Did anyone who played SupCom or TA say "Yeah, its good, but what I really want is for things to be WAY smaller"
Well to begin with, the reduction in scale is pretty small. Comparisons to games like SC and C&C are still just nutty, because it's maybe a couple orders of magnitude bigger than that.
But yes, in a sense, I did want a smaller game. Actually smaller isn't the right word. I'll happily say I was a big fan of the first game, but it was desperately in need of streamlining because of how bloated everything was. Games needed to be more immediate, and that's what the changes provide. The gameplay is actually going to be faster paced, which is something I can get behind. It doesn't mean I'm losing out on the massive battle-royales with hundreds of units clashing across land, sea and air. For me that was the defining aspect of the TA / SupCom series. What's changing is that I don't need to play for as long in order to get to that point, which is a change I'm really behind.
I can see why the review said it was going to be polarising as a game. Because there are a lot of fans who view the extra long game times as a good thing. For me, it wasn't practical for a multiplayer game and a lot of it was busywork instead of actual strategic decision making or combat. In the sequel, the strategic decisions you make have been given an overhaul and a new angle with the research system, and the combat comes about with just as much clashing of metal.
Making everything "bigger" just for the sake of it isn't always the best approach. It needs to be big with a purpose, and that size has to be supported by how focussed the gampeplay is at any one point. I felt that SupCom actually grew a bit too big in size and couldn't keep everything flowing as well as it could have. I want to say that TA before it had a better mix, but I honestly can't say that because I think I'd just be talking with rose tinted glasses there.
And I can't really say whether it's appropriate in SC2 until I try the full game.
I mean, I LIKE streamlined RTS games. I like DoW2, I'll probably buy SC2. I like lots of games where I throw together a force, sheperd it across a teeny map and fight into the opponents base with ease after breaking his army. But there are dozens of games coming out just like that. I think I am fully justified in being pissed off that the only series which really was nothing like that (TA -> SupCom) has now been reduced to being much the same.
I like lots of units, I like ordering a ground attack knowing the units won't arrive for 30 minutes. I like the fact that control of terrain was vital, and that transport networks and supply lines (for new units in the field) were a vital part of the game. Other games do not have this, and I think it's a real shame that SupCom has now lost it too.
It has? Say, can I borrow your time machine? The one you used to go into the future and play the full version of the game? I'd like to play it too so I can tell everyone exactly how it's going to be, just like you're doing.
But don't you understand? The masses have ruined it. We used to play SupCom BEFORE it was cool.
Edit: And add me to the list of people who don't understand what people are even complaining about. Having finally gotten around to the demo, I'd say I love the way they've streamlined the interface, improved the framerate without the graphics suffering, and made the maps actually make sense now. Only complaint I have is I'd wish the stages were longer, but then I take it these were early stages so are 'easier'. Probably doesn't help that one of the bosses just runs away when you make a push for the base, and the other one just flat out makes a suicide charge at you partway in cause he's a spaz. Looking forward to bosses that dig in and make you come kill their ass if you want to win.
I mean, I LIKE streamlined RTS games. I like DoW2, I'll probably buy SC2. I like lots of games where I throw together a force, sheperd it across a teeny map and fight into the opponents base with ease after breaking his army. But there are dozens of games coming out just like that. I think I am fully justified in being pissed off that the only series which really was nothing like that (TA -> SupCom) has now been reduced to being much the same.
I like lots of units, I like ordering a ground attack knowing the units won't arrive for 30 minutes. I like the fact that control of terrain was vital, and that transport networks and supply lines (for new units in the field) were a vital part of the game. Other games do not have this, and I think it's a real shame that SupCom has now lost it too.
See now think it's mainly a perspective thing, because I really think you're exaggerating the extent of the changes. There's still large armies, there's still transports carting them across huge maps. But like I said before, I can't judge that to any real degree until once the game comes out.
The gameplay itself appears to have been sped up however, which I think is where we differ on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. See, I feel things like transports and terrain control are still as vital (if not more vital) as before. The fact that it doesn't take forever for some things to happen is one change that I really appreciate.
One point I still feel that's really out there though is comparing the game to Starcraft or C&C now. Seriously, not even the same league.
If you want a game that plays like SupCom1, then play SupCom1. If you want a game that plays like SupCom2, then play SupCom2. You would have to be 15 kinds of retarded to want the sequel to be exactly like the first game but with nicer graphics, a few new maps, units, etc. You can mod SupCom1 if that's all you want. They're making a sequel because they want to change how the game plays entirely, not copy the first game.
Don't take this as me saying your complaints aren't valid though, if you don't like things in this game then that's fine, you shouldn't have to like anything you don't want to. Just remember that your opinion is just that, an opinion.
If you want a game which plays like Starcraft 2, then go play Starcraft 2. Why does every game have to be the same? SupCom 2 isn't some bold innovation, it's like it's predecessor a little bit, but much more like every RTS from around 2000. If in Sup Com 2 they had introduced some exciting new feature (like designing your own units) then your point would stand, heck, I like the research stuff it's kinda fun and a great idea if it was implemented alongside Supreme Commander style resource gathering and large scale conflicts.
Did anyone who played SupCom or TA say "Yeah, its good, but what I really want is for things to be WAY smaller"
Well to begin with, the reduction in scale is pretty small. Comparisons to games like SC and C&C are still just nutty, because it's maybe a couple orders of magnitude bigger than that.
But yes, in a sense, I did want a smaller game. Actually smaller isn't the right word. I'll happily say I was a big fan of the first game, but it was desperately in need of streamlining because of how bloated everything was. Games needed to be more immediate, and that's what the changes provide. The gameplay is actually going to be faster paced, which is something I can get behind. It doesn't mean I'm losing out on the massive battle-royales with hundreds of units clashing across land, sea and air. For me that was the defining aspect of the TA / SupCom series. What's changing is that I don't need to play for as long in order to get to that point, which is a change I'm really behind.
I can see why the review said it was going to be polarising as a game. Because there are a lot of fans who view the extra long game times as a good thing. For me, it wasn't practical for a multiplayer game and a lot of it was busywork instead of actual strategic decision making or combat. In the sequel, the strategic decisions you make have been given an overhaul and a new angle with the research system, and the combat comes about with just as much clashing of metal.
Making everything "bigger" just for the sake of it isn't always the best approach. It needs to be big with a purpose, and that size has to be supported by how focussed the gampeplay is at any one point. I felt that SupCom actually grew a bit too big in size and couldn't keep everything flowing as well as it could have. I want to say that TA before it had a better mix, but I honestly can't say that because I think I'd just be talking with rose tinted glasses there.
And I can't really say whether it's appropriate in SC2 until I try the full game.
I mean, I LIKE streamlined RTS games. I like DoW2, I'll probably buy SC2. I like lots of games where I throw together a force, sheperd it across a teeny map and fight into the opponents base with ease after breaking his army. But there are dozens of games coming out just like that. I think I am fully justified in being pissed off that the only series which really was nothing like that (TA -> SupCom) has now been reduced to being much the same.
I like lots of units, I like ordering a ground attack knowing the units won't arrive for 30 minutes. I like the fact that control of terrain was vital, and that transport networks and supply lines (for new units in the field) were a vital part of the game. Other games do not have this, and I think it's a real shame that SupCom has now lost it too.
It has? Say, can I borrow your time machine? The one you used to go into the future and play the full version of the game? I'd like to play it too so I can tell everyone exactly how it's going to be, just like you're doing.
Err, unless the demo has absolutely no relation to the real game, and the reviewers (who have stated that there are smaller maps, smaller bases, and no more truely gargantuanly expensive super units) are also reviewing a different game then we don't need to go to the future.
Maybe, just maybe you are right, and every impression given of the game in demos and reviews and comments is false. Maybe there are loads more base defence units, a detailed and interesting economy, and true superunits buried in the game for us to find, but do you really think thats the case? Are you really expecting to download the game tomorrow and find a lot of new depth to it? That somehow they have secret giant maps?
I mean, you accuse me of judging the game prematurely, and I don't actually dislike it. If it was "Robot General : The Space War Years" I would have no complaints and play it merrily until Supreme Commander 2 came out. But this is Supreme Commander 2, there aren't any other gigantic scale RTS games on the horizon. This is it. I think you are holding out too much faith. My only real hope is that the low poly count of the units means that in TA style it will be really easy to add more in, and that the engine supports modding.
To those who are attempting to get in right now, if it doesn't work right away, make sure to verify the game cache. It'll stick on 33% then give it time and it'll eventually hit 100% and should work.
Posts
It's a menu option, but I think the hotkey to toggle is "ctrl + w".
Without at least some kind of tier 2 and 3 base defences, this is not Supreme Commander. All else can be forgiven, but if the buildings we see (no matter if there are upgrades available for them) are the best base defence units available then how am I supposed to build a fun base?
What do you mean? If you can build your AA and point defense and then upgrade them to a tier 2 and/or 3 level then what does it matter? They'll serve the same purpose and will keep you from having to go back and remove your old shit and build new ones (or just waste space and pile the new around the old).
I was trying to play it the way it used to play: 10 AA guns should help against 10-15 fighters. It doesn't seem to work like that anymore.
Wow, that is quite literally my nightmare of a review, looks like the defence of 'it's just like this in single player' (ie, and shallow and silly game where there is no economic management or reward for achievement which bears no relation to previous titles in the series) is a total lie.
Clearly you never turtled in TA or SC1. TA was best for this, since each AA gun had a different purpose. Flakkers worked great against bombers, but tracked too slowly to be of great use against fighters. Missile pods were great against everything, but not against swarms and were kinda expensive and so on.
Building a base in TA or SC1 was a fun exercise in overlapping fields of fire, dragons teeth, managing approaches, careful placement of shields and use of space. In this it's just 'build one more boring box which looks like crap and does nothing cool'
In SC1 and TA you could build battleship turrets and massive laser cannons. In this I can build some kind of square pod which plinks away at stuff within 10 feet.
We don't. I simply said that if it was, then it was an unforgivable mistake unlike the other mistakes, which could be barely tolerated if this was still a SupCom style game. However, most of the tree has been exposed in the missions we play. Unless there is a bottom branch leading to the experimental artillery which reads...
"Better base defences - Unlocks tier 2 defences"
"Better shields - Unlocks tier 2 defence shields"
"Basic defensive artillery - Unlocks long ranged artillery piece"
"Experimental mega cannon - Unlocks the experimental cannon"
Then I don't see how they can fit it all in.
Don't take this as me saying your complaints aren't valid though, if you don't like things in this game then that's fine, you shouldn't have to like anything you don't want to. Just remember that your opinion is just that, an opinion.
Don't you see, that perhaps you should read the first post in an exchange before commenting.
We don't know there aren't more base defence units, if there are, then great. Perhaps the game can work. However, do you really think there are like 4 or 5 more base defence units hiding in that tree?
e: You're assuming they have to be unlocked in the tree as opposed to just... not being able to be built in the demo. Which is far more likely.
If you want a game which plays like Starcraft 2, then go play Starcraft 2. Why does every game have to be the same? SupCom 2 isn't some bold innovation, it's like it's predecessor a little bit, but much more like every RTS from around 2000. If in Sup Com 2 they had introduced some exciting new feature (like designing your own units) then your point would stand, heck, I like the research stuff it's kinda fun and a great idea if it was implemented alongside Supreme Commander style resource gathering and large scale conflicts.
Did anyone who played SupCom or TA say "Yeah, its good, but what I really want is for things to be WAY smaller"
Well he is right on the AA thing. There's only the one structure per side IIRC. Upgrading structures gives them extra damage and HP, and lowers their cost / build time so you can get more of them out. There's other different types of defences you unlock though, such as shields (which are still really crucial).
The thing is, I find them pretty useful, especially the building based AA. Fighter's don't go down instantaneously like they did in SupCom 1, but then all the units seem to last a little longer. The fighters and gunships that hit my AA never really survived long to do much damage.
I especially disagree about the mobile AA, I found those really useful for escorting my gunship fleets.
And the things they liked might well, be! The more I think about it the more I see the sequel as a pretty okay direction of the series, assuming they've executed their ideas well. Again, they should have released a skirmish demo. If people still hated the direction the game went, fine, but it's better to hate with perfect knowledge than to maybe hate it if it turns out this way I mean I dunno I guess it could be okay.
On the black screen
But yeah, loving this more than the first, so great making fat juicy experimental units.
I do LOVE the direction experimentals took, though. More usage of them as force enhancers is great, I like the whole idea of minor experimentals.
I just felt that with the way upgrades were stacked in the second demo mission, a gunship was worth about 3-5 mobile AA units.
Well to begin with, the reduction in scale is pretty small. Comparisons to games like SC and C&C are still just nutty, because it's maybe a couple orders of magnitude bigger than that.
But yes, in a sense, I did want a smaller game. Actually smaller isn't the right word. I'll happily say I was a big fan of the first game, but it was desperately in need of streamlining because of how bloated everything was. Games needed to be more immediate, and that's what the changes provide. The gameplay is actually going to be faster paced, which is something I can get behind. It doesn't mean I'm losing out on the massive battle-royales with hundreds of units clashing across land, sea and air. For me that was the defining aspect of the TA / SupCom series. What's changing is that I don't need to play for as long in order to get to that point, which is a change I'm really behind.
I can see why the review said it was going to be polarising as a game. Because there are a lot of fans who view the extra long game times as a good thing. For me, it wasn't practical for a multiplayer game and a lot of it was busywork instead of actual strategic decision making or combat. In the sequel, the strategic decisions you make have been given an overhaul and a new angle with the research system, and the combat comes about with just as much clashing of metal.
Making everything "bigger" just for the sake of it isn't always the best approach. It needs to be big with a purpose, and that size has to be supported by how focussed the gampeplay is at any one point. I felt that SupCom actually grew a bit too big in size and couldn't keep everything flowing as well as it could have. I want to say that TA before it had a better mix, but I honestly can't say that because I think I'd just be talking with rose tinted glasses there.
And I can't really say whether it's appropriate in SC2 until I try the full game.
I'm still really iffy on the lack of an Aeon navy, but just because I LIKED their navy.
Well They've got hover-vehicles instead, so they can transition between land and sea with ease.
So can Cybrans, but that's because their entire naval fleet has robot spider legs*.
From what I've been seeing about the UEF, they seem to have the most units with the most specialised roles. The other two sides have fighter/bombers. The UEF have separate, dedicated fighters and bombers.
*Not by default, research option
Design wise, I'm loving the Aeon redesign. I just miss the pretty pretty boats raining death. Oh well, tanks it is.
edit: I also want steam to have a clock error and unlock a day early because damnit release SC2 already.
I mean, I LIKE streamlined RTS games. I like DoW2, I'll probably buy SC2. I like lots of games where I throw together a force, sheperd it across a teeny map and fight into the opponents base with ease after breaking his army. But there are dozens of games coming out just like that. I think I am fully justified in being pissed off that the only series which really was nothing like that (TA -> SupCom) has now been reduced to being much the same.
I like lots of units, I like ordering a ground attack knowing the units won't arrive for 30 minutes. I like the fact that control of terrain was vital, and that transport networks and supply lines (for new units in the field) were a vital part of the game. Other games do not have this, and I think it's a real shame that SupCom has now lost it too.
It has? Say, can I borrow your time machine? The one you used to go into the future and play the full version of the game? I'd like to play it too so I can tell everyone exactly how it's going to be, just like you're doing.
Edit: And add me to the list of people who don't understand what people are even complaining about. Having finally gotten around to the demo, I'd say I love the way they've streamlined the interface, improved the framerate without the graphics suffering, and made the maps actually make sense now. Only complaint I have is I'd wish the stages were longer, but then I take it these were early stages so are 'easier'. Probably doesn't help that one of the bosses just runs away when you make a push for the base, and the other one just flat out makes a suicide charge at you partway in cause he's a spaz. Looking forward to bosses that dig in and make you come kill their ass if you want to win.
Repeatedly stated.
I think he has a point. At the very least the viewpoint's understandable.
See now think it's mainly a perspective thing, because I really think you're exaggerating the extent of the changes. There's still large armies, there's still transports carting them across huge maps. But like I said before, I can't judge that to any real degree until once the game comes out.
The gameplay itself appears to have been sped up however, which I think is where we differ on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. See, I feel things like transports and terrain control are still as vital (if not more vital) as before. The fact that it doesn't take forever for some things to happen is one change that I really appreciate.
One point I still feel that's really out there though is comparing the game to Starcraft or C&C now. Seriously, not even the same league.
Err, unless the demo has absolutely no relation to the real game, and the reviewers (who have stated that there are smaller maps, smaller bases, and no more truely gargantuanly expensive super units) are also reviewing a different game then we don't need to go to the future.
Maybe, just maybe you are right, and every impression given of the game in demos and reviews and comments is false. Maybe there are loads more base defence units, a detailed and interesting economy, and true superunits buried in the game for us to find, but do you really think thats the case? Are you really expecting to download the game tomorrow and find a lot of new depth to it? That somehow they have secret giant maps?
I mean, you accuse me of judging the game prematurely, and I don't actually dislike it. If it was "Robot General : The Space War Years" I would have no complaints and play it merrily until Supreme Commander 2 came out. But this is Supreme Commander 2, there aren't any other gigantic scale RTS games on the horizon. This is it. I think you are holding out too much faith. My only real hope is that the low poly count of the units means that in TA style it will be really easy to add more in, and that the engine supports modding.
Fuuuuuuuuuuuu-
Bah, anyway, bedtime then, one of these days they'll figure out how to not fuck up a digital release.
I am a freaking nerd.
I bought it the day it was available for pre-order and it's been pre-loaded for days. :P