Only if I get to play as a seraphim experimental bomber. Personally I think supreme commander is ideal for conversion into a more civilisation type game, you have huge maps so players can be far apart, the ability to build doomsday weapons and nuclear stockpiles, and lots of buildings so there's an infrastructure management element. In fact there exists a mod which has one player as an aggressive power who has to wipe out everyone else, and part of the way he can do this is by coaxing other players to attack each other with their nukes and stuff.
it would be nice if it would be done like that one game il probably fill in the namer when i remember it, where you could just click a unit to take control of it, and you would become the squad leader of all the units like you when you did, untill you died
its bad enough that gpg is turning most epic-scaled strategy ever into a fucking tactical-like bullshit
First they added veterancy into the expansion. FUCKING VETERANCY... On ROBOTS. Even though they balanced the game and made it more enjoyable, a person could keep his commander moving back and forth behind a wall and make his commander way more powerful. Absolute bullshit. Its a really sweet 1v1 game at this point where you set up product ques and send patrols of tank and artillery squadrons throw in a scout to give them vision, and keep control of the map to gain resources. Sup Com 2, there are tech tree upgrades you get via combat points. You go fight, and it gives you points to spend on upgrading your units. WTF? I loved SupCom FA, and this disappoints me. Spiritual successor my ass. I wish they would make it a logstical game and have mini ai generals managing bases for you like they promised in the very beggining. TA: Spring is free, its pretty much the same scale, and you can go into first person and pilot your units at any time. Its fun to dogfight in fighter craft.
I like veterancy, I downloaded a mod to make it more pronounced, as I recall it was in the original too just not very well implemented. Who gives a crap if it's robots, you fight with a group of units it's good to get some improvement to them. Yeah, tech tree upgrades, I know about that, I don't see the issue, you get better stuff as you go along, that's how progression works.
As cool as it would be, I'm not walking 40 km back to base when that APC driver ignores my calls to wait for me.
Just, none of that makes any sense at all. None of it! *sigh* I'll still get it if they fix the campaign. I just wish they would make logical innovations for this type of game. Like add a slight amount of 4x elements to it that even standard rts's have these days.
I think he means lots of resources, like gold, wood, stone, metal, marzipan, coffee, turnips, uranium, sandpaper etc. Dunno though, never heard of 4x.
eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4X edit: btw aint you some of those guys that always try to tell someone bout gamedesign? i wonder how you didnt know that
Probably because we just use words rather than X-TREME VOCABULARY!!11! You have a huge map to check for enemies, a huge amount of expansion required for good defence (as early interception is key) and shitloads of enemies to kill, the only thing it doesn't have is a very complex resource model, although the benefits for interconnected buildings add a quite big management aspect to the game for a combat based RTS. Unless you add random (and therefore boring) maps you won't have any exploration, this is true of every game, although supcom has the huge map to watch over so you need to explore it occasionally to look for enemies. You can hardly make it more expansionist because the more bases you build the more units you can churn out and faster, there's no limit to it. It probably has more units to kill than any other game apart from maybe total war if you include each individual dude as a single unit, but for a single unit RTS you can't get much more huge scale than supcom, and as I said, supcom just doesn't have a complex resource model, and it doesn't need it, you balance your unit output against your economic input most of the time and you have a big organisation mechanic to maximise your efficiency, I don't think you need to add more than that. Supcom inherently has diplomatic elements because the map scale and technologies are pretty good microcosms of nations, you can have long range weapon power and arms stockpiles, and you can launch surprise attacks on allies and let them use your transports, and I think you can also share resource incomes with them. Supcom is an RTS and there is a limit to how complex you can get in an RTS because you have to do stuff real time, if you want more complexity you need a TBS.
I'm talking about the campaign structure, or maybe a side 4x style campaign. It is about interstellar war after all.
You mean you want one of those crappy risk maps they added to shit like battle for middle earth? Those don't add shit to the game.
Ah, then i had a vague idea of what you where talking about rule 1 of communication: adapt your vocabulary to the people you talk to, not to the subjects you talk about
Have you ever played a 4x game before? Those are light on those elements at best. It would be kick ass to be building up infrastructure on planets, scouting planets defenses, and than tailoring an army to invade that particular planet, or at least get a foothold on it. Upgrades via combat points is for light tactical games like Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2. If you've seen the latest preview footage of Sup Com 2, that's what they seem to be going for in the sequel, =/.
i hate the new "research" thing on supcom2 i don't get why they just didn't expand on the typical factory tier system