Supreme Commander Demo released!

[D.Turtle]

Also, transport planes can be set to patrol and if a unit is being overrun they call in extraction and voila your transport plane heads there. Maybe even a base building called 'repair yard' or something, similar to the air-repair pads you can build for your planes.

Hey, there is a game out there that does that:
You build transport planes (called Carry-alls) and they automatically pick up your vehicles when they are heavily damaged, transports them to a repair yard where they are automatically repaired.

The game is called Dune 2.

[Stofsk]

Yes, where do you think I got the idea from? When repaired, the carryall also used to take my tanks back to the front.

It pains me that this was automatic, but in games like TA you would have had to manually select an Atlas to do it. (and even there, there's no point because you could just get a constructor plane to shadow your army and make repairs... but again, you had to do it manually)

[Darth Wong]

You know, at the very least, it would be nice to have a "peace timer", which a lot of games already have. Give yourself time to create a base so that both sides start their battle with a functional base and a small army, rather than this rather absurd situation where you have to start constructing your base out of nothing, with no reinforcements and no military forces whatsoever, right next to the enemy who's doing the same thing and who might either base-build himself or try to rush you early by spamming shit units.

Also, why the fuck is there such a huge gap between tech levels? Look at the power output of T1, T2, and T3 generators, for fuck's sake. T1 generators are shit. You have to build them in order to get your base going, but they suck so much that they basically serve no purpose whatsoever after the first few minutes. And there are plenty of examples of stuff like that in the game. The need to "climb the tech tree" can be an interesting facet of gameplay, but the changes associated with a tech level increase should be reasonable. The way this game works, it's like leaping from 1940s technology to 1990s technology in one go.

[Stark]

As has been alluded to, these conventions are a major part of the RTS 'genre'. 'Teching up', ie spending huge piles of resources on getting access to far better structures and units, is one of the few actual decisions to be made in RTSs (since they take huge amounts of resources away and you may not be able to exploit the new stuff before you're killed). The need to basically bootstrap for 'utterly worthless' to 'good' in the first ten minutes is absolutely pervasive, and it's very common for the 'low end' units to not be simpler or cheaper or less flexible but simply *crap* versions of later units. A 'deep' tech tree is simply one that takes longer between 'man with rifle' and 'ubertank of twin laser death'.

The whole furious basebuilding is what many 'gamers' find perversly entertaining in games like Starcraft, although most people hate it. Metal Fatigue has been mentioned - with it's 'build time' where you have x resources and x time to build whatever combination of units and buildings you want (with some restrictions). The Cossacks 2 had 5 minutes of 'peace' at the start, to eliminate rushes. Kohan had your starting city begin with several forts stocked with soldiers to protect against rushes. Several games have attempted to deal with these issues, but none have been 'mainstream'. I believe this is the 'Counterstrike effect' - the majority of gamers want a shinier Starcraft or C&C, not a new or different sort of RTS/FPS/whatever.

[Stofsk]

Just on the power generators DW touched on, what I find ridiculous is how your mass extractors can be upgraded immediately upon being built, but your powergenerators can't. It's nice that they have 'hydrocarbon plants' that are resource dependent, but why must the more generic power units be a) shit, and b) non-upgradeable?

I hated that about TA. You build an energy park full of solar collectors, like a dozen of them if not more. Then when you get fusion, you reclaim all your collectors because you want to build more combat guys and a dozen extraneous buildings is taking up space that could be used for a dozen stealth fighters, or a dozen Fidos, or whatever.

[Hawkwings]

Like people have been saying, it's a convention of RTS games. So SupCom didn't want to change it, big deal. SupCom isn't the end-all be-all of RTS games.

FYI, for all those people talking about repairing your damaged units, sending them back for repairs, and what not, I can tell you this. Repairing is completely and utterly useless, except for possibly T3 aircraft. Because, when you've got full production going, you can build about 5 T3 bots in the time it'll take you to repair one in the field. Why? Because back at base in your factories, you've got a dozen T3 engineers or subcoms assisting those factories, while out in the field, you might have a couple t1 or t2 bots. I'd rather throw my half damaged units at the enemy and wear down the defenses then wait 10 minutes to repair them all, while he builds new defenses.

Some of you seem to be forgetting that some people *like* to play this kind of RTS, and not some other kind that you personally prefer to play.

Regarding upgrades: I don't like how shield generators continue functioning while they're being upgraded. It makes upgrading them too safe. Besides, how realistic is it for a complex piece of machinery to keep working while you're adding new parts, re-wiring/nanolathing new additions, etc? For mass extractors: that's one of the choices you have to make about your game. Do you go into negative resources now and upgrade your extractors, or do you stick with T1 extractors and hope that you can upgrade them later?

Honestly, there aren't any complaints that seem valid for this game right now. The thing about "personality" for example, they chose to not put that in. They could have, but they chose not to. Probably had a reason for it too. Complaints about "smarter AI", well, how would you like to have a pop-up every 10 seconds asking for commands, or permission to engage, or new orders, or this or that? Because that's what going to happen if you have that in a big game. If you desperately want to find something so wrong with this game that you can complain about it, I'm sure you can. In fact, you can do that with anything. For those of you that want to evaluate the game first, I'll say that from what I hear of the demo, it's a POS introduction to the game. You get zero sense of scale and no idea of a real game from that. There's a custom map right now that is 80 x 80 km big. That's 256 times bigger than Finn's Revenge. You have epic battles on that. Much more fun that T1 rush-fests on small maps, or similar.

Honestly, SupCom is just an evolution of the RTS game. Nothing really extraordinary, it just builds on what;s already out there. If you want some game with revolutionary features, well, you'll just have to keep waiting.

[Stark]

You think AI = constant popups asking for input? Are you being serious?

And I love people who think 'discussing pros and cons of design decisions' = desperately looking for flaws in a game we should just love for what it is. The RTS genre has flaws and is full of bogus convention - if you like them, great. You have nothing to contribute to a discussion of improvements, then, since you don't want any. Don't accuse others of being 'mean' just because they think about it more than you.

[Darth Wong]

Some of you seem to be forgetting that some people *like* to play this kind of RTS, and not some other kind that you personally prefer to play.

Explaining that it's more of the "same old, same old" doesn't exactly help defend a game whose designers bragged in the press release of May 20 last year:

This is the world of Supreme Commander, the next generation RTS, delivering a new definition in strategic and tactical RTS gaming, with a scope and scale of gameplay never seen before. Experience a new level of control over legions of land, sea & air units, and use the innovative zoom function, scrolling outward to see the entire 'theatre of war' or inward to focus on the action, to command your forces to victory. Developed by Chris Taylor, creator of Total Annihilation, the RTS that defined a genre, Supreme Commander offers a unique storyline, innovative gameplay and infinite multiplayer battles online.

And again more recently:

"Supreme Commander is pushing the boundaries with its massive size and scale, delivering an innovative gameplay experience that advances the genre tremendously," said Kelly Flock, executive vice president of worldwide publishing, THQ. "THQ is leading the industry in strategy games, and on February 20th gamers everywhere will be able to experience the ultimate in strategic conquest."

You cannot describe this game as a success when it so utterly fails to be anything more than "just another RTS". The fact that you're apparently as happy as flies in shit over having another generic RTS doesn't change that.

Honestly, there aren't any complaints that seem valid for this game right now. The thing about "personality" for example, they chose to not put that in.

So we can't criticize the game designer's choices because they're choices? Brilliant.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Yeah, for all the hype that they gave SupCom, it hasn't lived up to even a shade of my expectations.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, I'm still waiting for:

Intuitive & customizable gameplay interface with unsurpassed command and control features let you quickly and efficiently maneuver troops across the battle field.

[Shinova]

Yeah, for all the hype that they gave SupCom, it hasn't lived up to even a shade of my expectations.

Judging from the responses here, no RTS game would live up to anyone's expectations even if it came from a million years into the future and everyone who lived there raved endlessly about it.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, for all the hype that they gave SupCom, it hasn't lived up to even a shade of my expectations.

Judging from the responses here, no RTS game would live up to anyone's expectations even if it came from a million years into the future and everyone who lived there raved endlessly about it.

On the contrary, there have been many practical suggestions in this thread, and gripes about game behaviour which could be easily resolved with present-day technology, assuming the will existed to do so.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Well, my early interest in the game has faded, I was back to playing Zero Hour in a week. The ability to scroll out and scroll in instead of selecting the mini-map was extremely enjoyable to me, and adjusting back and forth between the two types can really mess with you.

I guess I'll wait and see what you guys think of the completed version as opposed to this demo before I consider a purchase.

[Stofsk]

Exactly. Like what D.Turtle said at the top of the page with his "Dur that was done like in Dune 2" - virtually the first RTS ever has something the 'innovative' SC doesn't. In response to that, people say "Loller but I don't want my units repaired i want them to die so that the new wave can come in after them", which is a response that doesn't even address the issue.

What if I want my units to become veterans? Become better and more competent the more experience they gain? Wouldn't saving them and repairing them have more of an incentive? But it doesn't matter anyway, all your units that attack the enemy commander die when he goes up like a nuke.

Furthermore, it's just not realistic to depict a futuristic battlefield where you CAN'T easily summon transport planes for a medevac. Naturally, the response to this will be "Loller giant robots aren't realistic anyway".

[Uraniun235]

Exactly. Like what D.Turtle said at the top of the page with his "Dur that was done like in Dune 2" - virtually the first RTS ever has something the 'innovative' SC doesn't. In response to that, people say "Loller but I don't want my units repaired i want them to die so that the new wave can come in after them", which is a response that doesn't even address the issue.

Creating a game in which there is such an incentive to save units from destruction as to make the effort and investment into medevac transports worthwhile will slow down the pace of gameplay, because it's going to be a couple of minutes at least before that evacuated force has been fully repaired and refreshed and ready for action.

[Covenant]

Yeah, for all the hype that they gave SupCom, it hasn't lived up to even a shade of my expectations.

Judging from the responses here, no RTS game would live up to anyone's expectations even if it came from a million years into the future and everyone who lived there raved endlessly about it.

Like DW said, we're not saying that we need a game to have a billion new features. But if the game is promising to basically beat the shit out of RTS gameplay as we know it and falls back on the bedrock of modern RTS conventions to barely drag itself to innovation (lots of units lolz) then it's not delivering.

Really, what we'd like is for someone to sit down, look at all the interesting things that someone has already done, and add those. Advanced Grouping that includes formations and behaviors. Automatic responses--like withdrawing. Flavorful unit creation. A streamlined tech and basebuilding subgame if you choose to even bother with one at all. And so on.

They don't need to think up ANYTHING new. Just recycle some of these old things into the new game. Really, we're just tired of all the hassles, like needing to click on individual units. After playing DoW, I find it extremely frustrating that I need like 20 light tanks to do anything of note with them and I need to produce them all individually, as seperate units. I wish they came 'clustered' like HW2 strikecraft or DoW Infantry.

The game shouldn't be "Real Time Interface Battler." If they want to make it about strategy, fine. Add strategic choices and put an emphasis on things like facing or territory, supply lines, etc.

If they want to make it about Epic Warfare, then ditch the bullshit basebuilding nonsense. I don't know why they send the goddamn Supreme Commander through to the dropzone anyway. That's bullshit. Why does he pop out? So he can build level 1 structures, minus the metal storages? Why not pop in a level 1 engineer? He can build more. Or why not a level 3 Engineer, and really get the ball rolling?

It's just a gameplay cliche that extends the gameplay for no reason. Starcraft, Warcraft, and C&C games all have 'tech' levels and such. But they are much, much shorter tech trees. Supreme Commander has gone out of it's way to make an RTS with the blistering pace of a City-Planning Sim and the deep, interwoven strategy of a First Person Shooter.

C&C3, despite how badly everyone expects it to do, is still delivering the bread and circuses of flavorful (if stupid) units and factions, and has also trimmed down the obstacles of basebuilding so that you can get to the fighting faster. Seriously, SupCom has so much potential, but it seems like it's been designed as a tech demo and not a game.

[Stofsk]

Exactly. Like what D.Turtle said at the top of the page with his "Dur that was done like in Dune 2" - virtually the first RTS ever has something the 'innovative' SC doesn't. In response to that, people say "Loller but I don't want my units repaired i want them to die so that the new wave can come in after them", which is a response that doesn't even address the issue.

Creating a game in which there is such an incentive to save units from destruction as to make the effort and investment into medevac transports worthwhile will slow down the pace of gameplay, because it's going to be a couple of minutes at least before that evacuated force has been fully repaired and refreshed and ready for action.

I would argue that the pace of the game is already slow due to basebuilding, constant upgrading, waiting for resources to total up so that getting that expensive purchase doesn't flatline your economy in like 6 seconds...

The huge number of units also slows down the game, because you really only want a few different types of units, but the huge number of units makes me want to get them all to see what they all do.

[Uraniun235]

I would argue that the pace of the game is already slow due to basebuilding, constant upgrading, waiting for resources to total up so that getting that expensive purchase doesn't flatline your economy in like 6 seconds...

Applicable on either the very large maps (which are going to lend themselves to long games anyway), or if you and your opponent are really bad at the game; if you're "waiting for resources to total up" so you can build a superunit, your opponent should be steamrolling in with dozens of tanks.

However, my remark was spurred by the fact that someone else in the thread suggested that a good time for an RTS session was a mere half-hour.

The huge number of units also slows down the game, because you really only want a few different types of units, but the huge number of units makes me want to get them all to see what they all do.

I really don't see how that's applicable in the long run. You're probably not going to dick around with every unit every game so that you "see what they all do" because after a couple of games you'll have already seen what they all do. Or, even more likely, you'll do a couple of skirmishes with an easy AI so as to easily get acquainted with all the units without having to worry about someone breathing down your neck.

[Stark]

I do think it's funny how many people invest in superunits when they don't have the industry, so while they're dicking around building it their opponent is just churning out hordes of regular units to rule them.

[Uraniun235]

I do think it's funny how many people invest in superunits when they don't have the industry, so while they're dicking around building it their opponent is just churning out hordes of regular units to rule them.

Fun fact: the "rapid fire" long range cannons, as well as Krogoth, introduced in the TA expansion pack were explicitly intended to be stupid units to invest resources in.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Speaking of AI, the way the units disperse out when given a simple move command seems almost intended. When all the units are grouped in formation and they all have paths that are parallel, they stay grouped rather than dispersing. My best guess is that they've attempted to add some 'smart' pathfinding AI so that the units can see what's ahead and calculate the most efficient path based on what's infront of them as opposed to most RTS games where the units ignore everything until they hit another unit on the way. Unfortunately, what appears to be happening is when you have so many units in front of each other in a disorganized manner, their paths constantly update and they all appear 'lost' until there is sufficient space in front of them where a clear line of path can be determined in the dynamic environment. And if all the units are moving in parallel, the game detects little to no future collisions so pathfinding becomes simple and the units move in a cohesive fashion.

As for teching up, they probably wanted to put more emphasis on the player's part in deciding when to tech up by making the costs and benefits of teching up quite considerable. In games with small maps, I've seen situations where teching up was just painfully slow since both players were frantically pushing out enough tanks to match the numbers of their foe.

[Stark]

Keeping units apart is a good idea - Warzone for all it's neat features had APPALLING 'clumping' problems with pathfinding and massive hour-long traffic jams. You could fly over a valley in lategame and see literally hundreds of units trapped in a jam between outgoing units and returning units.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Keeping units apart is a good idea - Warzone for all it's neat features had APPALLING 'clumping' problems with pathfinding and massive hour-long traffic jams. You could fly over a valley in lategame and see literally hundreds of units trapped in a jam between outgoing units and returning units.

I somewhat disagree here. While clumping and traffic jams are no good either, the distance between units are too far apart in SupCom. I dislike the fact that I have to baby their movements to get them to travel together. It's either that or risk running into the enemy with an attack force that's stretched out from your base to the frontlines.

[Companion Cube]

Keeping units apart is a good idea - Warzone for all it's neat features had APPALLING 'clumping' problems with pathfinding and massive hour-long traffic jams. You could fly over a valley in lategame and see literally hundreds of units trapped in a jam between outgoing units and returning units.

I somewhat disagree here. While clumping and traffic jams are no good either, the distance between units are too far apart in SupCom. I dislike the fact that I have to baby their movements to get them to travel together. It's either that or risk running into the enemy with an attack force that's stretched out from your base to the frontlines.

What's infuriating is how advancing units will speed up and slow down for no reason at all, causing the formation to disintegrate and resulting in the first few ranks arriving piecemeal. I think this has to be a bug, because I've seen instances of block-shaped formations travelling in perfect order, with the tanks at the front, missile carriers at the back, etc.

I find that to reduce the chance of stupid stringing-out you need to treat your forces like the knights in Medieval: Total War II, forming them up before the charge.

Additionally, how hard would it have been to give the AAA units some kind of special behaviour that makes them keep to the back when you issue an attack move? As is, they'll rush out ahead and get slaughtered unless enemy air attacks occur beforehand. I don't like needing to set my AAA in a separate group and telling them to guard each unit in the attack group's rearmost rank.

[Macross]

I just played through the Demo campaign and skirmish mode.

In skirmish mode, I was able to defeat the enemy on the first two difficulty levels without building any ground units, aside from engineers. The point defense systems are adequate enough to deal with any close enemy units and the tactical missile launchers can easily take care of artillery and other long range attacks.

Air units were unnecessary. In fact, the AI did not build a single Air Unit in skirmish mode. (Well, aside from that experimental flying fortress thing) They take to long to build and die too quickly to justify the cost of building them.

It is similar with sea units. The only sea units worth building are submarines and Battleships. And you only need submarines to defend your construction yards while you build a Battleship. Battleships take a long time to construct, and even when completed it was used mostly for defense.

As for offense, all I really needed was one Heavy Artillery station. Once completed and set to automatic, it will win the game for you.

I hope these problems are only due to the demo map... An island offers very few strategic and tactical options. Lets face it, its bad map to release with a demo, especially when your trying to sell an RTS with "Innovative" Strategic elements.

As for the campaign, game play in the missions were very repetitive. Build up a force, attack an enemy base, watch your units get slaughtered, build up another force, rinse, repeat.

While the strategic elements of the game do intrigue me, I have never liked the "cannon-fodder" approach to basic units in RTS games.

And the second campaign mission is just plain annoying.

The thing that irks me the most is that the engineers have no automation. Th battlefield could be littered with damaged or destroyed buildings and units, but the engineers will just sit there are do nothing. You have to click on each piece of debris or building to reclaim or repair. Like wise, if you want to take over the remains of an enemy base, you have to click on each individual wall segment to capture it.

It gets very tedious very quickly.

Likewise, the game seem to be missing some very basic elements of RTS games these days, such as changing unit formations, attack stances and/or unit behavior.

The developers were so focused on developing the strategic innovations that they overlooked and forgot to include the standard elements found in todays RTS games.

Because of this, the game comes across as generic, so I am going to pass on the game.