StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I have trying to get one of these games or diablo II, so far I have been leaning to get Diablo II, but command & conquer generals seems pretty good too, any comments.

You've got to be shitting me.

C&C Generals all the way.

Don't get Diablo II. You will be bored out of your freaking mind before too long.

I would say get C&C:Generals, nothing WCIII beats ten generals superweapons hiting at the same time at a enemy base

Generals is the obvious choice, especially with the Zero Hour expansion.

Warcraft 3. Even EA is having their RTS' copy the Blizzard RTS interface.

Lonestar wrote:Warcraft 3. Even EA is having their RTS' copy the Blizzard RTS interface.

Except for the laughable "12 units at a time" limit on selecting units.

WC3 and Generals are oriented to different play styles. WC3 is all about micromanagement, and as such all of your battles will be oriented towards smaller groups of units rather than large armies. Also, Heroes are (almost) absolutely required for victory.

Generals doesn't require nearly the degree of micromanagement, nor are there limits on the units you field beyond money. The scope of the game is a bit bigger.

If you prefer the feeling of a post-modern environment, replete with high technology and high explosives, with the ability to command a big line of tanks or run covert operations to sabotage the enemy's offensive, Generals is for you.

If you prefer a greater focus on the individual units and their abilities, as well as on a smaller scale of battle and a fantasy setting, Warcraft 3 is for you.

C&C Generals. I want to see vast armies fighting, not 12 vanilla units and some dude.

Generals is a joke, compared to warcraft the control system is utterly useless, micro/macro management is non-existant and the game seems slightly unbalanced. =) Besides that, Blizzard has fantastic support for its games, how many other companies can claim that they still balance the games way after their inital release.

Baka^Ni wrote:micro/macro management is non-existant

Not everyone likes micro-management, you know.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Baka^Ni wrote:micro/macro management is non-existant

Not everyone likes micro-management, you know.

Micro adds a nice level of skill to the game, sure beats selecting all your 100 units and click on an enemy tank.

What skill is there in WC3.

in 1 on 1 its can I build my unit of puds faster than him and then attack for the win.

In 2 on 2 or more its the same as 1 on 1 only now you pray that your teammate(s) is not retarded.

Stratagy is not that huge in WC3. TA still had better stratagy, hell, starcraft at least had more viable strats per team. WC3 only has simplicity on its side.

Generals only problem was that pre-patch major balance issues existed (airforce and chemical generals were simply overpowered). I haven't played in a while but the multi is fun, it just has a higher idiot percantage. Although, its idiots are smarter than WC3s.

Micro > Macro in WC3, to a great extent~

If you try the equivalent of mass hydras without micro'ing your heroes and spellcasters then you're not going to win. You can get away with stuff in Starcraft that wouldn't fly in WC3. IMO the game is too micromanagement oriented and didn't have the same appeal that Starcraft did.

Baka^Ni wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote: Not everyone likes micro-management, you know.

Micro adds a nice level of skill to the game, sure beats selecting all your 100 units and click on an enemy tank.

No it doesn't.

See, I can argue too!

Micro-management is not strategy.

Besides, it's one of the great visual treats in gaming to crush the enemy with a vast army, particularly when much of it is rolling on treads.

Single-player: Warcraft 3

Multi-player: Generals

Darth Wong wrote:Micro-management is not strategy.

Besides, it's one of the great visual treats in gaming to crush the enemy with a vast army, particularly when much of it is rolling on treads.

Not just to crush your enemy, but to literally drive through his defenses and base like they aren't there. I love completely destroying an enemy without having my Overlords so much as pause.

I have Generals but I can't get the damned thing to work. Everytime I try to load a level, I get this "Serious error" message. I can only get the first Chinese mission to load, and the units and buildings all turn invisible the second I get battle control!

I know it's off topic and I'm sorry, but did any of you have this problem, and if so, how did you fix it? Thanks in advance.

BTW, even though I haven't played Generals yet, I'd recommend it, as I love the whole C&C franchise.

It's because the computer thinks your copy of the game is illegal.

Well, it's not. I went and bought it all nice and legal. I didn't burn it or anything.

Generals does suffer the same paper-scissors-stone rubbish common to all westwood and blizzard games; that said the zero hour faction varients are quite well thought out balance-wise (I wish I could pick 'random China faction' or something tho). Its alot of fun, but tanks really should have mgs Simulataneous double nuke/B-52 nuke/clustermine/36 artillery/12MiG strike grinds the game to a halt on my system tho; any tweaks for performance?

I would say to get C&C. While WC3 is good stuff, it's just got too many RPG elements in it (I love RPGs, just not mixed in with my RTSs). And Diablo 2 is boring repititive shit. I played D2 back when it came out since my friends had hyped it up so much. I just couldn't stand it, just hack and slash boringness.

C&C series has always been my favorite RTSs (besides StarCraft), because of the military element, and that there aren't too many RPG elements in it.

Warcraft III is a much better game. The single player campaigns have production values that are FAR better than C&C's campaigns, and the missions in War III are more varied and not overly repetitive. This is especially true in regards to The Frozen Throne, Warcraft III's expansion. Morever, the excellent Battle.net matchmaking system makes finding matches a breeze, and Blizzard's excellent support means the game is both virtually bug free and very well balanced. War III's superb map editor means there are a plethora of alternative types of games available as well.

Darth Wong wrote:Besides, it's one of the great visual treats in gaming to crush the enemy with a vast army, particularly when much of it is rolling on treads.

That's one of the better features of Red Alert 2. If you have infantry selected and hit "C" they'll all raise their arms and cheer. It's great to fill your screen with infantry and try that.

Also, Generals all the way. I love to play as the Chinese Tank General. And then just produce hordes of troops. I once beat the group designator. (That's where if you hit ctrl-1 a whole group will be designated group 1.) I had to expand into a group 2.

Generals. Nothing I saw when I played Warcraft 3 ever managed to equal the sheer visual joy of dropping a nuclear missle ontop of someone while he's already getting smashed with nuclear artillery and bombs.