Supreme Commander(aka Total Annihilation 2) - August PC Game

[Stofsk]

Isn't anyone else excited by CHUNKY EXPLOSIONS? You're a true TA fan if you are.

TA had some of the best explosion graphics for its time. Only some of the most recent games have better explosions. Pale, thin explosions suck ass.

I love the fact that pieces of shit would spray everywhere. YES. That's an explosion.

In any case, I don't care if this isn't gonna be about the Core and Arm, I like the fact we're seeing a new thing.

There are the Terran/Cyberions(evolved from the terrans long ago)/Aeon(conquered & smashed into the ground by the terrans long ago), otherwise known as Arm/Core/Alien.

Yeah, but the Core were destroyed. Quite finally.

Yeah I get it, it's TA2 spiritually, if not in fact. I don't care. This kicks arse.

[Captain tycho]

Shit, TA2? Man, I haven't played the original since it came out! Goddamn former roomate probably stole the disc....

[Arrow]

I just want some big, huge, mother-of-god sized tanks. Something that run over that large kbot in the scans.

And a destroyer that crawl onto land??? Muha... Muhahaha.... Muhahahahahaha. Oh the possibilities!

[Vanas]

The Core were not destroyed, they annihilated the galaxy and re-created a new one in their own image But, if this was related to TA, it'd have to be before, I guess. After all, Core were the legitimate government of the unspecified race's empire, then rebel scum split off. I find it amusing that the Arm scum find patterning terrible, yet clone thier best guys thousands of times over and over again.

But yes, the chunky explosions were great. Personal favourite: The way that aircraft literally get turned into flying shrapnel as they meet a missile.

On a side note, I had an Intimidator shoot down a Pheonix at one point, that was just scary. I was watching this bomber come over when suddenly, wham! this Intimidator shell blasts the thing out of the air at 3 screen's range. There's a reason for the 'Fire at Will' command =D As long as the Intimidators are back or at the very least, their spiritual sucessor, I'll be happy.

Oh, and, and, and, Buzzsaws still scare me. The Vulcan was at least logical.

[The Jester]

I hope Mr. Taylor fulfils his promise about a game which is focused on warfare and not out-resoursing ones opponents. Though his comments about a Commander unit and base building do worry me. I was never fond of the Commanders in TA, they were such an unbalancing factor, especially when combined with the lunacy of Command-napping, Commander-bombing and Commanding-rushing. There should be any units so powerful that they literally demolish everything in their path. Even if they go down trying.

[Uraniun235]

Unbalancing? Both sides got a Commander. The Commander's awesome power was basically designed to prevent a win by rushing a few tanks out before your opponent did.

Commander-bombing and -rushing is easily taken care of with setting the game so that when your Commander dies, you lose. Commander-kidnapping via air transport just means you don't have enough air defense.

[White Haven]

Commander-kidnapping via air transport just means you don't have enough air defense.

Or you're playing an asshole. Easy way outta that one is to say 'Fuck you, buddy, I'm gonna go play a real opponent' and wander off.

[Xon]

Commander-kidnapping via air transport just means you don't have enough air defense.

It also means you completely suck at micro-managing your units too.

Just keep the commander walking in circles and he will auto-target with the light laser and kill the transport. The transports turn too slowly to catch upto a commander walking in circles.

[Nephtys]

Scariest sight I ever had. I had a combined wave of Phoenix bombers followed by Atlas carrying heavy units to follow up... the enemy defenses then started firing. Everything they had. Only the missile turrets and maybe a laser hit at first, then their Bertha's fired. Flew clean over those bombers they were probably targetting, but out of pure luck, one shell landed in my transport plane formation. I lost like.... twelve planes. Scary artillery.

[The Jester]

Unbalancing? Both sides got a Commander.

The question is not over whether some team having access to them that the other doesn't but the fact that they're just so much more powerful. The fact that they held such a dominating presence over the battlefield wherever they were present and annihilated everything around them when they blew made a lot of games dependent on what would happen to the Commanders.

The Commander's awesome power was basically designed to prevent a win by rushing a few tanks out before your opponent did.

It also set the scene for many cheesy tricks.

Commander-bombing and -rushing is easily taken care of with setting the game so that when your Commander dies, you lose.

Then the game is even further focused on Commanders. You don't have to crush your opponent militarily, you just have to assassinate his Commander. Of course, this is valid way to play the game, but having a little more flexibility in this issue can't be a bad thing.

Commander-kidnapping via air transport just means you don't have enough air defense.

Or they have a lot of air offense and you're not micromanaging enough but it's questionable whether micromanaging is a good thing. Should a good commander be good a micromanaging his units? Frankly, it would be nice to see one's units do a good job of trying to follow orders. Preferrably better than any player can.

Frankly, in this style of game, do people honestly believe that having such an all powerful unit given to players immediately is a good plan?

[Uraniun235]

I do. I personally quite like the Commander concept, and it looks like Chris Taylor's aiming to repeat it in Supreme Commander with a similar concept (although perhaps there will be a "no SC" mode given?).

Cheesy tricks? Dude, if you get careless with your commander, a well-managed squad of units can take him down. They're powerful but they're not truly uber.

Also, you've forgotten that in TA, you can cloak your Commander. That can make Commander assassination even more difficult. There's also the issue of finding that Commander amongst a fortified base. Yeah, sure, you can fly scouts in and find him, but can you get ground units to him?

And, if you have such an overwhelming number of bombers (i.e. air offense) that you can penetrate the air defenses and kill the Commander, then odds are good you had enough bombers to take out several other strategically vital structures if that Commander wasn't there... like fusion plants or moho mines. Such a setback would be devastating and it would easily tip the tide of the battle.

With regard to kidnapping, a really easy fix for that is to make the Commander's laser able to kill air transports in one or two shots. Kidnapping isn't a flaw in the Commander concept, it's a flaw in the execution of it. (Of course, there are those who would argue it's not a flaw at all.)

The question is not over whether some team having access to them that the other doesn't but the fact that they're just so much more powerful. The fact that they held such a dominating presence over the battlefield wherever they were present and annihilated everything around them when they blew made a lot of games dependent on what would happen to the Commanders.

I don't see how that's unbalancing. Are you saying it's inherently wrong for one unit to be unquestionably superior to another unit?

The Commander concept is not without flaws, but it's certainly a welcome change from other models where you have no military power to begin with, leaving you wide open to the first yahoo who can get a few tanks out the door.

There are differing extremes you can take such games. You can throw all of the emphasis behind micromanagement (a la Blizzard's RTS offerings) or you can throw it totally behind macromanagement and leave you unable to do anything more than tell unit x to move to y position, and by the way maybe you want to hit this target if you've got the time. I personally relish the idea of a compromise where you can win the game purely through macromanagement, but where a touch of micromanagement can turn the tide in a given engagement... and like they say, you can win battles while losing the war. Or where you can micro a given battle just for the fun of it.

[The Jester]

(although perhaps there will be a "no SC" mode given?).

I would like to hope so.

Cheesy tricks? Dude, if you get careless with your commander, a well-managed squad of units can take him down. They're powerful but they're not truly uber.

You have to remember that if you're careless with one K-Bot, it's not going to have too significant affect on the game. Careless with a Commander (for whatever reason) and you have a potentially serious problem. Do you believe that one face so much repurcussion over a mistake concerning a single unit, especially one available to everyone immediate?

Also, you've forgotten that in TA, you can cloak your Commander. That can make Commander assassination even more difficult. There's also the issue of finding that Commander amongst a fortified base. Yeah, sure, you can fly scouts in and find him, but can you get ground units to him?

If your opponent is actively trying to hide his Commander, he's obviously being passive with it, which also works to your advantage. The Commander possesses some serious firepower, it is usually wise to take advantage of it.

With regard to kidnapping, a really easy fix for that is to make the Commander's laser able to kill air transports in one or two shots. Kidnapping isn't a flaw in the Commander concept, it's a flaw in the execution of it. (Of course, there are those who would argue it's not a flaw at all.)

The flaw exists in the existence in a singular unit which can swing the entire game, ergo creating strategies that revolve around it.

I don't see how that's unbalancing. Are you saying it's inherently wrong for one unit to be unquestionably superior to another unit?

No, I'm saying there is something inherently wrong in a unit being significantly more powerful and is immediately available since its presence is so dominating.

The Commander concept is not without flaws, but it's certainly a welcome change from other models where you have no military power to begin with, leaving you wide open to the first yahoo who can get a few tanks out the door.

Or why not just counter with you own quick units (you even have extra time for your opponents forces to reach you own base? Or why not have games which start off with a military force on both sides in the form of multiple early game units? Why not have games start where you already possess factories? Is a Commander the only solution to quick tank rushes?

I personally relish the idea of a compromise where you can win the game purely through macromanagement, but where a touch of micromanagement can turn the tide in a given engagement... and like they say, you can win battles while losing the war. Or where you can micro a given battle just for the fun of it.

If you always have an advantage in micromanaging units, the best players will always tend to be the fastest micromanagers. Sad thing, but that's the way it tends to go.

[White Haven]

There are other solutions to quickrushing. Commanders are TA's solution. And come on, the 'you can superrush quick units too!' argument is a load of crap. Sure, you can, but that means that if you play someone you suspect is a rusher, you have to struggle to quickly cheapshot them before they can do the same to you, and that makes the game suck. SEE: InnocentBystander in Dawn of War.

[Uraniun235]

The Commander possesses some serious firepower, it is usually wise to take advantage of it.

Not offensively. Not if he's going to draw fire from every enemy unit in range and then some. Not if he's an extremely powerful construction unit that can do more good on the home front. Not if he still represents a sizeable chunk of your resource storage capacity. Not if the enemy Commander walks out and blasts you for getting to close to his base. The Commander can just as easily be a liability as an asset.

The flaw exists in the existence in a singular unit which can swing the entire game, ergo creating strategies that revolve around it.

It can, but only in the early game, and even then a skillful player can overcome a Commander's firepower (the Commander can only be in one place at once, and only has a limited amount of armor, and the D-Gun requires a not-insignificant amount of power to fire).

Yes, the Commander is very powerful, but pit it against a heavy assault force by itself and it will lose. Put it at the spearhead of a battle force and it will lose, because any smart opponent will see your Commander for the walking bomb that it is, and concentrate fire on it to take it out. Whoops, that attack force it was leading just got taken out, too.

Or why not just counter with you own quick units (you even have extra time for your opponents forces to reach you own base? Or why not have games which start off with a military force on both sides in the form of multiple early game units? Why not have games start where you already possess factories? Is a Commander the only solution to quick tank rushes?

No, it's not the only solution, but it's a cool solution that I and others happen to like. If you don't like it, I'm sure SC will be wide open to mods... or hopefully, already have the option prepackaged with the game.

If you always have an advantage in micromanaging units, the best players will always tend to be the fastest micromanagers. Sad thing, but that's the way it tends to go.

In most games, yes.

But micromanagement attention can only be given to so many situations. If the battle is big enough, then one person cannot micro his entire military. GPG appears to be trying to create a game where the war is too big to be completely micromanaged, at which point continual superior micromanagement of a quarter of your forces may lose out to your enemy's continual superior macromanagement of his forces as a whole... making micromanagement possible (and fun) but not always preferable. I hope he succeeds in doing so.

[Stark]

There was always 'hide your commander in the ocean' to avoid rushes. But really, starting your area with a few decent defence structures or units kills rushing dead: more games should do it. Starting with nothing is the only way rushing works. Although, it can go too far the other way. Don't want it to end up like the Dawn of Rush beta, where characters could kill whole early armies...

I'm just hoping the game has flexible units (unlike TA) and doesn't require the player to micro every battle. I *hate* games like that, where units won't use their 'special' (snigger) or use their weapons properly unless you're there to hold their hand.

[Alyeska]

Need I mention the fun of Decoy Commanders? Imagine your enemies displeasure when he scouts your base and finds it crawling with 50 decoy commanders.

[DocHorror]

Heh, one of my favourite strategies was to built about ten Zipper-Infantry Units and have them leg it around the enemies bases blowing up mines and solar collectors before they could react and destroy them.

[Alyeska]

In Uber Hack the Zippers became specialized for the raiding attacks. They also became assasins. A dozen Zippers could kill a Commander if the Zippers were ordered properly.

[The Jester]

Not offensively. Not if he's going to draw fire from every enemy unit in range and then some. Not if he's an extremely powerful construction unit that can do more good on the home front. Not if he still represents a sizeable chunk of your resource storage capacity. Not if the enemy Commander walks out and blasts you for getting to close to his base. The Commander can just as easily be a liability as an asset.

Without Commander death counting as a loss, he's an incredible offensive weapon due to the level of devastation he provides when destroyed. Doesn't matter when he's dead when a significant portion of your opponent's army has been completely wiped out. Use it to smash a hole in your enemy's perimeter and then flood the breach. (Actually in that regard he was quite convenient since defences tended to be rock hard in TA.)

However anyway you put it (with or without loss on Commander death) the Commander certainly possesses some serious firepower and you are in a worse position if you're unable to take advantage of it.

Yes, the Commander is very powerful, but pit it against a heavy assault force by itself and it will lose. Put it at the spearhead of a battle force and it will lose, because any smart opponent will see your Commander for the walking bomb that it is, and concentrate fire on it to take it out. Whoops, that attack force it was leading just got taken out, too.

Dude, if my Commander is spearheading my assault, I'm not putting him near my ranks. He's a freaking walking bomb. Bomb go into my enemy's ranks. Pick him up with an air transport and fly him overhead for great justice.

No, it's not the only solution, but it's a cool solution that I and others happen to like.

Aside from starting with nothing at all, have you ever played it any other way?

In most games, yes.

Can you give me an example of a game where micromanagement is not rewarded?

But micromanagement attention can only be given to so many situations. If the battle is big enough, then one person cannot micro his entire military.

Changing the scale of micromanagement is not going to change the fact that it won't be rewarded. If I can handle the same number of units better than you can simply because my reflexes are fast and sharp and I can point and click very rapidly, I am going to be at the advantage.

[Stark]

Dude, non-micro RTSs are there. It's not a matter of 'rewarding' it: a proper game has so much other stuff going on you can't afford to just sit and watch, clicking 'stim' or 'lightning'.

Clicking won't save you shit in a proper game, where the outcome of battles has nothing to do with the amount of nannying provided. Let me guess - you're a Blizzard fan?

[Shinova]

Without Commander death counting as a loss, he's an incredible offensive weapon due to the level of devastation he provides when destroyed. Doesn't matter when he's dead when a significant portion of your opponent's army has been completely wiped out. Use it to smash a hole in your enemy's perimeter and then flood the breach. (Actually in that regard he was quite convenient since defences tended to be rock hard in TA.)

However anyway you put it (with or without loss on Commander death) the Commander certainly possesses some serious firepower and you are in a worse position if you're unable to take advantage of it.

The Commander also stores an enormous amount of resources. And is the fastest builder unit in the game.

You may wipe out a large portion of your opponent's army with a single commander (assuming you somehow managed to get him past the defenses, which if competent, would've shot up your comm before he was anywhere close to the base) but you also underestimate TA building capability. The opponent still has his commander, and can use him to quickly rebuild buildings that were lost. And TA doesn't really have a solid tech tree like most Blizzard games where if you lose a single building you could lose the ability to produce half of your advanced units.

In any case, the commander's home-oriented abilities outweigh his offensive capability. Better to use him to build up an army instead of sending him out.

Dude, if my Commander is spearheading my assault, I'm not putting him near my ranks. He's a freaking walking bomb. Bomb go into my enemy's ranks. Pick him up with an air transport and fly him overhead for great justice.

Again, that's assuming the enemy has incompetent defenses. Any competent air defense would've shot down said air transport before it got anywhere near visual range of the base. A few fighter missiles will put it down.

Can you give me an example of a game where micromanagement is not rewarded?

You can micromanage an attack force so well that it slaughters an enemy base when you suddenly realize he has distracted you long enough to send over fleets of bombers and ships over to your base and starts slagging it.

That would be an error on the strategic level, not the tactical level.


And besides, a better way to smash open an enemy's defenses using an air transport is to transport loads of those little critter bombs or Penetrators.

[Uraniun235]

Without Commander death counting as a loss, he's an incredible offensive weapon due to the level of devastation he provides when destroyed. Doesn't matter when he's dead when a significant portion of your opponent's army has been completely wiped out. Use it to smash a hole in your enemy's perimeter and then flood the breach.

Except then I can counter by using my own Commander to take down the forces you're sending in. Oops, now everything's balanced out again!

Dude, if my Commander is spearheading my assault, I'm not putting him near my ranks. He's a freaking walking bomb. Bomb go into my enemy's ranks. Pick him up with an air transport and fly him overhead for great justice.

Slow-ass air transport, meet patrolling air superiority fighters. Transport go boom. Some fighters go boom. Not much else. And I still have my Commander with which to hit your base. GG.

Aside from starting with nothing at all, have you ever played it any other way?

Yes, I have. Red Alert (1 & 2) and Tiberian Sun all had the option to start with a beginning force of variable size. I've also played with Homeworld 2 mods which gave both sides a starting force. I believe Earth 2150 allowed for maps to be created that would have pre-placed units and buildings.

I enjoyed those games too, but I still like the idea of starting with a Commander.

Can you give me an example of a game where micromanagement is not rewarded?

Changing the scale of micromanagement is not going to change the fact that it won't be rewarded. If I can handle the same number of units better than you can simply because my reflexes are fast and sharp and I can point and click very rapidly, I am going to be at the advantage.

The game has not yet been made. But that does not mean that it cannot be made - in fact I'm quite hoping that's what Supreme Commander will do: micromanagement will give you an advantage on the small scale, but there will be so much happening that it cannot win the game for you.

Your argument is predicated on the idea that the rewards gained from focusing on the tactical level will be greater than the rewards reaped from maintaining a "big picture" view. But what I think Supreme Commander is attempting to do is to create a playing field where you can't do that; where you cannot directly and individually make your units so much more effective as to be able to turn the tide of the entire war. I think the ultimate goal of Supreme Commander is to make the game less about reflexes than is usually found in the genre. Hell, as the scanned pages show, GPG wants the player's role to be that of "Eisenhower, not Patton."

You're certainly very vehement about your argument, and while I'm not saying you're any less valid for it, I can't help but wonder if this is somehow personal to you. What happened, you get your ass whupped in a few too many games of TA?

[The Jester]

You may wipe out a large portion of your opponent's army with a single commander (assuming you somehow managed to get him past the defenses, which if competent, would've shot up your comm before he was anywhere close to the base) but you also underestimate TA building capability. The opponent still has his commander, and can use him to quickly rebuild buildings that were lost. And TA doesn't really have a solid tech tree like most Blizzard games where if you lose a single building you could lose the ability to produce half of your advanced units.

The point being is that even if you have a long term loss in production with the fall of your commander you should have seriously dented your enemy's military strength. If you press that advantage you will also cripple his economy (even without eliminating the enemy Commander). The net result, if the strategy is successful, is that your opponent's economy takes a much larger beating than your own which should win you the resource war in the long run.

In war, sacrafices must be made, and if it works to your advantage to sacrafice your Commander, why aren't you doing it? And you'll really be surprised at the number of good opportunities to bomb your opponent with him arise.

In any case, the commander's home-oriented abilities outweigh his offensive capability. Better to use him to build up an army instead of sending him out.

Dude, your opponent is also trying to build stuff as well. Sure you can harrass, and he can harrass you. Sure you can build up heavy defences. When all things are equal, why not try to use other resources available to you (like that nice fat explosion of your Commander).

Again, that's assuming the enemy has incompetent defenses. Any competent air defense would've shot down said air transport before it got anywhere near visual range of the base. A few fighter missiles will put it down.

Gee, now that's assuming that I'm not competent at offence. Tell me, why am I charging my flying bomb into my enemy's ranks unassisted when my opponent has defences that can easily shoot it down well before it gets into effective range? Do you normally send in bombers on suicide runs through enemy air defences when you know they will be annihilated before they even get close to the target? So what makes you think that it's suddenly a good idea to send one's Commander in unassisted or that I'm somehow braindead enough to try it?

The idea, if the opposing position is defended against such an attack, is to utilise a skirmishing force (more units to sacrafice, but their losses will not be in vain) and draw opposing attention and give an opening to your bomb. Proceed to get the bomb as close as you can to the enemy ranks and just watch those parts fly.

You can micromanage an attack force so well that it slaughters an enemy base when you suddenly realize he has distracted you long enough to send over fleets of bombers and ships over to your base and starts slagging it.

Wow, and surprise attacks never strike those who don't micro. Tell me, what makes you believe a players who are good at micromanagement are suddenly too absorbed in it to see the big picture? The very reason these players are good is that they're able to process what is going on faster along with having the ability to accurately and quickly work a mouse and keyboard. If a battle was to break out on two fronts, it will be the micromanager who will have the advantage overall.

Ever seen a good player play? Ever notice how fast they were?

And besides, a better way to smash open an enemy's defenses using an air transport is to transport loads of those little critter bombs or Penetrators.

Because that costs more resources and takes more time to pull off? Time which your opponent will also use against you. Why not use that which you possess already if you know it will hurt him more than it hurts you?

Dude, non-micro RTSs are there.

You haven't named one.

It's not a matter of 'rewarding' it: a proper game has so much other stuff going on you can't afford to just sit and watch, clicking 'stim' or 'lightning'.

The fact is still that a player who can do more within a certain timeframe than another will hold a significant advantage over them.

Let me guess - you're a Blizzard fan?

Not really. I mean, I did play Starcraft and Brood Wars with friends when they came out but nowadays I really hate base building. I like the theme of Homeworld but again, you have to build things which I find boring. I am fond of GC and the battles in the Total War series particularly because you don't have to deal with silly base building.

Love to see a decent spaca themed RTS where you didn't build anything and acted as a commander on a carrier where you would organise flight groups, command escorts and follow orders from high command in a dynamic campaign. I'm sure there are a numbe3r of people in love with the idea of commanding a part of the Rebel, or Imperial fleets.

[Shinova]

The point being is that even if you have a long term loss in production with the fall of your commander you should have seriously dented your enemy's military strength. If you press that advantage you will also cripple his economy (even without eliminating the enemy Commander). The net result, if the strategy is successful, is that your opponent's economy takes a much larger beating than your own which should win you the resource war in the long run.

A few things:


1. Military strength in TA is easy to produce. Lose a few dozen units? Crank them factories up to max again and replace. And whatever push you're going to make (I assume this is somewhat early game) is going to be going up against the enemy's remaining forces and his own commander. D-gunnage ahoy.

2. Again assuming your opponent's defenses are incompetent.

3. TA is not a resource war. Economy is not the end-all-be-all you seem to be thinking it is. I don't think you've played TA long enough to realize that. In TA, economy is cheap, victory is not.

In war, sacrafices must be made, and if it works to your advantage to sacrafice your Commander, why aren't you doing it? And you'll really be surprised at the number of good opportunities to bomb your opponent with him arise.

I'd not do it because I'd rather have a solid foundation that'd allow me to crank out attack forces like an assembly line rather than betting on a slim chance that my commander will get through the enemy's defenses to make a fair-sized but easily repairable dent.

And again, I don't think you've played TA long enough. Base integrity is not as end-all-be-all as it is in games like Blizzard RTSs. Wiping out a few factories means very little to a competent player who can simply build them up again in seconds or minutes.

And the "tech tree" of TA is very different from the standard fare of Blizzard games and the likes. Nothing is dependent on the possession of another (with the exception of energy-intensive weapons like Berthas, but that doesn't mean you can't build them in the first place).

Dude, your opponent is also trying to build stuff as well. Sure you can harrass, and he can harrass you. Sure you can build up heavy defences. When all things are equal, why not try to use other resources available to you (like that nice fat explosion of your Commander).

Because I'd rather keep all the benefits keeping my Commander at home gives me so that they may benefit me in the long-run.

Gee, now that's assuming that I'm not competent at offence. Tell me, why am I charging my flying bomb into my enemy's ranks unassisted when my opponent has defences that can easily shoot it down well before it gets into effective range? Do you normally send in bombers on suicide runs through enemy air defences when you know they will be annihilated before they even get close to the target? So what makes you think that it's suddenly a good idea to send one's Commander in unassisted or that I'm somehow braindead enough to try it?

One, if you have that much resources at your disposal to give your flying bomb that much assistance, then the resulting Commander explosion would truly be a mere dent on the opponent's total production and combat capacity assuming the opponent has been matching your production output, which a competent one would've.

The idea, if the opposing position is defended against such an attack, is to utilise a skirmishing force (more units to sacrafice, but their losses will not be in vain) and draw opposing attention and give an opening to your bomb. Proceed to get the bomb as close as you can to the enemy ranks and just watch those parts fly.

And a good player won't be expecting, or at the very least suspecting that?

Wow, and surprise attacks never strike those who don't micro. Tell me, what makes you believe a players who are good at micromanagement are suddenly too absorbed in it to see the big picture? The very reason these players are good is that they're able to process what is going on faster along with having the ability to accurately and quickly work a mouse and keyboard. If a battle was to break out on two fronts, it will be the micromanager who will have the advantage overall.

Where have I assumed a great micro player doesn't have macro? You asked for a case where brilliant micro doesn't pay off, and I gave one. Don't twist the meaning of my words.

Ever seen a good player play? Ever notice how fast they were?

You can have the fastest fingers in the world and it won't help you a bit if you don't have the creative mind to take advantage of those fingers. Skill in strategy games and a great wankhand are not mutually inclusive.

Because that costs more resources and takes more time to pull off? Time which your opponent will also use against you. Why not use that which you possess already if you know it will hurt him more than it hurts you?

One, again TA is not a resource war. It's important, but not as important as it is in Blizzard games.

Two, because dozens of flying nukes is better than one.

And three, you may or may not make a big dent on his side, but you will for sure lose your best and most basic builder, the only unit that can capture, and a large storage unit for your resources.


EDIT: Okay, looks like you have played TA long enough.

[The Jester]

Except then I can counter by using my own Commander to take down the forces you're sending in. Oops, now everything's balanced out again!

Except your Commander is near that beautiful base of yours and my army is ready to run riot.

Slow-ass air transport, meet patrolling air superiority fighters. Transport go boom. Some fighters go boom. Not much else. And I still have my Commander with which to hit your base. GG.

Right. Because I'm completely braindead and don't know how to make a hole big enough to get my bomb through.

Yes, I have. Red Alert (1 & 2) and Tiberian Sun all had the option to start with a beginning force of variable size.

Did you ever start with a force larger than the minimum size?

I've also played with Homeworld 2 mods which gave both sides a starting force. I believe Earth 2150 allowed for maps to be created that would have pre-placed units and buildings.

So, how much did you take advantage of such features?

I enjoyed those games too, but I still like the idea of starting with a Commander.

Because you like big fat uber units in particular?

The game has not yet been made.

Well, how do you count The Ancient Art of War (a bit old perhaps) or the Total War series. I have to admit that sessions involved with those games are less frenetic.

EDIT: I'm kinda trying to prove myself wrong here, and I do admit that. I do in fact like to see some games which do reward fast fingers so well.

But that does not mean that it cannot be made - in fact I'm quite hoping that's what Supreme Commander will do: micromanagement will give you an advantage on the small scale, but there will be so much happening that it cannot win the game for you.

Actually, I think the best way to eliminate micromanagement and how much speed is a factor is to reduce the level of direct control a player has/needs over his units. Of course, that would involve designing the game units to perform more intelligently when given orders so it's not exactly the easiest thing in the world.

But what I think Supreme Commander is attempting to do is to create a playing field where you can't do that; where you cannot directly and individually make your units so much more effective as to be able to turn the tide of the entire war.

You have to understand that this is not a particularly easy task as whatever a player isn't doing is up to the scripting which directs the units actions. Giving units a strong "AI" isn't an easy task. This compounds when you involve super units as better management of them usually yields significant differenes due to the sheer power level of the unit.

You're certainly very vehement about your argument, and while I'm not saying you're any less valid for it, I can't help but wonder if this is somehow personal to you. What happened, you get your ass whupped in a few too many games of TA?

I wouldn't say vehement, I'm just rather passionate about game design. I haven't actually lost a game of TA, though I'm not about to claim I'm a god or anything at it. I did grow tired of Vamp/Rape rushing after a while and stopped playing quite some time ago.