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

[Uraniun235]

Because you like big fat uber units in particular?

I do like them, but it's more because I like being largely invincible in the early game.

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.

I should have said "The game has not yet been made to my knowledge"; I have not played either of those games. However I am familiar with the Total War series and I would not count that as a real RTS game, but rather as a TBS/RTT hybrid.

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.

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

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

I see a common thread forming from your comments. I think that you're more inclined towards an alternate genre known as Real Time Tactics. RTS is partially defined by the player's choice of what to build to send against his opponent, rather than have his forces predefined.

I see and understand some of the flaws of the current state of the RTS genre, but I think that despite those flaws Supreme Commander could well come to be the crown jewel of the genre; it may not have the "purity" that I sense you desire from your simulated combat experience, but I suspect and hope it will satisfy those of us who do like building our own base and army with which to wage war on the enemy.

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.

And you don't think it's possible to do that by simply putting the player in command of more units than he could practically micromanage?

[The Jester]

I do like them, but it's more because I like being largely invincible in the early game.

I'll write more after I get some rest but I do want to make one comment here.

One day I will go to Maxis and propose my idea for a game called SimBase. Players fond of turtling will be united under a single banner of building the coolest base possible without fear of quick rushes.

[Shinova]

Do you play Dawn of War by any chance?

[Uraniun235]

I do like them, but it's more because I like being largely invincible in the early game.

I'll write more after I get some rest but I do want to make one comment here.

One day I will go to Maxis and propose my idea for a game called SimBase. Players fond of turtling will be united under a single banner of building the coolest base possible without fear of quick rushes.

By that I didn't mean that my attempts to secure more resources couldn't be foiled or my outlying holdings harrassed; what I meant was that someone couldn't wipe me out with one swift stroke near the very beginning, a la the scout rush in Dawn of War.

[Shinova]

People still can get wiped out early on swiftly in TA, assuming the map wasn't a huge one and someone really knew what they were doing.

[Drooling Iguana]

Doesn't Taylor work for Microsoft now? 'Cause if he does, then that would mean that I'd have to forego playing this game on principle .

[Alyeska]

No, he does not. Taylor has his own company and THQ is going to produce this game, not Microsoft.

[Shinova]

Gas Powered Games is Taylor's company, THQ is the distributor. THQ also published Dawn of War.

[Drooling Iguana]

Kickass.

* Adds SC to my list of games that I'm looking forward to, extending it to a grand total of two items, the other one being Dreamfall. *

[Miles Teg]

One of the reasons that TA is so kickass is that it doesn't end up being a resource war all the time (at least not in the usual way). It's far more "realistic" than counterparts, like Starcraft, that have annoying resource models where the resources simply run out. This is, in my opinion, crap. Resources don't simply run out; your ability to *collect* resources (or access them) is what "runs out". The model in TA allows resource management to be a factor in your game play but not an overwhelming one as in Starcraft et al. where you quite often live or die based on fighting over a couple gas mines.

The only thing nice about resources that run out is that it makes games shorter!

Another thing that I like about TA is that the tech tree is not annoying like in Starcraft. In Starcraft, you lose the ability to build units if you lose research buildings. What? That's just annoying and nonsensical. Factory workers don't forget how to build cars if Henry Ford's original "research facility" gets destroyed. Some other games, like Empire Earth, handle the situation much better than either TA or Starcraft. In Empire Earth, you research and progress through technological ages, but your research isn't tied directly to buildings or other units. In other words, you can't get bombed *back* into the stone age =)

[Drooling Iguana]

One of the reasons that TA is so kickass is that it doesn't end up being a resource war all the time (at least not in the usual way). It's far more "realistic" than counterparts, like Starcraft, that have annoying resource models where the resources simply run out. This is, in my opinion, crap. Resources don't simply run out; your ability to *collect* resources (or access them) is what "runs out". The model in TA allows resource management to be a factor in your game play but not an overwhelming one as in Starcraft et al. where you quite often live or die based on fighting over a couple gas mines.

Another nice thing was the salvage system, so that even if you were in bad shape, resource wise, in the enemy mounted a large invasion against you and you managed to hold them off, all of a sudden you had a big pile of metal sitting on your doorstep, letting you rebuild your army stronger than ever and get back into the game. Kept it interesting the whole way through, preventing it from falling into the trap that so many other RTSs do where the real battle is won or lost depending mostly on your actions in the first minute or two.

[Stark]

Y'know, this all inspired me to have a bash at TA spring, and I gotta say it's a bit of fun. It was one of the first games to have such huge maps, and although I think the TA map design was fucking horrible, it was nice to have plenty of room. None of your SC-style bottlenecks!

Actually, the game could be improved (IMO) by automating many fiddly tasks that are useful, like mass air- or sea-lifts, having air patrols automatically set by waypoints, etc. Fiddly is BAD, and christ the sea-transports were annoying.

[Miles Teg]

Y'know, this all inspired me to have a bash at TA spring, and I gotta say it's a bit of fun. It was one of the first games to have such huge maps, and although I think the TA map design was fucking horrible

Just curios, but why do you think the TA map system is horrible? I think it is by far the best map system of games from its era, and even most more recent games. It is certainly better than the pile of crap that was (IS?) Blizzard’s mapping system (really, mesas and ramps, please!). I love that it's “truly” 3D, and that the terrain actually matters (I.E. put an artillery unit up on a hill and it shoots further and whatnot). It also had some of the earliest terrain that could be modified (if only a little, such as burning down forests to make room for factories), and most of all allowed for very interesting maps (see: Pincushion and Gasbag Forest). What don’t you like about it so much that you call it horrible?

Actually, the game could be improved (IMO) by automating many fiddly tasks that are useful, like mass air- or sea-lifts,

Yeah, that’s the biggest stupidity in the entire game. Why oh why can’t you load more than one unit at a time? I rarely used the sea transports because it took far too much effort and time to load and unload one unit at a time.

having air patrols automatically set by waypoints, etc.

This is in the game. Select a unit or group, click “patrol”, then shift-click all the waypoints in the desired patrol route. You can even tell a factory to do this, and all the unit products automatically begin the patrol route once built.

Miles Teg

[Stark]

I don't mean the map 'system', I mean the actual maps themselves. Either too small, too 'bumpy' looking (thus killing the pathfinding), either no water or WAAAAAAY too much water, often symmetrical, and too many 'themed' maps, that were just there for a laugh. Where were the 'semi-realistic geography' maps? THATs what I wanted, and there were only a few out of the zillion that CC had.

And the airpatrol thing is a bugbear of mine, I'm not talking about shift-clicking. I mean what kind of general says 'go here, then here, then here, then repeat'. You should be able to use a fullscreen map to quickly and easily lay down patrol routes, defences etc. Shift-clicking was a good start, but it's still too fiddly. No progress on this front since 2001, though, so it's not really fair to critisize TA for a flaw almost every RTS has.

But ask anyone, I hate everything. Except Kohan, bwahahahha! No micro, no rushing, only problem is the DAMN STUPID 20 COMPANY LIMIT which is hardcoded and can never be changed! So, yeah. I hate most things.

[Shinova]

Err, you mean shift-clicking on the minimap to set your patrol routes? You can do that.

[Stark]

And I quote.

... I'm not talking about shift-clicking...
...Shift-clicking was a good start, but it's still too fiddly...

For FUCK. I mean, HONESTLY.

TA was even the first game I ever played without retarded unit limits. Sure, the way they counted all entities (structures and units) was a bit poor, but at least it was better than Starcraft.

Dammit, I want more Supreme Commander coverage. I think I'm going into withdrawl.

EDIT - Why the fuck do they never give you decent sized maps? Minimaps are fine and all, but where's the fullscreen, selectable coverage, tactically overlaid map? Hmmm? Little blue dots on a 2 inch screen is not good enough.

[Stofsk]

Yeah, I hate that bullshit. I have a hard time even USING the minimap to be perfectly honest. It's just too small. A system like Homeworld would work so much better. You want a map, you hit space bar and a fullscreen map goes up. It gives you detailed map features as well as radar silhouttes (as opposed to a dozen red dots which could be anything...), and you can move your units precisely.

That's another thing I disliked about TA. Radar only gave you the dots, not the unit.

Oh yeah, and your gripe about the unrealistic maps in TA? I echo it. With something like Starcraft I expect those sorts of maps due to the nature of the game - it isn't meant to be a realistic strategy game, but more of a fun cartoony 'popcorn' game. TA aspires to something greater than that with all the detail you can put into it. The problem is game balance. By it's very nature, maps have to be symemtrical in resources. The starting positions have to be equal in terms of the resources both (or more) players can make immediate use of.

[The Jester]

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.

Actually, bombing is usually reserved for breaking stalemate situations. If you're at a later stage in the game, the loss of your Commander doesn't make too big a difference on your production capabilities anyhow if indeed you're able to crank out replacement forces in short order.

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.

I believe even Mr. Taylor admitted that resources are what govern how we play RTS games in the article. Simply put, if your production capabilities are superior to your opponents, you do have a strong advantage.

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.

The difference doesn't have to be long term, just enough room to help me get a leg up.

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.

Losing a Commander also means little when production reaches these levels. But if you gain more than your opponent does through the loss of your Commander, are you not in a better position?

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.

Even when those benefits aren't really all that noticeable?

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.

Still, if the gains outweigh the losses, why not?

Free your mind. You don't need Commanders to stick around in order to win.

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

Usually the defender is less prepared for the event and therefore less able to control its outcome.

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.

I'm not. I just fail to see where the advantage is in not micromanaging as best you can in the situation presented if you could choose whether or not to micro.

Well, if you suppose the microing player is in a hopeless situation, then obviously nothing can save him, but then no other player is going to better off since the outcome is pretty fixed.

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.

So have you ever actually seen top RTS players in action?

Do you play Dawn of War by any chance?

Me? No. I though I'd buy it but I looked around and noticed a number of issues with the game which I wasn't fond of. Plus I sometimes wonder whether I may or may not simply have the time for such things.

I see a common thread forming from your comments. I think that you're more inclined towards an alternate genre known as Real Time Tactics. RTS is partially defined by the player's choice of what to build to send against his opponent, rather than have his forces predefined.

Typically RTS is a catch all term for all games which involve strategic and/or tactical thinking. And I always thought the difference between what is strategic and what is tactical is some what philosophical in nature. *shrugs* Furthermore, it should be pointed out that strategy exists without the requirement of building your own units.

I see and understand some of the flaws of the current state of the RTS genre, but I think that despite those flaws Supreme Commander could well come to be the crown jewel of the genre; it may not have the "purity" that I sense you desire from your simulated combat experience, but I suspect and hope it will satisfy those of us who do like building our own base and army with which to wage war on the enemy.

Do you always enjoy the experience of building a base? Does it ever not seem like mopping a floor at any point?

And you don't think it's possible to do that by simply putting the player in command of more units than he could practically micromanage?

This is just another way of removing control. But there is a problem in that the harder it is for a fast player to deal with everything because the sheer numbers, then it's harder for a regular player too.

By that I didn't mean that my attempts to secure more resources couldn't be foiled or my outlying holdings harrassed; what I meant was that someone couldn't wipe me out with one swift stroke near the very beginning, a la the scout rush in Dawn of War.

He almost may as well if competent and gets an economic leg up due to aggressive play.

The model in TA allows resource management to be a factor in your game play but not an overwhelming one as in Starcraft et al.

If you have a economic advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning are increased sizeably and usually lead to an exponential gain over time. Due to your larger capacity for war you can also increase the size of your holdings while reducing your opponents, giving you an even larger economic edge. And so on.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

But ask anyone, I hate everything. Except Kohan, bwahahahha! No micro, no rushing, only problem is the DAMN STUPID 20 COMPANY LIMIT which is hardcoded and can never be changed! So, yeah. I hate most things.

Haha, that game was awesome! I really should've played it more.

Anyways, just got my PCG and looked through the Supreme Commander article. Sweet.

[Vendetta]

[

Actually, the game could be improved (IMO) by automating many fiddly tasks that are useful, like mass air- or sea-lifts,

Yeah, that’s the biggest stupidity in the entire game. Why oh why can’t you load more than one unit at a time? I rarely used the sea transports because it took far too much effort and time to load and unload one unit at a time.

If I remember correctly, you can automate sealift pickup and dropoff.

To pick up a bunch of units, manually select the pickup cursor and then just draw a selection box around the units you want, the transport will keep hoovering until it's full. Same on dropoff, manually selecting unload and a location unloads the lot.

[Vendetta]

With a fullscreen map, patrol routes should be as simple as pie.

You should be able to just call up a map, hit patrol, and draw the route with your mouse. Bam, instant patrol route.

[Xon]

Practically all of the really good players typically play with Commander die means game end.

Actually, bombing is usually reserved for breaking stalemate situations. If you're at a later stage in the game, the loss of your Commander doesn't make too big a difference on your production capabilities anyhow if indeed you're able to crank out replacement forces in short order.

More often than not, bombers are used as a reactive roll. That is, when you start getting hammered by a Big Bertha, a wing of bombers is about the the only fast way to annihilate the BB before it inflicts cripping damage on your economic abilities.

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.

The difference doesn't have to be long term, just enough room to help me get a leg up.

A commander dies easily. 5-6 missile trucks will kill a commander if you are smart about using the trucks.

Losing a Commander also means little when production reaches these levels. But if you gain more than your opponent does through the loss of your Commander, are you not in a better position?

A commander represents a massive resource utilization unit. Having the resources is useless if you can't use them, and powerbuilding is how games are won in TA. As they are resource multipliers, which only the truely stupid chuck away.

So have you ever actually seen top RTS players in action?

I've actually played in some of TA games with some of the best TA players.

[Vanas]

Why bother with Commander bombing? Roaches are much easier to load up and move out under the Valkyrie. Plus, mass produceable.

Anyway, I prefer having the commander at home. He's a Repair unit at heart, there to help your construction aircraft build the AAP and the like. Building a base is always satisfying. The little glow of pride when the row of Intimidators on the hilltop all grind into position and loose off a volley one after the other is always welcome in this house.

[SAMAS]

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.

I think you forgot one other thing:

IIRC, the Commander in TA is also your initial storage for Metal and Energy. Whatever your starting level of resources is set to is stored in the Commander. By getting your Commander blown up early on, you also cut out a big chunk of your own resources. I may have a mild to severe slowdown in my gain of resources, but I'll still have them. You, on the other hand, will likely have blown up at least half of yours, and will have to spend much of what you have left building some Metal and Energy storage buildings to re-up your capacity. And since you also lost one of the(if not the) fastest nanolathes in the game, your rebuilding is going to take longer than mine.

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.

This doesn't take into account the fact that the Commander is still relatively easy to kill for a Hero/Super Unit. Playing Arm, I can send as little as six PeeWees at you, and stand a very good chance of killing a lone Commander before he even gets to my base.

]

[The Jester]

Practically all of the really good players typically play with Commander die means game end.

Do you have anything to support that? Not trying to be vehement or anything just wonder what you have supporting that claim, that's all. I would assume experience playing with top TA players, correct?

More often than not, bombers are used as a reactive roll.

I was referring to the act of using your Commander as a bomb.

A commander represents a massive resource utilization unit. Having the resources is useless if you can't use them, and powerbuilding is how games are won in TA. As they are resource multipliers, which only the truely stupid chuck away.

TA literature is sort of a little short in supply nowadays however we do see it touted here as a viable strategy. Of course this is perhaps not the best of sources but it should hold some weight.

In essence, if you can sacrafice your queen in chess for the greater good, then that's potentially a viable move. Same goes with Commanders and TA.

I've actually played in some of TA games with some of the best TA players.

Meaning what? You didn't think that these players were so fast, or they told you that they weren't? Or you aren't so fast and consider yourself a top player?

I may have a mild to severe slowdown in my gain of resources, but I'll still have them.

Whereas I am able to lay claim to some of yours.