C&C General falsities

Manhatten Project · Post by **Manhatten Project** » 2006-02-12 04:47pm

I realized that in C&C Generals, the U.S. stealth aircraft, presumable the F-117, is completely stealthed, except when firing, while the F-22, is always visible. However, the F-22 is at least eight times stealthier than the F-117, in real life. Funny, eh?

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2006-02-12 04:49pm

In case you hadn't noticed, the Command & Conquer series is more than a little tongue-in-cheek.

Manhatten Project · Post by **Manhatten Project** » 2006-02-12 04:54pm

I know, but Generals is definently the most realistic, and, everything the U.S. has is feasible. They should have checked the stealth characteristics before designing.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-02-12 06:21pm

F-117A = Stealth Fighter = better than plane not named "Stealth Fighter". Really, if it was a flight sim, I'd see the point of contention, but in a game where a mob of guys with AKs can take out a tank and the US has a satellite based particle beam weapon, realism is a little skewed.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2006-02-12 06:36pm

I dunno if the particle beam is entirely satellite-based though. The ground station seems to fire the actual beam, and there's a bunch of reflecting satellites in orbit that redirect the beam down towards the target location.

I guess if one 'mirror' gets shot up, they just re-route that beam, but whatever.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-02-12 06:42pm

That's exactly how it works, but it is still based in space since shooting a gigaWatt beam into space is pretty useless for hitting ground targets.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2006-02-12 06:55pm

Manhatten Project wrote:I realized that in C&C Generals, the U.S. stealth aircraft, presumable the F-117, is completely stealthed, except when firing, while the F-22, is always visible. However, the F-22 is at least eight times stealthier than the F-117, in real life. Funny, eh?

Wait wait wait, this is the game with the mobile atomic cannon that has a blast radius of a couple inches on screen right?

Comando293 · Post by **Comando293** » 2006-02-12 06:59pm

Wait wait wait, this is the game with the mobile atomic cannon that has a blast radius of a couple inches on screen right?

Indeed.

Trogdor · Post by **Trogdor** » 2006-02-12 07:56pm

Atomic weaponry being painfully underpowered in C&C games is nothing new, though. Hell, I remember having to pick my jaw off the ground after a direct nuke blast failed to level the Kremlin in RA2.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-02-12 08:09pm

Describing C&C:G as the most realistic RTS really damns the entire genre.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2006-02-12 08:29pm

Stark wrote:Describing C&C:G as the most realistic RTS really damns the entire genre.

I think he means most realistic of the Command and Conquer series.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-02-12 09:10pm

Stark wrote:Describing C&C:G as the most realistic RTS really damns the entire genre.

An RTS is inherently unrealistic due to the gameplay element of building your forces during combat.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-02-12 09:10pm

Trogdor wrote:Atomic weaponry being painfully underpowered in C&C games is nothing new, though. Hell, I remember having to pick my jaw off the ground after a direct nuke blast failed to level the Kremlin in RA2.

They thought the single use nuke from C&C:TD was too much, so scaled it down. Way down.

Trogdor · Post by **Trogdor** » 2006-02-12 09:50pm

I never played TD (does anyone know if it's in that collection they just released, The First Decade, I think it's called?), so I can't say whether they overdid it there, but having to nuke any building twice to destroy it is just absurd.

It's a problem that carries over into Generals, too, thanks to the GLA's damned "holes." You need to nuke every building twice in more or less rapid succession or they'll all come right back.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-02-12 10:03pm

Stark wrote:Describing C&C:G as the most realistic RTS really damns the entire genre.

It's true; the whole RTS genre is a joke as far as realism goes. The very notion of simultaneously harvesting raw materials, constructing vehicles and buildings, training men, and fighting a nearly continuous battle with nearby enemy forces is utterly insane. But that's the genre, and I suppose it's not really any sillier than most other genres (just look at the gameplay conventions of FPS games).

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2006-02-12 10:07pm

Well, in Dawn of War there's no harvesting of raw materials except power generators, vehicles and buildings are dropped/landed from orbit or summoned into existence through the warp, men are already trained and you're just sending them down from orbit as well, but it's 40K and that's pretty unrealistic as sci-fi verses go, certainly.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2006-02-12 10:17pm

Empire at War has the interesting idea of building forces in a sort of Galactic mode where you also harvest credits, then going Dawn of War style in normal assaults.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2006-02-12 10:45pm

Is there a similar genre that has similar gameplay elements, but more realism? So, you may have to protect your logistics and reinforcements, but you have little or no control over them. The most you can build are light defensive emplacements, some trenches, or a tent (field HQ, medic station, ammo cache, whatever). Maybe have a build phase prior to realtime to create a base, or chose your means of entering the area. I doubt you should be allowed to choose units, though. Not real interested in combining genres like in EaW, though.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2006-02-12 11:41pm

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:Empire at War has the interesting idea of building forces in a sort of Galactic mode where you also harvest credits, then going Dawn of War style in normal assaults.

Sorry, but I just get this strange thought of money farms, and natural veins on Imperial Credits throughout remote asteroid belts when I read that.

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2006-02-12 11:43pm

Alan Bolte wrote:Is there a similar genre that has similar gameplay elements, but more realism? So, you may have to protect your logistics and reinforcements, but you have little or no control over them. The most you can build are light defensive emplacements, some trenches, or a tent (field HQ, medic station, ammo cache, whatever). Maybe have a build phase prior to realtime to create a base, or chose your means of entering the area. I doubt you should be allowed to choose units, though. Not real interested in combining genres like in EaW, though.

Of course. They're called Real Time Tacticals and include such series as Sudden Strike, Blitzkrieg, MechCommander, and arguably Close Combat.

"Base-building" and "resource-gathering" are all but unheard of and traditional logistics play a much greater role. The focus is on actual unit tactics and, of course, said logistics ("Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics.")

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-02-12 11:58pm

Aside from the much drier games BC Gaius mentions, there are no 'RTS' games that try a more realistic approach to reinforcement or support. There isn't enough imagination in the whole industry to find a replacement for 'get x, spend x on units'. Due to that, there are no 'RTS's that play like DoR but include support footprints, ignorant superiors, realistic areas of operation, etc.

And Sudden Strikes would be a hell of a lot better if they introduced a neat idea called 'missing'.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-02-13 12:11am

Stark wrote:Aside from the much drier games BC Gaius mentions, there are no 'RTS' games that try a more realistic approach to reinforcement or support. There isn't enough imagination in the whole industry to find a replacement for 'get x, spend x on units'. Due to that, there are no 'RTS's that play like DoR but include support footprints, ignorant superiors, realistic areas of operation, etc.

And Sudden Strikes would be a hell of a lot better if they introduced a neat idea called 'missing'.

...Realistic approach? Ever heard of Ground Control? You don't build a base, aside from setting up gun nests with engineers. You get everything ferried in by dropship and make use of existing structures.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-02-13 12:14am

Ground Control is a Real Time Tactics game.

Ultimately, one can't complain about a strategy game and reinforcements because the entire concept of the RTS requires the building of units.

You want absolute battlefield tactics, play Ground Control or Myth.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-02-13 12:26am

I disagree that the concept includes such ridiculousness as mining ore and building a tank out of it. It merely has to be a real time game involving a conflict - it's just that RTSs in general are staggeringly unimaginate. I've seen some interesting ideas regarding reinforcement and replenishment (as far back as 1944-ATR) but they never seem to get included in an 'RTS' game. As mentioned, Sudden Strike tried to be realistic but made rifles and tanks almost unerringly accurate, thus making defence far too easy, regardless of how many waves of reinforcement you recieve. Bringing a fixed amount of material to a battle requires a great deal of contrivance, and isn't suitable for sensible operations along a front as part of a greater offensive.

And sorry, GC said 'destroy a building' and my squads didn't have demo charges. Shooting building to death with my enourmous shield rifles = the suck.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-02-13 12:38am

Who the hell plays video games (particularly military based ones) because they are like real life? If they were, most players would consistantly get their ass kicked. Personally I use them as an escape from reality.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

C&C General falsities

C&C General falsities

Re: C&C General falsities