Supreme Commander Demo released!

[Stark]

Making people click on individual units each time you want them to use a special ability is just sadistic, unless it only applies to a small number of "hero" characters

RTS 'evolution' is so slow that when games finally offered a UI that allowed you to use special powers of units inside a group (without forcing you to select each one each time) it was hailed as a fantastic step forward. Even then, if you clicked 'grenade', it would simply take the grenade unit at the top of the list - who might have to walk through the group to get in range of the target - instead of working out who was in the best position to do it.

[Stofsk]

Making people click on individual units each time you want them to use a special ability is just sadistic, unless it only applies to a small number of "hero" characters

RTS 'evolution' is so slow that when games finally offered a UI that allowed you to use special powers of units inside a group (without forcing you to select each one each time) it was hailed as a fantastic step forward. Even then, if you clicked 'grenade', it would simply take the grenade unit at the top of the list - who might have to walk through the group to get in range of the target - instead of working out who was in the best position to do it.

Or worse - every one of the selected units throws their grenades. (Starcraft with Battlecruiser Yamato Guns shows this problem, you only really want one BC or maybe two to fire their Yamato Guns at the single enemy ship, but the whole fleet does it instead. Retards)

In terms of autonomy, I would like it if engineer units followed your units into battle and gave them 'on the field' repair. 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.

But that would make units actually worth something, rather than be thrown against the AI's wall of defences and forgotten about. I don't know if they're going to keep the TA thing where you get 5 enemy kills and you're a veteran (and it goes up every 5), but if they do then it makes sense to keep your units alive (and also, give them personality!) rather than expect your entire army to be vapourised when they kill the Enemy Commander.

(I don't like pyhrric victories. I don't see why the Commander has to have a nuke strapped to his backpack)

I echo what Hotfoot said about this game pages ago: I'll get it as soon as they make mods for it that don't suck.

[Uraniun235]

In terms of autonomy, I would like it if engineer units followed your units into battle and gave them 'on the field' repair. 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.

Except that once they're starting to be overrun, by the time the transports got there your forces would probably already by wiped out. Gets even worse if they brought mobile AA with them.

It could work if combat was slower-paced and units were more durable (or at least took more effort to kill), though.

[Stofsk]

In terms of autonomy, I would like it if engineer units followed your units into battle and gave them 'on the field' repair. 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.

Except that once they're starting to be overrun, by the time the transports got there your forces would probably already by wiped out. Gets even worse if they brought mobile AA with them.

Well it depends on where your transports are patrolling, doesn't it? If this is a big map (which I suspect the typical SC map will be) then it makes sense to set up forward bases that are fortified so that your units have a place to retreat towards. You can base your fleet of transports there, so that they're closer to the front, and expect speedier medevac.

Maybe even have them escorted by gunships. Or bombers (yes, I can be a real Eagle sometimes)

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Of course, the reason you can't pause the game and examine the situation or issue commands in SupCom is that, just like it is in every other RTS game, your ability to frenetically work the interface is considered an important component of "strategy".

Well, I'm not saying that you can or can't pause the game. I'm just saying that playing the game from an extremely high view reduces the need to pause the game since you have a better idea of what the battlefield looks like. When you can see more on your screen, it takes less time to evaluate the situation in the heat of battle.

BTW, you don't have to manually scroll around the map in the Total War games. You can just click on the small map in the corner of the screen and it will take you there.

I don't manually scroll around the map and I do click on the small map in the corner of the screen. However, you're still forced to adopt multiple viewpoints of the map to command your forces as opposed to seeing the whole picture on your screen. I mean in TW, it's cool to see everything close up and in a tilted angle but I occassionally run into problems like giving groups incorrect waypoints due to the nature of maneuvering your troops in a 3D environment at an angled view with a 2-D interface.

Making people click on individual units each time you want them to use a special ability is just sadistic, unless it only applies to a small number of "hero" characters.

That's probably the number one reason why I never liked WarCraft 3. There were far too many diverse units, each with their own little special ability. The micromanagement required was just excessively annoying and a total turn off.

PS. I tried playing the SupCom demo again. I don't know who said that resource management was de-emphasized in this game, but it seems to me that I'm always running out of mass.

Ha! The fact that the resource system requires you to pay more attention to the rates of collecting and spending should be a big enough clue that resource management is much more involved in SupCom than in most RTS games.

[Uraniun235]

Well it depends on where your transports are patrolling, doesn't it? If this is a big map (which I suspect the typical SC map will be) then it makes sense to set up forward bases that are fortified so that your units have a place to retreat towards. You can base your fleet of transports there, so that they're closer to the front, and expect speedier medevac.

Maybe even have them escorted by gunships. Or bombers (yes, I can be a real Eagle sometimes)

If you've got so many gunships as to make an airlift of a significant amount of units - under threat of annihilation from superior firepower, mind - feasible, then why aren't you using those gunships to simply attack the units that are defeating your forces and turn the tide?

This sort of gameplay sounds like it's setting the stage for incredibly long games.

[Uraniun235]

Also, if your enemy chose to take all the resources he might have spent on evac transports and dumps it into more fighters, he'll be able to throw away a couple of squadrons in order to blast the evac transports either as they're inbound... or even better, as they're outbound and laden with units. Now your force has been neutralized without inflicting as much damage as it might otherwise have in a last stand against the enemy, and the enemy now has a much clearer path for his ground forces deeper into your territory.

Now, you could say "well when the evac script kicks in, the AI will divert more fighters from elsewhere to assist in the escort." First, even with more firepower on your side, it's a good bet that by concentrating on the transports the enemy fighters will be able to down most if not all your transports before they're taken down themselves. But even more vicious is the fact that this scripted AI behavior will be known to the enemy, who may choose to exploit such a behavior by launching a simultaneous aerial assault against other sectors of your territory and overpowering the defenses which were weakened to support the aerial evacuation of your units.

Your proposal is asking the computer to make decisions that a human could very well foul up. If this degree of delegation is what you really want out of an RTS, I think a much better direction would be the development of a "team-based" RTS, in which one dude is the commander and his team-mates are his lieutenants, tasked with command of various sections of the overall force. You could have one guy that focuses solely on economic expansion, base construction, force construction. The commander would be in charge of allocation of new units. You could have a guy who handles the air force and a guy who handles the army, or you could have combined-arms groups, or...


EDIT: Another important aspect to note is that more AI = more CPU power, and Supreme Commander is already very taxing on the CPU as-is.

[HSRTG]

Maybe even a base building called 'repair yard' or something, similar to the air-repair pads you can build for your planes.

Just set an engineer or two to patrol along a small circle, they'll repair anything that gets near them. Coincidentally, you can also set them to patrol along lines of defenses, as they'll also repair buildings.

[Stark]

EDIT: Another important aspect to note is that more AI = more CPU power, and Supreme Commander is already very taxing on the CPU as-is.

This is a very good point. At the strategic end, AI processing can really suck down the CPU time - particularly if it's looking at many different things and projecting into the future (instead of cheating like most RTS AIs). At the tactical end I don't think it's as important, since you're not looking at complex decisionmaking.

[Stofsk]

Your proposal is asking the computer to make decisions that a human could very well foul up. If this degree of delegation is what you really want out of an RTS, I think a much better direction would be the development of a "team-based" RTS, in which one dude is the commander and his team-mates are his lieutenants, tasked with command of various sections of the overall force. You could have one guy that focuses solely on economic expansion, base construction, force construction. The commander would be in charge of allocation of new units. You could have a guy who handles the air force and a guy who handles the army, or you could have combined-arms groups, or...

You're right, that is what I want. StarCraft had 'team' settings where you and a friend shared the power. You would have one base between you, but he could spend the money on building the base (something he might simply do better than you) while you planned the defences like building bunkers and marines. And then you go out to scout.

In something like TA, or SC, I would like there to be an option where multiple players have the one base/commander thing and one guy decides he's going to be an Eagle, and another decides he's gonna be the army guy and another guy says he's gonna build the base etc.

[Uraniun235]

Personally I'd love a game like that too.

[Stark]

I remember other games having 'shared command' too, and it was great. I hate boring base stuff and was pretty good at micro, so I took the units and my friend ran the base. It basically meant I was playing a pure wargame (with resources as 'goals') because reinforcements just magically appeared at rally points I designated. It's amazing how concentrating on combat like that allowed me to keep much more aware of what was going on and where I should be.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Hahaha, it doesn't have shared command? And here I can distinctly remember someone saying in an interview that SupCom would have that.

[Stofsk]

Personally I'd love a game like that too.

i will be your wingman

Hahaha, it doesn't have shared command? And here I can distinctly remember someone saying in an interview that SupCom would have that.

I haven't kept up to date with the hype or whatever, but if they have 'share command' in the full version, this game might actually win my heart. Because I would like nothing better than to be the Eagle in a combined-ops kind of game. Too often in these games, the problem Stark alludes to asserts itself: you're busy building your base, training units, scouting the enemy, and when you attack you MUST attack with combined arms. Because the last thing you want to do is just build siege tanks and then "loller the guy has Ghosts with Lockdown and he's better at microing than you" happens. And while the battle is going on your bank gets fat with cash that isn't being spent, which in a game like Starcraft means you've already lost because the guy you're playing is at 0 in the bank but has like a billion units about to come out of his fifteen factories/starport/barracks any second, and you've already overextended yourself.

[Shinova]

There was something somewhat similar to this shared command thing in starcraft multiplayer. I hated it. Personally I detest the idea of sharing power.


Now, fleet of transports? Exactly how many is a "fleet" of transports? I assume you're using the ferry command and all.



On another note, someone on a different forum commented that the Soul Ripper is useless. Bah!! As long as you avoid rows of T3 air defense you can rape the enemy's base and ground units with nearly contemptuous ease.


Oh and apparently the Scathis is actually usable now. Apparently it fires once per three seconds, with 10,000 energy taken up per shot. Hell of a sight better than 150,000 in one of the earlier betas.

[Stofsk]

There was something somewhat similar to this shared command thing in starcraft multiplayer. I hated it. Personally I detest the idea of sharing power.

get out

Seriously, it should at least be an option that you can select. Maybe not the whole game would revolve around shared command, but it should be an alternative than the humdrum "I build my base and you build your base and we somehow combine efforts against the other guys, who are pricks".

Now, fleet of transports? Exactly how many is a "fleet" of transports?

How long is a piece of string?

[Covenant]

Hahaha, it doesn't have shared command? And here I can distinctly remember someone saying in an interview that SupCom would have that.

I dunno, but TA:Spring does, I'm pretty sure. Sad. TA:Spring is just... like... a slightly uglier, better gameplay version of SupCom.

[Ace Pace]

EDIT: Another important aspect to note is that more AI = more CPU power, and Supreme Commander is already very taxing on the CPU as-is.

This is a very good point. At the strategic end, AI processing can really suck down the CPU time - particularly if it's looking at many different things and projecting into the future (instead of cheating like most RTS AIs). At the tactical end I don't think it's as important, since you're not looking at complex decisionmaking.

Supcom was supposed to utilise Dual core to offload AI processing, however I havn't noticed that in the demo, has anyone noticed it in the beta?

[Stark]

Supcom was supposed to utilise Dual core to offload AI processing, however I havn't noticed that in the demo, has anyone noticed it in the beta?

GalCiv2 has dual core support for AI too, and with them you can set the AI to 'gulp down the CPU time like a crazy person and be hella smart' and it doesn't really slow the turns down. I'm not sure how well it'd work in realtime, though, since the things it's analysing would constantly be changing, instead of each turn being static.

[Companion Cube]

You're right, that is what I want. StarCraft had 'team' settings where you and a friend shared the power. You would have one base between you, but he could spend the money on building the base (something he might simply do better than you) while you planned the defences like building bunkers and marines. And then you go out to scout.

Sounds good to me; one guy plays SimCity, the other plays Ground Control. If you add in something like Spring's "draw" function and let players annotate the map, it'd be even easier to coordinate your efforts. Doesn't sound like it would be hard to mod in, assuming it isn't already an option, but I wonder how hard it would be to implement in skirmish? You'd need a way to make the AI keep its paws off non-engineer units.

EDIT: Got some screenshots up: ctrl-f captures them, but it took me a while to find the right directory, and I'd assumed the function just didn't work until I stumbled across the right folder. (This is why all the screens are from the early section of the first mission)

Heroic Cybran bombers blow the shit out a defenceless UEF patrol!

The Cybran Commander

The first suicidal attack wave

The undaunted survivors of said attack

Regarding the GUI, here's a screen with: link and without: link. I generally find myself toggling the thing off with ctrl+alt+f1 when an actual battle starts, and switching it back on when I need to rebuild or I've forgotten a hotkey.

I'll see about grabbing something more epic from the second mission and from a skirmish game.

EDIT 2: And something that strikes me at the end of each mission and skirmish game is that my mass/energy wasted inevitably runs in the millions; if there was someone focused on building and unit production, I wonder how much more efficient it would be? Assuming the teammate wasn't a total fool. ("Building forward mass converters!" "Comm under attack, retreating into base!")

[Stark]

Half the fun is the chatlog, like in Defcon: as the military guy I was spamming things like 'zomg need AA at high rock' and 'prioritise chopper production'. My teammate responded with an endless stream of 'do you know how much that army cost', 'get more x resource points' and 'holy crap breakthrough in the south send help'.

Unlike Defcon, the aim of the game isn't to screw everyone over to win.

[Elaro]

Hahaha, it doesn't have shared command? And here I can distinctly remember someone saying in an interview that SupCom would have that.

I haven't kept up to date with the hype or whatever, but if they have 'share command' in the full version, this game might actually win my heart. Because I would like nothing better than to be the Eagle in a combined-ops kind of game. Too often in these games, the problem Stark alludes to asserts itself: you're busy building your base, training units, scouting the enemy, and when you attack you MUST attack with combined arms. Because the last thing you want to do is just build siege tanks and then "loller the guy has Ghosts with Lockdown and he's better at microing than you" happens. And while the battle is going on your bank gets fat with cash that isn't being spent, which in a game like Starcraft means you've already lost because the guy you're playing is at 0 in the bank but has like a billion units about to come out of his fifteen factories/starport/barracks any second, and you've already overextended yourself.

Well, that's what the "loop production queue" button is for.

And yes, teammate-SupCom would be "T3h Aw3s0m3".

[Admiral Valdemar]

Unlike Defcon, the aim of the game isn't to screw everyone over to win.

So that's what I've been doing wrong.

Regarding team play, I'd really love that being a more common and advanced feature. If you can do it with old RTS titles and games like B-17 where a whole plane is split up into different users doing different duties, then every RTS title of today should do it. Ironically, it's becoming too real for many games to the point that it's a real chore to run any large army, deal with resource management and plan tactics and strategies at the same time. So, like real-life, you are likely best getting a guy in to specialise on each aspect. Look at some of the online play for Rainbow Six, Battlefield 2 and the like. You'll see teamwork there and no one complains, and bar the odd team kill moron who you can always boot, there's little difference between working to gun down TERRORISTS! and working together to bring down a whole army.

[Uraniun235]

Supcom was supposed to utilise Dual core to offload AI processing, however I havn't noticed that in the demo, has anyone noticed it in the beta?

In the beta, in late-game with hundreds of units all over the place, after exiting the game Task Manager would show that one core had been maxed out the whole time and the other core had hovered around 60%. This was with an X2 4800+.

[Shinova]

It appears someone has discovered a way to enable all three races for skirmish in the demo, but you need to download the latest v53 beta to grab a specific 600MB file from it.