C&C4 is out? What?!

[Samuel]

I was given a free copy thanks to my status as a prominate modder of C&C games.

*prominant

Which mods did you work on? I DL'd a lot of Generals mods but not much for the other entries. Cold War Crisis was so fucking amazing for a mod.

http://www.moddb.com/mods/red-alert-3-paradox

[Stofsk]

I was given a free copy thanks to my status as a prominate modder of C&C games.

*prominant

Don't you guys pay attention to the board's spell check?

[open_sketchbook]

I forgot to activate spellchecker when I wiped my computer. I've never been good at spelling, and it's rare I get through a post without making a spelling mistake.

[PREDATOR490]

No base building, no resource harvesting and population caps.

Sorry, I like C&C and have been a fan since it was on the Sega Satarn but all I can really say is fuck that shit.

I'll wait for the video sequences to be uploaded on Youtube or this game to hit the bargain bin. Whichever comes first.

[open_sketchbook]

Oh no, the game is different than I remember it! Different is bad!

[Losonti Tokash]

No base building, no resource harvesting and population caps.

Sorry, I like C&C and have been a fan since it was on the Sega Satarn but all I can really say is fuck that shit.

I'll wait for the video sequences to be uploaded on Youtube or this game to hit the bargain bin. Whichever comes first.

Hilarious. WiC had all that and it's still the best RTS I've ever played. I have no idea how C&C4 executed these concepts but apparently neither do you.

[adam_grif]

No base building, no resource harvesting and population caps.

Sorry, I like C&C and have been a fan since it was on the Sega Satarn but all I can really say is fuck that shit.

I'll wait for the video sequences to be uploaded on Youtube or this game to hit the bargain bin. Whichever comes first.

Hilarious. WiC had all that and it's still the best RTS I've ever played. I have no idea how C&C4 executed these concepts but apparently neither do you.

The reviews spell it out very clearly. It apparently takes elements from it but lacks the parts that actually made WiC work.

[open_sketchbook]

It's not a fair comparison to make. If you're looking for WiC2 you'll be dissappointed. This is basically the meat of competitive C&C gameplay with the build orders cut off and the addition of objectives.

[PainRack]

Oh no, the game is different than I remember it! Different is bad!

Bah, campy units and different gameplay, that I can take. Screwed up story and the inability to actually enjoy this game SP, that's a killer.

The most fun part about C&C was the fact that its SP campaign was AWESOME. Sure, MP ensured its dominance in the 90s, but while C&C3 MP was enjoyable, it still suffered from massive balance problems and cookie cutter build units."Mammoths FTW, Carriers FTW, errr........ sucks to be NOD".


Combine that with the fact that the story seems to make no impact whatsoever........

[Covenant]

I honestly couldn't give a rat's ass about singleplayer, so I'm interested in seeing how C&C4 plays out. It seems like they've geared it for cooperative, flexible multiplayer with a minimalist base-building setup and an area-control emphasis. That's nearly exactly the kind of game I've been pining for, so if the balance and strategy has depth, I bet I'll be real excited. If it has a story mode or not is entirely irrelevant to me, I never even play 'em.

[Deniz]

Before you fanboys get upset... I consider myself a fanboy of the C&C universe--I find Kane, the storyline and the universe's aesthetic really capture my imagination. I just have to admit that the gameplay of the C&C series proper (not Generals or Red Alert) has always felt awkward, and has never had great multiplayer, to my consistent dismay. I have no idea why any of you even liked the C&C games. Basically every single C&C sequel was a disappointment of the RTS genre in one way or another. C&C 1 was incredible singleplayer for its time, but in multi, it had no map editor, insufficient map resources, was totally unbalanced and was felt basically hacked together. The sequels fixed those issues but still managed to suck somehow. It feels like C&C was always the beta release of the Red Alert which would come after it.

Actually the consistent crappiness of C&C is one of those childhood disappointments I'll probably never get over. Such a great, dark setting (better than over-the-top Red Alert) but such boring games to go with them.

So, this may be a different game, but maybe different is necessary. Until now, the most novel thing C&C ever did for multiplayer was C&C3's great, fully customizable UI. I'm ready for something new, since changing C&C's formula means changing what was a piece of crap to begin with.

[Covenant]

Alright, though I'm only able to play it a little while at a buddy's place, I can honestly say that it's full of great concepts but an extremely mishandled execution.

First off, there's no bases. Everything is built by a single super-MCV, and if that dies you can just deploy a new one at one of your deployment zones. This has a huge impact on the game visuals and the level design. Bases have been outdated nearly since they were first thought up, so this is a clever change.

A second feature is related directly: the class system. You have 3 classes (offense, defense, and support) that get different units and secondary powers. They also get a slightly different super-MCV. For Nod, their Support sMCV flies. I'm a big fan of this because it recalls some of the best ideas of the Generals series while fully integrating the idea of teamwork.

A third major feature is the unlock system. You need to earn 'player XP' to unlock units, special powers, and upgrades. Each faction has it's own XP gauge and you can earn XP by playing just about any mode. I think this is a neat concept and a fairly inevitable one given how much people like achievements and unlockables.

And lastly, the econ model is entirely changed. Each player has a maximum unit population and can build whatever they like under that limit, the only requirement is build time. Controlling Tiberium nodes generates Score Points for you in capture-the-flag style. The more you hold, the faster the points go up. You can also snag Tiberium Chunks from a few strategic locations to help your scoring go up faster--but nothing seems to increase your pop cap or rate of building. Building isn't slow, but it's slow enough that replacing a full army is prohibitively slow.


Now for the bad news:

Nearly each of these features is fumbled and turns into dead weight. I think the major fault lies with C&C4's archaic combat unit design married to an ultra-modern econ. These are essentially Warcraft II units playing Dawn of War. It ends in tears.

Area control games are generally superior to gold mine games because area control theory promotes engaging the enemy in varied terrains, at variable level of strength, and accounts for the idea of an acceptable loss of territory to strengthen an overrall position. Putting anti-tank infantry in defensible forestation to cover a strategic point from armor advances is a good example. C&C4 doesn't provide you with any real terrain benefits, and the maps are so tiny and the zones so flat and open that the concept of defense is usually quite absurd. There's no sandbags, barbed wire, tank traps or trenches either, so the concept of 'control' is quite fluid. This is king of the hill as played upon a bowling green.

The level design is awful for the concept, but it's still the units at fault. If you don't include things like morale, facing/flanking advantage, and "fire from beyond effect" ranges then you've given up a good portion of the strategy in a wargame. Even without terrain or dig-in stuff, if you had to move your units intelligently, you could still play out games of feint and deception. These cannot, and they don't even have the kind of weapon mechanics and unit interoperability that made Total Annihilation's relatively straightforward unit production work well.

I like the idea of unlockable units, especially if they were the inefficient-but-interesting elite units of both factions, legacy units from games past, or a fourth class that would be considered an advanced-and-risky player's class. It's none of these though. The units you unlock are core units that are entirely essential to your strategy. A level 1 Nod Defense class starts with, of all things, an engineer unit, three types of truly godawful infantry, and the ability to build a two man bunker. That's it. Go play. Now, if Defense had to unlock stealth generators but started with a few normal turrets... okay. Or if support had to unlock the C&C2 "Tick Tank" Legacy Unit. But having to unlock the core of your units? That's just unacceptable.

Added up, I really don't think they understood going into this the amount of inspiration they'd need to draw from CoH and WiC and Supreme Commander in order to do this right. I'm sure that EA gave them a small budget, limited time, and told them to make something specifically designed for longevity--a competitive online game modelled off the popular Modern Warfare 2 model of unlockables, quick skirmishes, and teamwork. But seriously, this combat model is from the stone age and completely at odds with the advanced econ model, the maps force you to mash blobs of units together with little to no benefit from strategy, and anyone trying to dig deep to see the strategy of it will be turned off by playing chess with nothing but pawns. I'll give this game a more complete look-over once I can play it with at least half the units available for one of the factions.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Basically every single C&C sequel was a disappointment of the RTS genre in one way or another.

In what reality do you live?

[open_sketchbook]

Seriously. Though you may not nessesarily like the direction the series took, each game improved the formula of the last. Though I still boot up First Decade pretty consistantly to play the earlier games, I would say with confidence that each game improved on the last. This Tiberium Sun fanboying that is flying around needs to stop; TS was great (after Generals it was the one I played longest) but it's not the be all and end all of the series, and it had some legitimate flaws that were corrected out in later games.

[Teleros]

Hmm, think I'm going to give C&C4 a go at least, but doubt I'll ever be far from good old Red Alert 2. Especially with the work on Ares coming along so nicely.

[Covenant]

As much as I think it's a clusterfuck, I'd agree it's worth a try, if you can find someone who'll let you play a round or two. I like a lot of the core ideas, but none of them work well in this format. It's addictive in the sense you want to keep unlocking new units, but the gameplay is abysmal enough that I've not asked for a third play-session. Still, there are several good ideas in there, just hamstrung by bad level design and poor unit selection, and the whole thing is impossible to play without having your Core units unlocked from the beginning.

I wouldn't recommend anyone buy it unless they just feel like supporting the C&C franchise though. In which case I might recommend them buying an old copy of Generals and then buying World in Conflict to help EA get the message.

[Teleros]

Well, having played through a chunk of the missions & skirmish maps...


The Good
-Mammoth Tanks. They make everything better.
-The Hover MLRS is back. I loved them in TibSun, and I love them here too.
-The graphics are also fine.
-The sub-factions make this great for online team play.



The Different
-You playing as an actual character for once, rather than just "the Commander". Not sure I'm entirely happy with it, given that you have only one choice to make in the campaign (that being choosing to side with NOD or GDI).
-You get achievements for doing random stuff in missions. And I do mean random. "Heal 5000 HP with flying repair drones"... okaaaay. Real "achievement" there ...
-The entire game seems to be based around online play. You're permanently stuck in a chat channel when on the main menus for example, and as above, the sub-faction system is geared towards this as well.



The Bad
-The music is sodding annoying.
-Levelling up to get higher tier units is a royal pain in the arse, especially given how little XP you get for the average skirmish. I've literally been stacking AI players on my side vs 1 enemy AI just to ensure an easy & quick win so I can get my XP and unlock new ranks quicker. Unfortunately, once I hit level 20 on GDI I'll have to do the same again with NOD, because levelling up with one faction doesn't count for the other (although I can level up with Support GDI 100% of the time and unlock all the Offence & Defence GDI stuff at least).
-There are only two resources worth speaking of: population and the time to build units.
-GDI Paladins are silly OP vs those NOD missile tanks. 2 Paladins with anti-SAM lasers, 1 anti-unit Paladin and 4 (maybe 5) Orcas with 2 of those flying repair bots as Support GDI and bam - good-bye NOD. Oh, don't forget the AOE repair superpower that Support GDI gets. Maybe this'll change at higher levels (I think I'm... rank 6 now with GDI?), but ATM I just build my airforce and hover over their army laying waste to it. Takes a while due to Orca missile reloading, but it goes down.
-To build Mammoth Tanks alongside the Ion Cannon I have to swap my MCV mid-way through the game.
-No Global Domination mode. I loved this addition to Kane's Wrath, especially with the mod that removed secondary objectives.
-The "always online" DRM system sucks big time. Fortunately, at the moment my internet's very reliable, but that'll soon change when I get down to Devon for my Easter break. I'm anticipating higher blood pressure, greyer hair and lots of nerd rage. It's not that I care much about having DRM on the game per se, it's just that this seems almost deliberately designed to piss singleplayer types like me off no end.



The Rant
Hokay, so I admit I had some idea of what C&C4 was going to be like. Population caps, no real base building, blah blah... fine. I was still unprepared however, for quite how poorly implemented it was. For example, in my last skirmish game I was playing Support GDI. My popcap was 60. An Orca (like most units) costs 6 population.
...
HOW IN GOD'S NAME CAN I BUILD UP UNSTOPPABLE ARMIES OF DOOM™ WITH THIS SYSTEM? YOU CALL THIS COMMAND AND CONQUER?! I CAN'T EVEN MOD THE SODDING THING YET, BECAUSE YOU RETARDS AT EA CODE IT IN INCOMPREHENSIBLE JIBBERISH AND DON'T RELEASE THE SDK WITH THE GAME! GO BACK TO C&C GENERALS CODING FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

Right, now that that's out of my system, this does at least force you to utilise your forces more effectively than in, say C&C3 (where, let's face it, you teched up to Mammoth Tanks and spammed them nonstop until the GDI logo appeared on your screen, plus a few of those stratobombers if the enemy had a superweapon ). Building replacement armies from your single MCV takes enough time that you can't simply spam armies at the enemy and wear them down. Maps aren't much bigger than C&C3 or RA3 ones, so combat tends to occur fairly early on, but as said above, the terrain system is definitely uninspiring. Unit abilities early on are a fairly minor part of the game (although the "click button to reload this unit faster" is... well this sums it up best I think: ), but there's the whole "harvest Tiberium with units for bonuses" thing which in my mind gets in the way of things. Combat is blatantly of the "rock-paper-scissors" type, with unit popup descriptions fairly screaming it at you. Don't believe me? Try this:

Laser: Good vs Heavy
Medium: Weak vs Cannon

That's literally what they put in the unit popup boxes. First line is the unit's weapon, second it's armour. Clicking on enemy units also reveals a list of unit icons your sub-faction can build to counter it with. Other info includes abilities and what happens when they get upgraded with blue tiberium crystals.



Summary
It's a very different beast to all previous C&C games, and like me, a lot of people won't like these changes. Hopefully though, the SDK will be out soon™, and I for one will be gleefully tearing into the economic model of the game for starters.

[Samuel]

(although the "click button to reload this unit faster" is... well this sums it up best I think:

I need a screen shot. I thought it was a joke when someone said they would have that feature in a game when they were mocking micromanagement.

[Covenant]

As a person who loves careful unit management and tactical/strategic planning I can say I don't miss the lack of unit spam. But units are made fast enough that a squad of dudes (say, 10 Orcas) that goes down in combat will actually be partially rebuilt by the time the last one falls out of the sky. It was faster in C&C3, but that's hardly an excuse.

(although the "click button to reload this unit faster" is... well this sums it up best I think:

I need a screen shot. I thought it was a joke when someone said they would have that feature in a game when they were mocking micromanagement.

I assure you, it is very real. I was driving around mashing Z to reload my fucking raider vehicles.

So it kinda falls in a mushy, swampy middleground between those two perspectives. To me, units are rebuilt too fast to make the gameplay 'tactical' and plus, your units are hilariously strong versus their opposed type and hilariously weak to the one that opposes them. Like, literally, you try to knock one of those tiny little repair drones down with the wrong unit type? It'll take FOREVER compared to the thing's actual hitpoint bar.

But for someone who wants to play the "Arcade RTS" similar to previous C&C games, your army size is very small and your unit production is surprisingly slow. This is due in great part to the fact that you're constantly making new units for free, instead of saving up and then churning out an army. That constant stream of reinforcements also means you can never achieve any level of dominance. It's not like capturing a strategic point grants you a higher popcap.

[open_sketchbook]

The "click to reload" is what you're supposed to do in lulls in the combat; after you've hard-countered the enemy into the ground, you doubleclick your Wolf tanks and hit Z so that they max their ammo out before the enemy comes back. You're not supposed to do it in combat.

[Covenant]

The "click to reload" is what you're supposed to do in lulls in the combat; after you've hard-countered the enemy into the ground, you doubleclick your Wolf tanks and hit Z so that they max their ammo out before the enemy comes back. You're not supposed to do it in combat.

I do it in-combat because it actually works pretty well for those guys. I'd dance away, reload, and then hit them again. I played as Nod so the reloader dudes I used didn't really spend much time in combat. I don't think they're called Wolfs.

In any case, it's not like "has a reload button? automatic fail!" or anything. C&C4's failings are so numerous in OTHER areas that I can hardly look at the Z-For-Reload schenanigans as anything of particular note. They reload automatically on their own, it's just that the fast reload is pretty damned handy. It'd be nicer if they didn't have a strange reload delay like that, but whatever.

[Teleros]

The "click to reload" is what you're supposed to do in lulls in the combat; after you've hard-countered the enemy into the ground, you doubleclick your Wolf tanks and hit Z so that they max their ammo out before the enemy comes back. You're not supposed to do it in combat.

Bull. Ammo runs out in combat after... what, 10, 15 seconds? There is only like a 2sec cooldown on the reload ability. For maximum effectiveness you therefore should micro the units & reload them manually. Else they reload automatically... but veeeeeery sloooooowly.

Example of reload ability. Took it from a replay of the last game I played. Note that only a few units per side get this ability - most a lot of basic units have no special abilities at all, and most of those that do have useful ones.

[defanatic]

If you don't include things like morale, facing/flanking advantage, and "fire from beyond effect" ranges then you've given up a good portion of the strategy in a wargame. Even without terrain or dig-in stuff, if you had to move your units intelligently, you could still play out games of feint and deception. These cannot, and they don't even have the kind of weapon mechanics and unit interoperability that made Total Annihilation's relatively straightforward unit production work well.

Just a point, shots to the rear armour of a unit do more damage. That's about as much effect facing has, other than some units can only fire forwards (well, lots of aircraft). There is a reason for the reverse button.

I'm actually not sure why they have the reload ability there. It seems somewhat redundant. None of the higher tier units use it.

[Covenant]

Just a point, shots to the rear armour of a unit do more damage. That's about as much effect facing has, other than some units can only fire forwards (well, lots of aircraft). There is a reason for the reverse button.

Well, I didn't say damage I said advantage. That's semantics, but lots of games I know of include 'backstab damage' for units without it actually being relevent. I'm reminded of Wing Commander games where so-and-so had less armor on his sides, but yeah, fuck that, I'm just going to shoot him in the ass until he blows up.

The reason that C&C4's flanking maneuvers are useless is because tanks turn around pretty damned fast and any of the "this is good against that" units will kill their intended target so fucking fast as compared to anything else that it's hardly even relevent. A game like CoH had real facing advantages, where a tank could survive hundred and hundreds of rounds of weak cannonfire to it's frontal plate, but a single good bazooka hit to it's rear might damage the engine.

In C&C4, the value of killing a unit in 1.3 seconds rather than 1.7 seconds is really pretty minimal. Yes, for the absolute crazed madman, it might be nice, but it's basically irrelevent. I've said that terrain is irrelevent too--which is not ENTIRELY accurate, you can still get an advantage from garrisonable buildings, neutral structures, and higher terrain. But when I say there's really no point to it, I'm speaking in terms of "you don't gain a measurable benefit from it."

This might be more true at super-top level, but I'll never know, so I'll have to assume that I am correct. I haven't even seen a mammoth tank yet. Blame their shitty unlock schema for that.

I'm actually not sure why they have the reload ability there. It seems somewhat redundant. None of the higher tier units use it.

The reload ability is to maximize front-loaded combat advantage of smaller, faster, raidery units without making them powerhouses in long-term combat. It's not a bad idea but there's a ton of other ways to do it, which they have done since C&C1. See Ezekiel's Wheel with the missile battery that takes 4 seconds to reload. Not really necessary to reload, it ends up being just a micro hog.

[Nephtys]

Why does reload even have to be manual? Generals did it fine with the GLA Rocket Buggies, which drove up, fired 12 missiles, then had to wait about 20 seconds to fire another volley. CNC3's Stealth Tanks fired a volley of four missiles, stealthed, then waited a few seconds to fire some more.

In most 'traditional' RTS games, elevation or rear-attacks have some meager effect just to tell people they're around. I never knew rear attacks, upper and lower attacks did more damage in Homeworld for like two years for example, because it never mattered. So Starcraft has a 70 percent hit chance for shooting an elevate guy on the 'right' kind of elevation? Who cares! It doesn't come into play. Same with this sort of 'Shooting a CNC tank in the back does 20 percent more damage!' stuff. Such tiny benefits are not visible. If you're in a close enough engagement where it matters, it doesn't really change anything if two percent of your tanks survived, or four.