StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I actually had more fun with the AI set to Hard ... but I think GPG was insane not to have had multiplayer in the demo and it may well cost them sales. A reduced Cybran side (say, up to T2) and multiplayer would have been vastly more fun (multiplayer was certainly enjoyable in the beta!)

so, has anybody formed a strategy yet? What you build in what order etc.

Stofsk wrote:so, has anybody formed a strategy yet? What you build in what order etc.

Regarding the early game, I generally queue up three or four mass extractors, a similar number of generators, then set up a land factory and start pumping out engineers. These wander off to build point defences at choke-point and seize every mass deposit possible. The land factory then starts on a handful of light assault 'bots, which are on raiding duty, hitting enemy engineers and mass extractors. I've found this to be effective against the demo's "Hard" AI, though from what I've read in reviews the real thing is apparently a much greater challenge.

What's a bit frustrating is that the map included in the demo isn't all that conducive to raiding; once the choke-points are sealing the AI will generally porc itself in and do little apart from send swarms of light bots or the occasional heavy unit at you. Oddly enough, it did contest the sea very hard, and attacked my naval units with a combination of frigates and bombers.

The "Easy" AI is laughable; I ended up flattening their base with a Monkeylord after having lost only a single ground unit in the preceding hour's worth of gameplay.

Linking buildings is a nice touch. Your mass extractors cost less power if you build generators next to them, and your generators generate more power if you build energy storage next to them.

The amusing thing is that I've seen people with these big mass fab/energy production farms, and all it takes is a couple of bombers to set off the whole shebang.

Stark wrote:Frankly, I can play Spring and like it.

Spring feels really clunky to me. I feel awkward when I try to use it.

The single power/gun per unit thing was weak in TA, it's still weak now.

I'm not sure what you're looking for; are you looking for units with more than one gun or are you looking for "special abilities" or...?

I liked TA: it was still bland, had awful unit balance, all kinds of stuff. Saying 'TA had the same problem' doesn't change the fact that it's a problem and it's still right there. If it doesn't bother you, bully for you.

I don't consider it a 'problem', I think the game just isn't going to appeal to everyone. But then, no game does.

If nothing else, SC is supposedly totally moddable, so hopefully we'll see all manner of total conversions to take advantage of the glorious engine and interface.

Stofsk wrote:Dear god the gui shits me to tears. It's like half the screen is taken up by the build queus and unit commands.

What resolution are you running at?

Uraniun235 wrote:

Stark wrote:Frankly, I can play Spring and like it.

Spring feels really clunky to me. I feel awkward when I try to use it.

Probably because everything looks so shit. The deformable terrain is a good touch, though, and I actually prefer the strategic zoom implemented in Spring to Supreme Commander's. Feels smoother, I suppose.

If nothing else, SC is supposedly totally moddable, so hopefully we'll see all manner of total conversions to take advantage of the glorious engine and interface.

I'm going to get the game anyway, but I'll be looking forward to someone implementing a decently-sized transparent GUI.

By the way, does anyone know how to take screenshots?

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:The best tactician in the world won't be able to save himself from a superior strategist.

There are tactics in RTS games? I've never noticed any. You simply send more and better units at the enemy than he sends at you. The RTS idea of "tactics" is to have a "rock, paper, scissors" design of unit types.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Stofsk wrote:Dear god the gui shits me to tears. It's like half the screen is taken up by the build queus and unit commands.

What resolution are you running at?

1024x768

I meet the recommended sys reqs. 1 GB Ram, 3.2 GHz processor, 256 MB graphics card (ATI Radeon 9600). I turned shadows off and noticed an improvement in performance. I'll experiment with the different resolutions, what is that number in parenthesis? I have it on 1024x768 (200).

3rd Impact wrote:By the way, does anyone know how to take screenshots?

PrintScreen doesn't work?

Darth Wong wrote: There are tactics in RTS games? I've never noticed any. You simply send more and better units at the enemy than he sends at you. The RTS idea of "tactics" is to have a "rock, paper, scissors" design of unit types.

And that royally pisses me off. I remember the briefing for C&C:TS, it was essentially "We don't want tank rushes" since the best tactic in RA was to be Soviet and simply throw as many Heavy Tanks as you can. Wow, zero skill and annoying as fuck.

That is why the likes of Ground Control and R:TW are the marvels of their genre. You have to have a good sound tactical basis or strategy, else you're lost. You can't just brute force your way to victory, which should only be possible if you get nukes or some other deus ex machina that requires effort to achieve in the first place.

As for SupCom, not downloaded it yet (like my Radeon would live through the experience of play anyway), but I'm going to get into TA: Spring for once.

The problem with SupCom's tactics right now is that the 'siege' bots are all wildly more efficent at killing shit than any other unit. Once you hit T3 just make those. And one side's Siegebot is way better than the other ones I believe.

There's also those Tier3 gunships that are just crazy. Fly in, waste the commander, game over! Okay, so it's not that easy, and there's a huge, huge debate about if or if not they are an I-Win button. But the fact that it's even a debate is sad.

Darth Wong wrote:

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:The best tactician in the world won't be able to save himself from a superior strategist.

There are tactics in RTS games? I've never noticed any. You simply send more and better units at the enemy than he sends at you. The RTS idea of "tactics" is to have a "rock, paper, scissors" design of unit types.

More important in your classic RTS is your build order in the first 5-10 minutes. If you fuck that up, you're toast, because you simply cannot compete with someone who can execute it flawlessly.

There was an interesting game called Metal Fatigue that allowed for a pre-build section where you built up your initial base prior to the onset of the game itself, in which time things built instantly and you were immune to attack. This was an interesting way of coping with the ridiculous game mechanic of spending the first 5-10 minutes building the structures you'd need to even START building troops and defenses.

In most RTS games, you had to know what the layout of the map was like to know how to adjust your build order appropriately. In SupCom it hardly matters since there are several things that need to be done any time you start a game. Period. That you need to do THE SAME FUCKING THING over and over and over again is not fun, it's retarded. If you need X, Y, or Z in order to even start playing the game, you should get it right away, end of story.

The best thing right now about SupCom is that it has a fantastic camera, great controls over your units, wonderful scale, etc. so forth and so on, but otherwise it's the same damn thing we've seen for years at the core. I'll be honest, my experiences with the beta were disheartening. Rushes were fantastically easy, balance was fucked to hell and back, and so on.

I may pick it up, but only once the modding community has taken it into the back room and loosened it up a bit.

I don't know about bland. They're supposed to be all robots, so that explains the lack of voices. I think there's a different kind of soul to the units and ta/supcom's particular brand of carnage. A sort of MKSheppard-ish kind of soul, but a soul nonetheless.

As for it feeling more bland than TA, that's probably cause TA's like 8 years old and that fact subconsciously makes one slip TA's blandness under the covers. Cause TA's just as bland if not more than bland than supcom, since supcom at least has wildly different aesthetic styles for its factions.

Or maybe it's the lack of certain specific units like the Can that give people the impression that TA has more 'personality.' But then again there is nothing quite like the Monkeylord in TA, so one's sense of taste may change.

Stofsk wrote:

3rd Impact wrote:By the way, does anyone know how to take screenshots?

PrintScreen doesn't work?

Honestly I hadn't tried. v:oops:v I'll see if it does and hopefully then bust out some screens from the campaign.

Darth Wong wrote:There are tactics in RTS games? I've never noticed any. You simply send more and better units at the enemy than he sends at you. The RTS idea of "tactics" is to have a "rock, paper, scissors" design of unit types.

Flanking manoeuvres are quite effective in CoH, but it still falls into the pitfall of other RTS games as gameplay favours the player who works the interface faster.

Darth Wong wrote:

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:The best tactician in the world won't be able to save himself from a superior strategist.

There are tactics in RTS games? I've never noticed any. You simply send more and better units at the enemy than he sends at you. The RTS idea of "tactics" is to have a "rock, paper, scissors" design of unit types.

I'm referring to the hair-splitting micromanagement of units in a battle that can make or break victory. I've always hated the fact that the player who can work the game best can win even if they lacked a good strategy. That was certainly the case with C&C: Generals. As the Air Force General, my success depended entirely on my ability to micromanage my stealth comanches and humvees. Largely, those were the only units I had to really pump out.

It's nice to know that if I decide to take the sea through the use of torpedo bombers, there's jackshit my enemy can do if he's failed to provide some kind of air defense since I'd have planned it long ago and be attacking with 20+ of them at a time. Whatever formation or last minute air support he can scramble will not help him at all.

Stofsk wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:

Stofsk wrote:Dear god the gui shits me to tears. It's like half the screen is taken up by the build queus and unit commands.

What resolution are you running at?

1024x768

I meet the recommended sys reqs. 1 GB Ram, 3.2 GHz processor, 256 MB graphics card (ATI Radeon 9600). I turned shadows off and noticed an improvement in performance. I'll experiment with the different resolutions, what is that number in parenthesis? I have it on 1024x768 (200).

The parenthesis should be the refresh rate for the monitor.

I don't have any problems with the GUI but then I run at 1280x960

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:The best tactician in the world won't be able to save himself from a superior strategist.

There are tactics in RTS games? I've never noticed any. You simply send more and better units at the enemy than he sends at you. The RTS idea of "tactics" is to have a "rock, paper, scissors" design of unit types.

I'm referring to the hair-splitting micromanagement of units in a battle that can make or break victory. I've always hated the fact that the player who can work the game best can win even if they lacked a good strategy. That was certainly the case with C&C: Generals. As the Air Force General, my success depended entirely on my ability to micromanage my stealth comanches and humvees. Largely, those were the only units I had to really pump out.

It's nice to know that if I decide to take the sea through the use of torpedo bombers, there's jackshit my enemy can do if he's failed to provide some kind of air defense since I'd have planned it long ago and be attacking with 20+ of them at a time. Whatever formation or last minute air support he can scramble will not help him at all.

I see you didn't notice my allusion to "rock, scissors, paper", since your example happens to fit it precisely.

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:I'm referring to the hair-splitting micromanagement of units in a battle that can make or break victory. I've always hated the fact that the player who can work the game best can win even if they lacked a good strategy. That was certainly the case with C&C: Generals. As the Air Force General, my success depended entirely on my ability to micromanage my stealth comanches and humvees. Largely, those were the only units I had to really pump out.

Sorry champ, micro is still effective in early Supcom. Not as effective (due to the hilarious racial 'characteristics'(r-p-s)) but saying there is no micro is wrong.

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:It's nice to know that if I decide to take the sea through the use of torpedo bombers, there's jackshit my enemy can do if he's failed to provide some kind of air defense since I'd have planned it long ago and be attacking with 20+ of them at a time. Whatever formation or last minute air support he can scramble will not help him at all.

I don't know what the hell RTSs you play, but if you get attacked by something you can't defend against, you're fucked in ANY game. The only difference is how long it takes to build a force to react, and there are plenty of games slower in that regard than Supcom.

Seriously, you're suggesting 'no micro' and 'you win through concentrating a mass of units the enemy has no counter for' like they're *new*. There are plenty of new things in Supcom, you don't have to venture into the world of fiction.

Shinova has a good point: maybe TA is tolerable because it's ancient/scratchware. I play Spring with no expectations because it's just some Norwegian guys, but Supcom is 'zomg hella awesome roooools'. And U235, Spring is indeed clunky unpolished mehness... but I can play it without being bored longer than Supcom. Also: huge BBs with no kbot-size radar jammer/AA/arty = the suck. But I'm glad I finally found a game you shipped for.

Darth Wong wrote:I see you didn't notice my allusion to "rock, scissors, paper", since your example happens to fit it precisely.

Hmm... touché.

Stark wrote:Sorry champ, micro is still effective in early Supcom. Not as effective (due to the hilarious racial 'characteristics'(r-p-s)) but saying there is no micro is wrong.

I don't know what the hell RTSs you play, but if you get attacked by something you can't defend against, you're fucked in ANY game. The only difference is how long it takes to build a force to react, and there are plenty of games slower in that regard than Supcom.

Seriously, you're suggesting 'no micro' and 'you win through concentrating a mass of units the enemy has no counter for' like they're *new*. There are plenty of new things in Supcom, you don't have to venture into the world of fiction.

I'm not saying micro doesn't have its place in SupCom. Of course micromanagement is relevant. A game where micro is unnecessary would be a turn-based strategy game. I'm just saying it's merely downplayed. Obviously micromanagement is far more effective in the early game since you don't have massive numbers to play with.

Shinova has a good point: maybe TA is tolerable because it's ancient/scratchware. I play Spring with no expectations because it's just some Norwegian guys, but Supcom is 'zomg hella awesome roooools'. And U235, Spring is indeed clunky unpolished mehness... but I can play it without being bored longer than Supcom. Also: huge BBs with no kbot-size radar jammer/AA/arty = the suck. But I'm glad I finally found a game you shipped for.

Hey, I'm not going to argue that your taste is wrong. This game feels a lot like TA to me without that slow crappy moody music in the background (God, I hated that). The 'problems' you cited in TA probably didn't really bother me though I'll agree the lack of a mobile radar jammer is really annoying.

Wait a minute.

TA wasn't bland. It was cool! ROBOTS! Big plasma cannons! Nanolathes!

I don't care if they didn't talk. They still looked cool. Mavericks firing was awesome.

My initial impressions of very briefly playing the demo:

The Commanders need an idle animation. Units look unfinished if they remain frozen in place.

I very quickly got the impression that there was little point to zooming in, and that I would spend most of my time watching icons flying around. Also, combat seemed very lethal (too fast to watch). TA units could withstand a fair amount of pounding before going down.

Also, I tried to set up my factories to automatically assign fighters to the same group like in TA but it didn't work.

The demo Readme (which looks really weird in plain-text and my text-editor (Kate) tells me is a binary file (WTF its a *.txt document!)) says that Screenshot is Ctrl-F .

ReadMe.txt wrote: S A V E G A M E L O C A T I O N



T h e s a v e g a m e , p r e f e r e n c e s f i l e s , r e p l a y f i l e s , a n d o t h e r a s s o c i a t e d g a m e f i l e s c a n b e l o c a t e d a t :

o X P : [ r o o t : ] \ D o c u m e n t s a n d S e t t i n g s \ [ u s e r i d ] \ L o c a l S e t t i n g s \ A p p l i c a t i o n D a t a \ G a s P o w e r e d G a m e s \ S u p r e m e C o m m a n d e r

o V i s t a : [ r o o t : ] \ U s e r s \ [ n a m e ] \ A p p D a t a \ L o c a l \ G a s P o w e r e d G a m e s \ S u p r e m e C o m m a n d e r \ s a v e g a m e s \ [ p r o f i l e ] \

And yes, that is literally what I see on my Kubuntu Linux box.

Man, I thought nukes were supposed to be a big part of the game. It shouldn't take half a goddamn hour to build a nuke silo with over a dozen engineers. It's easier to build some Monkeylords who just tear shit up.