PCZONE preview of SupCom (3rd March): Highlights

[DEATH eVADER]

I'm being lazy by copying and pasting, but its info that I supplied in the SupCom forums, so I would be violating my own copyright :farmer:

I have decided to just indicate the more spectacular hightlights. I have highlighted the ones that are new to me or something that I needed more clarity on:

-Conceptual art of the Cybran Commander, torso which reminds me of the Transformer's Logo. Its right arm carrying what looks like a potent claw. Colours are which Red/Black.

-Several screenshots of an immence battle between Cybrans and the UEF, two screens of a new unit in action, a stationary tank. I'm guessing it stops, extends arms either side and presses down on the ground for stability, indicating very heavy artillery.

-All screens are in full 3D, unlike the very early shots, which looked more top-down isometric.

-Clarity of the base commander role. It remembers where structures where built. So if the building is destroyed, it will be automatically replaced. Taking away from the micro-managing, and allowing you to focus on the tactics and strategy to employ on the battlefield.

-For either side, there are six to seven operations. Each operation will consist of between two to five missions. After you have completed one mission, previously hidden sections of the map will be revealed for the next mission, working up to the huge expansive maps we have seen in early shots.

-For each operation, the commander tunnels in and builds the base from scratch, which will then be used for the whole of that operation (AKA all missions on same map)

-The majority of the fog-o-war was being generated by dust and debris, I didn't see any blackness other than what was coming off from the damaged units.

-Rockets/Missiles have nice vapour trails (beats C&C vapour)

-Screenshot of a cybran destroyer, literally walking on a beach, with its six legs. These destroyers are also being escorted by aircraft. The air is filled with either chaff or flak (depends if aircraft come equipped with chaff)

-The nicest screenshot I think. The camera was looking down a rocky and grassy vally, populated by hundreds of pine/coniferous. A fight between cybran walkers and Aeon tanks ensue.

-If I'm reading correctly, there are 4 tech levels..........at the moment

-The editor complains about seattle, either for the rain or Frasier (I like Frasier, as for the rain, I never had any when I went up)

 

[Cole]

-Several screenshots of an immence battle between Cybrans and the UEF, two screens of a new unit in action, a stationary tank. I'm guessing it stops, extends arms either side and presses down on the ground for stability, indicating very heavy artillery.

Yeah the return of Starcrafts kick ass Siege Tank!!

An Extreme Unit to be used with extreme Tactics.

Take Starcraft and TA and times them by 2 and pull out Supreme Commander.

 

[destrukt]

heck yes this is going to be awesome.

 

[Asuka]

Ill be picking this up without a thought!

 

[Lucid]

-Clarity of the base commander role. It remembers where structures where built. So if the building is destroyed, it will be automatically replaced. Taking away from the micro-managing, and allowing you to focus on the tactics and strategy to employ on the battlefield.

:O Man, I so wished this would be in alot of the RTSes I play...
And now it's becoming a reality, yay!

 

[DEATH eVADER]

:O Man, I so wished this would be in alot of the RTSes I play...
And now it's becoming a reality, yay!

Plus you can queue up construction commands for a factory, even if its still under construction :thumbs:

 

[Lucid]

Plus you can queue up construction commands for a factory, even if its still under construction :thumbs:

So, If you're building a unit production facility and it's till being built, you can que up units to be built in it?

Nifty.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

So, If you're building a unit production facility and it's till being built, you can que up units to be built in it?

Nifty.

The question is in the time that RTS' have been around, why has nobody ever come up with this

 

[Lucid]

The question is in the time that RTS' have been around, why has nobody ever come up with this

They felt graphics were more important than adding new gameplay features. :thumbs:

 

[DEATH eVADER]

They felt graphics were more important than adding new gameplay features. :thumbs:

Polygons per units are similar to that of C&C generals, graphics wise for landscape, I would say slightly better

 

[Cole]

They felt graphics were more important than adding new gameplay features. :thumbs:

Actually I would say it is to do with this:
Many RTS gamers would say it takes away from the micro managment. Like WC3 is all about micro managment even in battle. Hardcore Starcraft players heavily disagree with to many things making it easier on the player. Like this or being able to select multiple units at once or selecting more than 12 units at once. Micro Management.

Supreme Commander on the other hand isn't really at all about micro managment. The scale is so friggen massive and not only that you can see they've gone several steps to reduce micro managment such as this or auto building replacements and etc..

 

[Spectre01]

Most strategy games focus way too much on micromanagement and not enough on actual strategy. This game looks like it will change it.

 

[Cole]

Well don't forget Spectre that in a game like Starcraft is that it is a MacroManagement games. Which is expanding and getting resources rather than focusing on each little guy. Starcraft has little micromanagment compared to other other various RTS like Wc3 for instance. Many people don't want it to loose the little it already has because the little it already has is a perfect amount for the game.

For a game like this of course your completely focusing on War, because War is on such a massive scale unlike any other RTS before it. Because of this massive scale War requires much more attention sacrificing micromanagement on other things but rather requiring micromanagement and strategy for the war most of the time. So really this isn't less micromanagement but rather just less resource micromanagment but more war micromanagement and strategy.

 

[spookymooky]

http://archive.gamespy.com/landing/supremecom/

:drool:

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Actually I would say it is to do with this:
Many RTS gamers would say it takes away from the micro managment. Like WC3 is all about micro managment even in battle. Hardcore Starcraft players heavily disagree with to many things making it easier on the player. Like this or being able to select multiple units at once or selecting more than 12 units at once. Micro Management.

Supreme Commander on the other hand isn't really at all about micro managment. The scale is so friggen massive and not only that you can see they've gone several steps to reduce micro managment such as this or auto building replacements and etc..

On a battlefield, I don't want some guy telling me when to fire my grenade launcher, I wish to attain some autonomy and use my grenades' when I, the individual, see fit

 

[Cole]

On a battlefield, I don't want some guy telling me when to fire my grenade launcher, I wish to attain some autonomy and use my grenades' when I, the individual, see fit

What are you talking about??
The only game with advisors like that, that i know of is the advisors in Rome: Total War.....

 

[Spectre01]

What are you talking about??
The only game with advisors like that, that i know of is the advisors in Rome: Total War.....

He means that in a real battle, you will not have your commander telling you, move 10m left, fire 2 rounds, move back 5m. You would be given the order but you would be in control of how you fight. That is why micromanagement is stupid.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

He means that in a real battle, you will not have your commander telling you, move 10m left, fire 2 rounds, move back 5m. You would be given the order but you would be in control of how you fight. That is why micromanagement is stupid.

QFT, extra points for knowing what I meant. Yeah I do mean the micro management aspect of telling soldiers when to use special abilities. I don't mean having a 3rd person (i.e. advisors) telling me when the best time to use the ability

 

[Reginald]

Having never played TA I am already bricking it in anticipation for this game. I just hope it's the sort of game I like.

 

[Cole]

He means that in a real battle, you will not have your commander telling you, move 10m left, fire 2 rounds, move back 5m. You would be given the order but you would be in control of how you fight. That is why micromanagement is stupid.

But thats just it, Micro Management may not be completely realistic, but games are not ment to be realistic there ment to be fun.
Starcraft for example, using Stim Pack on your marines may be considered "Micro Managment", but really it's a strategy decision. A big one to.

Lets take a much better example, Ghosts in Starcraft. A horrible offensive unit. Now with this unit if you had no control over him, he would be useless and I mean useless. He is a Covert-Op Unit. Your not ment to have tons of them. They can Cloak, Lockdown, and Nuke. If you couldn't control there lockdown and cloaking he would be useless. Simply useless.
It also matters on the race, take Zerg in Starcraft(Yet again) for example. Each unit is told almost exactly what to do. This is because you have an Overmind, Cerebrate(you), Overlords and then the units. It's a chain of command type sequence. If you want him to move over 2 meters, he must follow that order, and he can easily get that order due to how there race is set up.

Without Micro Managment all a game is, would be build up, direct, watch. Wheres the skill? All you gotta know is what unit to use against his. Thats all you gotta do. It becomes very boring in the end, Strategy games should require you to think.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

But thats just it, Micro Management may not be completely realistic, but games are not ment to be realistic there ment to be fun.
Starcraft for example, using Stim Pack on your marines may be considered "Micro Managment", but really it's a strategy decision. A big one to.

I agree with some of what you are saying, but depending on what part of the game you are at, you might have to facilitate some other battle or some contruction at home. This means you couldn't possibly have the upper hand if the AI can move at least twice the speed of a human hand, and could theoretically see the whole battlefield because the AI doesn't require a monitor (luckily the AI is dumbed down to compensate for this)

There were some RTS' where you couldn't set patrol routes for contructors, and that was unnecessary micro management. Some abilitites can be considered strategic, but the rest fall under tactical abilities and should fall uner the control of an AI system running in the background. That way the level between Human and AI players will be narrowed.

 

[Cole]

I agree with some of what you are saying, but depending on what part of the game you are at, you might have to facilitate some other battle or some contruction at home. This means you couldn't possibly have the upper hand if the AI can move at least twice the speed of a human hand, and could theoretically see the whole battlefield because the AI doesn't require a monitor (luckily the AI is dumbed down to compensate for this)

Im not talking about AI im talking Human Vs Human. Multiplayer is where it's at!
Anyway even when playing against AI, they are often very stupid. Or at Least in Starcraft Campaigns Blizzard went ahead and wrote about 100 extra AI scripts to handle them for the missions(They each define how it fights, when it builds, how it builds, what units to attack with, what units to build, a few though can direct more heavy action like nuking and transports(Needed for some missions)).

I don't really play against AI to much, this is because often in games AI gets to easy. Hell you havn't even "mastered' starcraft(you can't really) when you can take on 7 computers on a BGH. Then after that go do a 2v2 lost temple or a 3v3 BGH and it can be hard.