Supreme Commander 2 demo!


Recommended Posts

That's one thing I liked in the demo: combining your forces so your air units could provide air cover for your ground units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im mixed about this tbh but what other base building RTS games are there atm? SC2 is several/few months off, C&C4 has somewhat done away with base building, I dunno seems a pretty scarce genre these days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found an interesting post on Facepunch,

Hey want to use all the units?

\Documents and Settings\*YOUR USER NAME*\Local Settings\Application Data\Gas Powered Games\Supreme Commander 2 Demo\Game.prefs

debug = {

enable_debug_facilities = true

}

Alt-F2 away and start spawning stuff you shouldn't have in the demo.

ctrl + shift + r to unlock all research

Not tried it yet, but hoping to give it a go later today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im mixed about this tbh but what other base building RTS games are there atm? SC2 is several/few months off, C&C4 has somewhat done away with base building, I dunno seems a pretty scarce genre these days

Months? I thought SC2 was due for release next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Months? I thought SC2 was due for release next week.

Im pretty sure SC is universally recognised as StarCraft.....and SupCom was the Supreme Commander abbreviation back in the day of the original. Infact to an extent google proves that. Games+SupCom first result is Supreme Commander....Sure enough Games+SC or PC Games+SC is StarCraft. I rest my case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im pretty sure SC is universally recognised as StarCraft.....and SupCom was the Supreme Commander abbreviation back in the day of the original. Infact to an extent google proves that. Games+SupCom first result is Supreme Commander....Sure enough Games+SC or PC Games+SC is StarCraft. I rest my case.

Or you could do the intelligent thing and post the full name of the game if you're going to use an ambiguous acronym... I am not going to Google your acronym choice nor am I a regular enough player of Supreme Commander to know what the "universal" choice is.

When using abbreviations it is YOUR job to ensure you're clear enough to ensure readers understand you.

So I'm not sure what "case" you are resting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you could do the intelligent thing and post the full name of the game if you're going to use an ambiguous acronym... I am not going to Google your acronym choice nor am I a regular enough player of Supreme Commander to know what the "universal" choice is.

When using abbreviations it is YOUR job to ensure you're clear enough to ensure readers understand you.

So I'm not sure what "case" you are resting?

I think you forget to thank me for educating your ungrateful behind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you forget to thank me for educating your ungrateful behind

Don't hold your breath...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking forward to see SC2 released, but i was a bit worried about square enix join in...well looks like i was right to worry about that.

I still play SC1, it's a good game, not the best, but it has several unique features and has a well designed gameplay and interface.

As i tried SC2 my first impression was: oh they already released C&C4?

You can't even zoom out to a decent height, and the units look cartoon-ish like in RedAlert3, this game can't be called Supreme Commander 2, only the ACU reminds me about SC.

Took a look at the trailers, animations and the speed of those flying missiles totally kills the feeling of massive and huge machines shooting at each other.

Nothing wrong if a game plays, looks and feels this way, but this shouldn't be named SC2 imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just tried it. It's fun and it runs much better than Supreme Commander. This one is on my buy list.

What a joke! Have you played the first one! Snipped- Max™

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a joke! Have you played the first one! Snipped - Max™

The dumbed downness of the game is kinda sad. I read some reviews of the game where they called the game "actually playable" because of the complicated nature of the original series.

The AI still supposed to be hard, there still seems to be a lot of units, and I can still build a base how I want. Unlike Command and Conquer 4 and Halo Wars, so this is still probably one of the best games out there. There needs to be more real time strategies. I really miss Age of Empires...stuff like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a joke! Have you played the first one! Snipped- Max™

You're the joke. If you cannot adapt to the changes in the game its your own loss. For better or worse. The game plays well and some of the mechanics are far better than the original. It runs better as well. My only problem is, like others, that the controls have been made much simpler and therefore less flexible. I can't select 5 engineers and make them do a coordinated AA build around my base, I have to bind each to a single engineer individually then give that engineer the commands. Hopefully that won't be the case in the final version, but at least such a mechanic will prevent unit spam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Even the pacing of it is faster which is a good thing. The only that bothered me about Supreme Commander was the pacing. It was too damn slow. In Supreme Commander 2, it's fast enough for you to enjoy the game without getting bored. It's been awhile since I last played SupCom1 but the building speed and unit production speed seems much faster in SupCom2.

i dont think so, i enjoyed the fact that it took you 3hrs to do a map! and that you have to plan out you game alot! Supreme Commander 2 has just turned into a CNC Clone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're the joke. If you cannot adapt to the changes in the game its your own loss. For better or worse. The game plays well and some of the mechanics are far better than the original. It runs better as well. My only problem is, like others, that the controls have been made much simpler and therefore less flexible. I can't select 5 engineers and make them do a coordinated AA build around my base, I have to bind each to a single engineer individually then give that engineer the commands. Hopefully that won't be the case in the final version, but at least such a mechanic will prevent unit spam.

Thanks i did adapt, with no problems! doesnt mean i like it! i have yet to find any mechanics that work better than the original.. but i do agree that they should of not taking out the power to select 5 engineers and make them do a coordinated AA building... The reason it runs better is cause they have made the graphic less dynamic... they have made a more simple game with no micro-management... which i loved...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks i did adapt, with no problems! doesnt mean i like it! i have yet to find any mechanics that work better than the original.. but i do agree that they should of not taking out the power to select 5 engineers and make them do a coordinated AA building... The reason it runs better is cause they have made the graphic less dynamic... they have made a more simple game with no micro-management... which i loved...

Um... micromanagement in Supcom was pretty straightforward. I mean, so much so that there was tutorials that told you how to play each side regardless of level down to the second. The biggest problem with supcom was that tactics were pretty much useless. Everything came down to two things:

1) early game t1 spam

2) late game experimental spam

Both required a specific method for resource spamming. In essence, SupCom was nothing but... wait for it... SPAM! This is why the most popular games were games that forced players to be tactical, such as games lacking experimental and games that counteracted the need to resource spam. It is a rare thing that a strategic advantage wins a battle, and I have the luxury of claiming such a reason for a victory (woot for cybran stealth).

Regardless, anything that can take the concentration off micromanaging to the second and put that back into the actual combat is a good thing when it comes to RTS's. It is a REAL TIME GAME, so premade strategies shouldn't be the only way to win. RTS's should have a proper balance of strategy and tactical decision making. SupCom was all strategy, and hardly any tactical. But don't get me wrong, I loved the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a joke! Have you played the first one! this version is dum down for people like you!

What kind of question is that? Obviously I've played the first one. Supreme Commander was a brilliant game, but one that you needed to invest hours and hours to play. This time around, the mechanics of the game have been "improved" (in my opinion). The build times have been reduced and the upgrade process simplified. This results in a faster-paced game that really emphasizes real-time strategy.

i dont think so, i enjoyed the fact that it took you 3hrs to do a map! and that you have to plan out you game alot! Supreme Commander 2 has just turned into a CNC Clone!

Then continue to play Supreme Commander. :rolleyes: You pretty much have to play out your game to some degree, even if it lasts 5 minutes. And please, explain to me how it's a "CNC clone".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Played the demo a little more this morning and enjoyed it. If the developers were trying to "dumb down" the game for "people like me", then it must have worked, because I just pre-ordered it (10% off if you pre-purchase through Steam).

I didn't play a ton of Supreme Commander, so I can't speak to the difference between the two games, but this one is fun, it's very strategic compared to games like Dawn of War II, and it runs great on my laptop. I was looking for a new RTS to play, and this is an obvious choice. Now pardon me while I enjoy this dumb game in my infinite stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of question is that? Obviously I've played the first one. Supreme Commander was a brilliant game, but one that you needed to invest hours and hours to play. This time around, the mechanics of the game have been "improved" (in my opinion). The build times have been reduced and the upgrade process simplified. This results in a faster-paced game that really emphasizes real-time strategy.

Then continue to play Supreme Commander. :rolleyes: You pretty much have to play out your game to some degree, even if it lasts 5 minutes. And please, explain to me how it's a "CNC clone".

well in all honesty the lineage of SupCom down to TA is as a strategic game, not a fast paced tactical game

The demo doesn't really tell me if supCom2 is still like that or if it's a starcraft like rushfest. If they changed the game to a more faster paced tactical one (though you can't tell form the demo), then it really isn't SupCom anymore, and they're movign out from the type of game it was and into a realm where there already is a billion and one games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well in all honesty the lineage of SupCom down to TA is as a strategic game, not a fast paced tactical game

The demo doesn't really tell me if supCom2 is still like that or if it's a starcraft like rushfest. If they changed the game to a more faster paced tactical one (though you can't tell form the demo), then it really isn't SupCom anymore, and they're movign out from the type of game it was and into a realm where there already is a billion and one games.

Not really, most all RTS games are about early game rush, late game super-unit spam. C&C, TA, etc. That is, IMO, the biggest problem with all RTS's. They don't focus enough on tactical decision making. Halo Wars was a good example of a game that does such a thing, Ruse is an even better example of an RTS that capitalizes on not only strategy, but tactics within the game and level you chose. The thing that irritates me most about SupCom was that everyone used the same strategy. The exact same strategy for each side. If someone played as side A they would use strategy A, and so on and so forth. It became a battle of who did the prewritten gameplay method faster. Not who was the better strategist. But, as you stated, without skirmish or even a simple online mode with one map we cannot tell if the game will promote strategies with tactical flexibility or again endorse full game strategical layout with little thinking involved. Games must evolve, and to say they shouldn't is moronic. I loved both TA and SupCom. But in all honesty the online community in every RTS I have played is about spam and who can spam faster. It isn't fun, it isn't intellectual. It is just downright boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, most all RTS games are about early game rush, late game super-unit spam. C&C, TA, etc. That is, IMO, the biggest problem with all RTS's. They don't focus enough on tactical decision making. Halo Wars was a good example of a game that does such a thing, Ruse is an even better example of an RTS that capitalizes on not only strategy, but tactics within the game and level you chose. The thing that irritates me most about SupCom was that everyone used the same strategy. The exact same strategy for each side. If someone played as side A they would use strategy A, and so on and so forth. It became a battle of who did the prewritten gameplay method faster. Not who was the better strategist. But, as you stated, without skirmish or even a simple online mode with one map we cannot tell if the game will promote strategies with tactical flexibility or again endorse full game strategical layout with little thinking involved. Games must evolve, and to say they shouldn't is moronic. I loved both TA and SupCom. But in all honesty the online community in every RTS I have played is about spam and who can spam faster. It isn't fun, it isn't intellectual. It is just downright boring.

I don't know about supcom since I never got around to playing it much. never bothered to buy the box, and I didn't feel like spreading my digital purchases across multiple distributors. But there certainly wasn't only one way to win in TA for each faction. There where a few favored and overall powerful startegies like gunship spam. but they could easily be parried by a good player.

What I'm saying is that this series of games has a legacy of large scale war, and long battles. that's what the people who buy them wants. if you want quick battles and small skirmishes then these games aren't really for you, there are games who do that better. few do it better than DoW(I'd say none), and pulling the Warhammer analogy, DoW is for tactical WH40k players, while TA/Supcom is for when you want some WH40k Epic action

why shoudl players be forced to adapt to a different type of game, when those games already exist to cater to those who want that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why shoudl players be forced to adapt to a different type of game, when those games already exist to cater to those who want that ?

From what I have played the game still takes a decent amount of time and the scale is still very large. So it would seem both of those conditions have been met. It seems like SupCom to me, although it doesn't really feel much like TA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.