Supcom 2!

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
The maps are small.

Square has said in the past that there will not be a user-usable map editor, but there will be official "map packs" that get released.

However, square has also said that they will have full mod support, which i find odd, as the community would probably want user maps more.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
34,638
1,807
126
The maps are small.

Square has said in the past that there will not be a user-usable map editor, but there will be official "map packs" that get released.

However, square has also said that they will have full mod support, which i find odd, as the community would probably want user maps more.

Booooooooooooooooooo...

Fucking Square/Enix sucks.
 

BlueAcolyte

Platinum Member
Nov 19, 2007
2,793
2
0
I find this game entertaining, but perhaps in a slightly different way.

There's less focus on the economic side of things besides the quick calculations I make in regards to what I can afford (A land factory takes about 2 mass per second to run, for instance). You don't have to manage swarms of engineers anymore, which is a good and bad thing.

What I like is that you can take a strategy and commit to it, and they usually work out pretty well (Slight balance problems as usual). What I don't like is people reacting to it simply because it's different. I am disappointed by the smaller maps (Setons is a terrible terrible map if theres nothing in the middle to fight over) and lack of moddability, but i think those things will be coming.

Also, I felt the demo picked the easiest missions out of all the campaign.
Ranked matches should be out soon, which I find the most interesting.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Hmm, as I loved TA but didn't love the original SC, I think I'll pass on this until SC stands for Super Cheap.

I've seen the gold editions for 20 bucks and under at many places. Highly recommend. Supreme Commander is so different from anything out there (including Total Annihilation) that you have to play it a while and get into it. Eventually you will find the game play to work out well for you and you wont like anything else. Supreme Commander 2 on the other hand did nothing better and went backwards in some ways. I doubt it will be as popular.

And I suspect Starcraft 2 will steal so many players away that all this could be moot a year from now.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
I thought the CPU test was the most interesting. The game will easily run on just about the weakest CPU you can buy, a Sempron 140. It just shows how far they had to dumb it down to run on a Xbox 360.

I dunno about the cpu requirements, the game still does just about as much as sup com 1, it might just be that much more optimized. Graphics are noticeably degraded I suppose, but games that ran on hardware an order of magnitude less than sup com 1 had better AI and path finding.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
I find this game entertaining, but perhaps in a slightly different way.

There's less focus on the economic side of things besides the quick calculations I make in regards to what I can afford (A land factory takes about 2 mass per second to run, for instance). You don't have to manage swarms of engineers anymore, which is a good and bad thing.

What I like is that you can take a strategy and commit to it, and they usually work out pretty well (Slight balance problems as usual). What I don't like is people reacting to it simply because it's different. I am disappointed by the smaller maps (Setons is a terrible terrible map if theres nothing in the middle to fight over) and lack of moddability, but i think those things will be coming.

Also, I felt the demo picked the easiest missions out of all the campaign.
Ranked matches should be out soon, which I find the most interesting.

I don't know, the economy is so annoying in this new game, mass is the restriction for most anything until you get mass converters, which you now need to babysit. I really really hate the pay for everything up front model now more than ever, I have to babysit my engineers a lot more now then I did. I also miss building templates, I wish that was still around.

After playing online a few days the balance is really off. If the game is assassination, gunship spam is the way to go, they have no good counter that can stop gunships before they kill the commander. If the game is supremacy, go for Cybran battleships if the map has water, otherwise go for UEF unit cannon. Their is nothing that can stop cybran battleships on land, and if the cybrans don't have battleships the Unit cannon is a super factory with half cost units produced at ridiculous speed that eliminates travel time.

I also get annoyed with playing online because people are stupid. I played a few games recently with only land units, assassination victory. Those games were not decided by build order, strategy, or economy, they were decided by which team had players who took their ACU to the front line where they were vulnerable.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
I dunno about the cpu requirements, the game still does just about as much as sup com 1, it might just be that much more optimized. Graphics are noticeably degraded I suppose, but games that ran on hardware an order of magnitude less than sup com 1 had better AI and path finding.

The maps are smaller, the unit limit is substantially lower, all of the maps are streamlined in such a way that it hides the AI issues (the AI is about the same as supcom1s without mods, it does do some very stupid things though, like no nuke defense late game, fails to scale attacks up late game, fails to strategically use long range units at all).
 

EvilComputer92

Golden Member
Aug 25, 2004
1,316
0
0
Supcom 2 has a "Universe at War" feeling to it. Anyone remember that game?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_at_War:_Earth_Assault

Probably the most forgettable and oddest RTS I was ever a part of. (UAW)

Westwood Studios, or as the call themselves Petroglyph, made it also. It just goes to show all the idiots who say that Westwood should have kept making CNC games instead of EA. Of course, EA screwed up the franchise by CNC4 also, but they did CNC3 much better than Westwood would have. UAW sucked. In fact all of Petroglyph's game's have been pretty bad, with the exception of Empire at War.

More on topic, I didn't like Supcom 1 or Supcom 2. I thought TA was much better that both. Supcom 1 just felt way too large scale while Supcom 2 went in the other direction. TA had a balance where you could have large scale battles but still effectively engage in more fast paced small battles.
 
Last edited:

AlgaeEater

Senior member
May 9, 2006
960
0
0
Westwood Studios, or as the call themselves Petroglyph, made it also. It just goes to show all the idiots who say that Westwood should have kept making CNC games instead of EA. Of course, EA screwed up the franchise by CNC4 also, but they did CNC3 much better than Westwood would have. UAW sucked. In fact all of Petroglyph's game's have been pretty bad, with the exception of Empire at War.

More on topic, I didn't like Supcom 1 or Supcom 2. I thought TA was much better that both. Supcom 1 just felt way too large scale while Supcom 2 went in the other direction. TA had a balance where you could have large scale battles but still effectively engage in more fast paced small battles.

Wow you learn something everyday, thanks for the information about Petroglyph.

Yeah I know a lot of C&C purists didn't like 3, but I thought it was pretty fun and FELT like C&C. C&C 4 was absolutely what I considered "Not like C&C at all". But hey, beating a dead horse at this time.

Anway, Supcom Gold edition is being way overpriced right now. You could have gotten that for $10 dollars on Steam or so on Amazon for a long...long time already. I'm not sure if SupCom 2 had anything to do with it though, but who knows.
 

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,604
15
81
Westwood Studios, or as the call themselves Petroglyph, made it also. It just goes to show all the idiots who say that Westwood should have kept making CNC games instead of EA. Of course, EA screwed up the franchise by CNC4 also, but they did CNC3 much better than Westwood would have. UAW sucked. In fact all of Petroglyph's game's have been pretty bad, with the exception of Empire at War.

More on topic, I didn't like Supcom 1 or Supcom 2. I thought TA was much better that both. Supcom 1 just felt way too large scale while Supcom 2 went in the other direction. TA had a balance where you could have large scale battles but still effectively engage in more fast paced small battles.

C&C3 was total garbage.

Westwood are not petroglyph, westwood died when they were disbanded only some of them banded together to form petroglyph.

Westwood's C&C would have been 100x better than the trash EA put out.
 

Vdubchaos

Lifer
Nov 11, 2009
10,408
10
0
I played the demo, it was ok. I liked it but it had little replay value.

From videos etc I thought the CEO was a total douche....

I might buy it when it's $4.99 on steam....