Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Chris Taylor's Supreme Commander?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 12:02:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I'm curious about whether or why not Chris Taylor's Supreme Commander
has been discussed here.

I don't know anything about it. I guess it is not yet in progress
even, but it is still interesting to me.

Anybody know anything about if and where he might head with it?

I'm playing Age of Empires Conquers because I can find players. Total
Annihilation is still a better real-time strategy game IMO.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 12:02:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I've seen a movie of the gameplay and the screens and it looks
interesting but gimicky. As bad as the Dungeon Siege series is, and
the fact that TA kingdoms came out at all points to the fact that maybe
the original TA was a fluke and that Supreme Commander will similar
i.e.: real bad.

However hoping for the best while expecting the worst, it certainly
will be the true heir to the Total Annihilation mantle. I originally
thought TA was the king of the RTS's but reduntant units (no need for
Kbots and Tanks, they both act the same in game) and slow as molasses,
supremacy of the defence style gameplay (especially the
watermaps...geez) have really proved that Starcraft and Warcraft 3 are
the high water marks in the genre.
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 3:09:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 20 Sep 2005 06:19:35 -0700, "littlemute" <littlemute@woodenmen.org>
wrote:

> I originally
>thought TA was the king of the RTS's but reduntant units (no need for
>Kbots and Tanks, they both act the same in game) and slow as molasses,

A few things:

- Kbots are faster and are better at climbing.
- Vehicles have better armour and construction.
- Arm units are generally slightly faster than Core counterparts.
- Core units are generally stronger than Core counterparts.

Other than that, the real tactics involve special units local to a tech
tree, combined with regular armements. (e.g. the heavy tanks are sent on a
frontal attack, while zippers sneak around the back at the same time your
tanks arrive.)

>supremacy of the defence style gameplay (especially the
>watermaps...geez) have really proved that Starcraft and Warcraft 3 are
>the high water marks in the genre.

Actually, Starcraft and Warcraft 3 both have problems. Granted, they
aren't necessairly as bad as most other games which only pormit one single
target.

TA merely chose a different method of fixing the problem, by giving each
unit a turret.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 10:26:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

What are the problems with Warcraft 3? It's all about battle micro and
unit counters, the games are fast and furious, and the gameplay is
completely dominated by offense which makes for exciting games without
the sloughing through 5 lines of defenses because you didn't do a flash
tank/commander rush.

Were the differences distinct enough to justify basically an entirely
different tech tree just for Kbots? Kbots don't really act as infantry
(can't take cover) and are basically tanks with legs instead of treads,
and the tanks, of course, can move and fire. I started playing the
Close Combat series around the time entire weekends were lost trying to
play single games of TA on a water map (or when the newbz won't play
unless it's a metal world...) and it just had such a distinct focus on
combined arms, use of cover and fast, sharp, definitive combats
compared to TA.

In contrast, both Starcraft and TA give the players the ability to lose
their entire army and then sit back with their defenses to build up
another one, making for a very long game. Where warcraft 3 shines is
that if you lose your army, you lose the game, period. Losing towns
and buildings is much less of a blow. This removes the 'fire and
forget' with your armies that plagues all the Civ-style RTS, as well as
TA, that is you just select a mass of units and attack move somewhere
into the enemies area, then go back to managing your cities.

But anyway, what about Supreme Commander will make it better than TA?
Graphics, ok of course, the fact that you can zoom out to see an entire
planet? neat but I don't think so.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:57:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 21 Sep 2005 06:26:31 -0700, "littlemute" <littlemute@woodenmen.org>
wrote:

>What are the problems with Warcraft 3? It's all about battle micro and
>unit counters, the games are fast and furious, and the gameplay is
>completely dominated by offense which makes for exciting games without
>the sloughing through 5 lines of defenses because you didn't do a flash
>tank/commander rush.

Warcraft 3 is still not designed for realistic engagements. As an example,
set your necromancers to auto-cast raise dead - you get a bunch of
skeletons that hold position just before the combat area that are not part
of any group.

>
>Were the differences distinct enough to justify basically an entirely
>different tech tree just for Kbots? Kbots don't really act as infantry
>(can't take cover) and are basically tanks with legs instead of treads,
>and the tanks, of course, can move and fire.

Kbots can do the same. As an example, send a PeeWee on a run through the
enemy base with +shootall.

>
>In contrast, both Starcraft and TA give the players the ability to lose
>their entire army and then sit back with their defenses to build up
>another one, making for a very long game.

No - if an army is lost in an RTS, the game is also generally lost as well.
Most RTS games (including TA) have artillery attacks and superweapons that
shread defensive formations (unless such defences are used as an offensive
position, such as 4 Big Berthas supported with 2 flaks and 1 missile, and 4
plasma cannons.)

An long as RTS games focus on a one big blitzkrieg, a loss of the army
generally means the loss of the game. (That, and the fact that some
"defensive" units have no standing power.)

>Where warcraft 3 shines is
>that if you lose your army, you lose the game, period. Losing towns
>and buildings is much less of a blow.

Warcraft 3 isn't that simple. The game is only lost if you lose your army
*AND* your buildings in a short period of time. If you somehow reduce the
enemy army to scraps as well (yes, that happens), there's still a chance of
winning.

>This removes the 'fire and
>forget' with your armies that plagues all the Civ-style RTS, as well as
>TA, that is you just select a mass of units and attack move somewhere
>into the enemies area, then go back to managing your cities.

The fire and forget is not removed - there's plenty of auto-cast spells and
other rushes that allow the exact same tactic that's supposed to be taken
care of. For example, the infamous Hunter rush.

>But anyway, what about Supreme Commander will make it better than TA?
>Graphics, ok of course, the fact that you can zoom out to see an entire
>planet? neat but I don't think so.

You'll have to download the demo to find out.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 2:20:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"littlemute" <littlemute woodenmen.org> wrote:

> What are the problems with Warcraft 3? It's all about battle
> micro and unit counters, the games are fast and furious, and the
> gameplay is completely dominated by offense which makes for
> exciting games

What you're describing is arcade strategy, the popular side of
real-time strategy. Your idea of a strategy game is the same as a
first-person shooter action game, except for the view and the
ability to command multiple units.

Your concept of a good RTS is hardly strategy gaming.

<snipped stuff I disagree with about total annihilation but don't
feel like arguing about>

> In contrast, both Starcraft and TA

Starcraft's user interface could not hold a candle to Total
Annihilation's.

Either you don't understand what strategy gaming actually is or
you don't understand that popular real-time strategy is arcade
strategy, not strategy gaming.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but your comments are not about
strategy gaming. I'm just trying to give you a clue.


>
>
>
>
>
> Path: newssvr24.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm02.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: "littlemute" <littlemute woodenmen.org>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
> Subject: Re: Chris Taylor's Supreme Commander?
> Date: 21 Sep 2005 06:26:31 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 29
> Message-ID: <1127309191.270144.189570 f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> References: <Xns96D71F0A97D3wisdomfolly 207.115.63.158> <1127222375.727390.111640 g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <3oh1j19qir0u9k1g2ji31u4tevevlnbd2f 4ax.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.132.86.254
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1127309196 30402 127.0.0.1 (21 Sep 2005 13:26:36 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:26:36 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <3oh1j19qir0u9k1g2ji31u4tevevlnbd2f 4ax.com>
> User-Agent: G2/0.2
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.132.86.254; posting-account=Msmc9gwAAACjEmaA82DGJh_kImGW6824
> Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic:856708
>
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 10:42:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

You can make up whatever typologies you want to, but and RTS is an RTS,
if you build units on the same screen at the same time that you fight
it's an RTS just like DUNE 2, age of empires, Command and Conquere all
that. It's primarily tactical but not wholly so like Close Combat and
not a mixture of turn based and real time battles like the Total War
series. If you want me to say that Warcraft 3 is more arcade-like than
Age of Empires, I'll absolutely agree to it, but to put them in a
separate group so they cannot be compared when they're both RTS games?
Why? If you want to call certain RTS games 'strategy' games because
they are slow, don't require battle micro (do you even watch the
battles in TA let alone micro them?) and have superiority of the
defense (making for long, long boring games) it seems to me you're just
defending the slow, defensive pace of those games, which some people
like, others don't. Comparing Warcraft 3 and RON for instance is still
apples to apples, you still have rush/ anti rush tactics, you still
have battle micro, you just have a focus on town building in RON that
Warcraft 3 foregoes for more involved battle micro.

Most games I consider 'strategy gaming' aren't RTS, they're turn based.
Any game that you can build walls faster than the enemy can destroy
them (Age of Empires, RON, TA), is a more tactical mouse click fest
just like Dune 2, Herzog Zwei and Warcraft 3 compared to your Civ,
Dominions 2, etc.
September 22, 2005 10:54:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I never really got into TA but I accept that it's a well designed game.
Putting Starcraft and Warcraft3 into the same basket is ..... just ....
lame. Starcraft is an awesome RTS, imho way way more fun than TA,
though I will accept that TA has a much better UI, so there is no clear
winner - to each his own. Warcraft 3 does not come close to either game
- it's ALL about heroes, which massively reduces the number of viable
strategies. The great strength of SC and TA is that there is no obvious
winning strategy - you can win in a number of different ways, whichever
best suits your play style. In Warcraft3 you rush to boost your heroes
faster than the other guy and, er, that's it.

Ok yes I'm being deliberately harsh on W3 and generalising - yes it
does have other units and buildings etc., but if you take away the
heroes it has nothing that TA/SC don't have, and if you add the heroes
they dramatically unbalance the game.

CC
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:35:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I thought TA was better for a long time, but I actually gave Starcraft
a chance and it's started to come out on top due to the fact that the
resources run out and the game can actually have a conclusion rather
than "I have to go eat dinner now."
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:57:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Raymond Martineau wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2005 06:26:31 -0700, "littlemute" <littlemute@woodenmen.org>
> wrote:
>
> >What are the problems with Warcraft 3? It's all about battle micro and
> >unit counters, the games are fast and furious, and the gameplay is
> >completely dominated by offense which makes for exciting games without
> >the sloughing through 5 lines of defenses because you didn't do a flash
> >tank/commander rush.
>
> Warcraft 3 is still not designed for realistic engagements. As an example,
> set your necromancers to auto-cast raise dead - you get a bunch of
> skeletons that hold position just before the combat area that are not part
> of any group.

Could you explain this more? Do you mean they should be added to the
mage group? Say I have my frontline troops in one group, my focus
firing gargoyles in another group, and the mages/hero in the third.
Mages finish casting cripple or whatever your opening spell with them
will be then you switch them to autocast raise dead and they start
raising. Are you saying the skeletons should be part of a group
automatically? How would the computer know which group to put them in?
I'd rather have them in my frontline meat group.

>
> >
> >Were the differences distinct enough to justify basically an entirely
> >different tech tree just for Kbots? Kbots don't really act as infantry
> >(can't take cover) and are basically tanks with legs instead of treads,
> >and the tanks, of course, can move and fire.
>
> Kbots can do the same. As an example, send a PeeWee on a run through the
> enemy base with +shootall.
>

What I mean by this is accentuating the difference between tanks and
infantry, which TA by design doesn't have at all. Tanks cannot move and
fire. They move, stop, shoot, move, stop, shoot. They also have turrets
so the rotation time is a factor in firing. Thirdly they have a lower
ability to see units (especially infantry) nearby. Infantry has 360
fire arc at all times without no rotation time. Kbots have the same
limitations as tanks, they rotate their torsos, they can't take cover
and they have a facing. Their is essentially no differnce between them
except for speed.

> >
> >In contrast, both Starcraft and TA give the players the ability to lose
> >their entire army and then sit back with their defenses to build up
> >another one, making for a very long game.
>
> No - if an army is lost in an RTS, the game is also generally lost as well.
> Most RTS games (including TA) have artillery attacks and superweapons that
> shread defensive formations (unless such defences are used as an offensive
> position, such as 4 Big Berthas supported with 2 flaks and 1 missile, and 4
> plasma cannons.)
>
> An long as RTS games focus on a one big blitzkrieg, a loss of the army
> generally means the loss of the game. (That, and the fact that some
> "defensive" units have no standing power.)

This has not been my experience with TA. By the time someone gets a
chance to build 4 big bertha's it's usually time to stop playing due to
real life.

>
> >Where warcraft 3 shines is
> >that if you lose your army, you lose the game, period. Losing towns
> >and buildings is much less of a blow.
>
> Warcraft 3 isn't that simple. The game is only lost if you lose your army
> *AND* your buildings in a short period of time. If you somehow reduce the
> enemy army to scraps as well (yes, that happens), there's still a chance of
> winning.



>
> >This removes the 'fire and
> >forget' with your armies that plagues all the Civ-style RTS, as well as
> >TA, that is you just select a mass of units and attack move somewhere
> >into the enemies area, then go back to managing your cities.
>
> The fire and forget is not removed - there's plenty of auto-cast spells and
> other rushes that allow the exact same tactic that's supposed to be taken
> care of. For example, the infamous Hunter rush.

I don't know, I still micro alot when I huntress rush as I always take
my hero with, also why let them kill even one huntress if you can help
it? Just shadow them out (if it's night) or dance them away. They did
balance out the huntresses quite a bit, if you see one seige unit in
the enemy army by the time you rush, better hold off and tech as they
really put the hurt on the unarmored units.

The autocasts are autocasts because they're balanced in what they do
for you in battle compared to the click to casts. The elf mages in the
human army have the best dispel in the game, but it's click to cast,
while the Dryads have a weaker (one unit) auto cast dispel that is
overpowered by mass casting of say Bloodlust. Sending in an army
without micro is suicide, sure there are times against creeps that you
can start a battle, get in your first contact casts and focus fires,
then go back to your town to do stuff for a little bit, but against a
human opponent? You never know what sort of craziness they will pull,
even a simple health or mana potion can change the whole course of a
battle.

Contrast this with TA, where you typically micro only the salvage units
to clean up the scrapped units while the battle rages.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 5:21:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:02:56 GMT, John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid>
wrote:
>I'm playing Age of Empires Conquers because I can find players. Total
>Annihilation is still a better real-time strategy game IMO.

Agree.

There's some stuff at
http://archive.gamespy.com/landing/supremecom/

But I don't know if the ressource system will be the same as in TA.
It's not clearly said. I hope so

Guillaime
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 8:32:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I've just never really understood why people try and compare the likes of
the rather average Starcraft, to the truly great TA. I mean, just what on
earth do they hope to gain from it all?
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 2:36:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"littlemute" <littlemute woodenmen.org> wrote:

> You can make up whatever typologies you want to, but and RTS is
> an RTS, if you build units on the same screen at the same time
> that you fight it's an RTS just like DUNE 2, age of empires,
> Command and Conquere all that. It's primarily tactical but not
> wholly so like Close Combat and not a mixture of turn based and
> real time battles like the Total War series. If you want me to
> say that Warcraft 3 is more arcade-like than Age of Empires,
> I'll absolutely agree to it, but to put them in a separate group
> so they cannot be compared when they're both RTS games? Why?

I think they are about the same. Voice automating Age of Empires has
helped immensely, but I can do the same with WarCraft III, maybe even
more so since WarCraft III uses fixed maps.

The interface makes the difference.

> If you want to call certain RTS games 'strategy' games because
> they are slow, don't require battle micro (do you even watch the
> battles in TA let alone micro them?) and have superiority of the
> defense (making for long, long boring games) it seems to me
> you're just defending the slow, defensive pace of those games,
> which some people like, others don't. Comparing Warcraft 3 and
> RON for instance is still apples to apples, you still have rush/
> anti rush tactics, you still have battle micro, you just have a
> focus on town building in RON that Warcraft 3 foregoes for more
> involved battle micro.

I think you're doing the classical mis-evaluation.

You are confusing quick thinking with quick hands. Battle micro does
not necessarily involve mouse slinging. It just depends on the
interface.

I get the impression you do enjoy being able to sling a mouse faster
than your opponent and/or you appreciate seeing such skill. That
appreciation is not for strategy gaming, and mouse slinging is not a
necessary part of fast paced RTS.

The interface makes the difference.

> Most games I consider 'strategy gaming' aren't RTS, they're turn
> based.

I have no trouble envisioning an interface that allows for what you
describe as battle micro without requiring fast hands. Fast thinking
does not necessarily mean fast clicking, and vice versa.

Maybe the map sizes and unit limits will increase, but there must be
some point of diminishing interest. Maybe it will come down to how
fast you can scan a huge map with your eyeballs.

> Any game that you can build walls faster than the enemy
> can destroy them (Age of Empires,

Most walls in Age of Empires are counterproductive. The enemy quickly
knocks them down or uses them to shield their own troops, but your
partners have to go around them. Including lots of gates helps, but
it takes more time/effort and the enemy can knock down gates more
efficiently than wall segments. Building walls is usually a sign of
newbieness. Building walls in the backfield might be okay if you
include lots of gates.


I am really impressed by how fast some Age of Empires players are,
unless they are using automation like me. Improving the interface
definitely allows time to strategize, and there's so incredibly much
strategizing to be done in RTS. And the teamwork. I'm loving it.

If Supreme Commander is anything like Total Annihilation, I will
automate it to the extreme.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 2:41:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"littlemute" <littlemute@woodenmen.org> wrote:
> Raymond Martineau wrote:
>> "littlemute" <littlemute@woodenmen.org> wrote:

....
>> >and the tanks, of course, can move and fire.

>> Kbots can do the same. As an example, send a PeeWee on a run
>> through the enemy base with +shootall.

> What I mean by this is accentuating the difference between tanks
> and infantry, which TA by design doesn't have at all. Tanks
> cannot move and fire. They move, stop, shoot, move, stop, shoot.

Huh? I recall flash tanks running all over the map while shooting
things.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 8:35:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

There is little comparison between Total Annihilation and Starcraft.
The thing that sticks out most in my mind of course is Starcraft's
pathetic user interface versus total annihilation's primo user
interface.

That probably has to do with whether one prefers action or strategy.

In the last four weeks, three of my Age of Empires Conquers games
have lasted for over five hours. All three were four versus four
games and no one left until the end.

Real-time strategy is a new breed of strategy gaming, it's like
chess on steroids**. What better way to spend one's time. But that
probably also has to do with one's attention span, well and maybe
whether one is married heheh.





--
**that is assuming you are able to modify the user interface so that
it is not a mouse fight
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 10:17:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In TA they can move and fire! In real life(TM), they can't. This is
a design decision that they made about the game, and it's not a bad
one, but it removes the need for infantry units in the game. There are
none since again, Kbots don't act as infantry in the game.

In normal warfare, you cannot take and secure ground without infantry.
Sure tanks can punch through enemy lines and cause problems, but they
cannot hold territory or fully secure it against counter attacks when
unsupported by infantry. All I'm saying is that Kbots and Tanks in TA
fullfill a similar role to Armor in real warfare, and there is no true
infantry units in the game.
September 23, 2005 11:23:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

John Doe wrote:
> There is little comparison between Total Annihilation and Starcraft.

You are quite right - one is a soulless game with a good UI and the
other is a deeply immersive science-fantasy with an engrossing
campaign, great MP and a not-so-good UI.

CC
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 3:37:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

littlemute wrote:
> In TA they can move and fire! In real life(TM), they can't.

Modern tanks can. They have gyroscopic gun stabilizers.
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 12:05:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 23 Sep 2005 07:23:18 -0700, "magnate" <chrisc@dbass.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>You are quite right - one is a soulless game with a good UI and the
>other is a deeply immersive science-fantasy with an engrossing
>campaign,

Please, for each race the story was the same "I'm a rebel, the
authority is against me, but I'm right.".

Guillaume
Anonymous
September 28, 2005 8:10:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"magnate" <chrisc dbass.demon.co.uk> wrote in

> ... Starcraft is an awesome RTS, imho way way more fun than TA,
> though I will accept that TA has a much better UI, so there is no
> clear winner - to each his own.

There is a clear winner, depending on whether you enjoy fast arcade
action or strategy. The interface is everything. Planning ahead, not
"great micro", is strategy gaming.


>
>
> CC
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!news-xref1.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!news-router1.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: "magnate" <chrisc dbass.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
> Subject: Re: Chris Taylor's Supreme Commander?
> Date: 22 Sep 2005 06:54:10 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 18
> Message-ID: <1127397250.796483.37970 g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> References: <Xns96D71F0A97D3wisdomfolly 207.115.63.158> <qr45j117g0tdl2bi37dij85d8k46t9c06k 4ax.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.25.106.209
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1127397256 6618 127.0.0.1 (22 Sep 2005 13:54:16 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:54:16 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <qr45j117g0tdl2bi37dij85d8k46t9c06k 4ax.com>
> User-Agent: G2/0.2
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 PROXY1, 1.0 ULAWUN (NetCache NetApp/5.6.2)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=62.25.106.209; posting-account=3zWNxAwAAAArWBTNQ5tNPcpRoFOa8hal
> Xref: news.astraweb.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic:93888
>
Anonymous
September 28, 2005 11:04:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Yet these are still tactical games. What's your definition of strategy
vs tactics? I don't see much strategy in any RTS as you build buildings
on the same map at the same time as you fight. Starcraft and Warcraft
3 have a lot of planning ahead, scouting, countering the enemy unit
mix, choosing expansions, which are 'expendible' expansions and which
have to be defended, how to level up your hero with no unit losses, how
to get the most powerful item drops on the map first as well as the
micro being fast and furious because it's a game that you're playing,
not a movie where you're just sitting there watching tanks blow up, or
worse, sitting back nursing your town the whole time as battle rages.
The only difference between games like RON/TA and Warcraft/Starcraft
(though 1v1 TA games can be over pretty quick with flash tank/commander
rushes) is that the superiority of Defense over offense means slower
players have more time to think as they sit back and wait to be
attacked (usually on both sides), and, of course, there's less micro.
Anonymous
September 28, 2005 4:35:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

littlemute <littlemute@woodenmen.org> wrote:
> In TA they can move and fire! In real life(TM), they can't.

Of course they can. Accuracy is reduced, but a moderm MBT can fire on the
move and hit targets with no problem.

Tanks haven't had to stop to fire accurately for decades now.
!