Chris Taylor's Supreme Commander?

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.
21 answers Last reply
More about chris taylor supreme commander
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
    >
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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."
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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
    >
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games IBM Video Games