Inspired by all the Supreme Commander talk in the Games You're Looking Forward To thread, I looked up Supreme Commander 2, which comes out for PC on March 2nd in North America and March 5th in Europe followed by the 360 version later that month. I like the new graphics and level design. The new research feature seems pretty interesting, although I wish they had done away with the ACUs. Having an avatar in the world just doesn't fit the large-scale strategy feel of the game and I'm sure there are other ways to deal with early game rushes.

 

Here's a gameplay trailer with Chris Taylor.

Edited February 16, 201015 yr by Purkake

There are cannons which "shoot" your troops across the battlefield. These troops are 10-feet-tall robots at the very least.

 

Seems like it's taking a weird direction, and honestly it never was all that good of an RTS.

Well, one thing I like right off the bat is the new map stylings. One of the problems with SC has always been that there's basically only flat or hilly terrain, no chasms or anything.

@Will: That part was pretty weird, yes. The dropships worked fine in the first game and you could even set them up to keep ferrying units to a certain location which was awesome.

 

SupCom is great for playing against human opponents, the campaign and skirmish are pretty average.

Edited February 16, 201015 yr by Purkake

The one drawback to SupCom that I've seen is the fact that often bases can really be placed anywhere. I'd love it if they set up some sort of supply system where you'd have to do things like take the city in the preview they showed, just so you could have a supply center on the mainland to prevent you from running out of steam after your inital thrust.

 

Of course if they did that they'd move into wargame stuff, rather than RTS.

I think a system that encourages a support structure would be nice. This way you could build your cloaked missile bases in remote areas, but would have to use a much more expensive power plant than if you were building around some pre-placed energy source.

 

You don't really need actual supply lines when you only have robots and orbital support.

Edited February 16, 201015 yr by Purkake

The troop launching is kind of weird. The economy changes are disappointing from what I've heard (heard SupCom's economy was complex...right). I don't really see being able to raise bases anywhere as a drawback, in MP it makes for a very fluid (of sorts) battlefield.

The troop launching is kind of weird. The economy changes are disappointing from what I've heard (heard SupCom's economy was complex...right). I don't really see being able to raise bases anywhere as a drawback, in MP it makes for a very fluid (of sorts) battlefield.

not saying its' a drawback, just that it'd create situations where the planet felt like a civilized planet rather than a gigantic plane with all the civvies hidden.

 

As to sup coms economy, I'm re-installing now, but IIRC it was almost exactly like TA's in that you had mass and energy levels, and you had to keep your income outdoing your usage. If you didn't, EVERYTHING shut down.

 

I think in the expansion they actually had to nerf the income because people could make small resource centers and fight thousand unit wars easily with it.

Actually you had all the battles on uncivilized planets with robots for a reason in the first game.

 

Yes, SupCom has mass and energy. What are they changing in this one?

Edited February 17, 201015 yr by Purkake

For SupCom 2 I think you can only build something if you have the resources to build it, rather than relying on the rates to sustain construction. So you need X mass and Y energy for Unit A. May be wrong, but it just seems like making it like every other RTS. I'll wait and see, I might be wrong in my assumption. Some of the battles do take place with civilians or civilian buildings around, it would be cool to fight in a map like the FA intro - basically a giant city - I agree. Not like TA, where...well every civilian was killed a long, long time ago

Edited February 17, 201015 yr by Malcador

Actually you had all the battles on uncivilized planets with robots for a reason in the first game.

 

Yes, SupCom has mass and energy. What are they changing in this one?

cept that the last of the campaign missions were all taking place on earth, actually on the japan islands IIRC because the UEF built a weapon that'd fire through the gates and...

 

as to resources? I have no clue.

I am very much looking forward to this and will buy it after a few good reviews come out. I had a lot of fun taking 6 hours per mission in the expansion pack. I love turtling up and watching enemies smash into my shields/defenses while I build my superweapons in RTSes, and SupCom did that kind of stuff really well.

@Calax: Well, yeah, but that kind of firepower and civilians just don't mix, you might just as well nuke the planet from the orbit.

 

@Matthew: That was fun, but trying to coordinate a multi-pronged assault with air and tactical missile support was even better

Edited February 17, 201015 yr by Purkake

I love SupCom... I loved TA, I'm pretty certain I will love SupCom2.

I love SupCom... I loved TA, I'm pretty certain I will love SupCom2.

 

Heck, I'm even in that rare breed of individuals who liked Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. Nothing like an army of Mage Archers spamming down anything that stood in their path.

Why rare? Kingdoms was fun!... for a while. But it wasn't a bad game.

Yeah, SupCom is one of the few games where you actually can turtle Most games are designed to prevent turtling.

Plenty of ways to crack the turtles though.

That's where the fun comes in.

 

There's no point in just disallowing turtling, it's a valid strategic option. You just have to make the game so that you can use your freedom of movement to your advantage and balance it out in the end.

Yeah, I can kinda see where most groups come from, they don't want a guy to win by default because he can turtle so long that the others have to go to bed. But removing turtling as a viable option just doesn't work. I do love standing back and watching as MASSIVE armies slam against my defenses, trying to get through.

 

Although, that is one of the things about SupCom that kinda makes turtling uninteresting, there aren't that many strategic choke points for you to lock up. Instead you basically lock up your base with walls... made from defense guns. Of course one of the nice balances is that while defense guns are powerful, they go down like nobodies business if there is enough of the opponent swamping you. My standard defense usually had a wall of the smaller guns, backed up by trios of AA guns, and finally a small forest of the big shelling cannons that did the most damage when the opponent was held down by the smaller guns.

You could also have a much larger "defense zone" around your base to discourage air raids and whatnot. Bunching everything up was a recipe for disaster.

Edited February 17, 201015 yr by Purkake

You could also have a much larger "defense zone" around your base to discourage air raids and whatnot. Bunching everything up was a recipe for disaster.

well that's just my "front line" I always have just random defensive locations around.

I love SupCom... I loved TA, I'm pretty certain I will love SupCom2.

 

Heck, I'm even in that rare breed of individuals who liked Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. Nothing like an army of Mage Archers spamming down anything that stood in their path.

 

I never played it sadly.

 

I just think the tech is pretty awesome, I'm loving their new art style.

They should totally but cloaked anti-air missile batteries into SupCom 2, damn air raids always killed my shields.

That's why you have CAP. I find having fighters patrolling outside usually helps deal with most raids, well unless it's really, really huge, with your AA. Ah I miss the "everything shoots at everything" in TA. You'd see a Hawk zip over your base, your missile turrets, artillery, laser cannons all try to track it for a shot.