Re: Where are all the Supreme Commander players!

**Gambit7** · 04-25-2007, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by ainselie

Mr. Gambit7 - you've been crashing silly!!

well, the last crash was due to ISP maintenance. BUT, I did find a sweet spot at 3.2GHz. Right now I dont wish to raise the voltage so I'll stick there until I need more juice. 3.4GHz was doable but not reliable unless I'm over 1.46 Volts.

**Iceberg** · 04-25-2007, 01:42 PM

So gambit will be hosting now

**Twisted_Firestarter** · 04-25-2007, 08:28 PM

I too would like to hear some opinions comparing this game to Company of Heroes. I liked SC when I played the beta, but it didn't seem to have nearly the character or depth of gameplay. There are a lot of build options but it just wasn't all that "fun". Maybe I didn't play with it long enough?

**Gambit7** · 04-25-2007, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by Twisted_Firestarter

I too would like to hear some opinions comparing this game to Company of Heroes. I liked SC when I played the beta, but it didn't seem to have nearly the character or depth of gameplay. There are a lot of build options but it just wasn't all that "fun". Maybe I didn't play with it long enough?

That's the thing... it takes a long time to really grasp all the subtle nuances of the game. All of us who play are STILL learning and regularly get our butts handed to us.

I betaed CoH a long time ago but my rig wasnt enough to take advantage. Tactically, SC has more depth on a wider scale IMO. BUT, CoH probably beats it on graphics and eye-candy, ability to destroy the map, etc.

SC is about resource-management AND placement (you wouldnt believe the elaborate matrices people come up with to gain a subtle advantage). In CoH there really is no resource building and management, only where you place stuff (if I remember correctly). This aspect is dumbed down.

SC is the only RTS ever made that allows you to go to individual unit lvl AND global level. It's about huge armies, how you handle info. overload, and tactical speed. Although the ability to "snipe" someone is always there.

CoH is more of a game about maneuvering and requires less micromanagement. It's also more of a mainstream game. SC seems to be the "dorkier" of the two. My brain hurts after a few tough sessions and I have to take a break. CoH seems a bit easier on the noggin and you can pull all-nighters like the Age of Empires days of old.

Anyways, I'm tired of WWII games but I might give it a shot on this new rig. But in reality, SC to me is the penultimate RTS game. The community is great, it's a small company, and I really like the game replay and ranking system.

**Banyan** · 04-27-2007, 10:30 AM

I can tell it's gonna take me some time to get the flow and concepts of this game. Getting an OEM copy didn't help as there was no manual. I've had little time to search their forums for a commands cheat sheet and even the basics on build order/placement, etc.

A LOT to learn.

**Gambit7** · 04-27-2007, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Banyan

I can tell it's gonna take me some time to get the flow and concepts of this game. Getting an OEM copy didn't help as there was no manual. I've had little time to search their forums for a commands cheat sheet and even the basics on build order/placement, etc.

A LOT to learn.

best way to learn: watch the replays
It's a VERY wonderful tool within the GPGNet interface and very easy to use. Surprisingly, the replays are pretty entertaining as well... and you get to provide a critique and rating afterwards...hehe

There are a few players to look for... "unconquerable" is the best player on the server - sometimes I think he's some kind of bot. Any of the "ELITE" clan are good, specifically "elite-bomber." "Yehoshua" is good. There are many others but I forget their names. HEY! You can check out some of our replays too, keyword "Gambit7" or "Ainselie" or "Haveaniceday" or "squeek"

**amu107.9** · 04-27-2007, 04:39 PM

I will be gaming tonight from 7 central to around 11pm central.
I will be online with TS and xfire.

**Jimbostein** · 04-29-2007, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Banyan

I can tell it's gonna take me some time to get the flow and concepts of this game. Getting an OEM copy didn't help as there was no manual. I've had little time to search their forums for a commands cheat sheet and even the basics on build order/placement, etc.

A LOT to learn.

The manual for the game is located at C:\Program Files\THQ\Gas Powered Games\Supreme Commander (or wherever your game folder is located). The readme file also contains the shortcuts/hotkeys for the game.

What I found to be valuable were the videos in the tutorial section. They covered everything I needed, as well as some containing some good starting tips. Aside from the basic how-to-play videos, the advanced onces goes into unit ferrying and other things. Check it out!

**Gambit7** · 04-30-2007, 02:47 PM

Tutorial-wise this game is VERY good.. compared to CoH I actually believe SC has a better tutorial. CoH's is very basic and dumbed-down.

I retract my prior statement about CoH having less micromanagement, after playing it a bit it's quite the opposite. CoH is ALL micromanagement on a much smaller scale. You literally have to manually move guns from left to right, etc (firing angles). Not to mention picking them up to switch, etc. It's probably the most "intimate" RTS I've ever played.

CoH's view is extremely limited, we're talkin squad level here. This I didnt like and I found myself on the horizontal view all the time. Graphically, CoH pwns and will require a bigger GPU, but smaller CPU than SupCom.

Basically, CoH is a squad-based tactical RTS and SupCom is a global-combat strat/tactical RTS. Overall, SupCom has way more replayability IMO and a depth of strat AND tactics that blow CoH away. Yes, it pays the price in graphics... BUT, IMO the graphics are at the "sweet-spot" where they're good enough to get the job done on a massive scale. It's very optimized.

Units in SupCom are entirely by the numbers, meaning the damage, armor, etc. are static (i.e. 2 of the same units will kill eachother if they square off simultaneously). The only wild card is the tactics/strat you employ (formations, coordinated attacks, etc.) This is the ONLY RTS ever to be able to do this on this scale. CoH seemed a bit more luck-of-the-draw, with unit "veterancy" and cover the ultimate decider... upgrading units was interesting though - alas, micromanagement.

Last night in SupCom I got put in a 1v1 ranked game on a map designed for 8 people. It really gave me a chance to admire the game since there was so much room, resources, and plenty of bandwidth. Needless to say I was barely able to sleep last night and dreamt of new strats I could employ. Unfortunately, I got beat by a lucky t3 gunship that got through my radar/aa-net w/o alerting the fighters, and hit my Commander even though he was partially in the shields. I was way ahead in resources and bombarding his base in prep. for a t3 strat bomber run on his commander. He smartly hid his commander in an odd place and the attack failed while he sent his gunship on mine (i was distracted).
As you can see, there's a lot goin on with this game and I only barely scratched the surface with the strats that went on in just that one ranked game, and honestly, I really didnt do that much. But also, if you're sneaky and smart- even if you're not a resource hog you can easily win. You can also micromanage your way to victory if you so choose. I've heard of people raising and lowering shields timed perfectly against arty attacks so the shield regens on time.

I routinely have been getting to bed at 4am lately playing this damned game. I find myself wanting to practice so I can humiliate people. I did not get that feeling playing CoH - granted, I havent played CoH multiplayer... but from what I've heard it's pretty frustrating given the disparity between vet and new players. Also seems like TS is a MUST on CoH, the squad maneuvers are too intimate to play out slowly in chat or on-the-fly.

Overall, CoH seems like a GREAT game on one level (the squad) and if you like graphical/audio immersion. If you're more of a strategically oriented person and want total war control, then SupCom is for you.

**Tempus** · 05-04-2007, 11:42 AM

Ok, I bought the game. I'm sure I suck. When/where do you guys play?

**Ainselie** · 05-05-2007, 03:23 AM

we play on GPGnet - though we're more often on teamspeak sitting in the supcom channel waiting for a game

**Gambit7** · 05-08-2007, 02:23 AM

I've been out of town since last thursday, but will be back tonight (tuesday). Expect to see me.

btw: those who get in-game, make sure to get invited into the clan and try to induct your friends and players you meet into the clan as well. Everyone in the clan automatically has the ability to invite.

**Gambit7** · 05-10-2007, 01:14 AM

I just checked our clan rankings and we're 261 out of like 3000... not bad for a start. I think I'm gonna start playing more ranked games.

**Ainselie** · 05-12-2007, 01:42 AM

Check again, we're 114 now - i don't know how this thing does its ranking though

**Icefoxen** · 05-18-2007, 05:27 AM

CoH versus SupCom is interesting. It is sort of like comparing an apple to an orange, to use a cliché. They are really very, VERY different games despite both being "RTS," and I would never say that one is "better" than the other. I love both, really, though I have a mild preference for SupCom.

If you want RTS that takes the genre to the next level of realism and has more a focus on tactical play, go CoH. If you want a game that is epic in scale and actually puts the "strategy" back into RTS games, then go with SupCom. Be aware that SupCom is not going to be a realistic experience at all, and is more for the sci-fi geek that loves the idea of commanding an unstoppable army of robots, nukes, and artillery platforms capable of leveling islands in a matter of minutes if you have enough energy. CoH would be more for your realism-obsessed, tactical-based RTS player.

One of the fascinating things about SupCom is how the strategy blends in with the tactical elements. If you focus too much on the tactical you can very easily get wiped out strategically. Sure, winning that one battle on the northern beach of the island is important and all, but if you forget to establish your nuke defenses while you are busy managing that battle, you might just end up wiped off the map. Alternatively, there are plenty of tactical elements you can use to counter strategic ones, and vice versa. For instance, layering different strengths of shield systems within your base is a wise idea if your enemy builds artillery, so that if one shield layer fails, there is another beneathe it to cover for the primary "large" shield's failure until the large shield can come back up again.

One of my favorite things about SupCom is playing the 81kmx81km maps that have large divides of ocean. You actually have to think about strategic implications here, and the usefulness of the good old fashioned "carrier battlegroup" proves itself in these situations. I always thought the carrier was a waste of funds until I started playing on the larger maps. Makes you realize why modern military strategy is how it is in real life.

Also, on these maps, the best artillary in the game and even STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS do not reach all the way across the map. Want to nuke your enemy's base? Get a nuke silo or a strategic missile sub there first! Makes you think a little more in order to use your strategic "win button," beyond simply "let's send a strike team in to wipe out their nuke defense buildings!"

So which do you want? Modern-day combat with people (and thus more character, as you put it, since you aren't dealing with cold machines), realism, and tactics; or futuristic combat with robots, an absurdly wide scale, and strategic element? I am convinced they are both fabulous games, they are just for two entirely different play styles.

Would love to play SupCom sometimes with you folks. Just be aware I am entirely unsure what my skill level is, given I have only played with my local friend in comp stomps. Hit me up with a PM if any of you would like to play.

Thread Tools

Display