Command & Conquer

Brazil? I'd rather guess Japan or something...

Hmm, now I wanna read the book after watching it. As that would have more detailed stuff imo.

EA's online store front.

http://store.origin.com/

Has it robinson ? Trying to stay on topic here. Might be those other fellows who just seem keen on extreme conservatism from fear of the new.

I probably do. I think it retained C&C's simplistic gameplay while ditching economy and teching, therefore highlighting the crappy combat mechanics. It pretends to be a tactical game whilst shaming EA and the RTT genre.

It was a joke.

You have got to be a troll, because C&C4 was a tactical game without tactics. All you do is spam. There's no complex cover system, no suppression, no outflanking, no fields of fire, the game is shite.

Am I the only person on those forums which thinks that actual tactical combat is not only immersive but also fun?

The best parts of C&C are the fights, especialy those which aren't dealt with in 20 seconds and you have actualy two forces struggling over said area of the map for a longer period time. I dislike the majority of the game being "send units to point A -> go to base do x y z then order units at point B to do f -> check the result of combat at point A". I enjoy multitasking, base building and C&C economy, but the fight themselves are too often a short, tactic-less result of your pre-fight actions. Not that preparing for a fight doesn't matter, but it's just sad that combat has such a relatively small screentime in a war game - Too often fights are taking place offscreen when you are busy with something else.

My best memories are from RA3 when I menaged to stop an assult of Apocalypse tanks on my defensless base with a good micro of just a few rocket troopers at max. I think such things take place too rarely.

What do you think about adding a General profile campaign mode in which you could level up your general in different aspects. This could allow you to upgrading your units across games and chosing different paths such as being support focused, tank focused or infatry focused etc.

Tell me what you think about this idea?

Ive been playing the whole command and conquer series since it began in 1995, all I can tell you is Generals Zero Hour was my all time favourite. but it was lacking in 2 Major Things..1) Map Size ..they need to be bigger in order to allow 8 player matches to be all out brawls (small maps are no good for 8 players), 2) Make sure it doesnt crash when 8 players are playing with all on high (due to cache memory in windows). When i say large maps I mean similar in size to those in "Supreme Commander".

Stick with what works, don´t kill the game the way EA killed Tibierum sun 4 (WE LOVE MAKING BASES!!!!!) WE LOVE BIG MAPS!!! WE DONT LOVE CRASHES, AND WE LOVE 8 PLAYER SKIRMISHES!!!!!

also ZERO HOUR BEING ABLE TO CHOOSE DIFFERENT GENERAL TYPES WAS A GENIOUS IDEA!! PLEASE KEEP THAT AVAILABLE ALSO.

I could care less about anything else, as its just the topping on the cake, but the above is very important.
Thank you.

What would be interesting is if one faction used MCV's.

infantry would gain more use if the trees wernt able to be run down,
if there was terrain only accessible to troops (like emperor)

as in access up cliffs only to troops,
fox holes,
trenches,
ability to hide behind creates/sandbags/dumpsters etc,
hide in rubble of damaged or destroyed buildings
camouflage in trees/bushes

In Generals 1, an angry mob could take on multiple tanks and individual infantry and win.

Your argument is invalid.




More control doesn't mean a better game. You could aswell want to click on enemy each time you want your units to shoot, that's also more control. Just kinda' results in horrid gameplay (Unless you're a psycho like AGM).

------

I still think that the only way to get infantry functioning properly is to put them in squads. Otherwise they are either useless without spamming, or ridiculusly overpowered compared to vehicles. Neither of those is good.

But I still think the basic way infantry is treated in RTS games is wrong. Why? They act like small vehicles that are cheaper and can garrison buildings. Which also required a riddiculus amount of micro.

Just to get infantry into a building, you need to click on them, click on the building, they get in.. You loose control because apparently getting inside a building puts them in a completely different plane of existence. When you want to move them out, you click on the structure, then on a button which is on the edge of the screen.

Why can't we have it the real way: You order the units into a building, then they just enter it and instead of dissapearing from existence, they use it as very heavy cover? That's how it works in the real world. Soldier enter the building and that's it.

In short, this should work the same as moving infantry to any other area of map, just with heavy cover. No additional clicking and stuff.

Your argument is invalid.

instead of having generals as in zh, you should be offered to select nations:

european union:
- germany: better armored but slower units, heavy tanks available
- france: more firepower for units but slower rate of fire, small nukes available
- united kingdom: better infantry but costly, sas special forces available, trenches available

gla:
- saudi-arabia: straightforward army (heavy tanks, aircraft), but no real sneaky tactics
- iran: more dirty tactics (chemical/nuclear weapons), but lack of heavy units
- syria: fanatic army, fast units, but lack of heavy tanks/toxins/aircraft

third factions (maybe asia):
- china: high & cheap infantry reserves, but lacks fast scout units
- russia: cheap heavy armor, but costly aircraft
- india: innovative and durable units, with slightly lower hitpoints per unit though

Here's what I want to see in terms of generals powers design:

1. Instead of point and click destruction, I want to see more unlocks. Not necessarily units, but access to upgrades (which still need to be researched) as well.

2. Any non-destructive point and click power should be changed so that it's not so point and click. For example consider emergency repair in ZH vs the equivalent power scrin had in C&C 3. In ZH, you just point and click and its done. Boring. In C&C 3, it created drones that appear on the map that you have to keep your army near in order to heal/repair. This is more interesting. Not much more interesting, but more interesting none-the-less.

3. Any point and click destructive powers should require you to keep spending XP. They should NOT be automatically giving to you on a timer after you earn enough XP to unlock it. Then there will be some proper decision making going on. Say to unlock a carpet bomber requires 1500XP as it currently does in ZH. Then if you want to use it again, you have to spend another 750XP on it after its timer has cooled down. The decision comes as to whether you want to spend that XP on something else. You could spend it on one-time unlocks, or comparatively cheaper support powers.

4. Using the principle above, we could also spend XP on powerful units rather than on boring carpet bombers and moabs. Rather than just unlocking something like the Paladin, you can only buy one of these units when you have enough money to do so. It doesn't even have to be that powerful, maybe something like a couple fully promoted Tomahawks. Basically anything that gives you meaningful choices between huurrrrrr duurrrrrr michael bay powers, and more skillful support style powers.

I am not sure what you mean by the term "innovation" since it seems to be used as a broadly stroked paintbrush to say something new to the genre. however when you say it is used to solve problems, I disagree. A problem for example, being a game play mechanic is not necessarily a problem to be solved, but an attempt to try something new.

I think Innovation comes from the idea of being creative instead of a cookie cutter or by chance. Your example of WiC, seemed overextended on the idea that innovation saved 40 minutes of base building, when it was more then that and a little deeper then then there being bases or no bases. WiC implemented a method of playing RTS multiplayer where a person is part of a whole that guides a team to victory other then 1 skilled player single handed-ly winning the game. Team work was invaluable in the game, and no one could just run in and destroy the other team. Plus it gave the idea of roles in a battle field. I thought it was dynamic and interesting. but that is my opinion.

Innovation is *in my terms* forgetting a game formula and trying something new. Sure maybe the Devs thought base building was monotonous, so they cut it and figured lets form something new. Saying they saw a problem seemed a little " broad".

Why not just have a group of singular soldiers and put them in a control group?