Points I think VG should take to heart

[ConKid66]

6. Make the game semi fast paced. Red alert 3 was a little too slow for me. I believe the community rated Red Alert 2 as their favorite game correct? So I believe the game needs to retain that faced paced action the red alert 2 had. Something around StarCraft 2. This is important to me as well.

If SC2 is anything like SC1, it will be the slowest paced game ever. In SC, it takes what seems like half an hour just to get enough minerals to buy a Marine.

C&C 3 pace would be good.

[Commander32]

Yeah, I always liked the fast paced nature of the CnC games.

[RealWar]

If SC2 is anything like SC1, it will be the slowest paced game ever. In SC, it takes what seems like half an hour just to get enough minerals to buy a Marine.

C&C 3 pace would be good.

Lies. I found the best practice to making the ultimate marine rush by playing C&C. See, SC2 isn't a slow paced game, it's just the players have never played any fast paced C&C to get the hang of it.

[Mooff]

Sc2 is slow, maybe, just maybe it's not slow per gamedesign, but it definitely is slow by mapdesign. You basecially cannot attack the first 10 minutes cause the only way to access your opponents base is one single small choke.

Such a mapdesign should never ever make it into command and conquer.

[Golan2781]

The ridiculously open maps of TW weren't much better though. Both games put a drastic difference between defense and offense, forfeiting the choice which route to go or even of just taking a balanced stance in most circumstances because of the massive penalties. The "redeeming" feature of TW is that while you might make mistakes just as well, at least you don't have to wait ages to feel the consequences - both systems are quite frustrating though.

@OP
Sub-Factions (1)
Kinda agree that the implementation was bad every time they tried. It might work better if such specialization trees where integrated into a Generals-Point style system to have the gameplay play out a bit more predictable. The main problem of KW/ZH were the extreme differences in factions right from the start.

Pace (6)
A middle-ground between TW and RA3 seems about right. SC2 is too slow when it comes to propagating the consequences of your mistakes (meaning you can't really pinpoint flaws in your gameplay unless you are pretty good anyways) which should be avoided. Generals was about right.

[Mooff]

Ridiculously open? Not such a huge difference in tw/generals/ra2 there i would say.

Extremly flat, makeing basecrawling way too easy would be my point. Just look at ra2 how many hills, cliffs, rivers, rocks you have there to stop crawling.
Still, maps were only part of the gameplay problem tw had.

[Golan2781]

Ridiculously open? Not such a huge difference in tw/generals/ra2 there i would say.

Didn't say that either. :P While having maps as open as most of TW's, Generals also featured a good number of relatively closed maps.
The problem is more pronounced in TW than Gen though as it's generally much more difficult to stop an enemy due to low lethality and relatively high speed compared to map sizes. Compared to what a player can cover, openings are much more prominent in TW than Gens.

Still, maps were only part of the gameplay problem tw had.

True.

[hellodean]

i think the best way to go about it is to have a large collection of maps so that there is plenty of choice for all range of tactics. as well as the number of players on the maps.

(with free map pack releases after launch) perhaps a map generator like tiberian sun that was awesome. and alot more none semetrical maps.

[Adridos]

(I.E. like forza copying in some areasgran turismo, battlefield copying call of duty, and super meat boy copying super mario to name a few)

You make it really hard for me. I really hate to tell it, but you said crap again, although you corrected yourself and that's nice. But as a long time Battlefield fan (I playied all of them, except the Vietnam and those which are oon consoles too), I have to disagree with your post. Battlefield 1942 was released in September the 10th of 2002 (if you are American), while CoD was released on Octobr 29th of 2003. Arguing with me now is like telling, that SC copyied SC 2. Sorry for trying to correct you for the second time (it's a bit embarasing), but I had to tell the truth.

[Hardin7]

You make it really hard for me. I really hate to tell it, but you said crap again, although you corrected yourself and that's nice. But as a long time Battlefield fan (I playied all of them, except the Vietnam and those which are oon consoles too), I have to disagree with your post. Battlefield 1942 was released in September the 10th of 2002 (if you are American), while CoD was released on Octobr 29th of 2003. Arguing with me now is like telling, that SC copyied SC 2. Sorry for trying to correct you for the second time (it's a bit embarasing), but I had to tell the truth.

I'am with you on this. Especially all the pre battfield 2142 games. But you have to admit. Battlefield 3 got some ideas from call of duty with there persistitant leveling system and stuff. I dont think battlefield games had that stuff before. And that was clearly taking from Call of Duty.

Anyways, I also thought of somehting else the command and conquer game could use. This very important in my opinion. They need to not have a frame limiter!!! I beleive commmand and conquer 3, red alert 3, and command and conquer 4 had this. I hope they dont put that on the new one. If I have a super computer with quad sli graphics card. Don't limit me and my frames per second!

I'am really enjoying this thread though, keep the ideas coming hopefully the developers read this.