What gameplay changes you want to see in Generals 2?

[Havok2100X]

I don't care either way on the HUD display. I just want it to be an improved version of generals. Better graphics, lighting, destructible environments, hell of a lot more upgrades, large scale battles. Believe me with the FB2 engine it can be done.

[IonorRea]

What about integrating some stuff from C&C3 into Generals 2?

Paying for airstrikes:
- in C&C3 was presented interesting concept of paying for airstrikes and other targeted powers, this have profound impact on changing gameplay as player without money wasn't able storm metal on your base like in Generals ZH in case of Airforce or Superweapon general.

Potencial impact on Generals 2 gameplay:
+crippling economy will have higher impact on enemy player ability to fight back even when already have high rank powers and use turtle strategy.
+easier to balance infantry and vehicle paradrops.
+made use of airstrikes more demanding on player efficiency to be plausible choice to use it as this money can be used for building units as well. This means that there will be less airstrikes to be seen as they will be used not because are ready but because it's economicaly plausible to use it - so this adding economical depth for using powers.
-players with good unit managment but bad economy will have harder time to win, many players liked Generals right because even without economical advantage was player able win over overhelming numbers of enemy units if controled ineffectively with less experienced player.


Paying for some unit special abilities:
Are you for payed abilities for units like in case of C&C3 GDI infantry Foxhole ability to create bunker or APC ability to deploy mines if sufficient money are available?

Potencial impact on Generals 2 gameplay:
+like in case of paying for airstrikes also this ability managment add economical depth into using unit special abilities.
+potencial to add more useful unit abilities without breaking balance.
+chance to make missions with no base more interesting due limited mission budget on using special abilities.

[ScotlanD]

Preferred the being rewarded for better micro rather than how much money you collected element to generals!

[IonorRea]

I think it can work if second stage economy buildings/units (Black Markets, Hackers) will be limited, you than have to choose between investing into units or airstrikes/special abilities.
It's true that wihtout limitations on economics it will be somewhat frustrating for micro oriented players.
But with limitations on economics it can actualy provide more satisfaction for micro-oriented player and also add even for turtle player reqirement to expand forward bases for better economy if he want destroy enemy with airstrikes/general powers.

[godofcod58]

I want the infantry to act for themselves more. I thought it was annoying when the other teams tanks just ran over my infantry, and they didn't try to move out of the way or anything.

[P1nkalicious]

I want the infantry to act for themselves more. I thought it was annoying when the other teams tanks just ran over my infantry, and they didn't try to move out of the way or anything.

Your fault for sucking at micro.

[RaubhamsterXXL]

Some multiplayer suggestions:

The host should have more options to ensure the rules, in case there are any, aren't broken, meaning:


- the possibility to rejoin a game in case you lost your connection unless you got kickvoted for lag
- option to restrict super weapons to 0,1,2....etc.
- option to force all players random armies, random spots or even a random map!
- option to set a "anti rush timer" to 5min,10min or what ever you like. In Supreme Commander 2 for example there was a circle around your base that wouldn't let pass any of your units. Maybe the anti rush zone should scale with the map size.
- option to remove supply depos from the map
- option to limit blackmarkets, drop zones, hackers (of course the limit should be chosen for all armies at once, like the custom maps did: 4 dropzones, 4 blackmarkets and 16 hackers was pretty popular, but once the hackers were promoted it got unbalanced, but still it worked pretty good)
- option to adjust the amount of starting money from 0 to unlimited
- option to join a party and enter the prefered game mode, like 2v2v2v2, 3v3, 4v4...


I believe many of the generals 1 players would like to see this kind of options as it would make it possible to play the most loved game modes without rulebreakers:

no money maps (many people loved to play the game this way, unfortunately there were no host options to play every map this way, you needed custom maps)

no rush/sw (some people love to play it this way, give them the tools for doing so!)

unlimited money (for a quick and huge battle)

no rules except sw and aurora bomber (propably the most played game mode)

Regarding the last point: Don't include units that can't be killed/blocked before they attack!
Besides the superweapons of course.


Actually these are all the changes, besides a better networkcode, graphics and some tiny balancing, that I want to see in Generals 2, the rest was pretty perfect!
(The great music, the completely different way the armies felt while playing, the micromanagment, the buildings, money as the only important ressource (besides skill), the sound effects and of course all the different feedbacks each unit gave, the need to observe as much of the map as possible to build counter units, and of course the humor and semi-realistic scenario)

[[GR]Agm]

I want the infantry to act for themselves more. I thought it was annoying when the other teams tanks just ran over my infantry, and they didn't try to move out of the way or anything.

What if you needed them to kill a vital target right up until they die, but because they moved, they stopped killing that target, and they died anyway. Haven't you ever heard of sacrificing units to complete an objective? Not sure why you want the game to be making decisions for you, especially when those decisions can do you more harm than good.

Also your suggestion is unfair to other players who are actually taking the time to try and run over your infantry. If YOU are not paying attention, or YOU are too lazy to play the game, then YOU should be punished for it, not your opponent. Your infantry getting run over is a consequence of inadequate play - thats sort of the whole point of playing a strategy game online - that when you play better than someone, you are rewarded for it.

And yes, taking the time to run over your opponent's infantry, while he doesn't take the time to run them out of the way, is playing better.

No doubt a bunch of people from this community will come in here and try and argue that this is actually "fake difficulty" and that it's nothing more than a UI problem or some other such nonsense.

[Golan2781]

I feel the first is a much stronger point then the second. The second could be used in actual gameplay, i.e. you don't use your tanks with the intent to actually kill the enemy but to scatter and distract them, ensuring they don't get anything done unless the enemy player puts them on a tight leash manually.
I don't see what makes you think this would have any relation to fake difficulty or UI problems. Whether to disengage and evade or to follow orders is a complex decision, as you've said yourself it can be very important to sacrifice a unit to complete an objective. There's no clear universally superior decision here so a unit can hardly pick one automatically.

[IonorRea]

RaubhamsterXXL:
There is a lot of things that can improve MP and i think it will by useful to make new thread specialy for best MP features to be implemented into new Generals.
But there are already some threads about better customisation options for MP and additional features like Major tournaments live streams ingame thread in Generals forum or Advanced Game Settings thread in Community Developer Area/Generals 2 which is probably better place to put your ideas.
http://www.commandandconquer.com/for...-Game-Settings

As for me I think that tech level from Tiberian sun was better than simple SW limitations as cover multiple limitations in one function. In Generals 2 if same mechanics used as in predecesor can be complemented with max. allowed general rank.
No-rush limit isn't required if there will be optional choice to allow players build walls which can be in my opinion more interesting for turtle players that usualy want tech up before attacking opponent.

godofcod58:
It can be done for heroes or expensive infantry (instead of simle inability of tanks to crush high tier infantry) but for basic infantry stuff (rifleman, rocket troops...) it cause problems within gameplay without adequate changes in tank weaponary to deal with infantry by other means which can be and will be problematic to balance...