New game mode idea

[godofcod58]

Think of the mode in Kane's Wrath where you controlled different cities and areas. Now, think of that in generals 2, but with a greater focus on WMD's and less focus on conventional forces. Each team starts with certain territory held, and you must capture different areas to secure different types of resources and things like missile silos or bio labs for things like diseases. Different WMD's would function differently, for example, nukes would be easier to control, but in a much smaller area than something like a disease, which would be more powerful, but harder to control. To win the game, you would have to destroy all of the enemies territories or capture their home country.

[Commander32]

Think of the mode in Kane's Wrath where you controlled different cities and areas. Now, think of that in generals 2, but with a greater focus on WMD's and less focus on conventional forces. Each team starts with certain territory held, and you must capture different areas to secure different types of resources and things like missile silos or bio labs for things like diseases. Different WMD's would function differently, for example, nukes would be easier to control, but in a much smaller area than something like a disease, which would be more powerful, but harder to control. To win the game, you would have to destroy all of the enemies territories or capture their home country.

Only thing I don't really like is the over-usage of Superweapons, I still prefer good old unit battles.

[godofcod58]

Only thing I don't really like is the over-usage of Superweapons, I still prefer good old unit battles.

The units would be more early game things, but superweapons would win the game.

[bombspy]

Sounds a bit like Endwar, where WMDs get accessible once one team is near victory. Near to the match end the WMDs can turn the tide of the battle or end it even faster.

[GeneralsProTony]

Decent idea but I'm afraid the superweapons may take too much emphesis off of conventional unit engagments and consequently lose it's traditional and praised character. The original is a great game, in my opinion one of the best, and a dramatic change to the games dynamics may in the end be an upset. I'm all for a "greater scope" and I like the idea of conquering teritories through subsequent battles, but to affect the in-battle experience would be a mistake.

[godofcod58]

There could be different layouts for the world, some focusing on superweapons and others more on conventional forces.

[GeneralsProTony]

In all truth, superweapons rarely had too significant of an impact on the game unless your playing a game of bunkering and the players build alot of them. At least this is the case for higher level gameplay where the game just couldn't be won by SW's alone. Superweapons have been a very small piece of the puzzle and I would have to insist they continue to hold a relatively small impact on the game. Sure many times SW are viewed as the "trump card" or "equalizer" in a battle, and granted after the huge investment they should hold some significant power, but I've always percieved SW as cheap and usually devalues the RTS essence. Thank goodness we can set stipulations before each game, otherwise it would be WMD madness.

[IonorRea]

In all truth, superweapons rarely had too significant of an impact on the game unless your playing a game of bunkering and the players build alot of them. At least this is the case for higher level gameplay where the game just couldn't be won by SW's alone. Superweapons have been a very small piece of the puzzle and I would have to insist they continue to hold a relatively small impact on the game. Sure many times SW are viewed as the "trump card" or "equalizer" in a battle, and granted after the huge investment they should hold some significant power, but I've always percieved SW as cheap and usually devalues the RTS essence. Thank goodness we can set stipulations before each game, otherwise it would be WMD madness.

I don't think that choice of no SW in custom games is necessary for better as you willingly removing one strategy layer from game (similary as by someone praised optional no rush rule) as much as limiting by standart rules SW on one per player and possibly also availability only after reaching certain rank(automatically or after spending point).
SW in Generals greatly decreased value of generals powers and rank itself as they were accessible and unlimited even when on small turnament maps it doesn't change much.

Small maps are comparable with small scale conflicts, so SW is usually overkill that mostly haven't time to repay itself, while on bigger maps with bigger scale economy it can be game changer, for example Particle Cannon sweep through few Black Markets and with help of generals powers complete wipe out of enemy second stage economy was pretty much death blow.

Generals SW rules were imo in comparison to other C&C set differently for fun reasons, not for optimal MP experience which suffer on big maps by both lacking and unlimited number of SW.
I don't remember that players were so keen for disabling or disputes about SW also in other C&C, probably because rules works as they should have...

Uselessness or OP of SW is issue of bad design and balance no SW idea itself.
If SW were for most of time fifth wheel for your war machinery in most of Generals matches it means that fail start with game design itself.

[GeneralsProTony]

Isn't the whole purpose of a game to have fun? Im not asking for a simulation I'm asking for a decent RTS that does not overshadow conventional play with overpowered, overabused SW's. Thereofore, the choice should be made available as to what the player feels is appropriate and enjoyable; it's all about preference. Im not saying to eliminate SW all together, but please dont increase their importance and impact in the next up-and-comming game. Also, I dont agree that SW's devalue generals powers all that much. If anything they can suppliment and compliment these powers when used in a coordinated attack. As there was a strategy shift with the infroduction of nukes in the 20th century, so too, do SW's shift strategy in games, imo, in an unfavorable way.

[IonorRea]

I updated post before i know about your new message so shortly, SW were handled bad in Generals as in most cases were useless because small economy and conflicts don't justify paying hefty price (smaller maps) while on big maps were too important and overshadowed other weapons by far because big economy and unlimited number make them most effective price to performance weapons in long run.

Isn't the whole purpose of a game to have fun?

I think that isn't much to ask from SW to be both fun and useful in most scenarios similar to generals powers.

What can potentionally works is make them cheaper (cost for factions with power plant requirement was real overkill for small maps economy in Generals), as much powerful as in Generals but limited to one piece and some rank.