Command & Conquer: Generals 2 (PC)

[MeoTwister5]

I'm a staunch fan of popcaps and that's why I think Blizzard RTS' got it right. Frankly I'm tired of watching and/or playing the usual RTS where it's almost always the side with the largest built army that always wins. SC and SC2 games online are a blast to watch because popcaps made sure you made every unit and every strategy count as opposed the guy who could wag around the most guns. It made every game, every battle and even every skirmish require tactics and good micro because you knew you had to work within your popcap means and not live on macro playstyles.

[LoweGear]

Well, C&C 4 implemented popcaps for the first time in a C&C game, yet didn't do it so well. It basically went the way of Warcraft 3 and had you field too few units for their effectiveness, which meant battles became a distinctly rock>paper>scissors affair.

If they ever implement popcaps for Generals 2, it should be more similar to Starcraft than Warcraft 3: large enough that the battles can feel and be epic and to allow fluid counters, but small enough that you can't simply win battles via overwhelming numbers.

[felix]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

If they ever implement popcaps for Generals 2, it should be more similar to Starcraft than Warcraft 3: large enough that the battles can feel and be epic and to allow fluid counters, but small enough that you can't simply win battles via overwhelming numbers.

I would prefer SC1 style. ie. (a) there's no anti-popcap/worker mechanics (inject larva, orbitals/mules, warpins) and (b) it doesn't prevent near insane number of units, but prevents single-overwhelming-force nonsense ie. SC2's death balls; which from a spectator standpoint are boring as shit, especially when they're mostly just one or two boring units (marine/marauder, or Colossus/Stalkers, no the fodder players stick in doesn't count).

Going on a tangent, the bread and butter units better be cool as shit, since that's what's fun to play and what's fun to watch. C&C3's infantry/tank mechanics were solid. Well, initially they were crap, after a few patches they were good. Some positioning micro, but no stupid things like SC2's strutter step micro.

I also want my emersive C&C environments. No stupid unit/building size crap, units better come out of it. No kiddy nonsense (things like SC2's Bashee's properlas in space; or even the whole idea of a space platform to build your base on). No only-works-when-maps-are-simetrical crap, or only-works-if-map-has-ramps, or only-works-if-map-has-chokes. Building yo' base on a weird map was always half the fun. I personally want the old days of AoE style randomness back. It worked fine in Tiberium Sun and it's obviously not that hard. Imbalanced? like I care. Just make the damn generator balance if you really need it to be such, I want random maps, at least for singleplayer purposes.

Let's see what else. Tanks and other vehicles better be faster then infantry and better be able to crush it. >:D None of the SC2 infantry-steam-boots or mechanical-crawler mechanics.

Actually I hope they don't copy anything from SC2. The only exception would probably be "expantion play" but honestly SC1 did it better with no-rocks, no-gold, etc.

[konart]

C&C on Battlefield 3 engine?

Take all my money.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

There's an older-school build system than Age of Empire?

Dune 2 - 1992. Age of Empires - 1997.

Also, game-balance wise, remember that China had gatling guns, the best AA in the entire game. Giving it an air superiority planes too would be too much.

Yes, but back then Generals was hyped as being "close to real-life war" and such. At the very least, I had expected China to possess a cheaper and weaker air-superiority fighter instead of none at all.

4. I'm neutral on this, since afaik garrison killing abilities had been instantaneous in most games that support it. Or perhaps we can upgrade the garrison to make it immune to these abilities. But bunker buster bombs should have instant effect true to its definition.

The reason I add this one is because infantry is pretty useless when not garrisoned. But bunker-buster is fine I guess, as long whatever uses it is expensive.

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

It's EA. Best kept any expectations low. It will be most likely a decent title but not a game changer.

Honestly? I hope they don't try to be too innovative. The last time they "experiment" we ended up with Tiberium Twilight. God, I absolutely despise how they decided to add pop-caps to a C&C title - I want epic, massive unrestrained battles, dammit!

Let Starcraft be Starcraft, C&C be C&C, and Dawn of War be Dawn of War. Each has their own distinct flavor which works best for them and I'd rather have each of them remain their way.

Originally Posted by felix

Let's see what else. Tanks and other vehicles better be faster then infantry and better be able to crush it.

This. I want that "crunch" sensation when my vehicles ran infantry over back. And while we're at it, please please please bring back gory infantry deaths

[hyl]

Originally Posted by Tiresias

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, there are many things I don't enjoy about Generals, such as the 'Age of Empire'-like worker-builder-gatherer mechanics (I prefer old-school build system) and very imbalanced air force units (I can somewhat swallow GLA not having any planes, but China having only ground-attack plane and no air-superiority one?).

In Generals (not zero hour) China had the best airplanes because of the black napalm upgrade bug that made those missiles "explosion damage" type instead of "jet missiles" damage. Combined with the firestorm effect when 4 migs fired all at one place, they could decimate everything.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

On the other hand, both Red Alert 3 and Tiberium Twilight were the weakest installments in their respective series, so a little bit of change is fine, I guess.

I just hope for these points to come true:

1. More supplies per supply site so they don't get depleted too fast.
2. Anti-garrison weapons (flames, toxic, flash-bang) kills garrisoned units faster than normal weapons but not instantaneously

I disagree on some points as someone who played generals very competitively back then.
More supplies means more turtling and less expanding and rushing, besides unlike the other C&C games where resources were limited in generals however it was not, because people could buy structures (in China's case units) to provide end game income. Like the supply drops, black markets and hackers. If your supplies depleted too fast that means a bad resource management on your side.

Garrisoned structures (and units) that could not be cleared with those convenient anti garrison weapons were horrible unbalanced, look at the fortified palaces, battle bunkers and the less static combat chinooks. Also that would unbalance some sides, seeing that china only had dragon tanks and gla toxin tractors as anti garrison unit. And they still die fast from 20 rockets from infantry garrisoned in buildings. The only safe way to kill heavily bunkered structures were with artillery units or with aurora planes. But that required late game technology and both of them are fragile and expensive, making your own defense or offence weaker.

edit: USA will have problems clearing garrisoned builings if their are snipers or flash bang rangers inside. Every side will have problems clearing them. So in a way if you don't make them instantly clear buildings, then you would promote heavy turtling.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Yes, but back then Generals was hyped as being "close to real-life war" and such. At the very least, I had expected China to possess a cheaper and weaker air-superiority fighter instead of none at all.

Wasn't the MiG a multi-role fighter which pretty much fits the 'cheaper and weaker' mold? Besides, that's not even factoring in the rocks-fall-everybody-dies lulziness of the ZH tac-nuke MiGs.

[hyl]

In zero hour migs (regardless which one) were less effective thanks to the overpowered laser point defences. Also tactical nuke migs (even with upgrade) did poor damage on structures, so in this case the regular anti air structures and bunker type defences kill them easily. Not to mentioned it was a really late technology to acquire, because you actually needed to build a nuclair missile super weapon to get the upgrade, unless you are playing on a huge map or the battle has become a turtle and superweapon fest, it's not likely to see that mig at all.

edit:
The non upgraded migs from the nuke general was pathetic. It has problems killing a humvee.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by hyl

In zero hour migs (regardless which one) were less effective thanks to the overpowered laser point defences. Also tactical nuke migs (even with upgrade) did poor damage on structures, so in this case the regular anti air structures and bunker type defences kill them easily. Not to mentioned it was a really late technology to acquire, because you actually needed to build a nuclair missile super weapon to get the upgrade, unless you are playing on a huge map or the battle has become a turtle and superweapon fest, it's not likely to see that mig at all.

edit:
The non upgraded migs from the nuke general was pathetic. It has problems killing a humvee.

Well yes, but I was talking in context of a dogfight between fighters. In this case, we'll go with tac-nuke MiGs against its USA counterpart, King Raptors. Sure, the King Raptors have some of the best laser point defenses of the USA units, but in a 4-on-4, all it takes is one unzapped nuke missile, and boom, half the fighters from both sides are a goner.

[hyl]

4 on 4 and the king raptors still win.
maybe 5 on 1 and the the single king raptor loses if the migs fire all their missiles at once.
King raptors have 2 laser point defences (with 4 of them clustered you have 8 laser point defences at the same time) at once that refreshes every second, combined with countermeasures upgrade they could avoid 50% of the time unblocked missiles.
Migs on carry 2 missiles, so ..... (you can fill in the gaps yourself). Also if you manage to kill that single king raptor, the chances are that your own migs get blown up by the explosion from their own missiles if they are too close.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by hyl

4 on 4 and the king raptors still win.
maybe 5 on 1 and the the single king raptor loses if the migs fire all their missiles at once.
King raptors have 2 laser point defences (with 4 of them clustered you have 8 laser point defences at the same time) at once that refreshes every second, combined with countermeasures upgrade they could avoid 50% of the time unblocked missiles.
Migs on carry 2 missiles, so ..... (you can fill in the gaps yourself)

Yeah, I'd think so too, if not for the fact that it actually happened to me once. I still have no idea how it happened, but trust me, that hurt.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Yeah, I'd think so too, if not for the fact that it actually happened to me once. I still have no idea how it happened, but trust me, that hurt.

The only way how i can think that it could happen is if the migs fired all of their 8 missiles at once and somehow not every missile gets blocked (which is impossible with 4 on 4 if the king raptors are close to eachother, so they have to spread somehow) and then the counter measures ability diverted one or more single nuke mig missiles the wrong way so it exploded randomly in the air, while the other king raptors accidently flew in the explosion.

[-Sho-]

Generals 2 ? wow , i remember the 1st , my youth(like 14 years old) with my best friend playing at cyber
China with emperor tank was so imba.

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by hyl

edit: USA will have problems clearing garrisoned builings if their are snipers or flash bang rangers inside. Every side will have problems clearing them. So in a way if you don't make them instantly clear buildings, then you would promote heavy turtling.

Alternatively, you can allow infantry to do the clearing....IE assault urban combat style...in addition to artillery or air power

[Who]

Bioware being put in charge of the developers for this has me scratching my head. I can only see the gameplay turn out like this:

http://i.imgur.com/aJVUT.png

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by hyl

Like the supply drops, black markets and hackers. If your supplies depleted too fast that means a bad resource management on your side.

IMO China got the short end of the stick since hackers generate credits slower and are infantry (meaning they die fast) instead of buildings. No to mention that the system as a whole means that end-game bases are pretty much stocked with supply depots and black markets, making it less like a military base and more like an industrial center

Garrisoned structures (and units) that could not be cleared with those convenient anti garrison weapons were horrible unbalanced, look at the fortified palaces, battle bunkers and the less static combat chinooks. Also that would unbalance some sides, seeing that china only had dragon tanks and gla toxin tractors as anti garrison unit. And they still die fast from 20 rockets from infantry garrisoned in buildings. The only safe way to kill heavily bunkered structures were with artillery units or with aurora planes. But that required late game technology and both of them are fragile and expensive, making your own defense or offence weaker.

And having weapons that can instantaneously kill garrisoned troops pretty much drops the value of infantry since they die fast in open terrain, reducing the fight into pure vehicle battles.

edit: USA will have problems clearing garrisoned builings if their are snipers or flash bang rangers inside. Every side will have problems clearing them. So in a way if you don't make them instantly clear buildings, then you would promote heavy turtling.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

Alternatively, you can allow infantry to do the clearing....IE assault urban combat style...in addition to artillery or air power

Pretty much what Cosmic Eagle said. Besides, what I prefer to avoid is weapons that instantly kill garrisons. In fact, the best way might be that ALL weapons can harm garrisoned infantry but at a slower pace, while specialized weapons (flames, toxic, bunker buster, artillery) kills at a much faster rate. Very fast, but not "holy shit did ten of my veterans just die because of two dinky flash-bangs" fast.

And at least change flash-bangs with frag-grenades (seriously, killing people with flash-bangs? )

Originally Posted by Who

Bioware being put in charge of the developers for this has me scratching my head. I can only see the gameplay turn out like this: http://i.imgur.com/aJVUT.png

I LOL'd pretty hard at this. And yes, Bioware? I thought the successor was supposed to be Victory Games or something

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Wasn't the MiG a multi-role fighter which pretty much fits the 'cheaper and weaker' mold? Besides, that's not even factoring in the rocks-fall-everybody-dies lulziness of the ZH tac-nuke MiGs.

The tac-nuke thing never happened to me, so that's a rare case. In any way, Raptors are way more reliable than Migs since they have more missiles and Migs pretty much suck at killing aircraft since the firestorm effect was designed with ground-attack in mind.

[Kameruka]

Good to see another high-budget RTS game when there are too many FPS games lately.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

And what a departure from the prior C&C titles it was. It was a good title on it's own, just not what was expected from the C&C tag.

Consider how they screwed up C&C4, I am not expecting much.

But the premise of the storyline is lovely :

......In a world left with no politicians......

[hyl]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

Alternatively, you can allow infantry to do the clearing....IE assault urban combat style...in addition to artillery or air power

If you meant by the combat drop with chinooks, then i am against that. Slowing down your own resource gathering , while at the same time the risking losing your chinook (1200 is not cheap) because they can't handle rockets that well, is hardly strategical. Also with some micro management you can evacuate the building before the chinook can clear the building while leaving the chinook stuck defenceless and most likely killed.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

IMO China got the short end of the stick since hackers generate credits slower and are infantry (meaning they die fast) instead of buildings. No to mention that the system as a whole means that end-game bases are pretty much stocked with supply depots and black markets, making it less like a military base and more like an industrial center

Hackers are the worst of the bunch, but that was the risk of using china. Because their units were more meant to rush (gattling tanks are one of the better early game units and dragon tanks could decimate buildings on their own). But hackers are the most easily bought, because they are cheaper than the others.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

And having weapons that can instantaneously kill garrisoned troops pretty much drops the value of infantry since they die fast in open terrain, reducing the fight into pure vehicle battles.

Infantry are supposed to be weak and are only used at the beginning and mid game as support. They are not meant a means to turtle so that the game will become a stale untill the guy with the most destructive superweapons wins.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Pretty much what Cosmic Eagle said. Besides, what I prefer to avoid is weapons that instantly kill garrisons. In fact, the best way might be that ALL weapons can harm garrisoned infantry but at a slower pace, while specialized weapons (flames, toxic, bunker buster, artillery) kills at a much faster rate. Very fast, but not "holy shit did ten of my veterans just die because of two dinky flash-bangs" fast.

If they kill things at a slower pace, then the unit that is doing the clearing is most likely killed before they can even clear 2 infantry inside. Considering that some maps have tons of buildings and 1 building can house 5-10 soldiers, then what is the point of using building clearing units before they can accomplish anything.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

And at least change flash-bangs with frag-grenades (seriously, killing people with flash-bangs? )

Probably for balancing issues, because if it were actual grenades then rangers could also take on vehicles. They needed an excuse so that it would only defeat infantry.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

The tac-nuke thing never happened to me, so that's a rare case. In any way, Raptors are way more reliable than Migs since they have more missiles and Migs pretty much suck at killing aircraft since the firestorm effect was designed with ground-attack in mind.

In generals (not zero hour), 1 mig with 2 missiles with explosion damage type from blacknapalm killed 1 raptor instantly. You still needed 6 raptor missiles to kill 1 mig because of the armour upgrade that migs can get. The migs were superior in the air and better than raptors on the ground because they did more damage and cause firestorms.

edit: migs were also cheaper than raptors and the china airfield was also less expansive than the USA's airfield. The only reason why i would ever build an USA airfield in the first generals game was for aurora bombers and those choppers (forgot the name).

[RRW]

pretty sure the third unit is china. maybe russia but china is more interesting

surprised why the use European instead of USA. or maybe they are allienced