Hahaha, C&C3 versus Supreme Commander

PauloMorfeo · Post by **PauloMorfeo** » 16 Apr 2007, 04:31

Youtube video of C&C3 versus Supreme Commander in here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rWeekod30wQ
And the dude is actually funny.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 16 Apr 2007, 04:33

Yeah. Pretty much like that with all RTS after Spring.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 16 Apr 2007, 10:18

Now if Sup Com only had gameplay that worked as well as C&C3's...

Zenka · Post by **Zenka** » 16 Apr 2007, 10:51

KDR_11k wrote:Now if Sup Com only had gameplay that worked as well as C&C3's...

Or a compaign as well as C&C3's...

AF · Post by AF » 16 Apr 2007, 17:33

I posted this in the CC3 thread last week.....

Comp1337 · Post by **Comp1337** » 16 Apr 2007, 18:47

Zenka wrote:
KDR_11k wrote:Now if Sup Com only had gameplay that worked as well as C&C3's...
Or a compaign as well as C&C3's...

battle area expanded

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 16 Apr 2007, 19:48

Command and Conquer made a neat gaming thing though...

you HAD TO HAVE A COMM CENTER!!!!

if you lost power... you can to scroll to find the battle, you didn't have radar, it HURT YOU TO BE OUT POWER!!!... those cheap efficient power plants were VERY vital, and added a neat feature if you lost them, or if you could kill them from your opponent...

he was stuck halfway across the map, unable to command his troops...

he shoulda considered the strategic element of DEFENDING HIS POWER!...

same goes for capping the comm center... shoulda defended that too...

urgh...

I love the zoom aspect, it adds more strategy...

Radja · Post by **Radja** » 16 Apr 2007, 21:06

that radar implementation is one of the reasons i hate c&c, being blind is not enough, they disable the minimap too ><

iamacup · Post by **iamacup** » 16 Apr 2007, 21:24

C&C has always been about 300000 times more realistic than TA, SupCom or even spring

at least in C&C they have propper weapons of mass destruction that fit the era

obviously im not blaming the makers of TA and SupCom for not including ariel bombardment by a fleet of 3000 ships and stuff but hey

thats what would happen IRL (lol)

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 16 Apr 2007, 22:32

Do you remember NOD's nuke in CNC1? Then compare it to the nuke in RA1... :P

If any of these games were realistic you'd blast the entire map with a single warhead. These weapons are designed to take out cities, I think.

Caradhras · Post by **Caradhras** » 16 Apr 2007, 23:28

i all depends, you can have nuclear warhead to destroy a tank or a whole country.

Lindir The Green · Post by **Lindir The Green** » 16 Apr 2007, 23:36

Yeah, and if you were fighting over a city, you probably wouldn't want to destroy it unless you think you are gonna lose, so you would intentionally use smaller nukes.

Caradhras · Post by **Caradhras** » 16 Apr 2007, 23:41

E: this was rubbish

rattle · Post by **rattle** » 17 Apr 2007, 00:27

Lindir The Green wrote:Yeah, and if you were fighting over a city, you probably wouldn't want to destroy it unless you think you are gonna lose, so you would intentionally use smaller nukes.

When you fight over a city you shouldn't use nukes at all... oh well, this is pointless anyway. Games are not meant to be realistic.

I like the nukes in SC by the way.

Muzic · Post by **Muzic** » 17 Apr 2007, 08:25

In war, you tend to want to keep the cities in tact for later use to your own wealth. So nuking an entire country will neutrilize it, but now when you go to take your conquered lands you basically have a radioactive garden spanning thousands of miles.

I'll probably go get the C&C demo.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 17 Apr 2007, 08:45

rattle wrote:These weapons are designed to take out cities, I think.

Games and James Bond movies consistantly underestimate the sheer destructive potential of nuclear weapons. When we say that if we fired half the nukes owned by America, we could light the ENTIRE planet on fire, we're NOT joking!

A nuke, even a small, primative nuke like the one dropped on Hiroshima, can esialy devestate an entire city. This bull about buildings in a game hardened against nuclear strikes are just that, bull. Any building at ground zero, unless it's about...

four miles? I think there are American C&C bunkers at least four miles under solid mountains. Even those are only good for up to three or maybe even four nuclear strikes.

But these are games.

Fun and balence comes first.

So ignore above rant.

It was completely pointless.

Sorry about that.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 17 Apr 2007, 10:17

Nukes have an effective radius of ~4km or so, that won't even kill one large city. If anything the media loves to overestimate them (well, not games but games are rarely at a scale where such realism is useful, with realism a normal bomb has the blast radius of the superweapons in most games).

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 17 Apr 2007, 10:19

But don't forget the firestorm, the radiation, and the fact that most ICBM's have at least five or so actual warheads.

But this is all a moot point. Balence! Fun! These are what we should argue about. And I find C and C quite fun. I also find Sup Com fun. But I'm playing neither.

I'm playing Tron 2.0 again for some reason. Strange...

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 18 Apr 2007, 09:25

Zoombie wrote:
rattle wrote:These weapons are designed to take out cities, I think.

Games and James Bond movies consistantly underestimate the sheer destructive potential of nuclear weapons. When we say that if we fired half the nukes owned by America, we could light the ENTIRE planet on fire, we're NOT joking!

A nuke, even a small, primative nuke like the one dropped on Hiroshima, can esialy devestate an entire city. This bull about buildings in a game hardened against nuclear strikes are just that, bull. Any building at ground zero, unless it's about...

four miles? I think there are American C&C bunkers at least four miles under solid mountains. Even those are only good for up to three or maybe even four nuclear strikes.

But these are games.

Fun and balence comes first.

So ignore above rant.

It was completely pointless.

Sorry about that.

Spoken by a true completely ignorant non-expert on the topic! Bravo!

KingRaptor · Post by **KingRaptor** » 18 Apr 2007, 11:20

Felix the Cat wrote:
Zoombie wrote:
rattle wrote:These weapons are designed to take out cities, I think.

Games and James Bond movies consistantly underestimate the sheer destructive potential of nuclear weapons. When we say that if we fired half the nukes owned by America, we could light the ENTIRE planet on fire, we're NOT joking!

A nuke, even a small, primative nuke like the one dropped on Hiroshima, can esialy devestate an entire city. This bull about buildings in a game hardened against nuclear strikes are just that, bull. Any building at ground zero, unless it's about...

four miles? I think there are American C&C bunkers at least four miles under solid mountains. Even those are only good for up to three or maybe even four nuclear strikes.

But these are games.

Fun and balence comes first.

So ignore above rant.

It was completely pointless.

Sorry about that.
Spoken by a true completely ignorant non-expert on the topic! Bravo!

Let's see your credentials on the subject, or alternatively an explanation of where he's wrong with appropriate citations.

Spring RTS Engine

Hahaha, C&C3 versus Supreme Commander

Hahaha, C&C3 versus Supreme Commander