MovieChat Forums > Supreme Commander (2007) Discussion > Supreme Commander / Forged Alliance

Supreme Commander / Forged Alliance


Supreme Commander is a brilliant RTS, but it lacks in strategic variety. In missions you're limited to either nuking the crap out of the other team, or zerging the crap out of them. There is a third option of zerging the other team to take out their nuke defenses, and then nuking the crap them. The only time the option for more strategy opens up is on maps with lots of ocean where bombardment strategies come in.

In Forged Alliance it's even worse. The HUD was bloody awful in FA and some missions are impossible to complete first time round. Missions start off pretty easy, and open up often after you've just launched a full scale assault on an enemy base, to which you recieve a warning of an incoming attack. Most of the time there is no way in hell you can pull your forces back to your base, or make a new force to counter the attack in time.

The only way to combat this is to outfit your base with masses of point defense turrets and AA for EVERY mission.

This was an endless source of frustration for me, imo it's incredibly flawed mission design. It also lengthens the already lengthy mission time considerably.

reply

You are exaggerating. There are other srategies that work, as well. For example you could try the tower-creep. Or massive air-strike tragetting the T3 power generators. You can turtle and try to get T3 Arty running. You can try snipe the enemy Commander with Strat bombers. Some factions can teleport SACUs directly into enemy base. Aeon can build a Czar and let it be shot down over enemy base, crushing it. You can try building forward stealthed firebases and build Tactical Nukes there. Plus there are true gameenders like Mavor and Paragon. Don't blame the game if you are uncreative.

reply

None of those solutions are 'creative' and they're still just as time consuming as those strategies i mentioned.

reply

Of course they are time consuming and demand from you a special way to build and play, hence they are *strategy* elements. Maybe look up the difference between "strategy" and "tactics" in the dictionary.

reply

They are synonymous.

A strategy is made up of a series of tactical elements; strategies in SupCom allow for fewer tactics hence they are simpler and less creative whilst being incredibly time consuming.

reply

No, they are not synonymous. Tactical elements are small scale and have short term goals, strategy is about large scales and long term goals. Usually you employ a bunch of certain tactics as part of your overall strategies. And that's why the the typcial RTS is named wrongly. Because in the typcial RTS there is only one strategy: build faster than the opponent. The rest is about smaller tactics, but mostly boils down to "who clicks fatser", hence these games should be named "Real Time Tactic games" or "Real Time Action games". SupCom otoh emphasizes strategies, being one of the few true Real Time STRATEGY titles. If these are time consuming, then that only proves my point. And there aren't fewer tactics involved either ... you still need tactics to support your overall strategy. And maybe you have to change your strategy in the middle of the game because of this. It requires a lot of scouting and reading the opponent's moves to figure out what he is up to, then you try to foil those plans while still trying to accomplish your own goal/strategy. If that is boring for you because it takes some time - fine. Go and play one of those hundreds of Real Time Action games instead. But I am happy that something like SupCom exists. It's for gourmets, though, not for gourmands, I admit.

reply

Yes, they are synonymous.

I am aware of the difference in definition between the two words, but you cannot achieve your strategy without the use of tactics. You set a strategic goal that you want to achieve at the end of the game and you employ tactics to achieve said goal. They are part and parcel.


Usually you employ a bunch of certain tactics as part of your overall strategies

Just usually, or always. Either way you just confirmed my argument.


in the typcial RTS there is only one strategy: build faster than the opponent. The rest is about smaller tactics, but mostly boils down to "who clicks fatser", hence these games should be named "Real Time Tactic games" or "Real Time Action games". SupCom otoh emphasizes strategies, being one of the few true Real Time STRATEGY titles

Which is the same thing SupCom boils down to. Getting as many resources as you can, as quickly as you can so you can start pumping out units. Length of time taken does not equate to being more strategically advanced. You accomplish the same goals but over a painstakingly long period of time.

There are fewer tactics involved because while there are a greater number of units, the units lack any real distinction. Usually the only distinction being a bigger heavier version of the previous one, sent en mass with little to no micro management involved. It cannot be compared to games like C&C or Dawn of War on that front.


maybe you have to change your strategy in the middle of the game because of this. It requires a lot of scouting and reading the opponent's moves to figure out what he is up to, then you try to foil those plans while still trying to accomplish your own goal/strategy

This is the same thing you do in every RTS.


If that is boring for you because it takes some time - fine. Go and play one of those hundreds of Real Time Action games instead.

You're under the impression that i think SupCom a bad game, but what was the very first thing i said about it?

But you're right, i would rather play something a little more advanced. At least there are less taxing Real Time Action games like this for people such as yourself to enjoy.

reply

maybe we have to distinguish between a few things here.
First, competitive vs casual. In highly competitive games it will always the case that the game is stagnating and that the high end gamers will use the same 2 or 3 strategies. That's what it always boils down to, no matter what the game. That's simple numbercrunching that thousands of players did in millions of games.
I didn't play competitive but watched many replays of highly ranked players. There still were different strategies involved, from T1-unit-spam over early T3-push (Brick) up to Commander-Rush. I've even seen an early Commandersnipe with those Aeon T2 Cruise Missiles. Most games weren't all too long, either.
And in casual, everything goes.

Next, there is a button to alter the speed of the game. I know that most people don't like that option but it IS there. You can slow down the game as much as you like, heck, you can even pause and are still able to issue commands. If you do this, you remove the action part where the fastest clicker wins, you can also start to micro. And trust me, you can micro the hell out of SupCom if you have the time for it.

Finally, the "lack of unit diversity" is a great misconception. The more the units of the factions differ, the LESS strategy is usually involved. Why? Because the factions then tend to excel at one thing, so the player is forced to exploit that one thing and nothing else. Typically your faction's units tell you how to play.
In SupCom all 3 (4) factions do have the same unit structures and roughly 80% similar units in T1-T3. That means everybody has the same strategy options, for example, every faction in supcom could go air first as a viable option. But if there was a faction with weaker ground units and better air units, that faction would always go air and the opponents automatically anti-air, if you understand what I am talkin about.
The other thing is that the units of SupCom DO differ. Many look the same at first glance but all those smaller differences still make them unique. For exmple:

Striker vs Mantis vs Aurora. The Mantis can assist engineers, a little feature that can make all the difference in the early buildup phase. While the Aurora is fragile but can hover (good on water maps) and has suprior range (here you can put your microing skills for good use, if done well you can beat strikers without a single loss)

Or take the T3 Assault Bots. The Titan is shielded and it's high firing rate makes it a T1-Killer par excellance. Similarily The Brick is very good vs T1 and T2, while Percies are mostly good vs T3 and experimentals because they do massive damage but take 4 seconds to reload. If the opponent has great amounts of Percivals, you could counter with lots of T1 units even though at that point T1 should be passé. Just because of the difference in reloading time and damage - two units may have the same DPS, which makes them equal on paper, but it actually makes a big difference. And there are other differences like Percival and Brick being able to submerge, Loyalist being able to deflect missles and Harbinger being able to repair and reclaim.

The longer I play the more apparent the differences become. There are so many, big and small ones, many you probably never noticed, like the difference in anti-torpedo measures: one tries to kill incoming torpedoes, the other releases "flares". The difference isn't of cosmetic nature, the former one is better against single torpedoes, the latter against massive amounts.

Sorry if the reply got wordy, I just enjoy to talk shop about my favourite games :)

reply