MASS EFFECT r teh c001

[rabidpeanut]

Dawn of war, company of heroes and supreme commander are all the same game with the same shitty engine. nothing special at all. Maybe supreme commander has bigger maps but it is the same shit, and a total fail w.r.t. TA.

WIC > COH.

[Jeff]

company of heroes held my interest for like an hour, it's like command & conquer with WW2 models? "lel lets build some soldiers" boring, back to close combatzz

in terms of rts, yall niggaz need to get your hands on myth 1 & 2 also for maximum buenoness. pure pwnamantium tbh even if its elf d&d swell guy or something

[Psychoul]

i loved the close combat games... and since you made that reference, i think im going to try company of heroes

[Blargh]

myth

CASUALTIES.

Third was a quite shite, alas.

[Stainless]

Dawn of war, company of heroes and supreme commander are all the same game with the same shitty engine. nothing special at all. Maybe supreme commander has bigger maps but it is the same shit, and a total fail w.r.t. TA.

WIC > COH.

A pretty baseless argument, regardless of how much you dislike them, they did at least try to push an innovation.

Considering that Dawn of War is... 5 or something odd years old, and managed to balance (somewhat) 7 different armies, it's done really well. The fact that it also offered something knew in the way resources worked, as opposed to simple mineral/spice/tiberium/lumber fields also ment it was a game where sacrificing your mobility for tanky units could lead to you getting royally fucked (and fast).

Again, CoH pretty much expanded on that resource principle, which again, I think suits it. But I just never got into CoH that much. But while locational damage in an RTS is not something overly new, it was nice to see it's presence break a little bit more into the main stream RTS genre, as opposed to being limited to those hardcore ones which only 5 people play. It was also presented in such a way, that it was noticable that if you kept shooting a tank in the front, you weren't going to do shit (as opposed to alot of games that just reduce the damage inflicted on the hp bar).

Supreme Commander, for starters, doesn't use the same engine as DoW/CoH. It's also significantly different to play to the aforementioned games too. The games about macroing and resource management. Add a huge playing field, and a rough principle of TA, and you have a game that does what it sets out to be, and pushes the direction in the way it's ment to.

On the other hand, if you by chance started raging on about how shit C&C3 is, then I'd agree with you. It's a prime example of trying to do everything safe with fuck all innovation. All it does is use excessive global powers from generals (way too many for my liking), with a variety of unit types. Regardless of that, all I can say is Thank FUCK that the days of RTS's with every race having the same unit in a different shade of paint is gone.

[rabidpeanut]

just saying that they all move the same way, same engine, same graphics basically and nothing really new. They all amount to the same experience, boredom.

Supreme commander DOES NOT push in the direction it is supposed to, if it did i would be playing it right now, it was suppose to be TA2 not large scale tick tack toe. Supreme commander is SHIT. Honestly i really really don't like supreme commander is does not even come close to TA.

I am VERY much in agreement with you when you call CnC crap, the last good one was tiberium sun. Which i love, but too bad one of the maps is broken, you have 2 mlrs and you have to take out a whole base, but when you shoot a barrel that is supposed to take out a power station nothing happens.

TA had the same resources as dawn of war. I like dawn of war, it is really cool that there is a good Warhammer game. but it is still a plaigiariser.

[rabidpeanut]

just saying that they all move the same way, same engine, same graphics basically and nothing really new. They all amount to the same experience, boredom.

Supreme commander DOES NOT push in the direction it is supposed to, if it did i would be playing it right now, it was suppose to be TA2 not large scale tick tack toe. Supreme commander is SHIT. Honestly i really really don't like supreme commander is does not even come close to TA.

I am VERY much in agreement with you when you call CnC crap, the last good one was tiberium sun. Which i love, but too bad one of the maps is broken, you have 2 mlrs and you have to take out a whole base, but when you shoot a barrel that is supposed to take out a power station nothing happens.

TA had the same resources as dawn of war. I like dawn of war, it is really cool that there is a good Warhammer game. but it is still a plaigiariser.

[SenisterDenister]

Trust me when I say, Company of Heroes and Dawn of War do not use the same engine with the same graphics.

Company of Heroes brings a lot more to the table than Dawn of War, mainly because the new engine, the Essence Engine, expanded greatly on the gameplay given to players in Dawn of War. It emphasized use of cover, a dynamic and destructible environment, and an expanded resource system. Dawn of War II will go even further, hopefully, by emphasizing the micromanagement of Space Marine squads of a Blood Ravens company as you play your part in a planetary struggle. If anything, Dawn of War II will be a great RTS, and will push the envelope for RTS development for years to come. Which is why I'm upset with Blizzard, because Starcraft 2 looks the exact same as Starcraft, but with more cartoony graphics.

[entertainer]

You are quite good at brainwashing.

[OnTheBounce]

The voice acting in the game is good too, idle squads actually talk amongst themselves and some of their click-responses are funny too (ie, a paratrooper squad will say "I'm a little fucking busy!" as they're taking fire).

Funny you should bring that up. A friend of mine emailed me this morning extolling the virtues of Company of Heroes. He told me to ignore the horrid title, mentioned that the armored combat is pretty decent, then went into the voice acting, and quoted the same line.

Personally, I liked Dawn of War (I own them all except for the newest expansion), although I will say that I really wish that someone would get it into their head that Warhammer and it's 40K version are turn-based rule-sets that really have to be shoe-horned into the RTS format. It would be really great if GDW would license a turn-based game that would essentially transfer the table-top onto the lap-top, allowing players the freedom to play battles and not be fettered by expensive models or terrain. It's probably not going to happen, but it would be nice...

When computer gaming made its first steps into wargaming that's what I envisioned happening. How wrong I was! Flashy graphics and real-time interaction have taken over and it's really put a serious dent in traditional wargaming.

Going off on a slight tangent here, I have to say that real-time doesn't make combat any more realistic than turn-based play. Simply put, you see way too much of the enemy -- who is usually a fleeting, shadowy presense on the battlefield -- units are far too accurate and I most games don't implement area fire or other types of fire distribution and control very well, if at all.

OTB

[SenisterDenister]

You are quite good at brainwashing.

Thank you?


OnTheBounce, there was a turn based 40k game that was released on the DS not too long ago, I think it was called Squad Command.

But personally, I think that as long as the game can successfully get the grim 40k atmosphere implemented, I really don't have a problem with it. I think that the universe is simply too good to be fucked up (with the exception of Firewarrior (fuckin' Tau)).

[VasikkA]

Going off on a slight tangent here, I have to say that real-time doesn't make combat any more realistic than turn-based play. Simply put, you see way too much of the enemy -- who is usually a fleeting, shadowy presense on the battlefield -- units are far too accurate and I most games don't implement area fire or other types of fire distribution and control very well, if at all.

Again, y'all should play Close Combat as all those factors are accounted for. Yet, the game mechanics are incredibly simple despite the fact that the game offers the best illusion of war up to date. The only weakness with that game is a poor A.I.(as with most RTSs), which makes it more suitable for online play.

The choice between Real-time/Turn-based/Phase-based in RTSs is irrelevant; they simulate the same thing only in a different manner.

[cazsim83]

It would be really great if GDW would license a turn-based game that would essentially transfer the table-top onto the lap-top, allowing players the freedom to play battles and not be fettered by expensive models or terrain. It's probably not going to happen, but it would be nice...

Unfortunately, if it DID happen, it would probably be like Magic The Gathering did and you're paying for any crap you want anyway, kind of like micro-transactions in Asia (and the US too but it hasn't seemed to catch on as much here)

Might not be as expensive as buying the plastic figurines, but ...... I do remember a MTG game I had circa 1995 or so, where it was an almost perfect replica of the card game on your PC - if they made a Warhammer (any time period) game like that, I would pick it up immediately. The whole library of figurines for 1 price - straight onto your computer.

[OnTheBounce]

Again, y'all should play Close Combat as all those factors are accounted for...[T]he game offers the best illusion of war up to date.

I'm highly sceptical, to say the least.

Since this is an accurate portrayal of war then only about 15% of US troops involved in the scenario actually fire thier weapons? Do they average 10,000 rounds of small arms ammo expended for every enemy casualty? Are 70% of casualties inflicted by indirect fire?

There is no game or movie that can teach you about combat and give you any real idea of what it is to be there. The illusion of combat you're talking about is an illusion that suits your preconceptions, the vast majority of which are wrong.

The choice between Real-time/Turn-based/Phase-based in RTSs is irrelevant; they simulate the same thing only in a different manner.

I would heartily disagree. One of the things that I've always dispised about RTS games is that you have to bounce around so much that you miss a goodly part of the action. (It's entertainment, after all, not a combat simulator.) Luckily some of them now have playback options so that you can go back and figure out what was going on, how a certain unit got greased, etc.

As for Warhammer, 40K: Squad Command...it's for the Nintendo DS, which is pretty much where turn-based games are put out these days. It probably has more to do with the limitations of the interface than cashing in on the advantages of turn-based play, if you ask me. I'm not familiar with the game, but I'd put good money on the fact that it's not a conversion of the actual table-top game's system of armor saves, hits, etc. The most important factor would -- of course -- be that the game had a unit library and map editor to allow you to set up battles between players...

OTB

[VasikkA]

I'm highly sceptical, to say the least.

Since this is an accurate portrayal of war then only about 15% of US troops involved in the scenario actually fire thier weapons? Do they average 10,000 rounds of small arms ammo expended for every enemy casualty? Are 70% of casualties inflicted by indirect fire?

First of all, no use throwing statistics at me. Those figures vary in every combat situation and are at most a best guess. Since CC games are mostly situated in WWII Europe, the ratios could be different during that time period. Anyway, why don't you judge for yourself then? Note how the combat is rhythmed; there are long moments of silence and, suddenly, all hell breaks loose and back to silence again. The low ammo to kill ratio and the role of mortars/artillery/smoke screens is noticeable. However, it should be noted that indirect fire is very limited and the game only simulates company scale warfare. Also, there seems to be no fog of war in the clip.

Some custom version of the game is apparently used as a training tool for Marines, but I don't know if that's just marketing talk.

There is no game or movie that can teach you about combat and give you any real idea of what it is to be there. The illusion of combat you're talking about is an illusion that suits your preconceptions, the vast majority of which are wrong.

Of course. No driving simulation gives an accurate portrayal of driving a race car, either, but games are about creating an illusion. Close Combat, however, differs greatly from any other RTS; although being real time it's very slow-paced and it simulates morale and fatigue for individual soldiers.

I would heartily disagree. One of the things that I've always dispised about RTS games is that you have to bounce around so much that you miss a goodly part of the action. (It's entertainment, after all, not a combat simulator.) Luckily some of them now have playback options so that you can go back and figure out what was going on, how a certain unit got greased, etc.

The problem is that your standard RTS is too fast-paced and winning the game requires more speed than thought.

[OnTheBounce]

First of all, no use throwing statistics at me. Those figures vary in every combat situation and are at most a best guess. Since CC games are mostly situated in WWII Europe, the ratios could be different during that time period.

Those statistics are from WWII. The indirect fire stat is specific to NW-Europe and was true for both sides. It isn't really hard to figure out what's killing/wounding your guys since hosptitals keep records and these are reviewed because any army worth its salt is always trying to figure out exactly how people are getting waxed so that they can focus training efforts and know what kind of gear their people need.

The low firing-rate of soldiers was a problem that plagued the US Army in WWII, especially in the ETO and several studies concluded it was somewhere between 15-25%. When SLA Marshall released Men Against Fire back in '47 it caused a huge controversy that still rages today, but it led the US Army to take a cold, hard look at their training methods. The result was an overhaul that had the firing rate up to 90% by Vietnam.

Yes there are going to be statistical variations from action-to-action and special cases that provide exceptions, but that doesn't invalidate the statistics. That just means you need to contact the DuPuy Institute for the whole story...

You know what I want in my ultra-realistic RTS? I want it set in the Pacific during WWII where 80% of US casualties (another statistic!) were the result of "non-battle injuries". Yes, I want my guys to fall down and break limbs. I want them to contract STDs. I want them to catch jungle rot and malaria. I want real WWII combat which was fought as much against the elements (and often more) than against the enemy! Just remember that the British in North Africa lost more soldiers to disyntery than to German bullets and you'll be on the right track when coding!

The thing that really gets my goat about this whole thing is that I've spent 19+ months of my life in combat zones. It galls me to hear people going on about "realistic" this or that when it comes to combat. Fact of the matter is that you don't have to make life-or-death decisions when you're tired, hungry, hot or cold, etc., etc. You don't have to hook your vehicle up to another one and pull it out of the canal it landed in after the driver lost control when both of his legs were blown off. You don't smell the metallic odor of blood or the foul scent of bowel wounds or charred flesh after flesh-and-blood humans are engaged with high explosive ordnance. You don't have to recover the ammunition from a vehicle that has chunks of what used to be some guy that you've been living with for a year-and-a-half smeared all over the driver's compartment but now is only heaps of gore and hair.

If you are so interested in what combat is like you are looking in the wrong place if you're sitting comfortably in front of your computer. If you really want to know what it's like, head on down to the recruiting station and sign up. There's always an army getting into some shit somewhere so although you may have to leave your country to do it you can find someone out there that's willing to issue you a uniform and let you get a nice dose of "realism" while playing the ultimate game: combat.

Alternately you can simply take games for what they are: games. The word "realism" has practically no place in any discussion about them.

The problem is that your standard RTS is too fast-paced and winning the game requires more speed than thought.

No argument there.

OTB

[S4ur0n27]

in terms of rts, yall niggaz need to get your hands on myth 1 & 2 also for maximum buenoness. pure pwnamantium tbh even if its elf d&d swell guy or something

qfe

Seriously, and the way the multiplayer worked was awesome. I remember this guy who always only wanted control over those fat healers which looked like they were carrying a shovel, and we'd win nearly all the time.

[S4ur0n27]

am installing mass effect

[SenisterDenister]

You may not want to uninstall, you're only able to reinstall it two more times before EA cuts you off.

[S4ur0n27]

well it's cracked and seems to work fine and i did install it twice already(frist on my G: drive, by mistake)

anyway, it looks alright so far