So no minotaurs climbing up along a demigods legs, up it's body, and stabbing it in the eye while it struggles to swat it off except as a General super skill?

It's like Luke Skywalker and torpedo's down the exhaust pipe, cmonn.

I'm kidding of course. :3

Of course Demigods are superior to the grunts. But I don't think anyone mentioned otherwise?

Luke Skywalker trumps all?

Well, maybe you can have a horde of them trying to climb up the Demigod and stab its eye.

Also, *ahem* it's thermal exhaust shaft, not "exhaust pipe".

Clearly the Rook needs an ability where he swings his hammer like a golf-club and sends all the small units in front of him flying through the air, dealing damage to anything they hit and flying off the stage.

It'd be nice if just normal attacking did that, like Dawn of War finishing attacks.

Anything involving Minotaur Golf-Balls is acceptable.

I expect Demigods to grab catapultasauruses by their tails and swing them into a crowd of Minotaurs. ;3

why not a whined up pitch?

base-ball anyone?

wait, why not soccer? ( GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!)

I still get the picture that this is going to have the feel of Black and White 2, with the armies and the creature backing it up. You had relative control over the armies. A lot more would be better.

Ender Wiggin

Chuck Norris (actually Bruce Campbell is a bigger better badass in my opinion)

Chuck Norris jokes are not funny anymore.

we need a new internet messiah...

and demigod could be the harbingers of such a one, all they have to do is include the LAWPQ and before u know it, Demigod will become the new mecca for online nerds and gamers everywhere

http://www.brucefacts.com/

if you ave no Idea who he is, google him

lmao

Atleast you guys have the balls to say it isn't an RTS unlike a certain other strat-based game I know (COUGH WORLD IN CONFLICT COUGH)

I hate it when people call that game an RTS, because there is hardly any kind of stratigy involved. It's basically a top-down battlefield game, but instead of being first person shooter it's a point and click adventure game.

Oh god, not the strategy vs tactics discussion again.

IMO, they both have good reasons to be in a game...

You can't have one without the other, strategy and tactics are mutually inclusive, not exclusive.

ya, but on most games nowadays (excluding SupCom) its all tactics, its all its really been... not TA tho... (w00t)

If you ever use more than 1 Tactic, odds are, you're using Strategy. Strategy is the overarching goal you achieve by stringing together a number of tactics.

The ultimate strategy in SupCom is 'Win', this gets broken down a bit depending on the game type to 'Destroy Commander' or whatever, and then further breaks down to 'Take out enemy economy.' 'Intercept enemy army.' 'Gain air superiority.' Etc Ect.
How you do these things is tactics, and again there are different levels. If i choose to destroy my enemies economy by attacking his mexes, then that's a tactic, if i then choose to attack his mexes with a careful 2 pronged assault and a diversionary attack to distract him somewhere else, then thats another 2 tactics right there, combining into a third tactic.

By definition you cannot have Strategy without Tactics, and while you can have Tactics without Strategy (just run around randomly) doing so will not win you any games, ever.

That's not really an accurate statement. The fundamental difference between the two is premeditation. A strategy requires premeditation, whereas a tactic can be reactionary or is a method used to carry out a predetermined plan. You seem to be confused on what the real difference is between the two, so I'll give you an example.

"Choosing to destroy your enemy's economy by attacking his mexes" is a strategic decision, not a tactical one. It's the premeditated portion of the plan. The means in which you execute that plan is the tactical portion (i.e The 2-pronged assault you mentioned.) "To win" is not a strategy. It's an objective. A strategy can have several objectives and "to win" is most likely the final objective, but it is not the strategy. Otherwise you might as well call Guitar Hero a strategy game.

While I do agree that you cannot execute a strategy without tactics, I do not agree that you can't win with tactics alone. You can win games by reacting skillfully to your opponent and not having a predefined plan. In many cases the use of strong tactics simply open up opportunities for the win. So, I would argue just the opposite. You can win with tactics alone, but you can't win with strategy alone.

Wrong thread for this discussion.

Well, in that case don't start the discussion

This discussion has been had at least half a dozen times scattered across multiple threads, my last post was a tail-end of the discussion. It doesn't need to be continued.