I agree with Pinguin, and I would like to add that my biggest issue with Supcom2 is how GPG just completely ditched anything that didn't work 100%.

Yeah the FA Eco had its flaws and issues, but its just needed some fixing, not replacing.

Yeah the Tier system resulting in Higher Tier units laying waste to lower tier units, but that was a problem with how it was implemented, not the tier system itself.

Now, of course its hard to say where thesde changes really came from, but its really only the end result that matters here.

Mike

One could argue that the T1/2/3 units were all repetitions of the same unit. The argument has been done to death, but the T1 tank is functionally identical to the T2 tank and the T3 heavy/armored unit.

I actually think FA T2 was the best model for a proper tier system, but unfortunately the dynamics of the game marginalized T2. Rather than 1 general purpose tank like in T1 & 3, there was a short-ranged, heavy tank and a long-ranged skirmisher unit (except for the Seraphim), and then there is the amphibious tank. T1 has only 1 general combat unit, so the least unit diversity, but better factional diversity in my opinion due to the differences between the Aurora, Striker, and Mantis. T3 depends on the faction, but there are only 1 or 2 heavy units to build. T2 has 2 or 3 depending on faction. But then if all tiers were like T2, there would still be lots of redundancy, even more of it in fact (T1 amphibious tank, T2 amphibious tank, T3 amphibious tank).

I think if the roles and unit types of T3 and T2 were switched, FA would be a much better game. It would lead to more diversity in the late game just like a tech tree would do, rather than the flat levels of FA. You have limited resources, so you cannot invest in all T3 unit types at once. KnC is already in production, so our ideas will have little impact, but it may be a way to have the tech levels of SupCom1 while maintaining the tree effect of SupCom2.

Yes. And it's exasperating to witness since many of us are long-time PC gamers who've seen all of the different variations on the RTS formula... It's not that I don't appreciate the fun elements in SupCom2, but the gameplay was reduced to something similar to Dawn of War and so many other RTS games with little squads of little units with crazy abilities.

Plus, there are also lots of basic gripes with the implementation that, to me, clearly demonstrate that GPG didn't have enough time/resources to produce a current gen RTS. The reduced map/mod support are massive failures imo. I don't know of a single other RTS released in the last few years that matches SupCom2's lack of support there.

There are little elements in the UI that went backwards (e.g., it's less customizable than FA's UI, both in game and via mods, and the UI is missing some obvious functionality like unit descriptions when mousing over icons or the ability to build structures with multiple workers selected.. Transports also suffer from some bad UI/unit AI design).

The graphics engine has some merits, but I hate the fact that the lighting model (and unit design *and* unit shields) makes my armies indistinguishable shiny blobs that blend almost seamlessly with the terrain on many maps.

Even the score summary is disappointing. When I go land and my friend goes naval, I'd like to see who made the most air or who killed the most air.. or many other obvious things like that..

On the note of map/mod support; I'd blame SE for that, not GPG.

If SE had the intention of making lots of money off DLC (which, face it, it looks like they do) then they'll naturally want to kill DLC's biggest competitor - modders.

Yeah. I think you might be right, but I tend to blame developers along with the publishers they choose. (..and/or the things they allow their publisher to control)

I'm very sympathetic to GPG's situation as an Indie Dev, don't get me wrong, but I can't just excuse GPG for every (we assume) bad publisher they have. They have to stand up for some things and make it work financially. That's part of their job. If they do it well then I'm happy to give them my money and promote and support their games.

I'm an ardent supporter of Indie dev companies much smaller than GPG. I love that Indie devs (often) have a lot of integrity, showing great care for their products through support and interaction with the community.

You try and find publishers. Its not like theyre lining up to produce indie strategy games. This is not CnC/Starcraft. Its not that easy, and probably not GPGs place to be picky.

I have to side with nephy here. With the exception of Blizzard, generally the publishers hold most of the cards. They control the purse strings, remember.

Besides, if I recall correctly, didn't CT say something about making another Supcom game if a publisher requests it? This leads me to believe that GPG probably makes most of is money by responding the publisher requests and developing the games that they are paid to develop. My bet is that Square made 90% of the important decisions. After all, if GPG tried to tell Square "no" on something, Square would have just paid another developer to make supcom 2. Square owns supcom's IP, if you'll recall.

Remember, GPG went to several major publishers before THQ took them on. I know I blame THQ for the lack of support for FA, but they did take a massive risk in publishing SupCom1. Few other companies are willing to take the financial and publicity risk of such an ambitious game that might not appeal to the vast majority of gamers. SE might have been the only publisher to show even the slightest interest in making another SupCom game. SupCom1 had a bad reputation of being hardware-demanding, hard for new players to learn, and being too slow of a game. Many CnC/Starcraft fans did not like the game at all. And that's where the problem lies. CnC/Starcraft fans make up the majority of RTS players. If any game is to succeed on a large scale, it must appeal to those gamers.

supcom is dead now that square enix owns it =(

Supcom 1 had all the elements of a good game but who-ever was doing the game design didn't know where to take it.

In supcom 2 they finally got a half-way decent gameplay designer but put the good ideas to a bad design in a half-arsed way.

Supcom 1 had the over-all skeleton to make a game superior to starcraft but they just didn't have the gameplay mechanics to take it to the next level. There was just a lot of mis-understood bone-head things they did. They also way-under estimated how large maps and large build times effect gameplay time, etc.

FA was slightly better but it was much toned down, FA for me still felt like an abortion because they didn't know where to take it gameplay wise, and the Seraphim were _totally unnecessary_ what needed tweaking were the three original races.

It seems GPG just likes to make games for their art department and not for gamers some days, all of their games have this streak of good graphics with unfinished gameplay. Demigod had crap items and was unfinished, space siege was an abortion of epic proportions.

Forged Alliance (UI functions, scale, map textures, unit count, max map size, mods, GPGnet features, ease and necessity to use all theatres of war) and SupCom 2 (centralised research, graphical effects, map geometry, faction diversity, exotic experimentals, computer AI, accessible, patched economy) are the closest we've come to the perfect large-scale RTS. They're both imperfect, KaC has a chance to combine the good parts of both games.

Don't drag StarCraft I and II into this as those games are still competing with WarCraft II in terms of gameplay/UI.

2foolish, I'm gonna have to ask for you to provide actual examples for your claims.

Mike

I'd like to see that aswell.
I doubt its going to happen because he's obviously been drinking toilet cleaner.

It would take something like a book to go over all the aspects of Supcom and what they could have done with it. More importantly, even if I did state evidence, human reasoning doesn't work on universality. I can say something and you will not be able to grasp nor understand the implications of the evidence. Since this assumes everyone else is working with the same definitions, concepts and coherent experience of what makes a good game. Most importantly reasoning doesn't work like any of you think it does -- Check this vid on Humnan Reasoning
http://goo.gl/1kfgy

Dialogue can only even begin to happen among everyone involved can identify what makes a good game and can coherently express it.

Human reasoning isn't universal - http://goo.gl/1kfgy . That means I can say something and be absolutely correct without you being able to grasp the correctness of it. Most people assume universal reasoning, most people assume (whether they are aware of it or not) that the audience and the speaker have a shared universe of discourse, and that they can "use their rational mind to get there" this is not what science has shown.

Could you just state the evidence? You are avoiding the question right now. Evidence will improve the credibility of your claim, lecturing people on human reasoning with the implication that they are unreasonable just makes your argument seem weak (since it is using an ad hominem attack).

I would start with the exponential growth of everything. Compare the stats of a T2 tank to that of a T1. Faster, stronger, better - in every regard.

To give some [false] sense of balance to that, higher tier units are much much more expensive. Now, if you want to build any reasonable number of those higher tier units, you need a much stronger economy to support it. Upping from T1 to T2 nets you 300% higher mass income, but it costs a lot to get.

In smaller maps (save for Palms and Daroza's), it's incredibly risky to tech up - that's now common knowledge. But on larger maps, you have enough distance between you and your opposition to not bother with a T1 army and spend your early resources on getting to higher tiers faster.

I've ignored fabs. because they're slightly different, but equally as bad.

[EDIT:] Sup2 suffers this to a similar extent, except that you upgrade your early units into your late-game units (save for experimentals). I see it as patching over the problem, instead of fixing it directly.

ergo, the main (gameplay) issues for FA were one of balance.

I suspect what you and I call balance, 2foolish calls gameplay.

About DLC: didn't anyone else notice how little coverage there is on DLC in general? It's really shocking to see the SupCom 2 DLC doesn't even get a place on MetaCritic or GameRankings.

Getting the word out or getting some reviews for it seems like a hard task for everyone.

I'm not avoiding the question, it's not using an ad hominem attack. Science is not ad hominem. I purposely pointed out reasoning doesn't work in a linear universal manner, i.e. there are things that other people cannot judge correctly because _the universe of discourse_ is not the same. i.e. everyone does not have a basis for dialogue to discuss the issue intelligently.

You're claiming the above is ad hominem, I've demonstrated it's science. So you have an argument with science.

I think we'd have to identify and thoroughly lay down grounds for discussion first.

Unit by unit perspectives, was it a good design/bad design. Then go into hitpoints, weapon characteristics, damage, etc. Basically come up with a chart/excel sheet that maps relationships between units.

What are the advantages/disadvantages for units that have property X/Y/Z.

Just throwing around vague concepts like "balance" and "gameplay" are all encompassing, they point to ideas in our heads that are unexpressed. It's really requires thorough analysis on an on going basis that would be pages of dialogue and back and forth and a lot of time spent on it.

Then come up with coherent points of view (pros vs cons) on units, their design, and how they effect the game.

Exponential growth was definitely part of the problem, but the other part was Unit manufacturing times were extra-ordinarily long/resource consuming (for some) and I think thats part of the reasons fabs were created and made for exponential growth.

Ideally when you make a game you have to think about it thoroughly front to back, how you generally want the game to play out (back and forth) and design around the basic framework. You purposely design into the game windows of advantage/disadvantage. Since RTS games on the whole can tend to be resource + blob races if they are not well thought out.