While I am a huge fan of SupCom FA, it wasn't until the holidays that I picked up SupCom 2 + DLC for $6 from a Steam special. I looked at the demo when the game was released last year and, in all honesty, was not that impressed. I definitely wasn't going to pay full price for it.

Having gotten a chance to thoroughly explore SupCom 2 these last couple of weeks, I'm coming to the conclusion that the changes that differentiate it with SupCom FA were largely to address (note I did not use the word "correct") slowdown problems with SupCom FA and its steep system requirements rather than attract a new generation of customers given the simplified gameplay.

My reasons for this conclusion are the following:

1. The game is specifically advertised to run on lower specs than SupCom FA;
   
2. In SupCom 2 you have to wait until you have enough mass + energy to build something instead of queuing it up and taking a hit on your income rate (which would allow you to simultaneously build so many things) as in SupCom FA. Now, in SupCom 2 when you queue something to be built and you don't have enough resources, your unit just idles until there is enough to build. This reduces the number of ongoing things processed by the cpu, thereby increasing performance;
   
3. The whole tech tree thing. It appears that it's not really meant to simplify micro-management or add some "cool" new unique gameplay feature, but rather to again limit how many things are simultaneously being built and concurrently utilizing the economy. In the original SupCom you teched up your bases in the same manner as building units.
   
   The kind of upgrades in SupCom 2 (health, damage, vision, etc.), even if they do not have counterparts in SupCom FA could have easily been implemented in SupCom 2 using the old economy-based build/research approach. But to do so, would tax the cpu.
   
   Most of the upgrade paths in SupCom 2 simply don't make any sense. Given that many upgrades in SupCom 2 are useless for the seasoned SupCom FA player, removing them would leave a very, very slim tech tree.
   
   Simply clicking on an upgrade option rather than building through the economy reduces the number of ongoing things processed by the cpu, thereby increasing performance;
   
4. Drastic reduction in the number of different playable units; and
   
5. Storyline aside, eliminating one playable race eliminates the number of different units the engine has to deal with and therefore provides more wiggle remove for the previous points

I haven't been able to confirm this for myself, but perusing the forums, there is a suggestion that the massive slow downs in SupCom FA are mostly attributable to the AI scripts. The theory is that the AI scripts continue to send commands to dead units. Obviously, after a while, this taxes the cpu. If this is indeed the problem, then some modding of the AI scripts should be able address this problem.

Therefore, instead of "improving" the SupCom FA engine to create SupCom 2, I'm inclined to believe that SupCom 2 is nothing more than a stripped-down SupCom FA engine. In other words, SupCom FA uses a superior engine to what is used by SupCom 2.

You are about 9 months late to the SupCom2-bashing party. Please try to be on time in the future.

What's that supposed to mean?

Hi-Five. I was paying a complement to your epic quip.

Honestly I doubt everything you stated was done in the name of preformance, obviously one of thier goals when developping the game was to have it run better or a larger varierty on computers, at least comapred to FA. But I wouldn't go as far to say the entire engineis inferior for FA's, after all, it is just an updated version of the Original Moho Engine used in SupCom1, which got updated for FA, then for Demigod, and THEN for SupCom2.

Its not that Supcom2's engine is inferior, more so you could think of it as not being used to it's fullest potential. The Flow field pathfinding is inarguably a step in the right direction, wether the system worked well, is a subject that has many opposing views.

To be honest I'd love to be able to properlly mod Supcom 2, there are many things in SupCom2 that just work as they were built to, like mobile factories actually being mobile, as in building and moving at the same time.

I described Supcom2 very well once, you can think of it as a car, its got a sweet engine, exhaust and such, and decent body, but god dammit, some idiot accidentally painted it Hot Pink instead of whatever color you think is most epic.

Mike

LMAO! I wanted to reserve my comments until I could authentically test the game out since I wasn't going to buy it at full price. None of my friends would by it either. In fact, I had to gift several copies to them just to get them to play multiplayer with me!

And given what makes up the DLC, no wonder the game is not mod friendly.

In the future, if you gift me new SupCom releases, I'll be on time to the bashing party. But from the looks of it, I think I might forgo the party altogether.

Yeah, I deserve the fist for wasting $6.

I meant the engine is inferior given the restricted access we have to it. If it was at all mod friendly, I would be all for doing a total conversion to FA (I know of the mod projects out there trying to implement FA features in it), but it seems either impossible or very difficult to implement. And then the next time Steam decides to update the game...

For me, when it boils down to functionality, using your car analogy, it's like a V8 engine that only uses 4 cylinders.

One thing that really p****d me off in particular about the actual gameplay itself is that the Cybran Boomerang Nuke Redirector combined with Anti-nukes can't continue volleying. For example, I send a nuke to the enemy, I have several Boomerang Nuke Redirectors built as well as anti-nukes, the enemy redirects my incoming nuke with its Boomerang, and I can't stop the nuke! So stupid!!! Talk about simplifying the game!!! (You can probably tell how I lost that game...)

It's not so much the engine is inferior when it comes to modding. There's only one thing stopping mod support from being made by the community (left out when much of the lobby Lua code was migrated into the engine).

In every other regard, it looks like the new engine trumps the old one.

Well nots not as much an issue with the engine being enferior, it just has less access to modders, you should clarify your definitions, because from your first post it seems as thought you were saying it was designed to be inferior, but now you seem to say its inferior because its not a good modding platform.

As for your issue with Boomeranges, its just knowing how to use them, if you let them nuke you first it would have been Thier missile Exploding in Thier base instead, its also an issue with the same they handle missile redirects, and it isn't unique to Supcom2 either, the Loyalist missile redirrect form Supcom1/FA did the same thing, it could redirect a Tactical missile right back at teh launcher, but TMD wouldn't target it. Obviously a nuke is much deadlier than a Tac Missile, but considering they prolly hadn't planned to redirect Nukes right from the get go of the game, they didn't put any priority on optimizing that system.

Mike

Maybe "inferior" isn't the best term to use. Let me try to clarify.

I don't think it would be in the company's interest to write a whole new engine from scratch since the engine from SupCom FA was useable with a bit of tweaking. Naturally it's expected that much if not most of the code would be recycled.



From the modding perspective:

If the exact same engine was used as in FA but with the changed gameplay, so long as 3rd-party modding was able to revert all those changes, then there's no problem. However, if some aspects of the game were now hard-locked and prevented from modding, and the changes were for the worse, then I would consider the engine "inferior". For example, if I buy a Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, etc. with an authentic engine, but something in the car (e.g., electronics), prevented the car from going faster than 30 mph, I would consider to have an inferior engine than someone who is not restricted as such, despite that the underlying mechanical build is the same. In the end, if I can't use the engine the way it was designed to be used or capable of being used, then what engine do I really have? I guess this question is kind of like "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound"?



From the design perspective:

If certain segments of the engine were commented out and not used then the engine itself is inherently different than the old one. It may be based on the old one, with some improvements here and there, but overall design changes in the way it is used and what can be used effectively make it different, and in my opinion, "inferior". For example, changing the lines of code that make the engineer/ACU idle if there isn't enough resources to build. Since this change is hard-coded into the engine, I would consider this change to be inferior, because instead of finding an algorithm that would be more cpu efficient to build in the manner of FA, the feature itself was removed/disabled. The old engine was at least capable of performing multiple builds without having enough resources. However, even in the old engine, you could still achieve the same result as in the new engine by simply manually waiting until you have enough resources in order to begin building. End result is the same, but more options with the old engine. Therefore, the new engine is "inferior" - it did not find a new more efficient algorithm to do the old task better, but actually removed that feature! So, it actually does less!


Bottom line, SupCom 2 sucks.

I wouldn't say inferior engine at all - that justification is wrong. The engine is held back, nothing more.


Agreed.

Um....they didn't, Supcom2 doesn't have a 100% new engine, the Moho Engine has been at the core of every GPG game(aside form Space Siege) since the Original SupCom. They've updated it every time, and continue to do so for Kings and Castles(the 5th game to use the Moho engine)

Mike

this statement you blindly copied from some stupid review it is not true for 5 months already. you don't have to wait for resources, you can queue up everything you want.

well anyone saying graphics engine is inferior is just plain blind.
cartoonish models -may be, inferior engine - just false, can't be more wrong.

And why is that a bad thing? The specs for both SC and FA were absolutely ridiculous. Most people I know didn't even have computers that could run it on LOW settings when it came out, and 4 years later I know very few people that could play it on high settings in a multiplayer game without significant FPS drop (including me). For some people that have no lives and want to spend thousands of dollars on their computer(s) instead of their girlfriend, car, hobby, whatever, that's reasonable; but you're in a dreamworld if you think that the steep requirements of the first game didn't hurt the potential playerbase.

Read above, that is not a bad thing.

This entire comment, to me, is pure speculation. I never saw Chris Taylor or the GPG crew once come out and say that the tech tree was intentionally implemented for the sole purpose of increasing game performance. The idea even strikes me as odd because without spending a point into any tree, you can build dozens of things simultaneously if you have the resources to support it, I fail to see how the tech tree would prevent that.

A lot of people, from my experience, undervalue, underappreciate, or simply show a lack of understanding of the SupCom 2 tech tree. The tech tree is what makes the game interesting and unique, it is your 3rd resource which did not exist in the 1st game. Take a look at Starcraft: Starcraft is a game about build orders and unit counters. Your opponent builds this, you build that, he builds that, you build that. What strategy is there in that? The game is more focused on micromanagement and memorization than actual strategy. That's not to say that strategy doesn't exist, it's just not as important as knowing good build orders and counters and being good at micro/macro, you can't argue that. The tech tree in Supreme Commander 2 prevents the typical hard-counter, build order cycle by forcing you down a certain research tree once you begin putting points into it. Instead of just being able to switch techs willy nilly, you are actually encouraged to use what you have, and use it in a strategical fashion, rather than just constantly switching techs to suit the situation like you did in the first game and in Starcraft. Strategy comes from improvision, not memorization. The tech tree forces improvisation on the player, and thus creates a deeper, more strategical experience than other popular RTS titles in my opinion.

So yeah, go ahead and trash talk it all you want, but your reasoning for disliking it is weak, to say the least.

---

Your other points pretty much just assume that the game was completely designed around making the engine more accessible and stable for people who don't have the best computers on the market; which I'm still not convinced you have any proof of, and even if it were true, it wouldn't be a bad thing. In a game that can have several thousand units in operation at the same time, firing bullets and projectiles which all have their own trajectory and/or flight path, it's NOT a bad thing to try and improve performance, especially after the failure of the first games.

Let me tell you what I think about FA. FA was a failed attempt to make a spiritual successor to Total Annihilation. Even though FA came out over 10 years later, Total Annihilation was still a superior game in almost every way, at least if you're only considering the concepts, units, and mechanics, and if you want to include the Spring engine, won in every aspect imaginable. SC/FA was like a mad scientistic experiment, it had all the concepts of a good, large scale RTS game, but the execution failed. The races had no distinction or diversity, outside of the Experimentals which were rarely used (and is a pretty terrible place to start if you want to know the truth), and your whole argument about the first game having so many more units to choose from, as well as a 4th race, clearly demonstrates why you don't understand the shortcomings of that game. FA had TOO many units, they made no sense for the races they belonged to, and ultimately weren't that fun. As I've said before, the system requirements for the game were insane, so it didn't really matter how good the game was (it wasn't), because a very small percentage of people with a computer could actually play it.

I'll tell you the reason Supreme Commander 2 didn't do that well: Starcraft 2. That's it. No futuristic RTS game is going to do well when Blizzard makes one, and GPG made a horrible decision releasing around that time. Go ahead and name another futuristic RTS title that was made within the past 6 months that has done well besides Starcraft 2, and I will take it back. SupCom 2 didn't do well because of the hype, and because most people decided to spend $60 on a different RTS (and why would you need 2 at the same time anyway?). That's it. It wasn't because the entire FA fanbase was butthurt. FA didn't have an excuse, it was just a bad game.

Supreme Commander 2 is a great game, they did extremely well, continue to do well, and it doesn't deserve any of the trash talk that you FA whiners give it. Nobody is preventing you from playing that game, good riddance.

Like there are so many new awesome RTS games around to compare with...

Seriously, the last good and original RTS release was "Company of Heroes", and that was 2006 (and unfortunately the expansions made it worse).

SupCom1/FA was crap for infinite reasons in infinite areas.
CnC3 was crap, though it had awesome graphics and presentation (for it's time).
RA3 was crap
DoW2 was a much worse CoH.
Starcraft2 is unfunny-competitive-only retro-crap.

Supreme Commander 2 is easily the best recent RTS right now. It is a solid, playable, fun and original game.

Yes it has some flaws, mainly engine bugs, but it is the only RTS that matters, and I hope support with patches/DLCs will continue.

CoH Online (not my cup of tea), DoW II (best RTT around, period, only Live is hurting it) and SupCom 2 (decently improved stuff but still flawed) are the RTSs which can escape some of SCII's reign (undeserved reign if you only look at gameplay).

There isn't much else to be excited about except for Retribution, possible SupCom 2 DLC and Kings and Castles. SupCom: FA easily holds its own amidst the current top RTSs though. It's way better than some critics have said. The best SupCom experience lies somewhere between FA and SupCom 2, I think that's the bottom line and hopefully also the design lesson that CT will learn for SupCom 3.

Or

Well just piss off and go play FA then, you dumb ***.

The problem is, FA has those performance issues that the Sup2 fanboys lord over those who like FA.

Is it too much to ask for the best of both worlds, even if the community has to make it themselves?

Madface, you are spending too much time making Supcom2 into FA2, just play the game, learn the mechanics, really get to grips with the game and then start passing judgement based on what Supcom2 IS.

To begin with start playing a more aggressive game and you'll realise because you only have to go into the research tree and upgrade, maintaining an early offensive is far more feasible while still looking at the mid or even late game.

The real fun of Supcom2 is picking a research and basing your strategy off it, be it Long range artillery, Megaliths or Space temple, start playing Supcom2 as it was intended to be played and you may find it's a far better game than you give it credit for.

If it still isn't your cup of tea then so be it, I'm sorry you feel you wasted $6. I myself feel my preorder of the game, about £25 + DLC, was all money well spent.

Dude, you spent six bucks. Either play the game and enjoy it, or cry like a baby and not have any fun. Either way, you are doing no good in trying to shove your opinion down everyone's throats.

Some advice

1) OP, if you are going to complain about wasting six f'ing dollars, then you are not in a position to be spending six dollars. Get a job.

2) To anyone telling the OP to take it somewhere else: Why? Last I checked, this is the Sup2 forum. The OP's post wasn't rude or insulting, in fact, maybe GPG likes to read these kind of things, ever think about that? Stop reading/commenting in threads you don't like.

Anyways, I loved FA. It was literally the perfect strategy game for me. I had to stop playing it because the performance issues and Sim Speed Slowdown just became too much to bare. It's such a tragedy really. Sup2 isn't my cup of tea, I keep trying to get into it... but it's just missing something. Another tragedy. Now I have my sights set on Kings and Castles... Third time's a charm? I hope so...

As I said, inferior might not be the right word. It is definitely held back. Either way, without getting into semantics, I think you get what I'm trying to say.