CnC 3 dumbed down for the console.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
You even got a good awareness of how successful the attack would be just by glancing at the enemy. There is no real planning in C&C3 other than looking at your enemy and spamming the proper counter to what they are spamming and taking control of the map, trying to gain dominance on the field rather than trying to take out an outpost which is what the MCV is all about, in TS atleast. When the series evolved in to its own unique direction. I find it really funny that in the missions in the demo Nod gets too strong and GDI has to use a super weapon to gain control of the situation. It's the basic problem in all games that encourage unit spam.
This is all about RTS as a sport. They leave a lot of room open for you to work your ass off so whoever is working the hardest has a good chance of winning. It's not about brains. It's about making people want to watch a constant non-stop spam fest. It's about quantity over quality at the highest level. Instead of sending in a covert ops force specifically designed to get the job done, you send in a bunch of tank bunkers that attack everything in sight. This is like Chess vs Checkers. C&C3 is more checkers where whoever has the most generic pieces will probably win. You have to admit that that's pretty pathetic and designed for people who would rather get attention than a game based on skill. All sides basically have the same units in this game.
Replays are not about sharing strategy, it's about looking cool by showing the world every time you play a really good game where you spend all your money as soon as you get it and how well you control your unit masses based on what the enemy does which has a lot to do with luck which is why you get all happy when it goes your way because of all the other multi tasking you have to do like spamming more units and gathering them while still controling your units on the field. What if you have a bad day and you don't feel like working your ass off? Should you just not play this at all?
Now I wait for you people to do what you always do. THE GAME'S TOO FAST FOR YOU! YOU'RE NOT GOOD AT VIDEO GAMES! BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M 12 AND ENJOY SPAMMING OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND SHOWING PEOPLE REPLAYS WHEN IT LOOKS REALLY COOL!
ZING! It goes right over your head because you fall for clever marketing sceems and don't understand that there can be different types of RTS games that aren't just paper scissors rock where all the sides are the same and you get little novelties like loading a tank bunker with infantry and spamming them to make it look more impressive than it deserves to be. Like the titles says. This is not a good sequel that deserves to have that 3 in its name. This game is a monster. It's not a great game but it's not a bad game either, it's just right to get the most money and the biggest audience.
So does that make it a good thing? Of course it does if you want people to watch your crappy replays and are a casual.
C&C has been murdered on the street for money. Only a casual will enjoy this generic and shallow game. Don't play the same crap over and over that they throw at you. Move on with your lives to bigger and better things if they just want to use you instead of being innovative.
Some or most of you may have hated Generals due to the lack of single player and the fact that it just doesn't fit in the series, but the great thing about that game is IT HAD depth unlike this game.
You'd be hard pressed to make a RTS game more shallow and more casual then this game
There's nothing like tunnel popping, vee micro, buggy micro, scattering units when migs approach, ECM dancing/disabling, tech/rpg usage, laser lock etc.
There's a certain finesse to CCG that C&C 3 just doesn't have. It's really just about making as many tanks as you can, and then reversing them when you get into trouble or need to retreat to repair. It's pretty simple micro tbh.
You will see what I mean when the novelty wears off.
picture a nuke mirror with no helixes, no outposts and no ECMs. All you do is the same kind of basic micro for all three factions. Unlike in CCG where controlling a technical is different from controlling a humvee, which is different from controlling a battlebus which is different from using units in conjunction with tunnels, which is different from microing an OL/ECM combo.
The specific things you do in ZH are all quite different when compared to the repetitive forbidden>And I also think it has something to do with the Xbox 360 version. Special abilities like laser lock and others are more difficult to do on the 360. Imagine trying to micro a tech/rpg to hunt dozers and supply trucks with a 360 controller? Yeah, impossible. So you'll find nothing like tech/rpg micro in C&C 3.
Here is an example, when I started the Egypt mission. I immediatly spammed out gunners. In about 5 minutes I had cleared the whole map with just gunners. I see a problem with that, the AI didn't even attack once.
I will agree with you. It does seem that this game has been catered to more "intense" fighting then thinking.meh try to beat the AI on medium in a skirmish match... trust me it takes some thinking. the first single player missions in all RTSs are a piece of cake. i dont think you should judge it by that
Here is an example, when I started the Egypt mission. I immediatly spammed out gunners. In about 5 minutes I had cleared the whole map with just gunners. I see a problem with that, the AI didn't even attack once.ChocoKat
No offense to C&C series, as it is my favorite series of any RTS, but it wasnt exactly brilliant or innovative to begin with. Sure, it made the RTS genre popular and, along with Dune 2, started the genre but since the first Westwood Studios and later EA never really did anything innovative with it. In other words, there wasnt really anything to dumb down.
And thats why its so good! Its just basic, hardcore base building and unit creation, with good plots and cutscenes! The tactical, squad-based combat of CoH may have been innovative and the massive armies of SupCom may be cool and impressive, but at the end of the day I will put my money and good ol' C&C any day of the week.
The only thing I didnt enjoy about the demo were the lack of walls (what can I say, I am a turtle) and the fact that you can build 5 war factories/barracks/const. yards and spam everything. I like having one central base that must be proteted at all cost, and I like having to play conservatively with my units since they took money and time to build.
You do know. This was what the developers were aimming for. They wanted C&C. They made it. What is the problem here?Well, that's the problem. This is not how C&C was played. Go play the original and see how totally different the games are. I had two Orca's that's right TWO take out the whole nod base in the prologue mission. If anyone can remember the original S.A.M sites were deadly.
Acenso
What made the original Commander and Conquer was a great story told by FMV and excellent CGI. In each mission you felt like there was a sense of urgency. While playing the demo, I felt none of this. It seems that EA tried to go back to the original games roots but missed every mark.No offense to C&C series, as it is my favorite series of any RTS, but it wasnt exactly brilliant or innovative to begin with. Sure, it made the RTS genre popular and, along with Dune 2, started the genre but since the first Westwood Studios and later EA never really did anything innovative with it. In other words, there wasnt really anything to dumb down.
And thats why its so good! Its just basic, hardcore base building and unit creation, with good plots and cutscenes! The tactical, squad-based combat of CoH may have been innovative and the massive armies of SupCom may be cool and impressive, but at the end of the day I will put my money and good ol' C&C any day of the week.
The only thing I didnt enjoy about the demo were the lack of walls (what can I say, I am a turtle) and the fact that you can build 5 war factories/barracks/const. yards and spam everything. I like having one central base that must be proteted at all cost, and I like having to play conservatively with my units since they took money and time to build.
mrbojangles25
You'd be hard pressed to make a RTS game more shallow and more casual then this game
There's nothing like tunnel popping, vee micro, buggy micro, scattering units when migs approach, ECM dancing/disabling, tech/rpg usage, laser lock etc.
There's a certain finesse to CCG that C&C 3 just doesn't have. It's really just about making as many tanks as you can, and then reversing them when you get into trouble or need to retreat to repair. It's pretty simple micro tbh.
You will see what I mean when the novelty wears off.
picture a nuke mirror with no helixes, no outposts and no ECMs. All you do is the same kind of basic micro for all three factions. Unlike in CCG where controlling a technical is different from controlling a humvee, which is different from controlling a battlebus which is different from using units in conjunction with tunnels, which is different from microing an OL/ECM combo.
The specific things you do in ZH are all quite different when compared to the repetitive forbidden>And I also think it has something to do with the Xbox 360 version. Special abilities like laser lock and others are more difficult to do on the 360. Imagine trying to micro a tech/rpg to hunt dozers and supply trucks with a 360 controller? Yeah, impossible. So you'll find nothing like tech/rpg micro in C&C 3.
[QUOTE="Acenso"]You do know. This was what the developers were aimming for. They wanted C&C. They made it. What is the problem here?Well, that's the problem. This is not how C&C was played. Go play the original and see how totally different the game are. I had two Orca's that's right TWO take out the whole nod base in the prologue mission. If anyone can remember the original S.A.M sites were deadly.
ChocoKat
The first few misions are always stupid easy,just like the first C&C the first few missions were a cake walk.
[QUOTE="ChocoKat"]I will agree with you. It does seem that this game has been catered to more "intense" fighting then thinking.meh try to beat the AI on medium in a skirmish match... trust me it takes some thinking. the first single player missions in all RTSs are a piece of cake. i dont think you should judge it by that
Here is an example, when I started the Egypt mission. I immediatly spammed out gunners. In about 5 minutes I had cleared the whole map with just gunners. I see a problem with that, the AI didn't even attack once.zero9167
My bad it does take some thinking... like deciding on wether I should click the build button one more time. I mean the units build at a light speed pace anyway, so why not?
Some or most of you may have hated Generals due to the lack of single player and the fact that it just doesn't fit in the series, but the great thing about that game is IT HAD depth unlike this game.
You'd be hard pressed to make a RTS game more shallow and more casual then this game
There's nothing like tunnel popping, vee micro, buggy micro, scattering units when migs approach, ECM dancing/disabling, tech/rpg usage, laser lock etc.
There's a certain finesse to CCG that C&C 3 just doesn't have. It's really just about making as many tanks as you can, and then reversing them when you get into trouble or need to retreat to repair. It's pretty simple micro tbh.
You will see what I mean when the novelty wears off.
picture a nuke mirror with no helixes, no outposts and no ECMs. All you do is the same kind of basic micro for all three factions. Unlike in CCG where controlling a technical is different from controlling a humvee, which is different from controlling a battlebus which is different from using units in conjunction with tunnels, which is different from microing an OL/ECM combo.
The specific things you do in ZH are all quite different when compared to the repetitive forbidden>And I also think it has something to do with the Xbox 360 version. Special abilities like laser lock and others are more difficult to do on the 360. Imagine trying to micro a tech/rpg to hunt dozers and supply trucks with a 360 controller? Yeah, impossible. So you'll find nothing like tech/rpg micro in C&C 3.ARGSmith
I gotta question have to tried the Nod trick,because as i played as Nod and they have quite abit more depth the any side in general.EA said that GDI was ment for new player and a straight forward side.Take Scrin for example your going to have to use tiberian as a soruce of strategy to charge weapons up for units,to comebed units together for stronger units and so forth.Nod alone has a tank with EMP abilty,and a commando that can go stealth.Nod has alot more abilities to play with then GDI.
[QUOTE="Acenso"]You do know. This was what the developers were aimming for. They wanted C&C. They made it. What is the problem here?Well, that's the problem. This is not how C&C was played. Go play the original and see how totally different the games are. I had two Orca's that's right TWO take out the whole nod base in the prologue mission. If anyone can remember the original S.A.M sites were deadly.
ChocoKat
That sounds like Joint Task Force where one unit can obliterate the map.. :) I'm sold! If you were to spam units in JTF or Act of War sure you would win.. but at what price? I had one heavy sniper take out 1/2 of the map one game.. Those are the types of RTSs I enjoy.. :) So, the question is... is C&C3 much like this? I guess I will have to download the demo.. if its the same generic spam n dominate like (don't hit me) Starcraft.. then I probably won't like it. I guess I got sick of the spam unit to win RTS games..
Hell, with the actor lineup already revealed.. I'll prolly just buy it for a "interactive movie" taste. :P
i thought the demo was good cant wait to rent it for my xbox 360 LOL :Pzero9167ugh why would you play it on a console...?
Your right nod do have a tad more depth to them, but not much, they aren't dramatically different and this is still a very shallow game even with them in the picture. First off the game isn't even balanced right now. Between GDI and NOD anyway Honestly how the hell can you balance a game were one faction is for noob and the other is for a bit more strategy, in a GDI vs Nod game like that you will either have nod being overpowered for good player and under powered for bad players or nod very underpowered for bad players and nod underpowered for good players, it just doesn't work. The game isn't even balanced right now, Mammoths are way over powered and the game is really just a spam fest. With the ability to hit the final tech in just a couple minutes you completely void the point of the early game units for everything aside perhaps your first attack. I think this game would still be pretty shallow if all of the units had a real purpose right now, but as of this moment the game is really just about the spam of a couple units at the top of the tech tree. When you setup a games tech tree so you have everything in a couple minutes you basically just shut out half of the games units from use.ARGSmith
Your right that Nod is a bad choice for bad players because Nod has alot of depth,and you don't know anything about balance because you havn't played online against anyone or know how Scrin fairs out.
Nods pretty cool. Have you seen there Avatar Warmechs? You can actually "consume" other units to gain their abilities (Flamethrower, another laser, and stealth). I definately think someone who uses stratigy will own anyone who is just spamming. It may be easy to kill a comp by spamming gunners, but against a person they are probably just going to use flamethrowers._HunterX_
Exacly you can't really talk about balance since AI doesn't fair well to begin with.
When you setup a games tech tree so you have everything in a couple minutes you basically just shut out half of the games units from use.ARGSmithI'll partially agree to that, but think about it. Those higher teck units take longer to build. So if someone where tring to do that you could probably outmanuver their slower units and take out some key buildings like the construction yard.
Idk anything? :lol: I know exactly how well the balance is in a NOD VS GDI game and way to just ignore the rest of my post, this is just a spam game right now man, you hit final tech in a few minutes. Leaving many of the units in the game pointless. And NOD don't have alot of depth, nothing about this game has alot of depth. The game is about spamming a couple of the later game units nothing more.ARGSmith
Now your acting like a troll,your not exacly explaining why Nod has no depth,because with Nod you can't spam units.Plus you know nothing about the balance as you never got to play against a real person yet,online is where the real balacnce issues are found not against a AI.
from basically all the past C&C games. The problem is now we can't
see a difference between RA, C&C, and Generals. They are all rolled
into one now in the Tiberium universe. You got a side bar but you can
expand and spam factories very quickly and easily. Unlike in TS, where
you build a small force and you build each unit knowing its purpose and
what exactly it's going to be attacking in the next few moments.
You
even got a good awareness of how successful the attack would be just by
glancing at the enemy. There is no real planning in C&C3 other than
looking at your enemy and spamming the proper counter to what they are
spamming and taking control of the map, trying to gain dominance on the
field rather than trying to take out an outpost which is what the MCV
is all about, in TS atleast. When the series evolved in to its own
unique direction. I find it really funny that in the missions in the
demo Nod gets too strong and GDI has to use a super weapon to gain
control of the situation. It's the basic problem in all games that
encourage unit spam.
This
is all about RTS as a sport. They leave a lot of room open for you to
work your ass off so whoever is working the hardest has a good chance
of winning. It's not about brains. It's about making people want to
watch a constant non-stop spam fest. It's about quantity over quality
at the highest level. Instead of sending in a covert ops force
specifically designed to get the job done, you send in a bunch of tank
bunkers that attack everything in sight. This is like Chess vs
Checkers. C&C3 is more checkers where whoever has the most generic
pieces will probably win. You have to admit that that's pretty pathetic
and designed for people who would rather get attention than a game
based on skill. All sides basically have the same units in this game.
Replays are not about sharing strategy, it's about looking cool by
showing the world every time you play a really good game where you
spend all your money as soon as you get it and how well you control
your unit masses based on what the enemy does which has a lot to do
with luck which is why you get all happy when it goes your way because
of all the other multi tasking you have to do like spamming more units
and gathering them while still controling your units on the field. What
if you have a bad day and you don't feel like working your ass off?
Should you just not play this at all?
Now I wait for you people
to do what you always do. THE GAME'S TOO FAST FOR YOU! YOU'RE NOT GOOD
AT VIDEO GAMES! BLAH BLAH BLAH I'M 12 AND ENJOY SPAMMING OVER AND OVER
AGAIN AND SHOWING PEOPLE REPLAYS WHEN IT LOOKS REALLY COOL!
ZING!
It goes right over your head because you fall for clever marketing
sceems and don't understand that there can be different types of RTS
games that aren't just paper scissors rock where all the sides are the
same and you get little novelties like loading a tank bunker with
infantry and spamming them to make it look more impressive than it
deserves to be. Like the titles says. This is not a good sequel that
deserves to have that 3 in its name. This game is a monster. It's not a
great game but it's not a bad game either, it's just right to get the
most money and the biggest audience.
So does that make it a good thing? Of course it does if you want people to watch your crappy replays and are a casual.
C&C
has been murdered on the street for money. Only a casual will
enjoy this generic and shallow game. Don't play the same crap over and
over that they throw at you. Move on with your lives to bigger and
better things if they just want to use you instead of being innovative.
Some or most of you may have hated Generals due to the lack of single player and the fact that it just doesn't fit in the series, but the great thing about that game is IT HAD depth unlike this game.
You'd be hard pressed to make a RTS game more shallow and more casual then this game
There's nothing like tunnel popping, vee micro, buggy micro, scattering units when migs approach, ECM dancing/disabling, tech/rpg usage, laser lock etc.
There's a certain finesse to CCG that C&C 3 just doesn't have. It's really just about making as many tanks as you can, and then reversing them when you get into trouble or need to retreat to repair. It's pretty simple micro tbh.
You will see what I mean when the novelty wears off.
picture a nuke mirror with no helixes, no outposts and no ECMs. All you do is the same kind of basic micro for all three factions. Unlike in CCG where controlling a technical is different from controlling a humvee, which is different from controlling a battlebus which is different from using units in conjunction with tunnels, which is different from microing an OL/ECM combo.
The specific things you do in ZH are all quite different when compared to the repetitive forbidden>And I also think it has something to do with the Xbox 360 version. Special abilities like laser lock and others are more difficult to do on the 360. Imagine trying to micro a tech/rpg to hunt dozers and supply trucks with a 360 controller? Yeah, impossible. So you'll find nothing like tech/rpg micro in C&C 3.
And Gun if you want to basically respond to all my posts just go ahead I'm kind of getting sick of it though, I've posted these long arguments and you basically go meh your wrong this game has mad depth! How am I suppose to discuss something with someone with that mind set? If you want to pick my whole post apart and explain to me how this game is not a severely dumbed down Generals and that it wasn't dumbed down in ways for the 360 remote then go ahead, but if not blah I'm going weary of these one liners your giving me Theirs my post up again^ARGSmith
I already read your post its like you only played GDI,you can't say the same for Nod because if you spam a unit your going to die as they don't match up to GDI you have to use your abilities and tactics giving to Nod inorder to take on GDI.
Your right nod do have a tad more depth to them, but not much, they aren't dramatically different and this is still a very shallow game even with them in the picture. First off the game isn't even balanced right now. Between GDI and NOD anyway Honestly how the hell can you balance a game were one faction is for noob and the other is for a bit more strategy, in a GDI vs Nod game like that you will either have nod being overpowered for good player and under powered for bad players or nod very underpowered for bad players and nod underpowered for good players, it just doesn't work. The game isn't even balanced right now, Mammoths are way over powered and the game is really just a spam fest. With the ability to hit the final tech in just a couple minutes you completely void the point of the early game units for everything aside perhaps your first attack. I think this game would still be pretty shallow if all of the units had a real purpose right now, but as of this moment the game is really just about the spam of a couple units at the top of the tech tree. When you setup a games tech tree so you have everything in a couple minutes you basically just shut out half of the games units from use.ARGSmith
Zerg, Terran, and Protoss come to mind...
Some are better for noobs (zerg), some are better for pros (protoss), but any faction can win in the hands of a skilled player.
Idk anything? :lol: I know exactly how well the balance is in a NOD VS GDI game and way to just ignore the rest of my post, this is just a spam game right now man, you hit final tech in a few minutes. Leaving many of the units in the game pointless. And NOD don't have alot of depth, nothing about this game has alot of depth. The game is about spamming a couple of the later game units nothing more.ARGSmith
lol, you need to play some multiplayer with good players and get your ass handed to you, before you claim to know exactly how well the game is balanced. You assume someone is just going to wait for you to spam said high level units...just because the early build-up is accelerated doesn't mean people will just let you go at it in peace and do that noob "I throw my tanks at your tanks after we're all built up and ready to go" thing that noobs usually do.
Yes NOD has some more specialized units like the stealth tank, but besides the fact that most of these units seem very underpowered they really don't make the game have any more micro, the game is still super simple and say automatic for the most part, the game took the core out of CnC.
here's
nothing like tunnel popping, vee micro, buggy micro, scattering units
when migs approach, ECM dancing/disabling, tech/rpg usage, laser lock
etc.
There's a certain finesse to CCG that C&C 3 just
doesn't have. It's really just about making as many tanks as you can,
and then reversing them when you get into trouble or need to retreat to
repair. It's pretty simple micro tbh.
You will see what I mean when the novelty wears off.
picture
a nuke mirror with no helixes, no outposts and no ECMs. All you do is
the same kind of basic micro for all three factions. Unlike in CCG
where controlling a technical is different from controlling a humvee,
which is different from controlling a battlebus which is different from
using units in conjunction with tunnels, which is different from
microing an OL/ECM combo.
The specific things you do in ZH are
all quite different when compared to the repetitive forbidden>And I
also think it has something to do with the Xbox 360 version. Special
abilities like laser lock and others are more difficult to do on the
360. Imagine trying to micro a tech/rpg to hunt dozers and supply
trucks with a 360 controller? Yeah, impossible. So you'll find nothing
like tech/rpg micro in C&C 3.
If it makes you feel good yes the game has a dash of depth, but compared to more recent micro RTS games like DoW and CoH this game is extremely shallow.
Generals had way more depth, this is a step back, far back. The game is as casual as RTS games get.
first Oblivion, now this. Sorry, but I disagree. Phabiuo3
Well I thought Oblivion was dumbed down but definately not this, did the topic creator play Generals.
[QUOTE="Phabiuo3"]first Oblivion, now this. Sorry, but I disagree. Platearmor_6
Well I thought Oblivion was dumbed down but definately not this, did the topic creator play Generals.
Generals may have had a crappy setting and single player, but Generals had a billion times more depth then this game buddy, I know many CnC fans hate Generals, but the fact is it was by far and large the deepest most skilled based of all the CnC games, honestly every other CnC is just a spam game next to Generals. Yes the story and setting sucked, but the multiplayer was deep.
Im a huge C N C fan and i liked generals, but not aswell as the other games in the series because it lacked the C N C mojo.
Have played the C N C 3 demo now alot and like it very much, diffently a 9 out of 10 game if the full game builds on the demo.
A game dosnt have to be innovative to be good. Personally many of the new innvovative games that have come out in the last years didnt suit me, because it wasnt a game you just could jump in and have fun in, it was more games that suited the hardcore RTS gamers. Just look at a game like Gear of war, absolutely nothing new in that game, but it was putt togehter very well to make it a great game, and today we have come to a place where we cant make that many new great things.
What came to my mind when play the C N C 3 demo was that this **** is actually an intence game, and its a freaking RTS, that i liked.
[QUOTE="Platearmor_6"][QUOTE="Phabiuo3"]first Oblivion, now this. Sorry, but I disagree. ARGSmith
Well I thought Oblivion was dumbed down but definately not this, did the topic creator play Generals.
Generals may have had a crappy setting and single player, but Generals had a billion times more depth then this game buddy, I know many CnC fans hate Generals, but the fact is it was by far and large the deepest most skilled based of all the CnC games, honestly every other CnC is just a spam game next to Generals. Yes the story and setting sucked, but the multiplayer was deep.
Oh no don't get me wrong I liked Generals and I'm not your average C&C fan. I just found it a little annoying from time to time being overrun by Humvees, but in this game if you use good tactics you can overcome spamed tanks or what not and come out alot better off.
the title of this topic makes me long for the good old days...
back when if you played ANY video game you were a nerd/geek/loser.
did we really need to sub-catagorize our hobby so we can start excluding our own? do we really need to critiize each other for our preference for PC/console? keyboard mouse/controller? ATI/Nvidia?
maybe they don't "dumb down" games for consoles, maybe some PC users are just arogant? isn't that just as likely? sorry about that remark if anyone took offence to it. i'll leave the insults to the meat heads from now on.
...
Your going to get modded for that cap, well you should lets find out..BeyondItAll
How is responding to the topic disruptive posting? I refuse to read any post that needlessly long and I disagree with the topic creator. Anyway C&C 3 is at least as complex as any other recent RTS (if not more so) and I will be interested to see how they are able to squeeze all the controls onto a game-pad.
I refuse to get into any sort of arguement so I'm gonna agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I agree with everything but that last paragraph. That's what I like about this game.No offense to C&C series, as it is my favorite series of any RTS, but it wasnt exactly brilliant or innovative to begin with. Sure, it made the RTS genre popular and, along with Dune 2, started the genre but since the first Westwood Studios and later EA never really did anything innovative with it. In other words, there wasnt really anything to dumb down.
And thats why its so good! Its just basic, hardcore base building and unit creation, with good plots and cutscenes! The tactical, squad-based combat of CoH may have been innovative and the massive armies of SupCom may be cool and impressive, but at the end of the day I will put my money and good ol' C&C any day of the week.
The only thing I didnt enjoy about the demo were the lack of walls (what can I say, I am a turtle) and the fact that you can build 5 war factories/barracks/const. yards and spam everything. I like having one central base that must be proteted at all cost, and I like having to play conservatively with my units since they took money and time to build.
mrbojangles25
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment