World in Conflict, Company of Heroes, or Supreme Commander?

CoH, it just has so many cool things that make it realistic and deep. I can`t imagine playing a "normal" RTS after having tried CoH.Aashammer

What makes it so different?

Supreme Commander isn't just "large" its EPIC in comparison with every RTS ever released. Once you touch the strategic zoom you won't be able to play anything else the same way again. WiC is fun (great strategic game, but limited because of so few units and you have to rely on teammates during multiplayer), but people say its revolutionary when it is just a carbon copy of GC1/2.

SupCom is tough on your CPU, but WiC is much harder to max than SupCom and same with CoH just because of DX10. SupCom doesn't look good on low though.

If you have a short attention span with computer games, you'll probably perfer WiC. I say this not because its a bad game or a bad purchase, but because it takes only about 3 weeks for you to realize that the game is missing a lot of depth, especially in terms of competitive multiplayer. I don't regret playing it, but I'm already back to playing CoH.

I've found that it boils down to a simple question. Do you REALLY like RTS games? If so, then you'll love CoH because it takes basic ideas and streamlines them (namely base building and resource gathering), and then brings in great new features like a fully interactive battlefield.

WiC is great for people who like the idea of RTS game but hate managing a base and micromanaging combat at the same time (or simply want a break from it). AND THIS IS FINE - this is where the game finds a great coss section of fans. It does a fairly good job of keeping you in the heat of combat, although I find that there's always more fighting being done in CoH than in WiC. WiC gives you a fair few number of units and you tend to keep them together, but you will still run in to situations where you lose units and are waiting around for credits to renew. In CoH you have more units, controlling multiple battlefield objectives and assaulting enemy positions all at once. This is one reason I never really got the argument for WiC being more fast paced - I personally found just as much, if not more downtime during the course of a match.

SC is a game of truely epic proportions but I find the visuals lacking, and the overall sense of immersion fairly nonexistant. To me, SC feels like you're playing with a bunch of little toys with little regard to battle or "objectives." The SP campaing in SC got tedious about half way through, and although I can't speak for the expansion directly ... the fact that I didn't bother picking it up at all (compared with waiting by the phone to hear the "CoH expansion is in stock" call) should say enough.

People can say whatever they will but at the end of the day, I find what makes a game really great is something you can't exactly put in to words. Its just a feel ... an overall blend of graphics and effects, gameplay and tactics, immersion and feel, singleplayer campaign and multiplayer community and diversity and even interface ... and when I sit down and feel like playing an RTS game, there is for me only one option.

(Literally ... all other RTS games have been erased from my HD last time I cleaned up my system)

If you have a short attention span with computer games, you'll probably perfer WiC. I say this not because its a bad game or a bad purchase, but because it takes only about 3 weeks for you to realize that the game is missing a lot of depth, especially in terms of competitive multiplayer.

alexmatusiak

I disagree. WIC MP is very competitve there are many leagues out there for it and ingame support for it is really great. I dont understand why you reccomend it for somebody with a short attention span. If you actually play it competively you need a lot of situtional awarness and most importanly being able to work effectively with others. The game isn't lacking depth at all.

I disagree. WIC MP is very competitve there are many leagues out there for it and ingame support for it is really great. I dont understand why you reccomend it for somebody with a short attention span. If you actually play it competively you need a lot of situtional awarness and most importanly being able to work effectively with others. The game isn't lacking depth at all. bignice12

Not short attention span ... meaning if you have a short attention span that you'll like the game more. But I know a lot of people who buy games and play then for maybe a week or two at most - any lasting appeal of a game is lost on them. Its not a bad thing ... they just buy new games every week or so. My experience with WiC is that I simply started to lose interest after about 3 weeks which is why I voted it lower than CoH. If I moved on from WiC sooner, I would have never noticed it getting stale.

I will, however, agree with you 100% that if you want to pick a single RTS game and play it competitively, and decide you want to go for WiC, that you should make an effort to get involved in the community and get friends with whom you can learn to work efficiently and effectively with. Of course, if you prefer playing say 2v2 (or more) matches in general, then this suggestion is universal really.

I give all new RTS games an even and equal shot. WiC was the best RTS game I played since CoH was released, but it just didn't have enough overall effect to outshine it. Even if bignice12 above did defunk my point about multiplayer depth to you, it still isn't enough in my mind to pick WiC over CoH.

If I were to sum up WiC to me, it would be...

WiC: "Hey you like RTS games? How about if they had gameplay like this!"

Me: "Wow thats pretty neat ... novelty is running off ... hey cool explosions and effects though - glad I got DX10 ... ... novelty gone"

It seems that most RTS games now are moving "towards the battle line" .. that is, with more emphasis on combat management than the typical mix. WiC, however, just takes it too far from what I like about the balance in RTS (which I believe is nearly perfected in CoH).

Oh man, not another one who is having a dilemma on which game to get. Its so simple, Just get each one on of them, you dont have to buy them all at the same time, you can buy them intervally. Allthat gamesare great and dont make it hard for you to choose between these 3, get them all! I dont understand why people have to choose, its not like its the last game they're gonna get in their lives.

Oh man, not another one who is having a dilemma on which game to get. Its so simple, Just get each one on of them, you dont have to buy them all at the same time, you can buy them intervally. Allthat gamesare great and dont make it hard for you to choose between these 3, get them all! I dont understand why people have to choose, its not like its the last game they're gonna get in their lives.

JCblueside

I wasn't necessarily employing people to choose a game for me, I was just trying to spark a little conversation if possible, if you don't like it you could just ignore it.*

*Although I do see where you're coming from, there are a lot of threads like this.

I like WiC the most. Its different from other RTS games.

Have tried CoH's demo, it was ok.

Havent tried SupCom.

Coh is a very very good game, tatically excellent, but i couldent extract one bit of fun out of it. i dont know what it was about it, ill play it again one day and finish it but right now, theirs far more fun to be had

World in conflict is modern and a bit more fun, but theirs no bases or conventional resourse management, and thats what rts games are al about for me. the camera controlls on the keyboard anoy me too, again a good game but not escential.

Sup come is what you should gefinatly go for, its scale gives it elements of tatical and stratigic gameplay, base setup and resource management is amazing, you can turtle out or keep the base small and produce a steady stream of units. 3 factions scifi story, good looking, and the most wow factour out of the three by far, get it!!!

Three different games. Which do you want? Fast tatical action, loads of teamwork on larger maps, or tons of planning and stratagy for epic battles?

All three are great, just buy them all.

As for the topic WiC is a great game at first, but it gets old and repetitive pretty fast, I played the beta non stop, but after about a week I couldn't even think about touching that game because really it's just pretty shallow when it comes down to it so it has no long term appeal at all.

Company of Heroes has an excellent singleplayer and an ok mulitplayer, but in light of the new expansion it is a very unbalanced game.

Thats another thing to keep in mind with Supcom and COH, both have their expansions out meaning if you want to play with the core/majority of the community you need the expansions as well to get the full online experience.

As far as the supcom expansion goes balance wise it fairs much better with near starcraft like level balance (with the expansion) the expansion pack for supcom really fixed every single issue the game had to now it's near perfection and by far the best RTS out right now.

GOGAMER HERE is having a Supcom expansion sale that is only to last for another 71 hours as of this post so you should jump on that, it gives you the brand new forged alliance for half off (20 bucks, and I just payed 40 for it the other day) and you can also buy the original game for 30 so you can get both for 50 and keep in mind the expansion is stand alone so you can buy it and play it without the original, but to be able to play as all the factions online and play the games original campaign you will have to buy the original as well. If you only want to try one at first though I suggest the expansion.