[QUOTE="ARGSmith"]Supreme Commander = Deep Strategy, Mentally intense, complexPredatorRules

I mean look at the very dam quote right here on gamespot buddy!

Supreme Commander delivers a deep and impressive strategy-gaming experience.

IGN SAID 

We haven't seen a strategy game this complex and this finely tuned in quite some time. Gas Powered Games delivers a monster of an RTS, and despite how long it may be before you fully understand its intricacies, it's a surprisingly addictive game.

Stop being such a fanboy and making crap up.

Yes when you play with noobs like ANY RTS game it breaks down to mindless spam, but that applies to EVERY RTS, if you actually ever watched any replays from any good players in Supreme Commander you would know the game is very deep.

SupCom may be the most over rated, over hyped game of all time! It's boring, non-innovative save its large maps, and minor other features. And most importantly its transformer robot theme seems to appeal to almost no one!

They should have made it a WWII theme. Even if that would have been so unoriginal after CoH it still would have appealed to 100x more people! And even that would not have saved it from being boring and way to long for each combat!

basersx

I guess I have a poor connotation of what balance is. Lemme explain how I see it:

Balance is having two completely different armies, and trying to make them as equal as possible. So, in C&C 3's case, balance is having one side all about slow moving firepower and advanced weapons (GDI), and one side about lightly armored and quick moving units that use advanced tactics (Nod).

Now, how do you make it fair so that the practically weaker army (Nod) stands a chance against the practically stronger GDI? You give nod a bunch of neat yet initially confusing tools, such as stealth and emp buggies, etc..

Balance is not having three armies that are identical and then saying "Wait you guys, these guys hover, those guys use tank treads and wheels, and these guys over here use legs." That is the way I saw it with Supreme Commander. Truly, from my extensive experience with the game, the only significant difference is the three experiemental units each army gets. I just fail to see how one side's strategies should and do differ from another's: sure, a player may use a different tactic than another player, but this tactic can easily translate from a Cybran player to an UEF player, for example. In other words, no one side is unique, nor does any side require any sort of "mastery."

And before you get all judgemental, lemme just state for the record that I think Supreme Commander is a good game. I enjoyed it for a while, but it just didnt live up to my expectations, and that is why I am so hard on it. I was little Eric Cartman expecting Sea People to take me away from this world filled with hippies, yet when the package came all I got was brine shrimp. Atleast when I got C&C 3, I knew what I was getting. And I admit, I am a C&C fanboy...more of a "Westwood Legacy" fanboy to be honest.

mrbojangles25

Honestly I really don't buy it, I think you just say you like Supcom and gave it a great score just so you can say just that an then turn around and slander the game non stop because thats all you do.

 And talk about a poor response, what the hell good is all the dam unit uniqueness in CnC 3 when the game has bad balance right now, BALANCE is NOT unit uniqueness balance is all of the units in every faction being neither underpowered or overpowered and no faction being dominant, certainly no RTS has or will ever perfect this, but CnC 3 is in rather poor shape at the moment in this regard as the out cry from the CnC fans at the moment indicates.

 And I really can't understand why you keep on harping on Supcoms unit diversity certianly the game doesn't have very unique factions, but I think they are more different then you give them credit for and with the amount of units the game has it really doesn't matter that the factions aren't that unique because the game has more units and structures in one faction then most RTS games have across all of them which gives the game more then enough strategy then may even be necessary as the reviews indicate.

Bottom line is just as the guy you blabbered off at said

 Supreme Commander = Deep Strategy, Mentally intense, complex

 CnC 3 = Simple minded (think serious sam), old school 

The bulk of the reviews between both the games back that up.

[QUOTE="Mr_Dukes"]

Have Huge battles that require you to think and constantly try new things, along w/ mantaining an economy & army... Supreme Commander

Have small battles, that require you to send three BIG units down middle for win everytime... in short, game for simple-minded people, C&CIII

 

Easy choice for me. i'll stick w/ SupCom

mrbojangles25

lol you want simple minded? How about building 50 heavy units, 30 artillery, and 20 antiair units and then giving them an attack-move order to attack a base, and then finishing it off with a nice big nuke or two? Or how about building a whole mess of various turrets as you spend 80 minutes building your uber-cannon so you can win the map without even getting within 2 kilometers of the enemy? Now thats simpleminded.

C&C atleast has unique armies that require thinking and on-the-fly adjustments during battles. Infantry coming to attack your rocket guys? Hop in the building to buy them more time! Suicide bombers coming after your lone zone trooper? Run across a big tiberium patch and let the suicide bombers poison themselves. The list goes on, and it all requires brains.

SupCom = Deja vu (aka "been there, dont that")
C&C 3 = excellent continuation of the series with wonderful balance and gameplay.

Bojangles you got to be like the biggest CnC fanboy on this board, I have both games and like them both, but to try to argue CnC 3 is balanced requires more thinking the Supcom makes you look like the biggest fanboy I've ever seen.

Even most hard core CnC fanboys can admit the game is simple and when it comes to vs supreme commander it's a no brainer, It's actually quite hilarious that I've seen you on quite a few occasions call people CnC haters and supcom fanboys, but in that post that is EXACTLY what you display.

Even the most hard core CnC fans on the internet know CnC has quite awful balance at the moment.

Look here at all the talk about

http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showforum=957

The games awful balance, hell the most out spoken of which are the admins, these are people who have been playing CNC3 for a month because EA has close connections with the staff at Gamereplays, some of the people there even attended EA's community summit in December in which only a dozen or so people were invited and these people who in some cases personally know the develpment team and have been playing CnC 3 for much longer then you have are saying the games balance is awful.

So knock the crap off, CnC 3 isn't well balanced in the slightest, hell all you see in the rankings are tank spam.

I don't know why you are so zealously defending CnC 3 it really is quite sad. I like the game, but it's hardly as trouble free as you want everyone to think it is.

On top of that there really aren't any reviews that support you claim of Supcom being mindless, I don't think theres one that hasn't mentioned the game is brain straining and has deep strategy, while I can already point you to a number of CnC reviews that say it's dumbed down old school type of gameplay.

Gamespy's latest preview mentioned the game has balance issues

IGN's review mention the game has balance issues.

Game Informer / PC Gamer UK / Computer and Video games UK and GamesRadar (all of which happend to score supcom higher) while all fairly liked the game all of them admited it is the same old school gameplay

EuroGamer said about 4 times that CnC 3's gameplay is dumb and simple minded, they didn't say thats a bad thing and I don't think it is either, but it's true thats what it is.

EuroGamer even says CnC 3 is the antidote for Supreme Commander because it's a much simpler form of gameplay that you can relax and play

"As such, it's very much the antidote to Supreme Commander. While that requires constant management, an iron will and the sort of brain that Oscar-winning films get made about, C&C 3 is really, really stupid"

another quote from EUROGAMER on CNC 3

"RTS is pretty cool again right now, and something as cheerfully straightforward as this is just what's needed to stop the big braininess of Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander leading to another plunge into an inaccessibility that turns more casual players off the whole genre."

Heres a quote from EuroGamer on Supreme Commander.

It's admirable consistency on the game's part, but sometimes, I just wish that it'd give me a bit of a break.Still, SupComm's rewards for such heavy mental investment are manifold.

So all in all your argument doesn't make any sense Jangles, the reviews like CnC 3 because it's dumb and simple (in a good way) and the reviews praise Supreme Commander because it really is a thinking mans game.

On top of that it is clear that the current ladder situation and most of the CnC fans disagree with you greatly about CnC's balance and so do some of the reviews who pointed out balance issues and it really is rare that reviewers ever point out balance issues I might add it is only really ever done when balance issues are rather drastic.

[QUOTE="RequimRex"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Gamespy is a horrible PoS for sure. Warhammer 40k Multiplayer I love, but if anything its not one of the best becaues of GAMESPY.. Every game thats 4v4 or even 3v3 alot of times its garenteed some one will drop in the game.Taijiquan

I am sorry man. I can imagine your frustration. I was there to but got it rolling. Did you add it to exceptions through your Firewall?

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="RequimRex"][QUOTE="ElvisNixon"]this is really the same problem from C&C 1. everyone else learned how to fix it long ago. Erlkoenig

haha, my neighborhood didnt even have internet in 1995, and I know mine wasnt the only neighborhood. Then I think when red alert came out we had to do direct connect where you actualy dialed the person's phone number to connect.