Supreme Commander 2: A GD Chat

In which Craig, Tom and Thom have a talk about giant robots, tank flingers, dinosaurs and unit magnets of death.

Craig L: Hello!
Thom S: TIME TO TURN ON THE WIT, BITCHES
Thom S: Whoops
Craig L: We started, that is included. As is this. Agh! Meta.
Thom S: Oh god. People will think I’m some sort of maniac
Craig L: They already do. You maniac.
Tom H: Er… hello. I’m trying to pretend that didn’t happen#
Thom S: Fair point, I’m now established as the crazy one.
Craig L: Lets talk about games with Robots in.

Tom H: Yes! I have played many games with big robots in, but Supreme Commander 2′s are (I think) the biggest
Thom S: I think Supreme Commander 1 was bigger in scale
Craig L: Supreme Commander 2′s robots are indeed extremely big. And shooty. Sup Com 1 was a bigger game, but the robots felt smaller.
Tom H: That’s all you need right? Biggest robots ever… what are you still reading for? I said BIGGEST EVER people!
Craig L: That’s a fair sentiment.
Thom S: I think the King Kryptor is the biggest
Tom H: I didn’t actually play much of Supreme Commander 1, so it probably falls to you too to explain the lineage
Craig L: Before we get into units specifically, can we talk about what Sup Com actually is, in terms of RTS. Because this is far different from, say Starcraft 2
Tom H: Very true, it’s, well it’s big, for a start. That’s not just me being silly either, the biggness is very much a part of the game
Craig L: Yes, it is a thing of scale and is very aware of it – but by no means in a bad way. I’d say it’s also complicated, but not brain melting like the first one.
Tom H: Yes, I could never get the hang of the first Sup Com, it was all very, very, base management heavy. Starcraft 2 is (from what I know) a lot smaller, it’s about micro and small unit counts, SupCom2 is more about hundreds and hundreds of units, and some bloody massive ones, clashing in huge battles
Thom S: Where Starcraft 2 is a finely honed sport, Supcom 2 is less precise and a lot friendlier than both starcraft 2 and supcom 1
Tom H: there’s still some resource management in the second game, but it takes a back seat to the actual, you know, war – which is good, in my opinion, I signed up for Supreme Commander, not Supreme Administrator
Craig L: Yeah, but as an early shocker, I think it suffers because of this new simplicity.
Thom S: You can’t spend resources you don’t have in the second game, which gets around a lot of the difficulty people had crashing their economies and such
Tom H: I don’t think it suffers at all, in fact I think it’s improved on nearly every level
Thom S: It’s removed a lot of the unintuitive and irritating elements and sped the whole thing up
Craig L: I’m happy the base building and resources are taking a back seat, as you say, but I think the combat is too simplistic.
Thom S: It’s very much ‘build a load of robots – send them over there’
Craig L: yeah – left click command, right click conquer.
Tom H: Was it ever really more complicated? It seems mostly unchanged, it’s just that there’s less challenge to actually acquiring an army in the first place
Craig L: Yeah, it was
Tom H: how so?
Thom S: In the first game, perhaps thanks to the larger maps I’d often have artillery somewhere else on a raised bt of ground, assign a mobile shield generator and anti air to them, then have a main assault force; send in bombers to take out the point defense, then the ground troops
Tom H: you can still do that I beleive, although missile artillery is what you use now, of course we don’t actually use it, but that’s an issue with the AI, not the gameplay
Craig L: Yeah, flanking was more prominent. Range was more important. It was just more involved.

Thom S: I’ve never felt the need to create separate combat groups in Supcom2
Craig L: It was harsher I think is what I’m trying to say. You could win with 3 gunships in supcom 1 if you were fast enough and your opponent didn’t see it coming
Thom S: It’s always been a matter of harrying the enemy, then pushing everything in at the same time
Tom H: well no, but what I’m saying is that you still might, it’s just that hard AI doesn’t really challenge you (and cheating AI challenges too much) against a human player, I think you’d have to use your forces more intelligently
Craig L: I don’t think that’s right
Tom H: but then again I never really got that with SupCom1, the game was so heavilly tilted to the economy that if you won that, you won the game
Craig L: Logistics was a big thing with SC1 – the maps were huge. Transport ships were essential and If you had troops in the wrong place when you are attacked – tough, it’s going to take you too long to get them back. Now, not so much.
Thom S: That’s true, transport devices are only useful for the really slow lumbering stuff in SC2
Tom H: Experimental units were only ever built when you were pissing about after you’d already won
Craig L: I do like what it’s done with experimentals.
Tom H: Yes, that I love, when you have truly ridiculous units like they’ve designed, making it so that you are likely to win before you needed them was a tragic mistake
Thom S: I’m impressed by how many of them are useful, I thought a lot of them would be showy and a bit irrelevant, but I regularly use most of them. There are a few, like the Kraken and the experimental aircraft carrier that are a bit useless, but that’s because the naval warfare is underdeveloped
Craig L: Yeah – they are more like proper units, rather than what Tom said as something to just win more.
Tom H: I also like that they’re powerful but not solo game winners. Most of them need to either be fielded either alongside a mixed force, or in numbers of their own. For instance, the top artillery (my favourite) is not that useful at first, but once you hit a point (around four or five) they reach critical mass and become devastating because accuracy ceases to become a real problem
Craig L: But in a way I see that as a problem. I know you said that they were there when you needed them least in sup com 1 – often though, they weren’t. And when you saw one it was a real worry. now; not so much.
Thom S: The magnetron is pretty game-winning
Craig L: I don’t rate the magnetron – the range is too small.
Tom H: the magnetron is a good point, there are some maps it just dominates, but it does only work on ground units. Also it can backfire horribly if you suck up a commander
Craig L: The Magnetron, by the way, is a massive magnet that grinds up units. It’s the ridiculous experimentals I like – a robot dinosaur, a tank catapault
Tom H: it’s a Cybran unit isn’t it? The Cybrans probably have the most characterful units
Thom S: It’s one of the most hilarious experimental things, the other is the Protobrain complex that researches everything ridiculously fast, then you can detach the giant brain and have it float around zapping your enemies
Craig L: yeah, the Cybrans have BOATS WITH FUCKING LEGS
Thom S: Yeah I love the Cybrans
Craig L: that, is my favourite thing. Boats with legs.
Tom H: the last time I built the unit cannon I didn’t like it much, in retrospect I realise I should have build like four or five, so I could launch a hundred tanks behind enemy lines
Craig L: The unit cannon is amazing. I love it. This, to me, is what Sup Com 2 is – a grand “ooh that’s pretty”
Tom H: I fear I have the least interesting strategy, I basically hole up in a ridiculous turret/shield complex and artillery bombard until there’s nothing left
Craig L: and it worries me that this novelty will wear off quickly,which, to be honest, it has started to with me.
Thom S: I don’t think the AI really has enough wit to be interesting for very long but playing against other people is likely to be a lot more interesting
Tom H: I can sort of see that happening, because I home in on my favourite strategy and repeat it, but I could see it livening up again with human players
Craig L: Well, I’ve played a bit online and it’s a mixed bag. The game is usually won or lost in the first 3 minutes.
Tom H: we’ve not actually played a vs game between the three of us, which we probably should because random net people are never a great indicator
Craig L: That’s true
Tom H: well except you guys, you’re swell, obviously
Thom S: Hello random net people!

Craig L: As seems to becoming apparent, I’m really trying to love Sup Com 2, but it’s leaving me a little empty – though anything with Nukes is always going to have a place in my heart somewhere.
Tom H: I don’t think it’s something you could play constantly Craig, you’re right, the novelty might wear off, but to be honest I can’t think of any skirmish heavy RTS I’ve played to that extent. They’re very much games you boot up every once in a while and have a couple of short, thrilling matches with. I’ve gone back to Company of Heroes time and time again, but I’ve never binged on it in one go like I might an RPG or FPS
Thom S: It’s light on actual strategy I think, especially comparing it to somethign like Company of Heroes, where unit placement and tactics are so important, there’s none of that depth in SC2
Craig L: No, but there was in SC1 – which is why it’s making me sad. When I think Sup Com – I think grand strategy and battle strategy, sup com 2 misses this. It’s just big units twatting each other around.
Thom S: Yeah I think shrinking the maps has had more than a cosmetic impact on the game, everyone’s so close together, there’s no way to outmaneouvre your opponents
Craig L: Also, the new research thing to improve base units – it loses something. You just see a base unit still, not ‘Holy fuck, a tech 3 assault bot’
Tom H: Well I think the use of experimentals compensates for that, because that’s the indicator of research, not marginally shinier robots
Craig L: Fair point I suppose.
Thom S: The base units are modular, when you give UEF tanks gauss cannons they look different, but not different enough, they need to look more dangerous
Craig L: And Giant Dinosaur is a pretty good indicator of danger.
Tom H: do you think that’s a deliberate choice, actually – making the regular units so small is deliberate to make the experimentals appear even larger?
Craig L: Quite possibly yes. it certainly works. I’m so confused right now. I don’t know how I feel.
Thom S: I still really enjoy it. The spectacle is marvellous.
Craig L: I think where I’m at is this: I love the spectacle. I like that it’s more about combat and I don’t have to worry about balancing economies and what not. However, it’s definitely shallower on logistics and combat strategies. I like it a lot, but not as much as I used to like Sup Com 1. Though that’s not to say I would rather play 1 than 2 now. Does that make sense to anyone other than me?
Thom S: it might be hard to go back to supcom1 after it’s been streamlined so much in the sequel. I think I’d find the economy stuff and the slow pace a lot more irritating
Thom S: Though I always enjoyed how contrary SC1 was, almost deliberately difficult, it kind of epitomises PC gaming in that respect
Tom H: I think ‘dumbed down’ is very much an overused term, yes SupCom 2 is faster, simpler and has a greater emphasis on fun, but that is in no way a bad thing
Craig L: Key question: will we still be playing this in a year?
Tom H: I’m going to give a contrary opinion here, as someone who simply couldn’t get into the first game I’d definately say Sup Com 2 is better, and I’d say that anyone who was put off by the faults of the first should take a second look.
Craig L: Is that a yes?
Thom S: I can see myself occasionally booting it up to have a fling with the giant robots, nothing else really scratches the giant robot itch quite like supreme commander

Tom H: I think we’ll be playing it on and off for a while, or at least I will. I don’t know if I’ll still be playing it in a year, but I stopped playing SupCom1 in a week so I think it’s definitely made progress
Craig L: Yeah – I see it as a ‘fancy a game of’ which will eat the occasional night; rather than say what I do with Battlefield which is play as much as I possibly can.
Tom H: Which, as I said before, is how I tend to play RTSs, so I don’t see it as a flaw
Craig L: That’s fair – maybe I should start looking at it like that. So, anyone got any closing statements?
Thom S: it’s a successful evolution of Supreme Commander that’ll open it up to new audiences, it might not offer much strategic depth, but it’s a beautifully made thing in its own right, and the scale is still just enormous, I mean the unit cap per player in multiplayer skirmish is five hundred. FIVE HUNDRED. EACH. PS. The single player is shit
Craig L: haha, yeah. “BUT MY WIFES AION!”
Tom H: “Sir, my wife is Illumite!” “Well put her out won’t you? She’s causing a glare on the tele”
Thom S: HOW DID WE NOT KNOW THIS. YOU MUST STAND DOWN AS EDITOR IMMEDIATELY. IF YOU DO NOT COMPLY WE WILL HUNT YOU DOWN FOR SOME REASON
Tom H: Worst. Vetting Process. Ever
Craig L: I’LL FUCKING TAKE YOU ALL ON! ahem.
Thom S: If we don’t update the site for a bit it’ll be because me and Craig have donned our mech suits and are duking it out in our back garden
Craig L: Can…can we do that?
Tom H: You don’t have mech suits guys, they’re just cardigans
Thom S: We can build little versions of ourselves and make them fight each other. Is…is that weird?
Craig L: yes, but I’m ok with that
Tom H: This is surely how all wars, border skirmishes and minor disagreements will be solved in the future
Craig L: So, 1 line summaries from everyone please, then we’ll go do that versus game.
Tom H: Fun and accessible. Streamlined not dumbed down. Gets straight to the big fighty robot parts and doesn’t let up.
Thom S: Streamlined and shiny fun for robot lovers. Fans of the original might be disappointed with the lack of strategic depth but everyone will have fun making robots explode each other. And the single player is still shit.
Craig L: Big robots smaking each other around. Lighter on strategy maybe but undoubtedly fun. Also has boats with legs.
Tom H: It’s been given that Square Enix touch then
Craig L: So, game?
Tom H: yes
Thom S: Let’s do this thing.
Tom H: goodbye internet people!
Craig L: KK THNX BI!
Tom H: hello slightly more familiar internet people
Thom S: Byee!