Supreme Commander 2
Well, we don't want to play any games where you don't already know the tricks and shortcuts.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
I prefer the shorter SC2 games. Games that last hours can be fun, unless you are the one taken out first. Then you either wait for hours, or you go play something else. Or, you start a game with the second person that gets killed. And then your game runs longer than the first game being played by others. So now they can wait for you, or they start their own game, etc.
Both game, hell, ALL RTS games are about economy. Whoever can crank out the units/tech the fastest wins.
Both game, hell, ALL RTS games are about economy. Whoever can crank out the units/tech the fastest wins.
I prefer the shorter SC2 games. Games that last hours can be fun, unless you are the one taken out first. Then you either wait for hours, or you go play something else. Or, you start a game with the second person that gets killed. And then your game runs longer than the first game being played by others. So now they can wait for you, or they start their own game, etc.
I agree, but don't.
The short games are nice, yes. However, everything seems so ridiculously rushed in SC2. You were talking strategy the other night, and discussing "end game". I was thinking, "This whole game is the end game." You could almost call SC2 "Frantic Micro Managing Was Simulator." I think it's a big too fast.
That being said, I agree about the long games. They can get out of control where they take a whole night, but you know what? Every now and then, that wouldn't be bad.
I think what we need to do is figure which game we like better, then tinker with the rules customization to fit what we want. I'd enjoy a game where I don't feel like I have to simply rush early units because if you don't you're fucked because all our games are becoming boring early rush fests.
I'd like strategy to matter at some point or the chance to try a new strategy. The problem is adding rush timers just means that instead of getting wiped out in 5 minutes, a rush of experimentals will hit you in 15.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
I am trying different strategies to survive the other guy's early rush without resorting to an early rush myself, but no luck yet. Have only done about 10% of the experimenting I need, though.
And, all the strategy guides I have found so far are all emphasizing different ways to do an early rush. Haven't found a "how to turtle" yet.
Almost seems like the winner of these games is evident in the first 10 minutes, a large percentage of the time.
And, all the strategy guides I have found so far are all emphasizing different ways to do an early rush. Haven't found a "how to turtle" yet.
Almost seems like the winner of these games is evident in the first 10 minutes, a large percentage of the time.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Dunno, I haven't played a RTS game in the last 10 years where early harassment wasn't a must-do. It's a pretty big failure on my part if I don't scout you for 15 minutes and then am surprised when I get a nuke to the face for my slothful ways.
Some of you guys like to rush nukes, or air force, or whatever. Unfortunately, the counter for that is to harass you early and not let you get off the ground. A more balanced approach from the beginning might be in order.
Edit: Also in the 3v2 situations, we were rushing early for good reason, trying to cut one head off before the hydra became too unwieldy, if you will.
Edited By Troy on 1389577660
Some of you guys like to rush nukes, or air force, or whatever. Unfortunately, the counter for that is to harass you early and not let you get off the ground. A more balanced approach from the beginning might be in order.
Edit: Also in the 3v2 situations, we were rushing early for good reason, trying to cut one head off before the hydra became too unwieldy, if you will.
Edited By Troy on 1389577660
That's a winning strategy for any situation, though. Because we didn't build early for a rush, we got rushed.Troy wrote:Edit: Also in the 3v2 situations, we were rushing early for good reason, trying to cut one head off before the hydra became too unwieldy, if you will.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Just won against 2 allied "Normal" AI.
"Hard" AI just cheated. Early air rushes which I was just barely able to defend against, then at exactly minute 15 I started getting hit by both his long range artillery, but also incoming nukes. Hadn't even begun the shield or nuke defense research yet, much less had anti-nukes built. Cheating bitch.
The 2 normal AI I was able to keep in check for a long while, then when their nuke volleys started I was ready for them, but eventually they were literally firing 5 nukes at once about every 30 seconds, and I couldn't keep up with nuke defense. They nuked me back to a hidden corner where I changed to massive land unit production, and was able to win the game with the giant mech units that aren't Krogoths.
"Hard" AI just cheated. Early air rushes which I was just barely able to defend against, then at exactly minute 15 I started getting hit by both his long range artillery, but also incoming nukes. Hadn't even begun the shield or nuke defense research yet, much less had anti-nukes built. Cheating bitch.
The 2 normal AI I was able to keep in check for a long while, then when their nuke volleys started I was ready for them, but eventually they were literally firing 5 nukes at once about every 30 seconds, and I couldn't keep up with nuke defense. They nuked me back to a hidden corner where I changed to massive land unit production, and was able to win the game with the giant mech units that aren't Krogoths.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
When playing against the computer (I've held a normal AI off for 30+ minutes, but lost), I have learned that it's not the early rush that wins, it's the inability to defend against it.
In a 1v1, Troy rushes me, and I hold him off. I collect all the metal he's bringing me just outside my maid base. That gives me a production boost (because we all knows it's about the metal) that allows me to continue holding him off. Meanwhile, we are both upgrading our tech. He hits experimentals early, but they are weak. Probably the weakest experimentals in the game. I can kill them with hordes of level one units, not to mention the upgraded units I can bring out. Then my long range artillery starts, AND my experimentals, which are stronger, start.
So, in a 1v1 with Troy, he HAS to rush me early. My late game is stronger. But it's also not impossible to hold him off. So the victor isn't decided 10 minutes in when two players are equal. If I guess wrong and build a bunch of subs to defend against his nonexistent navy, I'm fucked. But if I'm just as good at resource management as he is, I can hold off his early rush.
Like he said, they would double rush me, which would end it for us because Gordon and Leisher < Troy and Stranger. But, in game two, I had enough early defenses built up to hold off their first attack, allowing you and Gordon to swing around the other path and take Stranger out. Then their game was over. So, it wasn't so much the early rush that lost either game for anyone, it was the better strategy. We guessed wrong the first game, they guessed wrong the second. Then we guessed wrong the third game.
The 3rd party argument for SC1 was the epic scale and huge maps. We have been avoiding those in SC2. Perhaps we should be trying some. The other thing we can try is a build up time. No attacking/scouting until 15 minutes. However, in my opinion, this gives late game teams (the blue faction) a huge advantage. If left alone to tech up, their tech is better.
Anyway, point is. . . I think either version of the game is susceptible to the early rush defeat. You HAVE to prepare for it. A huge map will help slow the game way down too. It will take a while for someone to build up a force, and get it to you. An early rush squad on a large map is defeated before they get half way to their target because the enemy has had so much more time to prepare for it. A small map, the early rush is far more effective.
Lastly, I've been tweaking the AI. I start with a 'Hard' AI and dumb him down. I've been able to beat a 40/40/5 AI attacking strongest. I keep increasing his 'bonuses' to see how far I can go.
In a 1v1, Troy rushes me, and I hold him off. I collect all the metal he's bringing me just outside my maid base. That gives me a production boost (because we all knows it's about the metal) that allows me to continue holding him off. Meanwhile, we are both upgrading our tech. He hits experimentals early, but they are weak. Probably the weakest experimentals in the game. I can kill them with hordes of level one units, not to mention the upgraded units I can bring out. Then my long range artillery starts, AND my experimentals, which are stronger, start.
So, in a 1v1 with Troy, he HAS to rush me early. My late game is stronger. But it's also not impossible to hold him off. So the victor isn't decided 10 minutes in when two players are equal. If I guess wrong and build a bunch of subs to defend against his nonexistent navy, I'm fucked. But if I'm just as good at resource management as he is, I can hold off his early rush.
Like he said, they would double rush me, which would end it for us because Gordon and Leisher < Troy and Stranger. But, in game two, I had enough early defenses built up to hold off their first attack, allowing you and Gordon to swing around the other path and take Stranger out. Then their game was over. So, it wasn't so much the early rush that lost either game for anyone, it was the better strategy. We guessed wrong the first game, they guessed wrong the second. Then we guessed wrong the third game.
The 3rd party argument for SC1 was the epic scale and huge maps. We have been avoiding those in SC2. Perhaps we should be trying some. The other thing we can try is a build up time. No attacking/scouting until 15 minutes. However, in my opinion, this gives late game teams (the blue faction) a huge advantage. If left alone to tech up, their tech is better.
Anyway, point is. . . I think either version of the game is susceptible to the early rush defeat. You HAVE to prepare for it. A huge map will help slow the game way down too. It will take a while for someone to build up a force, and get it to you. An early rush squad on a large map is defeated before they get half way to their target because the enemy has had so much more time to prepare for it. A small map, the early rush is far more effective.
Lastly, I've been tweaking the AI. I start with a 'Hard' AI and dumb him down. I've been able to beat a 40/40/5 AI attacking strongest. I keep increasing his 'bonuses' to see how far I can go.
Dunno if anyone else noticed, but killing things and tech are related. If I rush you and you wipe a bunch of my units I just gifted you a few levels of tech, sometimes substantially.
On that water map I went up +6-7 points of tech when you guys charged into my defensive line.
Edited By Troy on 1389623367
On that water map I went up +6-7 points of tech when you guys charged into my defensive line.
Edited By Troy on 1389623367