Supreme Commander - TANK SPAM - Games

I absolutely loved SupCom, however my game begins slowing down to less than 20 fps late game :(

I bought SupCom 2 but only played the tutorial.

[QUOTE=MegaJohnny;28529296]I'd guess they were just there to look familiar. I only remember them being on the UEF planes, which are supposed to look familiar and conventional.[/QUOTE] Even some Aeon units have cockpits so I dunno'.

Does anyone have any base building tips, like how to place buildings for effective adjacency bonuses? I ask because even the computer is kicking my ass in the early and mid-game, and so far the only matches I've won have been spamming T1 and T2 units to delay and confuse the computer onslaught long enough to build a few nuclear missiles. [editline]x[/editline] [img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3803707/zapp.jpg[/img_thumb]

Cybran nation, represent. And the title should have been: Supreme Commander: LAB wars.

I loved this game's massive scale. This kind of scale has been lacking in recent RTS games as they are now. Most games are focusing on small scale tactical battles rather than Large scale strategic battles. It was also easier to build a effective defense in this game than it is than others; where usually defenses are easily overpowered. In most games if you lose a major battles that cost you most of your units; you're fucked. In this game you can hold the other players in till you recover. At least in this game; Spamming took alot more strategy than it does in other games where it is just mindless spamming.

All i ever did on Supreme Commander 2 was play Skirmish, the campaign was balls, it didn't have a story.

A good t1 cluster is four factories with four medium gens tucked in their corners with a set of t1 gens running on the edges of the factories and Estorage on the edges of the medium gens. With enough space in the center to plonk a shield once you hit later tiers. A good late tier cluster is the same setup, but instead of factories you have fusions, in their corners you have bigMM's. Around the fusions you build estore and around the MM's you build mstores. Again a shield into the middle of the thing. As t1 survival goes. Run with at least 10-20 t1 constructors. They not only have the best mass ratio when building stuff, they help you reclaim a giant load of things all around your base for the extra needed mass. Also when you see a mass spot build a MEX asap. I'd recommend mstores around it. Basically just expand with at least 3 constructors. Keep in mind the mass-time ratio for the t1 bots makes them actually very viable even in t4. You often find people who tend to have something like 50, 60 t1 bots constructing something as opposed to 10 t3 bots just due to how much cheaper they make it. And as to those early four factories - use them to spam units, there's no excuse not to.

Is Supreme Commander 1 better than 2?

Lets think a bit realistically about the "infantry units" thing I mentioned earlier. I'm starting off with the ACU here: Realistically, the ACU would need an entire crew. A single man can't control every single unit in the field on his own from some control station. Even if he did then it would require some extremely advanced AI protocols to field units properly when an order is given to a regiment of about 100+ units. Apart from commanding, there are several other things such as systems monitoring and maintenance. No machine can self maintain itself continually. Even at that, when it comes to AI controlling the mechanical units controlled by the ACU commander, how exactly are units supposed to navigate? Cameras are 2d, and thus units can only see 2d. Normally to an animal that sees in 2D (such as a dog), this information would be interpretable. Seeing as dogs do not run into things, they can interpret the 2d information. Computers do not think like sentient organisms, they could not interpret 2d information to the same degree. They can not figure what an edge or wall is unless that information is explicitly there, and automated systems have been proven to not do that very well. Next of all, logically, a war is not a war when it is robots trashing eachother infinitely. Progress does not happen and lives will eventually have to go into battle to fight other people. The US military makes drones to kill PEOPLE, not OTHER DRONES. The war has to inevitably become People vs. People, or Drones VS. people. War is not war when noone is dieing. A war without dieing is what we call [b]politics[/b]. For all I care SupCom should be named "Supreme Politician". *puts on trollface and walks away*

The game is set in the future, there is no way you can look at this realistically.

[QUOTE=certified;28534797]Lets think a bit realistically about the "infantry units" thing I mentioned earlier. I'm starting off with the ACU here: Realistically, the ACU would need an entire crew. A single man can't control every single unit in the field on his own from some control station. Even if he did then it would require some extremely advanced AI protocols to field units properly when an order is given to a regiment of about 100+ units. Apart from commanding, there are several other things such as systems monitoring and maintenance. No machine can self maintain itself continually. Even at that, when it comes to AI controlling the mechanical units controlled by the ACU commander, how exactly are units supposed to navigate? Cameras are 2d, and thus units can only see 2d. Normally to an animal that sees in 2D (such as a dog), this information would be interpretable. Seeing as dogs do not run into things, they can interpret the 2d information. Computers do not think like sentient organisms, they could not interpret 2d information to the same degree. They can not figure what an edge or wall is unless that information is explicitly there, and automated systems have been proven to not do that very well. Next of all, logically, a war is not a war when it is robots trashing eachother infinitely. Progress does not happen and lives will eventually have to go into battle to fight other people. The US military makes drones to kill PEOPLE, not OTHER DRONES. The war has to inevitably become People vs. People, or Drones VS. people. War is not war when noone is dieing. A war without dieing is what we call [b]politics[/b]. For all I care SupCom should be named "Supreme Politician". *puts on trollface and walks away*[/QUOTE] Except no one gives a shit. If you're just coming in here to go "the game isn't realistic it sucks" then get out.

IIRC, A bunch of missions in the campaign for Supreme Commander and Forged Alliance involved defending cities, right? Everyone's still trying to kill each other, except now they're using gobs and gobs of drones instead of meatshields to accomplish that.

[QUOTE=Snuffy;28535450]IIRC, A bunch of missions in the campaign for Supreme Commander and Forged Alliance involved defending cities, right? Everyone's still trying to kill each other, except now they're using gobs and gobs of drones instead of meatshields to accomplish that.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the first mission in FA had a secondary objective where you escorted a bunch of civilians in huge-ass trucks away from a city (of arcologies, no less) with incoming nukes.

[QUOTE=certified;28534797]Even at that, when it comes to AI controlling the mechanical units controlled by the ACU commander, how exactly are units supposed to navigate? Cameras are 2d, and thus units can only see 2d.[/QUOTE] In the distant future, our warmachines will use Kinect.

[QUOTE=certified;28534797]Lets think a bit realistically about the "infantry units" thing I mentioned earlier. Realistically, the ACU would need an entire crew. A single man can't control every single unit in the field on his own from some control station. Even if he did then it would require some extremely advanced AI protocols to field units properly when an order is given to a regiment of about 100+ units. Apart from commanding, there are several other things such as systems monitoring and maintenance. No machine can self maintain itself continually. [/QUOTE] The player can control all the units quite easily, so it isn't that hard to believe the ACU pilot can't do the same. And the lifespan of the units is usually counted in minutes so maintenance isn't a very high priority here.

[QUOTE=certified;28534797]Lets think a bit realistically about the "infantry units" thing I mentioned earlier. I'm starting off with the ACU here: Realistically, the ACU would need an entire crew. [/QUOTE] You really think we'll still be THAT technologically inept c.1025 years in the future? And, more to the point, how is no-one dying if the second-to-last mission of Supcom 2 involves the pointless nuking of thousands?

[QUOTE=Professer Trall;28528163]Some of the units have visible cockpits if you look closely. But I think the reason behind that is if civilians wanted some protection and didn't have a Commander to control the units so instead there piloted.[/QUOTE] The official info is that the commander is the only human on the battlefield, and everything else is controlled by AI which is advised by the commander. How else would you explain the Cybran QAI going nuts and actually controlling the units if they were manned? [editline]11th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=certified;28534797]Even at that, when it comes to AI controlling the mechanical units controlled by the ACU commander, how exactly are units supposed to navigate? Cameras are 2d, and thus units can only see 2d. Normally to an animal that sees in 2D (such as a dog), this information would be interpretable. Seeing as dogs do not run into things, they can interpret the 2d information. Computers do not think like sentient organisms, they could not interpret 2d information to the same degree. They can not figure what an edge or wall is unless that information is explicitly there, and automated systems have been proven to not do that very well.[/QUOTE] You do realize that modern computers actually [b]do[/b] see in 3D with several cameras scanning the same area in front of it. For reference, see this video [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qDo6ehxKds[/media] [editline]11th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=the_killer24;28536115]Yeah, the first mission in FA had a secondary objective where you escorted a bunch of civilians in huge-ass trucks away from a city (of arcologies, no less) with incoming nukes.[/QUOTE] Only if you play as UEF. Otherwise, the city is just useless and isn't attacked at all.

[QUOTE=certified;28534797]Lets think a bit realistically about the "infantry units" thing I mentioned earlier. I'm starting off with the ACU here: Realistically, the ACU would need an entire crew. A single man can't control every single unit in the field on his own from some control station. Even if he did then it would require some extremely advanced AI protocols to field units properly when an order is given to a regiment of about 100+ units. Apart from commanding, there are several other things such as systems monitoring and maintenance. No machine can self maintain itself continually. Even at that, when it comes to AI controlling the mechanical units controlled by the ACU commander, how exactly are units supposed to navigate? Cameras are 2d, and thus units can only see 2d. Normally to an animal that sees in 2D (such as a dog), this information would be interpretable. Seeing as dogs do not run into things, they can interpret the 2d information. Computers do not think like sentient organisms, they could not interpret 2d information to the same degree. They can not figure what an edge or wall is unless that information is explicitly there, and automated systems have been proven to not do that very well. Next of all, logically, a war is not a war when it is robots trashing eachother infinitely. Progress does not happen and lives will eventually have to go into battle to fight other people. The US military makes drones to kill PEOPLE, not OTHER DRONES. The war has to inevitably become People vs. People, or Drones VS. people. War is not war when noone is dieing. A war without dieing is what we call [b]politics[/b]. For all I care SupCom should be named "Supreme Politician". *puts on trollface and walks away*[/QUOTE] If a home computer from 2006 can control all those units, then hundreds of years in the future it sure as hell won't be hard. You just have to think outside of the box. You really think the commander would be viewing the battlefield through his own eyes? He would simply do it in way that's almost the same as you playing the game, just sitting in front of a large screen giving orders to his units. The units wouldn't even need their own AI, they could just be remote controlled by the commander with a computer controlling all the automated tasks like pathfinding and firing at enemies. You'd just need to scan the battlefield before the battle to get elevation data so you could reconstruct a virtual 3d terrain model and track the units via GPS or something and you'd have everything you need to easily control your whole army. Hell, once you have all that data you could practically plug in the AI from this very game to do the job. OK, maybe units would need some cameras, sensors and a simple AI of their own to avoid obstacles, but then again, seeing how units can easily run over trees it wouldn't really be a problem even if they didn't have any. IIRC there were people getting killed in the war in SupCom. It's just that the focus of the game is on battles between different commanders. And besides, war usually has other goals than exterminating the enemy, like territory control.

Jester tech 1 gunships are the epitome of early game trolling. They are so much better then their tech 2 cousins when spammed Oh, and BRIIIIICKS

Aeon T3 gunships are the OP'est thing in the game. They're cheap as fuck and they have better AA than the superiority fighters. Their ground attack is about as good as the T2 ones though. I love spamming around 50-100 of them and having air superiority. Those things take down a CZAR in seconds.

The thing with gunship spam is that it's really easy to counter with loads of T2 anti air.

It's rather annoying how FA seems to run a lot worse for me than SupCom ever does, especially when it takes hours to finish purging stuff from memory after exiting the game :/ As far as I can tell, there is little to no difference in graphics between the 2.

[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;28544471]The thing with gunship spam is that it's really easy to counter with loads of T2 anti air.[/QUOTE] Unless its Aeon T3 gunships, each of those things can take on 2 air superiority fighters. I'm not even kidding here, it's ridiculous how good they are. [editline]11th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28545679]It's rather annoying how FA seems to run a lot worse for me than SupCom ever does, especially when it takes hours to finish purging stuff from memory after exiting the game :/ As far as I can tell, there is little to no difference in graphics between the 2.[/QUOTE] Actually, SupCom 2's graphics were turned down a notch so that consoles could run it decently. I'm guessing thats the reason they took the map sizes and unit amounts down too, so they could get a whole extra market on consoles. They took a real dump on the PC fans with that decision, though.

I counter gunship spam with t2 mobile flak. Gunships will always bunch up and a flak burst is an AoE so it works out well, even against Restorers.

My experience with supcom 1... Oh god the lag. Took me and 2 friends of mine 5 hours to play ~1:30 hours in game time :( Supcom 2 was much too fast paced IMO. (and I cant seem to find hotkeys for anything >.> )

Can somebody play some SupCom 2 with me? I'm lonely. :smith:

[QUOTE=clanratc;28546382]I counter gunship spam with t2 mobile flak. Gunships will always bunch up and a flak burst is an AoE so it works out well, even against Restorers.[/QUOTE] Yeah, T2 AA (stationary) guns work well too in base defense. But I personally tend to just use Restorers as AA defence and against ground targets only if I have nothing else left to defend with. [editline]11th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Angus725;28546622]My experience with supcom 1... Oh god the lag. Took me and 2 friends of mine 5 hours to play ~1:30 hours in game time :([/QUOTE] Lemme guess; You played against 2+ AI opponents and had the unit limit at 1000? Because depending on the hosts computer, the game lags the more units are on the field, and AI's [b]always[/b] build to the maximum amount.

[QUOTE=veribigbos1;28547003] Lemme guess; You played against 2+ AI opponents and had the unit limit at 1000? Because depending on the hosts computer, the game lags the more units are on the field, and AI's [b]always[/b] build to the maximum amount.[/QUOTE] No, 3 player FFA on a large map. One guy spammed T1 bombers, I spammed T3 AA (lovely blocks of AA!), the other guy spammed tanks before he crashed. :(

[QUOTE=Angus725;28547240]No, 3 player FFA on a large map. One guy spammed T1 bombers, I spammed T3 AA (lovely blocks of AA!), the other guy spammed tanks before he crashed. :([/QUOTE] Well still, if everyone had 500+ units/buildings, it tends to start lagging the whole game. Happens a lot to me and my friends when we play larger games (3v3, 4v4) [editline]11th March 2011[/editline] The other night we made the horrific mistake of putting 2 adaptive AI's against 2 of us with a unit limit of 1000. Made the game almost unplayable, luckily they started spamming nukes so we didn't have to suffer any longer. It was funny seeing them nuke my friends commander constantly, and he just kept running in circles so they all missed. [editline]11th March 2011[/editline] And by spamming I mean they both had like 5 silos and there was a nuke launch every 1-2 minutes :v: