Difference between Ground Control 1 & 2?

[Yawzee]

As stated above.

[[cAmA]PhreXes Phowltear]

In CG1, you had to carefully manage your forces in-mission, as you couldn't replenish them. Also, if you lost units, you got them back after the mission, but without experience bonusses. So it would really hurt to lose your elite units.

GC2, OTOH, allowed to call in reinforcements mid-mission. Infantry could also enter buildings and bunkers and fire from there. I actually don't remember much of that game. While I played CG1 like three times, I only managed one go in GC2. It's a graphically superior but gameplay-wise inferior successor. Didn't sell too well either, IIRC.

[QWEEDDY2]

GC2 sell dont well? And less than GC1? I dont know and ask. But i admit, there IS something behind my question. Your words about sales looks like you want to describe game as failure in your favor of first game. Although that can be true (i guess for both games since they compete with alternates when come out, especially GC2).

It is two differ games entirely. Second one are RTS, without much bases. There is LZ and bunkers and towers to defend it with one structure to infantry take and make it another bunker.
Gameplay is on capturing critical points (small LZ with no wall and towers... in case of general skirmish/multiplayer gameplay). Campaign a bit differ from skirmish. As usually they are, right?
There is no main LZ or its not like in skirmish, wbile minor LZ can be better defended.

Im not much in GC1. But as i remember you get remain units to next mission with few reinforcments. But not "restored" who killed. If you able to chieve no loss win you get more troops in next mission.
There is more differences than between DoWSS and DoW2. GC2 like DoW2 but GC1 even less RTS. And it is not an RTS. It is real time tactic game. Absolutely zero strategy elements. I first want to say in terms of RTS etrategy elemnts, but actually reeally just tactic combats with much micro in trying to keep units alive as possible.

Im not sure if saying it is less intersting in skirmish/mp be a neutral. Im not remember if there was an skirmish mode. For me it looks like very strict to campaign, campaign to story, and only way to produce a units is make them survive on previous mission. Reinforcements are plot explained/based. If there is skirmish it is fun too: grab units and try to over-micro controll your opponent.

But i found that at same time much casual gameplay and harder. I personaly prefer combine tactics with some strategy elements. Obtaining resources. Bases. Although i also like GC2 and Z The Game with no base building (but not DoW2 even in skirmish where there is similaries to GC2).

Again. I wrote mostly about skirmish/mp of all mentioned games gameplay as it is better mode to use in terms of describing gameplay.

And those games are better which is more interesting to replay in skirmish, allow game to stay on hard drive. For ke it was GC2, but it is not neutral.

[QWEEDDY2]

GC1 gameplay better to say simple, not casual. But im really not neutral. I prefer turn based tactics/wargames and RTS with more tactics based - GC2, DoW1 (3ven if there bases). Or in other words tactics with at least some strategy elements.
As neutral GC1 is unique and interesting anyway. Pure tactics+action need too. There is maybe more such games on consoles (with more or less action elements) less on PC.

There is Army Men (1) game looks similar to GC1. Even if AM released early lets say in that way (by plot it is plastic soldiers, but only AM2 really make it to the gameplay (magnifying glass as weapon), while AM1 dark and natural combat up tonthe ending when "portals to real word" appears). GC1 iven if come after uave better realisation os real time tactics or action-tactics genre. And GC1 still unique as a game.

But if you come here not from AM1 but GC2... you need to be ready it is absolutely differ game and genre. Or you will get displeasure from the first game. Just like GC1 fans disliked GC2.

I dont think GC2 should be stay in GC1 genre. Emm... Ideally first game need closer remake with improved visuals and controls. And one more game as an differ gameplay. Maybe such remake really whould be in GC2. Fans have rights to get disappointment in GC2.
And only GC3 have new gameplay.

I don't know. For me and now past 20 yesrs it looks like better time for remake of GC1 are now, while we get two unique games back then. GC2 at other hand no need remake. Forgotten as GC game, but not because it was bad. It was not a Ground Control game (although gameplay are about ground control 😁 ).

[[cAmA]PhreXes Phowltear]

Originally posted by QWEEDDY2:

GC2 sell dont well? And less than GC1? I dont know and ask. But i admit, there IS something behind my question. Your words about sales looks like you want to describe game as failure in your favor of first game. Although that can be true (i guess for both games since they compete with alternates when come out, especially GC2).

Андрей, I think I understood most of what you were trying to say. As you said yourself, for a fan of GC1, GC2 was a huge disappointment. Hence, those fans felt pushed away. At the same time, the game failed to attract the RTS crowd, as there were numerous other titles available. Thus, sales suffered. Still, the company behind it went on to produce World in Conflict, where you drunk Russkies try to invade America (and fail hard, as usual).

[QWEEDDY2]

;)
- Oh, do not be so sure, Mr. President (c)
:)

do not read! (khm-khm... or...)
(although IRL, RA2 events most likely happen in absolutely mirrored opposite ways... now for sure since some events... we already joke about Weather Experimental Weapon from Alliance happened last two winters, and i guess america less aware of its stratetic weapon for some time until country on letter R. start to treat use its own and disobbey old agreements - which is still surely lead to what happen in RA2 intro but for R. missiles launchers.
And then Mister M's Neurolink would provide psiker units...)
Lets hope its not ended like in Warzone 2100... Hmm... Or maabe...

[QWEEDDY2]

Since i continue to mention more strategy games. Everyone know CnC and its Red Alert titles, i suppose. There was Total Annihilation game, predecessor of Supreme Commander. All are good games and unique gameplay providers.
And there is another alternate successor from other dev - Warzone 2100. With unique idea of combining few techs in own units. Not like there is really much to chose and there is few meta-tech at high tier. But still interesting game.
PS1 of it allow to direclty command one unit and everyone in his group (4 group by 10 units possible on PS1, instead of...100 or 200 on PC in no limit groups) will follow and provide fire support.

And there is another action-strrategy game War of the Worlds kinda based on novel. PS1 and PC if im not mistaken.

Subject series, its successor World in Conflict. Z The Game. Dawn of War. Star Wars Empire at War, Army Men.
Dune2/CnC1/Wc1-like RTS are good too. But my point is we have a lot of alternate RTS/RTT/Action-Strategy games - and somehow every one of them is really unique game with unique mechanics.
Both Ground Control/+Dark Conspiracy and Ground Control 2 Operation Exodus are unique games in its genre. Important parts of strategy games history.