is it worth buying supreme commander 2

[Werhunter]

i played starcraft 1,2 wings of liberty and hearth of the swarm

do you think i wil enjoy supreme commander 2 then? and should i then also buy the dlc??

[JoJo]

i think only get the DLC if you have frinds to play with and they have the DLC too

[LustHogg]

Not if you already have SC with Forged Alliance.

[Ceejay]

Also its on special at the moment, so why not?

[Dredge]

Not if you're looking for the big battles that made the series, this game kill teh franschise.

[Barry White]

cant speak for this game but Forged Alliance is really good.

This game looks to be more generic than FA and the original were. However, it does have more experimental units which sound fun.

Supreme Commander 1 and Forged Alliance have huge scale battles, awesome experimental mega units and a good deal of depth. If you play a lot of SC2 then the micro potential isnt as large here - units are less responsive and it tends not to matter as much however you can have much larger battles. Something worth noting: some of the maps in Supreme Commander are HUGE, 80x80 km is the largest in FA which can really lead to some long epic games.

Oh, i almost forgot supreme commander 2 isnt working for me.

[jord]

I like it and I own all supreme commander games. game typically last 30min - 1hour which is great for coop and casual play.

[Barry White]

Having played 5 or so hours of supreme commander 2 (and significantly more of FA) i feel like i am able to say that Forged Alliance is a much better game.

The economy is far far more interesting and unique in FA than in 2 because income and expenditure is fluid whereas in 2 it is more traditional. This is hugely important. The fluid economy was one of the most appealing things to me in supreme commander.

Nukes can be made in under 15 minutes in 2 and are ridiculously easy to spam whereas in FA they took a long time and were game enders for only the latest of late game. Even more annoying is that anti-nukes have a tiny radius which they cover (so do shields) and take about as long to build as nukes.

Experimentals are game enders and very dramatic in FA but in 2 they are mediocre at best and only the gimmiky ones serve any purpose (besides the monkeylord). Most of them merely fall flat on their face against their equivalent cost in units. That said, there are more and some of them are interesting but the main issue is that they are generally bad.

2 does add one thing: research. However, as to whether or not this is a good thing is another matter entirely. Personally, i find it needless and it only serves to detract from the actual game. The T1 -> T2 -> T3 was far more interesting than the method employed here because it unlocked new units with new roles but the older tier didnt become obselete, certainly, T2 was prevealant throught the entire game but all 2 offers is the same units with a new gun on top or more HP. Having to research basic things like air transport is needless and annoying. The main issue that that you simply dont unlock new units besides the most basic ones possible; you dont unlock a new air transport with a shield to make it usefull outside of its transportation role, you dont unlock a new ship which not only fires long range but also acts as a refueling station, no, rather you get a boring 30% hp increase to your generic tank which never changes and it just makes it feel like no progression is occuring especially when the default tank is one of the best units by far. I did like the extended ACU upgrades though.

The maps are much smaller or at least feel much smaller in 2. Coupled with an effectively smaller unit cap the scale feels much less epic.

[Ceejay]

There are loads of units to unlock with research, also many think its good that your basic units get things like bigger guns, extra hit points, that is the point, your starting units can become just as powerful and relevant as the units you churn out at the end game.

As for experimentals, again down to personal opinion, some would say its a good thing that experimentals are not game enders, they are now support units, and means people can actually put up a defence against them. (too a point) and you have to protect them going in.

The tier system is/was seen as slightly broken, which is why they went with research, The best example of a working tier system from the first two games is the navy, the tier system works really great for the navy as tier 1 and 2 can still have a major stake in the game. However at least on larger games, air and ground, tier 1 and 2 are almost pointless when you get their tier 3 equivelents. No point in wasting unit caps on them, Had they gone almost the same way as navy then it would have been good, for instance only having tanks at tier 3, only fast scouts at tier 1, with no better version higher up etc. Which would have given each tier an actual function and reason to exist. (ovbiously there is the odd unit that is still relevant, but generally if there is a unit available at a higher tier, the lower one is obsolete)

Obviously the better you are at playing the less the tiers affect the game, as you will have devised stratergies around things, but 4 tier 3 tanks are going to kill 4 tier 2 tanks, its a fact.

Again not everone has the same views, some people will hate the tier system, some people hate the research system. Each to their own.

I do however think you should play for much longer than 5 hours to get a true view of this game and the various stratergies you can use to play it. That is not to say you will change your mind, it could actually enforce your belief that forged alliance is better, but as I say everone has their own opinion. :)

[Barry White]

Oh yes, i am by no means an expert. My initial opinion was that FA is a better game (and so is the popular consensus amoungst my friends).

Supreme commander 2 is by no means a bad game, certainly not and i would hate to give that impression but it is certainly very different from its predecessor which is not a bad thing either. I can respect that they were bold enough to make such large changes and, while i might not personally prefer them, I can appreciate that others would.

The one point i would make is that many of these changes do change it into a more generic game, certainly, it still has large battles, nukes and a variety of other novelties but, largely because of the removal of the tier system and the fluid economy it feels a lot more like a run of the mill rts with some interesting units and a larger scale.

Regardless of all of this, the game is good enough to warrant the pittance it costs at the moment (what was it? 3 pounds or something?).

Now, to discuss your points.

Originally posted by Ceejay:

There are loads of units to unlock with research, also many think its good that your basic units get things like bigger guns, extra hit points, that is the point, your starting units can become just as powerful and relevant as the units you churn out at the end game.

My largest issue with this was that they did not remain relevant i simply had no other options. Sure there are units to unlock but they are not similar to other units. For example, i do not start with an artillery unit until i unlock the demolisher and i will not unlock a different one later. I do not get an alternative to the rock tank, there is only one AA tank etc etc. This is not a bad thing, binary upgrades are worse in my opinion but it felt like needless buisywork to arbitrary slow the time until i could attack with an ideal unit composition or counter my opponent, while it could be argued that this adds more depth i would simply say that it is simply there to perpatuate the otherwise dull research system. In FA it could be said that the units were merely binary upgrades but T2 was still useful after T3 and T1 was needed to establish T2. T1 was obselete after the 10 minute mark but T2 was not. It was actually bad to have an army composed entirely of T3 bots because they suffered against other units. Percevil (or brick or loyalist) spam looks appealing but they often overkill weaker units meaning that their effective dps is much lower and massed T2 actually beats them.

Originally posted by Ceejay:

As for experimentals, again down to personal opinion, some would say its a good thing that experimentals are not game enders, they are now support units, and means people can actually put up a defence against them. (too a point) and you have to protect them going in.

I can see this but i found SC2 (not starcraft but i cant be bothered typing supreme commander any more) lacking in game enders. Nukes were, while hillarious, largely very inefficient, and many of the experimentals seemed to contribute very little to combat. I found the mobile factories useful as they could produce very fast in the battle but other than that i prefered to mass standard units. In FA they could be too powerful, its undeniable. Commander sniping is very easy with a soul ripper, giant colossus, ufo thingy or a monkeylord even if the opponent has defences but it is also very easy to scout an experimental and then bomb/counter it as it was being built. If they could build one faster than you could do this then its either the late game meaning you should have your own on the way or youre being crushed.

Originally posted by Ceejay:

The tier system is/was seen as slightly broken, which is why they went with research, The best example of a working tier system from the first two games is the navy, the tier system works really great for the navy as tier 1 and 2 can still have a major stake in the game. However at least on larger games, air and ground, tier 1 and 2 are almost pointless when you get their tier 3 equivelents. No point in wasting unit caps on them, Had they gone almost the same way as navy then it would have been good, for instance only having tanks at tier 3, only fast scouts at tier 1, with no better version higher up etc. Which would have given each tier an actual function and reason to exist. (ovbiously there is the odd unit that is still relevant, but generally if there is a unit available at a higher tier, the lower one is obsolete)

I seem to have already covered this xD
It is true that in the very late game T3 bot spam is pretty much all you see with some T2 AA or shields thrown in but the game shouldnt really reach this phase anyway and if it does then what do you expect? In the normal late game T3 bots make up a minority of your army because they are very expensive and less money efficient than T2. (T1 is obselete after 10 mins as i said). Another point is turrets, the UEF T3 turret while it does huge damage is terrible when unsupported because of its slow fire interval and the same is true with all AA turrets.

Originally posted by Ceejay:

Obviously the better you are at playing the less the tiers affect the game, as you will have devised stratergies around things, but 4 tier 3 tanks are going to kill 4 tier 2 tanks, its a fact.

Again not everone has the same views, some people will hate the tier system, some people hate the research system. Each to their own.

I do however think you should play for much longer than 5 hours to get a true view of this game and the various stratergies you can use to play it. That is not to say you will change your mind, it could actually enforce your belief that forged alliance is better, but as I say everone has their own opinion. :)

4 T3 tanks costs a lot more than 4 T2 tanks; 12 T2 tanks will beat 4 T3 tanks any day. T3 is for when you have money to burn or want to throw a few in there to spice up the unit composition.


As i said, i need to play more to make a properly valid opinion, i only got the game working today (it wasnt working for me, fairly simple to fix, i cant remember it now but the thread is floating around) somewhere here. Again, it is not a bad game but it lack the flare and unique aspect that FA has, for me.

EDIT: Oh, and the serpahim are missing >:I comon, seriously? I know from a lore aspect but, you know, fook lore me wanty space aliens to blow up.

[Ceejay]

Hehe, there are loads of problems lore wise, like why have the illuminate dropped their navy and artillery? lol

i agree, nothing I liked more than decimating the seraphim in fa :)

[one site.]

you can get supcom 2 and play short games id recommend you'd by the dlc also just to have a complete game and the monkey lord ofcourse ..

and if you get bored with the game you can use mods like revamp or 2013 mod or some other mods found here http://www.moddb.com/mods?filter=t&kw=Search+...&released=&style=def&theme=&game=12493&type=


BUT BE WARNED it is not like starcraft 2 its quite differen't and id advice to also take a look at Total Annihilation found at www.GOG.com its the spiritual predecessor to the Supcom and PA game series ( PA is only one game to but its quite good but id advice to wait until the game is finished and at a lower price dont know if its still early acces , Planetary annihilation is still in development altrhoug it is playeble )

Oh and if you think why do i suggest TA its old but its got gigabytes of mod and mapfiles and several mod launchers just played a game today with the mayhem mod ( there are so many )

if you want tips or links pm me

[Hammer Of Evil]

get it because its on special. buy copies for your friends and play LAN games.

no point in playing online - the lag is just brutal and can make a 30-40 minute game into a 4 hour game.

play lan or locally with your IRL friends to decrease frustration.

[Ceejay]

Don't get lag online myself, neither do a lot of people, lots of factors. Often play it online against friends.

[padre]

I must say that I felt more depth in FA than in SC2.
Even SC2 Its not a bad game thou.

One question:
Is DLC for SC2 worth buying? since my friends own DLC already

have a nice day mates