C&C 3 wishlist:
1) Bring back the corny, B-grade video cutscenes. They are sorely missed.
2) Dump the Generals engine.
3) Go back to basics. Screw spells and heroes and bring back the tank rushes

That's all I need.

Actually, every C&C game up until Generals has a unit cap... Its a pretty high number, so it was unlikely that anyone would hit it (In RA, it was 20 Tesla Coils IIRC) and its role was to stop a player from congesting the game engine rather than affect overall gameplay.

The unit cap system was always meant as a sort of limiter to curb rushes. Warcraft-esque games needed this as every unit production building built units independent of one another, so with enough barracks, you could churn out tonnes of units every second.

C&C sort of had a passive way of handling this... By unifying production of all units. So, the more barracks, war factories and airfields you built, it only affects the build speed and thus, a "natural" counter to uber rushing.

Maybe it was just that the devs were lazy to make each building build independently, or didn't want to complicate the menu, but damn, its a pretty interesting feature of the C&C games, looking back.

Got lar... Open the rules.ini files and its all listed there. Mammoth tanks had a limit of around 100+ IIRC, so there was almost no way of hitting it.

In any case, you'd probably crash the game if you did go overboard anyway, and that's what they're preventing.

My point is, its more of an engine limitation, rather than gameplay element.

More accurately would be 7-8 years ago (After the big economic slump of '98). Games prior to that are priced at roughly the same price point as today.

Echoing Araes' statement, what game is 300? Even console titles don't go that high now (About RM 200+) and the only collector editions that reach that high are the MMO ones (Because the non CE ones are RM 250+).

If you're going to complain that ori games are overpriced at least step into a shop to see how overpriced they are and don't go pulling numbers out of thin air.

Demo's out. Go crazy ppl!

Finally got around to giving the demo a whirl (Stupid installer took ages just to load)

I'm quite frankly speechless at how awesome the game is.

Its nice to see the game return to its roots. Its pretty much taken all the good stuff from RA 2, threw out most of the rubbish from Generals and plays like RA (The original C&C was an incredibly unbalanced game)

I'm glad to see its original rock-paper-scissors style (Where infantry, no matter how uber, are kinda weak and tanks own all) is back in place.

That being said, there's quite a few gripes with it. I dunno, but after being spoiled by SupCom and Company of Heroes, these seem pretty lacking:
1) Infantry squads are a pain to manage. They're not really distinguishable from one another and the badges only appear when selected (Which kinda defeats the purpose of it). Plus, locating your commando among dozens of grenadiers is near impossible.
2) The minimap is stupid. Enemy infantry appear as teeny tiny dots.
3) There doesn't appear to be proper model hit detection in the game (I had 3 mammoths overlapped over each other) which makes it look weird with lots of units bunched together.
4) The upgrades and unit special abilities part seem a bit cumbersome and have weird hotkeys (Ctrl and Alt keys? WTF!)

I am digging this. Everything from the build style, the fast economy system (Which no game but SupCom is actually still using) to the quick-paced action are classic C&C moments making a comeback.

Yeah... but still is cumbersome.

I can see what they're trying to do considering how infantry in general in just about all C&C games were pretty much disposable and serve only to weaken tanks or structures.

That however doesn't work since infantry is now built in squads and hence are too expensive to be used that way so frivolously.

I mean, alright... We get the picture, they are trying to paint this picture that most infantry are weak and useless... But seriously, don't make it till we don't have a choice BUT to think that way as well.

To add insult to injury, infantry seem to want to shoot shit they are NOT proficient at killing. Grenadiers were lobbing nades at bikes while zone troopers were blasting infantry...

You have to remember though, that up until RA2, ALL infantry in any C&C game was rubbish. They died ridiculously fast, they didn't do much damage and to add insult to injury, a single anti infantry base defence was more than enough to stop any infantry force of ANY size... It was downright ridiculous as to how crappy infantry was.

But in the big picture, it did make sense. The barracks is dirt cheap, infantry was dirt cheap, and there was no unit cap, so mixing units wasn't necessary.

It was the Blizzard line of RTS' which tried to make infantry have various strengths and weaknesses while Westwood just put their foot down and said "Infantry = teh sux0rz!".

And this is why C&C 3 is kinda broken... A mammoth is 2500, while a Zone Trooper is 2000. Almost nothing can kill a mammoth in a matter of seconds, an entire Zone trooper squad can get crushed by a lowly scorpion or something (Unlike earlier C&C games, infantry don't seem to dodge vehicles) or worst, get raped by a couple of riflemen squads. Its LAME.

Infantry in Company of Heroes didn't drop like flies if not garrisoned... Hell, RA2 GIs didn't drop like flies either when not garrisoned.

Well, they are different games and you could say that the dynamics are different... But DAMMIT, when $1000+ infantry die against sub-$1000 vehicles for no other reason than the fact that infantry die really fast, its just retarded. At 2000 bux, Zone Troopers die WAAAAAAYYY to fast and don't do enough damage to offset that weakness.

And if infantry is only good when garrisoned, why even build them then? Just stick with tanks all the way then. There's no pop cap to make using infantry a necessity, the rock-paper-scissor system is weighted too heavily against infantry (Plus, most anti-vehicle stuff are anti-building which rape garrisoned buildings) and tanks don't need to be hunkered down in order to be effective.

Infantry needs some SERIOUS work.

This post has been edited by H@H@: Mar 2 2007, 02:14 AM

In previous versions of C&C, the Mammoth was the be-all, end all tank for every situation. It had the largest tank cannon, its missiles raped aircraft and even infantry. In C&C 3, however its overall effectiveness against infantry, has been somewhat reduced.

As for the silo's needed thing, you have to remember that unlike "regular" (Since Starcraft is now the defacto standard for an RTS), you don't spend all your money instantly when building a unit and it slowly drains away your resources. So, if your gather rate was faster than your spend rate, you need silos to prevent wastage. In a strategic point of view, well, you could say that if u have lots of silos with excess cash, you could recover easier if your economy gets attacked.

True, in every C&C game, rocket soldiers are considered the only infantry worth building, and that stays true in this game... But, that's about it.

This post has been edited by H@H@: Mar 2 2007, 11:50 AM

If I'm not mistaken, just about every modern RTS now uses this rule (So nobody can just spam one defence tower and be done with it). Even DC and CoH adhere to this rule (Which you love so much)

The last RTS I remember that had only one defence tower was Warcraft 3 and the caveat to that was that the tower wasn't that effective and it cost a bomb.

Actually, DC defences, aren't all in one. Basic turrets are anti-infantry while rocket turrets are anti-vehicles. Yes, they are technically the same turret with different upgrades, but once upgraded, they're totally different.

Anyway, the point I'm making is, why is he getting all riled up over the fact that C&C 3 has dedicated based defences while his favourite games are doing the exact same thing.

FYI, going gold in no way represents sales figures. It is merely industry speak for when a game is completed and sent for reproduction. In other words, the game is ready for release and there will (probably) be no further delays.

Dude, you need to get the latest version of DX9 (February 2007 version). Just google that filename and you should get a download.

Kane dies at the end of every C&C game and he gets resurrected in everyone as well (Except for the first one of course). Yes, even in Renegade, that happens.

They SERIOUSLY need new ideas. At least it looks like they're rezzing him early this time instead of dicking with you around until about halfway through (Like in Tiberian Sun)

EDIT: He's like bloody Cobra Commander!

This post has been edited by H@H@: Mar 22 2007, 12:22 PM

I just had to LOL at this statement.

Here's a quick summary:
EVERY C&C game after Red Alert has made BIG changes that mess with the original gameplay formula.

Tiberian Sun had the stupid vox engine crap that was supposed to give true "3D" terrain or some shit.
Red Alert 2 had that idiotic "Balance High" concept which made the game imbalanced and they never fixed it.
Generals was... Well, a Starcraft clone through and through.

So, this IS the first time the C&C series has gone back to its original roots (Lots of units, lots of firepower, really, really, REALLY shitty infantry) and honestly I was bored.

Total Annihilation, when it came out, was a game that never achieved its full potential due to hardware limitations. SupCom has seen to it that everything it was meant to do is now done.

That being said, the game has brought in tonnes of new innovations, such as the incredibly flexible "Shift Order" system,it has brought RTS automation to a whole new level with the Assist system and let's not forget the sure to be copied, ferry system.


C&C 3 on the other hand is taking the original C&C style, which for all intents and purposes, was at its peak in Red Alert, and adding some modern day features like squads (Which breaks infantry) and build queuing while not being anything more.

C&C hit its peak with RA. This doesn't go beyond it. So, its like 1997 all over again.

Just to note, when Total Annihilation came out, it was considered the next level for the C&C style of RTS, which is macro intensive warfare (As opposed to the more micro intensive Warcraft method). SupCom is a step forward in the right direction, while C&C 3 is like a step back.

Holy cow... That makes sense.

*Head explodes*

I guess the logic is that its being used solely for production purposes and not as currency.

Ok, Eurogamer has a review up
8/10

Before you guys go up in arms with a big "Yay!", please read the article and you might reconsider.

So I was right then... Its basically 1997 all over again... This time with tongue firmly in cheek.

Look, the units in SupCom are MUCH more varied than during the days of TA. It may be subtle, but they do in fact affect how each faction is played (T1 UEF troops are unaffected by walls, most Aeon ground troops are hover). Its obviously not Warcraft style different, but it is different.

I first read about this in some interview with Westwood a few months before its release. They said they were going for 2 VERY different sides in order to achieve balance. Not the somewhat shallow differences like in Starcraft (1 Zealot = 2 Marines = 8 zerglings).

So, they decided to go with brute force (Soviet) vs technology (Allies) and we all know how that panned out. This was why GI's owned conscripts so badly. This was why Apocalypse tanks own all other tanks in normal warfare. This was why most Allied stuff was made of paper, but if used well can kill anything in their sights.

Look, I like Eurogamer's reviews because its usually very unconventional. They take out most of the pretense and usually focus on the highlights of the game. You could argue that their reviews tend to be a little lobsided in that regard, but the best thing about them is that they express their true feelings about each game they review very well.

I don't need one full paragraph praising the pretty graphics if that's all they are. I don't need one 1 page just describing every single unit in the game.

If the graphics are pretty, a line would suffice. If it was so pretty that it would make me wish I lived in there, then a paragraph would be ok. Otherwise its just blather.

What I do need to know, is which of these features will have a lasting impression on me. Things which make it stand out from the rest.

C&C 3's graphics are obviously better than SupCom's... I don't deny that. But its not really that outstanding if you compare it to the likes of Company of Heroes.

Anyway, it was obvious that he was calling the game "stupid" because its so obviously tongue in cheek. Then again, that's essentially what C&C style games are. Its all about the tank rushes, which when you think about it... is stupid.

PS. The review did NOT include the multiplayer portion of the game as mentioned. The multiplayer aspect will be reviewed later (They always do this with pre-release reviews so that they can review the multiplayer when the playerbase is larger)

This post has been edited by H@H@: Mar 27 2007, 03:21 PM

Dude, those ARE early units. They're Tier 1 units.

All I can say is... fanboyism? I mean, I admit, I'm a hardcore TA/SupCom fan, but I'm not blind.