c and c generals

Woden · 08-12-2002 3:38pm #1

command and conquer generals release date been pushed back to sometime in feb, thats sucks ass, anyone else disappointed? p***ed off? any opinions on the game so far?

ykt0di9url7bc3 · 08-12-2002 3:43pm

i hope it uses better unit-to-terrain actions, getting cover...

and i hope it takes into account that infantry with rifles cannot take out a tank..(give infantry groups rpgs)

i hope they keep the unit "rank up"feature from the last two games and i hope they sort out the computer AI once and for all

Woden · 08-12-2002 4:02pm

" hope they keep the unit "rank up"feature from the last two games and i hope they sort out the computer AI once and for all"

have to agree with you there the veteran feature was quite good, you've gotta love those veteran prism tanks, as regards the AI yeah i hope they fix that up too, what really p***ed me off about ra2 was that in the skirmish, i found the game was really all decided in the first few minutes, if you played against a large number of opponents they would all just come at you and slaughter you in the first few minutes, but if you got up and running they always threw the exact same force at you they sent at the start and if you get started its just a matter of time before you destroy them

Pugsley · 08-12-2002 10:26pm

In most RTS's its like that though Dataisgod, in Age of Empires, whoever advanced quickest and secure outpost's won, in Warcraft, whoever managed to get their hero up levels quickly and got an army up won. RTS's are all about that early rush.

Woden · 09-12-2002 12:16am

There is no reason rts should be about that early rush though, and even if it is so there is no reason the computer should try to rush you later in the game with the exact same units in the exact same amount as it did at the start of the game thats just crap A.I. If c and c was all about the early rush no one would pick the allies, as its the soviets who rule the rush.

Lemming · 09-12-2002 12:24am

Originally posted by Dataisgod
command and conquer generals release date been pushed back to sometime in feb, thats sucks ass, anyone else disappointed? p***ed off? any opinions on the game so far?

I read in this months PC-Gamer mag (I think it was) that Generals looked as if it was actually going to be on schedule if not early (making a change from the other C&C games).

It's pencilled for a january release. I'll check tomorrow morning for sure 'cause right now I want my bed ....

Pugsley · 09-12-2002 5:29pm

Originally posted by Dataisgod
There is no reason rts should be about that early rush though, and even if it is so there is no reason the computer should try to rush you later in the game with the exact same units in the exact same amount as it did at the start of the game thats just crap A.I. If c and c was all about the early rush no one would pick the allies, as its the soviets who rule the rush.

By early rush i dont mean invading the enemy base with a legion of men, that never works (well in some games it does, rarely tho). By early rush i mean charging out and securing ore fields, building a base outside theres to seal them in, getting up an airforce and bombarding them.
And anyways, i always found allies totally dominated the rush, prism tanks are unstoppable when you get 20+ of them, even rushing them with similar numbers of apocalypse's doesnt work (this is for 20+ btw, 1on1 apoc's wipe prisms). Only way ot beat prisms is with arial, and soviets kirovs arentexactly great for anti tank, too bloody slow. Soviets can hardly ever beat allies, allies have better tanks (well, just 2, mirage and prism), better infantry (rocketeers....), better ariel (although this is debatable), better tech (ore purifier, sat uplink), better defences (prism's fire so much faster than tesla)........ only thing soviets win in is anti air, flak beats the pants off patriots against multiple planes.
Hopefully C&C: Generals will have more balance

Woden · 10-12-2002 7:00pm

yeah but the problem with the a.i was talking about was the early base rush, not the securing of resources and not so much the early base rush but that they don't throw anything different at you later in the game really. no one denying the superiority of the allies in against the soviets however 1 on 1 the soviets can be an allies enemy with a quick base rush no bother, as many of the allies better units are dependent on the battle lab

Celt · 11-12-2002 6:26pm

Generals is boring, the usual tank rush inevitably prevails.

After playing 10 games of it online, havent touched it in a week.

Woden · 11-12-2002 6:57pm

how did you get to play it?

adnans · 11-12-2002 7:07pm

Originally posted by Dataisgod
how did you get to play it?

he has obviously been accepted for the beta test which is currently happening.

im not impressed with the early games i had either. its mostly boring since the netcode hasnt been perfected and the game is slooooow. the fact that you cant change the resolution from the standard 800x600 is also a bit weird.

i havent played much though since ive been busy with exams and college stuff too much lately.

adnans

Woden · 11-12-2002 10:05pm

"he has obviously been accepted for the beta test"

obviously coz every tom, dick and harry called dataisgod knows about the beta testing

daveirl · 12-12-2002 12:07am

This post has been deleted.

Mark · 31-12-2002 2:20pm

My main complaint with the c+c games is that Westwood cant balance for ****e.
I always found the allies to be way too dominating late game, some units too powerful(5 vet Prism Tanks>All), some too weak. If they could have this as balanced as SC 1.09, then Id probaly buy it but not likely otherwise.
One other thing that really pisses me off: No fog of war.
You send one GI into the enemies base at the start of the game and somehow you manage to gain permenent vision. How??

Woden · 03-01-2003 12:25am

if i remember correctly tiberian sun had an optional fog of war, correct me if i'm wrong?

fog of war can be made redundant though by the spy sat for allies i suppose, i see your point though.

Pugsley · 03-01-2003 6:42pm

They have no fog of war to make GAP gen's useful, although only allies have them (as usual allies are better off)

silverski · 07-01-2003 8:09pm

Release date from The Game Store On Dawson Street....

14th Feb....

And by the way... Game Store on Grafton street have no release date as of yet...

Checked with both stores 2day......

It figures

BLITZ_Molloy · 10-01-2003 2:43pm

Westwood need to ditch the harvest resource structure and allow people to expand all over the map building fixed ore extractors ala Total Annihilation. That way you can have tank rushes but you can rebuild so quickly the game doesn't have to end there. A good way of discouraging people throwing units at opponent is allowing him to reclaim the wrecks to finance his own warmachine.

RTS is dying from a chronic lack of innovative game mechanics. Changing the units and the game world isn't going to revitalise 10 year old gameplay. They're just recycling the same concept ad infinitum. The game is turning into Final Fantasy -- 15 year old gameplay.

Woden · 10-01-2003 10:46pm

i'll have nothing said about FF.

Pugsley · 11-01-2003 5:34am

Im afraid just about all game styles are lacking innovation now'a'days, but there are a few RTSs that have tried diffrently, all of them over 5years old tho

BLITZ_Molloy · 16-01-2003 1:05pm

Originally posted by Dataisgod
i'll have nothing said about FF.

Thats the kind of attitude that breeds these dull, dull sequels.

Woden · 16-01-2003 7:16pm

i fail to see how my attitude invokes squaresoft to keep churning them out, i like em, i buy em, i enjoy playing them, if they keeping making em like they do i'll keep buying them. If developers where influenced by your attitude perhaps the ff series would have stopped at 3,4 5 etc. and 7 would never have been made, which i consider one of the best games ever.

BLITZ_Molloy · 17-01-2003 3:35pm

Get a Genesis emulator and download Phantasy Star 4. It does everything Final Fantasy 7 does and better, minus the FMV of course.

Squaresoft make some interesting games but people don't buy them. People are happier buying the same **** over and over.

The Resident Evil remakes are a disgrace also. The original game was flawed but good. Making 4 uninspired sequels and then tarting them up for rerelease a few years later is a disgrace.

Woden · 20-01-2003 10:52am

resident evil two was good i enjoyed that haven't played any of the others though, there was just something about FF7 that was very cool and i don't think squaresoft have been able to obtain it since, 8 was only ok, 9 was good, and currently playing 10

Wook · 20-01-2003 11:11am

Originally posted by Pugsley
In most RTS's its like that though Dataisgod, in Age of Empires, whoever advanced quickest and secure outpost's won, in Warcraft, whoever managed to get their hero up levels quickly and got an army up won. RTS's are all about that early rush.

-cough...bull-..cough-
Warcraft 3 does a good job to get rushes away by the time you got your hero to a decent level and a army up and running the game is halfway and several little skirmishes have allready been done. The only way to rush in War3 is to communicate with the team members and organize a rush because alone you will not be able to crack down a enemy place (with start army)

Wook · 20-01-2003 11:15am

Originally posted by Mark

One other thing that really pisses me off: No fog of war.
You send one GI into the enemies base at the start of the game and somehow you manage to gain permenent vision. How??

Since we are talking of warfare in a future setting , i can assume that your 'Radar' is connected to satelite ? It's kinda normal ?

ykt0di9url7bc3 · 20-01-2003 11:40am

If you want pure RTS gaming then look out for Medevil/shogun Total War or Homeworld..

I hate it when people bitch about CNC saying that its not true strategy, CNC has its own niche in RTS gaming, its own style, bitch all you want about no 'fog of war', its done for a reason...RA2 soviets dont have the spy sattilite which forces them into exploration and crate hunting quickly, while the allies sit back and build up, the soviets may have the world map in a crate and a couple of ranked up tanks or some cash...This may not suit everyone but imho no fog makes the game run quicker...

And anyways, i always found allies totally dominated the rush, prism tanks are unstoppable when you get 20+ of them, even rushing them with similar numbers of apocalypse's doesnt work (this is for 20+ btw, 1on1 apoc's wipe prisms). Only way ot beat prisms is with arial, and soviets kirovs arentexactly great for anti tank, too bloody slow. Soviets can hardly ever beat allies, allies have better tanks (well, just 2, mirage and prism), better infantry (rocketeers....), better ariel (although this is debatable), better tech (ore purifier, sat uplink), better defences (prism's fire so much faster than tesla)........ only thing soviets win in is anti air, flak beats the pants off patriots against multiple planes

yet an early rush with grisslys will decimate your opponent, soviets have the early advantage yet who uses it????

a couple of grisslys (8-10 should do) some dogs (anti-infrantry) and a flack-track with engineers/terrorists, easy and quick to build, if used properly the allied base doesnt stand a chance...it makes me laugh to see Soviets sit in their bases waiting for Uris and Apocs when they are losing thier advantage as the allies progrtess thru the tech tree...balance?....early tech game - soviets, late tech game - allies.....makes for interesting battles

Woden · 20-01-2003 1:21pm

soviet tanks your on about the rhino's?

i use the soviet rush on 2 player online (or i used to) however the disadvantage is if your playing more then one player you are wide open to getting your ass kicked after a rush also i don't agree with the flak track engineer rush, its expensive and if caught could cripple you and the money could be used for tanks

Pugsley · 20-01-2003 10:42pm

Look at it this way SearrarD, soviets are in the lead for 10minutes, allies in the lead for the rest of the game, not very fair is it? and if your fighting against the french, you have until they build a grand cannon to build up an army and attack, which isnt nearly long enough really.

ykt0di9url7bc3 · 24-01-2003 11:43am

Originally posted by Pugsley
Look at it this way SearrarD, soviets are in the lead for 10minutes, allies in the lead for the rest of the game, not very fair is it? and if your fighting against the french, you have until they build a grand cannon to build up an army and attack, which isnt nearly long enough really.

If you have unit count at 10 it takes me 3minutes and 45 seconds to build a prism tank from deploy of MCV, lack of money and build time it takes about 5 mins to put down a Grand Cannon (no tanks built from deploy of MCV)...comparing this time to building Rhinos (thx Data

) and you can have 4-5 extra tanks than your opponent - Your Objective being the ORE REFINERY & AIRFORCE COMMAND with optional engineer deployment. You have to really hinder his technological progression......

...as for leaving yourself open, thats the calculated risk, once finding an enemy base in early scouting (scout with tanks the immediate area at the start, 2 dogs then to locate the enemy base and eliminate infantry) make sure that no-one else see your base because if they cant see your base - they cant know if your tanks have left it.....:D

...so you find yourself unable to locate the enemy base in time....:(
concentrate on eliminating enemy Chrono miners
flak troppers can deal with rocketeers as long as you make enough for the occasion, backed up with Apocs and flak-tracks full of Yuris, sit in your base and wait for the prism tank rush....if he has enough money to build them...Hunt for crates and if its an island map only build mass of Naval units if 1) Enemy is building them or 2) You have double the size of his land army and have 5 - 10 grand to spare.....

as for grand cannons.....pah.....expensive, inaccurate, slow rate of fire & power hungry - buy four mirage tanks and go for the enemy ore miners.....

Woden · 24-01-2003 1:43pm

mirage tanks do officially rock give me a few of those over an apocalypse any day, don't know why you would want to build a prism tank in three minutes and 45 seconds though, it wouldn't be my first item off the tech tree i can tell you, as for stopping another enemy from see your open and vulnerable base, if your playing against anyone half decent they will have enough infantry (especially deployed allied infantry) to deal with your dogs by the time you get them to your base and they will then be able to scout themselves no bother and see your base is open for the kill.

Doodee · 24-01-2003 8:37pm

Monty has played the Beta test and says it is v.v good.
cant wait

Celt · 24-01-2003 11:07pm

I would just like to reiterate, I was accepted to the beta test and everything, it's pants, totally and utterly.

ykt0di9url7bc3 · 27-01-2003 2:16pm

BUT WHO DO I BELIEVE?????

Monty or Celt?????

maybe if someone put up a decent ananlysis or concrustive feedback :P

iirc - Westwood games have always been majorly tweaked during and after beta testing

The Pundit · 04-02-2003 11:09pm

I think what will make a difference now is that CnC games aren't being churned out by westwood, ea pacific is making them. I think their reasoning is as follows: Westood's two most recent games, TibSun and Renegade weren't that popular. EA Pacific (Mark Skaggs' team) makes RA2 and it's the most successful CNC game in years. I think that this one will be better than TibSun and Renegade anyway because previews of the beta game and the gold copy actually show that EA HAVE addressed issues raised by the beta testers unlike Westwood with Renegade who charged on regardless.....

Pugsley · 05-02-2003 12:00am

I found renegade GREAT fun on-line, nothing like rolling in the flame tanks and burning GDI to the corner of the earth they dont even deserve, mwahaha [insert manical laugh] anyways

Woden · 05-02-2003 10:05am

it doesn't have much single player value though, theres so much better FPS's out there, they should concentrate on what there good at instead of branching out with crap, can you imagine the amount of people that may have bought that game just because it was command and conquer.

Pugsley · 05-02-2003 11:22am

Yes i will admit that single player was rather pap, but games are kept alive by multi player, I just think this game was a flop due to naff single play so most didnt even bother on-line, but it is worth it, honest.

Monty - the one and only · 05-02-2003 5:24pm

Originally posted by SearrarD
BUT WHO DO I BELIEVE?????

Monty or Celt?????

Well celt's played the test more than me, and im a bit more of a c&c nut than most people.

I did happen to enjoy what I did play of it tho.

Monty - the one and only · 05-02-2003 5:30pm

Originally posted by Pugsley
Yes i will admit that single player was rather pap, but games are kept alive by multi player, I just think this game was a flop due to naff single play so most didnt even bother on-line, but it is worth it, honest.

Reneagade was definatly worth playing online, have had some great games of that in the past. Despite being slagged by numerous people for actually having bought a copy of it, I will say for online play your going to get some great games as the players on most servers will work as a team and the muppetry level on servers is quite low.

Woden · 05-02-2003 9:18pm

is online gaming with renegade thru westwood just like ra2 and such? i like ra2's set up online very well done

Monty - the one and only · 06-02-2003 12:24am

yeah, you have a choice between that and gamespy arcade

Pugsley · 06-02-2003 4:06am

Originally posted by Monty - the one and only
Reneagade was definatly worth playing online, have had some great games of that in the past. Despite being slagged by numerous people for actually having bought a copy of it, I will say for online play your going to get some great games as the players on most servers will work as a team and the muppetry level on servers is quite low.

Same here, havent really found any muppets yet, thats probably due to its low popularit, few players = little/no muppets. The best thing about staying away from the larger games, even RA2 has a goo colelction of muppets these days.

Woden · 06-02-2003 11:54am

muppets? does this refer to a specific type of gamer or just muppets in general?

Pugsley · 06-02-2003 9:53pm

Muppets in general, people who cry for their mammy on public chat when they die and TK to get revenge on the enemy and then cry some more when they get TKed back. Common in more popular games, such as counter-strike.

Woden · 06-02-2003 11:07pm

ah yes i recall a guy who started yelling cheater when we slaughtered him in ra2 once, he wasn't happy, turned out he was only a kid anyway.

Rew · 07-02-2003 3:42pm

Iv been playing Generals since yesterday (the full release version i have to preview) and its not bad, but i doubt its what anyone will be expecting....

Loads of features and cool things (Like fast ropeing special forces in to buildings from chinooks and getting them to flashbang the enemy troops in the building)

The resource gathering is now fone by chinooks ferrying supplys in from supply depots dotted around the map (the oil things that u can capture are still in the game as well)

The 3d is very nice, the troops get blown out of their cars etc and you see them go flying thru the air. They scream as the die as well... Missiles and explosions look really cool.

Most weapons are current modren weapons or variations on a current weapons. There are loads of units and buildings. They have droped the side control bar and put one on the bottom instead. U can build multpile buidings at the same time now because u have dozer units that do all the building.

There are 3 armys to play as USA, China and GLA (Global Lieration Army, some kind of middle eastren terror group)

I havent decided if its as good as RA2 yet...

The scary thing about the game is that its like one big add for US foregin policy. The first mission is to basicly capture Bagdad in Iraq, the 2nd is to hunt terrorists in Yemen, its a bit disturbing...

Woden · 07-02-2003 11:34pm

ah that whole ad thing is to be expected screw that, its the gameplay that counts

Rew · 08-02-2003 2:12pm

It good and has been fairly entertaining so far but building units has been compleaty de centrilased. U have to click the war factory to build tanks then the barracks to build troops then the ari field to build comanches....

its a pain the arse.... there are some nive features like tanks and humers can build spy drones and combat drones and u can build upgrades for most units. There are no engineers in it either troops capture buldings which is an improvement

Spunog UIE · 08-02-2003 7:10pm

ah cool head in the sand haven't heard anything about this.

I never really liked RedAlert2 few small things that really pissed me off about it. First would probally telling the people your playing against that you have a superweapon the time left for it to be ready and actually showing them it through the shroud. Another thing was the fact you couldn't force fire through the shroud. I know there was more but these things just nagged me into not liking it. Probally prefere Tib-Sun as a result. I think RA2 was probally the only one in the seris that really had things that annoyed me so much. Are they still in this new one? Hope not.

Alo.

silverski · 08-02-2003 7:14pm

Have been searching for the C&C Generals Demo.

But does not seem to be available any more..

Anyone got ideas

c and c generals

Comments