http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/1786/pcg6066su.jpg
PC Gamer seems to have a preview C&C 3. I’m mildly excited. Generals could have been better, but it was a nice attempt. Curious how they’ll handle a “true” succesor.
The game will be shown at E3
Edit: only read the first post
Oh… fu… 
This would be absolutely wonderful. While I’m sure lots of folks would rather be pining for a Starcraft 2: Please Forget That We Chose To Make “Ghost” First, I absolutely love the design of most Command & Conquer games. I’m glad they finally woke up and allowed us to build more than one structure at a time and I’m glad they’re, um, trying to get a grip on things such as, oh, you know… waypoints and whatnot (what’re formations again?)… regardless, I always enjoyed the personality and feel of the games.
To be honest, rolling up with a bunch of siege tanks and blasting away a Zerg base never felt as good as, say, sending in a Tanya and demo-bombing buildings or gunning down the infantry. While I enjoyed sending wave after wave of Carriers at a Terran base, I always enjoyed sending wave after wave of bombers and jets at the Chinese while having one of those damned terrorist underground transports erupt in the middle of my base.
I’m excited! I wasn’t let down by Tiberian Sun, per se, and I definitely enjoyed the Red Alert series, so as long as this game brings a few cheap single player thrills and a lot of multiplayer fun, I’m there.
If it is like Generals 2 then yea, Id be very happy with it. If its actual C&C 3, then I could care less. Beyond the original C&C game, all the westwood RTS totally sucked with the exception of RA2 and Generals.
I liked the original C&C a lot and loved the Red Alert games…
My biggest problem with all of the C&C type games (original, generals, RA, etc) was that multiplayer wasn’t fun. It was, in every single game, a tank rush. Weee…
I played a LOT more multiplayer in blizzard games (though not WC3) and more in Dawn of War and AoM.
I think this one is by the generals/battle of middle earth team.
Do you mean rush as in the first 5 minutes you had tanks in your base or do you mean that at some point, someone would attack you with an armada of tanks?
My experience in RA2 and Generals was quite differant. According to the Generals game’s played online I had 1100 with regular generals and 1500 with zero hour. As far as the former rush, on occasion, I did get that (though its light weight vehicles, not tanks). I could always deal with them.
I played mostly GLA in zero hour because the USA totally got the shaft. The GLA have fairly weak defenses. Thier stinger sights had little HP, and were subject to anti infantry fire. Basically nearly all of china’s units could care less. USA air units were next to impossible to hit. Anyway for the GLA my anti rush counter was to get 5 technicals with the rank upgrade. They could handle any eary rush, and furthermore you could punish someone for rushing you by rushing with your technicals.
If a chinease player was being at all defensive, rushing them is hard. Gatling turrets tear up lightweight vehicles, and those bunkers with a few guys could hold off a lot.
The USA, on the other hand was totally screwed. Hummers were far too expensive and fragile for what they could do and it was thier only anti infantry unit until you get snipers… Well I will not go on about how totally gimped the USA was in Zero Hour. In regular generals they were my favorite faction though. It was there where I ended up with huge armadas of tanks and other support units.
If the latter meaning of rush is your problem, then you just need to have your own army to deal with it. Also most games, unfortunatly, turned into super weapon battles, not tank rushes.
OMG MAGAZINE SCANS!!!
Oh wait, it’s just the cover. Keep up the good work!
My gla tactic was creating moble buses of death. Load battle buses up with Gla rpg troops and infantry, Fully upgraded they can take out almost anything on the ground.
Yea a swarm of busses would really be hard to deal with, but it took a lot of money and management to get them ready. Lots of people didn’t use them or just sent in one or two.
One time, when I was the US, it was a 2on2, and my partner died, so I created a huge air force , and beat the other two guys by myself. First and I think only time I’ve ever won a 1 on2.
I liked the Gla side the best though. From the demo trucks to the salavalge upgrades on their units.
Well, since Swingin’ Ape is/was developing Ghost, I’d be surprised if Blizzard hasn’t been working on SC2 for a while now. Their Irvine campus has a separate RTS team, so they can also work on Diablo III concurrently. It’s a big company – the WoW GMs alone have an entire office building to themselves – so they can, in fact, do more than one game at once :)
Are you on CRACK? The USA was somehow made worse in Zero Hour? The Hummers suck? ONE(1) Humvee full of anti-tank troops is more than most of the other armies can handle in the opening minutes, and it’s still formiddable in the late game. Add the expensive but sickly effective avenger humvee, and any nearby unit that shoots missiles becomes badass in addition to the game’s best AA defense.
Then there’s the specialized USA units. Like the Air-Force general’s AA-proof magic planes (and chinooks!). Or the motherfucking Superweapon general and those godforsaken EMP patriots and the terrifying Alpha Auroras. Just try and get past the accept button with that army in multiplayer. Laser pretty much sucks, I’ll give you that, but even he gets the groovy laser turret.
Please do not take what I say out of context. I didn’t say that hummers suck and leave it at that. No, I said hummers suck as anti infantry and was the only anti-infantry USA got until they got snipers. For example the china infantry zerg rush, the usa had little to no counter, let alone that same rush with an infantry general.
Vs GLA, if you were toxin, forget it. You had to drive over the units, just letting it shoot would loose every time (not 1 v 1, cause toxic infantry cost 100, Hummers 700 IIRC, 2 toxins will kill a hummer with no losses). Vs Stealth… they did well when you could see them. Vs Demo? They would do little to nothing from stopping mad bombers on motorcycles.
So yes, the Hummer sucked balls against infantry, but it was a good support unit. Aside from snipers, the USA had no anti infantry other then hordes of their own infantry which is not strong point for them.
Air forces general’s vaulted AA. HAHA Yea that is RICH. What did you only play against other USA players? Did you not ever encounter Gatling guns? You know the ones china makes, the ones each infantry general guy carries? The ones on top of Chinese tanks? Or the GLA quads which you make by the dozen. Their whole defense assumes you are using missiles, which any player with half a brain will not use.
The only way an air force general can win is by being extremely aggressive very early. If you let you enemy get some decent anti air (quads, infantry, gatlings), you are screwed, your main power is totally nullified. You will end up just using your general air force powers, not your keen chinooks or super raptors. The tacit is to beat someone down fast and keep them beat down. These generals are totally gimped by the mid game.
Super weapon general: They turtle, its the only way they can win. If they succeed in turtling, then they are very hard to beat. To kill them, attack them first, ignore everyone, make a beeline to their base. Only on the largest maps do they stand a chance. Yes their EMP turrets are strong, but… send saboteurs or black lotus to power down their whole defense right before you attack. Lotus can cap power plants in like 10 seconds, saboteurs can cause a blackout for like 20 seconds. Because their power plants have so much power, they typically do not have a lot of spares. A wise SW general will have 3 or 4 more power plants then they need. Also the worst thing about them is they are very very boring to play. It is the same tactic over and over. No flexibility. Turtle, get auras, get some SW and hope you can get your defenses up fast.
Laser General: Almost a good general. His problems are that it takes way to long to get going and is very vulnerable to power outages, which will power down his whole laser tank army. If a laser general has amassed a large group of laser tanks with a few of those laser defenders mixed in, it is truly a force to be reckoned with. However that almost never happens and when it is done it can be dealt with.
To beat him: Avoid his main army, and no you do not wait for it to come to your base first. Take out his power, then take out his army. If rushing a laser general with light units, laser tanks are not a big deal because they are slow. Technicals and other light vehicles just dance around his base tearing up his power or other resources. His laser turrets are nasty though to a raiding party, just make sure there is no line of site and take out his power.
This general can almost be made good if they made a few tweaks. Their laser defenders (Avenger?) need to be available pre-research center (the tech up facility) and probably cost around 800 or 700 gold. Their 1500 gold is way, way to much. Then they need to remove the requirement for power for laser tanks to work, lower their cost slightly and decrease their build time slightly. If they did all that, the laser general would be very powerful, maybe as powerful as the infantry general (who I consider unbalanced).
Now I know Tom was a big generals player, he can tell me if my analysis is full of crap or pretty much on target.
BFME2 engine I presume (haven’t read the issue yet)? Nice work though boys, I heard nothing about this until the magazine.
I’m curious to see if they’ll implement create-a-hero. That would be totally badass if it can get to the point where it’s balanced.
Sorry, I don’t have a dog in this fight.
However, based on my recollection of Mr. T’s previous posts, I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in his suggestions for balance. :)
-Tom
Ooooh, burn.
Though, to be fair, I was assuming the same thing. :)
What about the good ole’ C&C commando? (“That was left-handed.”)
:(
Is this comming from my oblivion stuff? Well you were a big generals player, were you not? Or did you not play zero hour? or do you just not want to get involved?
Anyway, I was more intrested in if you thought that my analysis of the USA generals were wrong, not so much on how to ‘fix’ them.
For USA, I always considered the flashbang upgrade for the rangers to be the “anti-infantry” option until you could get snipers. Then just 2 or 3 snipers spread around to base could easily deal with any oncoming infantry attack.