Supreme Commander 2

Alex74 · 29 May 2009 at 11:56

Squark said:
Am I able to attack its weak points for massive damage?

hehe

Tefal said:
according to pc gamer they're stripping down a lot of the economy side of things.

I hope not. I personally found the balance they found in SC and FA to be just about perfect. Although I can think of a couple improvements they could have made to the control system, it all worked very well on the economy side. When I compare it to its big brother (Total Annihilation), there was the same ability to just go for 'build resources->build units->build nukes->nuke stuff' etc without much more hassle in SC. But Supreme Commander added more potential, I just hope they dont strip that back off.

That said if anyone disagrees I would love to hear the other side

Mav · 29 May 2009 at 11:57

ohhh yes it def helped to have a dual core an even better on a quad core ..

that was one of it`s selling points .... although it wasn`t done very good ..

till some guy @ sup com fourms wrote a core maximister to use multi core cpu`s better ...

Streeteh · 29 May 2009 at 11:58

Gimpymoo said:
It is not the hardware that is the problem, it is the operating system.

Over 50% have dual core CPU's or above which I assume most are 64bit.

Oh i understand that. It would be incredibly silly to limit the game to 64bit only os'. Pretty much everyone i know has a PC with a 64bit capable CPU but only a handful of those run a 64bit OS.

Just curious whether Sup Com was the 'first' properly multiple core game.

Is forged alliance any good btw? I only own Sup Com.

Alex74 · 29 May 2009 at 11:59

Streeteh said:
Is forged alliance any good btw? I only own Sup Com.

Well worth buying, much nicer GUI and many gameplay improvements. Beware it's even more of a system hog than vanilla Supreme Commander

Streeteh · 29 May 2009 at 12:01

Alex74 said:
Well worth buying, much nicer GUI and many gameplay improvements. Beware it's even more of a system hog than vanilla Supreme Commander

Cool cheers. Not too fussed about the requirements as since i last played sup com (which ran fine) i've upgraded from a opteron 175 + 7800GTX to a Q6700 + 8800GT. Hopefully that'll be enough to offset the extra demand

snowdog · 29 May 2009 at 12:13

I don't see the point in this to be honest.

Hardware has not progressed much since supcom was released. Supcom: FA still runs rubbish with up to date hardware when maxed and 8 players. And to add they also make it for the 360, which means the game will be kept toned down to be able to run on the aged junk in the 360.

If they'd properly designed a new engine that runs on 4-8 cores well, makes good use of the gpu power, and is generally more efficient then ok. But imo they should patch supcom FA first. Like the UI, when you hover over a unit so that the circles like range and fov appear in the hud, the game slows down A LOT.

But double designing an engine so that it can also run on a 3 core ibm cpu and a 1800XT is instant fail.

Streeteh said:
Cool cheers. Not too fussed about the requirements as since i last played sup com (which ran fine) i've upgraded from a opteron 175 + 7800GTX to a Q6700 + 8800GT. Hopefully that'll be enough to offset the extra demand

Don't expect playing it maxed.

Late ingame I get 25-30 fps at 1920x1080, mix of low-high graphics settings...
Thats on a very similar spec to yours, a Q6700 @ 3.2 ghz, 6GB ram and 8800GTS512.

TheOtherOption · 29 May 2009 at 12:17

Woop can't wait for this - FA is still my favourite game in terms of it's scale and the possibilities it offers gameplay wise.

Shall have to look to get a second 24" screen so I can really fully enjoy dual screen goodness!

Alex74 · 29 May 2009 at 12:18

Streeteh said:
Cool cheers. Not too fussed about the requirements as since i last played sup com (which ran fine) i've upgraded from a opteron 175 + 7800GTX to a Q6700 + 8800GT. Hopefully that'll be enough to offset the extra demand

Should do better than me then

Been running it on a 3.4GHz Prescott with a 4670, -just- about playable when it gets heavy. Will see how it runs when i plug the 4670 into an E6350 machine in a few weeks..

EDIT:

snowdog said:
Late ingame I get 25-30 fps at 1920x1080, mix of low-high graphics settings...
Thats on a very similar spec to yours, a Q6700 @ 3.2 ghz, 6GB ram and 8800GTS512.

That's interesting, is this against lots of AI or heavy multiplayer? I've never seen it being run on a high end system so my insight is limited here

. Tbh though, on Sup Com, I find 25-30 is very playable..

Streeteh · 29 May 2009 at 12:25

Ugh, reinstalled supcom but GPG doesn't seem to download the updates at all? Anyone know what's going on? From what i remember you just fired up the GPGnet app and it downloaded the patches automatically.

Alex74 · 29 May 2009 at 12:26

Had a similar problem myself on this install

http://supremecommander.filefront.com/

Give that a try

snowdog · 29 May 2009 at 12:31

Alex74 said:
That's interesting, is this against lots of AI or heavy multiplayer? I've never seen it being run on a high end system so my insight is limited here . Tbh though, on Sup Com, I find 25-30 is very playable..

It's part of the ui mostly, the ui is very poorly designed, when you select units you get massive fps drops, no matteri f it's in mp or sp.

Though in mp the lag is often worse, as your game syncs to the speed of kids who have rubbish pc's. Hence it's a good reason to kick all people but ones with a high end dual core ( 3+ ghz c2d, 3.3+ ghz amd x2), or a quad.
Personally I don't like 25 fps, it feels stuttery, especially when panning the camera.

Streeteh said:
Ugh, reinstalled supcom but GPG doesn't seem to download the updates at all? Anyone know what's going on? From what i remember you just fired up the GPGnet app and it downloaded the patches automatically.

You have an old gpg.net version, wait 5 minutes and it'll ask you to update that first, before attempting to do something about the game.

Streeteh · 29 May 2009 at 12:32

Alex74 said:
Had a similar problem myself on this install

http://supremecommander.filefront.com/

Give that a try

Cheers for that, ended up not needing it though, the MOMENT i figured out which patch i needed and clicked to start the download GPGNet found the updates itself :E

[EDIT]

snowdog said:
You have an old gpg.net version, wait 5 minutes and it'll ask you to update that first, before attempting to do something about the game.

Aye cheers, as i say above it just suddenly burst into life

snowdog · 29 May 2009 at 12:32

Streeteh said:
Cheers for that, ended up not needing it though, the MOMENT i figured out which patch i needed and clicked to start the download GPGNet found the updates itself :E

Told you so

.

EDIT : argh

shaggyd · 29 May 2009 at 12:46

Simplified economics? How much bl**dy simple does it need to be? With SC & FA you just plant a MOHO generator and a solar generator and bobs-yer-uncle, you now have resources. I admit you need to build lots of them to keep up the demands of your mass army, but that is part of the fun. Do you turtle and build high tech WMD? Or do you tank rush from the start with your ickle scouts and harass the enemy?
I think the Commander unit needs more RPG style "tools" and they should implement the veteran mod for all the units. Perhaps the maps need more features like cities and maybe some of the T1 units could be small enough to fortify these buildings.
Just some ideas I'd love to see...

Streeteh · 29 May 2009 at 12:53

Grrrr, GPGNet has now just gone back to sitting there doing nothing, i won't even let me launch the game now.

Alex74 · 29 May 2009 at 12:55

shaggyd said:
I think the Commander unit needs more RPG style "tools" and they should implement the veteran mod for all the units. Perhaps the maps need more features like cities and maybe some of the T1 units could be small enough to fortify these buildings.
Just some ideas I'd love to see...

I'm a little unsure of what the veteran mod is. Didnt they have veterancy in the stock game? Then units gained the ability to regenerate (very useful stuff). What kind of tools would you suggest?

snowdog · 29 May 2009 at 12:55

Streeteh said:
Grrrr, GPGNet has now just gone back to sitting there doing nothing, i won't even let me launch the game now.

iirc there were a few updates for it, try restarting it and waiting a little bit again, iirc I had to go through 2 or 3 gpg net updates before it went on to the supcom updates.

It's a pain though indeed, they could have designed a better update system.

Alex74 · 29 May 2009 at 13:00

snowdog said:
It's part of the ui mostly, the ui is very poorly designed, when you select units you get massive fps drops, no matteri f it's in mp or sp.

Though in mp the lag is often worse, as your game syncs to the speed of kids who have rubbish pc's. Hence it's a good reason to kick all people but ones with a high end dual core ( 3+ ghz c2d, 3.3+ ghz amd x2), or a quad.
Personally I don't like 25 fps, it feels stuttery, especially when panning the camera.

Running it on my PC I've certainly experienced these fps drops. Have had to turn off as many of the offending gui components as I can. I've actually avoided playing online on this machine. Probably a good thing as i'd be kicked off of every server

As with anything, fps is subjective. I've always had a pc on the low-mid range so i'm used to dealing with low fps when i try to crank settings up..

EDIT: (missed a word)

NightmareXX · 29 May 2009 at 13:31

I'm hoping that they learn from the original and get it properly quad optimised. To my mind, that'll make a lot of people who would play the game very happy

Kainz · 29 May 2009 at 16:01

Concorde Rules said:
500 unit limits in single player suck in FA.

Is there a way to increase this?

Im sure my Core i7 Xeon can handle 1000 units

WelL I thought my E6600 @ 3.7ghz could handle 1500 units...

It was a crawlfest later mid-game for multiplayer lol. If you goto Game Options (bottom right) in the Skirmish lobby screen you can customise your game using the list of options on the right. At the bottom you will find the unit count, 500, 1000,1500, 2000!