Errr...Which One?

taz488

taz488

taz488

Associate
Joined
29 Jun 2006
Posts
2,458
Location
Manchester
well read a load of reviews, both these games get 9/10 or around 90% in reviews, so which should i get out of...

Company Of Heroes
Supreme Commander

i like the idea of supreme commander building up a gigantic army and having large scale battles, and i think the multiplayer of this would be awesome!

but company of heroes looks awesome, with the firefights and taking over different areas, i play call of duty 2 a lot so it would be a different perspective to a WWII game that i havnt played before.

so im realy stuck as to which to get, what would your advice be? and which one do you think id get more for my money from?
 
tough choice...though my preference lies in supcom, it does depend on your preference in an RTS though, if you love the idea of massive forces and possibly "zerging" then supcom is probably more for you
 
both?
depends, if you're going to play VS people and your PC can take it, SC
if you're not or it can't then COH
 
well i will play 1024 * 768 + i got a single core 3800+ with 7600gt, so i think id find a happy framerate on med settings, maybe high on some. the thing id be worried about with CoH is the gameplay time, how long is single player and how good is multiplayer?

p.s. cant afford both, buying an mp3 player as well.
 
Between the 2, Supreme Commander hands down, or tbh just get both. You could pick both up for not much anyway. Supp com is more about multiplayer and skirmished i havent even touched SP
 
End of thread? Not really?

As I see it CoHs caters for those who enjoy small scale, detailed games. It focusses minutely on micro and rewards players who concentrate on build orders and micro intensive strategies. CoHs is aso uneniably prettier if you feel beauty is in the detail of the individual units etc. It is gorgeous close up and has a real cinematic feel. (The graphics at ground level rival the original COD)

SupCom caters for those who like macro. Everything is massive scale and the game rewards a greater focus on overall strategy. Nothing is that pretty close up (but still decent) and at strategic zoom levels units are rendered by symbols. In CoH you might control 20 individual groups of units. In SupCom you control as many individual units as your computer can handle. A quick bit of script editing and the 1000 unit a-piece limit goes out the window.

My personal preference is toward SupCom. I was a massive TA fan and Supreme Commander lives up to its lineage. I also detest micro in any form and love huge scale, overblown battles. I think the gameplay, scale and future promise of supreme commander far outweighs CoHs.

To be honest, get both. games aren't really that expensive and you've chosen two completely opposite games within the genre. They're both superb, and you should play both to death and back. :D

EDIT - If you can't afford both, get the cheapest now, get the other even cheaper later?
 
thanks for good and quick replies :) extremely greatfull, ill get supcom now i think, then maybe CoH later, i think id get annoyed with CoH with it being in between controlling one player and controlling a large base, and an army of troops, its kind of in the middle, and i think im looking for something a lot different to the usual FPS games i get. SupCom it is :)
 
hmmm...well ill ask look around see what performance people getting with similar system to me, anyone got a similar system to me?

ahhh stuff it im buying it, ill post back when i get it with report on how its playing, reading the official thread it seems you are correct. cpu limited because of the sheer amount of stuff going on. im sure ill enjoy it tho.
 
Last edited:
Very different games but both are very good in their own right.

I'd say your comp will handle supcom very well since you already have a dual-core CPU. Your graphics card should also do fine and at worst will require some minor graphics options tweaking.
 
yea ^^ i have a single core, i should have gone that extra tenner or twenty for dual core last year dang it!

i predict ill do okay on med settings until the really really big battles.
 
Sorry, I think I may have over-exaggerated.

I run the game on an iMac. Although at 1920x1200, the system has a 7600GT, Core2Duo 2.16Ghz (4mb cache) and 2GB of RAM. Performance isn't actually too bad but ONLY if the fidelity option is set to low/medium.

Saying that, SupCom does LOVE multicore CPU's. I'm running a QX6700 now and the difference over an E6600 was amazing.

Please don't let me put you off though - the game is frikkin awesome, I'm sure it'll be fine but perhaps I should rephrase and just say; "dont expect it to run as well as CoH would".

I'm confusing myself now :)

If you do buy it and play it and enjoy it, I would definately recommend picking up a dual-core CPU.
 
taz488 said:
yea ^^ i have a single core, i should have gone that extra tenner or twenty for dual core last year dang it!

i predict ill do okay on med settings until the really really big battles.
Click to expand...

I played the beta on my system and it was playable, but it was lacking a little due to lag between commands and their execution on screen. That was on a 3200, 1gb, 6800gt. More or less, don't expect it to be amazing :p
 
Sup Com should be fine on your machine mate, my 3200+ A64 @2.5 and 7600GS 500/1400mhz runs its fine at midsettings on 1440x900 and the same on COH. both games are great :)

As long as you arent hoping to push everything to "uber pretty" on the gfx front you should b ok bud
 
Supreme Commander has the advantage of not being set in WW2. I am starting to get a little bored with WW2 as a setting...

Now if they hurry up and do Dawn of War in the COH engine, then I might be more interested. (As an aside I have completed COH, it really could have done with an Axis campaign too).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom