It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
Total Annihilation seriesTA vs. Supreme Commander(24 posts)(24 posts)
(24 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted March 08, 2014
Man, this topic brings back memories, SC vs TA. I have talked so much about this and i have experimented so much with both games, me and my friends, just to find out which one is the best that i have become a master in both :D. Even though i have sticked with SC after a while (because battle.net was a great way to play on multiplayer) i consider TA the best RTS ever created. Supreme Commander is not even close.
Posted April 06, 2014
avatar
EPurpl3: Man, this topic brings back memories, SC vs TA. I have talked so much about this and i have experimented so much with both games, me and my friends, just to find out which one is the best that i have become a master in both :D. Even though i have sticked with SC after a while (because battle.net was a great way to play on multiplayer) i consider TA the best RTS ever created. Supreme Commander is not even close.
I'm still waiting for an RTS that is better than TA and I'm still waiting for a turn based strategy better than Alpha Centauri.

But i think possibly the problem with finding a better game than TA is what the market wants. TA is that rare kind of RTS that strategy gamers like because of the level of planning and automation but i have noticed that the main pool of RTS fans tend to like the more 'hands on' style of RTS where it is more about how fast you can click and manage your forces, (and a noticeable absence of unit automation seems to be very prevalent, almost a requirement) and that type of RTS people like myself do not like as much, and so long as the market is focused in that direction, that is why they will never make a better game than TA.
Post edited April 06, 2014 by mystikmind2000
Posted April 06, 2014
avatar
EPurpl3: Man, this topic brings back memories, SC vs TA. I have talked so much about this and i have experimented so much with both games, me and my friends, just to find out which one is the best that i have become a master in both :D. Even though i have sticked with SC after a while (because battle.net was a great way to play on multiplayer) i consider TA the best RTS ever created. Supreme Commander is not even close.
avatar
mystikmind2000: I'm still waiting for an RTS that is better than TA and I'm still waiting for a turn based strategy better than Alpha Centauri.

But i think possibly the problem with finding a better game than TA is what the market wants. TA is that rare kind of RTS that strategy gamers like because of the level of planning and automation but i have noticed that the main pool of RTS fans tend to like the more 'hands on' style of RTS where it is more about how fast you can click and manage your forces, (and a noticeable absence of unit automation seems to be very prevalent, almost a requirement) and that type of RTS people like myself do not like as much, and so long as the market is focused in that direction, that is why they will never make a better game than TA.
Not exactly, I liked that fast paced gameplay of SC1 but it was dropped on SC2, SC2 has a lot of automation, is not about micro anymore, is more like TA, about macro management of your troops. On SC1 you could only select 12 units, that was a limitation that was discouraging the mass attack (like on Red Alert where you where counting the number of units by counting on how many screens those units where fitting, than you would've select all the screens and attack with them). So on SC you should've focus on how to get the best result with the smallest number of units possible by dodging enemies, using spells, hiding in the fog of war, becoming invisible, etc (micro strategy). On SC2 you can make the same but as long as a player can select as many units as he wants no one plays based on micro strategy anymore, SC2 is some kind of Red Alert with SC1 theme. On TA you could've used those tanks to doge and that is one of the things that made it so amazing. Anyway, the new RTS games just lack imagination, they copy ideas from the older games or are based on movies, etc. Check Battle Realms, that was a open minded game with a lot of original features and a nice combat system that reminds me of SC1.
Posted April 06, 2014
avatar
EPurpl3: Not exactly, I liked that fast paced gameplay of SC1 but it was dropped on SC2, SC2 has a lot of automation, is not about micro anymore, is more like TA, about macro management of your troops. On SC1 you could only select 12 units, that was a limitation that was discouraging the mass attack (like on Red Alert where you where counting the number of units by counting on how many screens those units where fitting, than you would've select all the screens and attack with them). So on SC you should've focus on how to get the best result with the smallest number of units possible by dodging enemies, using spells, hiding in the fog of war, becoming invisible, etc (micro strategy). On SC2 you can make the same but as long as a player can select as many units as he wants no one plays based on micro strategy anymore, SC2 is some kind of Red Alert with SC1 theme. On TA you could've used those tanks to doge and that is one of the things that made it so amazing. Anyway, the new RTS games just lack imagination, they copy ideas from the older games or are based on movies, etc. Check Battle Realms, that was a open minded game with a lot of original features and a nice combat system that reminds me of SC1.
By SC you mean Starcraft? If so,i won't know what your talking about much because i could not play Starcraft, it was too hard. And i think that says allot about the difference between the games, especially considering i can beat 9 AI opponents allied against me in TA on Hard!

Similarly i find other RTS too hard as well - Warcraft 3 i can only play that game by starting on a map with a Forrest barrier..... if there was no Forrest barrier i got no chance. I can cope in Warcraft 1 and 2 tho, good games.

There is only one other more modern RTS i like other than TA and that is Rise of Nations. If i don't use the 'era' war settings in Rise of Nations, that right there (on normal difficulty) is right at the threshold of difficulty that i can just manage.

Edit: In TA the Krogoth contingency is pretty hard, i can beat it on hard, but not at first - i had cheat with dragons teeth to beat it first up, but that gave me the confidence to test myself without dragons teeth. I think if Dragons teeth was not in TA i would be sitting here telling you that mission is too hard and i cannot beat it.
Post edited April 06, 2014 by mystikmind2000
Posted April 07, 2014
avatar
EPurpl3: Not exactly, I liked that fast paced gameplay of SC1 but it was dropped on SC2, SC2 has a lot of automation, is not about micro anymore, is more like TA, about macro management of your troops. On SC1 you could only select 12 units, that was a limitation that was discouraging the mass attack (like on Red Alert where you where counting the number of units by counting on how many screens those units where fitting, than you would've select all the screens and attack with them). So on SC you should've focus on how to get the best result with the smallest number of units possible by dodging enemies, using spells, hiding in the fog of war, becoming invisible, etc (micro strategy). On SC2 you can make the same but as long as a player can select as many units as he wants no one plays based on micro strategy anymore, SC2 is some kind of Red Alert with SC1 theme. On TA you could've used those tanks to doge and that is one of the things that made it so amazing. Anyway, the new RTS games just lack imagination, they copy ideas from the older games or are based on movies, etc. Check Battle Realms, that was a open minded game with a lot of original features and a nice combat system that reminds me of SC1.
avatar
mystikmind2000: By SC you mean Starcraft? If so,i won't know what your talking about much because i could not play Starcraft, it was too hard. And i think that says allot about the difference between the games, especially considering i can beat 9 AI opponents allied against me in TA on Hard!

Similarly i find other RTS too hard as well - Warcraft 3 i can only play that game by starting on a map with a Forrest barrier..... if there was no Forrest barrier i got no chance. I can cope in Warcraft 1 and 2 tho, good games.

There is only one other more modern RTS i like other than TA and that is Rise of Nations. If i don't use the 'era' war settings in Rise of Nations, that right there (on normal difficulty) is right at the threshold of difficulty that i can just manage.

Edit: In TA the Krogoth contingency is pretty hard, i can beat it on hard, but not at first - i had cheat with dragons teeth to beat it first up, but that gave me the confidence to test myself without dragons teeth. I think if Dragons teeth was not in TA i would be sitting here telling you that mission is too hard and i cannot beat it.
Yes, by SC I mean StarCraft. On multi you could've find some beginner games, no one can be a champion from the first try :D, especially when trying over and over again was so appealing. I never liked WarCraft, any of them, you can not like them after StarCraft or Total Annihilation. I have never player Rise of Nation but I guess is some kind of Age of Empires. I recommend you Age of Mythology, a amazing game with very nice single player and a very dynamic multiplayer.
Posted April 08, 2014
avatar
EPurpl3: Yes, by SC I mean StarCraft. On multi you could've find some beginner games, no one can be a champion from the first try :D, especially when trying over and over again was so appealing. I never liked WarCraft, any of them, you can not like them after StarCraft or Total Annihilation. I have never player Rise of Nation but I guess is some kind of Age of Empires. I recommend you Age of Mythology, a amazing game with very nice single player and a very dynamic multiplayer.
I never played multiplayer Starcraft, just against the AI. Could not even do the first mission in the campaign! At the time i was thinking the difficulty setting was broken, because i had it on easy but it definitely felt like it was stuck on hard setting. And i have played allot of different games and i know what easy should feel like..... er, um, it should be 'easy'!!!!!!!!! But then i played Warcraft3 and came to understand that there is no easy with these games, just back away slowly and walk away, just walk away.

Rise of Nations is a bit similar to AOG 2 and AOG 3 but much less 'annoying'. FYI - AOG1 is a brilliant game!
Posted April 08, 2014
avatar
EPurpl3: Yes, by SC I mean StarCraft. On multi you could've find some beginner games, no one can be a champion from the first try :D, especially when trying over and over again was so appealing. I never liked WarCraft, any of them, you can not like them after StarCraft or Total Annihilation. I have never player Rise of Nation but I guess is some kind of Age of Empires. I recommend you Age of Mythology, a amazing game with very nice single player and a very dynamic multiplayer.
avatar
mystikmind2000: I never played multiplayer Starcraft, just against the AI. Could not even do the first mission in the campaign! At the time i was thinking the difficulty setting was broken, because i had it on easy but it definitely felt like it was stuck on hard setting. And i have played allot of different games and i know what easy should feel like..... er, um, it should be 'easy'!!!!!!!!! But then i played Warcraft3 and came to understand that there is no easy with these games, just back away slowly and walk away, just walk away.

Rise of Nations is a bit similar to AOG 2 and AOG 3 but much less 'annoying'. FYI - AOG1 is a brilliant game!
I remember that back in the days people where saying that the difficulty of SC1 depended of the CPU frequency, if you had a good CPU than SC1 would've been more difficult, if you had a bad CPU, like a 166MHZ cpu, SC1 would've been easy. I don't know if it was just a rumor or it was real but it was fixed later. Both WarCraft 3 and StarCraft 1 had a nice single player campaign but they where made for multiplayer where you could've find players of your own level... sometimes :D. I remember some rumors, Blizzard wanted to release WarCraft 3 without single player campaign, just multiplayer, they have received a huge feedback not to do that. The ironic part is that I didn't liked WarCraft 3 on multiplayer but I have liked the single player so it is great that they didn't created just a multiplayer game.

By AOG you mean Age of Empires? AOE1 really is a brilliant game, was the first "real" game that I have ever played, when I was a kid. First non-dos game with such a great graphics and sophisticated gameplay, even for today's standards. I still prefer the AOE1 graphics (and animations) over the graphics of most 3D games made today but it requires a patch to add a few necessary features, like rally points, pre build farms, better path finding for the units, etc. But to get back to the topic, TA is better, just unbelievable :D.
Post edited April 08, 2014 by EPurpl3
Posted April 09, 2014
avatar
mystikmind2000: I never played multiplayer Starcraft, just against the AI. Could not even do the first mission in the campaign! At the time i was thinking the difficulty setting was broken, because i had it on easy but it definitely felt like it was stuck on hard setting. And i have played allot of different games and i know what easy should feel like..... er, um, it should be 'easy'!!!!!!!!! But then i played Warcraft3 and came to understand that there is no easy with these games, just back away slowly and walk away, just walk away.

Rise of Nations is a bit similar to AOG 2 and AOG 3 but much less 'annoying'. FYI - AOG1 is a brilliant game!
avatar
EPurpl3: I remember that back in the days people where saying that the difficulty of SC1 depended of the CPU frequency, if you had a good CPU than SC1 would've been more difficult, if you had a bad CPU, like a 166MHZ cpu, SC1 would've been easy. I don't know if it was just a rumor or it was real but it was fixed later. Both WarCraft 3 and StarCraft 1 had a nice single player campaign but they where made for multiplayer where you could've find players of your own level... sometimes :D. I remember some rumors, Blizzard wanted to release WarCraft 3 without single player campaign, just multiplayer, they have received a huge feedback not to do that. The ironic part is that I didn't liked WarCraft 3 on multiplayer but I have liked the single player so it is great that they didn't created just a multiplayer game.

By AOG you mean Age of Empires? AOE1 really is a brilliant game, was the first "real" game that I have ever played, when I was a kid. First non-dos game with such a great graphics and sophisticated gameplay, even for today's standards. I still prefer the AOE1 graphics (and animations) over the graphics of most 3D games made today but it requires a patch to add a few necessary features, like rally points, pre build farms, better path finding for the units, etc. But to get back to the topic, TA is better, just unbelievable :D.
That camel sound effect in AOG1 cracks me up, so funny....Here is a good party trick i like to do.... hook up my computer to the stereo, load AOG1 without sound, play until building a camel unit, then activate the sound and move the camel around! You should see the reaction of all the people in the room to that crazy sound, so funny!
Posted April 14, 2014
avatar
EPurpl3: I remember that back in the days people where saying that the difficulty of SC1 depended of the CPU frequency, if you had a good CPU than SC1 would've been more difficult, if you had a bad CPU, like a 166MHZ cpu, SC1 would've been easy. I don't know if it was just a rumor or it was real but it was fixed later. Both WarCraft 3 and StarCraft 1 had a nice single player campaign but they where made for multiplayer where you could've find players of your own level... sometimes :D. I remember some rumors, Blizzard wanted to release WarCraft 3 without single player campaign, just multiplayer, they have received a huge feedback not to do that. The ironic part is that I didn't liked WarCraft 3 on multiplayer but I have liked the single player so it is great that they didn't created just a multiplayer game.

By AOG you mean Age of Empires? AOE1 really is a brilliant game, was the first "real" game that I have ever played, when I was a kid. First non-dos game with such a great graphics and sophisticated gameplay, even for today's standards. I still prefer the AOE1 graphics (and animations) over the graphics of most 3D games made today but it requires a patch to add a few necessary features, like rally points, pre build farms, better path finding for the units, etc. But to get back to the topic, TA is better, just unbelievable :D.
avatar
mystikmind2000: That camel sound effect in AOG1 cracks me up, so funny....Here is a good party trick i like to do.... hook up my computer to the stereo, load AOG1 without sound, play until building a camel unit, then activate the sound and move the camel around! You should see the reaction of all the people in the room to that crazy sound, so funny!
Haha, a good one :D, the sound fx of AOE1 are totally epic, camels are a good example but probably the best example are the priests. I have no idea what does their talking means and how did the developer thought about using those words but is extremely funny combined properly :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aujme-o68Q8
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
Total Annihilation seriesTA vs. Supreme Commander(24 posts)(24 posts)
(24 posts)