Warcraft II vs Command and Conquer
J. David Spafford
J. David Spafford,
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta
jspa...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Chainsaw
>
>C & C is still better, but the graphics in Warcraft II kick the crap
>out of Westwood's poor attempt.
The graphics in C&C are first rate. They're just not SVGA. This hardly
qualifies C&C as a "poor attempt". Is this an attempt to make Westwood
try harder with there next release? is still better, but the graphics in Warcraft II kick the crap
>out of Westwood's poor attempt.
The graphics in C&C are first rate. They're just not SVGA. This hardly
qualifies C&C as a "poor attempt". Is this an attempt to make Westwood
try harder with there next release?
Skip McIlvaine
C & C is still better, but the graphics in Warcraft II kick the crap
out of Westwood's poor attempt. Nonetheless, the detail in Westwood's
graphics are appreciated once you watch a pack of WC2 baddies just "sit
there," while C & C commandos smoke, civvies jack-off, and other types
clean their guns.
C & C is more fun, and faster over Kali, while WC2 is more stable with
more people on a multiplayer game, and more visually impressive.
I'd give C & C a 9, WC2 a 7.
Skip
DOYAMA JASON
>Mr. Negative Reinforcement Skip McIlvaine writes:
>>
>>out of Westwood's poor attempt.
>
>qualifies C&C as a "poor attempt". Is this an attempt to make Westwood
>>out of Westwood's poor attempt.
>
graphics. But it is after all SVGA. So maybe it's not really fair to
compare graphics. But admittedly they did a great job. Dragons are
cool looking.
So lets' stick to gameplay instead.
WHY C&C is BETTER than Warcraft2
1) I personally like the one button smart cursor in C&C. Yes
there is the right button but I hate using it. My finger gets tired
too easily so I end up using the keyboard.
2) Like someone else noted, the graphics are more static in
Warcraft2. No polishing swords while waiting etc. The critters just
sort of 'slide' along the ground (ugh...) But I guess some thing had
to be sacrificed for SVGA.
3) The AI is much better. This is a major down point in
Warcraft. Though I'm not too far, but my mission 6 the game should be
picking up the pace. I mean C&C didnt' give me too many missions to
train with.
4) Again I'm not far but I dont' see the mission varaiety
(sort of) That commando mision in C&C was utter hell. Hopefully
there'll be something like that in Warcraft. But then agin if not,
I'll just MAKE it :>
WHY Warcraft2 is BETTER than C&C
1) Well for SVGA the game is ultra smooth.
2) More ACTIVE sea and air warfare. Control ships, REALLY
control air attacks. Fun Fun fun fun fun :>
3) The fog of war is great. Some will complain, but they're
just sissys. In REAL war you don't know whats going on unless you've
got scouts around. Of course if you dont like it you can turn it off.
4) Map and sound editor built in!!! Yowzers. The is great. I
can now make modem matches to what ever I want. I'm working now on a
purely naval map. All ocean and a few islands for gold and lumber.
But esssentially it's going to be all ships going crazy. I can't
wait. I suppose by next week we'll have the Simpsons, Animaniacs, etc
sound packs around. Great!!
Well there's more you can add or whatever so go ahead.
BTW the year's soon coming to an end. Start thinking about the
BEST and WORST games of 95. Around New Year's we can start voting.
Also I think Blizzard and Origin are out for my ass. I've got
Crusader, Warcraft2, and Wing Commander 4 is coming soon too. How the
hell am I to study for my exams!!!! :> Maybe if I fail I should demand
they give me a job since it was their fault. (think it would work?)
Jason Doyama
--
_-----------------------------------------------------------------_
| "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no |
| matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes |
-_________________________________________________________________-
Skip McIlvaine
>
>Mr. Negative Reinforcement Skip McIlvaine writes:
>>
>>C & C is still better, but the graphics in Warcraft II kick the crap
>>out of Westwood's poor attempt.
>
>The graphics in C&C are first rate. They're just not SVGA. This
>hardly qualifies C&C as a "poor attempt". Is this an attempt to make
>Westwood try harder with there next release? is still better, but the
>graphics in Warcraft II kick the crap out of Westwood's poor attempt.
>
>The graphics in C&C are first rate. They're just not SVGA. This
>hardly qualifies C&C as a "poor attempt". Is this an attempt to make
>Westwood try harder with there next release?
Huh? What?
Learn to type, buddy. And learn to read...if you would have read the
rest of the message, you would see that this was an unnecessary post on
your part.
And, yes, we all would like to see Westwood do better on their next
attempt....I gave C & C a 9 (out of 10), but I'd sure as heck like to
play a 10.
Skip (Mr. Negative Reinforcement - Duh, what?)
Chainsaw
> 1) I personally like the one button smart cursor in C&C. Yes
>there is the right button but I hate using it. My finger gets tired
>too easily so I end up using the keyboard.
Um. What part of your body are you using to push the keys down on the
keyboard? Um. Nevermind. I don't want to know.
> 3) The fog of war is great. Some will complain, but they're
>just sissys. In REAL war you don't know whats going on unless you've
>got scouts around. Of course if you dont like it you can turn it off.
Of course they will. Even though FOW is optional and can be toggled off.
But this IS the usenet, which means there will be countless posts about
how the developers at Blizzard is a bunch of screw-ups because of some
feature the poster didn't like or didn't get.
> BTW the year's soon coming to an end. Start thinking about the
>BEST and WORST games of 95. Around New Year's we can start voting.
Gee, thank you. Please let me know exactly when I can send in my vote.
Can I send it in exactly 12am 1/1/96? Do I have to wait until 8am the
next working day? Are different time zones being considered in
determining when we can vote? What is the punishment if I were to
send a vote in now? Would I be warned? Imprisoned? Needles under
the fingernails? My testicals shoved into my eyesockets? What? What?
Chainsaw
>>>C & C is still better, but the graphics in Warcraft II kick the crap
>>>out of Westwood's poor attempt.
>Learn to type, buddy. And learn to read...if you would have read the
>rest of the message, you would see that this was an unnecessary post on
>your part.
You're suggesting the graphics in C&C are a "poor attempt". This is
bullshit. They are quite professional, attractive, and functional.
Your comments suggest they are ameturish, ugly, and/or poorly implemented.
There's nothing wrong with them. They just arn't state of the art.
Potential buyers should not be led to believe C&C wasn't well done.
By your definition, all 320x200 VGA games have lame graphics.
Check out Breech 3. Now there's a poor attempt at graphics. Even if
they were SVGA, they would still be wretched.
DOYAMA JASON
>>there is the right button but I hate using it. My finger gets tired
>>too easily so I end up using the keyboard.
>
Yeah well I say keep is simple. Why have the smart cursor on the
second button when it could be on the primary right? Ok it's lame I
admit, a hang over from C&C.
>
>> 2) Like someone else noted, the graphics are more static in
>>Warcraft2. No polishing swords while waiting etc. The critters just
>>sort of 'slide' along the ground (ugh...) But I guess some thing had
>>to be sacrificed for SVGA.
>
>I disagree, I don't see the sliding effect that way.
Well they're just not really 'animated' when they move.
>
>> 3) The AI is much better. This is a major down point in
>>Warcraft. Though I'm not too far, but my mission 6 the game should be
>
>>picking up the pace. I mean C&C didnt' give me too many missions to
>>train with.
>
>
>Wrongo.... Is that 3 for 3 already??
what exacty did you mean there??
Well I hear around mission 10 it gets pretty rough. I'll keep
trying after exams.
>
>
>>WHY Warcraft2 is BETTER than C&C
>>
>> 3) The fog of war is great. Some will complain, but they're
>>just sissys. In REAL war you don't know whats going on unless you've
>>got scouts around. Of course if you dont like it you can turn it off.
>
>Unless you a motion radar? Yeah the option is a good one.
Well last I checked I dont' htink Orcs or humans in medieval
times had radar :> I love those sneak attacks I can now pull off in
multiplayer.
>>
>Yes, we can tailor make the game to are own level of play.
>
Yep a great feature for those players not as *ahem* good as
others (myself included). Great to have a handicap capability in the
game. The editor is great, you can change EVERYTHING in the game. Even
costs of upgrades, unit attributes, unit AI (there's aggresive, and
passive) If its in the game you can change it.
Bryant Fong
> Ok on a relative scale yes Warcraft2 does have superior
>graphics. But it is after all SVGA. So maybe it's not really fair to
>compare graphics. But admittedly they did a great job. Dragons are
>cool looking.
Its not fair to compare graphics, because Warcraft's graphics is so much
better? I guess you can't compare the graphics of Dark Forces with
Wolfenstein 3-D, either.
[why c&c is better than warcraft ii]
> 1) I personally like the one button smart cursor in C&C. Yes
>there is the right button but I hate using it. My finger gets tired
>too easily so I end up using the keyboard.
Agreed. Not so much because I get tired, but because its easier to use.
But Warcraft is more complicated, and if C&C wants to add new commands
like they plan to, theres a point where you can't use only 1 button to do
almost everything.
> 2) Like someone else noted, the graphics are more static in
>Warcraft2. No polishing swords while waiting etc. The critters just
>sort of 'slide' along the ground (ugh...) But I guess some thing had
>to be sacrificed for SVGA.
I thought you said you wanted to compare gameplay, since C&C's graphics
wasn't comparable to Warcraft II? Atleast Warcraft units says funny
things when you click on him a million times :).
> 3) The AI is much better. This is a major down point in
>Warcraft. Though I'm not too far, but my mission 6 the game should be
>picking up the pace. I mean C&C didnt' give me too many missions to
>train with.
Warcraft's AI is better, right? C&C AI just starts with a powerful base
and seemingly unlimited cash.
> 4) Again I'm not far but I dont' see the mission varaiety
>(sort of) That commando mision in C&C was utter hell. Hopefully
>there'll be something like that in Warcraft. But then agin if not,
>I'll just MAKE it :>
Yea, Warcraft II includes a map editor. There is some variety to the
Warcraft II missions, too.. And you're referring to one mission, 6, of
GDI. Any others?
>WHY Warcraft2 is BETTER than C&C
> 1) Well for SVGA the game is ultra smooth.
> 2) More ACTIVE sea and air warfare. Control ships, REALLY
>control air attacks. Fun Fun fun fun fun :>
Yea, you can actually click on guys in air.. The sea portion of the game
really adds a lot of fun to it.
> 3) The fog of war is great. Some will complain, but they're
>just sissys. In REAL war you don't know whats going on unless you've
>got scouts around. Of course if you dont like it you can turn it off.
> 4) Map and sound editor built in!!! Yowzers. The is great. I
>can now make modem matches to what ever I want. I'm working now on a
>purely naval map. All ocean and a few islands for gold and lumber.
>But esssentially it's going to be all ships going crazy. I can't
>wait. I suppose by next week we'll have the Simpsons, Animaniacs, etc
>sound packs around. Great!!
--
__________ __
\______ \_______ ___.__._____ _____/ |_ Bryant Fong
| | _/\_ __ < | |\__ \ / \ __\ bry...@netcom.com
| | \ | | \/\___ | / __ \| | \ | You can't have everything.
|______ / |__| / ____|(____ /___| /__| Where would you put it?
\/ \/ \/ \/
DOYAMA JASON
>doy...@ecf.toronto.edu (DOYAMA JASON) writes:
>> 1) I personally like the one button smart cursor in C&C. Yes
>>there is the right button but I hate using it. My finger gets tired
>>too easily so I end up using the keyboard.
>
>keyboard? Um. Nevermind. I don't want to know.
Huh? I use my left hand thank you very much.
>> 3) The fog of war is great. Some will complain, but they're
>>just sissys. In REAL war you don't know whats going on unless you've
>>got scouts around. Of course if you dont like it you can turn it off.
>
>Of course they will. Even though FOW is optional and can be toggled off.
>But this IS the usenet, which means there will be countless posts about
>how the developers at Blizzard is a bunch of screw-ups because of some
>feature the poster didn't like or didn't get.
>
>> BTW the year's soon coming to an end. Start thinking about the
>>BEST and WORST games of 95. Around New Year's we can start voting.
>
>Gee, thank you. Please let me know exactly when I can send in my vote.
>Can I send it in exactly 12am 1/1/96? Do I have to wait until 8am the
>next working day? Are different time zones being considered in
>determining when we can vote? What is the punishment if I were to
>send a vote in now? Would I be warned? Imprisoned? Needles under
>the fingernails? My testicals shoved into my eyesockets? What? What?
Geez take a pill guy. Just though I'd get those grey cell of all
ya working. I just though it be interesting to get a sense of what
people though the best and worst games of 95 were. I mean there were
games before C&C and MW2 you know :> Anyways it was just an idea.
Nothing more.
Jeffrey L. Powell
looking at them from a different point of view.
DOYAMA JASON (doy...@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: WHY C&C is BETTER than Warcraft2
: 2) Like someone else noted, the graphics are more static in
: Warcraft2. No polishing swords while waiting etc. The critters just
: sort of 'slide' along the ground (ugh...) But I guess some thing had
: to be sacrificed for SVGA.
This feature in C&C was what caused the game to crawl during
my last 2 or 3 GDI missions. It had to animate a friggin platoon of
guys sitting in front of the barracks. I like the animations, what
I like more is the ability to turn them off [like crusader].
: BTW the year's soon coming to an end. Start thinking about the
: BEST and WORST games of 95. Around New Year's we can start voting.
Hopefully not too many of us bought the worst games. Master of Magic
would have to be my vote for best..... patched or otherwise ;-).
Worst would have to be Breach III, or perhaps FF:elite...but I
don't think I gave FF enough of a chance.
--
<no sigs, I'm trying to cut down>
Joseph I. Valenzuela
: O.K. what is the final verdict?
: J. David Spafford,
: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta
: jspa...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Both fun games. C&C is definitly superiour - the maps are more
varied and seem bigger, both sides have units which the other
does not, and the interface is a real joy to play with. The
music, if not the sound effects, is much easier on the ears then
the tiresome and repetitive stuff that Blizzard packs.
WC2, tho, has infinitly better graphics. I like the fact that there
are a lot of structures to be built, although the fact that Human's
and Orc's structure and units are so similar makes repeated play a
little less appealing. The fact, however, that custom missions are
so easily made and played is a definite and powerful plus.
I like that Blizzard didn't overwhelm me with cutscenes, which I
usually find pretty dull.
Still, C&C has a better variation of units and structures, better
interface and for those reasons strikes me as a better game.
those
--
Joseph I. Valenzuela -- tsao...@empirenet.com
Check out my home page -- http://www.empirenet.com/~tsaotsao/
"A penny saved is ridiculous" -- fortune
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQCNAzDEA/IAAAEEALM38EEtqwcuLQQmb5pknt20di7RZUrruxToMaDGnqbQEpPL
FIccfd+HPu04V5MZJw2g04lWKX7UFbDl4l26R6q5xoWQm+IMp/fdDEfuaupisq37
HtUP5WXPow5rnYAhW0sHhl8CzGiEq59iN4fv+bOu1uUEXh4O9ZKK7uGmEQi1AAUR
tC1Kb3NlcGggSS4gVmFsZW56dWVsYSA8dHNhb3RzYW9AZW1waXJlbmV0LmNvbT4=
=gqyY
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Allen J Klein
Warcraft II vs Command .. by DOYAMA JA...@ecf.toronto
> >
> >>there is the right button but I hate using it. My finger gets tired
> >>too easily so I end up using the keyboard.
> >
>
> Yeah well I say keep is simple. Why have the smart cursor on the
> second button when it could be on the primary right? Ok it's lame I
> admit, a hang over from C&C.
For spell casting, building and the like. IMO, they have done an
outstanding job of accomodating both warcraft and C&C style of control.
'course, I've played with some inexperienced teammates who kept
attacking my men 'cause they used the left button + A only (and the
colors are a little hard to differentiate)
> >> 3) The AI is much better. This is a major down point in
> >>Warcraft. Though I'm not too far, but my mission 6 the game should be
> >
> >>picking up the pace. I mean C&C didnt' give me too many missions to
> >>train with.
> >
> >
> >Wrongo.... Is that 3 for 3 already??
>
> what exacty did you mean there??
I've only played C&C network games so I don't know much about one
player, but I've watched some and it seems that the CPU doesn't do
anything about sandbags... you can just wall of its base and build up
enough stuff to crush it. Unless this was an isolated glitch on the one
player games I watched, the C&C AI is pretty horrible.
jk
--
0UY0T allen jamie klein S1HT0D yow! 3MT3LU0Y yan...@cmu.edu 0DYHW
Rocky Brown
>doy...@ecf.toronto.edu (DOYAMA JASON) writes:
>> Ok on a relative scale yes Warcraft2 does have superior
>>graphics. But it is after all SVGA. So maybe it's not really fair to
>>compare graphics. But admittedly they did a great job. Dragons are
>>cool looking.
>Its not fair to compare graphics, because Warcraft's graphics is so much
>better? I guess you can't compare the graphics of Dark Forces with
>Wolfenstein 3-D, either.
Graphics are nothing when it comes to game play. If that was not the
case then Outpost would be a great game. Graphics and Icing are the
same thing. As far as Dark Forces and Wolf3D, Dark Forces would
still be better if it used the same resolution as Wolf3D. Dark Forces
has better game play.
>[why c&c is better than warcraft ii]
>> 1) I personally like the one button smart cursor in C&C. Yes
>>there is the right button but I hate using it. My finger gets tired
>>too easily so I end up using the keyboard.
>Agreed. Not so much because I get tired, but because its easier to use.
>But Warcraft is more complicated, and if C&C wants to add new commands
>like they plan to, theres a point where you can't use only 1 button to do
>almost everything.
I like the using the right button. You do not have to use the right
button if you do not wish to, so this is a mute point.
>> 2) Like someone else noted, the graphics are more static in
>>Warcraft2. No polishing swords while waiting etc. The critters just
>>sort of 'slide' along the ground (ugh...) But I guess some thing had
>>to be sacrificed for SVGA.
>I thought you said you wanted to compare gameplay, since C&C's graphics
>wasn't comparable to Warcraft II? Atleast Warcraft units says funny
>things when you click on him a million times :).
Graphics == Icing...
>> 3) The AI is much better. This is a major down point in
>>Warcraft. Though I'm not too far, but my mission 6 the game should be
>>picking up the pace. I mean C&C didnt' give me too many missions to
>>train with.
>Warcraft's AI is better, right? C&C AI just starts with a powerful base
>and seemingly unlimited cash.
Agreed, Warcraft's AI is better.
>> 4) Again I'm not far but I dont' see the mission varaiety
>>(sort of) That commando mision in C&C was utter hell. Hopefully
>>there'll be something like that in Warcraft. But then agin if not,
>>I'll just MAKE it :>
>Yea, Warcraft II includes a map editor. There is some variety to the
>Warcraft II missions, too.. And you're referring to one mission, 6, of
>GDI. Any others?
I'm sure there will be some made for both games.
>>WHY Warcraft2 is BETTER than C&C
>> 1) Well for SVGA the game is ultra smooth.
>> 2) More ACTIVE sea and air warfare. Control ships, REALLY
>>control air attacks. Fun Fun fun fun fun :>
>Yea, you can actually click on guys in air.. The sea portion of the game
>really adds a lot of fun to it.
>> 3) The fog of war is great. Some will complain, but they're
>>just sissys. In REAL war you don't know whats going on unless you've
>>got scouts around. Of course if you dont like it you can turn it off.
>> 4) Map and sound editor built in!!! Yowzers. The is great. I
>>can now make modem matches to what ever I want. I'm working now on a
>>purely naval map. All ocean and a few islands for gold and lumber.
>>But esssentially it's going to be all ships going crazy. I can't
>>wait. I suppose by next week we'll have the Simpsons, Animaniacs, etc
>>sound packs around. Great!!
>--
As for the Warcraft2 vs. C&C, I like them both. It just depends
on my mood at the time as to the one I'll play. (But MOM is still
at the top of the list...)
Rocky - oa...@gemini.oscs.montana.edu
Rob Jellinghaus
>I've only played C&C network games so I don't know much about one
>player, but I've watched some and it seems that the CPU doesn't do
>anything about sandbags... you can just wall of its base and build up
>enough stuff to crush it. Unless this was an isolated glitch on the one
>player games I watched, the C&C AI is pretty horrible.
It's worth noting that the Warcraft II readme file mentions that you can't
build walls in single-player games. I can only surmise this was because
they didn't want to have to program their AI to deal with walls. (Makes
sense... breaking down walls involves analyzing their weak points, which
is real complex.) So on this score Warcraft II finesses an issue that
C&C tries (badly) to deal with.
--
Rob Jellinghaus ro...@best.com
Jay B Biggerstaff
: In article <4a72bf$1...@uwm.edu>, Chainsaw <ji...@allmalt.cs.uwm.edu> wrote:
: >Mr. Negative Reinforcement Skip McIlvaine writes:
: >>C & C is still better, but the graphics in Warcraft II kick the crap
: >>out of Westwood's poor attempt.
Poor attempt? Obviously, you've been playing too much MYST. Westwood Studios
makes some of the best games with some of the best graphics. Just look at the
animation sequences on the CD. They are beautiful and only in VGA. They run
smooth and aren't jumpy. Westwood games actually run on lower end computers
whereas you can't get that smoothness with SVGA graphics on lower end
computers.
Yes, Warcraft 2 is a good game, but the creators of the gameplay format will
not be outdone. Dune 2 style of play seems to be very popular.
Rocky Brown
>In article <4a9s47$p...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>B Morphin <q...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>WHY C&C is BETTER than Warcraft2
>>
>>> 1) I personally like the one button smart cursor in C&C. Yes
>>>there is the right button but I hate using it. My finger gets tired
>>>too easily so I end up using the keyboard.
>>
>>It's you opinion, but it's very weak. Big woopie....
> Yeah well I say keep is simple. Why have the smart cursor on the
>second button when it could be on the primary right? Ok it's lame I
>admit, a hang over from C&C.
I think you can configure the mouse and keyboard so the commands are
the same as Warcraft I. If that is what you want.
>>
>>> 2) Like someone else noted, the graphics are more static in
>>>Warcraft2. No polishing swords while waiting etc. The critters just
>>>sort of 'slide' along the ground (ugh...) But I guess some thing had
>>>to be sacrificed for SVGA.
>>
>>I disagree, I don't see the sliding effect that way.
> Well they're just not really 'animated' when they move.
Graphics are nothing more then icing on the cake. If you want a game
with great graphics, get Outpost. (I prefer game play over graphics.)
>>
>>> 3) The AI is much better. This is a major down point in
>>>Warcraft. Though I'm not too far, but my mission 6 the game should be
>>
>>>picking up the pace. I mean C&C didnt' give me too many missions to
>>>train with.
>>
>>Wrongo.... Is that 3 for 3 already??
> what exacty did you mean there??
> Well I hear around mission 10 it gets pretty rough. I'll keep
>trying after exams.
I have to agree, I'm on mission 14 of the Humans. The only mission I
had trouble with is the 13th mission. And once I sent a flying
machine out to get the map, it was easy.
>>
>>
>>>WHY Warcraft2 is BETTER than C&C
>>>
>>> 3) The fog of war is great. Some will complain, but they're
>>>just sissys. In REAL war you don't know whats going on unless you've
>>>got scouts around. Of course if you dont like it you can turn it off.
>>
>>Unless you a motion radar? Yeah the option is a good one.
> Well last I checked I dont' htink Orcs or humans in medieval
>times had radar :> I love those sneak attacks I can now pull off in
>multiplayer.
I love the Fog of War. Makes the game more interesting.
>>>
>>Yes, we can tailor make the game to are own level of play.
>>
> Yep a great feature for those players not as *ahem* good as
>others (myself included). Great to have a handicap capability in the
>game. The editor is great, you can change EVERYTHING in the game. Even
>costs of upgrades, unit attributes, unit AI (there's aggresive, and
>passive) If its in the game you can change it.
I didn't know you could change these things in the editor. Time to
go play with the editor...
Rocky
Bryant Fong
>bry...@netcom.com (Bryant Fong) wrote:
>>doy...@ecf.toronto.edu (DOYAMA JASON) writes:
>>[why c&c is better than warcraft ii]
>>> 1) I personally like the one button smart cursor in C&C. Yes
>>>there is the right button but I hate using it. My finger gets tired
>>>too easily so I end up using the keyboard.
>>Agreed. Not so much because I get tired, but because its easier to use.
>>But Warcraft is more complicated, and if C&C wants to add new commands
>>like they plan to, theres a point where you can't use only 1 button to do
>>almost everything.
>I like the using the right button. You do not have to use the right
>button if you do not wish to, so this is a mute point.
The one thing I don't like about the right button is that if you're
telling a peasant to move somewhere, he starts chopping away at the
nearest forest. :P
>Graphics == Icing...
>Agreed, Warcraft's AI is better.
I just wanted to say something.. One of the reasons that a lot of
people are complaining that the Warcraft AI sucks is that the AI doesn't
cheat, to my knowledge. The C&C AI almost definetely cheats. I think
the harvester is just for decoration :P. Also, one time I captured
their air strip (I was GDI) and it was simultaneously building three
tanks at once. :(
>>Yea, Warcraft II includes a map editor. There is some variety to the
>>Warcraft II missions, too.. And you're referring to one mission, 6, of
>>GDI. Any others?
>
>I'm sure there will be some made for both games.
The C&C mission editor is near impossible to use. The Warcraft editor
is very simple to use, and so I expect there to be a lot more "unique"
maps for Warcraft than there will be for C&C. Plus you can customize
your own game and make it to your playing preference.
>As for the Warcraft2 vs. C&C, I like them both. It just depends
>on my mood at the time as to the one I'll play. (But MOM is still
>at the top of the list...)
The one problem with C&C is that it gives you very few levels to choose
from (10?), and it gets boring fast, especially since some of the levels
aren't that great and I end up playing the same ones over and over.
Also, C&C strategy was the same almost every time. Warcraft, with a
variety of spells and units, has more potential strategies that work, and
requires more than 1 type of unit to win the game (C&C=recon bikes).
--
_________________________________
__ _____| |_____ __
_________| |__| :| Bryant Fong | |__| |_________
\ :| |::| :| bry...@netcom.com | |::| | /
\ :| |::| :| Doom II Butt-Kicker | |::| | /
> :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | <
/ :|__|::|____:/ Don't let people drive you \.____|::|__| \
/_______:/ \::/ crazy when you know its walking distance \::/ \._______\
Craig M. Kazial
>>others (myself included). Great to have a handicap capability in the
>>game. The editor is great, you can change EVERYTHING in the game. Even
>>costs of upgrades, unit attributes, unit AI (there's aggresive, and
>>passive) If its in the game you can change it.
>I didn't know you could change these things in the editor. Time to
>go play with the editor...
I don't think you can touch the speed of the units.. I think some
unit attributes but this seemed to be a big omission. I hope someone tells
me I am wrong. I'd like to do a whole unit rework, I'd change it so orcs and
humans are different, and some attributes more befitting the unit (ie archers
faster than a laden soldier..) - I don't recall speed in the attib list though.
Allen J Klein
> varied and seem bigger, both sides have units which the other
> does not, and the interface is a real joy to play with. The
> music, if not the sound effects, is much easier on the ears then
> the tiresome and repetitive stuff that Blizzard packs.
Warcraft2 has much larger maps than C&C. As for interface, are you one
of those people who can't use the right mouse button because your finger
gets tired? Otherwise, Warcraft's interface is the best of both worlds.
How would the C&C interface allow for spell casting?
Dave Glue
<aj...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic: 8-Dec-95 Re:
>Warcraft II vs Command .. by Joseph I. Valenzuela@emp
>> Both fun games. C&C is definitly superiour - the maps are more
>> varied and seem bigger, both sides have units which the other
>> does not, and the interface is a real joy to play with. The
>> music, if not the sound effects, is much easier on the ears then
>> the tiresome and repetitive stuff that Blizzard packs.
>
>Warcraft2 has much larger maps than C&C.
Exactly how did you judge this? I found them to be quite a bit
smaller.
>of those people who can't use the right mouse button because your finger
>gets tired? Otherwise, Warcraft's interface is the best of both worlds.
No unit grouping selection, not being able to build structures without
first clicking on your home base, limited grouping of soldiers, etc.
No, WC2's _combined_ with C&C's would be the best of both worlds.
Each has faults, but I found a hell of a lot less frustration in
combat with C&C's interface.
Allen J Klein
Warcraft II vs Command .. by Dave Gl...@interlog.com
>
> Exactly how did you judge this? I found them to be quite a bit
> smaller.
Have you played a 128x128 WC2 map? Although it gets a little crowded
with 8 players, with 6 it's pretty good.
I have no way of measuring, but I'm pretty damn sure that, say "A
continent to explore" is bigger than "marooned."
> >of those people who can't use the right mouse button because your finger
> >gets tired? Otherwise, Warcraft's interface is the best of both worlds.
>
> No unit grouping selection, not being able to build structures without
> first clicking on your home base, limited grouping of soldiers, etc.
Group macros would be nice. Alt-select isn't too bad.
I almost always have more than one barracks in WC2. If the game used a
C&C interface, building two archers at the same time would be confusing.
Also, you would have to select a "primary" building location too often.
The thing is, WC2 was designed with multiple building sites in mind, C&C
assumes that you have ONE hand of nod, etc. The fact that you can't
build two minigunners at once is evidence of this.
Allen J Klein
Warcraft II vs Command .. by Allen J Kl...@andrew.cmu
> Warcraft II vs Command .. by Dave Gl...@interlog.com
> > >Warcraft2 has much larger maps than C&C.
> >
> > Exactly how did you judge this? I found them to be quite a bit
> > smaller.
>
> Have you played a 128x128 WC2 map? Although it gets a little crowded
> with 8 players, with 6 it's pretty good.
Sorry to respond to my own message, but the point of the above was that
I don't think six players would fit on a large C&C map. Two teams of 3
certainly wouldn't fit on marooned or tiberium gardens. 3 on 3 works
FINE on a wc2 map (and warcraft2 towns are larger than C&C headquarters)
thus my evidence for why wc2 maps are bigger.
Miklos Donders
>I almost always have more than one barracks in WC2. If the game used a
>C&C interface, building two archers at the same time would be confusing.
> Also, you would have to select a "primary" building location too often.
>The thing is, WC2 was designed with multiple building sites in mind, C&C
>assumes that you have ONE hand of nod, etc. The fact that you can't
>build two minigunners at once is evidence of this.
If you would want to build to archers with two barracks in a c&c kinda way,
you would build them one at a time. But having two barracks will double the building
speed so your archers would still be ready in the same amount of time as they
would be when building them at the same time
It wouldn't be confusing at all,
Miklos
Rocky Brown
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic: 17-Dec-95 Re:
>Warcraft II vs Command .. by Dave Gl...@interlog.com
>> >Warcraft2 has much larger maps than C&C.
>>
>> Exactly how did you judge this? I found them to be quite a bit
>> smaller.
>Have you played a 128x128 WC2 map? Although it gets a little crowded
>with 8 players, with 6 it's pretty good.
128x128 really? That is a large map...
I know that the C&C map max size is 64x64 and I think that
there is a boarder around it so the actual play map is only
62x62. (The developer of the C&C editor could confirm this
if it is correct.) But from my poking around the map is
stored in a linear address space of 0x2000 bytes with each
tile taking 2 bytes. (Sqrt(0x2000/2) = 64).
I don't know about the size of the WC2 map. I haven't looked
at it closely.
Rocky
Bryant Fong
>Allen J Klein <aj...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>>Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic: 17-Dec-95 Re:
>>Warcraft II vs Command .. by Dave Gl...@interlog.com
>>> >Warcraft2 has much larger maps than C&C.
>>>
>>> Exactly how did you judge this? I found them to be quite a bit
>>> smaller.
>>Have you played a 128x128 WC2 map? Although it gets a little crowded
>>with 8 players, with 6 it's pretty good.
>128x128 really? That is a large map...
>I don't know about the size of the WC2 map. I haven't looked
>at it closely.
It is 128x128, according to the built in map editor. You can also
choose smaller sizes (as low as 32x32), such as the map in level 1.
--
__________ __
\______ \_______ ___.__._____ _____/ |_ Bryant Fong
| | _/\_ __ < | |\__ \ / \ __\ bry...@netcom.com
| | \ | | \/\___ | / __ \| | \ | Laugh At Your Problems,
|______ / |__| / ____|(____ /___| /__| Everyone Else Does
\/ \/ \/ \/
Dean Christopher Farmer
>Miklos
I agree completely, I like the C&C way handling this much better.
In addition to the fact that Westwood *did* expect you to build more than
one hand of NOD/Barracks by making troops faster with each new barrack,
it also has the added advantage of being able to spit a barrage of guys
out from the one barracks when you want. You don't have to go creating
them at two/three/four different barracks then join them all together in
a group. Much better IMHO.
Deano.
s940...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au
Tom HANKS
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic: 8-Dec-95 Re:
>Warcraft II vs Command .. by Joseph I. Valenzuela@emp
>> Both fun games. C&C is definitly superiour - the maps are more
>> varied and seem bigger, both sides have units which the other
>> does not, and the interface is a real joy to play with. The
>> music, if not the sound effects, is much easier on the ears then
>> the tiresome and repetitive stuff that Blizzard packs.
>Warcraft2 has much larger maps than C&C. As for interface, are you one
>of those people who can't use the right mouse button because your finger
>gets tired? Otherwise, Warcraft's interface is the best of both worlds.
> How would the C&C interface allow for spell casting?
WC2's interface lacks the ability to assign teams to Hotkeys. Also, only
being able to drag and select 9 units can be a major pain.
Another gripe is unit's health bars being placed on the side of the screen
and not over the units themselves. If I have 6 units selected I can see
that one of them is badly injured (for example), but not which one. I
have to click through all six of the units individually to find out
which one to heal or run away with.
Having to scroll back to the base and select each building to build new
units (unlike C&C's use of a side-bar) takes too much time in WC2.
As for casting spells you would just put them on a hotkey, like "guard",
and "stop". Of course in WC2 it is nice to have them on the sidebar, so
you dno't need to remember any hotkeys, but you could put them on a drop
down menu to help those who are just learning or with poor memories.
Speaking of WC2's sidebar - there's no way I know to get rid of it, and
even if you could this would cripple the user interface. This means
that in WC2 you're always stuck with a small viewing window. I really
wish that the viewing window was larger but with WC2's interface you
always need the sidebar so there's no getting around it.
As you can tell I prefer C&C's interface to WC2's. I'll almost
certainly play C&C longer than WC2, but this doesn't mean that I think
that C&C is better in every respect to WC2 - I really miss fog of war
in C&C for example. They are both good games, better than most on the
market IMHO.
TTFN Tom.
Jason Townsend
>The C&C AI almost definetely cheats. I think
>the harvester is just for decoration :P. Also, one time I captured
>their air strip (I was GDI) and it was simultaneously building three
>tanks at once. :(
>
>>>Yea, Warcraft II includes a map editor. There is some variety to the
>>>Warcraft II missions, too.. And you're referring to one mission, 6,
of
>>>GDI. Any others?
levels... but this seems more of an overt, recognized handicapping thing.
Computer players do not have infinite money. They have unit money,
building money, and reserves. If you deplete them all and blow up his
harvester, he's toast. It's fun :)
-
Jason
Dave Glue
wrote:
>Another gripe is unit's health bars being placed on the side of the screen
>and not over the units themselves. If I have 6 units selected I can see
>that one of them is badly injured (for example), but not which one. I
>have to click through all six of the units individually to find out
>which one to heal or run away with.
This is an excellent point which I haven't seen anyone else brought
up, even though I run into that problem everytime. The computer of
course, can heal and power up his players very quickly. Having to
"hunt and peck" to heal your players just adds to the frustations when
you're scrambling to move the mouse to cast the spell in time on the
weaker unit.
>
>Having to scroll back to the base and select each building to build new
>units (unlike C&C's use of a side-bar) takes too much time in WC2.
A point which I made earlier as well- the side bar showing your
nuilding units was a nice advance in C&C. And heck, scrolling
anything in WC2 takes way too long-the mouse sensitivity is _way_ too
low for my tastes.
>As you can tell I prefer C&C's interface to WC2's. I'll almost
>certainly play C&C longer than WC2, but this doesn't mean that I think
>that C&C is better in every respect to WC2 - I really miss fog of war
>in C&C for example. They are both good games, better than most on the
>market IMHO.
Agreed. Hopefully, WC2's interface problems will be fixed with a
patch- although it will mean they'll end up copying Westwood even
more. No change there...
Kenneth Tan
>units (unlike C&C's use of a side-bar) takes too much time in WC2.
Bear in mind that C&C has _no_ flexibility as to where you want to put
your multitude of barracks (I had 6 barracks in one multiplayer game, all
strategically located to produce troops "near the front") You _will_
have to tell the guy _where_ you want to produce that slow moving catapult!!!
Do you want to loose this flexibility for a dumb click?
>As for casting spells you would just put them on a hotkey, like "guard",
>and "stop". Of course in WC2 it is nice to have them on the sidebar, so
>you dno't need to remember any hotkeys, but you could put them on a drop
>down menu to help those who are just learning or with poor memories.
Pulldown menus? huh? It's there on the sidebar, why pulldown troubles?
Also, when you do have more than 1 spellcaster, you can cast spell combos
in which case you _will_ have to tell which spellcaster to cast what.
It's sure a lot better than having a pile of very dumb idiots casting
useless spells "automatically"
Again, I wouldn't want to loose the flexibility for laziness of a
sidebar or have the computer do something really stupid when you're not looking
(like when you have 9 mages and one gets attacked by a footman and all 9
cast blizzard to get rid of the attacker <gulp>)
>Speaking of WC2's sidebar - there's no way I know to get rid of it, and
>even if you could this would cripple the user interface. This means
>that in WC2 you're always stuck with a small viewing window. I really
>wish that the viewing window was larger but with WC2's interface you
>always need the sidebar so there's no getting around it.
Get a bigger monitor! <grin> :)
Even C&C's viewing window is miserable. With SVGA, forget the fancy graphics,
make the icons smaller so we don't have to scroll at all!
Automan
Dave Glue
wrote:
>Tom HANKS wrote:
>>Allen J Klein <aj...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>Having to scroll back to the base and select each building to build new
>>units (unlike C&C's use of a side-bar) takes too much time in WC2.
>
>Bear in mind that C&C has _no_ flexibility as to where you want to put
>your multitude of barracks (I had 6 barracks in one multiplayer game, all
>strategically located to produce troops "near the front") You _will_
>have to tell the guy _where_ you want to produce that slow moving catapult!!!
>
>Do you want to loose this flexibility for a dumb click?
No, how about both? You click on where you want to build it, but you
can still use the side bar to create units while you're in battle
without taking your eye off the action. This worked well in C&C, as
adding more barrracks simply increased the output time of one
(whichever one you designated). You could be in the heat of an attack
and be rapdily getting reserves ready without diverting your
attention. Nice.
If they implemented this intelligently in WC2, you would simply choose
which barracks you wanted to produce from before you went into battle
and have that one your sidebar- or have multiple barrack selections on
your sidebar. WC2's interface is _not_ one it's features that looks
like it was well thought out.
>Pulldown menus? huh? It's there on the sidebar, why pulldown troubles?
>Also, when you do have more than 1 spellcaster, you can cast spell combos
>in which case you _will_ have to tell which spellcaster to cast what.
>It's sure a lot better than having a pile of very dumb idiots casting
>useless spells "automatically"
>
>Again, I wouldn't want to loose the flexibility for laziness of a
>sidebar
ROTFL! "Laziness"!? Good interface design actually. But automatic
spell casting is going a bit too far, I agree.
>>Speaking of WC2's sidebar - there's no way I know to get rid of it, and
>>even if you could this would cripple the user interface. This means
>>that in WC2 you're always stuck with a small viewing window. I really
>>wish that the viewing window was larger but with WC2's interface you
>>always need the sidebar so there's no getting around it.
>
>Get a bigger monitor! <grin> :)
Hey, send the cash! :)
Bryant Fong
>On 22 Dec 1995 06:23:34 GMT, ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg (Kenneth Tan)
>wrote:
>No, how about both? You click on where you want to build it, but you
>can still use the side bar to create units while you're in battle
>without taking your eye off the action. This worked well in C&C, as
>adding more barrracks simply increased the output time of one
>(whichever one you designated). You could be in the heat of an attack
>and be rapdily getting reserves ready without diverting your
>attention. Nice.
Its not very realistic that if you have a lot of barracks you can train a
soldier faster. But besides that, in C&C if you train too fast they will
start coming out of the other barracks anyway.
>>Again, I wouldn't want to loose the flexibility for laziness of a
>>sidebar
>ROTFL! "Laziness"!? Good interface design actually.
The sidebar makes things easy, but it also limits things..like in WC2,
since you need a peasant to build things, its perfectly cool to be able
to build anywhere. In C&C, very unfair.
Kenneth Tan
>You don't have to go creating
>them at two/three/four different barracks then join them all together in
>a group. Much better IMHO.
Not!
Think of a 128*128 map -- I would have 3 to 4 barracks located at strategic
places so I wouldn't have to make them all walk halfway across the map!!!
Produce them _where_ you want them!
Automan
Jason Townsend
garrison? With C&C, you hit a button. With WC2, scrolling is required,
And everyone knows what happens when you let the AbysmalIntelligence
fight your battle! And then you have no way to retrieve control except 9
confused clicks.
-
Jason
Kenneth Tan
>ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg (Kenneth Tan) wrote:
>>Bear in mind that C&C has _no_ flexibility as to where you want to put
>>your multitude of barracks (I had 6 barracks in one multiplayer game, all
>>strategically located to produce troops "near the front") You _will_
>>have to tell the guy _where_ you want to produce that slow moving catapult!!!
>>Do you want to loose this flexibility for a dumb click?
>No, how about both? You click on where you want to build it, but you
>can still use the side bar to create units while you're in battle
>without taking your eye off the action. This worked well in C&C, as
>adding more barrracks simply increased the output time of one
>(whichever one you designated). You could be in the heat of an attack
>and be rapdily getting reserves ready without diverting your
>attention. Nice.
But it _still_ doesn't answer the question -- just _where_ do you want to
produce those units when you click the sidebar. Imagine a scenario
where you have 6 barracks, 4 dragon roosts and you're fighting a war
at 4 independent fronts at the same time (don't tell me you're so lame
as to limit yourself to very unrealistically having _only_ one front?).
>If they implemented this intelligently in WC2, you would simply choose
>which barracks you wanted to produce from before you went into battle
>and have that one your sidebar- or have multiple barrack selections on
>your sidebar. WC2's interface is _not_ one it's features that looks
>like it was well thought out.
See above -- I do have battleS (i.e., > 1, sometimes >2) going on at the same
time at different parts of the map. Which barrack do I choose "first"?
>>Get a bigger monitor! <grin> :)
>Hey, send the cash! :)
Duh... O.K.
Kryal Castle
Automan
Dave Glue
wrote:
>dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:
>
>>On 22 Dec 1995 06:23:34 GMT, ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg (Kenneth Tan)
>>wrote:
>
>>No, how about both? You click on where you want to build it, but you
>>can still use the side bar to create units while you're in battle
>>without taking your eye off the action. This worked well in C&C, as
>>adding more barrracks simply increased the output time of one
>>(whichever one you designated). You could be in the heat of an attack
>>and be rapdily getting reserves ready without diverting your
>>attention. Nice.
>
>Its not very realistic that if you have a lot of barracks you can train a
>soldier faster. But besides that, in C&C if you train too fast they will
>start coming out of the other barracks anyway.
It's not very realistic to have fire shooting from people's hands.
Come on, it's a game. And WC2 could still keep it method- providing a
choice would be better. You simply have _far_ too much uncessary
clicking and dragging in WC2's interface.
>>>Again, I wouldn't want to loose the flexibility for laziness of a
>>>sidebar
>
>>ROTFL! "Laziness"!? Good interface design actually.
>
>The sidebar makes things easy, but it also limits things..like in WC2,
>since you need a peasant to build things, its perfectly cool to be able
>to build anywhere. In C&C, very unfair.
What does that have to do with the sidebar?
Jay
>>>Speaking of WC2's sidebar - there's no way I know to get rid of it, and
>>>even if you could this would cripple the user interface. This means
>>>that in WC2 you're always stuck with a small viewing window. I really
>>>wish that the viewing window was larger but with WC2's interface you
>>>always need the sidebar so there's no getting around it.
>>
>
>Hey, send the cash! :)
>
Think about this for a sec... Can you really see more if you have a 75 inch
monitor???? You'll see the exact same thing, just more pixelated. :(
-Jay
Bill
: On 22 Dec 1995 06:23:34 GMT, ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg (Kenneth Tan)
: wrote:
: >Pulldown menus? huh? It's there on the sidebar, why pulldown troubles?
: >Also, when you do have more than 1 spellcaster, you can cast spell combos
: >in which case you _will_ have to tell which spellcaster to cast what.
: >It's sure a lot better than having a pile of very dumb idiots casting
: >useless spells "automatically"
: >Again, I wouldn't want to loose the flexibility for laziness of a
: >sidebar
:
: ROTFL! "Laziness"!? Good interface design actually. But automatic
: spell casting is going a bit too far, I agree.
I've only played the Warcarft Demo, but I do think that automatic spell
casting would be useful. It would be nice to have a unit automatically
cast healing spells, or raise dead as other units were killed. Basically
you put the spell caster on autopilot. That way you could amass a ton of
healers near a battle and have them keep the fighting units (who BTW,
automatcially fight) alive.
Perhaps that would be too easy, but I find it difficult to take
advantage of several healers. By the time I try and heal a unit, its
already dead.
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
| Bill Poitras | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Tel (408)522-0116 |
| bi...@ba.msi.com | Sunnyvale, CA 94087-40237 | FAX (408)522-0199 |
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
|FTP Mail |mail ftp...@decwrl.dec.com | Offers:ftp via email |
| |Subject:<CR>help<CR>quit | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dave Glue
wrote:
>Dave Glue wrote:
>>ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg (Kenneth Tan) wrote:
>
>>>Bear in mind that C&C has _no_ flexibility as to where you want to put
>>>your multitude of barracks (I had 6 barracks in one multiplayer game, all
>>>strategically located to produce troops "near the front") You _will_
>>>have to tell the guy _where_ you want to produce that slow moving catapult!!!
>>>Do you want to loose this flexibility for a dumb click?
>
>>No, how about both? You click on where you want to build it, but you
>>can still use the side bar to create units while you're in battle
>>without taking your eye off the action. This worked well in C&C, as
>>adding more barrracks simply increased the output time of one
>>(whichever one you designated). You could be in the heat of an attack
>>and be rapdily getting reserves ready without diverting your
>>attention. Nice.
>
>But it _still_ doesn't answer the question -- just _where_ do you want to
>produce those units when you click the sidebar.
Yes, _it does_. I said it right there- you do what you do now- click
on a barracks and assign it as "primary" then use that for your
sidebar activities. If using that, the production method could switch
to C&C style- the # of barracks you have speeds up the overall
production of that unit. If you want to produce several at once, then
of course the production slows down, and you click on each barracks
individually. This way, you have both choices- but if you had only
one, I would take the C&C one everytime. Able to produce more units
and repair facilities while you're in battle without leaving the scene
is paramount for me, but then again it's just one of WC2's interface
problems.
> Imagine a scenario
>where you have 6 barracks, 4 dragon roosts and you're fighting a war
>at 4 independent fronts at the same time (don't tell me you're so lame
>as to limit yourself to very unrealistically having _only_ one front?).
No, I'm not "so lame". You could have the barracks listed in smaller
icons on the sidebar if you wanted to have all at once, or simply
click on each barracks and assign it as "primary", which is what C&C
does now. C&C simply gives you the _option_ of a sidebar- are you
wailing against it because it gives you that? WC2 is more advanced
because it _doesn't_ have the option of creating troops without
jumping back to your home base, finding your barracks and then
producing a unit?
And what if you're under attack with very few units? In WC2, no
matter how many barracks you have the units still come out at the same
speed. Yes, you can build more at a time, but if you need a catapult
it may be too late. With having the unit production speed increased,
you may be able to slow down that assult by cranking out some knights
at super speed and getting them out there to at least divert some
enemy attention.
>>If they implemented this intelligently in WC2, you would simply choose
>>which barracks you wanted to produce from before you went into battle
>>and have that one your sidebar- or have multiple barrack selections on
>>your sidebar. WC2's interface is _not_ one it's features that looks
>>like it was well thought out.
>
>See above -- I do have battleS (i.e., > 1, sometimes >2) going on at the same
>time at different parts of the map. Which barrack do I choose "first"?
That's up to you. Why are you prevented from doing this in C&C?
You're not.
Jason Townsend
>
>Dave Glue (dav...@interlog.com) wrote:
>: On 22 Dec 1995 06:23:34 GMT, ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg (Kenneth Tan)
>: wrote:
>
>I've only played the Warcarft Demo, but I do think that automatic spell
>casting would be useful. It would be nice to have a unit automatically
>cast healing spells, or raise dead as other units were killed.
Basically
>you put the spell caster on autopilot. That way you could amass a ton
of
>healers near a battle and have them keep the fighting units (who BTW,
>automatcially fight) alive.
>
>Perhaps that would be too easy, but I find it difficult to take
>advantage of several healers. By the time I try and heal a unit, its
>already dead.
Healing can be a pain, but you haven't seen the ineptitude of a mage on
autopilot- orc in the base? BLIZZARD! :)
-
Jason
Dave Glue
>: ROTFL! "Laziness"!? Good interface design actually. But automatic
>: spell casting is going a bit too far, I agree.
>
>I've only played the Warcarft Demo, but I do think that automatic spell
>casting would be useful. It would be nice to have a unit automatically
>cast healing spells, or raise dead as other units were killed. Basically
>you put the spell caster on autopilot. That way you could amass a ton of
>healers near a battle and have them keep the fighting units (who BTW,
>automatcially fight) alive.
Didn't think of that, healing would be good. Just assign your caster
to cast healing on the most damaged player first, and make sure only 1
mage can do it at a time. But then, you're losing the real-time
aspect aren't you? If you put too many things on automatic, what's
the point? There's a fine line from having an advanced interface and
making the game too easy.
>Perhaps that would be too easy, but I find it difficult to take
>advantage of several healers. By the time I try and heal a unit, its
>already dead.
Same here. The computer of course, doesn't have this problem. I
think in this case, your idea does hold merit.
Kenneth Tan
>>>ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg (Kenneth Tan) wrote:
>>But it _still_ doesn't answer the question -- just _where_ do you want to
>>produce those units when you click the sidebar.
>Yes, _it does_. I said it right there- you do what you do now- click
>on a barracks and assign it as "primary" then use that for your
>sidebar activities.
No, it doesn't -- when you are having 4 battles going on concurrently,
there is _no_ such thing as a "primary". Don't limit yourself to the
C&C genre of having only one base and barrack -- having lots of bases
and even more barracks, multiple fronts, etc, adds new dimensions into
the strategic gamming aspects (actually, _now_ we're talking _strategy_
and less of individual unit tactics).
> If using that, the production method could switch
>to C&C style- the # of barracks you have speeds up the overall
>production of that unit.
C&C is unrealistic. Having more barracks does not reduce training time,
but it will allow you to produce a multitude of units of same or different
types in the same time (WC2 style)
>Able to produce more units
>and repair facilities while you're in battle without leaving the scene
>is paramount for me, but then again it's just one of WC2's interface
>problems.
I find that leaving a battle for less than 2 seconds doesn't play a
significant impact on the dumbness of the AI. My zooming in and out of
a battle (including building 3 dragons) is about 1.5s.
Actually, this isn't a problem with either C&C or WC, because none have
the sidebar/multiple barracks interface.
>WC2 is more advanced
>because it _doesn't_ have the option of creating troops without
>jumping back to your home base, finding your barracks and then
>producing a unit?
Finding?
Ever heard of using the SHIFT-F[234] keys to flip between your base and
the battlefield? The barracks will be in the middle of the screen (you
put it there:), which is even faster than moving the mouse to the sidebar
and clicking which barrack you want it to be produced from (which is as
good as moving the mouse to the minimap and clicking)
>And what if you're under attack with very few units? In WC2, no
>matter how many barracks you have the units still come out at the same
>speed. Yes, you can build more at a time, but if you need a catapult
>it may be too late. With having the unit production speed increased,
>you may be able to slow down that assult by cranking out some knights
>at super speed and getting them out there to at least divert some
>enemy attention.
As mentioned, it isn't particularly realistic to be this way.
Having 5 barracks doesn't mean that my footman will take 1/5th the time to
be trained -- but it does mean I can build 5 contingents of footmen (or
other assortment) in the same time.
Also, leaving the base undefended that way is _your_ problem <grin>
It would sure be nice if the Singapore National Service could be reduced
from 2.5 years because we have a lot of training camps! No Sir, the training
_time_ for every man is the same, independent of the number of camps, it
just means they can train different men into different fields at the same
time. By the time the war comes and you want to start training men, it is
too late, and it doesn't mean having N camps it'd take T/N time to train
men!
>>>If they implemented this intelligently in WC2, you would simply choose
>>>which barracks you wanted to produce from before you went into battle
>>>and have that one your sidebar- or have multiple barrack selections on
>>>your sidebar. WC2's interface is _not_ one it's features that looks
>>>like it was well thought out.
Face it, neither is C&C's. Neither game has the features you're talking
of.
I do maintain that, if you do have a lot of barracks and multiple fronts,
there is no such thing as a "primary" base.
You can program the preset areas for F2/F3/F4 keypresses.
C&C is unrealistic (and I'm not the only one who says this) in that production
is reduced in time by the number of barracks.
>>See above -- I do have battleS (i.e., > 1, sometimes >2) going on at the same
>>time at different parts of the map. Which barrack do I choose "first"?
>That's up to you. Why are you prevented from doing this in C&C?
>You're not.
You're not prevented from having multiple battles, but you're stuck in having
all the units produced in only one place <grin>
Automan
Jason Townsend
says...
>
>C&C is unrealistic. Having more barracks does not reduce training time,
>but it will allow you to produce a multitude of units of same or
different
>types in the same time (WC2 style)
Talking about "realism" on this point is kind of moot anyway, since
soldiers aren't trained in 30 seconds anyway, whether they are in 1 base
or 2 :) . BTW, if one wanted to decend into excuse making, one could say
that the barracks in C&C train faster when there is more than one because
they specialise in certain types of training...
-
Jason
Michael O'Brien
>And then you have no way to retrieve control except 9
>confused clicks.
...or a single alt+click.
(Read the manual if you don't know about this.)
Mike
Dave Glue
wrote:
>Dave Glue wrote:
>>>>ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg (Kenneth Tan) wrote:
>>>But it _still_ doesn't answer the question -- just _where_ do you want to
>>>produce those units when you click the sidebar.
>
>>Yes, _it does_. I said it right there- you do what you do now- click
>>on a barracks and assign it as "primary" then use that for your
>>sidebar activities.
>
>No, it doesn't -- when you are having 4 battles going on concurrently,
>there is _no_ such thing as a "primary". Don't limit yourself to the
>C&C genre of having only one base and barrack -- having lots of bases
>and even more barracks, multiple fronts, etc, adds new dimensions into
>the strategic gamming aspects (actually, _now_ we're talking _strategy_
>and less of individual unit tactics).
In WC2, you have to click on a barracks to make a unit. In C&C, you
would have to click on it and assign it as "primary" (or
double-click?). The difference is that the unit can only be produced
one at a time, but the speed is increased for each barracks. I find
mutiple barracks in C&C very usefull. Either way, C&C gives you the
option of producing them at different sites, _and_ having a convenient
sidebar to do it while in battle.
>
>> If using that, the production method could switch
>>to C&C style- the # of barracks you have speeds up the overall
>>production of that unit.
>
>C&C is unrealistic. Having more barracks does not reduce training time,
>but it will allow you to produce a multitude of units of same or different
>types in the same time (WC2 style)
Oh come on- this "unrealistic" tag is ridiculous in these real-time
wargames. Many things are "unrealistic" in each, it's a _game_ for
godsakes.
>>Able to produce more units
>>and repair facilities while you're in battle without leaving the scene
>>is paramount for me, but then again it's just one of WC2's interface
>>problems.
>
>I find that leaving a battle for less than 2 seconds doesn't play a
>significant impact on the dumbness of the AI. My zooming in and out of
>a battle (including building 3 dragons) is about 1.5s.
And clicking on each barracks to take advantage of WC2's "feature"
within the same time frame? No. Scrolling to find your barracks
you've placed "strategically" on each front takes a heck of a lot
longer than 1.5 seconds.
>Actually, this isn't a problem with either C&C or WC, because none have
>the sidebar/multiple barracks interface.
C&C at least has one part of it- the sidebar.
>>WC2 is more advanced
>>because it _doesn't_ have the option of creating troops without
>>jumping back to your home base, finding your barracks and then
>>producing a unit?
>
>Finding?
>Ever heard of using the SHIFT-F[234] keys to flip between your base and
>the battlefield? The barracks will be in the middle of the screen (you
>put it there:), which is even faster than moving the mouse to the sidebar
>and clicking which barrack you want it to be produced from (which is as
>good as moving the mouse to the minimap and clicking)
I like to keep the shift keys to keep an eye on my peons in case of
dragon attack, one for the centre of my base, and one for the
attacking town. With multiple barrack positions at these different
"fronts" you speak of, you run out pretty quickly.
>As mentioned, it isn't particularly realistic to be this way.
Neither is fireballs shooting from a person's hand. I find the
"unrealistic" tag laughable in a game like this.
>>>>If they implemented this intelligently in WC2, you would simply choose
>>>>which barracks you wanted to produce from before you went into battle
>>>>and have that one your sidebar- or have multiple barrack selections on
>>>>your sidebar. WC2's interface is _not_ one it's features that looks
>>>>like it was well thought out.
>
>Face it, neither is C&C's. Neither game has the features you're talking
>of.
Uh yes, I know. I'm suggesting what Blizzard should have done. At
least C&C attempted something different, WC2 didn't.
>You're not prevented from having multiple battles, but you're stuck in having
>all the units produced in only one place <grin>
>
No. As I said before, just click on the barracks to make it primary.
It's more of a hassle as you have to do it for each barracks when you
want units coming out of that one, but it can be done.
Dave Glue
wrote:
Poor, poor substitute for cntrl-# when assigning groups. Doesn't even
compare.
Bill
: On 26 Dec 1995 06:43:45 GMT, ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg (Kenneth Tan)
: wrote:
:
: >C&C is unrealistic. Having more barracks does not reduce training time,
: >but it will allow you to produce a multitude of units of same or different
: >types in the same time (WC2 style)
:
: Oh come on- this "unrealistic" tag is ridiculous in these real-time
: wargames. Many things are "unrealistic" in each, it's a _game_ for
: godsakes.
: >As mentioned, it isn't particularly realistic to be this way.
:
: Neither is fireballs shooting from a person's hand. I find the
: "unrealistic" tag laughable in a game like this.
But there are "acceptable" levels of unrealistic. WC2 is a fantasy war
game. Its not unreasonable to see people slinging magic, casting spells.
Or Dragons or Griffons. Within the context of a fantasy game, it makes
sense. It doesn't make sense to me that creating 4 barracks should
train one unit faster. I can't find ANY context where this sounds
reasonable.
Kenneth Tan
>ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg
>>but it will allow you to produce a multitude of units of same or
>different
>>types in the same time (WC2 style)
>Talking about "realism" on this point is kind of moot anyway, since
>soldiers aren't trained in 30 seconds anyway, whether they are in 1 base
>or 2 :) . BTW, if one wanted to decend into excuse making, one could say
>that the barracks in C&C train faster when there is more than one because
>they specialise in certain types of training...
Sorry, I replied to your mailed copy first, so the reply here may be
different (newsgroup posting is _much_ slower than email).
As for the 30 seconds? Get real -- neither are squares 1cm X 1cm, and
neither are men 1cm high. Scale accordingly as in any game!
Perhaps 1 second RT = 1 day GT?
Perhaps 1 square = 1 mile?
Surely you wouldn't want to sit there 30 days for 1 peasant to be trained
(besides, are we talking of 1 footman, or 1 contingent of footmen?)
Also, for those people in countries with compulsory national service
(millitary training), you'd well know that having bases specializing
in artillary, naval, infantry, airforce, etc, does _not_ reduce training
time -- you can just produce men in each field concurrently.
Automan
Kenneth Tan
>In WC2, you have to click on a barracks to make a unit. In C&C, you
>would have to click on it and assign it as "primary" (or
>double-click?). The difference is that the unit can only be produced
>one at a time, but the speed is increased for each barracks. I find
>mutiple barracks in C&C very usefull. Either way, C&C gives you the
>option of producing them at different sites, _and_ having a convenient
>sidebar to do it while in battle.
Firstly, HOW do you build barracks as and where you please in C&C?
And as mentioned, just _where_ can you build your barracks in C&C?
all in the same place?
(If the computer didn't put a base for you to capture, you can only
produce all the units in the same base -- "base" I refer to the
general area).
All buildings must be linked in C&C, and that puts you in your little corner
of the world -- even if you have 10 barracks (I'd sure like to see you
sandbag a 128*128 map -- across water, too -- to build barracks on other
parts of a map!).
Don't try to kid me -- I've not played C&C, but know enough of it, and
the limitations it places in that essentially, "all buildings must be
linked" (you can link something, build things to the link, demolish
the link and have 2 "bases", but it's crap compared to "plunk anywhere
that fits" in WC2).
>>> If using that, the production method could switch
>>>to C&C style- the # of barracks you have speeds up the overall
>>>production of that unit.
>>C&C is unrealistic. Having more barracks does not reduce training time,
>>but it will allow you to produce a multitude of units of same or different
>>types in the same time (WC2 style)
>Oh come on- this "unrealistic" tag is ridiculous in these real-time
>wargames. Many things are "unrealistic" in each, it's a _game_ for
>godsakes.
That's where modelling comes in -- Game modelling, that is.
>>>Able to produce more units
>>>and repair facilities while you're in battle without leaving the scene
>>>is paramount for me, but then again it's just one of WC2's interface
>>>problems.
>>
>>I find that leaving a battle for less than 2 seconds doesn't play a
>>significant impact on the dumbness of the AI. My zooming in and out of
>>a battle (including building 3 dragons) is about 1.5s.
>And clicking on each barracks to take advantage of WC2's "feature"
>within the same time frame? No. Scrolling to find your barracks
>you've placed "strategically" on each front takes a heck of a lot
>longer than 1.5 seconds.
For you, maybe...
Ever heard of using the Shift-F2/F3/F4 keys to leave bookmarks and then
just press F2/F3/F4 to zoom there?
I usually set F2 over my base or town hall which requires attention, and
F3 over my secondary base with barracks/aviary or whatever. Press
Shift-F4 before pressing F2 or F3 so you can return there with F4
immediately.
Also, I do remember where I leave my barracks and stuff, and they aren't
in a disorganized fashion -- I.e., I can click on the minimap and be
sure that the barrack (or whatever I'm looking for) is right in the middle
of the screen.
If you're slow, you're slow -- (actually, I don't like the idea of "race
the mouse" games, but looks like I'm much faster than you). I took out
my friend last night and he was shocked how fast I could control a transport
with 4 ogres and 2 sappers like "unload transport/group/dash past guard
towers/click transport/park transport back at my base/barrack/ogre/barrack/
ogre/gobblin/sapper/gobblin/sapper/his base/group/attack barracks"
all that in less than 2 seconds or so (none of my men died yet, and he has
5 guard towers and half a dozen footmen -- and I was already producing
another 2 ogres and 2 sappers concurrently). It was _that_ fast (and please,
you have 2 hands with 5 fingers each -- I use only 3 each, actually :( --
you can reach shift and the function keys with 1 hand,
and you can use the mouse and keyboard in the slidemouse-click-presskey/
slidemouse concurrently/click... sequence)
>>Actually, this isn't a problem with either C&C or WC, because none have
>>the sidebar/multiple barracks interface.
>C&C at least has one part of it- the sidebar.
And WC2 has one part -- the flexibility to choose which base/barrack/???
produces what.
>>>WC2 is more advanced
>>>because it _doesn't_ have the option of creating troops without
>>>jumping back to your home base, finding your barracks and then
>>>producing a unit?
>>Finding?
>>Ever heard of using the SHIFT-F[234] keys to flip between your base and
>>the battlefield? The barracks will be in the middle of the screen (you
>>put it there:), which is even faster than moving the mouse to the sidebar
>>and clicking which barrack you want it to be produced from (which is as
>>good as moving the mouse to the minimap and clicking)
>I like to keep the shift keys to keep an eye on my peons in case of
>dragon attack, one for the centre of my base, and one for the
>attacking town. With multiple barrack positions at these different
>"fronts" you speak of, you run out pretty quickly.
That's where the minimap helps -- it is small enough, yet precise enough
for you to click on it to zoom there. There is no point putting stuff
in places you don't need or can't remember, so you _do_ know where
in the world you placed your barracks and other stuff, right?
No, there is no need to program everything into bookmarks -- but you
do have to master _the_ interface (whatever interface it is, or how
it looks like -- even if everthing is in Japanese/Chinese/German/Tamil).
>>As mentioned, it isn't particularly realistic to be this way.
>Neither is fireballs shooting from a person's hand. I find the
>"unrealistic" tag laughable in a game like this.
Neither is 1 rifleman taking out a tank because the tank can't shoot
something lying prone...
Any science so advanced won't be distinguishable from magic...
Besides, it is a concept.
>>>>>If they implemented this intelligently in WC2, you would simply choose
>>>>>which barracks you wanted to produce from before you went into battle
>>>>>and have that one your sidebar- or have multiple barrack selections on
>>>>>your sidebar. WC2's interface is _not_ one it's features that looks
>>>>>like it was well thought out.
>>Face it, neither is C&C's. Neither game has the features you're talking
>>of.
>Uh yes, I know. I'm suggesting what Blizzard should have done. At
>least C&C attempted something different, WC2 didn't.
WC2 did attempt something different -- you can put a multitude of bases
any where you like -- no restriction in that everything must be linked
(like C&C/WC1) -- so it _IS_ a bold attempt to be different, which C&C didn't.
>>You're not prevented from having multiple battles, but you're stuck in having
>>all the units produced in only one place <grin>
>No. As I said before, just click on the barracks to make it primary.
>It's more of a hassle as you have to do it for each barracks when you
>want units coming out of that one, but it can be done.
There you go -- you have just described the limiting factor of the sidebar
concept -- "more of a hassle as you have to do it for each barracks
when you want units coming out of that one, but it can be done".
Produce for me a catapult from barrack A, grunt from barrack B, ogre from
barrack C -- and your mouse will be pretty much stuck clicking on the sidebar
rather than in the battlefield.
Automan
Tom HANKS
>Dave Glue wrote:
>>>>ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg (Kenneth Tan) wrote:
>>>But it _still_ doesn't answer the question -- just _where_ do you want to
>>>produce those units when you click the sidebar.
>>Yes, _it does_. I said it right there- you do what you do now- click
>>on a barracks and assign it as "primary" then use that for your
>>sidebar activities.
>No, it doesn't -- when you are having 4 battles going on concurrently,
>there is _no_ such thing as a "primary". Don't limit yourself to the
>C&C genre of having only one base and barrack -- having lots of bases
>and even more barracks, multiple fronts, etc, adds new dimensions into
>the strategic gamming aspects (actually, _now_ we're talking _strategy_
>and less of individual unit tactics).
Well in this case you would have to scroll to each of the barracks in
order, designate it as the primary barracks and build a unit there.
This is one click to select the barracks and one click to build the
unit. This is exactly the same as in WC2. However if you ever want to
build more than one unit at a particular barracks (as I usually do in
WC2 and C&C) then you don't have to scroll back to your base to select
it again, unlike WC2.
So a C&C-like system is usually better than WC2's system and never worse
(as measured by the amount of effort it is to produce troops). For me
there is no contest between the two.
>> If using that, the production method could switch
>>to C&C style- the # of barracks you have speeds up the overall
>>production of that unit.
>C&C is unrealistic. Having more barracks does not reduce training time,
>but it will allow you to produce a multitude of units of same or different
>types in the same time (WC2 style)
I think C&C's system is a good trade off of realism for playability in
this case. Games _have_ to be playable, "realism" is just desirable.
>>Able to produce more units
>>and repair facilities while you're in battle without leaving the scene
>>is paramount for me, but then again it's just one of WC2's interface
>>problems.
>I find that leaving a battle for less than 2 seconds doesn't play a
>significant impact on the dumbness of the AI. My zooming in and out of
>a battle (including building 3 dragons) is about 1.5s.
>Actually, this isn't a problem with either C&C or WC, because none have
>the sidebar/multiple barracks interface.
You're much faster than I am. It takes me ages to find all of my barracks
and decide what to build there. Since WC2 is such a "sudden lethality"
game being away from your troops for a few seconds can cost you big.
>>WC2 is more advanced
>>because it _doesn't_ have the option of creating troops without
>>jumping back to your home base, finding your barracks and then
>>producing a unit?
>Finding?
>Ever heard of using the SHIFT-F[234] keys to flip between your base and
>the battlefield? The barracks will be in the middle of the screen (you
>put it there:), which is even faster than moving the mouse to the sidebar
>and clicking which barrack you want it to be produced from (which is as
>good as moving the mouse to the minimap and clicking)
I need every one of my screen macros for battlefields. I don't like
having to waste them when a better interface would have given me more
options.
[much snippage]
>>>>If they implemented this intelligently in WC2, you would simply choose
>>>>which barracks you wanted to produce from before you went into battle
>>>>and have that one your sidebar- or have multiple barrack selections on
>>>>your sidebar. WC2's interface is _not_ one it's features that looks
>>>>like it was well thought out.
>Face it, neither is C&C's. Neither game has the features you're talking
>of.
No one said that either interface was perfect. This is a discussion as
to which is better. He's just trying to show that an interface like
C&C's could handle multiple bases really well, much better than WC2
does.
>I do maintain that, if you do have a lot of barracks and multiple fronts,
>there is no such thing as a "primary" base.
>You can program the preset areas for F2/F3/F4 keypresses.
>C&C is unrealistic (and I'm not the only one who says this) in that production
>is reduced in time by the number of barracks.
The same way you produce units in different places in WC2 (ie find
barracks, select it and click unit to produce) can be done in C&C (find
barracks, select it and make it primary and click unit to produce). On
top of this C&C's interface is much better at producing groups of
units in one place.
TTFN Tom.
Tom HANKS
>Jason Townsend <town...@ra.isisnet.com> wrote:
>>And then you have no way to retrieve control except 9
>>confused clicks.
>...or a single alt+click.
Nothing is as easy as it sounds in WC2 ... :)
- First you have to find a member of the group to click on, no unit hot
keys in WC2, unlike C&C.
- If you have a decent sized army you won't be able to group all of it
any way. So you now have to track down members of lots of individual
groups.
TTFN Tom.
Saint Erroneous
I kind of agree with both opinions. Having discrete unit-delivery points
as warcraft would be _very_ useful in combination with the C&C sidebar for
defending attacks from multiple directions/fronts especially as you can
have two (or more!) base-areas, which may, or may not, be connected
together (harvesting multiple goldmines on opposite sides of the map, and
not necessarily controlling the area in between, etc) _and_ reinforcing
both areas at once. You can do this in c&c, you just need to build up the
troops in an area, then swap primary, build up the next area, swap
primary, etc... You've got to pay attention to the sidebar
during unit production rather than setting up production in one frenzy of
mouse-clicking.
In fact in C&C, thinking about it, you get all of the new units on the map
at the different positions in same time or _before_ you would in
warcraft2, with the same number of mouse clicks but more continuous
attention. Hmmm... A point in C&C's favour, I think. :)
C&C's increasing build-speed makes occupying your enemies barracks/hand of
nod a _much_ nastier tactic, if you've prepared by building 4 barracks
already, and forces players to pay more attention to base defence, I
think. (Although the inflexible build-times in warcraft also make base
defence a lot more tricky and hence skillful)
I can see C&C2 using a hybrid system where on the sidebar you set the
unit-manufacturing buildings (barracks, weapons factories) into groups
with a designated production centre, thus allowing you to variably
allocate production throughout a game.
Now _that_ would be nifty.
>Automan
-michael
--
-----------Saint michael (mainly) Erroneous m...@st-andrews.ac.uk-------------
-------------http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sa/personal/mpv----------------
Saint Erroneous
Rocky Brown <oa...@gemini.oscs.montana.edu> wrote:
>Allen J Klein <aj...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic: 17-Dec-95 Re:
>>Warcraft II vs Command .. by Dave Gl...@interlog.com
>>> >Warcraft2 has much larger maps than C&C.
>>>
>>> Exactly how did you judge this? I found them to be quite a bit
>>> smaller.
>
>>Have you played a 128x128 WC2 map? Although it gets a little crowded
>>with 8 players, with 6 it's pretty good.
>128x128 really? That is a large map...
On the _other_ hand, if you measure things by the size of infantry, then
the 128^2 warcraft2 maps are still slightly smaller than the biggest c&c
map, since you can get 5 c&c infantry per square, while warcraft2
infantry occupy a whole map tile.
62*SQRT(5) > 128
But I'm just picking holes there. :)
>I don't know about the size of the WC2 map. I haven't looked
>at it closely.
Check out the map-editor, or the scenario selector. The allowable sizes
are 32^2, 64^2, 96^2, 128^2.
>Rocky
Forge Forsaken
>Don't try to kid me -- I've not played C&C, but know enough of it, and
>the limitations it places in that essentially, "all buildings must be
Ummm....You really have know grounds then to compare the two games
then do you????
Ive played both, and can say that C&C in some ways trounces WC2, and
likewise WC2 in some ways trounces C&C.....
Ideally the two should get together and combine the good things from
each into one.....
Never right...
Shawn M. Pezzuto rou...@forsaken.iii.net
Canister Web Page http://www.iii.net/users/wire/canister/start.html
...never wrong
Tom HANKS
>dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:
>>On 22 Dec 1995 06:23:34 GMT, ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg (Kenneth Tan)
>>wrote:
>>No, how about both? You click on where you want to build it, but you
>>can still use the side bar to create units while you're in battle
>>without taking your eye off the action. This worked well in C&C, as
>>adding more barrracks simply increased the output time of one
>>(whichever one you designated). You could be in the heat of an attack
>>and be rapdily getting reserves ready without diverting your
>>attention. Nice.
>Its not very realistic that if you have a lot of barracks you can train a
>soldier faster. But besides that, in C&C if you train too fast they will
>start coming out of the other barracks anyway.
Maybe WC2's way is "more realistic" in this basically insignificant
aspect. But in exchange for this realisim you have to put with
production system that is basically unusable. Games were meant to be
enjoyable to play - finding out my troops have been decimated because I
have to constantly scroll back to my base to build replacements is one
of the reasons I don't enjoy WC2.
>>>Again, I wouldn't want to loose the flexibility for laziness of a
>>>sidebar
>>ROTFL! "Laziness"!? Good interface design actually.
>The sidebar makes things easy, but it also limits things..like in WC2,
>since you need a peasant to build things, its perfectly cool to be able
>to build anywhere. In C&C, very unfair.
Could you please point out the relevance between a sidebar and being
able to build anywhere?
TTFN Tom.
James Wall
Tan) wrote:
>All buildings must be linked in C&C, and that puts you in your little corner
>of the world -- even if you have 10 barracks (I'd sure like to see you
>sandbag a 128*128 map -- across water, too -- to build barracks on other
>parts of a map!).
>
>Don't try to kid me -- I've not played C&C, but know enough of it, and
>the limitations it places in that essentially, "all buildings must be
>linked" (you can link something, build things to the link, demolish
>the link and have 2 "bases", but it's crap compared to "plunk anywhere
>that fits" in WC2).
Err ... actually, I find C&C's sandbagging linking a lot more
conveiniant than WC2's, and here's why -
If you want to move units past a row of buildings in WC2, you
have to space them 1 place apart. C&C's buildings have a blank
space at the bottom and usually at the top left and right hand
sides allowing units at the bottom of your base to trek through a
line of buildings to the top. Can you possibly imagine what C&C
would be like if you could build anywhere? No, you probably
can't, actually ... this is what happens when you comment beyond
your experience.
Frankly, after just having played a filthy little WC2er who
decided that a row of farms was the best base way to keep me out
of his base, I'd rather play with C&Cs system any day of the
week.
And what a stupid argument to get into this is..
[alp...@hunterlink.net.au] [Newcastle, Australia]
and i hate my family, and i beg to be free
of the crap that christmas brings, an excuse for selling things
what a joy to be alone, away from the buying zone
but this party'll never die, 'cause christ you're such a lie
---snog, "hey, christian god"
Dave Glue
wrote:
>Dave Glue wrote:
>>In WC2, you have to click on a barracks to make a unit. In C&C, you
>>would have to click on it and assign it as "primary" (or
>>double-click?). The difference is that the unit can only be produced
>>one at a time, but the speed is increased for each barracks. I find
>>mutiple barracks in C&C very usefull. Either way, C&C gives you the
>>option of producing them at different sites, _and_ having a convenient
>>sidebar to do it while in battle.
>
>Firstly, HOW do you build barracks as and where you please in C&C?
>And as mentioned, just _where_ can you build your barracks in C&C?
>all in the same place?
Yes, you have to build sandbags to connect them, then sell them, which
is a hassle. But it's also completely possible.
>All buildings must be linked in C&C, and that puts you in your little corner
>of the world -- even if you have 10 barracks (I'd sure like to see you
>sandbag a 128*128 map -- across water, too -- to build barracks on other
>parts of a map!).
Granted.
>Don't try to kid me -- I've not played C&C, but know enough of it, and
>the limitations it places in that essentially, "all buildings must be
>linked" (you can link something, build things to the link, demolish
>the link and have 2 "bases", but it's crap compared to "plunk anywhere
>that fits" in WC2).
Perhaps you should try it.
>Ever heard of using the Shift-F2/F3/F4 keys to leave bookmarks and then
>just press F2/F3/F4 to zoom there?
>I usually set F2 over my base or town hall which requires attention, and
>F3 over my secondary base with barracks/aviary or whatever. Press
>Shift-F4 before pressing F2 or F3 so you can return there with F4
>immediately.
Yes, I did. I addressed this later in the message, perhaps you
skipped over it. 3 options doesn't give you much- one for the centre
of your base, one for your attacking town- then what?
>If you're slow, you're slow -- (actually, I don't like the idea of "race
>the mouse" games, but looks like I'm much faster than you).
You don't have a clue how "fast" or "slow" I am.
>>>Actually, this isn't a problem with either C&C or WC, because none have
>>>the sidebar/multiple barracks interface.
>>C&C at least has one part of it- the sidebar.
>
>And WC2 has one part -- the flexibility to choose which base/barrack/???
>produces what.
As does C&C.
>>I like to keep the shift keys to keep an eye on my peons in case of
>>dragon attack, one for the centre of my base, and one for the
>>attacking town. With multiple barrack positions at these different
>>"fronts" you speak of, you run out pretty quickly.
>
>That's where the minimap helps -- it is small enough, yet precise enough
>for you to click on it to zoom there. There is no point putting stuff
>in places you don't need or can't remember, so you _do_ know where
>in the world you placed your barracks and other stuff, right?
Of course. And if you had more than 3 options, it would be useful to
keep an eye on each barracks. I just TOLD you above why I run out of
hotkeys.
And C&C has two zoom options for it's minimap as well.
>No, there is no need to program everything into bookmarks -- but you
>do have to master _the_ interface (whatever interface it is, or how
>it looks like -- even if everthing is in Japanese/Chinese/German/Tamil).
Funny, I thought an interface should tailor for the user, not the
other way around. If you have to "master" it to operate it well, it's
a bad interface.
>>Uh yes, I know. I'm suggesting what Blizzard should have done. At
>>least C&C attempted something different, WC2 didn't.
>
>WC2 did attempt something different -- you can put a multitude of bases
>any where you like -- no restriction in that everything must be linked
>(like C&C/WC1) -- so it _IS_ a bold attempt to be different, which C&C didn't.
A "bold attempt"? ROTFL!! WC2 is ANYTHING but a "BOLD ATTEMPT". C&C
needs to be linked because it's a miltary base with power lines. You
don't want things to be linked? Build an MCV, that's it's point of
it. C&C is different, but Westwood showed more innovation in it's
interface, IMO.
Dave Glue
>: Neither is fireballs shooting from a person's hand. I find the
>: "unrealistic" tag laughable in a game like this.
>
>But there are "acceptable" levels of unrealistic. WC2 is a fantasy war
>game. Its not unreasonable to see people slinging magic, casting spells.
>Or Dragons or Griffons. Within the context of a fantasy game, it makes
>sense. It doesn't make sense to me that creating 4 barracks should
>train one unit faster. I can't find ANY context where this sounds
>reasonable.
And I can't find it reasonable than a single peon can be _repaiting_ a
structure faster than an infantry can be _destroying_ it. Each game
makes compromises.
Jason Townsend
>
>Dave Glue (dav...@interlog.com) wrote:
>: On 26 Dec 1995 06:43:45 GMT, ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg (Kenneth Tan)
>: wrote:
>:
>: >C&C is unrealistic. Having more barracks does not reduce training
>: >but it will allow you to produce a multitude of units of same or
different
>: >types in the same time (WC2 style)
>:
>: Oh come on- this "unrealistic" tag is ridiculous in these real-time
>: wargames. Many things are "unrealistic" in each, it's a _game_ for
>: godsakes.
>: >As mentioned, it isn't particularly realistic to be this way.
>:
>: Neither is fireballs shooting from a person's hand. I find the
>: "unrealistic" tag laughable in a game like this.
>
>game. Its not unreasonable to see people slinging magic, casting
spells.
>Or Dragons or Griffons. Within the context of a fantasy game, it makes
>sense. It doesn't make sense to me that creating 4 barracks should
>train one unit faster. I can't find ANY context where this sounds
>reasonable.
How bout this. Multiple Barracks allow them to be specialised for certain
troops, and thus produce them faster. On the other hand, troops aren't
trained in 30 seconds anyway. And don't say "the time is scaled", because
that is ridiculous. The shells move at proper speeds, and orca's are
rearmed at the same rate as units are produced.
-
Jason
Dave Glue
wrote:
>I hope you're not falling for the "explosives too unstable, casting
>invisibility will make them explode" nonsense as an excuse for a
>game rule.
Exactly, I would have used that for my defence. :) Your comment was
that it was unrealistic to have multiple barracks to produce infantry
at an accelerated rate. That, and the "can't cast invisibility on
explosives" rule are examples of realism falling by the wayside for
the sake of gameplay- being able to cast invisibility on explosive
specialists would have made them _far_ too powerful. Just a matter of
personal preference, I prefer the quick building of infrantry from
multiple barracks and consider the double-click to make one primary a
suitable compromise, you like to be building different armies at once.
Kenneth Tan
>>I've not played C&C, but know enough of it...
>Perhaps you should try it.
Actually, I'm not sure why I even touched WC2 -- I hate this kind of
"race the mouse around the screen and see who can click faster" kind of
games. (and they are addictive, too).
>>Ever heard of using the Shift-F2/F3/F4 keys to leave bookmarks and then
>>just press F2/F3/F4 to zoom there?
>Yes, I did. I addressed this later in the message, perhaps you
>skipped over it. 3 options doesn't give you much-
True -- 3 is downright limited.
Then again, how many is enough? (considering humans, we'd never be
satisfied anyway -- there will come a time we won't remember what was
where <g>)
>>If you're slow, you're slow -- (actually, I don't like the idea of "race
>>the mouse" games, but looks like I'm much faster than you).
>You don't have a clue how "fast" or "slow" I am.
Nope, just a clue based on the grouses you had about the interface and the
rest...
I do know that the computer is faster than the both of us :))
>>>>Actually, this isn't a problem with either C&C or WC, because none have
>>>>the sidebar/multiple barracks interface.
>>>C&C at least has one part of it- the sidebar.
>>And WC2 has one part -- the flexibility to choose which base/barrack/???
>>produces what.
>As does C&C.
which makes it back to the WC2 style...
Oh what the heck -- you can't have everything.
>>No, there is no need to program everything into bookmarks -- but you
>>do have to master _the_ interface (whatever interface it is, or how
>>it looks like -- even if everthing is in Japanese/Chinese/German/Tamil).
>Funny, I thought an interface should tailor for the user, not the
>other way around. If you have to "master" it to operate it well, it's
>a bad interface.
Ha Ha Ha...
A person has to learn computers and the interfaces as they are. You learnt
Windows, and DOS, and others, and they aren't the least bit tailored for
the user (try unix commands! :(
Actually, even the QWERTY keyboard isn't tailored for the user --
it was designed to SLOW DOWN a person's typing speed!
Fortunately, I've come to use s/w from lots of countries, often in text
in their own native languages. It's hard to guess what does what at first,
but when you start off with "lets see what happens if I pressed this",
you'd likely end up with a table of "press this for that to happen" and then
you don't care anymore what the unmentionable/unpronouncable text is, you
know how to use the s/w and interface.
>C&C needs to be linked because it's a miltary base with power lines.
Which makes the sandbag trick pretty dumb.
If they expected it to be linked because of power lines, then it should
have been done like Sim City -- if the link breaks, the buildings aren't
powered.
I hope you're not falling for the "explosives too unstable, casting
invisibility will make them explode" nonsense as an excuse for a
game rule.
Automan
Kenneth Tan
>How bout this. Multiple Barracks allow them to be specialised for certain
>troops, and thus produce them faster.
No, it still doesn't work. Let's say you build infantry, infantry, and
infantry, nothing but infantry. Now that really throws your argument way
off since there is absolutely no premise for training to be reduced to
1/N time based on N barracks.
Did your education time (from pre-school to university) reduce to 1/N the
time since your country has N schools? Wake up!!!
Having N barracks will only allow you to train N _independent_ units
simultaneously!
>On the other hand, troops aren't
>trained in 30 seconds anyway. And don't say "the time is scaled", because
>that is ridiculous.
Then training them in 30 seconds is even more rediculous!
So is having men 1 cm high, rivers 1 inch wide (that 1cm high men cannot
cross), buildings being built in 1 minute, a heli taking off/landing/refueling
in seconds. You also operate in "1 tank" or 1 infantry is 1 man (or is it
3men in C&C?).
Wake up, Jason, Wake up -- Ofcourse the time IS scaled -- just about any
war game is scaled. C&C itself clearly gave the hint (about 1 hour == 1 day)
in the cut scene "After 3 days of intense fighting...." -- and you sure
didn't sit there for 72 hours, did you? More like 3 hours+!
Be it C&C, Mech Warrior, Warcraft, Dune, Steel Phanters, whatever, it all
has to be scaled accordingly, OK?
Find me a wargame that isn't scaled, for it will not exist.
>The shells move at proper speeds, and orca's are
>rearmed at the same rate as units are produced.
Do you really know how fast shells move? MUCH slower than it does in the
game (ofcourse unless you are thinking that tanks are 1cm in size, and they
are only shooting 2 cm, then it is a different thing).
Take a sneek at some millitary exercise and learn for yourself what is
a "war game", what is a "scale", and how units move in groups (i.e.,
1 tank "unit" is a group of 6 tanks), and how slow tank, arty shells & rockets
really are).
Automan
Mike Wong
universally recognized that C&C has the better interface, and the wrist
reflexes required to navigate WC2's interface are hardly a bonus unless you
want one-handed exercise from your computer.
As for all of the ridiculous arguments regarding "realism" of fog-of-war and
connected buildings, get real. Neither game is even REMOTELY realistic; each
one has its rules and regulations, and you just have to get used to them.
Working around them is how you get good at the game.
Craig Bertolucci
On 22 Dec 1995, Jason Townsend wrote:
> What if you are fighting a war and you need to regenerate your stripped
> garrison? With C&C, you hit a button. With WC2, scrolling is required,
> And everyone knows what happens when you let the AbysmalIntelligence
> fight your battle! And then you have no way to retrieve control except 9
> confused clicks.
> -
> Jason
Are you REALLY having a problem playing WC2 or are you just
complaining because it isn't exactally like C&C? I'm upto Act IV in the
human campaign and I manage to get around very well by clicking on the
overhead map. You can actually hold down and drag on the overhead map
for quick scrolling too.
Craig
John Tsau
Hit shift-F3 when you are viewing your town. Whenever you are anywhere
else, you can now hit F3 to jump back to your town. This works with
F4 and F5 as well.
--
John Tsau.
Internet Address : jo...@nwu.edu
Real World Address : 375 Oak Trails #101, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Real World Phone Numbers : (708) 803-3904 [home]
(708) 814-2275 [cellular]
Dick Menninger
is fairly humorous. Using representative animated
graphics and scaling for good game feel has been
around for a while and has been considered an
improvement. Look at SimCity and Railroad Tycoon.
Those had massive distortions of real-time to enhance
the atmosphere and playability of the game. Applying
that to the warrish games in question, the shooting
and rearming would likely be representative rather
than realistic. Without such "distortions" you would
not get a playable game that gave you the range
of kinds of details people want. People want the
feel of individual and small unit at the same time they
want longer range planning, construction and development.
To actually pack the desired variety into a single game
that still really works is a significant achievement.
To do otherwise would require incredible micromanagement
while proceeding at a horribly turgid pace.
Well maybe that is what you need. Maybe you want
a game that makes you clean the mud off of all the boots
and makes you polish all of the soldiers' brass. :-)
Good Day
Dick
Dick.Me...@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM
Tom HANKS
>On 22 Dec 1995, Jason Townsend wrote:
>> What if you are fighting a war and you need to regenerate your stripped
>> garrison? With C&C, you hit a button. With WC2, scrolling is required,
>> And everyone knows what happens when you let the AbysmalIntelligence
>> fight your battle! And then you have no way to retrieve control except 9
>> confused clicks.
>> -
>> Jason
> Are you REALLY having a problem playing WC2 or are you just
>complaining because it isn't exactally like C&C? I'm upto Act IV in the
>human campaign and I manage to get around very well by clicking on the
>overhead map. You can actually hold down and drag on the overhead map
>for quick scrolling too.
>
>Craig
But you _shouldn't_ need to do it this way. It could have been done
better (ie like C&C, or something even better perhaps), but it wasn't.
Having to break concentration from the front lines to build each and
every unit is a real pain and, as C&C showed, unnecessary.
TTFN Tom.
Jason Townsend
bert...@chuma.cas.usf.edu says...
>
> Are you REALLY having a problem playing WC2 or are you just
>complaining because it isn't exactally like C&C? I'm upto Act IV in the
>human campaign and I manage to get around very well by clicking on the
>overhead map. You can actually hold down and drag on the overhead map
>for quick scrolling too.
I simply think the C&C interface is easier.
-
Jason
Jason Townsend
>Wake up, Jason, Wake up -- Ofcourse the time IS scaled -- just about any
>war game is scaled. C&C itself clearly gave the hint (about 1 hour == 1
day)
>in the cut scene "After 3 days of intense fighting...." -- and you sure
>didn't sit there for 72 hours, did you? More like 3 hours+!
So shells from adjacent tanks take 5 minute to arrive? Soldiers are
trained during a single attack? It takes a tank 5 minutes to run over a
soldier? A power plant takes an hour to pound apart with heavy armour and
a-10 bombing? BRIDGES & FORDS ARE MILES LONG?
C'mon, this isn't the kind of game that could be playable if it were
realistic, and there are just too many holes in the "scaled" theory.
Besides, it makes the game less exciting anyway.
-
Jason
Kenneth Tan
>Having to break concentration from the front lines to build each and
>every unit is a real pain and, as C&C showed, unnecessary.
That again brings into question the age-old problem of "Just where is
the Front Line?", that you'd have to break concentration from.
In C&C, most players end up at having only 1 front line, because all units
pop out of 1 barrack anyway. In WC2, it is all too common to have loads
of barracks (3 to 6) and having 3 or more fronts at the same time.
In such a case, you are unfortunately at a major disadvantage because you
do have to give less concentration to any 1 front, and leave it to the
computer to control the units somewhat.
My game last night had me making a 3-groups vs 3 bases simultaneous
assult. Trying to control 3 groups simultaneously and reinforcing from 2
barracks + 1 roost, was difficult, but sure was fun!
(you sure miss a lot if you can't take your concentration off that 1 front!).
Automan
Jason Townsend
says...
Ah, but with C&C you can group units for speedy retrieval if the ai does
something abhorrently stupid (Surprise, suprise :))
-
Jason