Which game should I buy Warcraft or C&C
nim...@cyberhighway.net
the best out, but I don't know wich one I should buy.
Suggestions
Greg Shaffer
says...
>
>As the header show I looking for a new game and these two seem to be
>the best out, but I don't know wich one I should buy.
>Suggestions
>
>
That's probably a volatile question to ask in this particular group. The
bottom line is that both are great games....and no matter which one you end
up getting you'll be happy with them. Or you could (If you have the spare
dough) get both of them. They are honestly both worth it.
But if you're going to choose one, it depends on what you like more in a
game. C&C (arguably) has better 1-player scenarios, while it's my opinion
that Warcraft 2 is immensely better for modem/network/playing against other
human play. If you don't have Kali or someone to play games with over the
modem, I would probably go and get C&C...if not, my vote would go with WC2.
Greg Shaffer
Xaxar
>the best out, but I don't know wich one I should buy.
>Suggestions
Warcraft.
Chainsaw
:>As the header show I looking for a new game and these two seem to be
:>the best out, but I don't know wich one I should buy.
:>Suggestions
:
:Warcraft.
Only after buying Command & Conquer.
Ron Watkins
: As the header show I looking for a new game and these two seem to be
: the best out, but I don't know wich one I should buy.
: Suggestions
In my opinion, C&C is really a much better game than is Warcraft 2.
It held my attention a *lot* longer. WC2 strikes me as a mediocre game
design; nothing original, not a lot of creativity, but nice graphics and
very nice multiplayer. C&C has regular VGA graphics (not as sharp), but it
is full of the little touches of real creativity. It broke new ground; WC2
is sort of a clone, and inferior (IMO) in most respects. Lots of eye candy,
but you don't play the eye candy, you play the GAME, and C&C is a better
game.
WC2's real advantage is its better support of Kali. Multiplayer
Kali WC2 games are great fun...they are painfully slow with C&C.
--
Ron Watkins, Watkins Computing | "In times of crisis, it is of the
English spoken here! :) | utmost importance to keep one's head."
Low cost Internet connections. | -- M. Anoinette
mor...@algonet.se
Snip
>Suggestions
Both are GREAT games but if you just can buy one of them my
vote would go to WC2, because I like the fantasy scenarios
better and they've made the game in glorious SVGA.
Gary Cocchetto
> >As the header show I looking for a new game and these two seem to be
> >the best out, but I don't know wich one I should buy.
> >Suggestions
I found that C&C is far more difficult than WC2, although i did cheat in
some of the scenarios....., but C&C has cool movies and good graphics and
other neat stuff, like squishing sounds when you run over an enemy with
your vehicles........
WC2 has cool movies, but not near as often, also some good graphics work,
and it has a truly original story line. As for game play, it seems that
C&C gives many more alternative ways to build your base and to play
whereas WC2 you pretty much follow the same pattern as the first
Warcraft.........farms, barracks, lumber mill, more farms, some units, on
and on.......whichever you pick, you will enjoy (plus there are no cheats
I know of for C&C if you get stuck!)
____________________________________________________________________________
Gary Cocchetto Son, Boyfriend and now UNCLE!!!!!
Money talks, but all mine ever says is goodbye!!!!
Natural conclusion......I can't design cars, I'll fix computers instead!!!
Email at gcoc...@chat.carleton.ca
____________________________________________________________________________
Brian W. Albers
buildings, etc. The SVGA graphics in WC2 are not that impressive,
IMHO. Very cartoon-ish.
While I don't usually go for cut-scenes, C&C's are _really_ nice. And
generous. WC2 has a few short cut scenes (_not_ in SVGA), and only
one per chapter (_not_ per mission). And it just got hard to involve
myself in the game -- not compelling, no interesing characters or
plot.
Having only used remote with C&C, the guy who said WC2 is better for
remote might be correct, though. My C&C was great in multi-player.
-B-
-------------------------------------------
Brian W. Albers, aka BrerBear
alb...@cs.utexas.edu
B4 f++ m r+ c+ s- g+
-------------------------------------------
wild man
>nim...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
>Snip
>>Suggestions
It depends on what you like. C&C has the best balance (i.e. you can't
stock up on only one type of unit, cause they'll get creamed) and
requires a little more strategy. WC2 has the fantasy setting and it's
pretty cool to have dragons and 2-headed ogres and magic.
My suggestion is to buy both. When you get frustrated in one, and you
will, you can switch over and play the other one for a while.
Vorname Nachname
Feeling, which i like so much ! Your Camp is is action, people walk around and
everything is growing up like a flower ! C&C is nice, too, but I prefer to
build up something, and this part is nicer in Warcraft II.
Tom Henderson
The other aspect that should be considered is that you can probably trade Warcraft2 for C&C
- I know I would make that deal as I have a C&C set siting on my desk that hasn't been touched
in 2 weeks (I have a short patience span - If I don't use a game within 2 weeks it gets
traded...)
Tom Henderson
Rocky Brown
>>As the header show I looking for a new game and these two seem to be
>>the best out, but I don't know wich one I should buy.
>>Suggestions
>Warcraft.
I think you want Warcraft II; I have both, play both, like both, but
Warcraft II is slightly better...
Jason Townsend
>
>nim...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
>Snip
>>Suggestions
>
>Both are GREAT games but if you just can buy one of them my
>vote would go to WC2, because I like the fantasy scenarios
>better and they've made the game in glorious SVGA.
>
Like everyone else says, they're both good, but I prefer C&C. The units
and action seem a little more interesting and responsive. WC2 has better
multiplayer and big maps tho. Also, C&C has a better interface.
-
Jason
Dean Manley
enjoyable. I like watching the forces build up too and I love the
Elven destroyers!
Andrew Kim
thread, it offers alot of satisfaction watching your forces build up.
C&C is pretty challenging. If you like getting frustrated go ahead
and get C&C. Your job/school/life is on the line tho heh:)
Andy
Edward Boris
: nim...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
: : As the header show I looking for a new game and these two seem to be
: : the best out, but I don't know wich one I should buy.
: : Suggestions
:
Warcraft II won PC Gamer "GAME OF THE YEAR" award. Warcraft II also won
"BEST MULTIPLAYER GAME".
Warcraft II is a well designed COMPLETE product, C&C isn't. For example
if you choose to add computer opponents in a multiplayer game in C&C, the
computer opponents don't build bases. THey just have a few units running
around with no purpose. There is no AI to build a base in C&C. Even in
single player the computer only replaces destoyed buildings or whatever
else is hard-coded in for it to do. Throw a few sandbags in front of the
computer, in single player mode, and he is totally shut down.
Warcraft II on the other hand has very good AI, which actually builds
bases in multiplayer mode. Also, Six player warcraft II on KALI is
a blast.
Westwood basically rushed C&C out the door after being 6 months behind
schedule and immediately started promising C&C 2. They have had to
release a few patches to fix things and still there is no AI
for computers in multiplayer mode to build bases. WC2 has only had a
patch to increase game speed on KALI. C&C is also based on the old
dune2 engine. Lets hope C&C 2 isn't.
Ed B.
Jeff Salzmann
Uh, yeah, OK. Warcraft II's AI _blows_. It amazes me that so many
people find the exact same game with different graphics to be so facinating.
The sandbag 'bug', is a cheat. Like those typed 'cheat codes' in WC2, that make
the game even easier. You can even cheat over head-to-head games. Ha ha. What
a goddamn riot. C&C's patches were, for the most part, addressing hardware
issues, like USR modems. There were two 'real' bugs- one made the game harder,
(NOD turrets raised to $600, and a place-anywhere bug squashed). By the
criteria this bozo has named, Warcraft II is also based on the Dune 2 'engine'.
C&C was ...see the FAQ or buy the game before you bash...thank you... not
Dune-2 based. Where do you get this?? WC1 is a flagrant Dune 2 ripoff, with
WORSE AI- there, I said it. Dune 2 was a lot more challenging. WC2 isn't much
of an improvement on WC1, as about every other post on the subject hints at.
C&C worse because of patches?? Hardly. I don't see Blizzard in any
hurry to release one...sorry, there was one for KALI....by your criteria,
evidently WC2 was rushed....
I had both, and finished both. IMHO, Warcraft II is a SVGA Warcraft,
with an inferior interface and garbage 'AI'- not that C&C's is incredible, but
C&C was a lot more fun playing against the computer than WC2.
I can't vouch for WC2's network play, but I am willing to bet that
since the units are the same on both sides (with different graphics), it's a
different game than C&C. I hear WC2's better for network play, but then again,
those are the people that call C&C a Dune 2 rehash.....
zydeko
>
>: nim...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
>: : As the header show I looking for a new game and these two seem to be
>: : the best out, but I don't know wich one I should buy.
>: : Suggestions
>:
>:
>Warcraft II won PC Gamer "GAME OF THE YEAR" award. Warcraft II also won
>"BEST MULTIPLAYER GAME".
>Warcraft II is a well designed COMPLETE product, C&C isn't. For example
>if you choose to add computer opponents in a multiplayer game in C&C, the
>computer opponents don't build bases. THey just have a few units running
>around with no purpose. There is no AI to build a base in C&C. Even in
>single player the computer only replaces destoyed buildings or whatever
>else is hard-coded in for it to do. Throw a few sandbags in front of the
>computer, in single player mode, and he is totally shut down.
> Warcraft II on the other hand has very good AI, which actually builds
>bases in multiplayer mode. Also, Six player warcraft II on KALI is
>a blast.
>Westwood basically rushed C&C out the door after being 6 months behind
>schedule and immediately started promising C&C 2. They have had to
>release a few patches to fix things and still there is no AI
>for computers in multiplayer mode to build bases. WC2 has only had a
>patch to increase game speed on KALI. C&C is also based on the old
>dune2 engine. Lets hope C&C 2 isn't.
Like you won't buy C&C2 if it was an upgraded Dune 2 engine.
C&C won best game of the year in CGR, and WC2 didn't win in
strategy game -- Steel Panthers did.
Honestly, who cares what magazines give games -- look how high they
rated Phantasmagoria! Sorry, but IMHO, that game (aside from
atmospherics) sucked!
You forgot to mention that WC2 is also based from the old Dune 2
engine, since WC was a direct rip of Dune 2, and this is the improved
version of it... and aside from looks and AI, there weren't many
improvements.
True, C&C has had patches, but that's because the sides are
different, not the same as in WC2 -- at least Westwood tried to make
the sides different -- not the same units with different voice and
art. Also, the complexity of the solo play missions blew away WC2 --
there was nothing in solo play that would need patching!
But this is getting stupid -- both C&C and WC2 are good games. If
you want fantasy, get WC2. If you want sci-fi, get C&C. Hell -- get
them both! The consumer wins!
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
"If there's an Ice Tea in there, it may be love." - Fox Mulder
"I'm going to speak my mind because I've got nothing to lose."
Zyd...@anv.net -- If you don't like it, do you think I care?
Mike Herauf
>As the header show I looking for a new game and these two seem to be
>the best out, but I don't know wich one I should buy.
>Suggestions
>
I finished both. Played Dune 2, Warcraft (1), and overall, C&C is better, IMHO.
Colin Young
>"BEST MULTIPLAYER GAME".
>
>Warcraft II is a well designed COMPLETE product, C&C isn't. For example
>if you choose to add computer opponents in a multiplayer game in C&C, the
>computer opponents don't build bases. THey just have a few units running
>around with no purpose. There is no AI to build a base in C&C. Even in
>single player the computer only replaces destoyed buildings or whatever
>else is hard-coded in for it to do. Throw a few sandbags in front of the
>computer, in single player mode, and he is totally shut down.
> Warcraft II on the other hand has very good AI, which actually builds
>bases in multiplayer mode. Also, Six player warcraft II on KALI is
>a blast.
All are valid points but I find C&C Multiplayer more FUN. There are
more different strategies that can be applied than in Warcraft 2.
Don't believe me? Have a look here - how many posts do you see from
people discussing startegies for Warcraft 2? Compare that to C&C.
You'll see people discussiong Nod Nukes Vs GDI Ion cannons, how to
stop the Ion cannon, orca 1-2 punch, how to protect harvesters from
nod bikes, the uses of GDI tanks, the "ultimate" GDI AGT defense!
Is there anything even remotely similar for Warcraft 2?
The variety of units in C&C makes the game more interesting. I
completed Warcraft 2 with the humans but haven't bothered doing it
with the Orcs as the missions are pretty much the same and the units
are nearly identical to the humans.
C&C on the other hand has different routes so you can reply the game
selecting different missions each time.
As for the sand bagging trick - there's a simple solution - don't do
it! Warcraft 2 has built in cheats. I don;t hear people crying out
that that ruins the game. People just won't use them. Same applies to
the sandbaggers.
I will admit that the computer C&C opponents suck in multiplayer
games. The team up option on Wacraft 2 is great! It's the only time we
ever play Warcraft 2 linked.
Saint Erroneous
>: nim...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
>: : As the header show I looking for a new game and these two seem to be
>: : the best out, but I don't know wich one I should buy.
>: : Suggestions
>Warcraft II won PC Gamer "GAME OF THE YEAR" award. Warcraft II also won
>"BEST MULTIPLAYER GAME".
Computer magazine awards/reviews don't mean _shit_ and you know it. They
magazines liked Ascendancy, if you remember... :)
Having said that War2 _is_ a very nice multiplayer game, and probably
deserved the award.
>Warcraft II is a well designed COMPLETE product, C&C isn't. For example
>if you choose to add computer opponents in a multiplayer game in C&C, the
>computer opponents don't build bases. THey just have a few units running
>around with no purpose. There is no AI to build a base in C&C. Even in
>single player the computer only replaces destoyed buildings or whatever
>else is hard-coded in for it to do. Throw a few sandbags in front of the
>computer, in single player mode, and he is totally shut down.
Do the same in Warcraft... oh.. they couldn't build an AI that dealt with
the problem, so they took the "build walls" option out of the
single-player game.
> Warcraft II on the other hand has very good AI, which actually builds
>bases in multiplayer mode. Also, Six player warcraft II on KALI is
>a blast.
The actually combat AI of C&C and War2 are pretty much equally stupid,
and getting the air-attack AI's to do anything at all on a customn map
seems to be a exercise in futility.
War2 _is_ more sophisticated multiplayer gane, with many options that C&C
really should have had.
If you're not in a position to play with a friend, then C&C is _probably_
better. They put a lot more effort into C&C's campaign game than War2
did, and so it's both more difficult and more fun (I found the cut-scenes
really helped the atmosphere of the game).
>Westwood basically rushed C&C out the door after being 6 months behind
>schedule and immediately started promising C&C 2. They have had to
>release a few patches to fix things and still there is no AI
>for computers in multiplayer mode to build bases. WC2 has only had a
>patch to increase game speed on KALI. C&C is also based on the old
>dune2 engine. Lets hope C&C 2 isn't.
I want a patach to let me build walls in single-player. I want a patch to
get the bloody AI to be a challenge once the 1st 10 minutes of the Alamo
have past. I want the campaign game to be a _challenge_. I want a patch to
get the game to connect reliably to a machine with an old uart. I want a
tech-level bar in the multi-player options. I want to be able to change
the _weapons_ on each unit. I want the orc units to be significantly
different from the human ones.
Yes, war2 is more sophisticated than c&c: essentially it has a base
building AI, and a map editor are it's main advantages.
If C&C really is using a modified version of the Dune2 engine, then at
least they seem to have improved it beyond all recognition. Warcraft still
has a unit limit (600 units/buildings in the game total) which if you're
designing a large multiplayer/multi AI map can occasionally prove to be
limiting. Obviously there must be _some_ limit in C&C on the number of
units that can be built, but no-one's found it yet.
Both games have their flaws. C&C's sandbag cheat/airstrike assignment
problems. War2's invisible flameshield problems.
IMHO, War2 is the more sophisticated product, but I've enjoyed C&C a lot
more. I guess I just prefer hi-tech weaponry to fantasy skermishing.
But then Warhammer's better than either of them if you have both patience
and the machine to run it.
Tastes, they do vary.
--
-----------Saint michael (mainly) Erroneous m...@st-andrews.ac.uk-------------
ObWarcraft2/RJordanRef: Can I cast Haste on RJ and get CoS out in January?
-------------http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sa/personal/mpv----------------
Brian W. Albers
>The variety of units in C&C makes the game more interesting. I
>completed Warcraft 2 with the humans but haven't bothered doing it
>with the Orcs as the missions are pretty much the same and the units
>are nearly identical to the humans.
I agree wholeheartedly. I played the game through as human, but
couldn't drive myself to play the orc side afterwards. The sides are
just too similar.
However, the biggest reason WC2 annoyed me was the 9 unit selection
limit. I like to mount massive assaults, and having control many
different factions, even if they followed others, was damn annoying.
C&C was far better in this regard, with the limitless selections...
mor...@algonet.se
(SNIP)
>Don't believe me? Have a look here - how many posts do you see from
>people discussing startegies for Warcraft 2? Compare that to C&C.
(SNIP)
Yeah, great point. How many more months has C&C been
available compared to WCII?
I really don't think you can judge them by that.
What it all comes down to is what kind of game YOU like
since both are -really- good games in it's own right.
Colin Young
>cyo...@midland.co.nz (Colin Young) wrote:
>
>(SNIP)
>>Don't believe me? Have a look here - how many posts do you see from
>>people discussing startegies for Warcraft 2? Compare that to C&C.
>(SNIP)
>
>Yeah, great point. How many more months has C&C been
>available compared to WCII?
My point exactly. C&C is an _old_ game compared to Warcraft 2. The
fact that it's still generating messages after all this time is a good
indication of how popular it is.
Are you expecting a surge of Warcraft 2 posts in the next month or
two? I think not. If anything the WC2 posts will be getting fewer.
If you pay attention to the messages here, the trend is for a ton of
messages discussing any new game that's just released with it dying
off after a while. The big thing now in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
is Duke Nukem 3D. 6 weeks from now you'll hardly see anyone talking
about it. They'll be onto the next *big thing*. C&C is still being
discussed. Figure it out yourself.
a2z.netaxis.com
Warcraft II has a corniness/(f-ing stupidness) about it, which
is really annoying
Edward Boris
: On Fri, 02 Feb 1996 23:34:50 GMT, mor...@algonet.se wrote:
:
: >cyo...@midland.co.nz (Colin Young) wrote:
: >
: >(SNIP)
: >>Don't believe me? Have a look here - how many posts do you see from
: >>people discussing startegies for Warcraft 2? Compare that to C&C.
: >(SNIP)
: >
: >Yeah, great point. How many more months has C&C been
: >available compared to WCII?
:
: My point exactly. C&C is an _old_ game compared to Warcraft 2. The
: fact that it's still generating messages after all this time is a good
: indication of how popular it is.
:
: Are you expecting a surge of Warcraft 2 posts in the next month or
: two? I think not. If anything the WC2 posts will be getting fewer.
You guys are such losers. There is an entire newsgroup where everyone
talks about Warcraft II. Its: alt.games.warcraft
Warcraft II players are smart enough not to fill up the strategic
newsgroup with talk about their game. THere are about 10 times as many
WC2 posts there then there are C&C posts here.
beefjerk
Alt groups don't have the propagation of comp. Most people only post here.
I'm not sure how that makes us losers?
Yes there is a Warcraft group:
alt.games.warcraft
But there are also a few Command & Conquer groups:
alt.games.command.and.conquer
alt.games.command-n-conq
Warcraft even has its own binary group:
alt.binaries.warcraft
There is only 1 binary in it though, plus some discussion.
But in the Warcraft group I just counted 37 binaries.(non binary group)
It would seem that the uninformed hang out in your group...
(a mini-flame ;-)
I'll be fair though:
Between the two Warcraft & two Command & Conquer groups
there are about the same # of total posts so far.
I believe there would be more binaries for Command & Conquer
(in alt.binaries.command.....) if a map editor had come on the CD
with the game. Thankfully there are many people who have gotten
past this obstacle and made their own missions:
http://www.iup.edu/~vchf/ccpack.html
I know, I've kind of wandered around in this post, sorry.
I bought both games when they came out. I've had lots of fun with
both of them. But I've put away my Warcraft2, and am back to C&C
modem games everyday. If you have the extra $, buy them both.
If you don't, I suggest you go with C&C.
just my 2¢
-Tom
Glenn Earl Gaerlan
:
: However, the biggest reason WC2 annoyed me was the 9 unit selection
: limit. I like to mount massive assaults, and having control many
: different factions, even if they followed others, was damn annoying.
:
: C&C was far better in this regard, with the limitless selections...
WC2 sort of has group creation shortcuts...(hold down the ALT key while
clicking on a unit, and all the members of it's last group are
highlighted as well.)
In this respect, you can almost actually create 9-soldier units and make
coordinated attacks, ala Warhammer. So, the potential for detailed
strategic operations is there.
But the AI is so stupid, you don't need it. Multiplayer games are more
hunter-gatherer games than battles, so unit-based combat is unneccessary.
Command & Conquer is much much better, despite the 'canned' missions.
WC2's scenario editor keeps the game open-eneded, even though the editor
is sort-of powerless.
All in all, WC2 = WC1. No great jump. Unless, of course, Blizzard makes
a patch to fix the AI *and* feed the editor steroids.
--
dBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBP
________.__
/ _____/| | ____ ____ ____ "I would as soon destroy a stained-
/ \ ___| | _/ __ \ / \ / \ glass window as an artist like
\ \_\ \ |_\ ___/| | \ | \ yourself. But, since I can't
\______ /____/\___ >___| /___| / have you following me, either...
\/ glennard@\/cnct.\/com \/ *BONK*"
http://cnct.com/home/glennard
dBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBP
Colin Young
>talks about Warcraft II. Its: alt.games.warcraft
>Warcraft II players are smart enough not to fill up the strategic
>newsgroup with talk about their game. THere are about 10 times as many
>WC2 posts there then there are C&C posts here.
I wouldn't say there are 10 times as many posts in alt.games.warcraft
than there are C&C posts here. Besides there are more posts in
alt.games.c&c than there are in alt.games.warcraft.
E'Nuff said.
Tony Wong
>>You guys are such losers. There is an entire newsgroup where everyone
>>talks about Warcraft II. Its: alt.games.warcraft
>>Warcraft II players are smart enough not to fill up the strategic
>>newsgroup with talk about their game. THere are about 10 times as many
>>WC2 posts there then there are C&C posts here
>
>
More posts != better. In WC2, they screw up completely on the interface
to group and select groups. In a battle, there is no time to alt-click
on a member of the group you want to select. Fog of war is nice but the
game play (especially in single player games) is monotonus. Ai is real bad.
For example, how come my mage does not automatically cast polymorph to the
dragons!! It is also not too enjoyable to control land, sea and air units
that have similar cabilities. There is more depth in c&c's game play IMHO.
Tony Wong
Bill
: But the AI is so stupid, you don't need it. Multiplayer games are more
:
: Command & Conquer is much much better, despite the 'canned' missions.
: WC2's scenario editor keeps the game open-eneded, even though the editor
: is sort-of powerless.
:
: All in all, WC2 = WC1. No great jump. Unless, of course, Blizzard makes
: a patch to fix the AI *and* feed the editor steroids.
I think you are forgetting a few things about WC2 vs. WC1:
- the multiplayer computer AI for WC2 is much better than it is for the
canned missions.
- the SVGA graphics look really nice.
- WC2 supports up to 8 players over a network.
- WC2 also includes sea and air units.
- You can create buildings anywhere.
- The units are more balanced. You can no longer just setup your archers
in long rows. Even a few grunts/footmen can overwhelm an archer line.
WC2 has its problems, but saying WC2 = WC1 is just not true.
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
| 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 | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jason Townsend
KRF9...@UConnVM.UConn.Edu says...
>
>
>In article <4f5od0$4...@cnct.com>
>glen...@cnct.com (Glenn Earl Gaerlan) writes:
>
Actually, there is more dune showing in wc2 then C&C, despite the obvious
resemblance. Design wise, it has some similar concepts and units, but it
doesn't have (virtually) the same engine, unit grouping limitations,
boring gameplay (sorry, but its tedious) and excruciatingly stupid
MOVEMENT AI. You can leave some reinforcements to come without them
running into a tree and having a nap.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here lies a toppled god- -Dune Messiah
His fall was not a small one. Frank Herbert
We did but build his pedestal, Jason Townsend
A narrow and a tall one. town...@ra.isisnet.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fabrice Giambrone
>
>NO WAY, C&C is way better
>
>Warcraft II has a corniness/(f-ing stupidness) about it, which
>is really annoying
>
>