Talk:Command & Conquer: Generals

German Version

The german Version was sold for 2 Months until it became indexed. An altered version is sold since then. It was widespread in german Media that this title became indexed. Even the german Wikipedia Article says exactly the same what I wrote for the english article.

Since this part was completely edited here are two sources about that topic in english:

http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/command-conquer-generals

After the temporal banning in Germany, today, on March 6th, C&C Generals has been "really" banned. The BPjM, Germany's banning office, said that C&C Generals is too close to real-world events (i.e. the threat of an Iraq war) and to cynical – for example sending out suicide attackers, carpet bombing and raiding UN convoys.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2882875.stm

Earlier this month, the German family affairs ministry blacklisted Electronic Arts' Command & Conquer Generals game, on the charge that it glorifies violence.

Ban in China?

Generals is banned in China? I saw several copies for sale in various stores in Guangzhou and Shunde. When I tested one the units spoke english but the mission briefings were in chinese. Can anyone comment on this? It seems suspicious to me since there is no reference links.

--Cs california 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is officially banned in China, but those little computer stores sell them, just like pirated software. Rockvee 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, during the Beijing Olympics, I'm 99% certain I've heard the Generals music being played in the Bird's Nest Stadium just before an event takes place. Find some coverage, listen to it carefully. Tell me I'm not going mad!!! --Lord Tau (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is banned for political reasons. From a banned game list, it is banned in China because the game smears the image of China and the Chinese army.Junk Police (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Units

The unit descriptions need serious edits. Can someone fix them? 72.197.96.86 05:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I will. The unit descriptions here will serve as the base for my C&C: Generals rewrite. In a few weeks (like two maybe) this will be all new and (hopefully) easier to use. TomStar81 02:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the entire 'Units' section should be moved to Wikibooks. WP:NOT a game guide. Cynical 11:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Just tagged that section for cleanup. I think the unit descriptions belong here, but they need some serious rewriting, and removal of POV. --Stretch 07:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible POV

This text was added to the article and may be POV. I leave it to these with more knowledge of this issue than I to sort out.

Racism

The game tends to have certain qualities which may be seen as subtly, or at times blatantly, racist by a number of people. For instance, the United States are made out to be the ultimate "good guys", and their war efforts are aimed at nothing but the humanitarian good of the people of the world, which rather departs from reality, and could even be seen as a propaganda effort. China, while being the ally of the US, is seen as a dirty, machine-driven, nuclear state that cares little for its people, sending swarms of underarmed units to die against a few better armed units of the other factions. The GLA is made out to be an idealogyless group that has no qualms of saying that they are terrorists. Indeed, they have units that are simply labelled as "terrorist", and they are a decidedly Middle-Eastern/Central Asian organization, and though it is not stated, it is heavily implied that they are Islamists with much support from their local populace's, thereby making military intervention on behalf of a superpower (to the point of the superpower using WMD's against them) justified. This plays on the stereotype that Arabs and Muslims are synonymous with terrorism. Apart from what strikes many to be the antagonization and belittlement of the Middle East, and its peoples and cultures, the game employs stereotypical accents in broken english for the Chinese and GLA units. In addition to this, the 'benevolent' US armies are depicted as being wholley white, with no African-American, Latino-American, Arab-American, or any other visible minority units, which of course is untrue to the US military.

Rjm656s 06:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Utter bs. You were right to remove it. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 15:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an undertone to the game, as it is overly simplistic to say that for example insurgents in Iraq are terrorists because they kill civilians when they attack americans, but when americans kill civilians that recieves another name instead of terrorism (fighting for their freedom perhaps?). Facts such as those are delicate or complicated, and above all things not "utter bs" as one user so elegantly put it. But, besides all that, you were right to remove it for one reasson, and that is: Its just a game, period. In a lot of ways the game does nothing but doing what is the standard west view on these issues, and if in the game all american troops are white, maybe its because more than half of the population of the U.S. happends to be white (i believe its around the 70%, i havent checked in a while).

Or perhaps all the caracters are white because its a programming headache to randomize colours of the caracters in the game. Drew1369 20:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that Generals doesn't make an effort to be on-target with modern reality, mainly because its a Command and Conquer game. For chrissakes, the other games in the series included a madman out to conquer the world through James Bond-tier suppervillainy, Joseph Stalin invading Europe in an alternate timeline, the Soviet Union invading the United States in that same alternate timeline(complete with psychic commandoes, Zepplins, rocket-pack troopers, and weather control machines), and mecha, cyborgs, and mutants fighting in a futuristic apocalyptic wasteland. Campiness is not just omnipresent, its a given. C&C is comic-book RTS; just because it happens to cleave a little closer to modern reality doesn't change that. Peptuck 09:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Unsourced Gibberish

Excised the whole bit about "racism," due to the fact that in it's current form, it was little more than the writer's opinion. Also, the part about the United States' portrayed benevolence as "depart[ing] from reality" is such an egregious POV violation that I can't believe the author included it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DrZin (talk • contribs)

I agree with this. It seems to to be on the edge of gibberish, and is all POV. I have the game, and China is not represented in any such way, its how the player plays the game, not to mention the GLA is actually a terrorist faction, and not just generic Islamic civilians the other forces have assumed to be terrorists. I suggest revising this section, or even removing it, as some of the things stated are not true at all. From the above discussion, it seems others are thinking the same. Born Acorn 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

USA/China

Am I going insane or did the paragraph stating that China is overpowered say that America was overpowered a few weeks ago? -Rim-Fire 20:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. That's why I placed the "unverified" tag – the whole paragraph's got to be rewritten using official sources. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 16:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Info that should be either checked or deleted

"the Generals series, interestingly enough, is banned in China" (source needed)

"the unique units for each faction (USA:Colonel Burton, China:Black Lotus, GLA:Jarmen Kell) resemble Warcraft III's Heroes" (They resemble the heroes from C&C 2, but thats just my opinnion on it)

" Many various players even go as far as to call it "Age of Generals"" (source for this, who are these "many various players")

"Military buffs in America also criticize the Zero Hour expansion for painting a bleak picture for the US's outcome in the war on terror as China emerges the true victor in the end (after the US recieves a major setback at the hands of the al-Qaida-like GLA" (source for it or erase it, either way, isnt this a spoiler?)

"most players feel China and the USA are too strong and are too difficult to play against." (In a poll done at Westwood, GLA was second place, with America on the first place and China on third. Either way, is there a source for this?, a forum perhaps) (I am a pro at generals and feel that the "terrorists" or "GLA" will be the victor and that USA and China take to long to win in the game. Perhaps potraying that USA and china will be slow to react if a terrorist attack happend. It also potrays that are Weapons of "Mass Destruction" couldnt take out a Terrorist command center which in real life a nuclear attack would wipe the target area clean. I say if u put these so called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Like a Nuke, S.C.U.D Launcher and a Particle cannon in a video game make them extremley hard to get and Expensive as hell to make the player have a sense of reality in th war on terror.

--75.4.155.142 02:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Your Friend,

                   -Ryan D

"Due to this some fans feel that anyone who uses China (and some factions of the USA, mainly Superweapon general) as their choice of team are considered to be lacking in skill and will generally be given the title of 'n00b'." (how ansgty, come on now, wheres the source for that one?)

"Black Lotus is overly strong compared to the GLA's Jarmen Kell and USA's Col. Burton" (its funny, all this time i had read that Burton was overpowered)

"Generals is a well known testing bed for gamers wishing to judge their ability level. Many pro players are capable of destroying his/her opponent in a matter of minutes, whereas unskilled players would take a considerable amount of time to win, if not utterly destroyed first." (This paragraph makes no sense, or makes little importance whatsoever)

"One of the main goals of Generals is balancing, from the beginning of the game to advanced stages; every side has enough power to survive. This is unlike Red Alert 2" (conflicts with the statement above that says that the game is unbalanced, make up your mind here, is either balanced or not)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.212.183 (talk • contribs)

Any unsourced info may be challenged and deleted at any time. Feel free to purge. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So far i looked for the banning in China, and found several magazines articles about, as well as contradictory FAQs from the game written by none other than chinese people (who dont appear to be from Taiwain, Hong Kong perhaps?), its hard to tell, but they all seem to be written from the PRC (half of the articles were written by chineses in www.Gamefaqs.com). Ive also found a lot of forum rant about it, mainly about why it was banned, and the speculation goes from the absurd (such as that it was to keep the population mind controled, as C&C Generals had internet access to the "outside world", wich is of course rubbish, as China is one of the leading countries in internet usage today, they even have ther own Google), passing through chinese stereotypes and finnally to the Tiannemen Square nuclear attack. The chinese goverment can make sometimes unsual uses of censorship, for example to ask the Rolling Stones to not sing "Brown Sugar" at their concert (a list of 5 songs that were banned from playing). Why would Brown Sugar be there?, who knows, same thing with Generals.

'"Military buffs in America also criticize the Zero Hour expansion for painting a bleak picture for the US's outcome in the war on terror as China emerges the true victor in the end (after the US recieves a major setback at the hands of the al-Qaida-like GLA" (source for it or erase it, either way, isnt this a spoiler?)' In the GLA campaign you destroy a major US base in Europe and make the US political leaders withdraw its remaining forces to "protect the homeland". I think this sentence should be rewritten.

The author of that FAQ is from Hong Kong, as is statments on the Hong Kong mission walkthrough state. Isn't Hong Kong exempt from some of the Chineese laws? OAM 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Im not entirely sure, but Hong Kong is part of China as a whole.

Major inconvenience

Gee, I sure wish there was a link to a page showing all of the units in the game. What? There was? Now, who would be so ignorant as to delete this useful page? Russian F 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted under the justification of fancruft or some such. CABAL 12:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, we wouldn't be able to find all of the units in order to make another list. Star Wars Man 8:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, there are some small, useless articles about in-game units around, but no one has deleted them so far. Someone should do it. Either that, or make another big list with every unit in the game.

New edit

I just added a new section to the article. If you don't think it belongs, let me know why and what I can do to improve – this is the first time I've added to an article. Thanks in advance : ) Teh Janitor 06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ive also thought of adding a similar section to it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.167.137 (talk • contribs)

I am sorry, but this is Original research. All new additions must have a source. On the other hand, thank you for contributing! Please continue being bold in adding to articles. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 15:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how its original research?, help us improve it or at least let us know why you think it qualifies as original research. In any case, here are the sources for what ive written:[1] and [2]. The first one is a faq that studies the units and checks for its real life equivalents while the second is an article that goes through the supposed technology that General uses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.167.138 (talk • contribs)

Ah, I see. Excellent! I thought you came up with it on your own. Original research is just that – something that doesn't have a source other than the person who put it in the article. No problem, then. I actually like the section otherwise. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 17:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, read them both and see what you can add (or remove).

Ok, i call for the complete removal of the "accuracy of weapons" section, it is totally irrelevent to the Game, since 1) Generals does not strive to be a realistic and modern day warfare game in terms of specific terms and unit designs, so i don't see the point in comparing the Game to a realistic and modern norm (Generals itself obviously INTENDS to be near-futuristic)We might as well add a section on "weapons accuracy" for all the Command and Conquer and Red Alert Series, which would be ridiculous. 2) If you chose to keep this section, then why not consider the fact that the entire GLA faction is fictitious? Along with more than half of all the weapons in every faction's arsenal. The person who wrote this section clearly does not understand that in order to maintain a balanced RTS gameplay which is at the same time interesting, Game makers must make some concessions from reality (one example being how GLA has tanks.. well obvoiusly, if GLA didn't have some degree of symmetricity with the other factions, it would either have to be made overpowered or too underpowered. In addition to this the section is very poorly written and if you actually decide to keep it i'd advice making a load of fixes. - User:SirCollin

Its an article of interest, nothing more (it even ends with the line "worth nothing is that, all in all, Generals is just a game"). Generals separates from the other C&C games for being mainly based on reality than anything else: It uses realistic weaponry that is used today, it uses 3 factions that are based on real life instead of fiction, with GLA being an al-qaeda kind of army mixed with Saddam's republican army. And While other C&C games had things like cyborgs or mind control, Generals doesnt go as over the top as that, it always keeps it at a realistic level that makes the game interesting from other C&C games, you couldnt possibly write the same article for Tiberian Sun or Red Alert (there's not one unit in both games that has a real life counterpart), yet here we have assembled a pretty good article, wich is far from being completed but its a start (we are not saying that Generals is a bad game just because its not "accurate"). If you think that is very poorly written, then why dont you help us with it?, angsty criticism is really a pain to answer, specially when the ones who gives the criticism doesnt know what constructive criticism is.

Well then, why does it say that there were "mistakes" made in the game? Mistakes implies that Generals is supposed to live up to some ultra realistic modern day expectation. IF you want to argue down this line (where you are saying the section is only added for "interest"), you should probably delete mentions of "mistakes" and change the whole section to something along the lines of "parallels with modern day military" isntead of "realities and INNACURACIES"

The section is fine and has encyclopedic value, Readers can intuitively interpret 'mistakes' as meaning 'inaccuracies compared to reality'. Of course, it would be more correct to describe it as such in the article – I'd have no qualms with a title change. Me, I don't think any tweaks are genuinely needed, and certainly not deletion. I agree also with the comments on 'contructive criticism' (of which, to be fair, the above entry is an example) and the fact that other C&C games are much more fantastical and rarely use RL units at all, and as such are unsuitable for RL comparisons.

Generals bills itself as a game that involves "modern warfare." As such, its strives to depict modern warfare in an RTS setting, at least to some degree. In such a case, it is helpful to point out that a number of elements within the game are not perfectly realistic. However, I do vote for a bit of slimming down of the section, as it contains a lot of extraneous information. Peptuck 09:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't realistic...

[3] shows it...in a humorous(Sort of) way...Your wounds don't get healed by hearing sounds...You should only fire at the ROF of the weapon!Not the user!(Veterancy...)Now,best example is the Patriotic(Expansion...:P)tank hunter...Now we include in the speaker,with the upgrade, and then make it elite,you WILL see that it is super fast...Now use a normal tank hunter without anything,no bonus etc...There is a difference!This game is Fictional.Also,comparison is better than "Mistakes",it is saying that chinese should just fire its missiles as they are super powerful in RL and they will decimate GLA AND USA together...

Particle Cannon

The PCU gets around the space-based WMD restrictions by hosting a satellite in space. The actual weapon is terrestrial, but the mirror allows you to reflect and control the beam. Instr 08:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide a source for that (God, people – sources!!!), feel free to remove the bit about the PC yourself. OIr simply post the source here and somebody else will do it. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 16:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Page 21 of the C&C generals manual: "the Particle Cannon fires a focused particle beam off an orbiting mirror and onto enemy targets at any distance from the source." Peptuck 17:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I took another look at the Outer Space Treaty and here is the relevant text:

"States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;

the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes"

Does placing a giant mirror to reflect death-rays upon the heads of your enemies consitute a non-peaceful purpose? Despite the way this sounds, I'm actually asking... --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 18:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Particle Cannon itself isn't a weapon of mass destruction per se; its a tightly focused beam of doom that cuts a comparatively small swath of precision destruction through the enemy. Compared with the SCUD Storm or Nuclear Missile, its not that much of a widespread mass-destruction weapon. I, personally, wouldn't count it as a weapon of mass destruction, and thus it wouldn't violate the Outer Space Treaty....much. Peptuck 05:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Should the Particle Cannon be mentioned in the Comparisons to Real-Life Weaponry section? --63.65.45.102 18:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why not. So long as it's filled in by someone with some knowledge on the subject! Makron1n 19:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you all think that a particle cannon can be controlled by a mirror? And if how can it go as that the beam apears verticaly on the screen in the game so that if it is controlled by an mirror it would apear diagonaly.

 A system of highly developed mirrors can control the beam and sending 2 satalite mirrors in to space will send it down vertically look. Think be4 u speak =P
Mirror >  |/-----\| <mirror
Beam       | ^   | <Reflected beam
           | B   |
             o
             u
             n
             c
             e    off

Your friend
      -Ryan D

guest 11:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyone!This is a FICTIONAL GAME!It is possible to direct a vertical particle beam by using TWO(It will go up,turn 90 degrees,turn another 90 degrees and scorch the ground) mirrors...Why do they say stuff like using 1 mirror is unknown,also the beam is movable...Well,lets all assume there is such technology in that time...(Moving mirrors in space!:P)By the way...Treaty?This is a game,therefore shouldn't rely TOO much on real life... --121.7.24.251 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Accelerated subatomic particles are not visible light. You can't reflect them using a mirror. I imagine they use some sort of cyclotron on the satellite to send the beam back down. - KingRaptor 04:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is highly contraversal that a particle cannon could be devastating through the influence of the atmosphere.Otherwise it is the same in tiberian series even in C&C3.If the ion cannon shoots or can shoot every place in the world then it would appear diagonally in some cases but again it is not programed to be realistic.82.114.81.145 15:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong..........

"In reality, the MOAB is so large it can only be deployed from cargo planes, like the C-130 Hercules, though the B-2 Spirit shown deploying the bomb itself is vastly oversized compared to the real bomber."

In the game the Fuel Air Bomb is not deployed by a B-2 Stealth Bomber, but by the much larger B-52 Stratofortress which is large enough to carry a Fuel Air Bomb like the BLU-82. It is obviously a B-52 because of the 2 distinct twin jet engines mounted on each wing.

It even states in the manual:

USA 5 Star Generals Abilities

Fuel Air Bomb Ability to call in a Fuel Air Bomb strike. Delivered by a B-52 to a selected target. Deployed from the Command Center.

I scan in the manual and upload an image if you really want more proof but anyone's that played the game should remember or recognize that it is a B-52 bomber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booboo12 (talk • contribs)

Ah, reread what you quoted. MOAB. Not Fuel Air Bomb. The B-52 deploys the Fuel Air Bomb, but a B-2 Spirit deploys the MOAB. :P Peptuck 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

He's right, that seems strange that the B-52 deploys one, while a much smaller craft deploys a much larger weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boadrummer (talk • contribs)

I have never seen a MOAB or a Spirit in the game. Unless they are in Zero Hour, where are they? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.141.13.187 (talk) 19:32:51, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Its in Zero Hour. Peptuck 20:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Link Spam

Looking through the links in the article, it looks clear to me that we are reaching the Spam Event Horizon. I propose we clear out all these self-promoting links to mod and fan sites so that we can get back to just links relevant to the actual game, before things go too far. Opinions? The Kinslayer 08:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange ... what is the specification follow here to add the new made mods ... what make mod deserve to be put here ... del them all or leave them all --Pinkdolphin101 10:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I intentionally left the mods because they are included in a specific section, rather than tacked to the bottom of the article, and I can't check them out in work to see if they are notable enough to be included in the article, but I do think some mods should be left there, but only the most notable ones, as Wiki is not a repository of links or an online directory. The Kinslayer 10:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mac publisher

This article says the Macintosh version was published by MacSoft, but from what I can tell, this may be false. I cannot find any mention of this title on MacSoft's website. However, it does appear on Aspyr's site, suggesting that Aspyr is the publisher, not MacSoft. I would just change the article myself, but I'm not 100% sure -- maybe MacSoft was the original publisher and Aspyr publishes the newer "deluxe" edition? I don't know. --Miken2005 03:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Crusader Tank

In the article, the Crusader is said to be based off the German Leapord 2, however, it bears little to no resemblence to this tank, and does not follow the conventions of the other units in the game having some origin in their country of representation (however fictious). It is much more likely the Crusader is based off the M1A2 main battle tank of the US Armed Forces.

M1A2

The Crusader has next to no resemblance to the Abrams either, and the Leopard heritage is referenced within the game files (the identifying tag for the unit portrait reads SACLeopard) You're right about the limited resemblance though – I've tweaked the text. - KingRaptor 08:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a modification for this game that shows the M1A2 Abraham as an almost indistructable unit equiped with a powerful cannon and machine gun for infantry. Although really powerful it almost doesnt look anything like the Crusader yet resembles itself as showed in pictures.

              Your Friend,
                    -Ryan D

Well to me it seems that the Crusader resembles one of the Challenger tanks, while the Paladin resembles the Abrams. Nohomers48 (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

General Rewrite

Pun not intended. I looked back through this article and holy crap, its gone nuts. Gameplay has been brutally slashed by a wikichainsaw when that's one of the most important things in a gaming article! The "Comparasions" section outweighs the entirety of the rest of the article? Controversy split iinto three different sections and completely seperate from Reception?

I am not going to sit by and stare at this trainwreck of what was once a good, solid and informative article. I'm fixing this thing right the heck now, starting with a consolidation of the controversy sections, a restoration of the Gameplay section, and a friggin' massive cutback on the comparisons with modern weapons. We do not need to list every single minor difference between real-world and in-game weapons! Peptuck 06:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I've done some work on the article now; comparisons have been cut back, stuff has been consolidated, and gameplay has been restored to something resembling a respectable video game article. Still needs a litte work, but its looking a lot better, and a whole lot more organized. Peptuck 08:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Its quite a pity you erased most of the comparissons, it was the most interesting part of the article (even though some/most of it was unsourced). But then again considering how most of that section is pure trivia, a complete rewrite of it should be in order, the whole section just comes from comparissons that fans had made of the game to real life weaponry in webpages such as planetcnc.com and gamefaqs.com, nothing else. Somewhere along the way users of wikipedia started to write their own comparisson article within the article (and that sayd section), which sadly still endures on the article as original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.2.138 (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

About the Paladin and real life

I think the M109 howitzer should be mentioned as well, as in some ways the ingame tank bears more resemblance to it than to the Abrams. For example, the turret is mounted all the way back on the hull, unlike the Abrams. - KingRaptor 06:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

mao's portrait is missing

in the cinematics before the first chinese mission, mao's portrait is missing from tiananmen, could this be one of the reasons the game was banned in china? Theregisteredone 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It would actually surprise you the small number of Mao paintings in Chinese cities, Beijing having very few of them. Mao is remembered, but it does not share the same cult of personality as Stalin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.2.138 (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tomahawk Error

Under Compariusons to real-life weaponry, it says that the ground based Tomahawk is not an existing weapon. Since it is a ground based version of the Tomahawk, shouldn't there be a mention of the Ground Launched Cruise Missile in the article?70.57.163.217 21:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of original research and unverified materal

This is a very personal reflection. For one, the US does not have the slowest resource gathering ability, it uses helicopters which over long distances easily out runs the Chinese trucks or the slow GLA workers (even with shoes). So this statement:

The USA has a major disadvantage, however, in that it has the slowest resource gathering in the game

So this needs to be changed.

Tourskin 03:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If your supply centers aren't right next to the depots, as the internet meme goes: ur doin it wrong. (In case you're confused – the statement refers to how many supplies you can collect in a given amount of time, not how fast the supply gatherers actually move). - KingRaptor 07:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiple chinooks can't harvest the same source simultaniosly, workers and trucks can. --Armanalp 12:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, only one Chinook can drop off resources at the same time. That is why it is the slowest resource gathering device in the game. 18:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats actually a common misconception. USA actually has the fastest economy in the game running off 2 chinooks right next to the supplies (GLA has the slowest). You often can't tell however because USA's units are expensive and the chinooks are the easiest harvesters to harass. But left alone, they harvest faster than trucks and workers.24.167.151.237 04:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that two Chinooks on a single resource pile is all you can use; anything more simply results in the Chinooks getting in each other's way. A major problem with the Chinook is that only one Chinook can access a supply pile or supply depot at a time. Supply Trucks and Workers can strip-mine a single pile very quickly by having lots of them hitting the same pile at once, and can drop their supplies off at the same time and much more quickly. They can access the pile at the same time and access a depot at the same time, which the Chinooks can't do. This gives China and the GLA an advantage in that they can speed up how fast they gather resources by building extra supply trucks or workers. Peptuck 05:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually China has the same harvesting limitations as USA: One truck can pick up, one can drop off at a time. The maximum number of harvesters per pile for both USA and China is two. GLA can squeeze about 7 workers between an ideally placed depot and pile, more than that causes traffic problems and the harvesting rate is negligibly increased and not worth the investment. This puts a limit on how fast all factions can harvest, which is why you CAN'T strip mine in Generals (unlike CNC3). Now, assuming that all depots are ideally placed, you will find that the income is USA>China>GLA. Not by a huge difference, and its cancelled by unit costs and harrassment, but its there. Here are a couple links that show this:

http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=699 (GLA)

http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=115290 (China and USA)

24.167.151.237 20:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The second link shows that with two trucks China can expect to collect almost as fast, or slightly faster, as USA with two Chinooks. - KingRaptor 00:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement

"China has a major disadvantage in that its army is slow to move, despite its firepower."

What does that mean? That because the China faction has a tendency towards heavy firepower, therefore it should be fast, but it isn't? That's what the sentence appears to mean. I think whoever put that in meant to say something like

China has a major disadvantage: its ground forces are generally slower-moving than that of the other two factions, although this disadvantage is to a certain degree offset by China's heavier firepower.

I will edit it to read the above. If anyone has objections to this, please comment with reasons...

PS I couldn't decide how much China's heavy firepower makes up for the lack of speed, so feel free to evaluate that.

WikiReaderer 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Where EA took their imagery from

Many of EA's imagery were not self-made/photoshopped, but rather from original photos:

• China offboard artillery: Image:Artilleryshellhurtles.jpg
• China nuclear cannon: Image:Upshot-Knothole GRABLE.jpg (GRABLE US Test)
• China nuke: Image:Nuclear fireball.jpg (BADGER US Test)
• GLA black market nuke: CNN

Items that were original art: (incomplete)

• China Dozer
• China EMP
• Tomahawk
• All GLA units/structures
• Particle Cannon

Benlisquare 06:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Those images are in the public domain, so using them is not stealing. An interesting note, anyway. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

comparisons to real-life

no mentions of M1097 Avengers? Mallerd (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of Modern Artillery

"Equally, the range and effects of China's artillery ability are somewhat dubious, with artillery shells seemingly capable of being propelled far across the map with remarkable accuracy."

Ignoring for the moment the disproportionate map-tile to square mile ratio common to most RTS games, modern artillery is remarkably accurate. The game's portrayal of long range artillery strikes (if, indeed, the distances in-game could be called long) shouldn't seem at all remarkable or dubious. More to the point, the citation/reference itself is questionable, and looks more impressive than it is. Isn't that a tabletop game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.150.233 (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CCGenerals.jpg

File:CCGenerals.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging of Command & Conquer: Generals series content into this article

I've added a tag to propose that all content of the Command & Conquer: Generals series article be merged into this article, and that the Generals series article subsequently be deleted. A single title and its expansion pack frankly does not justify the label of "series" but also, and perhaps most importantly, these two pages are essentially about the exact same subject and have the same scope. This renders the Generals series article redundant by its very nature. (As well as slightly misinformative, since there is but a single title and its expansion pack and not a "series" to speak of in the first place.)

According to standing Wikipedia merging policy, the above rationale is sufficient grounds to suggest and complete a merger. I'm foreseeing an argument being given against this merger because of The First Decade bonus DVD, which mentioned that EA specifically regards the C&C franchise as three separate universes. However, be well aware that this claim of three distinct universes no longer holds any relevance at present day, as the development team responsible for this DVD has since been disbanded and replaced by the current EALA team, which has been actively revising that official stance shown on the The First Decade DVD. (I.e.: The much more recent and official "Kane's Dossier" document, which refers to Kane's apperances in Red Alert, directly hinting at a connection between the Tiberian and RA storylines.) As such, I believe there should be no reason for us to wait in completing this merger in the near future. Feel free to comment on this if you want to. Now's the time. Kalamrir (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and adding a brief summary of Zero Hour to this article along with a link to ZH's own article – in the same way the Tiberium Wars article already does with Kane's Wrath – should be done very easily. In fact, it's just a matter of importing it straight from the Generals series article. Kalamrir (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there appear to be no objections to this proposal, I will complete a selective paste merger of the Command & Conquer: Generals series and Command & Conquer: Generals articles. Kalamrir (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of real life military units to in-game units.

I do not feel that the comparison is necessary as currently, there is no base to support the written statement that the portrayed Battlemasters are Type 80 or that Troop Crawlers are BTR-80s. Even if this statement can be backed with original research, I believe that the Battlemaster is a completely different tank and not the Type 80, if any sort of comparison must be made at all. -116.48.91.11 (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Generals: Still Supported?

I am thinking about getting it, and I wonder if the the online gameplay is still being played/used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.213.80.54 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is still used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.201.232 (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

expertise

I am an expert in Command and Conquer Generals. If you need improvements on this article, I will love to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazymonkey1123 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

what is your name on generals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.130.72 (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Generals takes place in 2013 – Punchymonkey0009 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,674 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (→Plot: Fixed typo) (undo | thank) (Tag: Mobile app edit)

13:06, 8 September 2016 Widr (talk | contribs) blocked Punchymonkey0009 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)

Peace, peace at last. IVORK _Discuss 05:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The game is missing from EA page

Does anyone knows why EA did stop to sell it? It worth a section in the main article? Thank you. 177.89.192.23 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)