Jump to content

Talk:Supreme Commander (video game)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Galactic Colossus?

Just a little thing. It says, "It is, however, extremely slow and lacks any anti-aircraft capabilities". I'm fairly sure it can use its gravity claw to destroy aircraft. Wasn't a hundred percent sure so i haven't changed it yet. Could someone find out please? --Kerhyt 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

it can't nor can it attack in the water; i should know, I had to take one out with three soul rippers yesterday.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The gravity claw doesn't work on experimental units. Are you sure that the gravity claw isn't capable of taking out standard air units? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikedep333 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
I am 100% sure that it cannot defend itself against aircraft. I have repeatedly taken out GCs with T2 gunships, and I only take losses when the enemy provides air cover for the thing. Pdboddy 14:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Follow this link: http://147.28.0.58/supcom/unit_details/r3217/ual0401. Any weapons that can target air units are listed as anti-air. Note that all of the weapons on the GC are listed as experimental, which target ground units only. Pdboddy 14:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks then, my mistake. Supreme Commander can get a tad confusing at times what with hundreds of units on the screen at one time. --Kerhyt 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Advertising

Please do not delete this immediately. Has anyone else noticed how suspicious it is that supreme commander has been getting very few ad placements? I will admit that there have been a good deal of previews (some of which could arguably be adverstising), but I have seen ZERO ads on gaming sites, in advertising windows on other sites, on billboards, in commercials, in the subways, or basically anywhere. Does anyone else think that this is kind of weird for such a highly polished game as this? Why do most RTS people I know not even know that much about this, or even when it is coming out? I think the alck of advertising support deserves to be mentioned, although there are no particular sources for it.

There have been ads on Fileplanet. 12Shark 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think lack of advertising is really an issue. I think Chris Taylor and GasPowered Games may be avoiding hyping the game much before it's release, since it's been a long time in coming. Compare this to Duke Nukem Forever, for instance. And, there has been some advertising, though it's in the form of previews and reviews in various gaming magazines and on gaming websites like Gamespy. Not sure if this should be noted or not, I'd vote no. Pdboddy 18:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There are ads now appearing in the March issues of gaming magazines. Pdboddy 14:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Simulation

I edited the article to add a section on unit balance. The main point of it being to highlight the fact that, as mentioned on GameSpy, Supreme Commander will have Newtonian physics, just like Total Annihilation. This adds another layer of strategy to the game as speed and 3D positionof a unit as well as surrounding terain become factors in the decision making process. Unfortunately, I do not write very well. I wrote the section as a starting point. I hope others with more talent will mercilessly edit it into something more comprehensive and to the point. -HUges84 5 September 2005

Second that it needs a rewrite. I think the point is that this enables stuff like artillery shots arcing over hills where other weapons can't, and the lines of bombs dropped by the bombers curving and being influenced by centrifugal force if you turn them while bombing. Neat features of TA. But, here in 2006 this isn't a big deal in an RTS, probably doesn't even deserve mention. -Anon

You think it doesn't? I was under the impression that most RTS games are calculated RPG-style with predefined damage values, accuracy rates, the possibility of a "critical hit," etc. TA was the first to use Newtonian physics to resolve battles, I think, but that hasn't become a genre convention since then, has it? MRig 17:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Up until recently, that is correct. But with the introduction of Total Annihilation and faster processors, most games use Newtonian Physics now. So, while TA was the first to effectively use it, it is very common place now. I would have to agree with the idea that it doesn't deserve mention, unless it is doing something radically new, which as far as I know, it isn't. -Hairchrm 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the point is that Supcom will have better Newtonian physics. TA cheated on many things due to limited CPU power, a lot of hit detection was done crudely. cf The Pelican Bug, where the Pelican's waterline attribute was set wrong which caused nearly all missiles fired at it while it was on the water to crash into the water before hitting the unit. There were also many weapon-specific resistances which artificially made some units stronger or weaker in specific balance-critical situations. cf the Core Leveler tank vs the Arm Flash tank. The Leveler was designed specifically to counter Flashes, but it wasn't significantly more effective vs other units. Supposedly Supcom will do away with a lot of the custom balance "tweaking" and replace it with real simulation. Recon_777 November 24, 2006

Vaporware?

This sounded more like an ad than a Wikipedia article. It should be rewritten, but I'll leave that for when it's not vaporware. Tzarius 3 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

While the original text sounded ad-ish, most of it's been rewritten to conform with wiki-standards. --BradBeattie 15:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Fan sites

How many fan sites need to be listed here? As news begins to trickle, I'm sure we'll have dozens more coming. The last edit of the page is by an anonymous user who put a fan site link in. Should we restrict fan sites to the discussion page? --BradBeattie 4 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

Well, usually there are one or two fansites that have pretty much every information needed, and we should only link to them. But as the game isn't even out, we can't yet decide which sites will be the big ones and which will be forgotten, so lets keep them for a while IMHO. --Conti|✉ July 4, 2005 18:05 (UTC)

At the moment, it looks like the list'll consist of

  • Official Web Site
  • GameSpy - A set of articles entiteld Supreme Commander: First Online Preview
  • Planet Annihilation.com - Large site covering both Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander

All of the others look extraneous. --BradBeattie 8 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)

At least one of the websites is the 'officially' sanctioned Supreme Commander spinoff from the Total Annihilation community. I'm not sure which one, I think Supreme Commander HQ. --TheDeadlyShoe
There are a number of sites listed on GPG [1]. None of them seem to be given any special preference. Instead of every new fansite coming here and putting their page on the article, let's just link to the fan site page on GPG and be done with it. --BradBeattie 20:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the fan sites that have no unique information here:

They currently just copy information that already exists on the other listed sites. If they end up having notable information, we should probably move them back. --BradBeattie 15:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Updated: PlanetAnnihilation is defunct, and SupComU has moved to the prime spot. Editing page to reflect that. 129.21.42.94 16:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cover pictures?

Thought maybe this could be used rather than the current PCGamer cover pic. This is cropped from the wallpapers of the official website, and definitely looks like box art. --TheDeadlyShoe

Why not use both? --BradBeattie 13:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Because there IS no box art, not even now, a year later. 129.21.42.94 16:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, someone might want to update the picture to one with a 2007 date on it (help eliminate a bit of confusion ;)) I uploaded a picture here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sc_01.jpg but it might need to be corpped

*looks sheepish*

I'd like to apologize for publishing the original article in an inappropriate writing style. I did so soon after reading the article in PC Gamer and I am a huge fan of Chris Taylor, so I was a bit overexcited. I revisited this page and looked at your comments and, upon re-reading the original version I agree that is was too much like an ad. I'll wait a bit next time :) Taurrandir 22:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I think most people watching this page would fall into the "looking forward to the game" category. Besides, the article has been reworked, so no harm done. --BradBeattie 22:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Unit Scale section fixed

The following section has been editted as newer information on the game has become available: Unit scale Unlike other RTS games, where units must be sized to fit reasonably on the screen, the zoom range in Supreme Commander will allow for diversity in unit size. Previews have confirmed that there are units so large that they crush smaller units as they travel. The scale is large enough that Supreme Commander will feature sea and air battles in addition to land battles, possibly to the extent of establishing bases in the ocean. However, because Supreme Commander focuses on having so many units, the visual quality of the units may suffer compared to contemporary RTS games. This is partially mitigated by using 2D backgrounds, as in Total Annihilation.

Timeline

Is it necessary to have the timeline in this article? While I share in the excitement over this game, I'd think it inappropriate to have a story timeline for every game with a backstory. Would anyone object if I removed it from the article? --BradBeattie 15:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the timeline as it doesn't seem to add anything to the article. --BradBeattie 21:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

article unfindable because of move and redirect of original

The move from Supreme Commander to Supreme Commander (video game) has made this article nigh unfindable. Supreme Commander is a hard redirect to Commander-in-Chief, with no mention of the game. A wikipedia search on "supreme commander" doesn't seem find the video game article, nor does a google search in wikipedia. To be honest, a disambiguation page on Supreme Commander seems a tad excessive to me. I'd suggest moving Supreme Commander (video game) back to Supreme Commander and maybe start it with a "For the military rank, see Commander-in-Chief"? Or would that be too presumptuous? (from what I gather from Wikipedia:Disambiguation, if you can reasonably expect that that the user is looking for the game when he goes to Supreme Commander, it's better to not disambiguate)--Codemonkey 15:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I just put a disambiguation page there. Seems the best way to resolve the conflict. Tzarius 08:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Looking at what links to Supreme Commander, that might indeed be a better idea. I'll clean the disambiguation page up a bit. Codemonkey 10:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Supreme Commander?

I suggest redirection to Supreme Commander since nothing on real world militaries or the military rank link there anymore.

Special Features seems like marketing Spam

I removed it, but it's back. There's clearly disgreement here. I'll leave it to someone else to resolve (remove it or clean it up perhaps).

I rewrote it, tell me what you think. Chris Taylor has added many new features to Supreme Commander not typically seen in traditional RTS games. First, there is resource management, which is simliar to Total Annihilation's Resource system. Instead of having the convential "harvesting" units seen in many RTS games, Supreme Commander utilizes mines and extractors which collect these resources, allowing said resources to be held indefintely, thus prolonging the length of the games. A second example of such new features present in Supreme Commander allowing base placement to have a beneficial effect upon research gathering. However, for those who dislike macro and prefer only the strategic combat elements of the game, there is a alternative, which allows them to build Base Commanders, thus allowing said Commanders to control the economic aspects of Supreme Commander. Within combat itself, the selling point of all RTS games, there are reported to be many new innovations present in Supreme Commander, ranging from sychronized unit assault to unique units allowing for versatile armies. Anouymous 02:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a nice improvement, but I don't think the information really adds anything to the article. --BradBeattie 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Meh, someone went ahead and deleted it already, making the point moot. Anouymous 02:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Information about the resource management (mines, extractors) and allowing base commanders to do some of the micromanagement warrants a mention in the article, and should not be deleted again. However the piece as it was the last time (using "Older edit" starting with current version), should not be in Wikipedia. In other words, re-add the information, but only after rewriting. Stripping it from typos and un-encyclopedic fanboy sentences like "Supreme Commander is to be the master of all new RTS games.", "Thus, there are a plethora brand new features that are sure to make any Gamer cry for joy.", "That's fine.", and "Brand new units will also appear to kick the butt of anyone who doesn't think you can do something.". Retodon8 18:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Half of the features described aren't even new. Take the original Dark Reign for instance; produced years ago at the same time as TA. It had options to slow the faster units in a group, to move waypoints around after they'd been set up (even load and save whole paths), inexhaustable resources, and dev tools shipped with the game. The article seems to claim they are new and special developments. They aren't. -Anon

You know what feature SC won't have? Autonomous exploration and skirmishing. In Dark Reign, you could tell units to go off and randomly explore the area, with either orders to engage, shoot at but ignore or run away. Really takes the advantage away from radar-invisible/cloaked units. Tzarius 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Til the game comes out, no one knows for certain which features will stay, which will be added, and which will hit the cutting room floor. Pdboddy 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That's because SC doesn't need Autonomous exploration. People just spam air units across the map until everything can be seen... Danorux 21:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Screen Captures

I found what appears to be a French gaming site that contains a lot of screen captures of the game. Has anyone seen this site or these pictures? http://www.jeux-strategie.com/Supreme_Commander_-_Captures_d_ecran.2015.0.html theboogeyman 16:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice find... I can't wait to start making units for this game like i did for Total Annihilation.. Fosnez 22:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Commander WIKI

I found a special Supreme Commander WIKI at this adress. Maybe it's worth linking? 137.226.77.2 08:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's already part of the fan-site list. No need to show favoritism. --BradBeattie 15:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Except that it's, um...A WIKI. Not a fansite. Not to mention it is maintained by menbers of every community, even though it is hosted by SupComU, the biggest fansite.129.21.42.94 16:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
but it's not a wiki, you can't edit the articles--142.177.158.6 18:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes you can. Qjuad 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Still some other fansites have a wiki too, so you'll have the same problem as with the fansite links... 62.238.15.174 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a part of the SupComU fansite. Adding it as a separate list will simply invite anger from competing fansites. -- 219.93.175.66 11:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fanboy X-ing

Uhh, some of this article was written in a blatant and laughably fanboyish manner, and I edited those parts out. My favorite was the ending sentence of the intro paragraph, which formerly read "...and is referred to as the spiritual successor to Taylor's 1997 RTS release Total Annihilation, which has been widely hailed as one of the great triumphs of the genre, except up to 80 percent more awesomer."

Also, is this true? A professional from the gaming business does not seem like the type who would use "l337zor": "In the article, Taylor claims that "almost all modern RTS games are nowhere near as 1337zor. In reality, they simply pit opponents against each other in resource wars, where the combatant with the most units wins"." Uncreative 07:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That stuff was just one guy having some fun. All that was needed was to revert this edit. SubSeven 17:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Formatting

just added a few various formattign edits as seems best organisationally to me... separate paragraphs on Aeon/UEF/Cybran so its easier to read, renamed Races to Factions, which seemed more appropriate.

Picture

Get a new picture [personal attack removed]!! It's not coming in 2006, it even says so at the top of the article!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.44.145 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 6 July 2006

Storyline

Added a storyline. it might be a bit to long if you guys want re-edit as long as it doesn't affect the whole concept. Also planning to revamp the factions and to add some of the characters --Mickey Ichiro

I wrote a condensed version of the storyline for an article here which could be used here if desired. It might need some small details added to it (such as a few years), but otherwise it should work and get the storyline across much more concisely. There are several places with the full storyline available; GPG has also been releasing slightly more in-depth race-specific stories on Gamespot (next month they'll cover Aeon). I think the full story should just be linked to somewhere, the official site being a good example. Gnomre 20:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Since I merely pulled two stories semi-verbatim and merged them into one with the intention of revising it later, I suggest you replace it with your story since I won't have the time to do the revising. --Mickey Ichiro
Im worried about copyright on the story section. Where did this text originate from? Googling a sample showed hits from places that I don't think sample from wikipedia. Dxco 05:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

IT"S GONEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

What happened to the Supcom Wiki? I noticed all it's info is gone. D-hyo 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been hacked. This people who this are such AssHoles. They done such hard work and this people go destroy their work. :( SkyWalker 19:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Beta + Leak

(yes, the beta is out. Yes it was for the select few. Yes gamespy is charging to download the beta. Yes there is a crack version of this out there...)

Yup. Should we document the existence of the beta crack? On the other hand, it'll be significant advertisement for the fact; on the other, it happened. --Kizor 15:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no "cracked version." People were simply downloading the beta from FilePlanet, which could only be found by searching for it on Google. They then either dropped in a modified file into the game's directory, or they edited the file themselves. All they did, actually, was enable the "LAN" and "Skirmish" buttons. Since the beta officially started, a new version of the client was released. I'm not sure if this new version is possible to crack just like the old one, but I know that the edited files for the old client will not work for the new one, because it's an older version. 209.7.171.2 16:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Another note about the BETA: I know the semi-public BETA was released on the 23rd, but there was also an earlier version released late-night of the 18th EST/possibly early early morning on the 19th. (I know this because I was a part of it; it was for community leaders from FanSites, along with game developers/producers only). I'd think this should be edited in, however I don't know how ot word it properly, so if someone else could do it? -Rob 03:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No More Beta Keys

It may be an open beta, but I've seen forum posts stating that there are no more beta keys to give out, and that there were only about 50,000 of them. I'll link it into the article later on this evening, if someone else hasn't already. Pdboddy 14:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"modern" CPU ??

can someone explain what a "modern" CPU is? are we talking about dual/multi core chips or what? seems abit unclear to me... --RaDeus 07:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This game is releasing somewhere on march or july 2007. I think by then Dual Core will be cheap. Intel is going to slash core 2 duo prices by next year somewhere on Q2 2007. Has Supreme Commander supports 64 bit and dual core. People need not worry what it runs. Dual Core and 64bit is the future. 32bit and single core is no more. :) --SkyWalker 07:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Will SupCom support 32-bit single core processors? The fast, 2 GHz processors? Or will it only be 64-bit and up? Also, will SupCom support quad cores? I know that it supports multi-threading, but is it only two threads (dual core) or will it really be multi-threaded, so that quad-cores can be maximized? -Hairchrm 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I've played the beta on an Athlon XP 2700+, so yes it supports single core 32-bit, but you'll want to upgrade, which I did (to a 3800+ X2). Chris mentioned that the game is really multi-threaded so it should use quad core if you have it. Danorux 01:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, Supreme Commander doesn't utilize dual core (it's somewhat of a bottleneck design), i've tried some benchmarking, and all I end up with is a rather low CPU usage around ~35%, i'm using an X1800 ATi GPU, so don't expect this game to run smoothly at 2.3Ghz with an AMD Athlon X2, it doesn't. I'ts bottlenecked by all kinds of syncronization problems. I'm really disapointed. John 08:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It does use 2 cores, the one doing rendering always runs at 100% while the second is doing other things like game simulation that always runs at 10 ticks per second so will use only as much cpu as currently required to run at 10 ticks. Ive seen several times both cores at 100% usage on my 2.2GHz dual-core opteron. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.14.155.195 (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
Okay, I've used a crack to play the game, since I did't want to have the DVD inserted all the time. And that's the last time I'm ever doing that, becuase that crack seemed to mess with the preformance in serious ways. The game plays just fine now. the utilization however is not always >50%, the game is actually a bit more cleaver, and if it doesn't need to calculate anything it wont, sort of like it can buffer frames, and then sleep. I've seen the utilization go between 35~75%, which is great, this should be noticable if you lower the game speed a lot, and play with the task manager in windowed mode. John 08:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, that isn't clever, it's normal practice and common sense. I don't really know of any game which calculates things when it doesn't need to. I guess you could argue having an FPS of 200 is a bit of a waste but I don't think that's what you meant Nil Einne 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

US BOX ART OUT

The U.S. box art for Supreme Commander is available on SupcomU.com D-hyo 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Box art looks so terrible. Look like the box art was done by someone who has no creative knowledge of art. It does not have supreme commander type of style. They just changed the background to red and everything else is intact with the former one. I hope they will change the boxart to something which can capture our imagination and look like something which was not done before. Come on GPG you can do better than this. This is after all most wanted,hyped,spread,realistic,waited,never seen, award winner, moddable and so on in RTS. --SkyWalker 07:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be Mars in the background. D-hyo 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Similarities to Spring.

There are a lot of similarities between Spring (computer game) and supreme commander. Which is not surprising because they are both unofficial sequels to Total Annihilation.

Things like Very flexible zooming, "ferry routes" aka "dropship loops" and Dual screen compatibility exist in spring,

Sentences such as "The biggest feature new to the RTS genre is the degree of zoom." and "Probably the 2nd biggest feature Supreme Commander introduces is automated transporting of ground units" are incorrect as they label Supreme Commander being more original than it is.

Recommend someone fixes the article to sound less like an advertisement.

211.28.237.112 17:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone verify Spring does in fact have above mentioned features? Preferably someone who can compare the two games directly.

User:Recon_777 Jan 2, 2007

Having played both the Supreme Commander Beta and Spring, I can confirm that Spring has had all these features for quite some time. Kujeger 22:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

However, many of the Spring features were copied after said features were revealed in supreme commander previews. There was an interview somewhere in which the spring devs stated that they did copy features from supcom. Cannot find a link right now. (Theregisteredone 00:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Actual or Speculative Release Dates?

The article now shows a specific date for release. Is this for real or speculative? Recon_777 January 12, 2007

Neither GPG nor THQ have given official release dates, but many game sites are saying it has a February release. Cosmos 23:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Many of the gaming sites such has ign,Gamespot,gamespy and other sites say the game will release on February 20 and 23. Even preorder date says its. So i think it must be actual date. --SkyWalker 07:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Release Date

Is anyone sure of the release date? D-hyo 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Wait on Feb 20 to see if the game gets released or not. That is the only way to confirm :) --SkyWalker 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
As of today (February 20th) it was not available at Walmart or Gamestop, but I placed $5 to reserve a copy and was told it is being released tomorrow, February 21st. Hydryad 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that it's not here in Canada till the 22--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I've been hearing or seeing at Future Shop. Should be on shelves on the 20th or the 21st. Pdboddy 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheats

I have the demo and have been playing it. I noticed a console.

I figured this may (or may not) be appropriate for wikipedia so I would just put it on the chat page and leave it to a more experienced user to post it or not post it on the main article. I'll just relate my experiences and let someone else write it if they decide it fits.

The demo version at least has cheats built into it. I opened a HalfLife 2-like console with the tilde key, and started typing letters. It has an autocomplete feature. Most console commands that are transparent cheats (such as NoDamage, AI_instantbuild, AI_freebuild, and the like) show a bit of text on the main screen saying "%playername% is trying to cheat!(next line)%playername%:NoDamage". One does work however. IIRC the command was "AI_enableAI" which seems to toggle all computer AI.

I hope someone can make this into a good section in this article... Jaqie Fox 13:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The cheat section can not be added in the article. It violates Wikipedia rules. Has Retail is approaching. Many of the cheat codes will appear on net. So they wont be use adding that here. --SkyWalker 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The cheats were present in the Beta version of the game also. Nothing new there, and as mentioned above, the cheats will appear on the web. Perhaps then, a link might be added, but it's not necessary to add the cheats to the wiki page. Pdboddy 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

French Manuals

I heard on forums (gpgnet forums) that there are French tech-trees and manuals in the Cybran and Aeon packages. Can anyone confirm this? --Çiddlər 12:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm it. I got mine yesterday through a pre-order and opened it to see an English instruction manual, but a French language SupCom poster, which includes a unit guide. I dunno what to do about it, to be honest. It would be cool if I could read french... - Garfunkle20 17:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You will get a free replacement for it. Can not believe so many things went wrong in packaging. Some of them got Aeon dvd which is packed with UEF cover and many errors. --SkyWalker 18:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The monkeylord

In the PC Gamer Podcast episode 61, during an interview, Chris Taylor himself stated that it was PC Gamer who inspired the name for the Monkeylord Spiderbot.

How could it be mistakenly attributed to PC Gamer when it was the designer of the game that stated it was them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.165.170.23 (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC).


Experimental Units

During the large section overhaul I did on this page, deleted a bit about experimental units. I saved it in my Sandbox 1 (see user page). It'll probably return in some form or another, possibly a page like "List of units in Supreme Commander". --User:Krator (t c) 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reception

"IGN rated Supreme Commander with the outstanding rating of 9/10.[2] Supreme Commander is the second highest rated recent real-time strategy game on that website, beaten only by Company of Heroes. "

Um... this isn't true. Just a quick search of a couple of RTS's that I can remember, StarCraft is rated at 9.5, above Company of Heroes's 9.4, and WarCraft III is tied at 9.0. So... um... yeah.

God damn, even C and C Generals is rated higher than Supreme Commander. -ChewyLSB 01:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed it - suppose I didn't go back far enough in the archives. --User:Krator (t c) 10:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I didn't want to remove it myself, wasn't sure if there was something I was missing... I didn't mean to come off as blazen if I did, haha. -ChewyLSB 16:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Superweapons

Can't we put something in about each faction's three superweapons? I can't remember all of them.

Unit lists generally don't belong in an article about a game. --User:Krator (t c) 10:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see --- True, but using the experimental units as an example of scale in other sections could be beneficial. Addseale2 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

By superweapons do you mean structures that deliver devastating attacks like the missile silo and weather control device from the game Red Alert 2? Or are you referring to the Level 4 experimental units like the Fatboy mobile factory or the Cybran Monkeylord? A short section on the experimental units would be handy. If there are superweapons in this game it wouldn't hurt to put that in as well. And would it be possible to put in some more screenshots? 203.27.231.250 02:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Factions in Supreme Commander main article (see link from Factions section) explains the experimental units. More screenshots are possible, but we need:
  • Screenshots not from a third party (not from IGN or GameSpy).
  • Screenshots that look good (SupCom running on a good PC - not mine).
  • Preferably, screenshots released by GPG under GNU or CC.
--User:Krator (t c) 06:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I put a brief description of each experimental unit into the factions section since the experimental units are one the unique aspects of the game.Dalek9 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Factions

On why I changed the section titles for the factions:

  • The Table of Contents should be kept to a manageable size. These were three easy subsections that could be removed from the table. When clicking on the 'factions' section in the ToC, one will see all three sections anyway.
  • Section titles generally shouldn't be linked. That's why I used the {{main}} template. For example, the section title "History" in Coffee isn't linked to History of coffee.

I made this exact same edit earlier, but in the past few days it went back to it's original state, hence this note here.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Content Re-write

I've been taking a look at this today, and rewording or redoing a few things. The past couple of editors had the general idea right in the factions section, but it didn't feel like it was said as well as it could have been. I hope these few minor improvements will do until someone more experienced has the time to go over it with a fine toothed comb.

Addseale2 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Trees are actually reclaimed for energy, not mass. Fix that if you have time pls.

They reward with both energy and mass.

Sequel? Add-on?

There is a lot of buzz going around on the net about this, especially if you take a look at the little cliffhangers at the end of each campaign. It seems to me the humans are about to go down hard if you know what I mean.

Hawaii goes first, the rest will follow... D-hyo 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just finished the Cybran Campaign. (Don't read the next line if you don't want spoilers.)

Seems the QAI of the Cybrans has something to do with it given Brackman's statement "My god.. what have you done?!" in response to QAI. - Luminar 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that both the add-on and sequel will focus around the arrival of a much-speculated but as-yet unnamed alien or pirate faction. Outside that, I see no reason to update the article, as that's...really all we know. 74.69.21.12 05:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-Context Sourcing

A simple read of Charles Oynett's review will tell you that what is listed in the article is -not- his stance on the game, seeing as how he said it was too complex, too time-consuming, and based on knowing exactly which unit does what himself. I'm not going to take it down, but I would indeed ask for a consensus among editors here.67.141.92.96 21:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

GamePro Aus review

This dispute (edit war) was discussed by myself and 68.230.100.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on our respective talk pages. I have copied the discussion here for convenience's sake. The signatures and headers of 68.230.100.197's responses are added by me, because he did not sign nor add a section header to his response on my talk page. I initiated a discussion after twice reverting his removal of the review.

User:Krator's parts are copied from User talk:68.230.100.197. 1, 2 and 3.

IP User talk:68.230.100.197's parts are copied from User talk:Krator. 1 and 2.

--User:Krator (t c) 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello 68.230.100.197, I've noticed that you have deleted or commented on the review by GamePro Australia present in the article Supreme Commander. The review is essential in that section, which aims to provide a non-biased view on how critics reviewed Supreme Commander. However, several allegations of a bribe by EA, or other fabrications of the review, are floating around the internet.

If such a thing is true, it should indeed be noted in the article, and/or the review should be removed. However, before taking action, a link from a reliable source is needed, which proves or even just states the allegations. If you can provide such a source, don't hesitate to state so on the talk page, or just edit the article. --User:Krator (t c) 22:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it really seems like a bunch of crap to me that just about every single videogame ever made will usually have at least one review like they yet you don't see them mentioned on the pages of other games.
I don't know if the bribe allegations are true, but even if they are I'm sure they are next to impossible to prove, however it is well known that GameProAus is in serious danger of being shut down and it is also known the both MetaCritic And GameRankings pulled the GameProAus review from their sites.
I really can't view this of anything short of the actions for someone who just has a deep hate for this game to insist this be in the Supreme Commander section when almost every single other review for Supreme Commander is extremely positive, if you want people to get a clear view of reality I suggest you either post quotes and the scores from all the other gaming sites or at least mention and link to metacritic/gamerankings which I tried to add showing that other then the GameProAus review the game has CLEARLY received overwhelmingly great reviews.
I find it funny you say you want to give people the whole picture yet with the GameProAus review you are doing the opposite, if someone came here and only here to view the opinion of the press on Supreme Commander you would be led to believe the games press is split half and half, half the people love it half, the people hate the game which is not the case.
Further more the review from GameProAus is factually incorrect and anyone who owns Supreme Commander knows this, They blatantly stated the game is a slide show on even super computers! Now while Supreme Commander has some high requirements what GameProAus said was a flat out lie and that is unarguable. If my crappy computer can run the game on low settings and run it silk smooth surely any super computer should, surely if what GameProAus said was the case you would have seen the game score extremely low across the board, the games online would further more be a ghost town if this is true! Perhaps they had a bug in there computer or something, but if that was the case that is even more reason why this blatant lie of a review should not be cited.
-- 68.230.100.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
First, to clear up some misconceptions, I have no 'deep hate' for the game, nor do I agree with GamePro Aus. I'm a fan of Supreme Commander, which is the reason I edit the article. However, I'm really cautious not to let the Wikipedia article seem like something written by a fan, but rather adhere to the neutral point of view. Some more responses to your points:
  • "I find it funny you say you want to give people the whole picture yet with the GameProAus review you are doing the opposite, if someone came here and only here to view the opinion of the press on Supreme Commander you would be led to believe the games press is split half and half, half the people love it half, the people hate the game which is not the case."
I'm afraid this is not my purpose - I plan to add a lot more reviews, but I've been busy with other things over the past weeks, which means I have little time to edit. I invite you to add more reviews, that'd be splendid. I know the press was very positive about SupCom, and the reception section should clearly reflect that. However, it would be quite bad to omit the GameProAus review, because it would seem rather biased to omit the single review that was negative about the game.
  • "Further more the review from GameProAus is factually incorrect and anyone who owns Supreme Commander knows this."
I own Supreme Commander, and I've been reading the forums and talking to people in game, and performance clearly is an issue. (read some threads in the official general discussion about it - can't cite those threads here though) GameProAus exaggerated it a lot, but the performance issues are not unheard of, nor does it run very smooth on the minimum system - a friend of mine just crashes every time we play on 20x20 with 1000 unit cap, though he meets the minimum reqs.
  • "it is also known the both MetaCritic And GameRankings pulled the GameProAus review from their sites."
Please give a link to an official statement where they say they're pulling the review from their sites - it would be great to cite that.!
I hope we can cooperate more on this article in the future, because it's good to have someone else with knowledge of the game around. --User:Krator (t c) 11:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Lmfao official statement? Your joking right? Those sites both add dozens upon dozens of reviews a day, do you really think they are going to make a quote "Official Statement" about the removal of 1 measly review?
You can contact Gamerankings via this email
lee@gamerankings.com
And you can contact MetaCritic via filling in the contact info on there contact page below
http://www.metacritic.com/about/contact.shtml
Both sites will confirm that the review WAS on there site and now it has been pulled from both of there sites.
If there word isn't good enough for you how about you at least leave that review off till you have time to post all the much more positive reviews along with it :)
Furthermore I really find the idea that the page will be viewed as the work of a fanboy if you merely leave out one review that has been stripped from the serious review collecting sites and has been widely accused as being complete bs! If you want a review that points out the game has high requirements you don't need to use the one that completely lies about them as just about every review for the game mentions the requirements! 68.230.100.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  1. Please sign your comments on my talk page with ~~~~.
  2. I cannot e-mail those sites, because Wikipedia has a policy against original research.
  3. Without references saying so, there is no reason to assume that GamePro Australia deliberately lied, just that they're exaggerating (like media often do). They do praise the game (the article quotes them saying the game is 'great') and address a point the other reviews I've read so far did not.
  4. You suggest using another review to address the performance instead. Please write on the article talk page which one you'd like to include instead, but don't just delete that review.
--User:Krator (t c) 13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion The review in question is verifiable and from a reliable source -- two very good reasons for including it. If you feel that the review is unbalanced or inaccurate, then find another reliable source that says so - otherwise, it is original research to say that the review is inaccurate. The other option would be to find another review that disagrees with the review in question, and provide both. For now, leave the review in the article. -- Pastordavid 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Third Opinion I was editing my opinion when Pastordavid added his, so I'll include mine too, though it's largely superfluous at this point.

I've read the discussion here so far and have performed some independent research. While the GamePro Australia review does stand apart from the other reviews, it is a legitimate review from a legitimate source. Further, GameWorld Network has reported that the creator of the bribe story has admitted to fabricating his accusation. If gamers have reported that performance is an issue with their machines, then it is absolutely fair to include a report from a journalistic source that reflects this criticism - it's certainly a better bet than using posts from Gas Powered's forums. If the developer later issues a patch that addresses these issues, add a note to this criticism that the issues have since been corrected.

As it stands, however, I believe that accuracy is best served by including the review. It is nicely balanced by other reviews in the body of the article that heap praise on the game. Snuppy 15:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the third opinions - I'll make a paragraph with that link as a reference soon, if no one does it before me of course. --User:Krator (t c) 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the anon has persisted in removing this paragraph, despite a total lack of support from other users. I've sprotected the page for a bit, as such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with you including a review that reflects the harsh system requirements, I do however have a MAJOR problem with you including the one review that blatantly LIES about the games performance! Just about every single dam Supreme Commander review mentions the game has high requirements, but hte GamePro Aus one is the only one the FLAT OUT LIES about them!

I quote them "And high-end killer systems aren't the cure either - no, we put this up against the kind of hardware most of you poor bastards will only ever dream about. We turned settings off, down, up; switched off background applications; even installed it on different PCs with different graphics cards. Anything to wake up from this horrible, horrible dream."


IF YOU READ THAT ABOVE THEY SUGGEST that even on a top of the line rig you CANNOT RUN THE GAME ON THE LOWEST SETTINGS! That is a blatant lie and EVERYONE who has a high end PC and the game knows that!

I can't believe CnC fanboys have obtained control of the Supreme Commander section of Wiki, just ridiculous, you don't see any mention of some of the horrendous scores hundreds of other games have received in their wiki section, no you just choose to display that 50 with all your might despite the fact it was pulled from both gameranking and metacritic, I don't see any other explanation other then your a blatant CnC fanboy who's trying to spread false information about Supreme Commander as if you own the game you literally know what they state is a damn lie.

If your were to listen to their review you would be left with the impression that if you put the game all on the lowest settings at 1024 by 768 you wouldn't have a playable frame rate on a Dual core AMD 4800x2 +X1900XTX + 2 GBs of ram which is a flat out lie, if you would even try to argue that point then, well to hell with you, your clearly are trying to spread false information about this game as that is exactly what their dam review suggests.


Wow, this is a stupid arguement. Why doesn't some one just add "The GameProAus review is rather controversial and many fans have acuused GamePro of lieng about the exetnt of the preformance problems etc etc..." Problem solved. 64.119.142.118 17:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


I don't know how anyone could actually say that the GamePro Aus review balances things with a straight face, what you guys are doing here is perhaps the most deceptive way possible to show just what the the presses thoughts on Supreme Commander are.

There are over 100 reviews out there for Supreme Commander and none of the other reviews say what the GamePro Aus one says, if you guys were really interested in presenting the OVERWHELMING opinion of the majority of reviewers out there you would list many more review, but because, at least to me you are trying to deceive everyone who reads the Supreme Commander section you opt to forget the other 100+ reviews that for the most part say nothing, but great things about the game. If this isn't biased then biased quite simply doesn't exist!

And acting as though no-one has anything bad to say about SupCom is being unbiased, in your view?, Also, please assume good faith. - KingRaptor 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Metacritic score to the end of the section, for the "big picture". - KingRaptor 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the reception section could be cleaned up by removing the cquotes (most FA VG articles don't use them) and adding a wikitable (look at something like Perfect Dark's reception section for what I'm talking about) to include both the good reviews and the bad review.--Clyde (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

New version

It's all very well and good for you to protect this page, but could you please at the very least keep the information updated? A new patch version 3223 was just released yesterday. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.24.37.166 (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Lead Section - First announced in..

The lead section states:

This cannot be true, as I found some articles on gamespy (cited in references) from July 2005. Where was it first announced, then? --User:Krator (t c) 11:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Story - Quantum Tunnels

Someone who edited this section said portals could be created to anywhere in the universe. First, I'd assume they'd have a range, second, the universe is not that range, because our corner of the Milky Way is all that's been colonized, and third, that description was just too vague and short.

Spiced it up a bit. Somebody help me with that reference, too. --Nervecenter117 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the reference. The problem was a missing ref tag. Thanks the the edits - I wasn't sure about my original description either. --User:Krator (t c) 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


System Requirements

  1. the recent patch as helped the real system requirements out.
    1. the current patch should run ok for online play with a 2ghz AMD64 and 512Mb GPU, and 1 GB of ram. anything lower than that and you run into some serious issues, especially with ram. The game can consume upto 800Mb of ram on a given game instance, and if windows is doing anything else you can easily go over your ram level and start using your HD for virtual memory. if this happens you need to close some other app ASAP.
  2. i also recently upgraded my machine, and with a dual core 2.2Ghz AMD64 2GB of Ram, and an nvidia 8800 GPU with 768 Mb of ram, i can now run the game with max settings at 1920x1200. I think memory is the most critical component to this running well, and then next would be a multi core processor.

Latest changes suck

Who removed the experimental units and descriptions of how the factions operate? Each faction had a paragraph about the type of units they employ. I know someone is going to say "this is not a game forum" but it wasn't really promoting the game it was describing the features. I was looking into buying the game so the first thing I did was to look it up on Wikipedia. I found the descriptions of experimental units and the differences between the factions to be very informative. Opinions? 203.27.231.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

That content was not removed - it was moved to Factions in Supreme Commander. The article was getting too long, and Wikipedia policy tells us that it should be split then. --User:Krator (t c) 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Krator. I wasn't aware that page existed, it's ok then. I didn't know about the catagories thing at the bottom of the page. Good job to whoever made the descriptions of experimental units, i found that really useful. 203.27.231.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
In fact, reaching that page by using the Supreme Commander category is not the "right" way. There are, in fact, four links to Factions in Supreme Commander here. First, in the Factions section in this article, there is a link stating Main article: Factions in Supreme Commander. Then, clicking the name of each faction will also bring you tot the appropriate section in Factions in Supreme Commander. This is quite a standard way of navigating around Wikipedia, and familiarizing yourself with it will open up a lot more information in Wikipedia to you. --User:Krator (t c) 11:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Nom

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: G1ggy! Review me! 07:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tutorial?

Does this game have a tutorial? If so maybe it should be included in the article, along with what the tutorial covers.

Yes, it does. However, I think this information is redundant, because it is a real time strategy video game, and nearly all games in that category have a tutorial. Wikipedia doesn't write at every music page "these are guys using instruments to make sounds" either. Also, writing what the tutorial covers would be much of a game guide. --User:Krator (t c) 13:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed Krator. I just wanted to know if it had one or not.
The tutorial is a bit unusual, however. Most games walk you through an in-game sequence where you are directed to perform certain tasks with accompanying explanations of what everything does. Supreme Commander's tutorials are videos focusing on specific areas of gameplay. This is unusual in the industry (though not unique - Galactic Civilizations II does the same thing, for instance). --Junior612 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Multi core processing

In the development section, it talks about the game 'splitting the load' between two core processors. However, I think I read in an online review somewhere that his computer was a dual core and the game was only utilizing one of those cores. Are sources 28 and 29 reliable, or is this just one person's opinion?

The online review you read was probably made running on Windows XP without the dual core patch by Microsoft installed. This is something one needs to install on XP before Supreme Commander will utilize the two cores properly. The GPG forums have a FAQ including a link to that patch.
From personal experience, it uses the two cores exceptionally well. --User:Krator (t c) 10:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
SupCom is designed to take advantage of multi core processer systems. Dxco 06:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Single player?

Hi I was wondering, when I got the demo for Supreme Commander I couldn't find a single player mode. Can anyone tell me if this game has a single player mode or is it just online? 72.133.53.219 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

nevermind, question anwsered. 72.133.53.219 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

multi-player

How could this game be out for so long and no one even added a paragraph about the online play?

What should be written, then? The infobox lists "Multiplayer" as one of the game modes. Writing about specific multiplayer systems would be blatantly game-guide like ("Ranked games use these maps ...") or so vague that the article Multiplayer game would be more informative. Also, writing "GPGNet is awful" (a good summary of the online play of SupCom) is not informative and cannot be sourced. If you have a good suggestion on what to write, I will gladly write a section about multiplayer. --User:Krator (t c) 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it the standard fare (skirmishes) or did they introduce any more interesting game types or victory conditions (like Age of Empires II and especially the expansion pack for it)? From what I have read it sounds like it's just kill or be killed. How sad and how boring. 72.161.61.19 03:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You've got custom maps with King of the Hill etc. User:Krator (t c) 11:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unit Pack

Would posting information about the unit pack that is due sometime today/tonight be a good thing? Pdboddy 19:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be. If the plan is to list every new unit and feature, that would be bad. If it's considered a new version, you might want to update that, and if it severely changes gameplay you may want to edit a sentence or two, but otherwise nothing else is needed.--Clyde (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiplayer

One of the most important aspects of a game centered around multiplay is how many players there to compete with. Is there anyway someone can list an estimated amount of servers with the date the number was obtained. For example: As of July 31, 2007 Supreme Commander has an estimated 300-400 servers at any given time. This should give people a point of reference to how active the game still is online.

I'm not sure what you mean, although it is possible to get the number of games played so far.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Such data would be:

  • Original research (gathering of the data).
  • Even more original research, as it would have to be explained.
  • Not comparable. An FPS with 100 servers with 30 people each would be active-ish. Supreme Commander does not even have "servers". The majority of the games are 1v1 ranked games. There are about 10 custom games hosted (i.e.: open for joining) at any given time, with about 3 people on average in them.

If you are interested in the information, I can tell you that playing SupCom online is awful, not-active and generally sucks. --User:Krator (t c) 11:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? That's less than Spring! --CCFreak2K 01:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor additions re: AI and Reception

Added a few sentences in the "Gameplay" section of the article mentioning the fact that the provided AI does not cheat and is thus, not a considerable challenge when a player has been playing for a while. Also mentioned that the community has several modified AI's that significantly increase the difficulty. Thought this would be a good addition for people for which offline play is a concern.

Added the paragraph with the recurring criticism of the 3D terrain not being enough of a concern in what is meant to be a game with 3D environments. It's a common criticism of the game by old Total Annihilation players and might be of interest to TA veterans looking into Supreme Commander.

(B)a(N)e(R)86 04:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edits contain Original Research. One was reverted already, and the other is original research too, so I reverted. Please get a reliable source to back up your edits. The reason I had written nothing about multiplayer, the players, and the modifications, is partially that there are no sources for it. User:Krator (t c) 08:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To the authors of this article.

While I could've been rude and made the changes my self I think it's polite to inform that there is a flaw on the background story of this game.

All units are inhabbited by a pilot or crew, the story line makes many references to lives lost while fighting (while the manual does contradict this by stating 'robotic' armies), also the game heavilly implies there are soldiers fighting the war physically (as referenced by the UEF's logo) and the manual never stated the units are entirely robotic, this article's authors have a biased opinion about many aspects of this game.

I would also like to note that the ACU is NEVER referred to as a Mech and technically could never be referred as such, instead The ACU is a 'personal, armored exoskeleton' (source: supcom manual) would be more fitting in this author's opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrOuNd ZeRo (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As one of the article's authors, I disagree on both your points.
Firstly, all units are robotic, except for the Support Commander and the Commander. The references to lives lost refer to either Commanders, or a historical time where units were human still. This can be seen from the process of creation: Commanders need to be "summoned", while the robotic armies are simply "created". Furthermore, the campaign never references any human pilots, and several reviews use the adjective "robotic".
Secondly, the Commander is indeed never called a Mech, but surely is one. Wikipedia does not strictly adhere to the canon used by the developer - we write an encyclopaedia, and therefore the most common English words are used that best describe what is needed. Mech is a common term in Sci-fi in general, and aptly describes the ACU. User:Krator (t c) 13:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, It's not like there are no more humans to be killed. It's just that they are not in tanks. Nothing keeps the commanders from laying waste to planetary cities etc.happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Logos of Factions

User:Turd the Borg, why were the logos of the different factions removed in the factions section here? The non-free content criteria state that such use is allowed. User:Krator (t c) 09:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Coordinated Attack

The article states that coordinated attack will allow one's units to arrive at the same time. It is my understanding that this feature does not work at all. 142.179.217.154 (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum, but I'll give you a hint, hold Ctrl and Alt then right click. All units in the formation will move at the same speed. --Simpsons fan 66 02:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

SupCom wikia

I changed the link to the SupCom wikia. I've noticed this article here on wikipedia is FA. If there are any editors still interested in further editing, then they are welcome to come join us. We could use some help. The wikia is here, and I can be found there too. Thanks.happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote most of the FA, and I'm still watching it. I've helped the founder of SupCom wikia out in the past, but won't do so for the simple reason I no longer play SupCom. User:Krator (t c) 11:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing Information

Hello, I have read this article and there's something missing to make it really featured: Reception in sales. How many units of this game have been sold? The article doesn't state. HaGamal 13:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sales information on video games is usually unavailable, including this game. User:Krator (t c) 11:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Eurogamer says that the game is sold over 1 million copies.--SkyWalker (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Krator, I think you're wrong. Gamespot includes game charts on weekly basis, and we can't forget the list of best-selling video games. SkyWalker, thanks a bunch. I'll look up for this info and add it to my article. Ah, now I see SupCom really does appear in the list. I didn't think it sold over 1 million copies so I didn't bother checking there. Silly me. HaGamal 13:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird sentences

I found these two sentences really weird: "To accomplish this, Supreme Commander uses fully 3D terrain that is dynamically tessellated as the camera is moved around. Both units and maps also use normal maps in order to allow for a large amount of detail." They seem to have no connection with the paragraph. I think they should be removed, unless I hear a good explanation why are they so relevant to that paragraph. HaGamal 20:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Be bold.  Xihr  08:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The connection is more apparent if you have some background on how games like this are made. Having a game zoom like Supreme Commander would normally require a huge amount of graphic computing power. The comment on 3D terrain serves to explain how the game did it. (Did you click on the tessellation link?) The latter sentence is more like... while we're at technical stuff, this is how the units look like. User:Krator (t c) 09:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I do have some background on how games like this are made, but these sentences are just not good for the common reader. I did click the links, and I still think that the connection of the description of the unit sizes to the camera movement and the 3D technique is really weak. I think it's better without these two sentences. HaGamal 11:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Faction Specific Releases

At least two (or maybe all three) of the factions have specific releases: the original game plus an extra disk with new units for one faction. Does anyone have any further information on this that can be added to the article? Also, if one purchases one of these disks, how can I get the other faction units without purchasing the game two or three times? --Robinson weijman (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no extra units in the faction releases. User:Krator (t c) 10:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
So what is in the faction releases?--Robinson weijman (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of what "disks" you're referring to. Could you be more specific?  Xihr  23:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've got one. It's an extra DVD, the one I've got is the AEON limited edition version. This DVD is a mini database of information, with pictures of units, textual history, maps (not game maps) of the factions' territories. It's not that exciting. I thought it had new units on, but it has nothing extra for the game itself. --Robinson weijman (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

360 version?

Can someone add in a blurb about the 360 version and its critical reception? There is no mention of the 360 version in the article, however I have seen it in stores and read a review of it. This would help keep the article up to date. 72.148.190.48 (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Forged Alliance

As far as I can tell, Forged Alliance can probably fit into this article fairly well without clogging anything up. Is there any possible way that it can be improved to the point where merging is not viable? TTN (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should merging be viable now? It's a stand alone computer game, and it's definitely notable. It's definitely possible to improve the article, tho. --Conti|✉ 23:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The game is built off of the same exact system (correct me if I'm wrong), so the amount of new content can possibly fit here easily. It depends how much development and reception information can be added to it. If they only take up a paragraph or so each, merging should be quite viable. If their length is around the sections in this article, the article should be fine standing alone. TTN (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
You're right that the game engines are largely the same, but I don't see how that is relevant. The same could be said about Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, after all. I'm pretty sure the reception section can be expanded quite a bit. There might be some details on the development of the game, too, but I'm not so sure about that. --Conti|✉ 23:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Sufficient articles on IGN and GameSpot to create a short but reasonable development history (probably more sources on other sites, I just tend to use these two), as done in GA expansion pack articles like Brood War and Half-Life: Blue Shift, 38 reviews on Game Rankings, 35 reviews on Metacritic. More than sufficient sources to create a proper reception section. "Is there any possible way that it can be improved to the point where merging is not viable?" well the answer to that is a resounding "Yes". Although not very well covered at present, merging it would have a negative effect on Wikipedia coverage here. Just because the game is on the same engine and plays mostly the same way albeit with a few differences, does not mean it should be merged. Its independently notable with plenty of significant coverage to create a good reception section, and just enough to provide a decent development section following the process of development itself through announcement, media releases and product release. Even if this wasn't the case, considering how abysmally appalling the (unilateral and entirely undiscussed) merge of the soundtrack article by TTN was, I wouldn't want to hit this FA with another poorly performed merge of even more substantive information that would reduce the quality so much that an FAR would be required just to properly clean the junk up. -- Sabre (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Factions page nominated for deletion/considered for merger

User TTN has initiated an AFD for Factions in Supreme Commander. I have initiated a discussion of a potential merger on the article's talk page. I urge editors of this article to consider the situation and present opinions. The AFD can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factions in Supreme Commander Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WOW!

Wow! That's great- this article, one of my favorite games, is FA! ResMar 00:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Setting

At the end of the setting bit, someone wrote : The UEF ending is canon. I have removed mainly because 2 sentences ago it was already mentioned the UEF ending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.146.16.100 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

some old news about second expansion

2nd expansion, Experimentals, should be called "The Experimentals"? at least CT mentioned like that and in official GPG forum we all call it TE, so i guess better keep the word "The". Another thing, TE now canceled, as seen in recent(not really, some mth ago) interview, CT talked about this. Can check supcom fan site for this news or forum old topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.243 (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigourney Weaver?

Was it her who did the voice acting during the intro discussing the different factions? It sounds an awful lot like her. I don't think it would be out of place, seeing as she seems to like sci-fi subjects.204.184.80.26 (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Commander_(video_game)/Archive_1&oldid=1128416837"