While we chew our nails in quiet desperation for StarCraft II, let's see what's going on in that Command & Conquer: Tiberian Twilight (we love you, Edward!) game, with a new trailer for the fourth installment. In Tiberian Twilight (we love you, Jacob!), which releases March 16, it appears that players will fetch tiberium from landing zones, which they'll turn in for upgrades and vehicles of destruction -- the tiberium, not the landing zones ... turning in LZs would be absurd ... yeah, um ...
I am glad you just read the headline wrong I read the: "tap, tap, tap." as.........um.....*clears throat*.......some verb that can usually be found on the internet, in groups of three and starts with "f" , plus it looks exactly like "tap".
Man, that guy in the cap was annoying. Anyway, I'm a long-standing Command and Conquer fan, and I'll most certainly pick this up on launch day, but I'm not looking forward to this new mechanic. Basically, they're saying that you can't focus on gathering resources, because the resources are only delivered at a set rate. You can have 20 harvesters, it doesn't make the mysterious tiberium-dropping Gods go any faster. (What the hell faction says to itself "Hey, let's put the tiberium drop zones in the MIDDLE of the damn battlefield? That way, our troops have to fight their way to it, and it stands a good chance of being used AGAINST them, as well! Isn't that EXCITING?") My strategy has always been to rock out my economy then build nothing but top-tier units, but this effectively chains your harvesting ability to your military forces - which means you're probably already winning.
I don't understand gather resources sometimes, not on the battlefield of all places. What's the reasoning behind that? Are there commanders at a headquarters sitting around, smoking cigars and sending in ill-equipped invasion forces?
When you launch a planned attack at something, why the fuck would you need to gather any sort of resource at all? Shouldn't that have been done prior to mobilizing troops and landing them somewhere hostile?
I'm not entirely positive about this (300%) but when Operation Overlord was going on, didn't they have all the supplies they needed before going into it? Minus of course the bad drops of the airborne and the tanks for the seaborne forces, but everyone had pretty much what they needed to get the job done before they lost it on the beaches (which was accidental, not due to poor planning on the development side).
No one went, "Oh, we need some trees to fuel this furnace so we can make more weaponry" in the middle of a battle. Maybe behind the lines something like this happened, but certainly not on the front line. If the battle did expand behind the lines, I'm pretty sure they would stop fucking working and gathering stuff.
It's just retarded. The only strategy game I have played where this isn't a factor during the battle would have the be the Total War series. There may be more, but I have no idea what they would be.
So you're saying that the any game in the Total War series gets boring fast because you gain your resources off the battlefield? That doesn't really make sense.
Like I've said, in reality you wouldn't harvest resources on the battlefield. Your currency (money, Tiberium, trees, etc.) would take place out of a pitched engagement. Same for training fresh troops unless there was a horrible reason for there to be inexperienced and untrained soldiers on the battlefield.
If they need some form of "fan service" (which is what the Tiberium gathering is), then why not incorporate a mission where you have to defend a harvesting/processing plant and deploy some of your engineers or soldiers to operate the machinery needed to do so?
To answer what I already know will be mentioned, yes, sometimes you need something realistic in a game. It's what draws you into it most of the time, especially in games like this.
Look at Killzone 2: sure, it wasn't the best of games but it was somewhat realistically fulfilling. Not in the sense that your health regenerated and a mere human could take many, many bullets, but in the fact that what was shooting you was currently available. There may have been slight changes to weaponry, but it is mostly rooted in modern firearms.
Humans have mastered space travel and colonizing other planets, but they still shoot each other with standard ammunition that has to be packed and manufactured somewhere in some factory. It brings a sense of realism for me, if that makes any sense to you guys.
There are other games that do this, taking a realistic approach even in fictional games that break scientific laws. I don't know, maybe I'm just fucked in the head.
The answer to your question is quite simple: these maps are supposed to represent great areas of land. The scale isn't like the RTS component of Total War, where you only play over a small battlefield; it's more on the scale of the turn-based component (sans turns, of course.)
In other words, you're not "mining on the battlefield", you're mining in one place to fund your battles in another.
When trying to remove the tiny Verizon ad in the upper right hand corner, I accidentally turned it into a much bigger and more intrusive ad that wouldn't close no matter what I did. Everyone in Verizon's marketing department should go eat glass immediately.
Dawn of War 2 and Company of Heroes set a new bar in RTS. Hard to follow those two games.... Especially DoW 2... with no base management, really draws the player to focus on the action, rather than building a base.
While I overally enjoy DoWII, I am jonesing for some base building. Then I find out that we get tiberium spikes?! The only reason I may pick this up is to find out about the story but I'll probably grab it at a highly reduced price by then. I guess I'll be waiting for SCII as well. I'd play CoH until then but I'd have to download weekly patches and I have a download limit with my stupid ISP.