sup com manages to have the same zergy gameplay and feel far more strategic and engaging, what's the difference there?
So what is the difference? Before Dragon Commander I had tried about 10 minutes combined of 2 different RTS games.
A lot of the joy in total war games is the organic storys that evolve about your generals, allys and culture as you play.
How is that handled in multi-player? Are there decisions to make? Can you wander around talking to generals and advisers?
The difference is depth, pacing and balance. Each unit type is far more unique. each tech level and the units that correspond with them have far more of an impact on the game.
as for total war...have you not played any? the multiplayer campaign is the same as playing by yourself...each general has traits and skills earned through his performance in battle and peace. Diplomacy while not as comprehensive as I'd like offers far more variety to the game play and lends itself very well to organic story telling with old allys and rivalrys having an immense impact on diplomatic proceedings.
Your generals and agents grow as you play as do there children, it turns the strategic map mode into a far more interesting game then it would otherwise be. That's not even mentioning the experience troops gain as the game plays changing the way you play out of battle almost as much as in.
I get the feeling you're thinking I'm talking about the single player campaign...which doesn't make much sense, I don't have access to that beta. Only the multiplayer one and it's that campaign mode I'm talking about.
I know some clever soul may come along and say something to the effect of "Why not play that then?"
To which I'd respond why not add elements of it to this game and enrich it instead? wouldn't that be a better option for devs and fans alike?
