Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sonic

CommandCOM 2013 Report by Koen

Recommended Posts

We still have more content and coverage to share from CommandCOM, even though the event was about a month ago now. You have probably read through Alex06's detailed report, but now you can get a different perspective, and some extra details about the new Command & Conquer, inside @Koen's CommandCOM 2013 report. Just a small sample below...

 

gamescom30-200x200.jpg

 

One thing you should know is that we at CommandCom got to play a very special build were the balance has been changed significantly compared to the current alpha builds. The speed of construction and units has been increased to give the game a more fluid feel. Now, I hadn't played any alpha build of the game before, so there was nothing to compare with. All he had to say on this topic was: it sure feels a lot like a Generals game, but without having to wait on having enough money all the time. It could be that the income stream and unit prices still have to be adjusted further, but overall it feels good.

 

You can read the full CommandCOM 2013 report from Koen right here. Don't forget to check out the images galleries from Koen and Alex06 as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Wait, does that mean I need to write one too? :o

Share this post


Link to post

If you wanted to you the option was there. But I think Koen and Alex06 have covered everything.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, think so too, heh.

 

Ugh. Had a giant comment on numerous points on the article ready, and then the forum ate it -_-

Share this post


Link to post

Nice - just finished reading this. Thanks for filling in the blanks.

 

I've seen this mentioned a couple of times in the posts, but no-one has really commented in the news threads on it... directional armour.

 

I agree/disagree with the directional armour thing - who in their right mind designs an impregnable mobile battle fortress with a big weak spot at the back. The battlefield is a fluid place, so this makes no sense... so thumbs up for realism. But thumbs down from a gameplay point of view... this was an interesting feature.

 

Perhaps MBT's should be evenly armoured - but there seems no reason the game couldn't develop other units that suffered from this. It's that whole risk v reward that makes games interesting.

 

eg A unit like a V2 launcher that was armoured only at the front, had a weak turning circle, and vulnerable to a sneak attack.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree/disagree with the directional armour thing - who in their right mind designs an impregnable mobile battle fortress with a big weak spot at the back. The battlefield is a fluid place, so this makes no sense... so thumbs up for realism. But thumbs down from a gameplay point of view... this was an interesting feature.

I disagree/disagree with your points. Real tanks do have vulnerabilities, it isn't a matter of being impenetrable, it's a matter of weight and cost over practicality. Sticking thick plating on every single angle of a vehicle would make it very heavy (slow) and expensive. Compensating with a bigger engine to handle the weight generates additional noise, heat, and fuel consumption. Real tank designs try to reduce as much plating as possible without making it too fragile in the spots that count most. Modern anti-tank missiles (which lack the sheer punching power of a kinetic penetrator) are built to take advantage of the fact that tanks are not equally sturdy from every side.

 

On the other hand, I hate this feature in games. That, however, is entirely personal opinion, so I'll say no more.

Share this post


Link to post

Another chapter in the eternal arms race... build a better shield so build a better arrow so build a better shield so build a better arrow etc

 

.

.

.

Not disputing you, but all things being equal, do you have evidence that tanks are not evenly plated around the four major sides (front, back, left and right) which was my point?

Share this post


Link to post

do you have evidence that tanks are not evenly plated around the four major sides (front, back, left and right) which was my point?

 

From Wikipedia:

For efficiency, the heaviest armour on an armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) is placed on its front. Tank tactics require the vehicle to always face the likely direction of enemy fire as much as possible, even in defence or withdrawal operations.

It is really a fairly well known fact though (so much so, they stick into games), I'm honestly surprised you needed proof. If Wikipedia isn't good enough, I could probably dig up another 100 alternate sources.

Share this post


Link to post

Haha... if I was trying to shoot a tank I would be definitely doing it from the opposite to the one the big gun is pointing at.

 

And for fun... yes wiki is not proof enough.

:)

Share this post


Link to post

And for fun... yes wiki is not proof enough.

Then, for fun, find proof to the contrary first. Just because I could find 100 sources doesn't mean I want to spend a few hours actually doing it.

Share this post


Link to post

(Move to off-topic forum???)

 

Nmenth, as always, I'm open to be educated on anything and everything - don't take my response as scepticism to your assertion - take it as calling your bluff on your laziness combined with obvious hyperbole of your claim. You offered, I'm accepting.

 

.

.

.

Wiki is a gossip site that merely collects hearsay, so in my opinion it's not worth much as a first defence in any argument/position on any given subject.

Since most military treat their equipment as classified, I'm opened to be educated if you have evidence.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×