worthy of two pages

2/7/2007 3:01:52 PM

this game looks so good that it is blowing my mind with anticipation

2/7/2007 11:25:02 PM

System requirements

Minimum
Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2, Vista
1.8 GHz processor
512 MB RAM
8GB available hard drive space
128MB video RAM or greater, with DirectX 9 Vertex Shader/Pixel Shader 2.0 support
Sound card, speakers or headphones
56.6 Kbps Internet connection required


Recommended
3.0 GHz Intel or equivalent AMD processor or better
1GB RAM or better
8GB available hard drive space
256 MB Video RAM, with DirectX 9 Vertex Shader/Pixel Shader 2.0 support (Nvidia 6800 or better)
Internet connection with Cable/DSL speeds [3]

Supreme Commander is designed to take advantage of the special features in Windows Vista and DirectX 10. All capabilities of the game, including the dual-monitor support, are still supported in the DirectX 9 version, although the DirectX 10 version might have improved graphical features.[4]

Beta 53 [5]:
Operating System: Microsoft® Windows® XP (SP2 recommended)
Processor: 1.8 GHz or greater; 3.0 GHz or greater, dual core, recommended
RAM: 512 MB or greater; 2 GB recommended
Hard Drive: 8 GB available hard disk space
Video: GeForce 6000 and up, or ATI 9600 and up required (128 MB video RAM or greater, with Vertex Shader / Pixel Shader 2.0 support). ATI X800 XL, ATI X1300, or greater; nVidia GeForce 6800 or greater recommended
Audio: Sound card or on-board audio component, speakers or headphones
Internet: 56.6 Kbps Internet connection required; Cable/DSL speeds with 24 Kbps upstream per opponent recommended.

2/7/2007 11:28:43 PM

And those are pretty generous min. reqs.

Sure, you can play a small game vs. the AI with those specs, but don't expect a big multiplayer battle on a big map unless you have the recommended or so.

THATS why everyone isn't nutting over the game, in part.

2/8/2007 9:49:08 AM

Quote :

"24 Kbps upstream per opponent recommended"

RR even do that?

2/8/2007 1:39:34 PM

Those sys reqs just killed my boner for this game.

I've played games on minimum sys reqs before...and never have I been so angry.

2/8/2007 1:43:16 PM

The demo missions are pretty sweet.

They took me forever though, because of the strong defenses in the bases you have to attack, you have to have massive forces to break through.

2/8/2007 10:34:23 PM

maybe just the beta crap is over spec'ed some.... the previous system rec. aren't that bad

2/9/2007 8:37:39 AM

There are definately things it needs.

1. It needs naval troop carriers. Something to get your troops to an island or another coast without being extremely fragile. If you need to take out something on an important island, the enemy knows the only way to get ground troops there is the air, so they can just pack it with AA. Plus D-Day style battles would be incredible.

2. Something to slow down the runaway economy. Eventually, if the game stretches out long enough, the economy reaches critical mass and spirals out of controll, where everyone basically has infinite resources.

TA didn't have this problem that much except on the metal maps because the mass fabricators, even the tier 3 ones, were very inefficient and didn't make as much metal as the high level extractors did. In SupCom the tier 3 fabricators are better by far than the tier 3 extractors, which makes having metal extractors, and therefore controlling the map, worth much less.

3: The Tier 3 units need to be fleshed out more, especially from the land factory. Every faction has 1 walker and 1 mobile artillery, and thats it. Compared to the great units in the 2nd tier, that is terrible.


Thankfully, GPG have said that this game will be even more moddable than TA, and that game had HUNDREDS of 3rd party units. So much of this will be addressed by the community.

2/12/2007 5:44:35 PM

Any idea of a release date, yet?

2/15/2007 1:03:22 PM

i believe the date is feb 20, but it leaked last weekend if you can't wait that long or if you're sick of finn's revenge. its a 6gig download.

2/15/2007 1:11:25 PM

Ohhhh rly, has *anyone* played such a leak, yet

2/15/2007 2:01:20 PM

I'm pretty sure I have heard that it's shipping to some people already, so I don't know if the 20th is accurate.

2/15/2007 6:47:41 PM

ok, so i had the following:
2gb ram
nvidia 6800gt
amd athlon 64 3700

i ran at all lowest settings, and it ran like mud anytime there was more than 500 units on screen. nearly unplayable.

upgraded to a dual-core with same speed for $150. now it runs fine.

so i'd say minimum spec is a low-level dual-core cpu. anything else, and you'll be dragging pretty hard during large battles. i hear the current core2duos kicks this game's ass. i wouldn't worry as much about the video card. for me, i stay fairly zoomed out most of the time anyway, and i have strategic icons always on. i rarely zoom to ground-level to see the action.

anyone know the effects on video cards using dual display? like how much of the card's power is being diverted to the secondary screen?

2/16/2007 11:56:15 AM

Basic rule of thumb:

Number of units = processor

Quality per unit = video card

At least that's how it works in games like Medieval 2, which have at least as many units on screen as SupCom.

2/16/2007 2:07:02 PM

I dislike dual cores and go for a single high grade 64 bit processor.

2/16/2007 2:20:06 PM

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?type=wmv&id=17103

Pretty good gameplay trailer that shows off some of the experimental units. Game looks amazing in high gfx settings.

2/18/2007 12:25:35 PM

Ratings/reviews are up on it.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/supremecommander/index.html

only if i had a computer that could run it.

2/21/2007 12:43:22 PM

Just dropped a grand on new computer parts this week, 8800 GTS, Core 2 Duo, 2gib ram. Downloading this game from D2Drive now

2/22/2007 1:44:12 PM

well crap, i have a 3700 3 gigs of ram and a 6600gt

I might drop 180 on a 4400+ but I really don't want to have to format without getting a windows XP copy and a fast HD.... but that will set me back another 300 about.... and $480 is a bit high at the moment...

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 1:52 PM. Reason : h]

2/23/2007 1:52:26 PM

Dual core is highly recommended... with my current spec, i can instant tab out and in from SupCom

2/23/2007 4:46:22 PM

I can run the game with an AMD 64 3700+, 2 GB RAM, and a 6600GT. I can play on medium settings for a while, but once the game goes on I have to put it on low graphics settings.

2/23/2007 5:18:03 PM

if it's a long game I have to turn the graphics down with my Dual Core Athlon 3800+, 2 gigs of ram, and geforce 7800 GT.



I can't help but think that this game isn't optomized as well as it could be. It doesn't look any better than M2TW, and that game can have many more units at once without slowing down my computer.

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 6:00 PM. Reason : ]

2/23/2007 5:59:28 PM

What faction are u guys playing? Last leg of beta, Aeon was the strongest. I'm back to Cybran now.... for a very good reason -> the Mantis can be used to assist with construction.

2/23/2007 7:18:02 PM

I haven't played a lot, I played the demo a lot so I'm comfortable with the Cybran. The Aeon are interesting, and I haven't played a game with the UEF yet.

Do you guys play online or do you play against the AI? I found the medium AI is way too easy. The hard AI isn't bad though.

2/23/2007 8:20:07 PM

yeah, not gonna upgrade.... next upgrade needs to be a big one and will result in a new mobo, vid card, ram, processor, and a new hd...

2/23/2007 11:00:41 PM

yeah I'm gonna upgrade when AMD comes back with a dual core that will kill the Core 2 Duo.

2/24/2007 12:42:28 AM

Been playing the leak for a few days. This game is amazing, gonna go pick it up this evening.

2/24/2007 4:29:27 PM

Getting large groups of units (especially naval units) to move in formation is a fucking nightmare. Any trick to this other than just splitting them up into smaller formations?

2/26/2007 11:32:55 AM

ctrl + right-click, i believe

2/26/2007 1:14:37 PM

Yeah, thats what I mean. When I tell a bunch of units to move in formation they just go all wacky and start moving in random directions. Land based units eventually work things out, but Naval units sometimes just scatter and stay that way.

2/26/2007 1:33:12 PM

Oh yeah, anyone using a dual core processor in Windows XP SP2, check out this thread.

http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?t=424

Lots of good info in that thread about optimizing your system for performance with dual core processors. If you don't feel like filtering through that thread, here are the guides for the actual optimization.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=60416

For AMD processers specifically.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=983781

2/26/2007 1:39:26 PM

good link. do you know which of those methods works best for supcom? they mentioned that some methods will raise performance on certain games and lowers performance on others.

2/26/2007 4:28:59 PM

A lot of that was written before nVidia/ATI released their dual core optimized drivers. AFAIK, that fixed most compability issues with dual core processors and games. As long as your graphics card drivers are up to date, you shouldn't have to worry about hurting anything with the tweaks in those links.

2/26/2007 4:38:02 PM

thinking about upgrading from ATI 700X 256mb card to an NVIDIA 7900 GS 512mb


currently running the graphics on lowest settings possible during large multiplayer games and getting a fair amount of lag

current specs: 2.0 amd athlon, 1gb ram, radeon 700x on dual monitors with both rendering.. i hear ati doesn't support second monitor graphics acceleration THATS SOME BULLSHIT!



my review of the game even so: 9.1 out of 10

2/26/2007 11:58:54 PM

^My brother's computer with a Core 2 Duo E6300, 1 GB RAM, and 7900GS lags once you get farther into the game. This is on medium settings and it stays the same on low settings, so I'm pretty sure it's because he needs more memory. I would suggest another Gig of RAM too.

2/27/2007 9:57:20 AM

^^ dude you might as well chuck most of it, get a new motherboard, processor, vid card, and 2gb+ of new memory....

2/27/2007 10:14:08 AM

Honestly, performance isn't that bad. I really don't see where all the complaints are coming from. I have a fairly modest system I built over a year ago and it runs pretty smooth with everything on High except for AA (set to none) and at 1920x1200. My specs are:

Athlon 64-X2 3800+ @ 2.6ghz
2GB DDR500
GeForce 7800 GTX
74GB Raptor

Sound chops a bit when there is a A LOT going on, but I attribute that to crappy onboard sound. Other than that, I have no performance issues.

2/27/2007 11:32:29 AM

So I finally got the full game, and had been playing the campaign for the past 3-4 hours until my computer crashed a few minutes ago


Anyway, the optimization has improved a lot over the beta version, at least for me. I can have big battles now and haven't got any slowdown.

Looking forward to when people start releasing created units. I think I eventually had like 4-500 different units available in TA, 70% were user created. This time I'm going to pay more attention to game balance implications before I install, some of those TA units were game breakers.

2/27/2007 4:58:51 PM

I got the demo and it runs like crap on my comp ::-p. P4 2.4 1gig of ram and a 9800pro.

So when I do finally upgrade I'm going to have to replace everything. I was hoping I could keep pushing it back, but it looks like I'm gonna need to do it sooner than later.

2/27/2007 5:23:10 PM

Quote :

"thinking about upgrading from ATI 700X 256mb card to an NVIDIA 7900 GS 512mb"

Get NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 320mb, it's a hellalot faster than the 7900, at $300 the performance for the price makes it a bargain. I got the XFX 8800 GTS XXX Edition recently (XXX is factory overclocked with about the same clock speed as the GTX).

2/28/2007 8:21:12 PM

I have to say, the single player campaigns are pretty fun. I just finished the Aeon campaign, my third and final one.

Most of the missions take around an hour, the later ones take closer to an hour and a half.

Plus Dostya (from the Cybran campaign) is really hot, at least as hot as a computer generated cyborg can be.

3/6/2007 1:26:33 AM

Gametrailer.com

Video review

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=17522&type=wmv#\

9.0 score

3/6/2007 8:16:00 PM

Quote :

"There is a huge buzz circulating on the Internet now about the controversial review of the popular real-time strategy game Supreme Commander written by GamePro's Australia division. Most reviews (as seen on ranking sites like GameRankings.com and MetaCritic.com) have been very positive about Supreme Commander, with reviews averaging around 80% - 90%. GamePro Australia, however, gave Supreme Commander a score of 5 / 10 (50%), stating that the game was, "virtually unplayable" and that Supreme Commander represented the "saddest moment in the history of the [RTS] genre." The review was so controversial that GameRankings.com and MetaCritic.com have pulled the score from their respective sites. "

http://www.gwn.com/news/story.php/id/11566/GamePros_Supreme_Commander_Review_Score.html

Quote :

"Update: We're happy to report that the person who started the bribe rumor on the Gamespot forums has admitted it was a lie, so we've removed mention of the rumor from this story. Their rumor post has also now been removed at Gamespot, and mention of it on the Gas Powered Games forum has also gone."

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 5:26 AM. Reason : update..]

3/8/2007 5:25:19 AM

Maybe Gamepro Australia can't afford a good computer.

3/8/2007 6:55:41 PM

You guys checked out this world map thing? It's pretty neat, plots everyone's geographical location on a world map based on their IP address. Also shows you the location where custom games are being hosted.

3/20/2007 4:03:42 PM

Starcraft 2 vs. Supreme Commander

go!

5/24/2007 3:24:49 PM

Supreme Commander 2 will be out (or nearly out) by the time Starcraft 2 is out.

5/24/2007 3:30:27 PM

yea, when is SC2 supposed to come out?

5/24/2007 4:15:18 PM

Hell I don't even know if they are making it yet, but knowing Blizzard they will finish by the time SC2 is out.

5/24/2007 5:01:14 PM