AI War Steam sale - 50-85% off!

[Red Spot]

Not judging you or anything, just that SC1/FA are the difficult game where SC2 holds your hand and is so streamlined that it removes most of the "skill-requirement", bashing insane AIs is easy.

I've never understood this whole "more streamlined = oversimplified" argument before; it's fallacious logic.  Just because a game is more streamlined, simpler, and easier for the user(s) to grasp, does not automatically mean it is any less deep than its predecessors or games of a similar genre.

Oops, kinda missed that.

I didn't mean that it automaticly means it does. You seem to be a fan of Battlezone II (BZ1 aswell ?), how 'basic' is the resource system in those games, just a single resource .. how strategic and difficult(facing a strong opponent) can it be to use it (very)well.
What I mean when talking about SC1 vs SC2 is that in SC1 it required some thought and planning as how, where, when and with what you would augment your economy, in SC2 you just pump out fields of resource buildings and the 'building in blocks' even makes them more powerfull.
You dont need any thought with SC2's economy, you just need to understand that you are short on your single limited resource. In SC1 you will need to consider cost, explosive effects, maintenance costs, boost to or from nearby buildings .. it puts it on a whole different scale than SC2's econ, in my book.

SC2 is still a fun game though, it just has less dept with it, less tactical opportunities come to play throughout a game. At least that is how the gameplay feels to me. SC1 needs bit more thought but can so become somewhat heavy on the micro-side and painfull in a tactical sense, SC2 is more straightforward with a focus on troopproduction even more so than in SC1 and it hardly needs you any more once you set up your econ and your patrolpaths.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Starcraft 1 & 2 are good RTSes, but focus too much on how quickly someone can rush you and win.  Getting the right unit and all that.  When I play multiplayer, at least, that's what I think.  So to even compare it to AIW or Supreme Commander is a bit....meh. 

King

[Wingflier]

I agree that Starcraft is less a game about strategy, and more a game about build orders, unit counters, and proficient micromanagement than anything else. That's not to say that it isn't still deep or skill intensive, because it certainly is those things; I just think "strategy" is one of the lesser aspects of the game.

The thing that I like so much about supreme commander 2 are the things it seems the fans of the first game hate, the tech trees. The tech trees sort of force the player down a certain path once they've chosen (air, land, structure, naval, or, acu), but the caveat to this is that every tree can defeat every other tree by varying degrees. Thus the player has to use the resources they have to win, instead of just being able to build counters to counters to counters, which while seemingly giving the players choices, is actually taking them away.

Also I don't see how you've come to the conclusion that SupCom 2 has only 1 resource. It actually has 3 - mass, energy, and research, which is one more than the first game had. If you're referring to the fact that you can convert energy to mass, you have to remember that to gain this technology, you're forced down the structure tree, which has it's own advantages and disadvantages just like any other tree (which I dare say is the point...).