Supreme Commander 2

[Chimpster]

I realise there's quite a few that played and loved the origional (as did I) and was wondering as to common opinion.

The demo was a mixed bag for me, it's much simpler then SC which has pros and cons. I think the research tree makes more sense then the tech system for things like engineers but kind of limits base building by about 75% which can be fun in and of itself. I'm also reckoning every game will turn into a race to research your exp unit of choice with very little middle game play (if any at all). Balance also seems a bit off as it looks like the only viable tactic is to spam research stations till you're blue in the face.

If anything, it's interesting how they've also now used knowledge as a resource ala AI War.

Also concerned about the amount of units available. Obviously the demo will have fewer then the main release, but looking at the research tree, there isn't going to be that many. If anything it looks like there might be more EXP units then normal ones!

The great thing about SC was there wasn't an "I win button," everything could be countered effectively (even 3 GC's I'm not sure whether SC2 will subscribe to that philosophy at all.

Still, it looks nice, hopefully it'll be a good competitive game too, I just can't shake the feeling that it's more C&C then SC.

It's like the younger sister of SupCom, cuter, perkier and energetic but ultimately shallow in comparison and no where near as experienced.

[triggerman602]

they dumped flow based resouces which pretty much ruined it for me. to make it worse if you have a factory on a loop and you run out of resources, it automaticlly pauses but doesnt unpause when you do have enough. it defeats the whole purpose of ques and looping ques. they did it right in SC1, what happened here?

that really destroys there grand strategy philosophy when you have to micro production. having to check your factories every couple of minutes to make sure they are still going is appalling.

the only thing i like so far about it is the new engine that runs much nicer then the first SC engine.

[Doddler]

I really enjoyed it.  The scale seemed more refined I think... even if supcom wanted to be a 'huge' game, if you ever played the ladder games most were won tech 1 within the first 10-15 minutes, usually as a result of one player having slightly more resources than the other.  It was kind of a shame because like 90% of the game's content wasn't relevant in the majority of games.  The resources are supposedly different in supcom2, but beyond the first couple minutes as long as you aren't actually running out of resources, the flow of economy isn't that much different (and like in supcom1, you really really should be trying to avoid running out of resources).  And games of supcom1 basically came down to perfect build order, and mass... games were won and lost over a single mass extractor.  I mean it feels like it's dumbed down, but I think it's simply been made managable.  I had a friend of mine that bought supcom who I tried to get to play a strong multiplayer game... it took him like 20 hours of gametime to before he got his resource management to the point where he could be competative in a multiplayer game.  My dad has been playing since the release and he still can't get his resource management down to the level that's required to be competative.  Because of that, I think the resources is a step in the right direction.  If the winner of the game is decided on what units you create and what you do with them rather than a high bar for perfect build order followed by 'player with the most mass wins', it will be a big improvement.

[eRe4s3r]

I actually like sup com 2 much more than sup com 1.. and the lack of flow based resources helps to speed up the gameplay... though maybe they dumbed everything down too much.. but i only play these kind of rts games for the story ;p

Of course sup com 1 fanatics will hate sup com 2 ;p

And speaking of comparisons, it runs SO much better...

[XRsyst]

Feels like they lost the core feeling of TA & SC to me.  Not being able to put 100 engineers on a super project sucks.  Also, not that SC or TA was ever very complex, but this feels even less complex, if that was possible.  I'll probably still pick it up from Steam when it's on sale for $10.

[Spikey00]

Disappointed--still satisfactory.  Here's to a mixed (but sounding pessimistic) review.

Already aforementioned issues:  no resources in stock, little engineer assist, decreased overall strategy, oddness in acquiring new technology, no tech levels, under-emphasized experimental units, far less base building, baseline income from production structures aside from additional research, no bonus adjacency, overall small unit ranges compared to SC/FA, weird commander head, no manual formation move, amongst many others.

The two first missions in the demo were far too easy for me, perhaps because I'm naturally a competitive-leisure infusion as I found it was a hilarious pushover.  The missions firstly, were made too easy simply because of the style of the research--those research crates/etc. were far too common, so you could effectively become more advanced than your counterpart.  Comparing it to Forged Alliance's campaign difficulty, of which I found more of my difficulty [on hard], would be trivial.  The demo on hard didn't even have any serious anti-player attacks, nor with any frequency.  When on the second mission where the commander would attack (no intel, don't tell me to retreat and protect myself when you're assuming I am at my home base still, when I'm doing my routine mass extractor expansion), I laughed when the fatboy spawn made it yet another un-accomplishing "I did nothing here" for me.  No, please don't show me my ridiculous wife in a dramatic conversation while she is taken away in a cliche manner.

What was with the megaliths that did nothing in the first mission?  That submarine was also senseless to add to the first mission except for demonstrating its AA tenti-whatever--little to no impact towards my idea of how shocking this unit was.  Why would anyone use gunships/bombers on that mission--you can just spam submarines/Cruiser/BB with ASFighters--at least, I didn't see the tentacle monster do anything beyond shoot at my ASFs.  Why did you have an anti-nuke in the second mission too, or do nukes explode now even if intercepted (referring to the transition to when the enemy CMDR is dropped off in the middle)...?

On the same note, the voice acting was... unneeded.  I enjoyed the believable acting of SC/FA, but SC2 provides a ridiculous dialog and creates a silly atmosphere.  "SO I HERD U LIEK MUDKIPZ [from rumours]" -> "OH I LOOOVE MEN RUMOURS!!" / "I can produce more gaymen than you. / I can keep producing as such because I am so good. / AHA I DESTROYED YOURS, I AM SO PRO DISREGARD MY PREVIOUS TWO USELESS LINES THAT CONTRADICT, DID YOU SEE THAT?"  To be really picky, I didn't like the animations that came with the dialog, either.  I didn't mind the defaults in the first one, however (even if they were just random and not event-based taunts), especially when the Seraphim spoke [untranslated].  Overall, dignity was lost whenever one of the characters spoke.  No, Square Enix, I don't want to see the stereotypical large-boobed female character--don't even bother with that crap.  They didn't really show anything below the head in SC/FA.

The greatest issue for me was the lack of the traditional resource system.  As already discussed upon, looping factories automatically pause when resources are depleted.  I believe they don't even unpause, which was annoying as the sky falling.  Very annoying that you can't queue ahead of time if you're out of resources, especially for buildings.

--

I am neutral upon the issue of air fuel and idle aircraft remaining in the air.  It's fine, but so was the complicated way of handling aircraft in the first two--fuel made it somewhat overcomplicated, but made it more realistic.  The strategic overlay--I just turned it off because it became annoying.  I found issues with the automatic formation movement--in reducing micro macro for leisure players, you've increased the load for competitive players who want to have spread out formations in order to evade projectiles/etc.  Another possible issue is that they automatically move at the slowest unit speed, so...

I don't know whether or not I will enjoy the artificial maps--if they don't include some natural scenarios for skirmish/MP, then it's a problem.  I don't want to be battling on a Demigod fantasy float forever.

--

What I like?  My FPS/timescale is proper in this game--at least, in the campaign with ~300 unit cap/etc.  Graphics weren't as awful as most conveyed in contrast to next-gen games.  Naval battles received a greater emphasis.  Veterancy, I didn't feel as much during the demo, but still is in the game.  I also was quite fond of the flying Aeon NOD power plants that were not in the demo.

Say, did anyone go as far as to see if ghetto gunships still exist in SupCom 2--wait, they don't have LABs anymore.



Will I buy it?  I don't think so, until I see something worthy in the full game.  Lastly, a serious comparison between SupCom and Command and Conquer should have never occurred--SC has always been the superior game, at least, until now.  Westwood => Electronic Failartsassimilator as to Chris Taylor => Square Characteremphasisdoesn'tworkinSupCom,that'sforRPGs.

6.0/10, moving slightly towards positive end [and hoping].

[Spikey00]

This is a more formal type of review for Supreme Commander 2—I have already explained my quarrels with the gameplay (bland, lack of strategy):  now I may evaluate the missions and AI.

Missions
You should know that the campaign is completely scripted, and offers little challenge in comparison with Forged Alliances', assuming you play hard.  Hard in SC2 is comparable to easy in FA--it does get more difficult as the missions progress, but it remains the same monotony:  "here you are, defend here, then attack".  As far as I can tell, only a select few missions have the presence of an allied AI--they usually require your assistance in some form to make any progress.  I have only encountered two missions with allies in them so far, one where it provides you with its base/units as you come into proximity, only to be destroyed in a cliché type of manner while attempting to flee.  I usually feel comfort with a companion of sorts (as long as they are helpful, unlike FA's campaign friendlies), which is why I bring this up.

Unit AI
There are natural landscape maps amongst the artificial, which satisfies my desire for both.  However, that is the limit of the pleasantries:  the AI is a huge downer, especially being or having influenced by Sorian, the developer of the popular AI mod for SupCom and FA.  First, the unit AI:  sometimes units don't function properly--I notice a major issue with anti-missile units doing nothing, even with missiles in range (destroying my buildings in a sadistic way).  Pathfinding can also be an issue, but proficient enough for it to not detract from the experience--units will often be intelligent (or weightless, being pushed around) enough to navigate to a destination.

As a minor appendage, I wish missile launchers would not stack all their missiles into a single tile—a minor spread would both look and feel better.

AI
The AI in skirmish is amongst the horror:  transport spam, idle units (ie. bombers floating at AI's factory rally point) and very simple strategies, as in example on a large map (Setons):  spam bombers, then later experimentals.  Assume air is going to be the more significant battlefield, and have awful ground attacks composed of mostly AA when it actually sends in a scatter of units.  12 tanks were rare amidst the bomber spam madness—and what?  Engineer attack...?  It occasionally sends a group of engineers to attack you, or I can assume a mass extractor taskforce that simply wanders too far into your territory.  Funny, I do not see it constructing those extractors in the foremost proximity around their bases until a long duration after—I can assume they construct extractors one-by-one, each time returning to its base after it builds one (I did not observe this, but I get a hint of it).  There are occasional flanking manoeuvres, but nothing intricate.

I observed the AI use a Noah Cannon, an experimental that transports units across the map via a cannon monstrosity with predictability:  “I’ll fly over my units over to your base in the same positions every time!”  I did not see the AI use any naval forces either, which was disappointing before I was unexpectedly nuked by one of the four raging AIs that apparently did not enjoy me spamming ASFs and research labs.  Actually, spamming research labs is such an awful strategy:  you win the game by doing so.  Ten labs give you a level within a few seconds—I will be sure to disable the construction of such a structure via game lobby in the future—oh, the horror.

Speaking of the AI, it seems this “Lundquist”, whenever I play with any allies is the first to be destroyed.  First, it is bombed out of this world, and then it was nuked.  Shaking my head in dismay at this tragedy, I knew I had to refocus on destroying the enemy floating flotilla of fine transports so I could attack the icons below without zooming in.

Summary
Less action, less units (though the unit cap is 500) in action, awkward gameplay, lack of depth, over-simplified tech advancement, amongst tons more problems (or features if you prefer) have plagued this game, and have given me enough time to author this review, where if it was a SupCom/FA descendant I would surely be playing still.  While it still runs incredibly smooth, it suffers from a lack of strategy in the series of RTS games that are known for being astoundingly complex but while being an entertaining experience.  The first game may be about build orders (I refute this) then spam, SupCom 2 is a “who can spam more first” where I strongly believe originates from the lack of resource depth (no mass or power plant tiers) and lack of a well-defined tier tree.  The music is not outstanding here either, as I expected without the presence of Jeremy Soule’s wondrous orchestral synthesis.

The most saddening thing for me was seeing such small bases and groups of units—it was almost humiliating for me to watch.  I absolutely wanted to love this game, but I am unable to because the game effectively became another RTS.  Not that I will terminate the game with extreme prejudice—I will still play it, but not with that fanatical desire where I cannot stop to breathe. 

6.5/10
Based on game performance, effects, and aesthetic efficiency.

[Mánagarmr]

I neither have the time, nor the will to write something elaborate, so I will simply state this:

SupCom 2 is a steaming pile of cat poo compared to Forge Alliance. No depth, research spam exploitable and completely retarded resource management (yes factory queues, I'm looking at you).

Stay AWAY from this game. It does, however, look good and run well. That's its only saving grace.

[RCIX]

TL;DR version and those just "driving by": Don't trust every review you read or join the cause against the game without believing it. Buy the game if you have some money and treat it as a separate (but related) game to SC. Then make a fair honest review on it.

*fires a few volleys from disruptor stations*

Too bad you guys can't put aside your comparisons to FA. I know a sequel might ostensibly provide more content in the same gameplay style, but in this case they went with a diffferent direction. The first (of two) quotes i'll use is this:

"People, people....... GET OVER IT!!!"

I'm tired of hearing "wa wa it has no flow economy wa wa no tech levels wa wa dumbed down". Stand it alone from FA, it is a totally different game. Also, about the ai: see the quote above. Aside from AI war, you're not going to get a decent game AI for years to come. Same with missions: really the main reason people play something like SC2 is online multiplayer.

I know this was a bad move for GPG and you can whine about it but the fact is that the demo is based on an outdated unit balancing (and campaign balancing to boot), and you don't get skirmish. Don't use it as a good indicator of online play. It's true you won't see 200 unit armies 5 minutes into the game anymore, but trust me if you let it get to 20 or 30 minutes especially on a large map you'll see big armies.

I personally liked most of the campaign, but i bet you guys would say i have no taste (or that it takes all kinds, or whatever other insult you could think of). It felt reasonably easy on normal, a little more difficult on hard, with a couple of missions standing out on the difficulty scale. But i am not basing my liking of it on the campaign.

Online multiplayer is mostly fun, but unbalanced (as SC1 and FA was just after release). As soon as something is done to either fix this unbalancedness or enable modding, then most of that ought to be fixed. From there, it ought to be a nice accessible blast.

Bottom-lining it for you (and quoting from the same argument i had somewhere else):
"We could go on for days though, and ultimately what GPG did was this: they streamlined the game a lot and made it more accessible to players that weren't die hard fans, and now they're getting virtually tarred and feathered for it (despite a lot of newcomers actually liking the game now). I am, for one, a die-hard fan of SC1 and FA, but if you'll excuse the "heresy", it simply took too long. My friend barely had the time to play with me because the games were so long, and while it had an epic quality it was just tooo...... sllllooooowwww...... and our machines couldn't run it faster."

Also, the second quote i wanted to use (from a gpgnet forum sig): "Everyone's complaining that supcom2 is a pile of junk, so go play fa with the 5 other people that are playing it."

Also, i heard somewhere that people TA fanatics were just as upset over SC's release, because it wasn't the same setup as TA only more modern.

I also think Doddler stated it well in his post.

Having said all of that, this is a game people so let's just relax and not blow up so hard over it

[Mánagarmr]

I think you misunderstand us. FA pretty much did most stuff right. It was, for all it's worth, as close as a complete experience you could get. SupCom had serious turtle issues (see massfabs), FA fixed this with making Mass Extractors MUCH more important, thus forcing the turtle out of its shell. The one gripe I have about FA is shield layering. That's seriously overpowered. Other than that, I find it's as close to a large scale strategy game you can get.

SupCom 2...doesn't even begin to come anywhere close. It's a massive mad rush for research points while fending off the initial rush, and then spam your enemy with your upgraded troops and experimentals, not to mention that the "dumbed down" resource management causes even more micromanagement than the old system did.

As someone else mentioned...it also feels ridiculously cheap. If you play single player, the voice acting and story is just a laughing stock by today's standards. I haven't had time to play much multiplayer yet, but from what I have experienced so far, it's really really just about research spam. Once you are fully upgraded, you either steamroll your enemy with your upgraded troops, or get steamrolled because he chose a "better" research path.

I just miss the strategy. FA was spammy, I admit. But SC2 is even more so.

[Velox]

Having said all of that, this is a game people so let's just relax and not blow up so hard over it

     Ut praedices, agas.

[Spikey00]

I have been playing SupCom 2 for a few days now in total, so it would be fair to say that I am able to understand what the other argumentative is.

I'll begin my dumping again:
- Turtling is more viable in this game than in SC/FA because mass extracts cannot be upgraded to produce more, and therefore produce a linear amount of resources for the entire game.
- Shields can still be spammed, and I am doing a "feel" of price comparison, and I believe SC2 shields are less expensive. 
- Shields do not receive the same type of penalty from artillery/splash damage as in SC/FA, meaning only one shield takes damage from a single projectile.  Easier to spam, once again.
- While shields are vulnerable to gunships, as they fly below the shield radius, overlapping shields can negate this disadvantage.
- Throwing this out here, as you all (along with me) know that there isn't a shield overlay when you're building one.  For what reason was this left out?
- Reminds me of why they didn't include the ACU HP on the sidebar there...  derp.
- SC2 is basically tank/gunship spam, or straight tank or gunship spam after respective AA/shield upgrade.  That land AA upgrade IMO is far too OP.  There isn't any tech levels, so you can't plan to rush to T2/T3, so it greatly limits the player's strategy.
- Campaign is the same spam.  Spam defenses and factory shields, then utterly destroy the AI.  Occasionally you can ACU rush (last mission hilarious OC/jumpjet).
- ACU rushing in MP is funny.  4 ACU rush is even funnier, and I don't think this can be fixed easily.
- AI in FA was by far better than in SC2; sad.

--

Lame.  You can't reclaim all of Guage's structures because some were made invincible in most of the missions (at least in the last Aeon coop with him [or it according to the campaign text]), and you don't have access to the nuke launcher, but that's supposed to be a secret, now isn't it, Williams?

--

Oh, I love you RCIX.

--

I am always disappointed to some degree with the phenomenon where developers would release a 'full' game as a sort of open beta test where people would literally pay in advance to join in on the adventure.  View it as either constructive and immediate criticism towards the next patch, I still it find rather disrespectful to the players who purchase their games with a mutual understanding that they will in turn receive a complete experience.

--

The consequence for making units weigh more is:  a) one unit destroyed means immediate neutralization of firepower/weight (therefore reduces strategy) as to compare with five units of the same stats, as you will still have four remaining if one is destroyed.
ie.  Single Percival vs five Gatling Bots (since I can't compare any unit with SC2 as there are no tiers).

The more severe issue is that b) more units means far more mobility and tactical/strategical options than if you only had a few at a given moment.  I can harass extractors far easier in FA than in SC2 because I can have a few low tier bot groups split up and attack those extractors, instead of needing most of them for main purposes of defense and attack.  I am sure you can figure what I mean by this, but in case:  you have far more precision in what you can do with your units if you have more of them.

Simply put in less-realistic terms, one Fatboy to take out several of your opponent's extractors or ten Rockheads?  What if the opponent harasses you in turn, then your single Fatboy may not be in the situation to help, whereas you can retreat a few of your Rockheads for defense while still being able to harass the opponent.

--

Dumping even more into this thread:  I theorize that the AI runs out of resources, which is why it seems to stall at times after having its buildings destroyed.  After a lengthy time will it be able to rebuild (where it has a factory still producing units), but generally I am discovering the AI in itself is flawed greatly with what it does.

The usual defenses I observe it has are usually two AA towers at base, a single PD very late game, and occasional late game factory upgrades.  It also does a meager expansion consisting of two AA towers and a single radar structure outside of its base, apart from the mass extractors.  The main issue is the lack of PDs at the main base, and the use of factory shields/etc. in protecting its structures and ACU.  There is never a time where random ACU deaths cease to exist when there are AI about, and often this is due to either air attacks that are never properly responded to via AA/ASFs, a large land force where the ACU decides to respond alone, or nukes.  It is quite rare for me to see an ACU being destroyed after the main base is, unless of course it's vs humans/etc., though in general SC2 ACUs are more vulnerable I feel, than in previous games.

--

That bloody cheating AI is just pathetic--not only (assuming) does it have a resource boost, but it has a hilarious build speed in all aspects, including repair (and no fog)?  It's not even funny, as the AI is still the same BO/style and strategy, nothing is different apart from the aforementioned.

Why, Sorian, why... 

--

I'd rather not argue about the AI; after all, this is the only game i know of where players play (and want to play) against it! In every other game, the ai has been easily defeat-able (which is what led to the creation of AI war).

See, you're still thinking in the old way of playing (that is, realizing that the individual units are more valuable but still trying to use them in numbers and ways like they were FA units). If i purchased the Fatboy, i might order an engineer to assist it and harass with it. If i ordered the 10 rokheads i might split them up into several groups of 2 or 3 and use those for harassing, because they have the equivalent strength of "several low-tier assault bot groups".  Also, something that took me the longest to understand is this: Use your ACU! it can take a ton of beating and deal a pounding too, and if you spend as little as 3 research points it becomes even more effective. Then you can do much more raiding on your opponent with your offensive units (or maybe even back up your ACU if you want), and force the enemy on the defensive. Try watching the last game in http://www.gamereplays.org/supremecommander2/portals.php?show=news&news_id=590061 ; While in the replay the opposite guy wins then who should, it gives you an idea of some more interesting strategies to use.

If you go fatboy rush, then id' keep one or two at home for defense then harass with others. Minor experimentals are like the new tier 3 units, use them that way Smiley

It only takes a few TMLs to put your entire base in danger, especially if you've sent in most of your units out.  Where previously it was easy to send in a few insignificant forces and have minimal impact on your main force, it's either you dedicate more resources and units on harassment, or you risk losing those individual harassment.  Units cost more than what they used to in FA (mainly because of the economy change), so every unit counts.

Speaking of TMLs, I am finding that anti-TML structures and units are insufficient, they need an absolute solution for missile launchers, alike the ones from T2 SC/FA.  ACU with an early anti-TML would be helpful as well.

Gunship/land spam will swallow up an attacking ACU a lot of the times, so generally it isn't advisable to go for a straight ACU rush unless you have an equivalent force to deal with theirs (even so, they could focus fire on your ACU).  Usually if you're focused on your ACU rushing, it will leave most of your expansions/etc. vulnerable, and when you're deep in territory you will have your choices limited in either retreating or assassinating the opposing ACU (unless they're in the water, then your rush is effectively stopped, unless you plan on having a tea party whilst the enemy is preparing more gunships).

[RCIX]

Right now the big issue clouding the gameplay is unbalancedness. Once that is fixed, i suspect we'll see a form of grand strategy (i see it even now). Scouting is even more important in this game so that you can choose the correct counter to whatever your opponent chose, yet you also need to get upgrading and along with your strategy to hit him fast. its and interesting conflict between goals to me.

I'll expand on the quote sig then: if you guys like FA so much, then why are you still here whining about SC2 after you've decided to not like it? I'm sure it would make both camps happier if you stayed on the FA side of the divider...

- Turtling is more viable in this game than in SC/FA because mass extracts cannot be upgraded to produce more, and therefore produce a linear amount of resources for the entire game.

Not as much, no. You need a minimum of 4 extractors to run a factory or two, and the more extractors you have the bigger your army can be. If you don't expand the enemy will and then they have the upper hand (oh, and UEF/illuminate can upgrade their mexes). It's just that everyone is so new to the game that no one has realized this yet and those that have aren't telling their secrets.

- SC2 is basically tank/gunship spam, or straight tank or gunship spam after respective AA/shield upgrade.  That land AA upgrade IMO is far too OP.  There isn't any tech levels, so you can't plan to rush to T2/T3, so it greatly limits the player's strategy.

It helps to play without air until they fix the gunships.
To counter tanks spam, use a lot of shielded PD and light arty if you're UEF. Against a decent techer, no land army will survive at least 10 PDs + 5 light artillery. You're not going to get away with investing less resources in defense to stave off an attack, but it is possible.

Treat exps as the higher tech levels (there's about the same numbers of them as t3 unit types from FA). I've pulled off a successful experimental rush with multiple factions. In a close-quarters match, it's devastating (do YOU wqant to see multiple C. Rexes/Megaliths/Urchinows/whatever steaming towards you at the 18 minute mark?).

Basically SC2 is as much a reactionary game as it is an actionary one and you can't get by on seat-of-the-pants defenses while you build teh uber pwnz0r army to win with.

[Spikey00]

Well I'm personally always immune to that "stay out if you don't enjoy" ever since the CS1.6 players began trolling the CS:Source community.

You can easily turtle early game at a single factory that has a couple PDs under its shield, and you will gain a lot more research points than your enemy who will hopefully be losing more than you.  Then using that momentum, you can out-research your enemy and etc.  Smart thing to consider is the cost for a mex, where it pays itself after a long time, so it would be a strategy to harass and destroy the enemy's extractors before they pay over too much while you're still turtling.  A shield with some PDs can easily destroy an experimental alone.

Scouting more easy!?  Sure, the radar is far more effective due to map size, but there aren't any scout units to suicide.  Closest thing of convenience is an ASF which will cost you some resources and a build queue, and perhaps an air factory if you don't have one already.

Well, if you're playing without air, effectively you're without 1/3rd of the game, and PD spam effectively becomes impossible to beat.

Experimentals still don't feel up to par--they only work well on small maps, since they won't be picked off by air/land.  Again, a Cybran BB outclasses the Megalith in most aspects.  Land spam works better late game than experimental spam if you're going for the AA upgrade, and doesn't suffer from the huge penalties like experimentals do from air/etc. and allows you for more options in strategy.  Your damage output isn't instantly reduced to zero when they are destroyed (as aforementioned in the previous posts) and you can more consistently replace lost units.

[Spikey00]

Oh, but hey!  I'm enjoying myself in creating lovely aesthetics bases, imitating the [old] Chris style--of course, under pressure from the obscene waves during the last level on hard.  This was when I didn't think of OC/JJ rushing Guage, and my base turned into a huge shield/PD mess, where my dignity lie therein.



Yeah, symmetry!