Good point Jerykk. I'd rather play C&C multiplayer and RON in single-player. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

C&C is pure spam. Build up a huge force of tanks and anti-aircraft, destroy the enemy base, rinse repeat.

Incorrect. Well, partially incorrect, It depends on which C&C we're talking about. In C&C3, you usually attack in waves and that is conducive to unit spam, particularly with NOD since their tanks are cheap but effective. In Generals and RA3, you are constantly attacking and defending so you don't have time to amass a huge force. You also have to balance your units, as the Rock-Paper-Scissors balancing ensures that no one unit can completely decimate all others. You can't turtle either because expanding your base and maximizing your resources is the key to victory.

plus in the RON compaign you can perform diplomacy

This could be the key discrepancy in our opinions. I'm not basing any of my opinions on C&C single-player gameplay. You can't really experience true C&C in single-player because the levels are very limited and you don't begin any map on an even footing with the AI. As a result, you can do exactly what you are describing: Turtle, build a huge army and then just annihilate the enemy base. You can't do that in multiplayer and it's a completely different experience that is very micro-intensive. RoN is not micro-heavy and emphasizes large-scale strategy and planning instead. But again, totally different styles of RTS that aren't really comparable.

C&C is pure spam. Build up a huge force of tanks and anti-aircraft, destroy the enemy base, rinse repeat. RON requires a balance of all types of units -- plus you have to capture cities -- it's not just reduced to tank spam and destroy the enemy base; plus in the RON compaign you can perform diplomacy, there is attrition, resource management, etc. It requires way more 'strategy' to play RON.

Granted, C&C games are fun as heck, but let's face the truth, they are no way near as close to strategy as RON or Dawn of War. Even DOW has a lot of micro and you care about squads (monitoring their progress, spawning, and upgrades) -- in C&C you just grind out masses of units and flood the enemy as much as possible. It's RTS for the masses. C&C is minimal on strategy, maximum on 'shock and awe'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe

Also, play a game of RON (Gold Edition) and you will, despite it's 2D inheritance, the graphics are more detailed than the recent C&C and RA3. The SAGE engine is beautiful in the games (Generals, C&C 3, RA3), but the art direction is horrendous.

This comment was edited on Jul 30, 2009, 02:36.

Rise of Nations and C&C are completely different styles of RTS. RoN was all about climbing the tech tree the fastest and spamming as many units as humanly possible. C&C is about micro, just like Starcraft 2, Dawn of War, etc. There are many types of strategy game and to compare different types seems a bit silly. It's like comparing GTR2 to Burnout.

I still have yet to play any RTS that is as extensive, graphically detailed, well balanced, and with as sophisticated AI as: Rise of Nations Gold Edition. I compare it to all other RTS's and all fail to compare.

I don't really mind the pop cap. What I do mind is that you have to unlock units. That's retarded. This isn't an MMO, it's an RTS. Every unit should be available right off the bat. Unlockables are essentially bribes that appeal to players' inherent greed and doesn't bode well for the depth and longevity of the actual gameplay.

bleh

This comment was edited on Jul 29, 2009, 23:10.

The C&C games have never had a cap before... why do they think it's a good idea now?

This games lost already, once you strat implementing pop caps it ends up oh i got 100 and you got a 100.. we both lost out units is a draw, so lets go get another 100 and do it all again. the pop cap totaly ruins the game play. just look at Warhammer II,,, same crap. never enough units. No thanks Ill wait for Supcom 2 the real RTSers game when you are not limited.