If I saw this screenshot as a kid I'd be begging my mom to buy this game for me. Looks like an upgraded red alert. I was addicted to RTS base builders with this style.
Yeah I played it. It was fricking garbage. Even more so because it had so much potential.
All those French douchebags had to do was copy C&C Generals. That's all. Just copy the basics of Generals, a modern setting RTS with a simple economy to have big fun spammy fights with. They managed it with Act of War ages ago....
But no they went with some autistic 3 different resource bullshit system. Each faction can auto generate 1 of the 3 resources and I think there's one faction that can maybe sorta kinda auto generate 2 of them but I can't remember, but all thats complicated and expensive to set up. Also all the units and buildings were expensive as frick. The game just dosent play anything like Generals. Gay. As. Frick.
I heard they re-released it not long after it's launch, but by then everyone had stopped giving a shit. I never played the re-release. Dead game. Glad I paid nothing.
The reboot version is fricking trash tho. The original is great, you have to be a brainlet if the 3 resources are too hard for you to manage.
People like you guys are exactly why it failed.
>Marketed as a spiritual successor to generals >Bait and switch by selling people this soulless autistic 3 resource bullshit >Reeeeee about skill and people being brainlets when game fails
A game that's supposed to be a spiritual successor to C&C Generals is not the place for complex resource requirements.
>I heard they re-released it not long after it's launch
It was the version I played first, and even then it was mediocre at best, such a fricking waste of money when compared to AoW. It could have been AoW with the serial numbers filed off, but instead they made the game made by the guys who watched AoW gameplay two or three times on youtube.
I'm always objectively correct about these things so lemme tell you why AoA failed:
It had nothing to do with the 3 different resources and or other inane shit like that.
The game failed because it didn't do what strategy games are supposed to: >Be about strategy and tactics.
Tada thats it. The game wears the suit of a strategygame, it controls like a strategy game, it has basebuilding like a strategy game, but ultimately there's no strategic thinking involved. It's just go through the motions, make a blob of units, push said units towards enemy.
A GOOD RTS game has crazy unit abilities or interesting unit behaviors which you can micro or control, interactions with the map and other such things which prevents it from being a blob on blob pump-fest but a game where you actually have to think about the things you're doing.
This game really didn't have that.
But act of war? It did have those things. >Cool as frick ambush mechanic >Unit abilities like drone-mines, activatable heals, changable unit modes / side-grades and upgrades >neat unit properties which allows you to micro them to maximize potential (like drive circles around a tank with slow turrets using BTRs driving around a stryker) >complex urban warfare with use of rooftops and garrisonable buildings
Basically,
I don't think they know why AoW was good.
It was. The campaign was balanced around and still used the old resource system. The campaign is most people's first stop when they play an RTS. Campaign shit = game shit.
1 year ago
Anonymous
You're right that campaign is shit. But again it has little to nothing to do with the resource system. >story is meh >the mission structure in the campaign is meh >the way units handle and their characteristics are meh >the interactions you have the map are meh >the strategic and tactical depth is meh
What even is good? Suppose you had 1 resource in the campaign would that make it into a masterpiece? No way.
Compare a GOOD strategy game like WC3. >each campaign mission has unique gimmicks or challenge, often going far to deliver a gameplay experience unlike the normal skirmish setup >very high production values for the campaign with very rich lore and character writing >almost all units have unique activatable abilities and handling characteristics ensuring that simply "A-moving" across the screen isn't the optimal way to play
If the fundamentals of the gameplay was good, then why is multiplayer dead?
It just wasn't a very good 'classic' style RTS at its core.
>The game wears the suit of a strategygame, it controls like a strategy game, it has basebuilding like a strategy game, but ultimately there's no strategic thinking involved. It's just go through the motions, make a blob of units, push said units towards enemy.
Literally SC2
Unfortunately yes. It may look like CnC Generals, but utterly lacks soul, has weird gameplay flow with its economy, and it just feels like everything lacks ”impact”. There’s a reason why it was forgotten so soon after release.
Richter here.
Jefferson, what's the situation?
JEFFERSON!
COPY THAT I'M GOING
TANGOS HAVE SPOTTED US >TANGOS HAVE SPOTTED US
TANGOS HAVE SPOTTED US >TANGOS HAVE SPOTTED US
CHRIST I'VE LOST HALF MY ARM
CHRIST I'VE LOST HALF MY ARM
CHRIST I'VE LOST HALF MY ARM
CHRIST I'VE LOST HALF MY ARM
CHRIST I'VE LOST HALF MY ARM
INFANTRY UNIT LOST
INFANTRY UNIT LOST
INFANTRY UNIT LOST
INFANTRY UNIT LOST
INFANTRY UNIT LOST
TANGOS HAVE SPOTTED US
TANGOS HAVE SPOTTED US
>3 resources bad
They patched the game to a version with only 1 resource like 7 years ago. Always knew /vst/ didn't actually play games they have INCREDIBLY STRONG OPINIONS about.
I know but my point is if a launch is bad then that really sours things going forward... so much so that any kind of reboot has a real uphill battle to win back trust. Also the patched version of the game never applied to the campaign, the campaign was still the old 3 resource bullshit system. And that was most players first experience of the game.
In short the thing was a fricking mess. Very unfortunate and it could have succeeded but they made a bunch of fundamentally bad design decisions and the reboot version was not enough to fix it.
This is a Eugen not knowing what the frick they're doing problem. Steel Division 1/2 and now WARNO backs this up.
The reboot version with just 1 resource is fricking shit tho. The launch version is unironically better, and you genuinely have to be a fricking moron if the 3 resources you gotta deal with is something that is too hard for you to overcome.
I would of disagree, not to long ago. But playing the original version again this week, made realize how much more strategy is needed in the original. Instead of just blob units.
Frick RTS community is so damn weird. They act like there intelligence gamers but get filter by the easiest shit.
>Frick RTS community is so damn weird. They act like there intelligence gamers but get filter by the easiest shit.
Damn straight. To be honest, I like to play PVP in RTS games and try to understand the game at a competitive level and follow the metagame.
And one thing I've learned from that is that developers need to be very fricking careful about listening to what the "pro" community wants. Yes they understand the game, but they often act extremely petty and unobjective in terms of giving feedback. Examples: >some hate all change because they got good at the game as it is and fear having to adapt >a lot of them lobby the developers to change the game that will augment their own faction/character/playstyle etc. >conversely a lot of them will shut down any discussion of nerfing shit that obviously is too strong >some lobby extremely autistically for a simplified game in a "puritannical" pursuit of what they think the core of the game should be about: think the no-items final destination, fox only crowd >some don't care about making the game unique and really secretly want the game to be some other game that they liked
Cool and crazy ideas have unpredictable effects on gameplay, and the comp scene hates these things because they don't know how it will play out. But this novelty also makes for interesting games.
I think the "nuke" is a very typical example. It's something that has "cool" factor, but is obviously not "balanced". But normies don't give a shit about that or the comp scene. They just wanna drop a nuke and goddamn they will pay for it. Sometimes such ideas make it into the core gameplay also, see world in conflict, and people loved that game.
I don't see why we need to be hostile towards each other here.
If this is just based on what that anon said about not liking the multiple resources then I don't see how this is solely his fault for being a Command & Conquer fan because as far as titles like Tiberian Sun were concern you did at least have three types of resources you could harvest as Nod anyways: >Green riparius tiberium which was harmful to infantry. >Blue vinifera tiberium which was more valuable then the common green tiberium but what was highly explosive which meant you had to be careful harvesting it or cause it to prematurely explode. >Veinholes grew veins that could stretch across the battlefield harming vehicles that touched the ground but could be harvested by Nod's weed eaters to produce chemical missiles whereas GDI needed to find the veinhole monster and kill it.
As far Red Alert goes there's only been ore and gems which were only different in value and the oil derricks which could be captured around some maps and in Generals depletable supply depots replace fields that need to be harvested along with the return of oil derricks but each faction had their own way of producing funds: >USA simply placed supply drop zones to generate resources. >China could order individual hackers to hack the internet for funds or garrison a group of them into the internet center. >GLA uses the black market to produce funds but could also use general's points to place bounties on enemy soldiers as an alternative and more aggressive means of attaining funds.
Now clearly Tiberian Sun covers the multiple resources business better than Red Alert or Generals, at least Tiberian riparius, vinifera, and veins are better differentiated than ore, gems, and oil derricks in Red Alert or supplies in Generals which can simply be attained from the placing the aforementioned structures to generate them.
As Act of War goes I haven't played it yet because of an error I got but I'm going to try and install it again.
Trying to use isos off of Archive.org to get into Act of War and the expansion pack, game's installed but upon launching it throws up a "Avertissement" message asking me to unlock the game and an error message after I press "okay".
Should I just try and get the Gold Edition off GoG?
>Tom Clancy's C&C
Dale Brown to be exact, haven't read any of his stuff but I was a little surprised seeing that Act of War when looking up stuff for the game and finding it was made in conjunction with a similar author.
Reminds me I need to find my Splinter Cell discs.
God I loved Tiberian Sun... that mission in particular, the genesis pit was awesome. Lead the civilians in there to spawn tiberium lifeforms which went and wrecked up the GDI base. Such a vibrant interesting atmosphere in that game, actual things on the map were dangerous and could attack you. Many weird things littered about the place.
Then afterwards came the soulless C&C3. No tiberium sheep things, no viceroids, no lifeforms of any kind. Veinhole monster gone, tiberium trees gone, colorful bright alien atmosphere gone. Frick I hate EA.
Anyways yeah I liked C&C's 1 resource system. Starcraft with 2 resources was fine as well. Company of heroes has like 4 but they're easy to gather its all just capture territory. I remember Act of Aggressions being a lot more involved than any of those games.
It was a fun and simple mission, the civilians around the starting point are enough to start the chaos but I like using the subterranean transport to take the toxin troopers wherever other civilians were present on the map and sending them to the Genesis Pit too. I feel the same way about the way Tiberium Wars didn't utilize the tiberian lifeforms of its predecessors and the way they presented tiberium although there's supposed to be some scientific background provided as to why tiberium changed but I'm not certain how well that melds with what we knew about tiberium in previous titles such as its status as alien flora and its method of propagation via spores.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Dale Brown to be exact
Well, yes. The Tom Clancy part was more ment to tell you that it was an 80/90s operators operating operationally against international terrorists/Russians who want to destroy the American world order plot.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Oh no, I understood what you were saying I just felt like mentioning him because I only just learned about him in this moment and that he had any involvement with the game.
1 year ago
Anonymous
does the adult male pictured have training wheels on his motorcycle?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Update:
I got it to work!
Any advice going into Act of War for the first time?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Expansion campaign is even better, but it needs some random configuration of Windows compatibility.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I'll figure it out when I finish the original since I have the expansion's iso too, going to try and fix up a widescreen solution right now. I'm assuming the Gold Edition on GoG has been modified to operate properly on modern systems
I don't care what the plebs think. They're wrong. Did the reboot save the game? No? It wasn't the resources thing.
Just realized you're probably the same anon who talked Act of Aggression missing Act of War features, ignore my old reply. 😛
1 year ago
Anonymous
The steam version should of been updated as well. I remember when the game released on GOG it got fixed finally. Then steam go update shortly after.
I have both but only play the GOG version now..
1 year ago
Anonymous
I remember needing to frick with my RAM (artificially throttle it to lower than 4Gb?) but that was like a decade ago
God I loved Tiberian Sun... that mission in particular, the genesis pit was awesome. Lead the civilians in there to spawn tiberium lifeforms which went and wrecked up the GDI base. Such a vibrant interesting atmosphere in that game, actual things on the map were dangerous and could attack you. Many weird things littered about the place.
Then afterwards came the soulless C&C3. No tiberium sheep things, no viceroids, no lifeforms of any kind. Veinhole monster gone, tiberium trees gone, colorful bright alien atmosphere gone. Frick I hate EA.
Anyways yeah I liked C&C's 1 resource system. Starcraft with 2 resources was fine as well. Company of heroes has like 4 but they're easy to gather its all just capture territory. I remember Act of Aggressions being a lot more involved than any of those games.
>Cartel is based.
Agreed and very redpilled. >the shadow gubmint and their army of useful idiots
Consortium main here. Most based faction.
I remember AoW was a "high unit lethality" game as opposed to WC3 which is ultra low lethality or C&CZH which is medium-low lethality. Made AoW a game about scouting, ambushes and timing engagements with CST being the only faction with significant stealth capabilities to fully explore that gameplay aspect.
I also remember the game was strangely very well balanced out of the box. Like almost perfection level. But it might be the high unit lethality and focus on scouting just made it into a "everything is viable because everything kills in a few hits and if you lose well you didn't plan well enough" type of deal.
Yes but I honestly forgot everything about it.
If I saw this screenshot as a kid I'd be begging my mom to buy this game for me. Looks like an upgraded red alert. I was addicted to RTS base builders with this style.
Act of War was superior due to cool campaign.
Do not release an RTS without a gripping campaign if you want to encourage someone to play it in MP.
Agree but I really enjoy AOA skirmish mode. The game would of been hit if had campaign like Aow.
ye, AoA campaign was more of a letdown and toned down version of AoW campaign
AOW always felt like a janky Generals to me.
Which was why I loved it.
Yeah I played it. It was fricking garbage. Even more so because it had so much potential.
All those French douchebags had to do was copy C&C Generals. That's all. Just copy the basics of Generals, a modern setting RTS with a simple economy to have big fun spammy fights with. They managed it with Act of War ages ago....
But no they went with some autistic 3 different resource bullshit system. Each faction can auto generate 1 of the 3 resources and I think there's one faction that can maybe sorta kinda auto generate 2 of them but I can't remember, but all thats complicated and expensive to set up. Also all the units and buildings were expensive as frick. The game just dosent play anything like Generals. Gay. As. Frick.
I heard they re-released it not long after it's launch, but by then everyone had stopped giving a shit. I never played the re-release. Dead game. Glad I paid nothing.
Skill issue
Once again cumwiener fans proved to be the worst scum of the earth uncapable of actually playing RTS games
What's your problem?
People like you guys are exactly why it failed.
>Marketed as a spiritual successor to generals
>Bait and switch by selling people this soulless autistic 3 resource bullshit
>Reeeeee about skill and people being brainlets when game fails
A game that's supposed to be a spiritual successor to C&C Generals is not the place for complex resource requirements.
really, a spiritual successor to generals? not to act of war?
Okay, replace "generals" with "act of war" in everything I said... Nothing fricking changes, it was still garbage lmao
that's true. i haven't yet played this game because all the act of war ogs i see say the game is kinda shit and boring
Only morons like you and and journos advertised it as generals successor after generals 2 got canceled
Why Eugene Systems, creators of Act of War, would want to make a spiritual successor to a a game that just died?
>I heard they re-released it not long after it's launch
It was the version I played first, and even then it was mediocre at best, such a fricking waste of money when compared to AoW. It could have been AoW with the serial numbers filed off, but instead they made the game made by the guys who watched AoW gameplay two or three times on youtube.
I'm always objectively correct about these things so lemme tell you why AoA failed:
It had nothing to do with the 3 different resources and or other inane shit like that.
The game failed because it didn't do what strategy games are supposed to:
>Be about strategy and tactics.
Tada thats it. The game wears the suit of a strategygame, it controls like a strategy game, it has basebuilding like a strategy game, but ultimately there's no strategic thinking involved. It's just go through the motions, make a blob of units, push said units towards enemy.
A GOOD RTS game has crazy unit abilities or interesting unit behaviors which you can micro or control, interactions with the map and other such things which prevents it from being a blob on blob pump-fest but a game where you actually have to think about the things you're doing.
This game really didn't have that.
But act of war? It did have those things.
>Cool as frick ambush mechanic
>Unit abilities like drone-mines, activatable heals, changable unit modes / side-grades and upgrades
>neat unit properties which allows you to micro them to maximize potential (like drive circles around a tank with slow turrets using BTRs driving around a stryker)
>complex urban warfare with use of rooftops and garrisonable buildings
Basically,
I don't think they know why AoW was good.
It 100% was the economy. Which is why they backpedaled with it on the reboot.
I don't care what the plebs think. They're wrong. Did the reboot save the game? No? It wasn't the resources thing.
It was. The campaign was balanced around and still used the old resource system. The campaign is most people's first stop when they play an RTS. Campaign shit = game shit.
You're right that campaign is shit. But again it has little to nothing to do with the resource system.
>story is meh
>the mission structure in the campaign is meh
>the way units handle and their characteristics are meh
>the interactions you have the map are meh
>the strategic and tactical depth is meh
What even is good? Suppose you had 1 resource in the campaign would that make it into a masterpiece? No way.
Compare a GOOD strategy game like WC3.
>each campaign mission has unique gimmicks or challenge, often going far to deliver a gameplay experience unlike the normal skirmish setup
>very high production values for the campaign with very rich lore and character writing
>almost all units have unique activatable abilities and handling characteristics ensuring that simply "A-moving" across the screen isn't the optimal way to play
If the fundamentals of the gameplay was good, then why is multiplayer dead?
It just wasn't a very good 'classic' style RTS at its core.
>The game wears the suit of a strategygame, it controls like a strategy game, it has basebuilding like a strategy game, but ultimately there's no strategic thinking involved. It's just go through the motions, make a blob of units, push said units towards enemy.
Literally SC2
Starcraft 2 is trash tho.
The reboot version is fricking trash tho. The original is great, you have to be a brainlet if the 3 resources are too hard for you to manage.
Unfortunately yes. It may look like CnC Generals, but utterly lacks soul, has weird gameplay flow with its economy, and it just feels like everything lacks ”impact”. There’s a reason why it was forgotten so soon after release.
I played it and got bored immediatly
Richter here.
Jefferson, what's the situation?
JEFFERSON!
COPY THAT I'M GOING
TANGOS HAVE SPOTTED US
>TANGOS HAVE SPOTTED US
TANGOS HAVE SPOTTED US
>TANGOS HAVE SPOTTED US
CHRIST I'VE LOST HALF MY ARM
CHRIST I'VE LOST HALF MY ARM
CHRIST I'VE LOST HALF MY ARM
CHRIST I'VE LOST HALF MY ARM
CHRIST I'VE LOST HALF MY ARM
INFANTRY UNIT LOST
INFANTRY UNIT LOST
INFANTRY UNIT LOST
INFANTRY UNIT LOST
INFANTRY UNIT LOST
TANGOS HAVE SPOTTED US
TANGOS HAVE SPOTTED US
>3 resources bad
They patched the game to a version with only 1 resource like 7 years ago. Always knew /vst/ didn't actually play games they have INCREDIBLY STRONG OPINIONS about.
Too little too late anon. If the launch is awful then the game is essentially stillborn.
I don't think the launch state of the game is relevant 7 years later anon
I know but my point is if a launch is bad then that really sours things going forward... so much so that any kind of reboot has a real uphill battle to win back trust. Also the patched version of the game never applied to the campaign, the campaign was still the old 3 resource bullshit system. And that was most players first experience of the game.
In short the thing was a fricking mess. Very unfortunate and it could have succeeded but they made a bunch of fundamentally bad design decisions and the reboot version was not enough to fix it.
This is a Eugen not knowing what the frick they're doing problem. Steel Division 1/2 and now WARNO backs this up.
The reboot version with just 1 resource is fricking shit tho. The launch version is unironically better, and you genuinely have to be a fricking moron if the 3 resources you gotta deal with is something that is too hard for you to overcome.
I would of disagree, not to long ago. But playing the original version again this week, made realize how much more strategy is needed in the original. Instead of just blob units.
Frick RTS community is so damn weird. They act like there intelligence gamers but get filter by the easiest shit.
>Frick RTS community is so damn weird. They act like there intelligence gamers but get filter by the easiest shit.
Damn straight. To be honest, I like to play PVP in RTS games and try to understand the game at a competitive level and follow the metagame.
And one thing I've learned from that is that developers need to be very fricking careful about listening to what the "pro" community wants. Yes they understand the game, but they often act extremely petty and unobjective in terms of giving feedback. Examples:
>some hate all change because they got good at the game as it is and fear having to adapt
>a lot of them lobby the developers to change the game that will augment their own faction/character/playstyle etc.
>conversely a lot of them will shut down any discussion of nerfing shit that obviously is too strong
>some lobby extremely autistically for a simplified game in a "puritannical" pursuit of what they think the core of the game should be about: think the no-items final destination, fox only crowd
>some don't care about making the game unique and really secretly want the game to be some other game that they liked
Cool and crazy ideas have unpredictable effects on gameplay, and the comp scene hates these things because they don't know how it will play out. But this novelty also makes for interesting games.
I think the "nuke" is a very typical example. It's something that has "cool" factor, but is obviously not "balanced". But normies don't give a shit about that or the comp scene. They just wanna drop a nuke and goddamn they will pay for it. Sometimes such ideas make it into the core gameplay also, see world in conflict, and people loved that game.
But then again, this is the same cumwiener fans that bought demastered collection from EA
what is cumwiener, i feel like i'm missing an obvious joke here
Command & Conquer
C&C
Cum & wiener
cumwiener
alright, not bad, not bad, decent joke
I don't see why we need to be hostile towards each other here.
If this is just based on what that anon said about not liking the multiple resources then I don't see how this is solely his fault for being a Command & Conquer fan because as far as titles like Tiberian Sun were concern you did at least have three types of resources you could harvest as Nod anyways:
>Green riparius tiberium which was harmful to infantry.
>Blue vinifera tiberium which was more valuable then the common green tiberium but what was highly explosive which meant you had to be careful harvesting it or cause it to prematurely explode.
>Veinholes grew veins that could stretch across the battlefield harming vehicles that touched the ground but could be harvested by Nod's weed eaters to produce chemical missiles whereas GDI needed to find the veinhole monster and kill it.
As far Red Alert goes there's only been ore and gems which were only different in value and the oil derricks which could be captured around some maps and in Generals depletable supply depots replace fields that need to be harvested along with the return of oil derricks but each faction had their own way of producing funds:
>USA simply placed supply drop zones to generate resources.
>China could order individual hackers to hack the internet for funds or garrison a group of them into the internet center.
>GLA uses the black market to produce funds but could also use general's points to place bounties on enemy soldiers as an alternative and more aggressive means of attaining funds.
Now clearly Tiberian Sun covers the multiple resources business better than Red Alert or Generals, at least Tiberian riparius, vinifera, and veins are better differentiated than ore, gems, and oil derricks in Red Alert or supplies in Generals which can simply be attained from the placing the aforementioned structures to generate them.
As Act of War goes I haven't played it yet because of an error I got but I'm going to try and install it again.
Act of War was pretty much the same as RA when it came to resources; it was Tom Clancy's C&C made by French"men" that weren't Ubisoft.
Trying to use isos off of Archive.org to get into Act of War and the expansion pack, game's installed but upon launching it throws up a "Avertissement" message asking me to unlock the game and an error message after I press "okay".
Should I just try and get the Gold Edition off GoG?
>Tom Clancy's C&C
Dale Brown to be exact, haven't read any of his stuff but I was a little surprised seeing that Act of War when looking up stuff for the game and finding it was made in conjunction with a similar author.
Reminds me I need to find my Splinter Cell discs.
It was a fun and simple mission, the civilians around the starting point are enough to start the chaos but I like using the subterranean transport to take the toxin troopers wherever other civilians were present on the map and sending them to the Genesis Pit too. I feel the same way about the way Tiberium Wars didn't utilize the tiberian lifeforms of its predecessors and the way they presented tiberium although there's supposed to be some scientific background provided as to why tiberium changed but I'm not certain how well that melds with what we knew about tiberium in previous titles such as its status as alien flora and its method of propagation via spores.
>Dale Brown to be exact
Well, yes. The Tom Clancy part was more ment to tell you that it was an 80/90s operators operating operationally against international terrorists/Russians who want to destroy the American world order plot.
Oh no, I understood what you were saying I just felt like mentioning him because I only just learned about him in this moment and that he had any involvement with the game.
does the adult male pictured have training wheels on his motorcycle?
Update:
I got it to work!
Any advice going into Act of War for the first time?
Expansion campaign is even better, but it needs some random configuration of Windows compatibility.
I'll figure it out when I finish the original since I have the expansion's iso too, going to try and fix up a widescreen solution right now. I'm assuming the Gold Edition on GoG has been modified to operate properly on modern systems
Just realized you're probably the same anon who talked Act of Aggression missing Act of War features, ignore my old reply. 😛
The steam version should of been updated as well. I remember when the game released on GOG it got fixed finally. Then steam go update shortly after.
I have both but only play the GOG version now..
I remember needing to frick with my RAM (artificially throttle it to lower than 4Gb?) but that was like a decade ago
God I loved Tiberian Sun... that mission in particular, the genesis pit was awesome. Lead the civilians in there to spawn tiberium lifeforms which went and wrecked up the GDI base. Such a vibrant interesting atmosphere in that game, actual things on the map were dangerous and could attack you. Many weird things littered about the place.
Then afterwards came the soulless C&C3. No tiberium sheep things, no viceroids, no lifeforms of any kind. Veinhole monster gone, tiberium trees gone, colorful bright alien atmosphere gone. Frick I hate EA.
Anyways yeah I liked C&C's 1 resource system. Starcraft with 2 resources was fine as well. Company of heroes has like 4 but they're easy to gather its all just capture territory. I remember Act of Aggressions being a lot more involved than any of those games.
yeah its aight, I play it every now and again as cartel faction
Cartel is based.
>Cartel is based.
Agreed and very redpilled.
>the shadow gubmint and their army of useful idiots
Consortium main here. Most based faction.
I remember AoW was a "high unit lethality" game as opposed to WC3 which is ultra low lethality or C&CZH which is medium-low lethality. Made AoW a game about scouting, ambushes and timing engagements with CST being the only faction with significant stealth capabilities to fully explore that gameplay aspect.
I also remember the game was strangely very well balanced out of the box. Like almost perfection level. But it might be the high unit lethality and focus on scouting just made it into a "everything is viable because everything kills in a few hits and if you lose well you didn't plan well enough" type of deal.
Shame AoA didn't really get it.