Yeah...I guess it should, tried to change it, didn't work.

Err well I beta'd Supreme Commander and the multi player is fun enough that I'll end up buying it. It's sort of fun theres lots of ways to win that can really make end games interesting - some people tech up for things like nukes or high end artillery that can hit anything on the map - some people prefer a fast rush - still others go for the mobile tech 3 siege bots and the more powerful experimental weapons. It's got enough ways to win/lose that I'll buy it and finally stop playing Star Craft (I still play it) anyway yeah its fun single player won't keep you entertained for long tho... the AI just isn't that impressive once you learn all the cheap ways to get more mass/energy (build a TON of power plants & tech 1 mass fabricators) which is something the AI just won't do. (they'll build them but not like 300 power plants and 150 mass fabricators)


Online play will keep you around for years if you learn to enjoy it.

"Warning though: This game NEEDS a VERY POWERFUL system to run it. You should run it on nothing less than:

Duo 2 core (or quad core) the game is VERY processor intensive.
nvidia 7900 or better (512 or more video ram recommended)(game currently doesn't support sli)
2-3 gigs of ram on xp or 4 gigs on vista (large maps with 7 ai requires 3 gigs of ram)"

Bah Thats BullShit. I'm playing on a bargain machine built in 2003. Observe, P4 2.4 ghz, non-HT certainly not a Dual core, PC 2700 RAM, 896 MB of it, 60 GB harddrive, Geforce 6600 AGP 8X 256MB video ram.

Needs a dual core my ass. It would of course be nice to have a dual core rig, so I don't exprience an occassional slowdown, but chances are your opponent isn't on a dual core either, and expriencing the same slowdown, Nor do you need a 512 MB video card, what are you smoking and then lying to us about OCTA-bullshiter?

"It's lame they couldn't get it to work on lower end machines."

Like mine? LOL.

I will admit to play the game with all the fidelity settings at max, and expect a nice smooth experience then yeah you need a beefy system. But to play, you ABSOLUTELY DO NOT NEED A KING OF HILL SYSTEM.

Stop with the exaggerations.

Check out my thread here...

https://forums.galciv2.com/?forumid=349&aid=145648

guess i should have checked here first. Anyways, it's about some issues i'm having with SC...

By the way, the main problem for video issues both for Galciv2 and of course Supreme Commander is people not updating their video card drivers. Not updating video card drivers = less then stellar video performance.

If you get an oil change for your car every 3-5k miles you should be updating your video card drivers as often.

Dan I understand what you are saying but what you are saying is not actually based on fact related to Supreme Commander. You obviously are extrapolating information based on your own personal experience with the game and your rig.

I however am taking information from several benchmark sites, reviews, Statements by the Devs, The gpg forums, and personal experience.

Fact 1: IF you want good performance, It has been said from numerous sources that you will NEED a Dual core or quad core. The game was designed with the future in mind. The minimum specs will not cut it as most people on the forums (and benchmark sites) have pointed out.

Fact 2: You can run the game ok on the lowest settings and on small maps with low number of opponents if you have system that is above the minimum requirements.

Fact 3: playing the largest maps against multiple opponents takes between 2-3 gigs of memory as per reported on the forums. A solution to avoid crashes if you have less than 2 gigs is posted on the tech support forum.

Fact 4: The DEVS themselves have said on the forums " there is not a computer built that can run SupCom in all it glory right now".

Fact 5: If you have an audigy card you will most likely need to disable it and run on board sound in order to get reasonable performance. This has been confirmed on the techsupport forums.

Fact 6: If you want full graphical goodness without issue then a 512mb vid card is what its going to take. If you run low settings and low resolution then you can use 128-256 mb vid card. (so yes in this case it's not needed but it will help greatly).

Like I said before. If you have a low end system then expect to get 12-20fps while running low settings for graphics,sound,unit count, and mapsize. If you want the full gameplay experience (not neccarily the graphical experience) then you will need a more powerful system.

I'm not slamming the game, but merely saying that if you have a low end system relative to supcom's needs then you can expect a less than stellar experience and could be dissapointed. So On one hand yes...you can run the game with the recommended reqs it won't be pretty or run very well but yes you can do it. You have to decide if that's the experience you want.

Chris Taylor himself said they made no compromises on supreme commanders performance, It REQUIRES a highend system to run well.

Take the information as you like, but I think it's misleading Dan to tell people everything is peachy on a lowend system (relative to the game that is) like yours.

The recommended system reqs are actually the minimum. The minimum reqs are a sick joke.


But whatever don't believe me, go read the reviews, the benchmark sites, and the forums and see for yourself.

"Fact 2: You can run the game ok on the lowest settings and on small maps with low number of opponents if you have system that is above the minimum requirements."

I can run any map, with any number of players on low fidelity settings. Unit limits can't be 1000 granted but they can be 250 or 500. It's playable.

"Fact 6: If you want full graphical" Again the word Want, not need.

"but merely saying that if you have a low end system relative to supcom's needs then you can expect a less than stellar experience and could be dissapointed."

First time playing a PC game? Duh. Anybody knows system specs are important to any purchase. Thats why they are listed in black and white in a standardized format. Just like warning labels on medicine.

You need not contradict yourself any further, just stop saying what "people need" vs what they might want and explain yourself a bit further.

Anyone with the minimum specs of any software will not experience the same thing as someone with several hundred dollars of higher value in their rig. My point to provide my own specs, indicates that I have some above and beyond the minimum required, yet not your own boasting as necessity, yet I was able to achieve acceptable performance and indeed play.

My my, Dan, aren't we acerbic this morning . . .

"I'm guessing you are a former Bull Shitter that got better. Perhaps you can provide a twelve step program to my recovery?"

Step one, find a toilet, kneel, dunk your head in it, Flush.

Ahhh that felt better.

Look man, I have noticed some slow downs in 3v3 games with higher then 500 unit limits. But you know what, I have also noticed that when all the players had great systems on LAN with my same system the game is fine.

Bottom line, you can drop $4,000 of jack on a system and still end up playing MP with a guy who has a 2.4 ghz processor, 896 MB RAM, Geforce 6600, and it's still going to lag your game when I send 250 units into your base to kill you.

So yes you are right. It will be slower if you don't have a computer built with top of the line stuff, yesterday. But anybody should expect that a system with lower specs is going to have to make trade-offs on performance.

Your statements of which you have not rebutted whatsoever, were that you NEED to have top of the line equipment to run it and that you weren't kidding about it. Well you neither need top of the line equipment to run it, or to play MP.

If you have the minimum specs, the bare minimum, you may have to limit yourself to 1v1 or 2v2 games, with your settings on low, but hey, wouldn't be the first game you've had to limit yourself on because of that system.

Get my drift?

EPIC GAME

Supreme Commander has one really excellent feature.

The strategic zoom, which hopefully will carry over to future RTS games, I also like the effectiveness of the transports, I wish they were more defendable, and I also like the no rush circles. The editor is pretty good. Unfortuantley it has taken gpg so long to get the ball rolling on meaningful updates and improvements to the games, as well as fixing memory management issues, and it doesn't play well at all on single core marginal systems. I don't even know why they didn't just say dual core or bust on the box but even playing on a 3.4 Xeon single core holds nothing to a weak Core 2 Duo.

I have a Quad and it plays pretty good on XP, I'm hoping Vista isnt going to suck ass.