65 replies to this topic

[Kyouko]

I definitely hope for physics, deformable terrain and a not too far in the future storyline with units whose designs that already have been concieved

[Chyros]

Oh, I'll add a wish for an engine that was simply built for modding (and preferably not tons of things that are hardcoded) .

Edited by Chyros, 04 May 2008 - 02:00.

[Zancloufer]

Generals two would be like the first, but:

1) MUCH better mod-ability. Same base, but stuff like upgrade and AI limits wouldn't exist, you could add new damage types, have a simple script de-bugger, and have more options making complicated feactures possible (codeable movable aircraft carriers, and I mean REAL ones) etc.

2) Improved scripting set-up for multi-player. Allow scripts to work better in single player and add more to bridge some gaps.

3) SUPPORT. IE: More than 4 patches for ZH, and leaving it horribly imbalanced.

4) BETTER STORY.

5) Better (and more) official maps.

6) NAVAL COMBAT. But have that disabled by default and only work on certain maps.

Generals and ZH was awesome. Though lacking support, and having some modding/mapping blocks, it was one of the BEST RTSs. Nothing short of Starcraft had anywhere near as much awesome it had. SAGE was a very good start, easy to mod, a lot of choices, but a bit boxed-in. More unique changes where difficult, but if it happened in-game, it was REALLY easy to duplicate. With almost no assistance at all, the files them-selves are almost completely self-explainitory.

[Kichō]

Just like Generals and Zh but with better models and skins, ones EA made were horrible.

I'd like for China to be kept in and the campaign could be around the Countries/Factions country. :o

And also...Make the AI harder and smarter! D:

[Thunderstruck]

Hehehehe, my plan exactly. Although it is proving hard to get my hands on the engine. I talked with EA, but they didn't fill me in. The most useful thing I got is.... "you can modify the engine, but it will still need the disc. If they bought the game, then they can modify it how they want, as long as it still needs the disc." I am having luck I think. I spent an hour on the phone with someone from EA.

[Overdose]

Get rid of dozers and workers and it will be a good game.

[Waris]

Overdose, on 4 May 2008, 13:48, said:

Get rid of dozers and workers and it will be a good game.

Dozers stay in Generals, ConYards stay in RA/CnC. Comprende?

[AllStarZ]

Chyros, on 3 May 2008, 19:34, said:

Stinger, on 3 May 2008, 22:59, said:

If there is to be a Generals II, I'd prefer it remain grounded in reality.

Exactly. PDL's, Comanches, Auroras, that kind of in-about-ten-years stuff. That is what made Generals so great.

And that's why I originally bought the magazine containing the article about the new CNC game that seemed to hold so much potential, and went on to buy the full game after playing the demo included with the CNC boxset I got before The First Decade came out. And after three weeks I was utterly disappointed, scrouging for mods and statmodding it.

[Uber Daisy]

Overdose, on 4 May 2008, 0:18, said:

Get rid of dozers and workers and it will be a good game.

Since when do staff members troll their own boards anyway?

I don't have a problem with partial integration of the instabuild structure system, though. Not actual instabuilding, but maybe some kind of liht deployable structure-unit that allows builders to build at normal speed, while otherwise they'd be forced to build at 1/3 the speed. Also would be nice and increase gameplay depth if builders could collaborate. (something absent thus far in C&C) It would certainly bring the concept of the base back to Generals.

I'd also like it if structures started getting built after you got there and couldn't get destroyed until the dozer got started.

[Kichō]

Overdose, on 4 May 2008, 5:18, said:

Get rid of dozers and workers and it will be a good game.

Actually the Dozers and Workers are acutally alright, I've adapt to them, the only thing I hate about the traditional buildsystem is that when an Engineer comes along and captures the Construction Yard is that you have no other way to build.

[Archon]

Dozers and workers stay.That wouldnt be generals anymore.
I hate build system in RA and C&C 3, when building just rise up from ground.

[Dauth]

Start units are a must otherwise it's just General II not Command and Conquer Generals II

@ppl calling OD a troll, he's not he's stating his opinion, tbh I am not hugely fussed about the dozer system, I do like it for the Generals gameplay.

[Rich19]

I prefer the dozer/worker system FAR more than the conyard system of RA/Tiberium games. There are just so many more possibilities - dozer drops, map control, tunnel networks, easier expansion... Dozer hunting is a good tactic, you can sell your CC is you think it's worth the risk. Then there's realism - while not totally realistic, it's better than nuclear missile silos spontaneously sprouting from the ground.

Edited by rich19, 04 May 2008 - 12:36.

[step2ice]

rich19, on 4 May 2008, 12:36, said:

I prefer the dozer/worker system FAR more than the conyard system of RA/Tiberium games. There are just so many more possibilities - dozer drops, map control, tunnel networks, easier expansion... Dozer hunting is a good tactic, you can sell your CC is you think it's worth the risk. Then there's realism - while not totally realistic, it's better than nuclear missile silos spontaneously sprouting from the ground.

Well said.

The sidebar is the most stupid thing which was brought back from the ashes it belongs to.

I still can't believe that they even use it for RA3.

If a Generals 2 should surface, which I highly doubt because of the political correctness factor, and it comes with a sidebar, then I will move completely to Relic/Blizzard - RTS wise.

[Overdose]

Sidebar is brought back. Then naval combat and walls. It's likely we'll also be getting spies back.

Edit: Mind control also made a return. Though that has no chance of making into the next Generals unless it gets a more realistic make over such as a defection system.

Edited by Overdose, 04 May 2008 - 15:45.

[Uber Daisy]

Dauth, on 4 May 2008, 6:21, said:

Start units are a must otherwise it's C&C online and not skirmish

fixed

In all seriousness start units make an interesting option and obviously allow for more tactical depth, but they're hardly needed to be C&C Generals II.

Edited by Daishi, 04 May 2008 - 16:32.

[The Wandering Jew]

Generals 2 entirely made by EA?

I honestly do not think that EA shall release Generals 2, 3, what not.

With all the MODS coming out these days?

Perhaps a NEW EA game would be much more feasible.


Just my two cents.

[AZZKIKR]

basicaaly a russian faction. and an asian faction as we are ignored. there are mods with australia, serbia, korea. but not us? :shameless:

[Medve]

With so many modders out there, they only have to bring out something that has great potential, and let the modders do the rest .
They would screw up anyway.

Medve

[CommanderJB]

I think I'll quote myself here from a for-all-intents-and-purposes-identical thread that appeared a short while ago:

Quote

And honestly, to all those people who think we aren't going to get a Generals II, EA is out to make money. How can they pass up a popular game with a large fan-base to go back to? They've done it with all their other games and franchises, and I'm positive that given time they'll do it for this one.

With three C&C games on the go at the moment it may be some time before we see a Generals II, and hopefully by that time SAGE will be in a retirement home and we'll see some really cool new stuff like full-3D, free-camera, dynamic-environment engines (besically like WiC's MassTech engine but bigger and more moddable would be good in my opinion). But really, EA can't honestly pass up a fan-base which has stayed loyal for something on five years now, which is an enormous length of time for a game.

Edit - spelling.

Edited by CommanderJB, 06 May 2008 - 00:53.

[Sharpnessism]

AZZKIKR, on 5 May 2008, 3:44, said:

basicaaly a russian faction. and an asian faction as we are ignored. there are mods with australia, serbia, korea. but not us? :shameless:

I know of at least 2 mods with Russia. Current EA already has China as Asian representative =P

[Cuppa]

AZZKIKR, on 5 May 2008, 3:44, said:

basicaaly a russian faction. and an asian faction as we are ignored. there are mods with australia, serbia, korea. but not us? :shameless:

Well, Russia uses quite a bit of Russian hardware, it would be redundant IMO

[CommanderJB]

Umm... yeah, I can imagine Russia probably would use a lot of Russian hardware in most games and mods (not to mention real life). Or did you mean Asia uses a lot of Russian hardware? Because they don't, really. Search 'Sino-Russian Split' on Wikipedia - the countries aren't great friends except by necessity (i.e. cooperation on energy resources, land, and the occasional joint military exercise). China certainly manufactures all its own weapon these days (there are quite a few revisions of reverse-engineered weapons from other countries, but these are steadily being replaced by wholly indigenous designs such as the ZTZ-99, J-10/11, Z-10 and so on) - it's much cheaper to build modern military hardware than it is to buy tit, after all.
As far as an 'Asian faction' goes, well, quite a few have China in them; there also aren't a lot of modern military RTSs out there these days which use real-life countries, so the chances are smaller than in some other instances. And there aren't really any other countries in the region who are militarily important world players, which are the countries that get used in factions for RTSs thanks to their size, diversity and general plausibility (people side with the USA/China/Russia in a war, they don't go it alone and form their own faction. Alliances are just the way major wars work.), an 'Asian faction' isn't really a viable option for game designers.
Edit - typo, word correction.

Edited by CommanderJB, 06 May 2008 - 03:55.

[Waris]

Did not 'Sino-Chinese Split' means something like the separation between China and Chinese though :???:

[CommanderJB]

Oh, man. I did it myself. Hypocrite much? Edited.