C&C: Generals ONLINE versus LAN

[MFalcon]

I started playing this online and for the past three days I have noticed some tactics that just about every asshole in the game uses.

1. Capture every supply depot on the map with a worker/bulldozer and begin building a supply center. After this supply center is built, build a base around it.
2. Never use super weapons. They are a waste of time, power, and money.
3. Build either a large strike force of tanks or aircraft.
4. Base defenses are mostly useless. Your best defense is a strong army in garrisoned buildings with a few vehicles around.
5. If you followed the above.. you win by default unless your opponent clicked his mouse faster in the first 10 minutes and beat you to the supply depots.

NOW.. just about every goddamn player is doing that. Its "ok" playing like that but theres not really a lot of strategy involved. When I play LAN games with my friends this is what must be done.

1. Build a strong defense around your base, as your opponents ALREADY control the other supply depots.
2. Build one super weapon and get it up as quickly as possible. (we only allow one per person anyhow)
3. Once the above two are met, build a strong tank/aircraft strike force and hit the other guys base.
4. Use general upgrades or your super weapon to strategically attack your opponent AND invade thier base. Use of Black Lotus/Con. Burton/Jarmin Kell is recommended to help this.
5. Build supply drops/black markets/hackers to keep your money supply up when your supply depot runs out.

Its kind of funny how different the playstyles are online compared to in a LAN game. I think I enjoy LAN games more because they require more skill from someone than just "multiply and rush". The use of powerful weapons and your army together become the key to victory instead of just rushing in with all of one kind of unit.

Good game either way, I am glad we are having another LAN party on Sunday.

[DarkViruz]

1. Capture every supply depot on the map with a worker/bulldozer and begin building a supply center. After this supply center is built, build a base around it.
2. Never use super weapons. They are a waste of time, power, and money.
3. Build either a large strike force of tanks or aircraft.
4. Base defenses are mostly useless. Your best defense is a strong army in garrisoned buildings with a few vehicles around.
5. If you followed the above.. you win by default unless your opponent clicked his mouse faster in the first 10 minutes and beat you to the supply depots.

The way I play online.

1. I usually win before I run out of money, I only take one supply center as its a waste of time to go for others. Derricks help though.

2. They are a last result.

3./4. I turtle like no one else. If you can get through my base with a tank rush/aircraft rush you deserve to win. Scuds are your god.

5. Negative.

And playing on lan sounds boring...Why would you try to get a superweopon up as fast as possible...its such a waste of time you could be building demo trucks and sending them into tunnels...

[MFalcon]

And playing on lan sounds boring...Why would you try to get a superweopon up as fast as possible...its such a waste of time you could be building demo trucks and sending them into tunnels...

That sounds like its coming from someone who has never played at a LAN party.

We usually have 5 to 8 people with most of the positions where the supply depots are at filled. So building a super weapon is extrodinarily powerful when you have your army waiting at thier gates. Granted you can play other ways and I intend to try out the Online style at the LAN party this Sunday.

5. Negative.

How? If you don't capture more supplies than your opponent than consider your goose cooked. You can "attempt" to defeat the guy with just two supply depots but your stretching the capacity of those depots and your ability to defend and attack with whatever army you have assembled. I might add that in this time he is going to be building his own army. Lets take a hypothetical situation where I have captured only two supply dumps and you have the other six on the map. If I create an army and send it to one of your dumps, destroy your base/army at that dump, you always have FIVE other bases to rely on. Now I have to send my damaged army to your next.. by this time I am sure you will be sending atleast some of your forces either to my army or my base.

The battle of attrition is going to be won in the first ten minutes of gameplay by the player who captures the most supply dumps. Look at any of the col. or gen. ranked players and you'll see that they ALWAYS capture all or most of the supply depots in the first ten minutes. Its a strategy that is sadly copied, as I learned it in only a few games online, and easily fine tuned. You learn not to capture new depots with base defenses.. but barracks and THEN place your supply center. You can also get into the fine nitty gritty of how many dozers/workers to create and how many rocket launcher/rifle infantry to garrison around a supply depot.

[DarkViruz]

if you let the other player get 6 supply depots and build up 6 decent bases...you deserve to lose... 2 supply depots are enough to allow me to win, more then enough if i have 1 + 2 oil derricks (ala island map)

[MFalcon]

Hey if your saying your as good, or better, than some of those col. or gen. ranked players on there then I'd love to see it. In almost every game I have played they populate the map and capture multiple supply centers, if not the majority of them, in the first 10 minutes of play. I havn't seen a gen. or col. ranked player use only two supply dumps and still manage to overrun my base.

The online strategy FAILS however, when there is a full game of four players on a four player map. Then! each player must fend for themselves: Do not multiply bases, do not capture the supply centers, do not pass go and collect $200. And its funny because every match where there is a 2 on 2 or a 3 on 3 game.. they will ALWAYS switch the map to a 6 player or an 8 player map so they can gain an advantage with the supply center trick. Its pathetic and shows little ingenuity for themselves, as they are simply relying on another's strategy.

[DarkViruz]

I guess I should mention I play only 2v2 and i usually play on only 4 player maps. (although 8 player maps are fun too).

I hope I dont sound arrogant but I reckon I can take several of the col. gen. players to school. (that sounded so cow boyish... bonus points for dv!)

Granted I'm not insanely good where I'll win every game, but assuming my partner isn't a numbnut who force fires on himself It shouldnt be a problem to win without having to take over all the supply depots in an 8 player map. I'll agree with you that that is what a lot of people do, but I'll disagree with it being as effective as you make it sound. Hope that made sense.

[MFalcon]

I FINALLY FOUND ONE! gen. ranked player who actually DID NOT populate the map with a multiple base strategy. Infact, for the first couple of minutes I thought I had finally seen a madman at work. His strategy was insane but it worked so ingeniously.

1. DO NOT build more dozers.
2. Build only a barracks, and supply center.
3. Bring your dozer as close to the enemy base as possible with one or two rocket infantry in close guard.
4. Build a barracks near the enemy base.
5. Bring more rocket infantry onto the field and begin assault.

So how would this work? Simple.. every rocket infantrymen on the US has the "laser guided" targeting system. Tap that onto your target and suddenly your guys start firing 3 shots for every 1 normal at a target. You can take a tank, humvee, technical, ect. out before they even reach you. He did this about two to three times and destroyed the guys defensive army in seconds.. then proceeded with a riflemen to capture the war factory. At this point, being maybe 10 minutes into the match, the other player realized he was totally fucked because his base was out of money AND his command center was next... the guy unplugged his internet connection and lagged out instead of accepting defeat. Absolutely crazy shit. I guess this would be considered "rushing" since it doesn't entirely rely on the supply trick.

[Shoruk3n]

From my experience there are different "types" of games people play in Generals. I love using the rush as USA against GLA or another USA player. It's very easy to see if they will be ready for it since I have a spy drone and satellite scan at my disposal in the first .000001 seconds of the game. If they are ready for a rush, I simply secure their nearest expansion. Five missile defenders and 3 rangers are move than sufficient to stop any expansion. Depending on how the game is going I'll either concentrate on my main base def/assault force and sacrafice the 8 soldiers in an effort to keep them out of the expansion as long as possible. If/when they do finally kill off my forces, I have enough units to recapture said expansion, then start putting pressure on his base.

On the other hand, if I do rush, I leave my base open to assault big time. One tank/hummer/gat tank etc is pretty much enough to put my business in a stand still.

[MFalcon]

Oh man.. played a little more and learned a new rushing technique for China from a China Col.

Basically goes like this:
1. Build a power plant with your first dozer and begin building another dozer at your command center.
2. Begin building a supply center with the first after your power plant is up and send the second dozer towards the enemy base.
3. Once on the outskirts, out of the enemies view, build a war factory followed by a barracks.
4. Create a chain gun tank and flame tank.
5. At the barracks build four to five rifle infantry.
6. Send the flame tank towards thier barracks to burn any infantry created AND kill the barracks.
7. Send the chain tank to the supply depot and begin killing thier resource gatherer(s).
8. Use the rifle infantry as a support group incase your facing a resourceful USA player who has rocket infantry that likes to use "laser lock".

Not to complicated and once you destroy the first base barracks bring your flame tank to destroy the rest AND send your dozer up to capture that supply depot. You might also want to build more reinforcements to begin widdling away at his friend if this is a 2 on 2 game.

Good times!

[Shoruk3n]

Even better than that is send your first dozer right outside their base. Build a barracks, then a bunker, and if you feel like it a gat cannon as well. From there you can head in and do some damage, or just cut off supplies etc. Just make sure you don't spread yourself too thin.

Hey Falcon, we should play some 2v2 and some 3v3 games online. I have a neighbor who I've been playing 2v2 with and we're looking for a 3rd.

[DarkViruz]

oh i see how it is, suddenly I'm not good enough for you. *cries*

[Shoruk3n]

JOO TWO DV!

[MFalcon]

I am up for anything. Just contact me on MSN messenger when you wanna play: mfalcon85@hotmail.com

I went to two LAN parties, one on Friday and another on Sunday. The Friday game was pretty good with just six people. The rushing tactics were pretty useful for awhile and the different maps we played like, "Fight for Badgdad" and "A Day at the Beach" added flavor. Our only hitch was the occassional lag.

The Sunday game was shaping up nicely with 8 people and a 24 port D-Link switch, which had all the collision controls to keep the game smooth. However, 45 minutes into the two large games we played the game crashed out on everyone's computer with, "A serious error has occured" followed by an EA/Westwood explaination of possible reasons. I almost wonder if the game can't handle an 8 player game because it happened on ALL the machines in the game. Its fucking rediculous because we played with 6 people without any issues.

[Shoruk3n]

I've gotten the "serious error" message a few times. I don't think the number of players in the game is relevant to the error, since I've gotten it playing 2v2 and 1v1 games. It may be hardware related, but I'm a bit skeptical about that since the sheer volume of players getting errors suggests otherwise. I'd say poor programming is the culprit.

But since the game still rocks, I'll be messenging you soon Falcon. You down for some 3v3?

[MFalcon]

Yea I will probably be up for anything around 5 or 6pm since I have some shit I need to take care of.

And I agree with you about the programming.. its gotta be the shitty netcode.