The trouble with big maps
You may have noticed that at any given moment there are usually only 1 or 2 custom games available to join involving the truly huge 40×40 and 81×81 kilometer maps. Of course, none of these maps are available at all in ranked play, with good reason. In custom games, however, one cause for the lack of play on these maps is that most computers will struggle to handle them. Matches on these maps are best played as 3v3 or 4v4, and you definitely need a pretty serious dual core processor before even thinking about playing a 4v4 on an 81×81 map. Two gigabytes of RAM is also pretty much a necessity to play on the 81×81 kilometer maps.
However, even if everyone had a computer that could handle these sorts of matches, I still don’t think we would see many of them. These maps heavily favor turtling, which depending on the skill of the players involved, could mean almost an hour of boring base building before any action occurs. Even once action begins, the huge size of the map renders many of the attack methods common on smaller maps useless. For example, if you want to attack with a ground based experimental, pretty much the only option is to put SCUs in close proximity to your enemy’s base and build it there. This is also true if you want to use tech 3 artillery. Even using naval attacks can be cumbersome, as it is really pretty much impossible to bring a fleet of 50 battleships to bear effectively.
The relative difficulty of pulling off these sorts of attacks makes the use of the less interesting game ender tactics – those involving nukes and the UEF Mavor – much more attractive. This turns the game into purely an economic race, with no real military strategy whatsoever. While this sort of gameplay can occasionally be fun, it is not what I typically want when I boot up SupCom. In my eyes, this is currently a limitation inherent to SupCom. As to whether we will see any mods that will make matches on the largest maps fun, who knows? They would have to substantially change the current nature of the game.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
My main reason for not playing big maps (aside from the lag) is that they just take too damn long. Games can easily last two hours, which translates into 4 hours of real-world time due to all of the lag incurred on a huge map. It’s like the 81×81km maps only exist as a selling point for the game; nobody really ever plays them in practice.
The only time I would ever consider playing a 40×40 or larger is if it is predominantly a naval map. Naval battles scale a lot better than land battles do. The naval units are really deadly (battleships have a range of 2.5km), so you aren’t forced into that annoying strategy of having to build your attacker units close to the enemy (like you would on land battles). Naval units are powerful and sturdy enough that it still does make sense to build them in your base and send them out to do battle, even on huge maps.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I believe in the future, say… 1 year from now… this game will still be a big deal and lots of people will play. I envision everyone with quadcore processors and at least 2 gigs of RAM. internet speeds like never before. In this future, players will play 81 x 81 maps. It’ll be great. oh, and computers will be powerful enough that the need for a unit cap will be eliminated.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Big maps are boring as hell. 20×20 is all I can stand to play and even then the lack of attacking puts me to sleep. I refuse to touch 40×40 bigger. I mean, my computer wouldn’t handle it either way, but if it could I’d still avoid them. The last 2v2 I played was on a 20×20 map and in the 30 minutes the game took, the only attack was my strat bomber runs that took out both the enemy ACUs. Boring. Half an hour of build-up for 30 seconds of attack. Dumb, dumb, dumb. I don’t know who GPG was kidding adding maps that big, but they really need to be removed from the game completely.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Cyde Weys is complaining about the exact opposite thing that I was listening to last night. A friend of mine was complaining that the game only favors “rabbiting” and if you want to play defensively, there’s almost nothing that can be done (maybe it’s the same…). I pointed out that it would be perfectly possible on some of the larger maps, but we’ve had little luck playing big maps on are wee computers.
Those 81×81 maps are my dream, really. But, since I mostly only play against the AI, which can’t cope with maps that large, it’s crappy 5×5, T1 FTW maps for me.
Damn.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Are you for real?! Have you even played on 80X80 land map? I’ve had some of the most intense battles on larger maps. Econ race, no strategy? Common… this is where air transports and aircraft carriers become crucial! You have to plan, create staging points and air refueling platforms! Who cares if it takes *shivers* over 1 hour to play, a lot of players spend hundreds of hours playing mindless FSP games or RPGs. Why is spending more then 25 minutes playing an RTS considered some Taboo? Geez…you also talk about turtling. If you turtle in an 80X80 map, then you just become one big target. Besides, the maps are so huge that it’s almost impossible to defend yourself at all angles. In either case it’s a lot better then mindless T1 rushing, if that’s your style go play C&C3. Subcom is meant to be large scale.
Btw, I’m running a 2.1GHZ Core2duo with a GF 7900, and only 1 gig of ram and I can play with 750 units (maxed out) with almost no slowdown on the GALVESTON, TX Map. I suggest that you give it a try and practice employing some strategy before poo pooing.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:12 pm
MochaChiller: Gotta remember the guys who run this site are mostly all about ranked games. ;)
May 1st, 2007 at 10:42 pm
MochaChiller: Sounds like I’d be your worst enemy on a large map, then. I don’t think you know the competitive strategies for maximizing economies. You can screw around with air transports all you like; it doesn’t matter. They’re easy to defend against and you’ll be getting hit with game-ender stuff (e.g. tech 3 artillery, nukes, Mavor) within an hour.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
The maps just take too long to play. If you could save online games and resume them later, then I’d imagine many more people would play large maps.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 am
You can’t hit people with your nukes and Mavor on 81×81 if you can’t find them. Scouting is what makes the big maps different. Your main base will be totally unimportant after about an hour due to RAS, anyway. If it’s assassination the game turns into roving patrols of sonar buoys and ships out commander hunting, while massive armies of SCU’s hunt the hunters by sneaking around building torp launchers. If it’s supremacy then god help you.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:03 am
The main reason I don’t like huge maps is the lag.
As noted, even if lag were removed, they’d still be ridiculous. Too much room to hide, period, and game ending weapons become too feasible.
I played a game a little while back on Hazard’s newly modified World Domination (which removes all fabs and RAS), and I have to say, it was probably the most fun I’ve had on an 80×80. Though I don’t recommend the new World Dom (there seem to be a lot of scripting hax that generally interfered with gameplay), I definitely recommend looking into no fab mods for those huge maps.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:39 am
I think only the performance is an annoying factor. Playing an 80×80 map with 8 people on a FFA in a smooth way would be total mayhem. It’s true it becomes a tech race but that’s the case for 20×20 maps as well and at least on a 80×80 map those ETA-indications, stealth gens, carriers and multiple (coordinated? :) ) attacks become really important.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:51 am
I could probably put together a no-fab, no-ras mod if you guys want. Shouldn’t take more than a few minutes. I’ll start it sometime tomorrow after I’ve had some sleep.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:02 am
I like that there’s 81X81 maps out there. We may not use them not or in 6 months time but in 3 years when we are still playing the game and 2000 units on screen at once won’t kill a machine you could have epic battles.
If you don’t like 81X81 don’t play it. The community doesn’t see it as a viable option so it’s not like custom/ranked are filled with 40X40 or bigger so there is no reason to even look at those maps. I’d say once the map editor comes out and people get creative with play options someone will find a creative use for the 6400+km^2 that an 81X81 gives you.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:24 am
I’m kind of surprised that no one has said this yet, but think in terms of flexibility. SupCom is going to scale with technology, just like TA did. TA was a resource hog when it first came out, but because the engine was so powerful, it was still an enjoyable game to play years later.
Similarly, different types of people play this game. There are people who just play to win, but there are also mod heads, turtlers, fancy unit addicts, and even non-competitive types who would be completely content to gang up on some AI’s with a friend. What matters is that you have fun and not belittle people who have fun in ways different than your own.
Finally, consider this. You and your friends say “Y’know what? Fuck it, lets stay up all night and play supremacy on an 81×81.” And maybe, just that once, you have an epic game. The kind of game you’re still reminiscing about two years later. You’ll NEVER have a game like that in C&C 3. So maybe you ignore the big maps 99% of the time. Don’t complain that GPG has given you so many options. :)
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:11 am
I’m all for the big map games, although a save feature would make them even more appealing. The quantum gate –> Teleporter mod will really come into it’s own on the big land maps.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:10 am
Once I can get 2v2 on a 20×20 map not to lag, I might step up to a 40×40, would like to try. But for now all my buddies and I have P4 3.2ish machines, w/ 1-2GB Ram and 7600GSs/7600GTs. Just not going to happen. Most
20×20s run like junk. IF this game is still living on in 2 years, then 40×40 could really be fun. Not sure about 81×81,
my mind can’t even fathom it right now.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:17 pm
With everyone’s statements made let’s just look at a theoretical idea of coolness. Imagine that u’re on an 81×81 map amassing huge amounts of nukes/anti nukes and having these huge naval / army battles. Just think how cool it would be to build up a couple hundred energy storage units and have enough energy stored up to teleport about 30 SCU’s into an enemy’s main base. I’d play for 2 hours just to try that once.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I don’t have the computer to try it, but I think a 40×40 could be fun. As long as the unit balance tips towards offense at the higher tech levels, which it seems like it does right now, I think it keeps the game from becoming too stagnant. 80×80 is probably too large to be really feasible unless the unit AI gets a lot better and micromanagement gets toned down.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
I’ve finished a quick mod in order to remove mass fabricators from the game. I’m still working on the no-ras mod (currently I only know how to limit it by increasing the upgrade time to something crazy), and I’ll have that finished sometime tomorrow.
You can find the mods here.
http://www.jrpereira.com/supreme_commander_mods
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Cyde Weys,
nukes, T3 artillery, or Mavor are NOT game enders on an 81 x 81 map. On such a big map, varied and balanced strategy becomes vitally important. Repetitive and simple strategies such as Aurorae/Siege Bot/SCU spamming do not work very well on 81 x 81 maps. To even use T3 artillery/nukes/Mavors effectively on 81×81, you need to *find* your enemy first, or find the Commander. Scouting, recon, intelligence, stealth all become extremely important. Patrols, waypoints, and formations also become important.
Excluding the performance factor, most players (including online ranked gamers) hate the big maps because they are very frustrating, and allow full freedom in terms of the strategies that one can use. Small maps which are so popular in ranked games limit the amount of strategies that can be used, and thus make the games quite quick and simple.
Then we get stories and blogs about “unique” and “novel” approaches about using one unit to win the game.
The whole point of Sup Com is LARGE-SCALE strategy gaming, not small-scale tactical gaming. A lot of gamers (even TA gamers) are simply too used to playing a tactical-style when it comes to strategy games, and thus are not well prepared to handle the full scope of what Sup Com offers.
To summarize: if you exclude performance limitations, an 81 x 81 map with two or more good players offers one of the toughest challenges in Sup Com. This challenge is brushed aside by a lot of gamers simply because they are not used to playing in such scope, and utilizing all strategies associated with such a large scale game.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Nukes aren’t game-enders even on the smaller maps, due to the low mass cost of building anti-nukes. In smaller games it’s not even worth building the launcher simply because if the enemy scouts at all, they’ll be prepared with their anti-nukes far before you get any nukes up (with the small map size, they don’t really need a mass of anti-nuke launchers to get full coverage). In larger maps I’d imagine they’d be nice and useful for preventing new bases for arising and for cleanup/army control.
T3 artillery and Mavors on the other hand are brutally effective in smaller maps. On larger maps, good stealth coverage mixed in with shields and fighter nets really nulls their effectiveness. They’re still pretty handy for cracking the largest bases later in games though.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Cyde Weys: You can only be my worse enemy if you actually play against me on an 80X80 map, though I somehow doubt that you’d find me to be a total pushover. In either case, I never said that a good economy wasn’t vital, but I’m willing to bet that I can kick your flying donkeys with half your available econ if the maneuverability of my army was superior in contrast. As for transports being easy to deal with. I doubt you’d be so mouthy when 25-50 mobile artillery batteries (coupled with mobile stealth generators) begin pounding at your front door. As for your 1 hour ‘I’ll blow you away’ comment, let me ask you this. If I’m spread out all over the map, are you really going to build a T3 artillery battery to take out each installation? That is if I LET you build anything near my base. Nukes?! Again, that’s a lot of work and resources. When you turtle I know where you are and I can overwhelm your anti-nukes with hidden installations of my own. Or I can hide nuclear subs with almost no chance of you finding them before I hit you. Also in order for you find me, you’ll have to use scout and spy planes and they tend to run out of fuel after looking around for a little bit. Otherwise that only leaves you with Omni sensors…and those are about as useful as T1 radar on Seton’s Crutch. So air support installations ARE vital, especially if you wanted to stage a massive air attack. So I’m sorry to tell you this, but I think your assessment on larger maps is inaccurate….though perhaps you could demonstrate your nightmarish skill against me some time, after finals are over that is. I could use a good punching bag. :P
Btw, to move a single tier 1 builder to one side to the other on an 80X80 map would take around 35-45 minutes. I don’t think you’ll ever see something like that in C&C3, Subcom kicks Cyde Weys flying donkeys! ^_^
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 pm
You can find a mod removing fabs and RAS by Iridium here:
http://files.filefront.com/NoFabRaszip/;7306100;/fileinfo.html
Enjoy!
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:03 am
Thanks. For the moment, I’ve put together a no-ras mod based on Iridium’s mod (and given him credit as much as possible), although I’m not too convinced that his is the best way to do it. It looks like his changes would override other mods that have similar changes. I plan to redo the mod later on using some other method of eliminating the upgrades.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:12 am
As some people on the forums have pointed out, you only need 3 nuke launchers to get through pretty much any number of anti-nukes, so they do indeed work as game enders pretty well. As for needing to find your opponent, this is actually not a practical problem on any of the included 81×81s, although it could be an issue on a purely land 81×81, I suppose. Of course, finding the actual commander could be tricky, but its only a matter of time once you can nuke his base at will.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:46 am
Gosh, this sounds like a challenge. I’m game.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:51 am
Cyde vs Mocha…. I am sorry but usually people who talk like Mocha just did are complete newbs just speaking by experience
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:09 am
*from experience.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:21 am
Wuped: Ah well, if that’s the case, he’s going to have some angry SCUs rampaging through his base far before he is ready for them.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Heh…. I want to see the replay.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Somebody should stage a show battle on 81×81, using a LAN if possible, like the 6 Way epic FFA series. I think it would be very interesting to watch.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I can’t imagine that working too well, tbh. I 2v2′d with my roommate yesterday on White Fire (10×10) and by 40 minutes in the game was going slooooooooow. Wish I had some money to spend on an upgrade, but even then, I’m waiting until UT3 to do so. Long battles for me are more like Sim City + sloooooooowness.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:12 pm
A 1v1 is probably quite doable on an 81×81, if both players have good hardware. Alas, my computer is probably not up to the challenge.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Wuped: Interesting assessment. I guess anyone that’s passionate about this game and frustrated by such WELL ‘founded’ comments from people like Cyde Weys, would have to be a noob. But hey, that’s cool…it’s your opinion and I have no interest in swaying you from such stereotypical thinking.
Cyde Weys: Yes, it was indeed a challenge and I’m happy to see that you picked up the gauntlet. When finals are over for me, then I’d be more then happy to face off against you. I’m willing to set aside some proper time to do such and I hope that when were both done we can walk away with a good experience. Maybe then you’ll reconsider your thinking on larger maps, but we’ll see.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:01 pm
I think the biggest problem is as a lot of people have commented in here, the games just take way too frikkin long.
I played a 2v3 on one of those big maps (can’t remember the name now :( ) and the game took almost 3 hours, not because I didn’t tech up fast or have a lot of mixed units or whatnot, but because you have a long ways to go to get to the enemy and kill them. The strategy usually either turns to nukes or t3 units that have a long ways to travel. Sometimes it moves more towards the center, but blowing up the ACU is a pain in the butt when that happens because you can’t hardly get across the map without getting mowed down by something.
Anyway, I can see it as fun, I used to have 4 hour plus matches on TA, but it’s not realistic for me to spend that much time in one sitting on one game. It can also get rather drawn out and boring with no action really taking place for long periods of time.
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
“It can also get rather drawn out and boring with no action really taking place for long periods of time.”
Exactly. I’ve certainly played games for four hours at a time without getting off my lazy ass, but a single game in SupCom taking that long is rarely full of action during that four hours. There’s a reason I’ve taken a liking to 1v1 and 2v2 on smaller maps, and it’s simply because there’s constant action. When there’s nothing going on, SupCom is really no different than SimCity, and I’m not a big fan of SimCity. You spend all that time building up for a single attack that has the possibility of taking no more than a couple minutes… Just seems silly.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Grokmoo: That’s a shame, we need a logical carryover from our turtling games in TA, and these future games need to be won without spamming nuke launchers. My computer will be up to the challenge.
May 12th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Righty-o!
40×40+ maps are great for defensive players, like me. But anything less than 10×10? Get out. It just ends up being an artillery gang bang, or an insane exercise in horde-ing.
Anywho, there is one thing that bugs me to no end about the larger maps; the AI just can’t handle them. I played a Horde AI on a 81×81 map, dug in, and awaited an assault. Guess what? There never was one. After 6 hours (I took a nap), I just quit the game in disgust. Looking at the replay, the AI was staying strictly in a 20×20ish area. WTF?
BTW, I’m against using nukes. :P You’ll never see me use one.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering, my comp’s stats are as follows :P
CPU: 3GHz (dual core)
RAM: 1.25Gb (256Mb x3, 512Mb x1)
Graphics Card: Sapphire Radeon X300SE (128Mb x2)
Graphics Memory: 256Mb
Resolution: 1280×960
Average FPS on the 81×81 map: (with fog of war disabled, and 750 units in play, against 3 Tech AIs; graphics settings to minimum) 8 FPS