now thats interesting ... why are they fighting in the city? Why not simply fight with their all-powerful ACUs? hmm? Well, if a city can grow to that size, then I think the flood will have the advantage afterall! Muahahahahahahahahahaha

there's plenty of reasons to be worried about the sequel imo, but the lack of big maps/heaps of units wont be one of them

Looks pretty sweet to me. Although I am a bit worried that this one is going to be even more CPU demanding than the first. It's barely playable for me on my old can as it is.

Also, am I the only one who was really excited about the story in SupCom1 and was sorely disappointed after playing the campaign?

My understanding of it thus far is that it uses the same, modified version of the SupCom (not the offical name) engine that Demigod uses - thus most of the work was basically done, and they could focus on content rather than building the engine and technology from scratch like they had to do with the original.

I've been looking at as much content as I can find, and my spider sense is tingling - I can't help but feel they may have 'Starcraft-ed' SupCom to appeal to a larger audience than the original, which was by comparative standards very Hardcore. I hope I'm wrong.

One thing is keeping me from being excited.

I read about a 'Core Dump' where you can have you ACU's death nuke do less dmg to your base. If that's true then your ACU can die. If my ACU dying doesnt end the game then I'm not intrested.

As long as Assassination is the main game type, I'm down. If not, I'm out.

supcom 2 will have lower requirements than the original. that has been one of the goals in making the sequel.

i dont know too many people that enjoyed the campaign. i never even bothered to play it. the campaign is another area GPG want to improve upon.

From what I have seen and heard, all of those above four points will be achieved. I'm slightly worried about CybranZilla. the concept is fine, but the name is laughably bad. It should called "Draconis Heavy Assualt Bot" or something.

I don't know, I'm still a bit bitter towards GPG for lying about the system requirements on SupCom 1.  My old machine exceeded the recommended requirements on the box, but after 30 mins or so against 3 AIs I'd be seeing single digit frame rates during combat.  Throwing settings on low didn't even help, the game simply NEEDED the fastest C2D processor at the time.  It wasn't a recommended setting, that was pretty much the true minimum requirement for anything above 1v1 as the game was heavily CPU-based.  It's funny because Total Annihilation did the same thing.  I think it claimed you could run it well on a P166 with 16 MB of RAM  .  Good one Cavedog/GPG.

I have to agree though; you can really tell the game has been dumbed down for the multiplatform release.  Good ol' Microsoft ruining yet another game by forcing devs to work with the lowest common denominator.

If you played more, you'd realize that's really false.  The most obvious difference lies in the teir 2 tactical missile launchers, but there are differences up and down the line.  Most of those differences are stat rather than role driven, but even there you get differences.  For example, an Aeon artillery barrage is fairly accurate where a cybran artillery barrage does massive damage to a wide area... if you can hit the broad side of a barn.  Aeon's 'anti-group' weaponry is it's PD (which has a relativly wide area of effect) as a result, while artilery does massive damage, while Cybran's rely on pin-point accuracy with their PD, with their artillery taking on the anti-group role.

You also get the high-end units, where one might hvae a tactical missile defense, another has shields, and another can reclaim / repair.  And, the most incredibly obvious item, the Cybran have a heavy stealth outlook rather than shields (lack of mobile shields, but have mobile stealth; no T3 shield facility; T2 shields are distinctly inferior in a number of ways to other races).

The differences are not negligable... they only look that way.

Haven't you learned anything yet Spooky, the moment a game is release for the Xbox 360 it's automatically a bad game and doesn't deserve the attention of the PC crowd! Controllers make people dumber - true story; happened to a friend of a friend of mine

Lets just hope that SC2 is written with multi-core processing in mind from the start. I don't want to have to use some third party optimiser tool to try and spread the load across the cores like I did with SC1 and FA.

I have, and I label these children the 'Halo Kids' - however, the PC crowd has their own versions that are vastly more annoying. Look at any of the communities surrounding any Blizzard title for proof of this. PC Gamers are by no stretch of the imagination more mature or more intelligent.