Style Guide Edit

Most of the pages in this section are horrible! Half of them are basically "Step1: Produce a massive amount of units, Step2: Crush your opponent". While I realize the effort put into these pages, please discuss your strategies. The goal is not to make your strategy look like the ultimate one, but for the user to understand its pros and cons, and best use each strategy in a given game.

Also, for the love of god, these pages are not to boast about the time you beat your opponent with an awesome strategy. Furthermore, please make sure the strategy you are giving out is actually good. Some of these strategies, like the Ninja kill strategy, are just plain wrong.

For an example of a really good strategy page, see Beginner multiplayer strategy.Happypal 09:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Page Move Edit

Do we want to move this info into Category:Strategies and label each item with the Category:Strategies tag? --FngKestrel 00:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been struggling with exactly that question. There's many places where there's an article that matches a category. Every page in the category links to the category page automatically, but it's really inconvenient and a bit esoteric to intentionally link to that page from article text. For instance:
This is a [[:Category:Strategies|strategy]] that uses....
How about we always have a redirect from the article to the category page? Strategy will be a redirect to Category:Strategy, which will have all the content. Then we get the best of both worlds. --TaviRider 04:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. --FngKestrel 04:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

patch incoming Edit

Guys, I've read about the patch and it looks like some massive changes are inbound. Just by reading through the list I think we'll have to rewrite half of the strategy pages (just think of the SEAD one now that AA targets bombers first). I think I'll write a generic description of strategies and add the usual details (who's better for the job and why) after patch comes out. (btw, aircraft building atlantis. is this instant pwnage or what? XD) [edited: sorry, i keep forgetting to log in first ._.] --Caleb367 10:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

All carriers do it... CZAR included --Unsigned comment by FunkOff
I know. Lemme rephrase that: HUGE SUBMARINE CARRIER MAKING AIRCRAFT OUT OF THIN AIR! Beats the ID4 wannabe CZAR any day as sheer attitude. XD--Caleb367 19:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I'm a relative noob, but unless they build a hell of a lot faster than a T3 factory, I don't think it's all that interesting. T3 air units are so slow to build that you need engineers assisting anyway. It's not yet clear whether that's possible, and even if it is, you don't want a dozen floating engineers giving away your submersible carrier's position anyway. --TaviRider 04:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd bet they will build much faster at a much higher consumption like the Fatboy. which it isn't so bad :D btw, i guess we'll see a tradeoff here... if one wants to build air as fast as possible with an Atlantis, it's better to add a surface screen and act like a plain carrier battlegroup, only with the carrier that can go underwater if trouble ensues. Other way, one parks it in the middle of the ocean and cranks out aircrafts, less quickly but invisible, like a James Bond movie. Heck, I feel like putting on a suit and petting a cat thinking of that. XDD (however, who knows if it WILL be able to build underwater? Bummer if it has to surface first!)--Caleb367 07:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that if it's underwater that the aircraft are deployed directly into the hanger. Spitting an aircraft out of the water just makes me think of underwater birthing. --FngKestrel 10:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. Flying subs. Anyone ever played X-Com: Terror From The Deep? XD--Caleb367 11:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No. But I am a big fan of Apocalypse (So off topic, sorry)! --3DS Mike

About the new look Edit

I changed the look of the page, and with some more formatting i think it would look quite nice. This is just an interim for now until we decide how to format this, but i am thinking maybe a more simplified version of the main page ones or a more complex version of this one. Please add your two cents it will help! --RogueCommanderIX 08:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I hate it. I changed it to something were the columns are large enough for the text not to loop. While the previous version wasn't perfect (it needed some organizing), I think there is no need to go away for the plain and simple section/subsection format. You can try working on it, but I don't think we can beat the strait forward simplicity and organization of a classic layout. happypal (Talk) 13:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken. That is actually more of the look i am going for, but i didn't know how to do it like that. The only other problem is that all the boxes are collapsed and, when i tried to make them start un-collapsed, they broke. If that could be fixed, or if that style could be converted to a non-collapsable version (nice boxes to help categorize, maybe color coded) then that would look better (at least i think so). --RogueCommanderIX 05:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorization Edit

This page should be divided into two parts. Single player and Multiplayer. Because a lot of those strategies are "build tons of units and then attack". In Multiplayer game you are usually dead long before you can attack. --Satan 09:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Edit

This page still links to a lot of cookbook-type strategies that boil down to 1. build a huge number of powerful units 2. use them to kill the enemy ACU. It also has a lot of inefficient strategies that do, in some sense, "work", but are so costly and pointless that they might as well be under a new heading "funny ways to waste mass". I personally think a lot of the articles linked should be deleted or heavily revised but for now I've just moved a few more into the "bad / old / sandbox strategies". 02:03, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this change. Laexio 08:30, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Give It a Break....All Strategy used In Strategy games are a waste of resource, tell me one specific strategies that player use againts another enemy, that require less mass and energy?..., This "funny" guys..they have a concept, we need to help them to ellaborate that concept..all strategy require experimental and revision, and i bet they've done their homework before posting it here. but i do agree though that describing strategy in steps does look ackward and stupid, playing supreme commander is not like learning adobe photoshop tutorial, you need to give a vision or description to let the reader understand, not ordering them to do this and that..Mkx

A very heart warming speech, but do you actually have a point? Are you saying we should help these people who made outdated strategies almost 3 years ago? They're better in the bottom category. Also please sign your posts in future. Laexio 18:07, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
Yes... to the guy who didn't sign... I'm not saying that these guides are bad because there are better cook books out there... what I'm getting at is that strategy isn't about building particular units at particular times and doing certain things with them. Strategy is the governing principle by which you try to enforce your will on your enemies. Broadly, strategy is your background "game plan" while tactics are how you react to given situations in the game using what you've got at the time. So in a game between a pure strategist and a pure tactician, the strategist will be better at forcing the kind of fight they want, while the tactician will be better at making the best of what they've got. So the problem with the "cook book" approach of some of these articles is that they are neither tactics nor strategies. They're just build orders, and it's better to understand why something works or doesn't work, and when to use it and when not to use it, and what counters it... rather than get attached to a routine. Most RTS games do not have a strategic element and fight mostly on tactics, micromanagement, and build orders. Supcom is not entirely free of these things, but build orders are only useful for the first five to ten minutes and micromanagement can't compensate for poor recon.
So I feel the goal of supcom strategy articles should be to explain the broader stuff, like the importance of intel, exerting influence on the map, how to counter / defend against common ACU snipes, how to keep your army alive and organised and supported, et cetera. Some of the articles here are excellent at that - the beginner multiplayer strategy article is an absolutely brilliant starting point for new players to grasp the fundamentals. It does cover the start-up and useful build orders, but it's full of valuable tips and encouragement for players to think more deeply about what works and what doesn't. The fatboy article is also pretty good, it doesn't tell you what to do with the unit but explains in detail its strengths and weaknesses. That, to me, is a good guide... not these "do this to win" pages, which just won't work against any thoughtful human player.
Disclaimer: I'm average at this game :P. 01:08, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.