Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Which free Command & Conquer game should I play first?

Zeus

Cipher
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,523
So Command & Conquer Tiberian Sun, Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert are all freeware now. I've never really been into RTS games (Warcraft II was probably my favorite, back in the day), but if I was going to give one of these a try, which would you guys suggest?

I remember Red Alert looked cool, with all the cold war psychic stuff. Basically, I'm looking for ease of use (the well developed interface sequels usually offer) and a noob-friendly learning curve.

Which game should I play first?

Don't say Starcraft. :D
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
3,520
Tiberian sun was my favourite when I played them, but I was young and impressionable so feel free to ignore that. If you are going to play all 3 I would certainly start with the original else and work your way onward, else you get will frustrated at how things are a step back.
 

Tails

Arbiter
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
1,674
Tiberian Sun has the most awesome campaigns from all Command&Conquer games, there is even some of C&C.

Btw. if you finish both Red Alert campaigns, you may be interested in bythis:
This mod adds some 180 mb of movies to Red Alert: Counterstrike and Aftermath, like briefing movies from the Playstation version (including one for the ant missions) and action vids recovered from trailers.
English/French/German Red Alert 3.03 required. TFD support included.
 

Black_Willow

Arcane
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
1,866,237
Location
Borderline
Tails said:
Tiberian Sun has the most awesome campaigns from all Command&Conquer games, there is even some of C&C.
SENATOR_BARACK_OBAMA.jpg
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,287
Location
Poland
Tiberian Dawn is the classic. Play if you like nostalgia.

Red Alert is the best one.

Tiberian Sun has quite few nice features, but overall wasnt very good. Nice campaign, destructible enviroment with which you can interact.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
3,520
As far as I can tell, this release does not include any expansions other then firestorm for Tiberian Sun. Which is a bummer, I had never played them. Maybe I'll torrent them some day.

Unless my memory is totally fucked up, Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert both had the same kind of mission selection system Tiberian Sun had. Tiberian Sun just had more and lengthier mission chains. One operation as GDI in Tiberian Sun gave the option to play 3 missions and 1 secret mission to prepare for the main base assault. You could go straight for the final attack from the beginning but it was significantly harder. The fun part was that those side missions were generally stealthy commando type missions where winning was more about finding ways to solve a puzzle (and there were almost always multiple ways to handle the missions) then it was spamming artillery or air power etc.

Not really true C&C per-say, but it was a nice feature that was sadly dropped for firestorm and all future C&C games.
 

Tails

Arbiter
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
1,674
Overweight Manatee said:
As far as I can tell, this release does not include any expansions other then firestorm for Tiberian Sun. Which is a bummer, I had never played them. Maybe I'll torrent them some day.
Yeah, pretty sucks, maybe they add them later.

Btw. scrolling in RA & Tiberian Dawn is pretty fast under Windows. Slowing it in options didn't help either.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
3,520
Scrolling worked fine for me at the second to slowest level in Tiberian Sun. Haven't downloaded the others yet.

One good thing is that they fixed the slowdown bug I always got in Tib Sun during certain events. Constructing buildings/units would always slow the game. Most annoyingly, the faster the unit to be constructed, the more it would slow down. The game would pretty much slow to a standstill if I constructed pavement, but now works flawlessly on W7 64bit. Unfortunately it looks like Tiberian Dawn is a straight ISO of the original, so it still won't work correctly without a lot of fucking around.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
Overweight Manatee said:
As far as I can tell, this release does not include any expansions other then firestorm for Tiberian Sun. Which is a bummer, I had never played them. Maybe I'll torrent them some day.

Unless my memory is totally fucked up, Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert both had the same kind of mission selection system Tiberian Sun had. Tiberian Sun just had more and lengthier mission chains. One operation as GDI in Tiberian Sun gave the option to play 3 missions and 1 secret mission to prepare for the main base assault. You could go straight for the final attack from the beginning but it was significantly harder. The fun part was that those side missions were generally stealthy commando type missions where winning was more about finding ways to solve a puzzle (and there were almost always multiple ways to handle the missions) then it was spamming artillery or air power etc.

Not really true C&C per-say, but it was a nice feature that was sadly dropped for firestorm and all future C&C games.

All I can say is be very very wary of user recommendations unless you know exactly where they are coming from. For example, I completely agree with the guy above me - I love me a good puzzle map. But most people who are seriously into multiplayer RTS (I consider myself to have once been seriously into multiplayer RTS by virtue of holding a numbered rank (as in a rank, not a level) on the Korean WC3/TFT server in both single player and free for all (that takes some SERIOUS nerd-dom).

Thing is, almost everyone else who comes from the same perspective as me - i.e. competitive multiplayer with an emphasis on tournament play - fucking HATES maps like the one the poster I quoted likes. They refer to them as 'puzzle maps', because rather than fighting a 'living, breathing' (i.e. decent AI) opponent, you have an opponent who sits there doing the EXACT same thing each time, and so it's just a matter of 'solving the puzzle' and you've beaten him/her. They hate it because you couldn't possibly get further from multiplayer.

Me, I LOVE me a good puzzle map, and regularly get flamed on rts forums for saying so. Don't get me wrong, I think the single player should do a good job of introducing players to multiplayer tactics, and I agree that Blizz and C+C are terrible at that (actually I can only talk for bliz - I've only played C+C for fun, never at a tournament level). They should have missions where your job is to simultaneously build a base while scouting constantly (if you lose track of where your opponent's army is you fail the mission), missions where you use hit+run guerilla tactics against a more powerful (i.e. you can't beat them in a standing fight) but slower enemy, missions where you have to 'crack' the defences of a tech-rushing enemy (if they finish the teching they get this uber weapon that destroys you instantly, but they also start with fuckloads of towers, forcing you to devise a plan to take out lots of towers quickly while leading his units away from his base) and so on. That way you wouldn't get the inevitably whining that 'x' unit is worthles and shit because it can't defeat it's opponent's equivalent unit in a standing fight, despite being twice as fast and having a camoflauge ability (sigh).

But not every map needs to be preparation for multiplayer, and puzzle maps are just plain fun. Now if they could find a way to design maps that were simultaneously single-player puzzle maps AND prepared you for standard multiplayer tactics (rushing, tech-rush, early expand, and countering each of those) you'd have some great map design.
 

Tails

Arbiter
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
1,674
GarfunkeL said:
And I had no problem after I slowed down the scrolling speed in options.
Yeah I tried to take the slowest scrolling in options but without any result. Thought I can live with that.

Btw. It's a real pain in the arse to download any of those addons from C&C Forums. I wait the god damn 100 sec and It starts counting down again or I get message like "session terminated".

[edit]
TD expansion on Megaupload.
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,287
Location
Poland
Personally I have a love-hate relationship with multiplayer.

On one hand it is a awesome way to spend more fun time with a game, playing other people, improving your skills etc. Competition, cooperation etc.

On the other it strips game of most of its charm. You dont use 'fun' units you use effective ones. You dont appreciate the arsenal of destruction at your service, you only want to win. And you dont explore it, most mp games end very quickly, no need for high tier units.
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
That's why after a brief foray into the tournamet/battle.net-world, I've only played RTS-games in a friendly LAN-fashion. We might team up against the AI or a have FFA with a timelimit and while winning is always fun, sometimes it's fun to lose as well, especially if the fight is long and drawn-out :D
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
3,520
Azrael the cat said:
All I can say is be very very wary of user recommendations unless you know exactly where they are coming from. For example, I completely agree with the guy above me - I love me a good puzzle map. But most people who are seriously into multiplayer RTS (I consider myself to have once been seriously into multiplayer RTS by virtue of holding a numbered rank (as in a rank, not a level) on the Korean WC3/TFT server in both single player and free for all (that takes some SERIOUS nerd-dom).

Thing is, almost everyone else who comes from the same perspective as me - i.e. competitive multiplayer with an emphasis on tournament play - fucking HATES maps like the one the poster I quoted likes. They refer to them as 'puzzle maps', because rather than fighting a 'living, breathing' (i.e. decent AI) opponent, you have an opponent who sits there doing the EXACT same thing each time, and so it's just a matter of 'solving the puzzle' and you've beaten him/her. They hate it because you couldn't possibly get further from multiplayer.

Me, I LOVE me a good puzzle map, and regularly get flamed on rts forums for saying so. Don't get me wrong, I think the single player should do a good job of introducing players to multiplayer tactics, and I agree that Blizz and C+C are terrible at that (actually I can only talk for bliz - I've only played C+C for fun, never at a tournament level). They should have missions where your job is to simultaneously build a base while scouting constantly (if you lose track of where your opponent's army is you fail the mission), missions where you use hit+run guerilla tactics against a more powerful (i.e. you can't beat them in a standing fight) but slower enemy, missions where you have to 'crack' the defences of a tech-rushing enemy (if they finish the teching they get this uber weapon that destroys you instantly, but they also start with fuckloads of towers, forcing you to devise a plan to take out lots of towers quickly while leading his units away from his base) and so on. That way you wouldn't get the inevitably whining that 'x' unit is worthles and shit because it can't defeat it's opponent's equivalent unit in a standing fight, despite being twice as fast and having a camoflauge ability (sigh).

But not every map needs to be preparation for multiplayer, and puzzle maps are just plain fun. Now if they could find a way to design maps that were simultaneously single-player puzzle maps AND prepared you for standard multiplayer tactics (rushing, tech-rush, early expand, and countering each of those) you'd have some great map design.

I think the important thing to remember is that C&C has never been considered a good multiplayer game. Its always been about the single player, the atmosphere and the cheesyness. I used to hold a B rank in ICCup, but I still don't look down upon C&C for not being starcraft. For the same reason I can recognize that games like UT are clearly the best multiplayer shooters and have by far better mechanics, yet I can have fun in casual shooters like L4D and ME.

Still, Red Alert 3 had an expansion that did a decent job at preparing for multiplayer IMO, you had a skirmish type mode where your opponents always went certain builds and it was your job to beat them as fast as possible. Sometimes the shit was getting crazy, like the 2nd mission was someone who would offensively turtle by using his mobile defensive structures around the map. Since you wanted to win as fast as possible, this led to me to develop a lot of almost perfectly streamlined build orders that could probably be pretty easily adapted to online play. For many missions this felt like a fun puzzle. Of course, C&C being as badly balanced as it is, half of these missions were won by either rushing air units or proxy infantry rushing opponents using the side that had a mobile barracks.

Starcraft 2 also looks to have a lot more interesting/difficulty single player missions with an AI that can put up a fight instead of sending small unit attack groups constantly. Of course it still won't be the same, RTS really are among the hardest games to get a good, working AI that emulates players well.
 

Volrath

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
4,298
I fucking loved, LOVED Tiberian Sun. Everything about it, the units, the atmosphere, the music, the campaign, everything.

It really does a great job of getting the post-apocalyptic vibe feel right.
 

Phelot

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
17,908
I love Total Annihilation but playing it multiplayer sucked balls. All these little exploits and annoyances especially the dumb fucks that would send armies of transporters to pickup your commander and self destruct. Like it's fun playing for 3 minutes.

Myth and Myth 2 are the only strategy games I really like playing multiplayer. It's fun, it's chaotic, and the exploits make sense (and really aren't that bad/effective)
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
GarfunkeL said:
That's why after a brief foray into the tournamet/battle.net-world, I've only played RTS-games in a friendly LAN-fashion. We might team up against the AI or a have FFA with a timelimit and while winning is always fun, sometimes it's fun to lose as well, especially if the fight is long and drawn-out :D


And I'm saying that that's a perfectly fine way of playing it, and don't let the e-peen crowd criticise you for doing so. Having said that, you CAN play multiplayer with a focus on late-game units, but it depends on the matchup and it also requires that you go in with that being your strategy. E.g. fast-teching while denying your opponent an expanion means that you have higher-tech unit. Often done where one side doesn't get air until the higher-end.

E.g. undead vs humans relies on high-end upgrades (frenzy) and units (destroyer). Undead vs Night-elves relies MASSIVELY on a combo of tier 3 units (aboms), tier 2.5 units (siege weapons) and casters that can range from tier 1 (necros if they aren't prepared for raise undead or curse as a cheap way of nulliying their bears) to tier 3 (more likely - cripple vs their bears, or even possession if you want to break the game by getting the bear buffs for yourself). Undead vs orcs varies massively on what the orcs do (orcs get the driving seat on that matchup), but it is either teching and harassing against the orc's nigh-unstoppable fast-tech to wyverns, or similarly against a fast-tech to tauren (although it is easier to destroy the building in the latter event). Either way requires some high-level teching and levelled tri-hero. Especially as your biggest aim when playing vs orcs is to get one or two (no more due to food limit, and definitely NOT 'mass frost dragons'...they DON'T 'equal instant win!', but one or two out, with suitable backing from casters casting frenzy and giving support against anti-air, and with tri-heroes out, and orcs have a really really hard time dealing with them. They are great hero-killers as the slow-down allows the undead tri-hero nuke to be applied repeatedly, and great unit killers. But if done en masse, they'll get taken apart - they need supprt.

So almost all matchups will involve some use of high-level units, even in competitive play. Of course, you make your opponent work damn hard to get to those units, and should be able to stop a weaker opponent from getting there at all - but watch a tourny final amongst professional players sometime (yes, I was sad enough once to watch those things for strategy tips), and usually the player gets to those units, just at a cost (sometimes recoverable, sometimes not) economically.


And as for FFA? That's all about the high-tech armies. You'd think FFA is random chance, but it's like poker. Everyone is subject to the odds, but some people keep making the most of the hand they get dealt. The top FFA players get something like a 28% to 30% WINNING ratio, which is MUCH higher than what you'd expect from random number distribution. It's all about teching to top level, and levelling up your heroes on the uber-tough creeps (that actually have good drops, and often have things like an uber shop guarded by level 10 dragons or golems, in the centre of the map). You 'might' get attacked early, and screw up your teching, but that also gives you the change for your tri-hero combo to level up past L6 - and for undead, FFA is all about trying to get level 10 heroes (a L10 DK/lich/CL can defeat max food-cap armies without raising a sweat, whilst L10 DK/DL/lich can turn any melee army into an absurd self-healing death machine). Short of getting those uber-heroes (and you can only get past L6 by fighting other players) it's all about teching and upgrading to frost wyrms, destroyers, stats, aboms and gargs (maybe even crack frenzies ghouls) depending on what your scouting tells you about opponents - with shades as scouts, you should know what is being built in every base, and should also have a shade following every vaguely nearby army.

There's PLENTY of use of top-tier units in competitive play.

But, again, I'm not knocking that. Not everyone wants to play like they're an ADD kid whose taken too much meds. Not everyone wants to quit (or have their opponent quit) after 15 seconds because someone has screwed up his/her build order (which can screw the rest of the game:-(. I can fully appreciate why you'd want to play it differently.
 

snoek

Cipher
Joined
May 5, 2003
Messages
1,125
Location
Belgium, bro
I'd go with Tiberian sun's expansion.. if i remember correctly you could even build some sort of laser wall, which you could turn on & off & use it as a trap against enemy aircraft 8)
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
4,338
Location
Bureaukratistan
The freeware version of C&C didn't come with the videos, so play a real version of C&C instead. EDIT : Or does it, I downloaded mine some time ago, when it was a 15-year anniversary thing or something.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,418
Location
Copenhagen
Demnogonis Saastuttaja said:
The freeware version of C&C didn't come with the videos, so play a real version of C&C instead. EDIT : Or does it, I downloaded mine some time ago, when it was a 15-year anniversary thing or something.

The free Red Alert definetely did include videos. Would be weird to discriminate.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom