Command and Conquer - Generals (Zero Hour) vs. Tiberium Wa

[Kefka]

Hey,

I'm still on Generals (zero hour) and really do not enjoy Command and Conquer 3.
the gameplay, the speed and the choice of vehicles/weapons are ... boring.
The AI is fantasic though. the enemie attacks on different strategies and with different weaponry.

So anyone on Command and Conquer?

I play with China and usually only work with Overlords (in groups of 6, about 4 groups).

[Magus_Melchior]

Heh. Laser fodder. Or EMP missiles.

(Edit) Ah, I saw your "4 groups of 6" comment. That would hurt, even for a Superweapon USA base, as patriots tend to concentrate on 1 target. Ironically, such a column of tanks would be really hurt by ECM tanks, because the EMP missiles would scatter and hit other Overlords, shutting them down.
If I were turtling against that-- and I generally do, while building superweapons, I'd go with Infantry or Nuke China, and just direct Nuke Cannons or Infernos to set up a no man's land at chokepoints-- probably infernos, since a PvP is always a race against the clock. I don't think I can get it up in time, but then, it'll take a while to get 24 Overlords into a synchronous attack position. The other nice advantage to Chinese armies is the Satellite Hack and artillery barrage. The Internet Center doesn't go down very easily, but the Propaganda Center does-- one unblockable hit to the Overlord production chain.
If I were USA, I'd try a lot of UAVs and stealth fighters in patrol formation, unless you were smart and upgraded all of those tanks with gatling cannons and speaker towers-- even then, a little early damage at the cost of some planes wouldn't hurt. I would also supplement the patriot turrets with Tomahawks-- no supplemental (radiation/toxin) damage from them, but they're devastating against heavy targets. That means I'm probably screwed if I go Laser. Pity-- that general's one of my favorites.
With GLA... I would go offensive instead with Marauders and token Quads/Buggies. GLA isn't suited for defense anyway, and Marauders fire faster than Overlords when upgraded to double-turrets. They are weaker, but they are also cheaper and obtainable earlier in the game. Scud launchers might work well in a defensive scenario, but that depends on how tightly the column is packed; toxin damage is limited against armor, so I'd probably favor the Demolition general.
Shutting down the lead tank with Jarmen is also a nice micro trick.

I'm mucking around with the Xenoforce mod (Macross/Gundam additions to the game, although the modder killed off the 3 standard armies and the Demolitions general).

There has to be something terribly wrong with destroying Overlords with uber-gatling guns...

Yeah, I wasn't all that impressed with C&C3, mainly because it was like Tiberian Sun but in 3D. I hit resource death pretty easily in the Tiberian universe games, for some reason.

I should install StarCraft on this puppy.

[Abdul_Moti]

Umm, I play CnC 3 and I found it not too interesting, I felt the same thing in Tiberian Sun as its previous sequel, unless about the Scrin's defenses that prove some threat. And the Generals Zero Hour, I have no opinion, sorry. But it seems better if you combine heavy armored, long ranged and infantry in a group, so each other shall cover the weakness.

[Magus_Melchior]

Well, one thing EA did right on Generals/Zero Hour was both the AI and the balancing. While you can technically swarm your enemies with one unit type a la Starcraft, it would either be futile (infantry alone), too expensive or impossible depending on game constraints (superweapons), or easily countered (vehicles). The SAGE AI picks up on this, and can find ways of shutting you down or outflanking you.

I might pick up RA3 just because the RA and Tiberium storylines are the only saving grace of those games (RA2 was okay, especially when Prism Tanks are available), however EA's draconian anti-piracy measures will discourage me from doing so. Oh well.