Supreme Commander 2 Review

Supreme of chicken.

Version tested: PC

Intensively playing two real-time strategy games with the initials SC2 in the same week is bad enough. Given that Supreme Commander 2 and StarCraft II are entirely different strategy animals, it tears the brain asunder. StarCraft is like some rare breed of exquisite tropical fish which requires constant care and attention else it'll perish, while SupCom 2's more like an average moggy. It might be less of a talking point, but chuck some food in a bowl a couple of times a day and that's about all it needs to show you love. Supreme Commander 2 can yield great rewards for minimal investment.

Broadly, it's very similar to the first SupCom and its standalone expansion - three sci-fi factions pitting delightfully vast legions of tanks, planes and boats at each other. Its strategy lies in its scale, moving formations of several dozen or even hundred units around at once, rather than micro-managing the precise actions of individual units. That's the key difference between this and the more intimate, exacting environment of the StarCraft or Command & Conquer model of RTS. Where SupCom 2 differs from its predecessor is that the scale has been shrunk somewhat, predominantly in terms of the map sizes and consequently the time a match or mission takes.

The cry that's gone up from some aggrieved corners of the SupCom community is that this must be because it's been dumbed down (a phrase that the world could only be a happier place without) for the impending 360 version. Perhaps hardware restrictions have had some effect, but in practice you'll see it isn't a 'just because' thing.

The shape of the game has changed at a fundamental level - it's no longer quite as reliant on creating these seething hordes of tiny geometric robots and hurling them at the enemy from the right direction whilst simultaneously micro-managing a complicated economy. Now, it's about creating an army and a strategy of your choosing, and seeing how it fares against a similarly custom-tailored force. The rules of engagement are a little faster and looser, a little more about entertaining yourself instead of purely honing your skill. Rest assured, though, that while it's nowhere near as exacting as (and this is the last time I'll make the comparison) StarCraft II, victory does require a keen strategy brain.

'Supreme Commander 2' Screenshot 1

Crabs. Why did it have to be crabs?

What makes it different is a thoroughly reworked tech tree. Instead of a straight, traditional tech-up, you generate Research as you play, as a third resource alongside the returning Mass and Energy. You can increase the speed this is gathered by building labs, but if you're spending your early resources on those you're reducing the number of initial units and defences you can pump out and thus may be vulnerable to a rush.

That concept of trade-offs underpins SupCom 2 throughout. Once you've got, say, five Research points in hand, you can buy an unlock on your tech tree. (Only for the duration of the match, just to clarify - these aren't persistent unlocks). Maybe it's improved health for your land units. Maybe it's reduced cost for your air units. Maybe it's faster resource collection for your Commander. Maybe it's faster building speed.

As you get further down each tree (though you're never stuck to just one), you unlock increasingly spectacular bonuses, such as mighty shields around puny aircraft, or mechanical legs that allow naval units to roam over land. Most excitingly, you'll get access to more powerful units and structures - including the reliably over-the-top Experimentals. Unless you stick doggedly to the same plan every time you play, in theory you're going to field a different variation on your army in every match. There's an awful lot to pick and choose from, and to get your head around, but it isn't especially taxing to gain access to the better toys.

'Supreme Commander 2' Screenshot 2

A base with no anti-air defence is a dead base.

Outside of that Research tree, SupCom 2 is a much more straightforward game than its predecessors. With no caps on mass and energy storage and more autonomous Engineers, resource management and maintenance demands a lot less of your attention. Meanwhile, the Experimentals - the giant metal crabs, the cyborg dinosaurs, the robo-tentacled submarines that you might have spotted in the trailers - no longer require a climate-change-inducing energy investment and an agonisingly long build time. Once you've earned enough resource points to prise open the appropriate lids on the Research tree, you can pop several into play really quite quickly.

The upside: marvellously strange and unpredictable battles. There are fewer bread-and-butter tanks, planes and boats all told, but it's going to take you quite a while to try out all the different wacky stuff. The downside is that it is a lot simpler. On the most basic level, it's a real-time strategy game in which you can build a load of robots, lob 'em at the other guy and see what happens. Seasoned players will still skin you alive, don't doubt that, but so long as you've mastered the basics of resource collection you'll still present some sort of a challenge to them. This is about as close as RTS gets to button-mashing in a fighting game.

Whether the trade-off is worth it is going to depend on what type of strategy gamer you are. If your idea of fun is something that always pushes you hard, you may well find this too cuddly when compared to the first game, and especially against that other RTS I said I wouldn't mention again. If, though, it's about having an ad-hoc brainwave and finding a way to make it work, you're in for a much better time than the machine-cold first Supreme Commander offered.

When I play, I tend to concentrate on buffing up my aircraft as far as they'll go, so a fleet of them can shrug off the worst if they come into contact with anti-aircraft units or turrets and thus can deal incredible damage to even the most heavily-defended base. That's just me, though. One person I played against built almost no units, instead pouring everything into research, unlocking nukes incredibly quickly as a result, and promptly wiping my base and Commander off the face of whatever planet we were on before I'd got my first strike out the gate. I think it's telling that my response to this was not the puffed-out cheeks, clenched fists and made-up swearing that a too-quick defeat in other RTSes tends to incite, but rather to laugh. Well done, sir. That was an absurd risk you took, but it bloody well worked.

Another chap, meanwhile, busied himself with unlocking and constructing an Experimental Loyalty Gun, meaning that phalanx of suited-and-booted aircraft I mentioned earlier promptly and automatically converted to his side when they reached his base. All gone. All. Gone. I didn't laugh that time, I'll admit. The net result of all these steroidal sci-fi toys is that games tend to be over a lot more quickly, reaching sudden and wonderfully absurd conclusions when you least expect them. It's a different animal, and it is unquestionably going to annoy a lot of people as a result, but I honestly feel the many sacrifices made are worth it to experience this maniacal, ever-changing glee.

'Supreme Commander 2' Screenshot 3

That'll be a nuke, then. Ow

I realise I haven't yet mentioned something very, very important. All that fun stuff I've just been talking about? It only applies to multiplayer, and to a much lesser extent, the player-versus-AI Skirmish mode. Supreme Commander 2, alas, is a pretty awful single-player game. Granted, Supreme Commander and Forged Alliance came up pretty short in that regard too, but this is a whole new echelon of suffering. The missions are stilted affairs, cruelly built around denying you access to all the tech tree's wonders, and bookended with irredeemably grating and lifeless cut-scenes.

What a shame it didn't take a campaign map approach - a sandbox of territories the three factions war over, rather than a tiresome linear stomp. The idea is that it's an intimate tale, a look at this three-way far-future war from Just This Guy's perspective and how his family is affected by it. But hateful characters, lousy humour and a soporific pace ruin this. This sounds like an awful sweeping generalisation, but honestly you'd be much better off to ignore the campaign entirely and jump straight to Skirmish or multiplayer. That effectively makes this half a game, which means I've been doing a little panicky dance about whether I should score it lower than I have, but ultimately the multiplayer is good enough to redeem it. Well, if that sort of multiplayer sounds appealing to you.

This will split the Supreme Commander 2 fanbase in two. The game's made enormous compromises, but it's also brought in a superb sense of mayhem and variety. On the one hand it's a shame that it's going to leave much of its intended fanbase cold, but on the other there's nothing especially wrong with the first game, so stick with that if you don't like the sound of this. It hasn't aged particularly, and no-one else has stolen its thunder yet. There is absolutely no reason why it and its sequel can't co-exist, providing two related but critically different strategy flavours. Supreme Commander 2, after all, is an RTS about choice - that might as well apply to the game itself too.

8 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (44) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Eraysor #1 2 years ago

    The next 10 days are going to be expensive. FFXIII, this and BC2 all at once. Not that I'm complaining!
  • rommy667 #2 2 years ago

    Loved the first,this sounds not as good though.........
  • CalmHorizons #3 2 years ago

    Pretty much as expected after the demo.
    It's a pity because the first game really defined itself in a genre filled with imitators.
    Looks like this one has simply joined the rest of the cadre.
    My hopes now shift to the other SC2.
  • Instinct #4 2 years ago

    Typo "Supreme Commadner" in last paragraph.

    Should prob add a full stop at the end of that para, too.

    Good review!
  • heflys #5 2 years ago

    He pretty much said the game, aside from the campaign (which most won't play anyway), was excellent. Good enough for me.
  • stevetuck #6 2 years ago

    single... player...?
  • heflys #7 2 years ago

    "Do you mean that noone plays RTSs for the singleplayer any more? "

    You gathered all that from me stating that no one is really that interested, or concerned that the single-player campaign may suck in Supreme Commander 2?
  • wonton #8 2 years ago

    Excellent well written review.

    "which most won't play anyway"

    I'd be careful of putting out sweeping statements like that.
  • heflys #9 2 years ago

    A number of players admitted to not playing, or for that matter finishing, the SP campaign that was present in the original game. In a similar vain to the reviewer of this article, they found the campaign to be too confining or the story completely dismissible. However, in the present case, the author was referencing to Supreme Commander 2. A number of people are going to head straight for skirmish to learn the differences between the sides, and then proceed straight to multi-player; they have made this clear on the GPG forums. More than likely, most people are going to follow this path, as opposed to not, wouldn't you say? Furthermore, take notice of the fact that I am referencing to the campaign, not skirmish.

    A sweeping statement, on my part, would've been something along the lines of: "No one plays SP anymore! It's all multiplayer!" When, in fact, there are clearly people who enjoy playing campaigns and sticking to the SP experience; as evidenced by the response to my statement. Sorry if I offended, since it appears I did.
    Edited by 1 at 01/03/10 @ 03:28
  • Scimarad #10 2 years ago

    It's a shame the single player mode sucks on this - Enjoyed the original and there are plenty that do play the single player campaign...

    Edited by 1 at 01/03/10 @ 05:37
  • Orihalcon19 #11 2 years ago

    Very impressed with the reviewer's opinion about this game. Seeing as I'm in SA and our internet is absolute rubbish, I cannot get my hands on the demo, but his gives me hope. Especially after seeing the change in game play with CnC 4 :( Good to see some RTS games are sticking to the basic formula. If it ain't broke, why fix it :) That's not to say you cannot polish it till you get a mirror finish though :) Cannot wait for this and Starcraft 2 to hit my country!
  • Schiraman #12 2 years ago

    After playing the demo, that seems like an extremely over-positive take on the game. It seems to me that the kind of people who won't mind that the SP campaign is rubbish are exactly the kind of hard-core fans who will *hate* the 'streamlining' of the game's main elements (smaller maps, less units, simplified economy, etc.). Also, no mention of the fact that it looks like crap visually?

    Oh, and specifically citing that the engineers are more autonomous seems a little misleading - as far as I could see the only difference is that they now do some of the stuff they used to do when patrolling (i.e. auto-repair things nearby) when stationary. OTOH they don't seem to be able to assist other units building anymore... so I'd say that's a net loss.
  • Segnit #13 2 years ago

    The fact that I knew in advance that this was a going to be management crippled version of a long cherished series helped a lot in curbing my disappointment.

    And when the price is right I'll definitely buy this, especially since it seems like there is immediately gratifying fun of gameplay to be had.

    But still, I'll be playing SupCom1 for years to come.
    Edited by 1 at 01/03/10 @ 08:33
  • pantbash #14 2 years ago

    Sounds brilliant, personally the descriptions of the 'other' SC2 sound awful to me.

    SupCom 1 was brilliant, if this is a similar vein but with the resource management made a bit easier.
    (I tended to start to overlook/miss mex upgrades etc when the fighting got going.)
    Then I will doubtless enjoy this tremendously.

    I want to fight without having to worry too much about the exact order I should be running around starting upgrades on my mex's.
  • j-bo #15 2 years ago

    The demo was f**king awful, but then I wonder if that was from being forced to play the horribly dated single player campaign.
  • miiiguel #16 2 years ago

    Wanted this mainly for the single player, since no one plays any more and it's sucky I'll pass.
  • Ryboy #17 2 years ago

    No comments what-so-ever on how well his PC handled the game...

    I need tech info!
  • Fubdub #18 2 years ago

    I'm disappointed. Never played the first one in MP and still enjoyed it alot, especially for the huge maps and the wave after wave of units you could throw at the enemy. Seems this has gone in the exact opposite direction. Probably one for the bargain bin as far as I am concerned.
  • UncleLou #19 2 years ago

    Skirmish mode against the AI is where it's at for me in these games, so a crappy sp campaign doesn't bother me all that much.

    That said, after playing the demo, it's not a game I am ready to pay full price for. It feels like a streamlined addon rather than a real sequel.
  • miiiguel #20 2 years ago

    I thought RTS's campaigns were a collection of skirmishes against the AI. How can one be good and other crappy?. Maybe I'm lost on this one.
    Edited by 1 at 01/03/10 @ 09:41
  • dingo75 #21 2 years ago

    Wasn't it the Demigod guys at Stardock that found out that 3/4 of players never go online while playing a RTS?
    Massive fail Gas Powered! :p
  • Spekingur #22 2 years ago

    @Schiraman: Demo only provided you with a single-player experience. Which, as Alec says in the review, isn't that good. And he is right that many will go straight to the multiplayer. I doubt that I will play much of the single-player in Starcraft 2 when that is released.
    And I didn't find the graphics lackluster - especially not after having played CnC4.

    I don't understand why there aren't more RTS games with this kind of a territory grap type of thing like Alec speaks of. These can be alot of fun and provide diffirent scenarios each time you play single player (thus prolonging the life of single player experience).
  • patchbox360 #23 2 years ago

    yeah boob keeley rub down strategy game, star craft is good chest tense strategy supreme commander hmm hot
  • Caimbeul #24 2 years ago

    I've always played RTS games as skirmishes. The campaigns always bore me to tears and are often frustrating.
  • Matfink #25 2 years ago

    Schiraman +1
    Found it looked a bit duff too, but ran loads better than SC1 on my rig. Not too impressed with the demo so far...
    /me waits for the Steam sale
  • Darren #26 2 years ago

    I tried the Steam demo over the weekend and was surprised at how ordinary the game was... competent but very ordinary I should say. It plays OK but felt pretty dated (the HUD is especially awful). Sadly it didn't seem to really offer anything unique or different to make it stand out from the dozens of similar RTS games that the PC has. Ran well on my machine though so that's something!
  • UncleLou #27 2 years ago

    I thought RTS's campaigns were a collection of skirmishes against the AI. How can one be good and other crappy?. Maybe I'm lost on this one.

    A campaign may well be crap because the mission design/story/tech tree limitations are shit, but if the basic mechanics and the AI are good, skirmish may still be a ton of fun.
  • Creasy #28 2 years ago

    probably would've been good 10 years ago.. today... i don't care games like this anymore at all.
  • Quak #29 2 years ago

    Wow, check out those giant enemy crabs.
  • miiiguel #30 2 years ago

    The sp sweeping statements on the review and comments: typical case of "me and my friends don't play the campaign, so the whole world must be just like us!".
  • sneetch #31 2 years ago

    I've only ever played one RTS game online, that was Company of Heroes and a single match. I only played it because I accidentally hit the play match button and couldn't cancel before it matched me with some guy and loaded the map. I didn't want to be rude and just quit. Whooped his ass too (to my enormous surprise) but wasn't exactly left dying for more. A bad single player campaign is a big turn off for me. Maybe when it's on sale.
  • UncleLou #32 2 years ago

    The sp sweeping statements on the review and comments: typical case of "me and my friends don't play the campaign, so the whole world must be just like us!".

    Not sure if you also mean me, but I certainly didn't say, nor meant to imply, that.
  • Gastrian #33 2 years ago

    I was a bit disappointed with the sweeping statement of single playing too. There are still quite a lot of people out there who like single player campaigns and unless you have a good network of players skirmishes against the AI can be extremely boring.

    Based on that review the score is ridiciously high as its catering for one or two of three potential audiences but not nessecarily the bigger audiences. There is no excuse for an awful single player game especially when the time and effort has been put into creating a storyline, scenarios and cutscenes and the game should be chastised accordingly not sweeped under the carpet.

    I appreciate a review is merely an opinion but on a professional site it should be a professional opinion and not a case of "Well I don't care about single player anyway so I'm ignoring it in this review".
  • Bonzrat #34 2 years ago

    There's been some really unfortunate misinterpretation about my review's comments on the singleplayer. I'm not saying "who cares about singleplayer RTS?" but rather that *this* RTS has a particularly poor singleplayer mode, and thus that mode is best avoided in favour of the superior multiplayer. But if you don't like multiplayer/skirmish RTS at all, you might want to steer clear of SupCom 2 entirely. Doing the two two-scores-for-two-audiences stuff would only have been messy, alas.
    Edited by 1 at 01/03/10 @ 13:31
  • Robyrt #35 2 years ago

    The demo was 10x as fun after I turned on debug mode and started going through the REAL tech tree, not the stupid "+10% to bomber damage" tree they want you to go through.

    Thus, I will be buying the game and plan to have a blast in multiplayer, ordering 100 robots to jump jet into the middle of the enemy base. Enjoy taking a correspondence course to learn how to play Starcraft 2, haters!
  • Gastrian #36 2 years ago

    @Bonzrat,

    But it wouldn't be two scores for two people, the final score should be indicative of the package as a whole as has been the case with many other game where there was a difference in quality between the single player and multiplayer aspects such as Alien Vs Predator. The multiplayer in that game was of a higher quality than the single player and was given a noteworthy mention but in the final summation and scoring the game was rated based on the multiplayer and singleplayer.

    In your own words you say
    "That effectively makes this half a game, which means I've been doing a little panicky dance about whether I should score it lower than I have, but ultimately the multiplayer is good enough to redeem it. Well, if that sort of multiplayer sounds appealing to you."

    How can a game be classed as Very Good according to the scoring policy when it is only "half a game" and the good half is only good enough if you like that type of multiplayer? Surely by that reasoning isn't any game which caters to a specific niche an 8/10 game? I found the multiplayer in Mario Party 5 appealing so surely that should be an 8/10 and not the 5/10 it got?
    Edited by 1 at 01/03/10 @ 18:43
  • Chazmeister #37 2 years ago

    Total Annihilation on PC still does me just fine. Although if they can actually make a good workable 360 version of this then I might be interested, but I doubt that will be the case some how.
  • heflys #38 2 years ago

    @Bonzrat

    Precisely! If you're specifically buying SC2 to play through its 18 mission campaign (we've already played two of the missions), you're, more than likely (quite a few people will enjoy it), going to be disappointed. The missions feature limited a.i. with scripted behavior, and a circumcised tech tree. You're going to spend more time playing skirmish or multiplayer, since, it can be assumed, that is where you're likely to find the best experience. I'm not sure why people assume that when you say having a subpar campaign for this game (AND THIS GAME ONLY!) isn't too much of a bad thing, they assume you're against SP for RTS' in general. Weird.
  • UncleLou #39 2 years ago

    How can a game be classed as Very Good according to the scoring policy when it is only "half a game" and the good half is only good enough if you like that type of multiplayer? Surely by that reasoning isn't any game which caters to a specific niche an 8/10 game?

    But on the other hand, there are many mp-only games (or where single player really is only a basic tutorial) - can you punish a game that does more, just because the "more" isn't up to scratch? You also wouldn't rate down an excellent single-player game because it has tacked-on, rubbish multiplayer, would you? In the end, it depends on what you see in SupCom primarily, and it's probably safe to say that it *is* seen as a multiplayer game by most people, primarily.
    Edited by 1 at 01/03/10 @ 21:49
  • Firetsy #40 2 years ago

    Okay, the single player sucks, and the multiplayer is streamlined to being a minute of random fun with limited relevance to skill and tactics. Now how does that sound like a complete fail to me? Who are you actually going to play against?

    You can still find many online players who play original SupComs, but that is because the game is so deep and challenging. If this game is just a little bit of fun which you get bored after a few dozen matches, there won't be a dedicated user base to play online. And then only thing left is a lousy single player.

    Though you can always challenge that random kid or total noob playing on xbox and beat the hell out of him. Sound very fun, or does it?
  • paketep #41 2 years ago

    Yet another one.

    No LAN support, no buy.
  • KiLlerKnight #42 2 years ago

    Skirmish is broken. The AI is probably one of the worst in RTS history. All it can do is spam air units and attack from the same direction each time. Most 'funny'thing is that if you turn on 'no air units', then the AI often doesn't build any units at all.
    Did the reviewer actually played some skirmishes at all??? Guess that's the kind of reviews you get these days.
    Edited by 1 at 16/03/10 @ 04:38
  • Cafuddled #43 2 years ago

    I never play RTS games on multiplayer due to the fact that every one I have just ends up as a rush-fest... or who can build the most tanks in the least amount of time. Too predictable... ultra efficient computers would rule you all.
  • medina_crow #44 2 years ago

    Excellent strategy. Of course, Starcraft 2 seems to me the best. But this game is good. The main thing is Multiplayer. Medina from mahjong news and crazy taxi portal with best hidden object games or hidden object games online, free download games now.