Talk:Supreme Commander

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Supreme Commander article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Featured article star Supreme Commander is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)
VG To-do:
Knight chess piece This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Strategy games To-do:
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Experimental Units

During the large section overhaul I did on this page, deleted a bit about experimental units. I saved it in my Sandbox 1 (see user page). It'll probably return in some form or another, possibly a page like "List of units in Supreme Commander". --User:Krator (t c) 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

"IGN rated Supreme Commander with the outstanding rating of 9/10.[2] Supreme Commander is the second highest rated recent real-time strategy game on that website, beaten only by Company of Heroes. "

Um... this isn't true. Just a quick search of a couple of RTS's that I can remember, StarCraft is rated at 9.5, above Company of Heroes's 9.4, and WarCraft III is tied at 9.0. So... um... yeah.

God damn, even C and C Generals is rated higher than Supreme Commander. -ChewyLSB 01:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed it - suppose I didn't go back far enough in the archives. --User:Krator (t c) 10:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I didn't want to remove it myself, wasn't sure if there was something I was missing... I didn't mean to come off as blazen if I did, haha. -ChewyLSB 16:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superweapons

Can't we put something in about each faction's three superweapons? I can't remember all of them.

Unit lists generally don't belong in an article about a game. --User:Krator (t c) 10:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see --- True, but using the experimental units as an example of scale in other sections could be beneficial. Addseale2 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

By superweapons do you mean structures that deliver devastating attacks like the missile silo and weather control device from the game Red Alert 2? Or are you referring to the Level 4 experimental units like the Fatboy mobile factory or the Cybran Monkeylord? A short section on the experimental units would be handy. If there are superweapons in this game it wouldn't hurt to put that in as well. And would it be possible to put in some more screenshots? 203.27.231.250 02:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Factions in Supreme Commander main article (see link from Factions section) explains the experimental units. More screenshots are possible, but we need:
  • Screenshots not from a third party (not from IGN or GameSpy).
  • Screenshots that look good (SupCom running on a good PC - not mine).
  • Preferably, screenshots released by GPG under GNU or CC.
--User:Krator (t c) 06:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factions

On why I changed the section titles for the factions:

  • The Table of Contents should be kept to a manageable size. These were three easy subsections that could be removed from the table. When clicking on the 'factions' section in the ToC, one will see all three sections anyway.
  • Section titles generally shouldn't be linked. That's why I used the {{main}} template. For example, the section title "History" in Coffee isn't linked to History of coffee.

I made this exact same edit earlier, but in the past few days it went back to it's original state, hence this note here.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content Re-write

I've been taking a look at this today, and rewording or redoing a few things. The past couple of editors had the general idea right in the factions section, but it didn't feel like it was said as well as it could have been. I hope these few minor improvements will do until someone more experienced has the time to go over it with a fine toothed comb.

Addseale2 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Trees are actually reclaimed for energy, not mass. Fix that if you have time pls.

They reward with both energy and mass.

[edit] Sequel? Add-on?

There is a lot of buzz going around on the net about this, especially if you take a look at the little cliffhangers at the end of each campaign. It seems to me the humans are about to go down hard if you know what I mean.

Hawaii goes first, the rest will follow... D-hyo 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just finished the Cybran Campaign. (Don't read the next line if you don't want spoilers.)

Seems the QAI of the Cybrans has something to do with it given Brackman's statement "My god.. what have you done?!" in response to QAI. - Luminar 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that both the add-on and sequel will focus around the arrival of a much-speculated but as-yet unnamed alien or pirate faction. Outside that, I see no reason to update the article, as that's...really all we know. 74.69.21.12 05:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out-of-Context Sourcing

A simple read of Charles Oynett's review will tell you that what is listed in the article is -not- his stance on the game, seeing as how he said it was too complex, too time-consuming, and based on knowing exactly which unit does what himself. I'm not going to take it down, but I would indeed ask for a consensus among editors here.67.141.92.96 21:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GamePro Aus review

This dispute (edit war) was discussed by myself and 68.230.100.197 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) on our respective talk pages. I have copied the discussion here for convenience's sake. The signatures and headers of 68.230.100.197's responses are added by me, because he did not sign nor add a section header to his response on my talk page. I initiated a discussion after twice reverting his removal of the review.

User:Krator's parts are copied from User talk:68.230.100.197. 1, 2 and 3.

IP User talk:68.230.100.197's parts are copied from User talk:Krator. 1 and 2.

--User:Krator (t c) 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello 68.230.100.197, I've noticed that you have deleted or commented on the review by GamePro Australia present in the article Supreme Commander. The review is essential in that section, which aims to provide a non-biased view on how critics reviewed Supreme Commander. However, several allegations of a bribe by EA, or other fabrications of the review, are floating around the internet.

If such a thing is true, it should indeed be noted in the article, and/or the review should be removed. However, before taking action, a link from a reliable source is needed, which proves or even just states the allegations. If you can provide such a source, don't hesitate to state so on the talk page, or just edit the article. --User:Krator (t c) 22:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it really seems like a bunch of crap to me that just about every single videogame ever made will usually have at least one review like they yet you don't see them mentioned on the pages of other games.
I don't know if the bribe allegations are true, but even if they are I'm sure they are next to impossible to prove, however it is well known that GameProAus is in serious danger of being shut down and it is also known the both MetaCritic And GameRankings pulled the GameProAus review from their sites.
I really can't view this of anything short of the actions for someone who just has a deep hate for this game to insist this be in the Supreme Commander section when almost every single other review for Supreme Commander is extremely positive, if you want people to get a clear view of reality I suggest you either post quotes and the scores from all the other gaming sites or at least mention and link to metacritic/gamerankings which I tried to add showing that other then the GameProAus review the game has CLEARLY received overwhelmingly great reviews.
I find it funny you say you want to give people the whole picture yet with the GameProAus review you are doing the opposite, if someone came here and only here to view the opinion of the press on Supreme Commander you would be led to believe the games press is split half and half, half the people love it half, the people hate the game which is not the case.
Further more the review from GameProAus is factually incorrect and anyone who owns Supreme Commander knows this, They blatantly stated the game is a slide show on even super computers! Now while Supreme Commander has some high requirements what GameProAus said was a flat out lie and that is unarguable. If my crappy computer can run the game on low settings and run it silk smooth surely any super computer should, surely if what GameProAus said was the case you would have seen the game score extremely low across the board, the games online would further more be a ghost town if this is true! Perhaps they had a bug in there computer or something, but if that was the case that is even more reason why this blatant lie of a review should not be cited.
-- 68.230.100.197 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
First, to clear up some misconceptions, I have no 'deep hate' for the game, nor do I agree with GamePro Aus. I'm a fan of Supreme Commander, which is the reason I edit the article. However, I'm really cautious not to let the Wikipedia article seem like something written by a fan, but rather adhere to the neutral point of view. Some more responses to your points:
  • "I find it funny you say you want to give people the whole picture yet with the GameProAus review you are doing the opposite, if someone came here and only here to view the opinion of the press on Supreme Commander you would be led to believe the games press is split half and half, half the people love it half, the people hate the game which is not the case."
I'm afraid this is not my purpose - I plan to add a lot more reviews, but I've been busy with other things over the past weeks, which means I have little time to edit. I invite you to add more reviews, that'd be splendid. I know the press was very positive about SupCom, and the reception section should clearly reflect that. However, it would be quite bad to omit the GameProAus review, because it would seem rather biased to omit the single review that was negative about the game.
  • "Further more the review from GameProAus is factually incorrect and anyone who owns Supreme Commander knows this."
I own Supreme Commander, and I've been reading the forums and talking to people in game, and performance clearly is an issue. (read some threads in the official general discussion about it - can't cite those threads here though) GameProAus exaggerated it a lot, but the performance issues are not unheard of, nor does it run very smooth on the minimum system - a friend of mine just crashes every time we play on 20x20 with 1000 unit cap, though he meets the minimum reqs.
  • "it is also known the both MetaCritic And GameRankings pulled the GameProAus review from their sites."
Please give a link to an official statement where they say they're pulling the review from their sites - it would be great to cite that.!
I hope we can cooperate more on this article in the future, because it's good to have someone else with knowledge of the game around. --User:Krator (t c) 11:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Lmfao official statement? Your joking right? Those sites both add dozens upon dozens of reviews a day, do you really think they are going to make a quote "Official Statement" about the removal of 1 measly review?
You can contact Gamerankings via this email
lee@gamerankings.com
And you can contact MetaCritic via filling in the contact info on there contact page below
http://www.metacritic.com/about/contact.shtml
Both sites will confirm that the review WAS on there site and now it has been pulled from both of there sites.
If there word isn't good enough for you how about you at least leave that review off till you have time to post all the much more positive reviews along with it :)
Furthermore I really find the idea that the page will be viewed as the work of a fanboy if you merely leave out one review that has been stripped from the serious review collecting sites and has been widely accused as being complete bs! If you want a review that points out the game has high requirements you don't need to use the one that completely lies about them as just about every review for the game mentions the requirements! 68.230.100.197 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
  1. Please sign your comments on my talk page with ~~~~.
  2. I cannot e-mail those sites, because Wikipedia has a policy against original research.
  3. Without references saying so, there is no reason to assume that GamePro Australia deliberately lied, just that they're exaggerating (like media often do). They do praise the game (the article quotes them saying the game is 'great') and address a point the other reviews I've read so far did not.
  4. You suggest using another review to address the performance instead. Please write on the article talk page which one you'd like to include instead, but don't just delete that review.
--User:Krator (t c) 13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion The review in question is verifiable and from a reliable source -- two very good reasons for including it. If you feel that the review is unbalanced or inaccurate, then find another reliable source that says so - otherwise, it is original research to say that the review is inaccurate. The other option would be to find another review that disagrees with the review in question, and provide both. For now, leave the review in the article. -- Pastordavid 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Third Opinion I was editing my opinion when Pastordavid added his, so I'll include mine too, though it's largely superfluous at this point.

I've read the discussion here so far and have performed some independent research. While the GamePro Australia review does stand apart from the other reviews, it is a legitimate review from a legitimate source. Further, GameWorld Network has reported that the creator of the bribe story has admitted to fabricating his accusation. If gamers have reported that performance is an issue with their machines, then it is absolutely fair to include a report from a journalistic source that reflects this criticism - it's certainly a better bet than using posts from Gas Powered's forums. If the developer later issues a patch that addresses these issues, add a note to this criticism that the issues have since been corrected.

As it stands, however, I believe that accuracy is best served by including the review. It is nicely balanced by other reviews in the body of the article that heap praise on the game. Snuppy 15:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the third opinions - I'll make a paragraph with that link as a reference soon, if no one does it before me of course. --User:Krator (t c) 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the anon has persisted in removing this paragraph, despite a total lack of support from other users. I've sprotected the page for a bit, as such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with you including a review that reflects the harsh system requirements, I do however have a MAJOR problem with you including the one review that blatantly LIES about the games performance! Just about every single dam Supreme Commander review mentions the game has high requirements, but hte GamePro Aus one is the only one the FLAT OUT LIES about them!

I quote them "And high-end killer systems aren't the cure either - no, we put this up against the kind of hardware most of you poor bastards will only ever dream about. We turned settings off, down, up; switched off background applications; even installed it on different PCs with different graphics cards. Anything to wake up from this horrible, horrible dream."


IF YOU READ THAT ABOVE THEY SUGGEST that even on a top of the line rig you CANNOT RUN THE GAME ON THE LOWEST SETTINGS! That is a blatant lie and EVERYONE who has a high end PC and the game knows that!

I can't believe CnC fanboys have obtained control of the Supreme Commander section of Wiki, just ridiculous, you don't see any mention of some of the horrendous scores hundreds of other games have received in their wiki section, no you just choose to display that 50 with all your might despite the fact it was pulled from both gameranking and metacritic, I don't see any other explanation other then your a blatant CnC fanboy who's trying to spread false information about Supreme Commander as if you own the game you literally know what they state is a damn lie.

If your were to listen to their review you would be left with the impression that if you put the game all on the lowest settings at 1024 by 768 you wouldn't have a playable frame rate on a Dual core AMD 4800x2 +X1900XTX + 2 GBs of ram which is a flat out lie, if you would even try to argue that point then, well to hell with you, your clearly are trying to spread false information about this game as that is exactly what their dam review suggests.


Wow, this is a stupid arguement. Why doesn't some one just add "The GameProAus review is rather controversial and many fans have acuused GamePro of lieng about the exetnt of the preformance problems etc etc..." Problem solved. 64.119.142.118 17:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


I don't know how anyone could actually say that the GamePro Aus review balances things with a straight face, what you guys are doing here is perhaps the most deceptive way possible to show just what the the presses thoughts on Supreme Commander are.

There are over 100 reviews out there for Supreme Commander and none of the other reviews say what the GamePro Aus one says, if you guys were really interested in presenting the OVERWHELMING opinion of the majority of reviewers out there you would list many more review, but because, at least to me you are trying to deceive everyone who reads the Supreme Commander section you opt to forget the other 100+ reviews that for the most part say nothing, but great things about the game. If this isn't biased then biased quite simply doesn't exist!

And acting as though no-one has anything bad to say about SupCom is being unbiased, in your view?, Also, please assume good faith. - KingRaptor 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Metacritic score to the end of the section, for the "big picture". - KingRaptor 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the reception section could be cleaned up by removing the cquotes (most FA VG articles don't use them) and adding a wikitable (look at something like Perfect Dark's reception section for what I'm talking about) to include both the good reviews and the bad review.--Clyde (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New version

It's all very well and good for you to protect this page, but could you please at the very least keep the information updated? A new patch version 3223 was just released yesterday. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.24.37.166 (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lead Section - First announced in..

The lead section states:

“ First announced in the August 2005 edition of PC Gamer magazine ”

This cannot be true, as I found some articles on gamespy (cited in references) from July 2005. Where was it first announced, then? --User:Krator (t c) 11:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Story - Quantum Tunnels

Someone who edited this section said portals could be created to anywhere in the universe. First, I'd assume they'd have a range, second, the universe is not that range, because our corner of the Milky Way is all that's been colonized, and third, that description was just too vague and short.

Spiced it up a bit. Somebody help me with that reference, too. --Nervecenter117 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the reference. The problem was a missing ref tag. Thanks the the edits - I wasn't sure about my original description either. --User:Krator (t c) 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] System Requirements

  1. the recent patch as helped the real system requirements out.
    1. the current patch should run ok for online play with a 2ghz AMD64 and 512Mb GPU, and 1 GB of ram. anything lower than that and you run into some serious issues, especially with ram. The game can consume upto 800Mb of ram on a given game instance, and if windows is doing anything else you can easily go over your ram level and start using your HD for virtual memory. if this happens you need to close some other app ASAP.
  2. i also recently upgraded my machine, and with a dual core 2.2Ghz AMD64 2GB of Ram, and an nvidia 8800 GPU with 768 Mb of ram, i can now run the game with max settings at 1920x1200. I think memory is the most critical component to this running well, and then next would be a multi core processor.

[edit] Latest changes suck

Who removed the experimental units and descriptions of how the factions operate? Each faction had a paragraph about the type of units they employ. I know someone is going to say "this is not a game forum" but it wasn't really promoting the game it was describing the features. I was looking into buying the game so the first thing I did was to look it up on Wikipedia. I found the descriptions of experimental units and the differences between the factions to be very informative. Opinions? 203.27.231.250 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)

That content was not removed - it was moved to Factions in Supreme Commander. The article was getting too long, and Wikipedia policy tells us that it should be split then. --User:Krator (t c) 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Krator. I wasn't aware that page existed, it's ok then. I didn't know about the catagories thing at the bottom of the page. Good job to whoever made the descriptions of experimental units, i found that really useful. 203.27.231.250 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
In fact, reaching that page by using the Supreme Commander category is not the "right" way. There are, in fact, four links to Factions in Supreme Commander here. First, in the Factions section in this article, there is a link stating Main article: Factions in Supreme Commander. Then, clicking the name of each faction will also bring you tot the appropriate section in Factions in Supreme Commander. This is quite a standard way of navigating around Wikipedia, and familiarizing yourself with it will open up a lot more information in Wikipedia to you. --User:Krator (t c) 11:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nom

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: G1ggy! Review me! 07:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tutorial?

Does this game have a tutorial? If so maybe it should be included in the article, along with what the tutorial covers.

Yes, it does. However, I think this information is redundant, because it is a real time strategy video game, and nearly all games in that category have a tutorial. Wikipedia doesn't write at every music page "these are guys using instruments to make sounds" either. Also, writing what the tutorial covers would be much of a game guide. --User:Krator (t c) 13:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed Krator. I just wanted to know if it had one or not.
The tutorial is a bit unusual, however. Most games walk you through an in-game sequence where you are directed to perform certain tasks with accompanying explanations of what everything does. Supreme Commander's tutorials are videos focusing on specific areas of gameplay. This is unusual in the industry (though not unique - Galactic Civilizations II does the same thing, for instance). --Junior612 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multi core processing

In the development section, it talks about the game 'splitting the load' between two core processors. However, I think I read in an online review somewhere that his computer was a dual core and the game was only utilizing one of those cores. Are sources 28 and 29 reliable, or is this just one person's opinion?

The online review you read was probably made running on Windows XP without the dual core patch by Microsoft installed. This is something one needs to install on XP before Supreme Commander will utilize the two cores properly. The GPG forums have a FAQ including a link to that patch.
From personal experience, it uses the two cores exceptionally well. --User:Krator (t c) 10:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
SupCom is designed to take advantage of multi core processer systems. Dxco 06:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Single player?

Hi I was wondering, when I got the demo for Supreme Commander I couldn't find a single player mode. Can anyone tell me if this game has a single player mode or is it just online? 72.133.53.219 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

nevermind, question anwsered. 72.133.53.219 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] multi-player

How could this game be out for so long and no one even added a paragraph about the online play?

What should be written, then? The infobox lists "Multiplayer" as one of the game modes. Writing about specific multiplayer systems would be blatantly game-guide like ("Ranked games use these maps ...") or so vague that the article Multiplayer game would be more informative. Also, writing "GPGNet is awful" (a good summary of the online play of SupCom) is not informative and cannot be sourced. If you have a good suggestion on what to write, I will gladly write a section about multiplayer. --User:Krator (t c) 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it the standard fare (skirmishes) or did they introduce any more interesting game types or victory conditions (like Age of Empires II and especially the expansion pack for it)? From what I have read it sounds like it's just kill or be killed. How sad and how boring. 72.161.61.19 03:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You've got custom maps with King of the Hill etc. User:Krator (t c) 11:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unit Pack

Would posting information about the unit pack that is due sometime today/tonight be a good thing? Pdboddy 19:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be. If the plan is to list every new unit and feature, that would be bad. If it's considered a new version, you might want to update that, and if it severely changes gameplay you may want to edit a sentence or two, but otherwise nothing else is needed.--Clyde (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiplayer

One of the most important aspects of a game centered around multiplay is how many players there to compete with. Is there anyway someone can list an estimated amount of servers with the date the number was obtained. For example: As of July 31, 2007 Supreme Commander has an estimated 300-400 servers at any given time. This should give people a point of reference to how active the game still is online.

I'm not sure what you mean, although it is possible to get the number of games played so far.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Such data would be:

  • Original research (gathering of the data).
  • Even more original research, as it would have to be explained.
  • Not comparable. An FPS with 100 servers with 30 people each would be active-ish. Supreme Commander does not even have "servers". The majority of the games are 1v1 ranked games. There are about 10 custom games hosted (i.e.: open for joining) at any given time, with about 3 people on average in them.

If you are interested in the information, I can tell you that playing SupCom online is awful, not-active and generally sucks. --User:Krator (t c) 11:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? That's less than Spring! --CCFreak2K 01:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor additions re: AI and Reception

Added a few sentences in the "Gameplay" section of the article mentioning the fact that the provided AI does not cheat and is thus, not a considerable challenge when a player has been playing for a while. Also mentioned that the community has several modified AI's that significantly increase the difficulty. Thought this would be a good addition for people for which offline play is a concern.

Added the paragraph with the recurring criticism of the 3D terrain not being enough of a concern in what is meant to be a game with 3D environments. It's a common criticism of the game by old Total Annihilation players and might be of interest to TA veterans looking into Supreme Commander.

(B)a(N)e(R)86 04:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edits contain Original Research. One was reverted already, and the other is original research too, so I reverted. Please get a reliable source to back up your edits. The reason I had written nothing about multiplayer, the players, and the modifications, is partially that there are no sources for it. User:Krator (t c) 08:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Seraphim Logo.svg

Image:Seraphim Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To the authors of this article.

While I could've been rude and made the changes my self I think it's polite to inform that there is a flaw on the background story of this game.

All units are inhabbited by a pilot or crew, the story line makes many references to lives lost while fighting (while the manual does contradict this by stating 'robotic' armies), also the game heavilly implies there are soldiers fighting the war physically (as referenced by the UEF's logo) and the manual never stated the units are entirely robotic, this article's authors have a biased opinion about many aspects of this game.

I would also like to note that the ACU is NEVER referred to as a Mech and technically could never be referred as such, instead The ACU is a 'personal, armored exoskeleton' (source: supcom manual) would be more fitting in this author's opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrOuNd ZeRo (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As one of the article's authors, I disagree on both your points.
Firstly, all units are robotic, except for the Support Commander and the Commander. The references to lives lost refer to either Commanders, or a historical time where units were human still. This can be seen from the process of creation: Commanders need to be "summoned", while the robotic armies are simply "created". Furthermore, the campaign never references any human pilots, and several reviews use the adjective "robotic".
Secondly, the Commander is indeed never called a Mech, but surely is one. Wikipedia does not strictly adhere to the canon used by the developer - we write an encyclopaedia, and therefore the most common English words are used that best describe what is needed. Mech is a common term in Sci-fi in general, and aptly describes the ACU. User:Krator (t c) 13:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, It's not like there are no more humans to be killed. It's just that they are not in tanks. Nothing keeps the commanders from laying waste to planetary cities etc.happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logos of Factions

User:Turd the Borg, why were the logos of the different factions removed in the factions section here? The non-free content criteria state that such use is allowed. User:Krator (t c) 09:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinated Attack

The article states that coordinated attack will allow one's units to arrive at the same time. It is my understanding that this feature does not work at all. 142.179.217.154 (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum, but I'll give you a hint, hold Ctrl and Alt then right click. All units in the formation will move at the same speed. --Simpsons fan 66 02:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SupCom wikia

I changed the link to the SupCom wikia. I've noticed this article here on wikipedia is FA. If there are any editors still interested in further editing, then they are welcome to come join us. We could use some help. The wikia is here, and I can be found there too. Thanks.happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote most of the FA, and I'm still watching it. I've helped the founder of SupCom wikia out in the past, but won't do so for the simple reason I no longer play SupCom. User:Krator (t c) 11:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)