Talk:Supreme Commander/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Galactic Colossus?

Just a little thing. It says, "It is, however, extremely slow and lacks any anti-aircraft capabilities". I'm fairly sure it can use its gravity claw to destroy aircraft. Wasn't a hundred percent sure so i haven't changed it yet. Could someone find out please? --Kerhyt 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

it can't nor can it attack in the water; i should know, I had to take one out with three soul rippers yesterday.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The gravity claw doesn't work on experimental units. Are you sure that the gravity claw isn't capable of taking out standard air units? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikedep333 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
I am 100% sure that it cannot defend itself against aircraft. I have repeatedly taken out GCs with T2 gunships, and I only take losses when the enemy provides air cover for the thing. Pdboddy 14:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Follow this link: http://147.28.0.58/supcom/unit_details/r3217/ual0401. Any weapons that can target air units are listed as anti-air. Note that all of the weapons on the GC are listed as experimental, which target ground units only. Pdboddy 14:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks then, my mistake. Supreme Commander can get a tad confusing at times what with hundreds of units on the screen at one time. --Kerhyt 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Advertising

Please do not delete this immediately. Has anyone else noticed how suspicious it is that supreme commander has been getting very few ad placements? I will admit that there have been a good deal of previews (some of which could arguably be adverstising), but I have seen ZERO ads on gaming sites, in advertising windows on other sites, on billboards, in commercials, in the subways, or basically anywhere. Does anyone else think that this is kind of weird for such a highly polished game as this? Why do most RTS people I know not even know that much about this, or even when it is coming out? I think the alck of advertising support deserves to be mentioned, although there are no particular sources for it.

There have been ads on Fileplanet. 12Shark 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think lack of advertising is really an issue. I think Chris Taylor and GasPowered Games may be avoiding hyping the game much before it's release, since it's been a long time in coming. Compare this to Duke Nukem Forever, for instance. And, there has been some advertising, though it's in the form of previews and reviews in various gaming magazines and on gaming websites like Gamespy. Not sure if this should be noted or not, I'd vote no. Pdboddy 18:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There are ads now appearing in the March issues of gaming magazines. Pdboddy 14:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Simulation

I edited the article to add a section on unit balance. The main point of it being to highlight the fact that, as mentioned on GameSpy, Supreme Commander will have Newtonian physics, just like Total Annihilation. This adds another layer of strategy to the game as speed and 3D positionof a unit as well as surrounding terain become factors in the decision making process. Unfortunately, I do not write very well. I wrote the section as a starting point. I hope others with more talent will mercilessly edit it into something more comprehensive and to the point. -HUges84 5 September 2005

Second that it needs a rewrite. I think the point is that this enables stuff like artillery shots arcing over hills where other weapons can't, and the lines of bombs dropped by the bombers curving and being influenced by centrifugal force if you turn them while bombing. Neat features of TA. But, here in 2006 this isn't a big deal in an RTS, probably doesn't even deserve mention. -Anon

You think it doesn't? I was under the impression that most RTS games are calculated RPG-style with predefined damage values, accuracy rates, the possibility of a "critical hit," etc. TA was the first to use Newtonian physics to resolve battles, I think, but that hasn't become a genre convention since then, has it? MRig 17:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Up until recently, that is correct. But with the introduction of Total Annihilation and faster processors, most games use Newtonian Physics now. So, while TA was the first to effectively use it, it is very common place now. I would have to agree with the idea that it doesn't deserve mention, unless it is doing something radically new, which as far as I know, it isn't. -Hairchrm 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the point is that Supcom will have better Newtonian physics. TA cheated on many things due to limited CPU power, a lot of hit detection was done crudely. cf The Pelican Bug, where the Pelican's waterline attribute was set wrong which caused nearly all missiles fired at it while it was on the water to crash into the water before hitting the unit. There were also many weapon-specific resistances which artificially made some units stronger or weaker in specific balance-critical situations. cf the Core Leveler tank vs the Arm Flash tank. The Leveler was designed specifically to counter Flashes, but it wasn't significantly more effective vs other units. Supposedly Supcom will do away with a lot of the custom balance "tweaking" and replace it with real simulation. Recon_777 November 24, 2006

Vaporware?

This sounded more like an ad than a Wikipedia article. It should be rewritten, but I'll leave that for when it's not vaporware. Tzarius 3 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

While the original text sounded ad-ish, most of it's been rewritten to conform with wiki-standards. --BradBeattie 15:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Fan sites

How many fan sites need to be listed here? As news begins to trickle, I'm sure we'll have dozens more coming. The last edit of the page is by an anonymous user who put a fan site link in. Should we restrict fan sites to the discussion page? --BradBeattie 4 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

Well, usually there are one or two fansites that have pretty much every information needed, and we should only link to them. But as the game isn't even out, we can't yet decide which sites will be the big ones and which will be forgotten, so lets keep them for a while IMHO. --Conti|✉ July 4, 2005 18:05 (UTC)

At the moment, it looks like the list'll consist of

  • Official Web Site
  • GameSpy - A set of articles entiteld Supreme Commander: First Online Preview
  • Planet Annihilation.com - Large site covering both Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander

All of the others look extraneous. --BradBeattie 8 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)

At least one of the websites is the 'officially' sanctioned Supreme Commander spinoff from the Total Annihilation community. I'm not sure which one, I think Supreme Commander HQ. --TheDeadlyShoe
There are a number of sites listed on GPG [1]. None of them seem to be given any special preference. Instead of every new fansite coming here and putting their page on the article, let's just link to the fan site page on GPG and be done with it. --BradBeattie 20:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the fan sites that have no unique information here:

They currently just copy information that already exists on the other listed sites. If they end up having notable information, we should probably move them back. --BradBeattie 15:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Updated: PlanetAnnihilation is defunct, and SupComU has moved to the prime spot. Editing page to reflect that. 129.21.42.94 16:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cover pictures?

Thought maybe this could be used rather than the current PCGamer cover pic. This is cropped from the wallpapers of the official website, and definitely looks like box art. --TheDeadlyShoe

Why not use both? --BradBeattie 13:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Because there IS no box art, not even now, a year later. 129.21.42.94 16:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, someone might want to update the picture to one with a 2007 date on it (help eliminate a bit of confusion ;)) I uploaded a picture here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sc_01.jpg but it might need to be corpped

*looks sheepish*

I'd like to apologize for publishing the original article in an inappropriate writing style. I did so soon after reading the article in PC Gamer and I am a huge fan of Chris Taylor, so I was a bit overexcited. I revisited this page and looked at your comments and, upon re-reading the original version I agree that is was too much like an ad. I'll wait a bit next time :) Taurrandir 22:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I think most people watching this page would fall into the "looking forward to the game" category. Besides, the article has been reworked, so no harm done. --BradBeattie 22:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Unit Scale section fixed

The following section has been editted as newer information on the game has become available: Unit scale Unlike other RTS games, where units must be sized to fit reasonably on the screen, the zoom range in Supreme Commander will allow for diversity in unit size. Previews have confirmed that there are units so large that they crush smaller units as they travel. The scale is large enough that Supreme Commander will feature sea and air battles in addition to land battles, possibly to the extent of establishing bases in the ocean. However, because Supreme Commander focuses on having so many units, the visual quality of the units may suffer compared to contemporary RTS games. This is partially mitigated by using 2D backgrounds, as in Total Annihilation.

Timeline

Is it necessary to have the timeline in this article? While I share in the excitement over this game, I'd think it inappropriate to have a story timeline for every game with a backstory. Would anyone object if I removed it from the article? --BradBeattie 15:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the timeline as it doesn't seem to add anything to the article. --BradBeattie 21:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

article unfindable because of move and redirect of original

The move from Supreme Commander to Supreme Commander (video game) has made this article nigh unfindable. Supreme Commander is a hard redirect to Commander-in-Chief, with no mention of the game. A wikipedia search on "supreme commander" doesn't seem find the video game article, nor does a google search in wikipedia. To be honest, a disambiguation page on Supreme Commander seems a tad excessive to me. I'd suggest moving Supreme Commander (video game) back to Supreme Commander and maybe start it with a "For the military rank, see Commander-in-Chief"? Or would that be too presumptuous? (from what I gather from Wikipedia:Disambiguation, if you can reasonably expect that that the user is looking for the game when he goes to Supreme Commander, it's better to not disambiguate)--Codemonkey 15:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I just put a disambiguation page there. Seems the best way to resolve the conflict. Tzarius 08:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Looking at what links to Supreme Commander, that might indeed be a better idea. I'll clean the disambiguation page up a bit. Codemonkey 10:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Supreme Commander?

I suggest redirection to Supreme Commander since nothing on real world militaries or the military rank link there anymore.

Special Features seems like marketing Spam

I removed it, but it's back. There's clearly disgreement here. I'll leave it to someone else to resolve (remove it or clean it up perhaps).

I rewrote it, tell me what you think. Chris Taylor has added many new features to Supreme Commander not typically seen in traditional RTS games. First, there is resource management, which is simliar to Total Annihilation's Resource system. Instead of having the convential "harvesting" units seen in many RTS games, Supreme Commander utilizes mines and extractors which collect these resources, allowing said resources to be held indefintely, thus prolonging the length of the games. A second example of such new features present in Supreme Commander allowing base placement to have a beneficial effect upon research gathering. However, for those who dislike macro and prefer only the strategic combat elements of the game, there is a alternative, which allows them to build Base Commanders, thus allowing said Commanders to control the economic aspects of Supreme Commander. Within combat itself, the selling point of all RTS games, there are reported to be many new innovations present in Supreme Commander, ranging from sychronized unit assault to unique units allowing for versatile armies. Anouymous 02:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a nice improvement, but I don't think the information really adds anything to the article. --BradBeattie 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Meh, someone went ahead and deleted it already, making the point moot. Anouymous 02:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Information about the resource management (mines, extractors) and allowing base commanders to do some of the micromanagement warrants a mention in the article, and should not be deleted again. However the piece as it was the last time (using "Older edit" starting with current version), should not be in Wikipedia. In other words, re-add the information, but only after rewriting. Stripping it from typos and un-encyclopedic fanboy sentences like "Supreme Commander is to be the master of all new RTS games.", "Thus, there are a plethora brand new features that are sure to make any Gamer cry for joy.", "That's fine.", and "Brand new units will also appear to kick the butt of anyone who doesn't think you can do something.". Retodon8 18:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Half of the features described aren't even new. Take the original Dark Reign for instance; produced years ago at the same time as TA. It had options to slow the faster units in a group, to move waypoints around after they'd been set up (even load and save whole paths), inexhaustable resources, and dev tools shipped with the game. The article seems to claim they are new and special developments. They aren't. -Anon

You know what feature SC won't have? Autonomous exploration and skirmishing. In Dark Reign, you could tell units to go off and randomly explore the area, with either orders to engage, shoot at but ignore or run away. Really takes the advantage away from radar-invisible/cloaked units. Tzarius 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Til the game comes out, no one knows for certain which features will stay, which will be added, and which will hit the cutting room floor. Pdboddy 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That's because SC doesn't need Autonomous exploration. People just spam air units across the map until everything can be seen... Danorux 21:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Screen Captures

I found what appears to be a French gaming site that contains a lot of screen captures of the game. Has anyone seen this site or these pictures? http://www.jeux-strategie.com/Supreme_Commander_-_Captures_d_ecran.2015.0.html theboogeyman 16:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice find... I can't wait to start making units for this game like i did for Total Annihilation.. Fosnez 22:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Commander WIKI

I found a special Supreme Commander WIKI at this adress. Maybe it's worth linking? 137.226.77.2 08:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's already part of the fan-site list. No need to show favoritism. --BradBeattie 15:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Except that it's, um...A WIKI. Not a fansite. Not to mention it is maintained by menbers of every community, even though it is hosted by SupComU, the biggest fansite.129.21.42.94 16:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
but it's not a wiki, you can't edit the articles--142.177.158.6 18:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes you can. Qjuad 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Still some other fansites have a wiki too, so you'll have the same problem as with the fansite links... 62.238.15.174 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a part of the SupComU fansite. Adding it as a separate list will simply invite anger from competing fansites. -- 219.93.175.66 11:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fanboy X-ing

Uhh, some of this article was written in a blatant and laughably fanboyish manner, and I edited those parts out. My favorite was the ending sentence of the intro paragraph, which formerly read "...and is referred to as the spiritual successor to Taylor's 1997 RTS release Total Annihilation, which has been widely hailed as one of the great triumphs of the genre, except up to 80 percent more awesomer."

Also, is this true? A professional from the gaming business does not seem like the type who would use "l337zor": "In the article, Taylor claims that "almost all modern RTS games are nowhere near as 1337zor. In reality, they simply pit opponents against each other in resource wars, where the combatant with the most units wins"." Uncreative 07:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That stuff was just one guy having some fun. All that was needed was to revert this edit. SubSeven 17:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Formatting

just added a few various formattign edits as seems best organisationally to me... separate paragraphs on Aeon/UEF/Cybran so its easier to read, renamed Races to Factions, which seemed more appropriate.

Picture

Get a new picture [personal attack removed]!! It's not coming in 2006, it even says so at the top of the article!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.44.145 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 6 July 2006

Storyline

Added a storyline. it might be a bit to long if you guys want re-edit as long as it doesn't affect the whole concept. Also planning to revamp the factions and to add some of the characters --Mickey Ichiro

I wrote a condensed version of the storyline for an article here which could be used here if desired. It might need some small details added to it (such as a few years), but otherwise it should work and get the storyline across much more concisely. There are several places with the full storyline available; GPG has also been releasing slightly more in-depth race-specific stories on Gamespot (next month they'll cover Aeon). I think the full story should just be linked to somewhere, the official site being a good example. Gnomre 20:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Since I merely pulled two stories semi-verbatim and merged them into one with the intention of revising it later, I suggest you replace it with your story since I won't have the time to do the revising. --Mickey Ichiro
Im worried about copyright on the story section. Where did this text originate from? Googling a sample showed hits from places that I don't think sample from wikipedia. Dxco 05:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

IT"S GONEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

What happened to the Supcom Wiki? I noticed all it's info is gone. D-hyo 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been hacked. This people who this are such AssHoles. They done such hard work and this people go destroy their work. :( SkyWalker 19:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Beta + Leak

(yes, the beta is out. Yes it was for the select few. Yes gamespy is charging to download the beta. Yes there is a crack version of this out there...)

Yup. Should we document the existence of the beta crack? On the other hand, it'll be significant advertisement for the fact; on the other, it happened. --Kizor 15:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no "cracked version." People were simply downloading the beta from FilePlanet, which could only be found by searching for it on Google. They then either dropped in a modified file into the game's directory, or they edited the file themselves. All they did, actually, was enable the "LAN" and "Skirmish" buttons. Since the beta officially started, a new version of the client was released. I'm not sure if this new version is possible to crack just like the old one, but I know that the edited files for the old client will not work for the new one, because it's an older version. 209.7.171.2 16:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Another note about the BETA: I know the semi-public BETA was released on the 23rd, but there was also an earlier version released late-night of the 18th EST/possibly early early morning on the 19th. (I know this because I was a part of it; it was for community leaders from FanSites, along with game developers/producers only). I'd think this should be edited in, however I don't know how ot word it properly, so if someone else could do it? -Rob 03:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No More Beta Keys

It may be an open beta, but I've seen forum posts stating that there are no more beta keys to give out, and that there were only about 50,000 of them. I'll link it into the article later on this evening, if someone else hasn't already. Pdboddy 14:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"modern" CPU ??

can someone explain what a "modern" CPU is? are we talking about dual/multi core chips or what? seems abit unclear to me... --RaDeus 07:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This game is releasing somewhere on march or july 2007. I think by then Dual Core will be cheap. Intel is going to slash core 2 duo prices by next year somewhere on Q2 2007. Has Supreme Commander supports 64 bit and dual core. People need not worry what it runs. Dual Core and 64bit is the future. 32bit and single core is no more. :) --SkyWalker 07:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Will SupCom support 32-bit single core processors? The fast, 2 GHz processors? Or will it only be 64-bit and up? Also, will SupCom support quad cores? I know that it supports multi-threading, but is it only two threads (dual core) or will it really be multi-threaded, so that quad-cores can be maximized? -Hairchrm 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I've played the beta on an Athlon XP 2700+, so yes it supports single core 32-bit, but you'll want to upgrade, which I did (to a 3800+ X2). Chris mentioned that the game is really multi-threaded so it should use quad core if you have it. Danorux 01:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, Supreme Commander doesn't utilize dual core (it's somewhat of a bottleneck design), i've tried some benchmarking, and all I end up with is a rather low CPU usage around ~35%, i'm using an X1800 ATi GPU, so don't expect this game to run smoothly at 2.3Ghz with an AMD Athlon X2, it doesn't. I'ts bottlenecked by all kinds of syncronization problems. I'm really disapointed. John 08:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It does use 2 cores, the one doing rendering always runs at 100% while the second is doing other things like game simulation that always runs at 10 ticks per second so will use only as much cpu as currently required to run at 10 ticks. Ive seen several times both cores at 100% usage on my 2.2GHz dual-core opteron. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.14.155.195 (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
Okay, I've used a crack to play the game, since I did't want to have the DVD inserted all the time. And that's the last time I'm ever doing that, becuase that crack seemed to mess with the preformance in serious ways. The game plays just fine now. the utilization however is not always >50%, the game is actually a bit more cleaver, and if it doesn't need to calculate anything it wont, sort of like it can buffer frames, and then sleep. I've seen the utilization go between 35~75%, which is great, this should be noticable if you lower the game speed a lot, and play with the task manager in windowed mode. John 08:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, that isn't clever, it's normal practice and common sense. I don't really know of any game which calculates things when it doesn't need to. I guess you could argue having an FPS of 200 is a bit of a waste but I don't think that's what you meant Nil Einne 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

US BOX ART OUT

The U.S. box art for Supreme Commander is available on SupcomU.com D-hyo 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Box art looks so terrible. Look like the box art was done by someone who has no creative knowledge of art. It does not have supreme commander type of style. They just changed the background to red and everything else is intact with the former one. I hope they will change the boxart to something which can capture our imagination and look like something which was not done before. Come on GPG you can do better than this. This is after all most wanted,hyped,spread,realistic,waited,never seen, award winner, moddable and so on in RTS. --SkyWalker 07:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be Mars in the background. D-hyo 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Similarities to Spring.

There are a lot of similarities between Spring (computer game) and supreme commander. Which is not surprising because they are both unofficial sequels to Total Annihilation.

Things like Very flexible zooming, "ferry routes" aka "dropship loops" and Dual screen compatibility exist in spring,

Sentences such as "The biggest feature new to the RTS genre is the degree of zoom." and "Probably the 2nd biggest feature Supreme Commander introduces is automated transporting of ground units" are incorrect as they label Supreme Commander being more original than it is.

Recommend someone fixes the article to sound less like an advertisement.

211.28.237.112 17:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone verify Spring does in fact have above mentioned features? Preferably someone who can compare the two games directly.

User:Recon_777 Jan 2, 2007

Having played both the Supreme Commander Beta and Spring, I can confirm that Spring has had all these features for quite some time. Kujeger 22:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

However, many of the Spring features were copied after said features were revealed in supreme commander previews. There was an interview somewhere in which the spring devs stated that they did copy features from supcom. Cannot find a link right now. (Theregisteredone 00:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Actual or Speculative Release Dates?

The article now shows a specific date for release. Is this for real or speculative? Recon_777 January 12, 2007

Neither GPG nor THQ have given official release dates, but many game sites are saying it has a February release. Cosmos 23:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Many of the gaming sites such has ign,Gamespot,gamespy and other sites say the game will release on February 20 and 23. Even preorder date says its. So i think it must be actual date. --SkyWalker 07:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Release Date

Is anyone sure of the release date? D-hyo 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Wait on Feb 20 to see if the game gets released or not. That is the only way to confirm :) --SkyWalker 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
As of today (February 20th) it was not available at Walmart or Gamestop, but I placed $5 to reserve a copy and was told it is being released tomorrow, February 21st. Hydryad 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that it's not here in Canada till the 22--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I've been hearing or seeing at Future Shop. Should be on shelves on the 20th or the 21st. Pdboddy 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheats

I have the demo and have been playing it. I noticed a console.

I figured this may (or may not) be appropriate for wikipedia so I would just put it on the chat page and leave it to a more experienced user to post it or not post it on the main article. I'll just relate my experiences and let someone else write it if they decide it fits.

The demo version at least has cheats built into it. I opened a HalfLife 2-like console with the tilde key, and started typing letters. It has an autocomplete feature. Most console commands that are transparent cheats (such as NoDamage, AI_instantbuild, AI_freebuild, and the like) show a bit of text on the main screen saying "%playername% is trying to cheat!(next line)%playername%:NoDamage". One does work however. IIRC the command was "AI_enableAI" which seems to toggle all computer AI.

I hope someone can make this into a good section in this article... Jaqie Fox 13:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The cheat section can not be added in the article. It violates Wikipedia rules. Has Retail is approaching. Many of the cheat codes will appear on net. So they wont be use adding that here. --SkyWalker 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The cheats were present in the Beta version of the game also. Nothing new there, and as mentioned above, the cheats will appear on the web. Perhaps then, a link might be added, but it's not necessary to add the cheats to the wiki page. Pdboddy 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

French Manuals

I heard on forums (gpgnet forums) that there are French tech-trees and manuals in the Cybran and Aeon packages. Can anyone confirm this? --Çiddlər 12:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm it. I got mine yesterday through a pre-order and opened it to see an English instruction manual, but a French language SupCom poster, which includes a unit guide. I dunno what to do about it, to be honest. It would be cool if I could read french... - Garfunkle20 17:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You will get a free replacement for it. Can not believe so many things went wrong in packaging. Some of them got Aeon dvd which is packed with UEF cover and many errors. --SkyWalker 18:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The monkeylord

In the PC Gamer Podcast episode 61, during an interview, Chris Taylor himself stated that it was PC Gamer who inspired the name for the Monkeylord Spiderbot.

How could it be mistakenly attributed to PC Gamer when it was the designer of the game that stated it was them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.165.170.23 (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC).