![command and conquer 3 kanes wrath laser wall command and conquer 3 kanes wrath laser wall](https://bccasteel.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/010716_0304_rtsretrospe9.jpg)
Needing to level up as a player in order to unlock units was utter nonsense (as quoted above).
![command and conquer 3 kanes wrath laser wall command and conquer 3 kanes wrath laser wall](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5BlSxpzqLac/maxresdefault.jpg)
It’s just not as elegant or straightforward as spearmen-beat-archers or gunships-beat-tanks. The counter system based on types of weapons vs armour was hardly intuitive: the cursor changing to show effectiveness alleviated that problem while at the same time shining a spotlight on the issue. In that regard, Dawn of War 1 and especially EndWar are the kings of that particular kind of RTS game for me (and I should acknowledge Company of Heroes and Ground Control/World in Conflict here, too). So for someone who hasn’t played those older games and who likes C&C3 and later just fine, can you explain to me what makes the earlier games so much better than the later ones? And where does Generals fit into this?Īnd as regards the last game, I liked the idea of C&C4, even though it had, for me, three important problems:Ī game based on capturing and holding points works much better when the individual units aren’t so bloody fragile.
#Command and conquer 3 kanes wrath laser wall series
I’m guessing I like C&C3 and the later games because they were my entry point to the series (I didn’t play RTS games in the 1990s until Age of Empire), and I never got into them for some reason. I really liked C&C3 (even if patches that fixed multiplayer seem to have made some single player missions ridiculously hard), loved the Global Conquest mode in Kane’s Wrath, and even enjoyed playing the various silly campaigns in Red Alert 3 even though I think there’s too much emphasis there on fiddly special abilities (seriously, that poor F key!). C&C1 and RA1 and 2 were the best of the bunch, after them it all declined, etc.