Article View: alt.games.command.and.conquer
Article #904Re: Warcraft II vs. C&C
From: zak... J. Hong
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 00:00
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 00:00
22 lines
1438 bytes
1438 bytes
In article <4kju0a$4...@thor.atcon.com>, shis...@atcon.com wrote: >t...@nitco.com (Tim Hayes) wrote: > > >>I agree! C & C has lots of variation, and is a great game overall. I >>wished C & C had SVGA graphics though, but still their cut scenes were >>much better then WC II. >> >>Warcraft II lacks something. It's enioyable to play, but I felt in >>the game with C & C, and yet I don't feel that way with WC II. The >>sides are too similar....:/ > >I agree. C&C Has Variation, BUT in Warcraft it almost doesn't matter >if you have 2 of the same units battleing it out. It all depends on >how much upgrading you did to it. Yeah, this is true, I've found. Upgrading the armor and sword on the footmen really make them a lot more valuable, not to mention what it does to the knights. Upgrading the armor and cannons on the ships do wonders as well. I've not really found the upgrade to the arrows all that impressive, however. J.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4kk964$c7t@news.accessone.com>Path:
mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<4k9o72$rjc@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <4kbcm7$bcg@mark.ucdavis.edu> <4kfa72$vuc@aegis.nitco.com> <4kju0a$4up@thor.atcon.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
From: zak...@accessone.com (J. Hong) Subject: Re: Warcraft II vs. C&C Date: 1996/04/12 Message-ID: <4kk964$c7t@news.accessone.com> X-Deja-AN: 147012662 references: <4k9o72$rjc@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <4kbcm7$bcg@mark.ucdavis.edu> <4kfa72$vuc@aegis.nitco.com> <4kju0a$4up@thor.atcon.com> organization: AccessOne newsgroups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.command.and.conquer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit