The Commander Unit
It goes without saying that Starcraft 2 does not have a "commander unit" or anything that would even remotely fit in that category. The commander in Supreme Commander 2 could be compared to the King piece in Chess, it is the monument which the whole game hinges on. The exception here is that while being as valuable as the King piece in Chess, the commander also has the capabilities, diversity, and fighting power of the Queen, creating an exciting dichotomy that the player may either choose to exploit or defend. Using the Commander unit offensively greatly bolsters your damage output and battlefield sustainability, while simultaneously putting you in a place of incredible danger if you make the fatal mistake of losing him. This game aspect in itself creates a whole plethora of tactical decisions and possibilities that Starcraft just inherently does not possess.
Victory Conditions
The victory condition in Starcraft 2 is simply to destroy your opponent's base. How Original. In addition to being the most common victory condition since the beginning of recorded RTS history, the win by destroying your opponent's structures is very stale and has frankly been done to death. In Supreme Commander 2, the victory condition is destroying the Commander. While this may not seem overly exciting at first glance, you would have to appreciate what the Commander is completely capable of, to fully grasp the implications of this victory condition. On more than one occasion, I have seen a Commander single-handedly wipe out entire armies by himself, whilst barely receiving a scratch. I've seen Commanders destroy base after base without receiving any help at all from other military units. I've seen Commanders capture entire fortresses and subsequently turn them against their shocked creator. I've seen Commanders lose everything, only to start their whole operation over at a different location, come back, and take the victory. The game is not over until the Commander is dead. The Commander does not need an engineer, a base, or an army to win; he is a one-man army, and should never be counted out. If this doesn't add strategic depth to the game, then I don't know what strategy is.
Resource Gathering
Starcraft's version of resource gathering involves building ever increasing amounts of drone miners (until it becomes economically inefficient) to harvest blue or yellow crystals, and green gas, which also happens to be located on every mineral field. This is the only way obtain the game's currency in Starcraft, there are no exceptions. Because of this inherent game mechanic, the game forces you to expand to be successful, and strategically, it is your only option for victory. Supreme Commander is not subject to this kind of limitation. Players have the, initially inefficient option, of staying at their point of origin, and creating a self-sustaining base, which eventually pays for itself in terms of resource production. This creates new options for players in terms of having the ability to be defensive or offensive (or a mixture of both), not being pigeonholed into an aggressive style of play that does not fit every person.
Long-Range Sieging and other Unique Tactical Options
More akin to reality, Supreme Commander 2 allows you to destroy your opponent without ever stepping foot outside your base. And why should you have to? Both games supposedly take place far into the future, to think that map-wide siege weapons wouldn't exist in that setting is preposterous. Even in our day and age we have the technology to send artillery shells hundreds of miles, devastating their target(s) when they land. To not incorporate this feature into any race which claims to be human, or at least humanlike, is nothing less than a sacrilege in my humble opinion. The mere ability to perform map-wide shelling exercises on your opponent, opens up game possibilities that Starcraft 2 could not even dream of.
Capturing
The ability to capture enemy units and structures in Supreme Commander 2 adds yet another element of depth which is not present in Starcraft 2. This "capture ability" is present on all engineers and quite hilariously, the Commander as well. I could go into detail about how walking into someone's base and converting all of their stuff instead of merely destroying it can make your war machine several times more powerful, or about how satisfying it is to ninja capture an important structure when the enemy is paying attention to something else (diversion anybody?); but like Christ Jesus, it's just something you'd have to experience for yourself (except this time it actually exists).
Defensive Viability
In Starcraft 2, defenses are simply there to augment your offenses. They can not stand-alone, they will not protect your base without offensive units as well, and, unprotected, die very quickly to any kind of dedicated assault. Even if you wanted to make the argument that some offensive units can be used defensively as well (Siege Tanks), it still wouldn't preclude the fact that the game forces you to expand to be successful, making the whole point moot. In Supreme Commander 2, not only can defenses hold off entire assaults alone, but in many cases be upgraded to the point that they are many times more economically efficient than the units they are defending against (and why shouldn't they be? They can't freaking move.) This allows the player much greater diversity in terms of what type of strategy they plan to employ, and appeals to a much greater demographic of players, specifically those who don't want to be pigeonholed into playing offensively to win.
Battlefield Zooming
While not an all-encompassing argument in itself, the ability to zoom your map out far enough to see the entire battlefield could certainly make a strong case for creating more depth than a game without the feature. In 1998, when the original Starcraft was released, the player's claustrophobic view of the battlefield could be explained by the day's lack of technology, or computers powerful enough to simultaneously run a battle-wide simulation. Over 10 years later however, the absence of the feature makes a subtle accusation of laziness on the developer's portion of the game. Why in god's name would I WANT to have my camera fixed in one location, when all evidence and rationality suggests that I should be able to zoom out and control the entire battlefield at any given time. This aspect is yet more proof that instead of creating a groundbreaking and revolutionary title for the genre, Blizzard's goal was to merely piggyback off of the success of the first game, which both hype and player ignorance perfectly accomodated.
WATER...
I guess Starcraft's universe is so sophisticated even, that they somehow omitted water, the key ingredient to all life, from their game. This is readily apparent by the fact that not a drop of the stuff exists in any of the maps or scenarios, conveniently sansing any requirement for a naval aspect of the game at all. In addition to being incredibly unrealistic and excessively far fetched, it eliminates a plethora of tactical and strategical game possibilities before they even start. I could write an illustrative essay on how naval warfare and sea-based battle technology adds an incalculable amount of depth to the game, but I think the point speaks well enough for itself.
The Research Tree
The Research Tree introduces a brilliant new mechanic into the game by creating more options for the player to consider when planning their grand strategy. The Research Tree is utilized by spending research points, which can be either earned through the destruction of enemy units/buildings and/or the creation of Research Stations, which automatically generate research points as long as they are active. Research points can then be spent to upgrade existing units, unlock new technologies, improve build costs and speed, turn your commander into an unstoppable force, and a whole slew of other possibilities that become open to you with research. This once again accents the offensive/defensive decisions the player is given the opportunity to make that don't exist in Starcraft 2. Since Research Stations are fairly expensive, the player must decide whether they want to construct many of them, initially putting themselves at an economic disadvantage (but obviously making up for that over time) and considerable risk, try to obtain their Research Points through the merits of front line combat, or strike a balance between the two. This creates some exciting and unique dimensions between allies and opponents, when deciding whether to "tech up" for late game dominance, or shut down your opponent(s) quickly before they can.
Unit Veterancy
It makes sense that the longer a unit stays in battle, the more experienced it gets. While we've already covered the fact that Starcraft's universe does not exactly cohere with reality, not having veterancy bonuses for units that do well also relegates a myriad of depth from the game. In Supreme Commander 2, you are rewarded for doing well with a certain unit or group of units, and if taken care of after every battle, these same units can become many times more powerful than their enemy counterparts. This game element not only places a greater emphasis on exceptional micromanagement of your units, but is simultaneously easier to do because of the game's inherent design (more on that next).
Needless Over-Complication and Tediousness to Accommodate "Skillful Play"
Making the game more complicated does not automatically make it better; in fact, much of the time it produces the opposite effect. Starcraft 2 is purposely designed to be overcomplicated and tedious, as to placate a more "engaging" and "skillful" environment where players are taxed to the absolute maximum of their human capabilities in order to succeed. It is not surprise then, that the player with the higher Actions Per Minute (APM) often wins. Rudimentary supply limits are imposed, buildings can not repeat automated manufacturing queues, hell even the most basic aspect of the game, resource gathering, is needlessly bogged down with the requirement to create an ever increasing supply of workers to harvest the game's currency. Players will find themselves trying to focus on several things at once, while simultaneously attempting to constantly produce military capable units, workers for harvesting, new buildings to increase production or expand, supply structures to increase the unit cap, and micromanage an entire army in battle. Paradise for a person with A.D.D. (as I'm sure many prominent Starcraft players have been diagnosed with), I can not see why any normal person would want to subject themselves to this kind of mental catastrophe. Instead of creating a game where the players can enjoy the most exciting aspect of RTS games - the battle, Blizzard has once again manufactured an environment where, in order to succeed, you are forced to focus on dozens of different things at once, splitting your attention and preventing you from appreciating what the game should really be about. Supreme Commander does not do this to you. In Supreme Commander, the resource system is much more streamlined, buildings can be placed on automated queues, the map can be viewed from any distance or angle, and the game promotes an environment where players can ENJOY the merits of proper micromanagement and battle strategy. Quoting Chris Taylor from an interview about the game,
"As a game designer I have my own view of what I think an RTS is all about. When I sat down to design Supreme Commander, I tried to visualize the experience in fresh and interesting new ways. The first was my realizing that although we call this genre "Real-Time Strategy," it should have been called "Real-Time Tactics" with a dash of strategy thrown in. The goal with Supreme Commander was to really deliver the strategy, by opening up the game to an enormous theatre of war, with some incredible, never-seen-before Super Units, that absolutely require the player to think strategically before attempting to deploy them into the field."
I think he really hit the nail on the head, as both Starcraft games have been the epitome of Real-Time Tactics, placing a greater emphasis on build orders and skillful multitasking than actual strategy. I also think he was correct in saying that Supreme Commander 2 has really blown that tradition out of the water as far as popular RTS games go, and has definitely set a new standard for what the genre should be.
---
Realize that I am in no way implying that Starcraft 2 is a bad game, only that in terms of strategical depth and battlefield control, it is inferior in almost every way.
Thank you for reading.
