Westwood has come out with another title in their long standing Command & Conquer series, and have stepped things up by taking the C&C universe into the 3rd dimension. This is not their first 3D endeavor, but it is the first to carry the C&C name. The less-than-spectacular Emperor: Battle for Dune helped pave the way for what the Generals engine is now. Westwood adapted their engine, took aspects from both Emperor and Red Alert 2, and combined them into their latest attempt at one-upping the genre they created.

Some controversy has surrounded the development of Generals, mainly due to the realistic nature of the game. This version of C&C doesn't involve GDI or NOD, nor does it include alternate timelines where the Allied forces fight against the Soviets. You won't find any prism tanks here, but there are units resembling what might be used in actual combat. The United States, China, and a fictitious terrorist organization known as the GLA (Global Liberation Army) participate in conflicts that could be taken from today's headlines.

First things first - this is not Red Alert 3. The game may initially feel like an upgraded version of Red Alert 2 when you garrison a building or recognize units from previous games, but that's where the vague familiarity ends. In actuality, it shares very little with its predecessors. Generals is a game that truly stands apart as its own title. Although, I must admit that it does feel like RA2 without the campiness, vast improvements have been made in gameplay. Such improvements include upgraded abilities for air-forces, including (finally) the ability to perform air-to-air combat.

The graphics look great, starting with a fantastic introduction and following through with nice explosions and well-polished units. The designers knew they had a great engine and took full advantage of it in campaign mode, where many of the cut-sequences include full 360 degree rotations around exploding cars. One of the first changes that long-time players of C&C will notice is that the FMV's are gone and replaced with in-game sequences. While there is no running storyline (other than the Chinese and Americans trying to rid to world of the GLA), the mission introductions are still striking. This becomes apparent when you play the US's first mission, which is to siege Baghdad.

Like all C&C games, there are only two resources that should be considered: money and electricity (the latter's importance depends on the faction). Money comes from non-replenishing supply sites. Players will often need to supplement their income by capturing oil derricks. One of the major changes to the series is the loss of the Engineer. Buildings can repair themselves automatically or with the help of the builder unit. With the proper upgrade, all infantry can be enabled to capture buildings. In addition, each faction has a unit or structure that can bring in a small, steady income. Ultimately, resources shouldn't be a problem for players who plan ahead.

The US focus on high-technology and a superior air-force, similar to the GDI and Allied factions from previous games. Units and buildings come at a heavy cost in both money and electricity. Helicopters ferry in resources and also act as personnel carriers. This is important now because the US have means to air-drop soldiers to take over garrisoned civilian structures. Players of the original C&C will recognize the Particle Beam as the Ion Cannon with a new nameplate. Vehicles may benefit from personal upgrades like a flying drone that will either lay down machine gun fire or do repair jobs. These small touches, throwbacks to the near-future premise of the original C&C, help keep Generals from teetering too far into reality and give fans a sense of nostalgia. Although this faction may take the longest to build up, they will be difficult to fend off when they do.

China relies heavily on their large troop reserves and rapid industrialization. In many respects, they are the Soviets from Red Alert 2 with a new face. They produce units at a faster rate than the US, and rely very heavily on swarming strategies for victory. This is emphasized by the fact that their units gain additional attack bonuses when put into large groups. While most RTS games these days are trying to overcome the tank rush strategy, China is designed specifically for this tactic. Their tanks may not have the same level of armor as the US, but are very focused on heavy firepower. They have the largest tanks, and may use nuclear technology to upgrade their weapons. Their jets can carry napalm and leave areas burning long after they fly by.

The GLA are particular in how weak they initially appear to be. They benefit in the fact that they don't have to rely on electricity and their units are dirt cheap, but they gain money at the slowest rate. However, you definitely get what you pay for - even their heaviest tanks are pathetic in comparison to the other two factions. The GLA is designed for quick hit-and-run guerilla tactics, biological weapons, sabotage, and suicide attacks. Technical units may scavenge parts from downed enemies to upgrade their own weapons. This faction may not have an air-force, but a couple of suicide bombers or anthrax charged rockets can really ruin a person's day. They don't stand a chance in a long war of attrition, since their defensive structures are generally weak. If forces like the US or China are allowed to build up, the GLA will have an exceptionally difficult time defeating them.

Combat mostly takes place across urban environments, where garrisoning buildings and setting up fortifications are important, especially since tanks are moving through narrow streets. A well-placed rocket encampment will spell doom for a whole armor regiment. Terrain levels and line of sight play larger roles than in previous C&C games. Maps may be rotated for a better vantage point. Westwood has taken care not to repeat the mistakes they made with Emperor by making the units more easily distinguishable from each other, although I'm sure not distinguishable enough for many people. Sure, you'll need suspension of belief to convince yourself that the US are carrying guns, not oversized toothpicks, but we're not looking for microscopic details. We do want this game to run, after all.

There is an option to hide the bottom tool bar so that players can see more of the battle screen, which has some limited use, considering you won't be able to keep track of your build menus or radar anymore. A major drawback of the game engine is the missing right sidebar which I had grown accustomed to. It's a shame because I've always felt that it was a very convenient tool. Westwood could have included it with the option to hide it, the same way the bottom bar is set-up. Working without the side menu is like taking a few steps backward for the series, but it isn't a major gripe, since the buildings can be set to numbers and accessed accordingly. Yet, I can't help feeling that I'd rather save those numbers for unit groups instead of buildings. The trade-off is that, for the first time in C&C, you can have multiple facilities produce different units at the same time, meaning you can have two War Factories concurrently build two different types of tanks. Plus, there are no longer any build restrictions - players can build anywhere on the map. These things have been a part of Warcraft for a very long time, and it looks like Westwood decided it was time to catch up. Players can even build two or more superweapons and use them right after the other, which may be regarded as a firm step toward realism or a tragic design flaw. This issue becomes clearer when the GLA is taken into account - they don't have to worry about energy constrictions, and their buildings are the least expensive.

A new game innovation known as the General Abilities is employed and are very interesting. The same way your units gain veteran status through kills, the player gains higher rank according to their successes. Stars are awarded to players, which can be used to purchase or upgrade General Abilities. These are bonuses that vary from special units to small superweapon equivalents. I wouldn't say that they offer a completely new dimension to real-time strategy gaming, but I admit that these abilities are very useful.

Yet, no matter what innovations have been made on the game engine, there is always the issue of the computer AI, which has gone through no significant changes since the original C&C. Somebody please upgrade Joshua from War Games or something, because this computer obviously doesn't know how to play! The computer's tactics have remained relatively unchanged across several RTS titles, and the rust is really starting to show, despite the quick gloss job the developers put on the game. On normal mode, the computer will build fewer units and send handfuls of people in regular intervals to attack. They invariably march in a disorganized fashion and get chewed up by properly placed defenses. In Hard mode, the AI will send attack groups in slightly larger numbers, deploy superweapons, and make use of their upgrades. In Brutal mode, the computer will try to gobble every resource on the map, attack earlier, and attack in large numbers to keep things interesting. Ultimately, in both the Hard and Brutal modes, the AI will amass a huge army to plow through the opposition.

The computer will rarely try to find alternate routes of attack, trying to shoot its way through the most direct path. Artillery and aircraft, the staples for softening up the opposition, are rarely employed, and are used almost haphazardly when they are. Superweapons are similarly used, not because they are especially useful, but because the timer has run out and it's time to launch. They don't mark a prelude to an oncoming attack, but serve as a casual annoyance. Luckily, the computer doesn't build more than one superweapon, and fails to exploit the games built in problems.

While the weak AI makes for predictable and stale one player games, the lack of running storyline detract even more from the single player experience. One of the reasons Red Alert 2 was so much fun was because it didn't take itself too seriously. Westwood focused on things that would make the game fun instead of the game technology itself, and it worked remarkably well. The game has taken a heavy loss without the FMV's that have become as much of the C&C universe as the Commando. Without a solid storyline, there isn't much of a reward system to overcome the repetitive nature of the game, and players are left with little incentive to move from one random conflict to the next.

Westwood is obviously under the impression that people are uninterested in fighting against non-human opponents. The multiplayer engine is smooth, but there isn't the same excitement in playing as there was with Red Alert 2. Generals is designed for short conflicts, so there isn't the satisfaction of breaking into a seemingly impenetrable base like in Red Alert 2. There are only a few vague signs of the old campiness that made RA2 so enjoyable, and it's found with the GLA. To avoid making the game unbearably serious, the terrorists are given the most amusing units. How seriously are you supposed to take a faction that includes an Angry Mob as one of its advanced units? To be fair, I should warn you that the Angry Mob is, in truth, a very powerful and scary unit.

The 3D engine suffers from many of the flaws the Emperor did. I'm thankful for being able to rotate my buildings around, but I also happen to be a weird perfectionist when it comes to base construction. It is so difficult and time consuming to line my buildings up to maximize space that it's sometimes not worth trying. If only Westwood had thought ahead a little bit and allowed for a means for buildings to snap to a grid. Players could be given the option to turn grid snapping on or off.

There was also an attempt to overcome the inevitable tank rush that attaches itself to games like these. Upping the power of the anti-tank soldiers helped a great deal in this respect, as do the GLA's explosive barrels and China's land mines. However, land mines can only be placed around buildings, and the firing range of most tanks are well outside of the minefield's limits. There is no minelayer unit that will plant bombs in strategic locations and break up oncoming forces, save for a special Chinese General Ability that will drop a "mine bomb." A builder unit (bulldozer or worker) may be used to disarm mines, but it is pointless to bring non-combatant units into the situation when tanks have more than enough range to completely circumvent the bombs. The GLA's explosive barrels do a decent job of stopping tanks, but they are expensive, slow to place, and very easy to spot. US tanks, equipped with drones, can see right through their camouflage and destroy them. So, the innovations that were supposed to stop tank rushing fall short of accomplishing their goals.

So, the game that was supposed to help launch the Command & Conquer series into the next level has fallen short of the bar it set for itself with Red Alert 2. There are times when campaign scenarios might include images that are too realistic for a game, but Generals feels too much like a game to be taken too seriously. Westwood made the same mistake it did with Tiberium Sun, where they focused too much on looks and features and not enough on the game. I'm not saying that the game isn't fun - Generals is littered with good intentions, but deep faults undermine the technological aspects. Great strides have been made from the Emperor engine, but not enough to make Generals the title it should be. If Westwood comes out with a patch or expansion that will improve on the gameplay, then I may be singing a different tune. For now, I'm certain that Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge has a permanent place on my desk as a game I love going back to in spite of its shortcomings. I don't know if Command & Conquer: Generals will share the same status.