Planetary Annihilation - A Next Generation RTS by Uber Entertainment Inc
kickstarter.com
kickstarter.com
Like, "take this expansion" or "assault this base" or "harass harvesters" as a high-level goal, with OOB specified (units or output of specific factories). More strategy, less APM. People could still micro or do strategy at the Group level, but not at the battlefield level.
[if] the available resources drops below [defined threshold], unit explores map for more resources [unless] base or units currently under attack
or group behaviours for specific unit types...
[if] under attack, move to nearest defensive unit [and] shield unit from attack [until] hit points [<] 35%
You could make an interface similar to Automator on OS X so that behaviours can be linked and prioritised.
I like the idea of farming out part of the work to other players rather than the built-in AI, but I'm not sure how attractive it would be to people not at the top of the empire's tree (it might just turn into paying 3rd world players to do the micro-management, and them competing with each other for your cents/turn based on their past successes).
I was really stoked about Supreme Commander but it really just wasn't as good. I've played countless hours of TA: Spring and this looks pretty awesome.
1). Strategic zoom, something which so far I've only seen recreated in 4x space games 2). Advanced economy that allowed for incremental spending, i.e. build yourself a monkeylord, and that thing will cause your mass to go down by 4 for 2 minutes, not an instant 400 mass 3). Intuitive queueing. It's super easy to setup crazy tactics with shift-clicking, and when you are zoomed out and hit shift you see all queues you have setup 4). You can fucking schedule your shit! Have your bombers fly in a delayed manner to attack the base at the same time as your ground units.
That game was epic and awesome, and if you disagree with me I can say with certainty that you never spent the time to learn it.
I just didn't like the actual gameplay that much. It didn't feel like TA at all. The factions, the units, the maps, etc. It wasn't as fun to play. To me the whole feel was much too serious and a lot of the units I really liked weren't in SC.
That combined with the performance issues early resulted in me not playing it as much. I just continued to play TA: Spring. And if I remember correctly they dumbed down the resource model in the sequel.
And god, I have horrible memories of GPGNet. There were so many technical issues with the game when it came out.
Both true. It was also buggy as hell, and it had system requirements in its day that would make all the modern Crysis jokes look like they're serious. That didn't stop it being very enjoyable, and Forged Alliance was a decent expansion too, but the endless crashes just as large-scale games were moving into full swing got old.
Also, the strategic zoom was a mixed blessing. It was a great idea, but what's the point of having fine unit control and gorgeous graphics in the game if you have to spend 95% of your time playing general rather than sergeant, zoomed out to global icon view? At higher tech levels and on larger maps, that was almost essential, so you could see a wave of tech 3 attack units or an experimental coming in time to do something about it because the defensive units at higher tech levels didn't keep up with the offensive ones.
IMHO Supreme Commander was a game that genuinely deserved descriptions like "epic", but it was far from perfect and there would be plenty of scope for a modern game to learn from what it did well but perhaps take a fresh look at things like strategic vs. tactical control and providing a flexible economy that created options but without requiring micromanagement of resource generation and unit building.
IMO, the best thing about TA and TA:Spring is the explosions - when you're under attack, you really know it. Supreme Commander lost all of that feel once you got more than a handful of units.
It says "gameplay visualization" at the very beginning of the video, which means (if you could not already tell) it is a pre-rendered video. I don't doubt the studio's ability to execute on this, but I think they are actually asking for too little. A twenty person team could probably create a game like this in 2-3 years, with luck, which would probably cost about $4-6 million (and that is actually quite a low budget). Hopefully they get over-funded. :)
[1] Super Monday Night Combat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Monday_Night_Combat
The nice thing is that this game scales very well. We have a lot of internal tech to leverage and we can make a game for 900k. We could make an even bigger and feature rich game for 6 million of course. The more money we bring in the bigger and better the end product will be.
Very few of the Kickstarter game projects I want to back support Linux. It makes me sad and they don't get my monies.
/currently working, very slowly, on an improved TA-like RTS
Specifically, I don't see any combat happening in interplanetary space--just units built on one planet being lobbed at another planet to fight there.
- More than two races. There just isn't enough variety.
- Balanced units that are useful through out the game. I'd rather have 15 total units that are all useful in late game than having 200 units and only 10 are good and only 5 of those in late game.
I do really like the idea of no edges on the map. It would be cool to have Starcraft 3 with maps on a small planet like this with no edges.
Reminds me of TA/Sup Com: Good! Reminds me of Spore: hmmm
I just hope they haven't been too ambitious with this. RTS games are very difficult to get right.
I will pledge anyway :)
It will be interesting to see how that pans out. Star Wars: Empire At War tried a similar thought of thing, but lacked depth.
Before it looks like I'm undermining the entire idea behind Kickstarter, a company with an impressive portfolio seeking funding from the community seems a bit more parasitic than a group of programmers trying to make their own game. One of the differences being that the company exists to make games, and already has cash behind them.
The benefit to the consumer is they get to support a game that otherwise might not have been made if they choose to. They get a copy of the game they want.
Benefit to company decreased risk they will make game and no-one will buy + the cash flow + can bypass publishers.
Win/Win.