
Planetary Annihilation - A Next Generation RTS by Uber Entertainment Inc - Charles__L
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/659943965/planetary-annihilation-a-next-generation-rts
======
rdl
What I'd like is TA++ + a sophisticated macro/AI system where you could give
orders to a "task force commander" unit and maybe where multiplayer would
allow some other humans to stand in for "task force commander".

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.

~~~
ukd1
I started working on a 2D RTS a while back, with a couple of twists - one of
them was an API and encouraging players to write bots to support their play.
I'd love to see this game have something similar, as it opens all kinds of
possibilities.

~~~
alwaysinshade
A unit API sounds very cool but I’d imagine the barrier to entry is a little
high. I'd like to see simple stackable behaviour macros. An example would
be...

[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.

~~~
100k
That would be awesome. In a game with such a big scope it would be nice if you
didn't have to micromanage every unit.

~~~
wvs
<http://globulation2.org/> is an interesting RTS that tries to reduce
micromanagement. It doesn't use a macro system, but a guidable AI.

------
fuzionmonkey
Total Annihilation is probably my favorite RTS. I love the resource model and
unit/structure construction model.

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.

~~~
batgaijin
I sincerely disagree. Supreme Commander is a perfect example of awesome ideas
and terrible marketing. The tutorials and intuitiveness of everything is just
a joke, but if you make the effort, that game is crazy. It innovated on:

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.

~~~
Silhouette
_Supreme Commander is a perfect example of awesome ideas and terrible
marketing._

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.

~~~
mickeyp
That's why the game had dual monitor support. I had strategic view on one
monitor and the gameplay on the other. Problem solved :)

~~~
anthonyb
And if you didn't have two monitors? Little icons zooming around.

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.

------
gavanwoolery
Looks cool, although...

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. :)

~~~
forrestthewoods
I work at Uber Entertainment (the company doing the kickstarter) and I also
hope we get over funded. :)

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.

~~~
batgaijin
Just out of curiosity, would you perhaps include a top-tier thing that would
mean you would release everything under a BSD/MIT/GPL license?

~~~
icarus127
That's a great idea for kickstarter projects like this.

------
dangoldin
This is neat. As I was reading the description I started thinking about Total
Annihilation and when I got to the bottom I happily discovered that some of
the team worked on TA. I loved that game - felt it was more fun than
Starcraft.

------
armored_mammal
No Linux. :(

Very few of the Kickstarter game projects I want to back support Linux. It
makes me sad and they don't get my monies.

------
bowlofnoodles
I was under the impression RTS games were synchronous because doing client-
server with multiple hundreds of discrete units in existence would require a
lot of network bandwidth. The game is "held back" by the slowest machine in
synchronous models because the game state would de-sync otherwise, as all that
is being sent over the network is player input, rather than every unit's
state. Maybe my understanding is wrong, but the "heavy lifting" being done on
a central server is not very important in consideration of the required
up/download to and from every client.

------
JeffL
Est delivery Jul 2013? Seems a bit optimistic for a game of such scope.

------
lmm
Space-based is the wrong way to go for RTS. Much like quidditch, you can't do
a decent battle game in 3D because there are too many ways to go around each
other. See homeworld for a fantastic effort that sadly has no tactical depth
in multiplayer. Then compare that to supreme commander where a key part is
deciding which areas to place static defences at, and which to rely on your
mobile units to control.

/currently working, very slowly, on an improved TA-like RTS

~~~
wtracy
It looks like this game will be essentially 2D, played on multiple maps
(planets) simultaneously.

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.

------
scottjad
I loved TA and all, but unless this has two features I'm skeptical it will
have lasting interest for me:

\- 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.

------
jiggy2011
Interesting game.

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 :)

------
petitmiam
"Expand your empire to harness the resources of entire solar systems to create
vast armies with which to annihilate enemy planets, destroy rival systems and
win the Galactic War!"

It will be interesting to see how that pans out. Star Wars: Empire At War
tried a similar thought of thing, but lacked depth.

------
jfb
I wish someone would do this for the games that I loved, particularly
_Starflight_ and _Myth_.

~~~
bguthrie
There was a lot to love about Total Annihilation, and I'm happy to support any
attempt to follow in its footsteps. That isn't to say Myth wasn't great too,
but even if you missed out on TA, this looks like it may be worth a
contribution.

~~~
jfb
I'll throw them $50, because the world of games I like to play seems to be
shrinking, and because I'd like to encourage this model of game development.

------
ryusage
I'm a little surprised that they aren't showing what the stretch goals are.
Presumably, they'd be features the players would want, so it seems like it
would help funding if they at least mentioned them.

------
kdazzle
Should the public really be funding almost $1 million for a game created by a
private company?

~~~
shangaslammi
Well, why not? Isn't this the ultimate way for regular consumers to "vote with
their wallet"?

~~~
kdazzle
Yeah, except business isn't necessarily democratic, so I'm not sure the
analogy works. It's more like a great way for businesses to pass off a lot of
the risk inherent in running a business while not really passing off much of
the benefits of creating something successful. That is to say: profit.

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.

~~~
corkill
Confirming demand before spending time/money on development is a smart move,
most video games don't break even.

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.

~~~
anthonyb
Not to mention a much cheaper game and extra goodies like early beta access or
shiny ingame stuff.

------
wonjun
This game looks amazing!! I can't wait for the release!

------
chill1
Yes... Yes... Yesssssss. This looks amazing.

