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.
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.
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.
Sort of reminds me of Ff12's gambit system. As simple as it was, you could model some pretty comprehensive behaviour with it. I could definitely see expanding it and building an entire game around it.
TA Spring is fairly easily scriptable in Lua. A lot of the good players on multiplayer have scripts which will (eg.) skirmish and keep out of range of enemy defenses. Might be worth a look?
Sounds similar to what they were trying to achieve with the base governor in Alpha Centauri. In the beginning you wanted tight control of everything but in the later game on a large map micro-managing each base is a hassle so you could give the local governor AI some control (manage population, build infrastructure, ...) and a priority (one of Explore/Discover/Build/Conquer). Units could be given simple automation orders too (patrol, teraform, ...).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
The zoom was great. Shift-queuing was good as well. The mechanics and UI of the game is probably still one of the best of any RTS.
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.
My favorite feature was a combination of dynamic way points that you could adjust on the fly, and the automatic nature of transport units. Combining the two allowed me to build complex deployment strategies, and then with a few clicks launch a complex invasion. It really did a lot for advancing RTS gaming.
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. :)
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.
Sounds good :) Whatever the scenario is, I am rooting for you guys (with my hard-earned dollars!), and I hope you guys get a comfortable budget to work with.
They're an established studio with experienced guys and have SMNC[1] under their belts (a great game but not sure what sort of financial success it had). Assumably they've been working on it since they finished SMNC as they have a fair chunk of art assets done. I expect the bulk of the production cost they've already got covered and the KS is just a pre-order mechanism and marketing exercise (I for example sent this link to 10 friends).
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.