Zero Games

you meant "isn't" there right?

No they didn't lie to us. When you start making game you have some ideas, their idea was to make supcom + Ta on planet. But down the path they realized they cannot deliver. I think reason was that making supcom clone (ie. more complicated PA) would inflate funds needed for development. And they knew from beginning that they are very tight on money.

I believe they sincerely wanted to make game better than supcom and on planets (which is super cool thing). But game we all want to see would require triple if not bigger budget than PA ever had. Despite all budget cuts and tricks (like cartoony graphics, as simple game mechanic as possible, premature launch, HR kickstarter) Uber barely could do such big game and stay on budget.

Only mistake they did IMO was going for this huge rts right from start, instead they should do some less ambitious project to get some starting point for PA later.

My point was that TA, SupCom and PA are all the same sub genre... I think my statement needs a comma: "which you can't argue, it is" is what I was trying to say

I think they have delivered exactly what the set out to (barring a few sub points of stretch goals and acknowledging that a few things like physical rewards and custom coms are still WIP)...

If you read through what is promised in the KS, and look at what we have, I'm not sure where you can say they didn't deliver. I guess there's multiple way to read the pitch, and it's possible to infer or *assume* other things would be in the game and that is where the problem lies. Many people had ideas of what they wanted PA to be, and many of those were *never ever* going to be on the cards. Many people assumed things will be in because "TA did it" or "SupCom did it" but again, if it wasn't in the pitch you can't expect it really- as you say Uber had limited funds.

The thing that I find baffling though is this argument about PA being 'overly simple' compared to SupCom?! Ok PA has one faction, however within that faction is pretty much all the units you could want for most situations + an additional layer + multiple battlefields.

If you think PA is too simple I can almost guarantee you only play on single planets and never in teams. PA's complexity is very much tied to the game set-up and maps you play on.

SupCom was all about the units going from tiny bots to massive experimental with all the tiers in between. PA follows a much flatter tier system like TA and it's primary focus is on the maps (e.g. whole solar systems). Now if you don't like playing across a solar system and like big experimental units then you're going to prefer SupCom but personally I really like PA's implementation of solar systems. It's one of the first games that 'feels' like a real RTS in space. It's the first land based RTS that has a true interaction between both orbital stuff and other planets. I used to find the old rts games so frustrating when someone made an impenetrable fortress in the corner of the map, at least in PA you can go around (or above) them

Don't get me wrong, I think there is plenty of scope to expand PA with more units or differing approaches to the underlying RTS (e.g. resource collection instead of streaming, tech trees, unit abilities and so on) and I'm sure the addition of a few larger land units would please many, however the game they pitched is what they've delivered as far as I can see.

I think we wholly agree. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-H4-ZrsRWuG9NvPotkAk3mUFWzASQdQMQhqa59RuBwI/edit?usp=drive_web

PA is simple in a sense that its pure war of economy and attrition (unless you win early). If you can pump out more units per second you eventually win. Separate planets add to this only. It is not bad thing, game is fine here. But feeling that single robot or groups of them does not matter makes choice of units meaningless. You develop your favorite mix of units and produce same sets in every game. Supcom for me feels more to the ro(b)ots where PA is like more strategic level.

For eg in Supcom synchronous attack from multiple sides meant a bit, in PA also it does mean, but not for strategic reasons, its simple pathing and that those stupid robots love to form streams. Well it was exactly same in all rts out there but with lower unit count id did not matter that much and was not that hard to control. In supcom attack of few well timed groups was required for any good results for aerial attack, else all your best units were slaughtered by aa. On the other hand SupCom has that unkillable blob thing.

I could write a lot about all this so simply put:

PA feels simple because units (or small tactic moves) do not matter it is a war of eco.

Small tactical moves matter just as much as in SupCom and SupCom can be a simple war of economy quite easily as well. If you have more stuff you win in both games. PA has less tech choices however, which reduces the feeling of "progression" through the game.

@cdrkf did you manage to read any of that? (I have NO IDEA what google translate's translation is worth)

I haven't had chance to go through it properly, I can read a bit of French so I'm going to try and read it without translate as its good practice

perfect fit too since the subject should be fascinating to you

here's an updated version, no pics but the text is a clearer less colloquial read and also fixed info here and there.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22720750/LE RTSSP QUESSACO.docx