Don't fall into the pitfalls of SupCom

I am a huge fan of Total Annihilation (TA), SpringRTS and of Supreme Commander (SupCom).
SupCom is probably the best of all but it has severe gameplay flaws (as far as I'm concerned), as can be seen in this replay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4PrQWSmzqs
- Notice how all that you ever do is play with icons (even in the replay, so you never actually see any graphical goodness) (minimaps for the win!).
- Notice how the changes from Lvl 1 to Lvl 2 units and from 2 to 3 are completely unnoticeable (with the exception of the commentator warning about it).
- Notice how the right guy builds a very powerfull artillery in the top and its only effect is to make the opponent pull back slightly its blob of icons.

It fails in so many ways to reinvoke from TA that majesty of blowing up lots of mechanical units, the feeling of land control (you really ended up with well defined borders of territory), the game changing effects of a well chosen and placed piece of artillery, the game changing effects of shifting from Lvl 1 units to Lvl 2, the early raiding focus with the Flashes and Peewees...


I am so desiring this TA inspired RTS to get things right, finally... I hope I don't end up seeing replays of PA similar to that one, sighing at it failing to be what I'm eager to get - the ultimate strategy oriented RTS.

The best of luck to the developers!!!

One word for you my friend: ChronoCam.

Already an implemented feature in the game. You should check out how awesome it is!
:ugeek:

The icons were (I thought) because it even on low settings and small games crushed a lot of pcs, even the brand new one I built had issues at certain points with the number of units and amount of processes trying to go on. There was a big margin between what it was developed for and what a lot of people had. I imagine that the icon view was to bridge the gap somewhat (civ 5 does this as well if you use the strategic map).

Any successor to TA will fall short in the short term thanks to nostalgia and the giant modding community that will have to kick into gear again. I hope this is something I can enjoy once again. I think your third point is the same as your first but I often used Berthas in TA defensively if I noticed troop buildups. They were well balanced thanks to the realistic ballistic trajectory and terrain.

We had this topic a number of times. Conclusion is that there are people who seem to really want to see units up close for some reason. I myself think icons are super awesome and I don't even care about the unit beneath it. You just have to chose: Either you see tanks up close, but you have no overview whatsoever, or you see a ton of icons and you get an overview with them. I rather have a good overview than to watch shiny animations.
The whole point of icons is to make the ui more efficient and it turns out that watching those little icons is just so much better that no good player would ever bother to watch the units. If you were to remove the icons it would be an artficial limitation through the ui and that's bad. If you want artificial limiations through the ui you can play Starcraft instead.

EDIT:
Also to the trained eye the changes from t1 to t2 to t3 are quite noticable.

pretty much. there are things supcom did wrong but you can voice your concern as the game develops on the alpha forums

I assumed so. Still, I posted it and don't regret it. One more (same) opinion.

Is that the general concensus achieved in the other similar topics or is that your opinion?
Either way, I cannot agree at all. You can, you should, you must have both - overseeing the action close enough to see that the shells are landing in the right place and overseeing the whole battlefield with a minimap (or secondary map or monitor, whatever you want to call it).

Where did I say the icons should be removed? I never said such a thing and never have I proposed an artificial limitation on the UI, never here, never in the SpringRTS forums and never anywhere.

The T1~T2~T3 changes may be noticeable to the "trained eye", but that still doesn't changes what was the underlying meaning of what I said: the changes are "unnoticeable" in gameplay. You just happen to get, almost only, the same as you had before just more powerful. I must say that in terms of evolution throughout the game, SupCom has to be, unfortunately, the most bland RTS I know and so far behind the charm that TA had (rushing in a Big Bertha or Brawlers or cramming out other T2 units was really big)...

Icons or not, most SupCom games I watch replays of (assuming my own games were never of good enough quality to be representative of quality gameplay) are always extremely boring and ultimately uninteresting for a very long time (while each faction starts to get close in on one another), sometimes completely out of story until "Experimentals" kick in.

While I disagree with OP, the most ardent detractors give the best feedback. The devs should pay attention to those who disagree with them. That doesn't mean heed their advice, sometimes there's only a grain of truth to complaints - so it's important to understand why somebody says something. If I could surmise OP's point, he feels like the game doesn't dynamically escalate enough in SupCom and that should not be emulated in PA. He's saying you can watch a game of StarCraft, Company of Heroes, or TA and see gameplay totally change as the game progresses, that only happens at the experimental level of SupCom.

I'm not in total agreement with that, TA and TA style games never had the dynamics shifts of other RTS because individual normal units never had such huge impacts on gameplay. I do agree that PA has the potential for much more interesting tech switches with bots and vehicles and they should not at all be analogues of each other.

While I think it is the general concensus it is definitely my personal opinion.

While I am not a heavy fan of lots of automation I do assume that my units are intelligent enough to hit their targets. What they are shooting at is visible through the tiny yellow dots that are shown for projectiles.

My bad assumption I guess. I cant imagine a system that shows icons and units from above, though. I dunno about any SpringRTS forums, never was active there.

To me this is utterly wrong. The moment my opponent has the first t2 bots changes a lot.
Same for t3 stuff.

Now it is getting interesting. I myself never played TA on any level that was close to playing vs humans. To me TA somehow is just as bland as you describe SupCom. TA is definitely fun, but my knowledge of it so small, that I never even considered how a good 1v1 in TA might look like. That was just before my time. I'd never dare to make any real comments on TA, though, since I only played vs AI or with a few friends who where also only playing vs AI for the most part.

Most SupCom replays I've watched are quite interesting and never contain T4, since T4 isnt very common in interesting games.
You seem to describe replays of setons 4v4. Those are indeed quite boring. Never even tried to watch one.

+1

Krogoths, Vulcans, Buzzsaws. Yeah they were in the expansion, but they do have a pretty big effect once you finally manage to build them. Alternatively, think of the Brawler rush; if your opponent doesn't have enough AA flak then even 10 brawlers can be enough to commander snipe. That's not even mentioning the effective exploit of bomber stacking; since the AA missiles all aim at the bottom bomber it can be a massive effective force multiplier for even the T1 bomber.

Regarding "strategic icons", I would argue that they are necessary in any game with a potential for a large zoom out. It's trivial to mod the UI in PA to remove the icons (at least it is at the moment, and should stay as easy going forward) but seriously, once you zoom out far enough you would have no idea what was where when looking at the planet surface.

If you are zoomed out enough that the planet only fills half your view, how else are you going to see where your units are? TA never had this because TA had a fixed zoom; you couldn't see the whole battlefield except on the minimap, which had one icon, a coloured circle.

Right now in alpha, you can zoom in really close and look at the units and rendering, and zoom out (further than SupCom ever allowed) and get icons. Personally I'd say there is some scope to improve the actual icons (strange that, it being an alpha and all ) but I'd say the background mechanics are working pretty well.

Pretty much. I play with the icons alot too, but it's okay because I know I can zoom in and see them up close any time I want.

Doesnt this 1:1 translate into T4 for the krogoth/vulcan/buzzsaw and gunship rush/mercy (t1 or t2) for the brawler in SupCom?

First, I'd like to point out that PA is intended to be a re-inspiration of TA. If it was to be a remake of SupCom, PA would be completely pointless since SupCom is extremely far from outdated - GPG did an outstanding job. So, I'll focus on where SupCom doesn't capture the spirit of TA but also on what I like less about its gameplay (which is according to my likings, of course).


Undistinguishable art
One of the premisses of TA was that each units would be easily distinguishable from one another. TA did a great job in that regard. SupCom fails miserably in that regard.


Variety that doesn't really vary
In TA, bots vs vehicles had very different gameplay. Even within bots or vehicles or the same Tier, the units were substancially different. Example: you'd definetely use Peewees for raiding. You'd use Rockos for assaults/skirmishers. You'd use Samsons(?) for those long lasting attrition battles in the frontiers. As soon as you'd evolve to Tier 2, the differences would explode between Bots and Vehicles, and also partly between the 2 factions.

In SupCom, "all" units "feel" the same throughout all Tiers and throughout all factions.


Choices, paths to follow and what to abdicate
In TA you had very serious choices to make regarding which path to pursue: Bot, Vehicles, Air, or Sea. One could lose a war for going for an air factory in order to have both Bots and Air. Reaching Tier 2 of any unit type would be difficult, time consuming and costly (aiming at it too soon - or too late - could lose you the war).

In SupCom I feel I never have any choice to make - just have everything we want. It feels we never have to abdicate on any path, we can just have mostly any build possibility we want (though building the resulting units/towers themselves can be costly enough). Even evolving to a higher Tier feels like a non dangerous choice to make.


Feeling of territory
In TA and TA-based mods for SpringRTS, you'll almost always see a kind of defined territory evolve, with well defined frontiers/borders (partly due to a TA's imbalance where spamming Missile Turrets all over your territory was the way to go). Space within your borders will not be easily reacheable by the opponents and so you'll become more invested in them.

I am yet to find this awesome feeling of non-artificially evolving territory in any other game.


Permanent state of engagement
In most RTSs, like Starcraft, "95%" of the game is spent "at peace". Battles - unit engagements - in Starcraft are resolved in 0.5 seconds and not much more in most other RTSs.

In TA, the game usually evolves into a permanent state of engagement. In the frontiers you'll have those missile towers that can just barely reach the opponent continuously firing. Wandering around them you'll have those Samson masses that are just continuously firing at you, trying to find holes or breaking you altogether through attrition war. And even when you're hit by a Rocko force trying to break your frontier, the engagement will take long to be resolved.

Then add to that the artillery wars. You're being hit by a Punisher long range artillery while you're desperately trying to build your's and repairing the defenses so your frontier doesn't break down. And you'll have your Big Bertha firing all the time from the back of your base punishing his base.

As soon as the raiding phases are over and frontiers get established, TA and TA-based mods for SpringRTS always evolve into a permanent state of engagement.

In SupCom you'll also see that but only sometimes. I remember recently watching a 20+ mins sea battle that raged along the rest of the game. But since the maps are usually too large, you'll "never" develop frontiers and almost no artillery will reach anything sensitive in the opponent.


Game changing possibilities are too late
Finally, in SupCom it feels that game changing events (like long enough range artillery) can only happen a very long and boring time into the game. The opponents are almost always too far away for any kind of earlier raiding. Combined with the low variety in units, you're bound to have very long and bland initial phases of each game.

I don't want to always have to go through 5~15 mins of usual chore until I reach the more interesting phases of the game.

Well said pauloaugusto.

All of this sounds great- any chance you could provide some videos/replays/something along those lines so it'd be easier for people to get the feel? I really like the way you've laid it out, but seeing it would be great.

Hard to find videos, but... These were the best I could find in the time I spent with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vMkZ-UKsCI
One of the most played settings in SpringRTS (overplayed but still a great setting): 3v3 ~ 6v6 in the map Delta Siege Dry.

In these games you can see 3 roles develop: the SimCity, the Raider and the Tower Defense. This caters to mostly all the RTS styles of play, which is probably why it's so successfull.
The SimCity guys are the ones left at the back who do technology rushes to game changing stuff (nukes, very long range artillery, dangerous bomber squadrons, brutal economies, etc).
The Tower Defense guys are the ones at the top corridor, where you always end up with hard to break frontiers due to the terrain. Any break attempt with land pushes are almost always slow and gradual, of technical nature (move in with long range artilery units or turrets).
The Raider guys are the ones at the bottom plain, where the ground is open for many raiding paths. Teams cannot usually abdicate on holding ground there, because it will open dangerous raiding paths to the top or to the back, and there's too much Metal(mass) spots in that plain to just leave to the opponents.

You can see how the game evolves into an overall permanent state of engagement - the action never stops. Big Bertha shots constantly hammering someone, frequent raids, other not so long ranged artillery shelling.

You can see how there are well defined frontiers and players either shell the opponent from behind the frontier, try to break it with land pushes or pass through it with air. This happens even in the bottom plain.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbSfTQx5uow
This maps is quite large, intended for 2v2 or more. Still, you can see how there's a feeling of territory, how the top right player (the one being watched) takes ownership of around half the map. Zones of territory defense spawn across the land overseeing its surroundings and gradually the territory changes over time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgDhid5hpI0
This map is for SpringRTS, is called Small Supreme Battlefield (because of Supreme Comander) and is inspired on the same map from SupCom (built from watching the trailers of SupCom even before it was released).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg_z-pIcUJo
This is SupCom, in the map equivalent to the previous one.
You can see how the war evolves into an almost permanent state of engagement and territories/frontiers evolve. This is a nice example of how good to watch (and probably play, though I didn't participate in that game) SupCom can be in the correct setting.

In SupCom, maps are usually too big for the number of people and you can't hold any kind of territory near enough to your opponents. Turret ranges are too short for such large maps. Turrets are way too weak to be used mostly at all, preventing you from securing territory - the exception being shields, which was what kept the land frontier in this replay (I'd prefer decent turrets and no shields). And you have no walls.

Good lord!

Setons with TA units?
That is gorgeous!

Just as a comment on the above videos; note how the battles are slow. A battle taking time to resolve gives everybody time to make moves, to send reinforcements, and for other stuff to happen.

However, also note that individual units are actually very squishy. Their fragility forces players to be conservative and deliberate because an army that takes damage will suffer casualties. And casualties are much worse than lost HP on units that survive, and actually change the dynamics of the battle.

Simply having units with a ton of HP and relatively weak weapons will create slow combat, true. But it would also create extremely boring combat. I don't know if you've ever seen two commanders or two identical experimentals duel in SupCom, but it's absolutely stupid. Waiting for units to kill each other is not fun. Scoring kills on an enemy force through maneuver, on the other hand, is fun.

However that BA game on Delta Siege really does drive home how fundamentally bizarre air units in TA are. PA needs to seriously reconsider pretty much the entire aircraft system to tone down the incredible efficiency of massed air stacked together. And just making them weaker won't do it; you would just need a bigger blob before it runs away.

Oy. Every week there's a post like this.

i don't like strategic zoom either, minimap is what all i want, and TA did it right

seeing icons shot is very lame and boring, much better to see them fight and kill other units with all the animation, that's was one of the best part of TA for me

I don't agree with your disposition toward icons, but I don't think there is any getting away from it.
Given that the scale and strategic zoom are integral to this game, icons are not going anywhere.
I think people play to either have "fun", or win.(read: and derive fun from winning)
Those playing to win will prefer to control icons while having a good overview, and those playing for fun will do whatever it is they do.
I don't think we should restrict either party based on how we want other people's youtube replays to look.

Now, when it comes to game evolution, I believe that if a "simcity" situation has taken hold within an instance, then both players have wished to evolve the game in that direction.
In a competitive environment the simcity-er will always lose because tanks are better than towers. Though, I am talking about 1v1 here.