Gameplay SupCom2 vs PA

Please help clarify:
Short Question: will PA suck in terms of gameplay like SC2 did?
Long Question: TA through SC all shared a very special gameplay & balance with 100s of well balanced units. This created a very unique feel. But when SC2 came out, it was balanced differently (particularly to please console gamers) and all the die hard TA/SC fans quit and there weren't enough new console fans to keep the line going. So we lost our franchise.

Kudos to your team for resurrecting it! This is VERY exciting!

BUT, I fear as I'm sure many others do that PA may go the way of SC2 where it's more of a brainless twitchy arcade game than a solid thoughtful complex game that had all the brilliant permutations that TA had back in the day.

PA game play will be most like PA.

The guys at Uber had nothing to do with SupCom2, PA will mix and match elements from TA and SupCom.

Mike

Quoted for tautological truth!

I came on here thinking 'wtf does PA have to do with SC2?' until i realised that you meant supcom 2 and not starcraft 2.

Uber stated that they are more looking at TA than at FA and it is already visible in the game. So I can't really see the point of a poll?
SupCom2 is pretty far away from all this. The Uber guys did not even really work on that.

Yes you would indeed be accurate, but not entirely helpful

I think taking lessons learned from the successful progression of the original franchise of TA->SC/FA followed by the epic fail of Supreme Commander 2 when they tried to make it console friendly and changed the gameplay... merits a close look at SC2 by the developer team (even if they didn't work on it) so that they can be sure to NOT go there.

Make sense?

Then you should do some research on what's been posted by Uber about Sup2. Forum does have a search feature.

SQ: nope, SupCom 2 sucks, not PA.

Thanks Bullet. Forum Noobs are so often told to use search. But it's actually hard to find the specific point I was trying to make. And I think it's an important one. (ps: I just used supreme commander 2 as a search query and it didn't pull anything up that matches this post) Additionally: sometimes it's good for the devel's to here something more than once if the fan base cares about it... we are the people they hope will support them financially.

DEVELOPERS: it would be very valuable to carefully think through what differentiates Supreme Commander 2 from TA & SC & FA. I beg you to do this. If you can find that secret sauce (mix) of the originals that was lost on SC2, you'll be better equipped recreate the addictive mix that Chris Taylor first did back in the day.

To me, it was the subtleties. 10 types of bots w LOS vs Lobbing vs aoe etc make for a reason to use different unit compositions for different fights. Or even different types of artillery for different needs. Someone who paid attention to the details of the myriad different units would win more than someone who just spammed blindly. The true physics mattered in ways that were somehow lost in SC2. I remember being ranked up in the top 10% back in the day of TA and have been a huge fan of these games for decades. I'm really crossing fingers that we can see success on this and not just a cool planet flinging rts that people only say "that was pretty" because the subtle balance is missed and move on to the next rts. (please note that going planetary is an absolutely genius way of taking the whole thing to the next level... I'm just saying the devil is in the details)

Oh god seeing the title I first thought you compare Strarcraft 2 to PA... Good that I read that you simply shortened "Supreme Commander 2" as SC2, normally I see people write SupCom 2 or something similar.

And Gunshin...

You guys convinced me to change the title name from SC2 to SupCom2. :-D

First off, I just want to say, that SupCom 2 is not a bad game....its just not TA, so all the TA fanbois (yes fan bois) hated it....and in a way, I can understand that.....that is how i feel about EQ2, its not a completely awful MMO, not great, but i really hated it because it took everything EQ1 was, and.....well, just used the names pretty much.

But SupCom2, compared to most modern RTS, is still a decent game, but then again, there is not much competition in the RTS field.

Anyways, PA looks like it will be balanced and fun once everything gets worked on, the major change I would like to see, is better build ques and options with factories etc..... and selecting different groups of unit types within others......I'd like to select my whole army, then click on the boxes below to just grab all of my tanks, move them...etc..

right now its a bit hard to micro as well as I'd like to. (like keeping my slammers and stompers from mixing into a big mess.

Until now i dont see any tactical options to the PA game like TA, or the Fantastic and epic FA
Seems all about SimCity like Supreeme commander 2.
And this last livecast have show that.
You dont need make scouts,you dont have the way make drops,you dont send acu to the battle with units to take and reclaim field,naval its useless in most cases,air dont have gunships or jesters or transporters or fighters, missil guides,transporters t1-t2-t3 and exp.
The game now ,and im just say (FOR NOW) dont have many options like a real rts.
Supreeme commander 2 its not bad game to you play like SimCity ,and PA remenber me that.
One things Sup2 got bether is the map control since its really easy to you find anithing,with easy zoom out and zoom in,not confuse you where is all.
PA on this last point its (sry ) horrible.

We really need to stop bringing up SupCom2, as it really draws out the fanatics on both sides.

If there are fanatics, there's likely good reason.
SupCom2= franchise killer. Or as my girlfriend so eloquently put it without understanding all the details: "TA for dumb people"

I don't mean to rant or flame. This is merely opinion and I know there are many who liked SupCom2. A simpler quicker game has a lot of perks over getting into a 3-4 hour drawn out enduro-game. But there's a reason that the fan base didn't persist like it did for earlier renditions. The purpose of this thread is to encourage uberent to think carefully on what differences caused the earlier loss of fan base w that game so their work doesn't suffer the same fate.

One aspect is EPIC. Not just epic planet tossing abilities. Rather, epic investment into the world you are playing during a game and epic satisfaction when your unique twist on how to handle a situation brought you victory. The complexities of TA were much of what made it so epic. We've seen other rts that were massive on scale, but nothing more than pretty... failing on epic.

*headdesk*

There is never a good reason to a fanatic.

If you're afraid of this, then you haven't seen any gameplay.

Planetary Annihilation gameplay is ANYTHING BUT brainless.

What's more, why does PA gameplay have to be more like a certain game? Who cares about those other games. PA is going to be like PA. And since we're playing on a sphere, with multiple spheres to go to, PA gameplay is already nothing like any other RTS games as they play within confined boxes.

Planetary Annihilation is an incredibly unique and complex RTS game.

The last livecast gameplay was actually not a very good.

In PA, scouting is incredibly important and the gameplay is fast paced.

Most of the better PA players could have demolished the Uber devs.

Stop talking about t1-t2-t3. This has been discussed at great length on the forums. There are no techs. There's basic and advanced – and that's more than just semantics. All units are valid throughout all gameplay. And there won't be a "tech 3"

PA is different than other similar games – aside from the opening 10 minutes or so, you want to keep your ACU out of the battle. Sending it into battle likely means you've already lost.

Naval still needs lots of work – we're in Beta after all.

Transports are under construction – we're in beta after all.

It's easy to zoom in and zoom out and keep track of everything. I never have any problems with that. Again, remember we're fighting on a sphere – not a 1 dimensional box.

I'm sorry to say, but this is going to be hard change.
T1, T2 and T3 is a very straightforward way of explaining something.

We don't have to call it "tech levels", but we definitely have "Tier Levels".You cannot build Tier 3 until after Tier 2, which comes after Tier 1.

Putting this in TA terms, the Krogoth is Tier 4 (google this if you don't believe me.)

• T4 - Krogoth Gantry
• T3 - Advanced KBot
• T2 - Kbot
• T1 - Commander

PA was originally suggested to have a very flat Tech Tree, but that's already beginning to separate. In fact, it is already beginning to climb exponentially upwards.

Likewise, in PA, you can't do orbital until after getting to Advanced.
So sure, it's not "tech level" 3. It's Tier Level 3. It's a 3rd tier of a possibly divergent tech path.

Sorry to say, but it's still going to be T3 to most people.

Easy isn't efficient. You need to "pan, and zoom and pan and zoom" to see things.

I don't think you should gloss over all those extra actions needed to gain a Commander's perspective of the entire battle instead of just 1 front at a time.
Consider when you have 5x planets.
You will have to do 5x the "pan, and zoom and pan and zoom".... after cycling through each of your planets.

The "I can see everything" without having to manipulate the interface is still an unresolved issue.