Confirmed features and suggestions

+1 MOAR.

Definitely the reclaiming nearby wrecks.

Don't forget that the nanolathe is a weapon all its own. While I like the idea of easy base maintenance in general, a nano gun capable of long range is better suited to combat than home repair.

My favorite tower design is the UEF one. It is a controller that runs a fragile, modestly powerful flying drone. The drones have limited range (in theory) and are weak against air, creating a powerful tower that is vulnerable to both land and air forces.

You know what? I have an idea. If we're on a normal planet have the music be mostly orchestral. If you're on a lava planet then add guitars and other rock stuff to it. A mainly water planet can have some soothing synths. Stuff like that would be insanely awesome.

ctrl+n

Naming units! Make this happen, guuuys!

It's small and simple and easy to code and unless I keep bringing it up I'm afraid it's not going to show up! I reeeally want this to be in the game. It is my most important feature.

Even better - nameable teams.
That would be not only fun, but strategically useful for ally coordination.

I would have to agree with this point, naming possible thousands of units that will die to me would be used by 2% of the population? Squads would be a bit more doable in an RTS format and make more sense. IE Cntrl+1 = group one. Alt+1 = rename group one to "Alpha Tango".

I'm a somewhat competitive gamer and I don't care about singleplayer campaign and such so much, so my suggestions revolve around competitive 1v1 mostly. I want some other competitive RTS than SC2 as I don't enjoy it so much anymore.

- 1v1 ladder&matchmaking with either handmade or completely symmetrical maps so other player doesn't get any (dis)advantage because of his good/bad luck.

- Map creating tools.

- Online tournament creating.

- Replays.

- Least possible amount of any randomity, no any RNG and minimal possible amount of blind decisions that has to be done blind.

- Units with endless micro potential.

- Game encouraging constant fighting with long, drawn-out fights.

- Fully customizable hotkeys.

and so on

These things are all fallbacks to the Starcraft style of gameplay and really don't take into account the things you can do in a TA-style game.

Symmetrical maps are only a must when a game relies on a small scale and also when the players don't have the variety of units to deal with different terrain types. Whereas in Starcraft, the players need to be able to build bases in areas that are equally defensible, in a TA-style game, there are such a variety of defensive options that any area is defensible. Likewise, in Starcraft the units are balanced towards a paper-scissor-rock style of gameplay, with hard and soft counters. Terrain maneuverability is taken into this equation, reducing the usability of units on a variety of terrains. In a TA-style game, the variety of units allows the player to attack any terrain, depending on how the player prepares their army. If the enemy is holed up in their base surrounded by mountains, it is still assailable with artillery, missile units, and units that climb mountains easily.
The main concern with maps is that the relative distribution of resources is fairly balanced, mainly for the early game. (Allowing players to choose their spawn point also allows for balance.) In the end, asymmetrical, and even randomly generated maps provide a lot more interesting gameplay, and allow the player to prove their strategic capability, rather than their ability to exploit the map.

Also of note is the fact that "randomness" is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it makes logical sense. In Starcraft, units shoot insta-hit homing weapons, whereas in TA they have to aim their cannons, fire a realistically modeled shell, and potentially miss their target due to the circumstances. (Perhaps the unit was behind a hill, or it was moving a certain way, etc.) It sounds like a bunch of randomness that would make the game less competitive, but it works out much better from a strategic standpoint. A player that uses their units correctly to take advantage of the terrain and situation will win, rather than the player with better micro.

And as for micro, remember that this is a STRATEGIC game (with tactical elements). This means that micro should be minimized so that the player can focus on higher level strategies, which is something Starcraft only touches on.

If you come to PA looking for a Starcraft 2 replacement, you may not get what you want. If you come looking for a strategy game, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I can understand map asymmetry is not as big of an issue in this style game than it is in SC2, however no matter which game it is, random asymmetrical maps won't be perfectly balanced, whether it's 52-48 or 75-25 depends on importance of terrain in said game. If the game is good and doesn't depend about the terrain so much I can live with random asymmetrical maps, however I'd always prefer symmetry in 1v1. Choosing a spawn point would add strategical depth, I like that, but how would you implement that? Just blind decision vs. blind decision could really screw you over.

If the way units miss or hit their shots is completely deterministic, the unit was behind a hill or was moving a certain way, not that you just got wrong side of the coin, then I have no problem with it as it's not random.

Using units correctly to take advantage of the terrain and situation to win is for me like... dictionary definition of micro management :lol:

Micromanagement IS strategy, it's just lower scale than smashing huge armies or planets to each other. It can require fast reactions or precise mouse control, but it's always based on tactical decisions.

I don't know what you define as higher level strategies, but you shouldn't belittle SC2's strategical side as it's strategically propably the second most studied out RTS game ever.

I have no problem with this being way different than Starcraft as Starcraft 2 has already lost most of it's fun for me. I'm not looking for Starcraft 3, I'm looking for fun to play, competitive RTS.

Auto grouping like in supreme commander 2? (Not sure if it was on FA or supreme commander) if you selected some units and gave ten an order, when you zoomed out into strategic view there would be a number showin how many units were in that group and then you could select that group.

I'm glad you're keeping an open mind, ogwi. I'm fairly certain there will be some symmetrical maps to come out of the community (or as symmetrical as you can get with the mapgen system). But in all honesty, random, asymmetric maps will probably end up being a lot more fun to play in the end. Remember Age of Empires? It provided randomly generated maps that were used extensively for competitive multiplayer.

Also, I recommend you check out the game, Zero-K, which is a free RTS based on the Spring engine. There are a lot of tools in it to reduce unit micromanagement (which is NOT the same as tactical movement and positioning), most notably units that auto kite and swarm to evade slow projectiles. It works out very well, and as a result, games tend to be more focused on strategy and tactics.

I didn't play Age of Empires competitively but what I remember from streams I've watched they have a rule that both players have x amount of map vetoes so when map sucks, they quit it and start new one

I'll try to check that out while waiting for the alpha of this game

IDK if you ever played Supreme Commander/TA, but I highly recommend you get one of those before you get PA. Forged Alliance is something like $5 on Amazon, and $15 on Steam. You can then download FAForever and try out the multiplayer. I think you can get TA on Impulse or whatever it's called now.

I, for one, also enjoyed 1v1 on SupCom 2. That may be a better transition from SC2.

GOG is a better place to buy it.

anyone know where i can get TA for mac??

Suggestion(if it hasn't been suggested already): Multiple players can control 1 commander and its units.

Nowhere. Better get a VM or run Bootcamp.

There was in fact a mac port of TA at one point. Doubt it runs on modern macos though.

Yeah, it doesn't. I've had a lot of luck with Spring, though - kmike, PM me if you want to talk about setting it up on your machine.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a good lobby client - NotaLobby works, but I haven't had any luck setting up games, just joining them. Still, XTA should sate your lust for breaking robots, at least temporarily.

What about creating surveys for suggested features not (yet) approved ?