Every now and again in the forums see a few people mentioning things that aren't like they are in Sup Com... and should be and blah blah blah I just wanted to make it slightly more clear than it already is from what John Mavor has already pointed out multiple times on the live stream that this is not Sup Com or anything to do with it. If anything Planetary Annihilation is the sequel to Total Annihilation the best RTS of all time. It isn't the sequel to Sup Com not only is this is far from that and I personally would prefer it to be as little like it as possible. I know it might come as a shock to some but I really don't like Sup Com There are too many tiers too many upgrades too much stuff for an RTS. the game play is just not my style and to be honest bores me. Remember this is my personal opinion, if you love Sup Com then I am not saying you shouldn't that's your opinion I have mine. I am just pointing out again something that is already clear but perhaps not to everyone. Of course there are some things that can be taken from Sup Com and they have been such as the tactical view with the icons showing the units on far zoom which I think has worked excellently - Not once have i thought "wheres my mini map" because i just zoom out and boom there's my units. I am not saying everything about Sup Com is bad because it isn't clearly by the amount of people that enjoy it but like i said This isn't Sup Com 3... I apologise if I have come across all ranty but it makes me face palm each time is see "well in Sup Com I could do this..." etc etc... It grinds my gears Once again apologies for the off topic post I know this forums is made to test Alpha but this subject seems to have come back now people are actually playing it.
People are referring to features in SupCom because those features worked well. It would be impossible to build a game like this completely without inspiration from other games
I think this game is fine with many stuff like in TA. Its fun, now, and for sure even more later. I dont want a clone of SupCom, I cant always go back to FAF.
I prefer the simplicity which Sup Com doesn't have, That's what I was trying to say. Features, Yes did say that some features would be good like tactical veiw but its the game style and the rush and the tiers and stuff that gets me
I don't see why you should be mad about people comparing this game to supcom (which improved on most of TA's features) and asking for its features to be carried over. You might prefer a more simplistic approach but I am pretty sure you are in the minority of people and most will prefer seeing a lot of options to do stuff/great strategic depths that FA had to offer as well. Also I don't see how people go all "yeah this is not gonna be like supcom, more like TA" since those games are really extremely similar.
For what its worth, I find the current alpha (and the direction the game seems to be heading) to basically be identical to supcom gameplay on a huge map. It doesn't really rock my boat either. The supcom games that were fun were small intermate brawls on tiny maps; the large games dragged on and on until nukes or artillery ended the game with epic long distance bombardment, and buildings were >> units.
You can make a successor to TA without looking at the first evolution of TA (supcom), even if you want to be old-school : You can't have no factory assist, no strategic zoom (I don't consider the current zooming out strategic at all), no transport routes, .... I know it will be there later, but I think it's what people want in PA to be more "supcom"-like. ie. I understand completely the fact that you won't be able to upgrade anything in PA, but you need some alternative for mass extractor. With such a large focus on macro, you can't have tedious micro like that (reclaim T1, build T2). TA Spring fixed it by implementing scripts that you execute on ingies over areas, giving them the order to reclaim & rebuild T2 on that area. But allowing placement of T2 over T1 and reclaim them first automatically could be enough.
People say that because they have experience, and that feature worked well. They don't just want another SupCom. I sure don't. But I sure as hell DO WANT some parts of what it had to offer- for example, the excellent queueing UI, and the zoom. There's no shame in saying "SupCom did this bit better than what you have right now". It's just a lot more common than saying "Starcraft did this bit better" because, well, Starcraft is a pretty different game and SupCom is in the same family.
If you play both SupCom and TA, you can quickly realize that this game is much more similar to TA than it is to SupCom. Sure you could say it looks the same but it certainly doesn't play the same. In SupCom everything you did was linked together, in TA and PA it is not. In SupCom you had tiers of units where higher tier was able to build everything from the lower tier as well, in TA and PA you cannot. In SupCom you could upgrade your ACU, make him a crazy terminator, in TA and PA you cannot. In SupCom you had experimental units that could decide the game, in TA and PA you do not. This game will be simple yet complicated cause it will not rely on units and economy but actual strategy and tactics, like in TA but on a planetary scale.
Idk what you mean by connected and everything else is not even clear at this point. Also Idk what ThePilot means by the current zoom not being strategic at all. With one planet being currently the entire map, the zoom covers all of it. How far do you want to go out?
Also, in line with thepilot, probably many of the people going to play Planetary Annihilation are current Supcom/FA/FAF players. So a portion of the fan base is going to be strongly influenced by those games and likely anticipate some functional similarities.
I also think there's not point in re-inventing the wheel. PA should re-invent where FA failed, like some elements of the economy + assisting, but also keep what works, like zoom, mini-map, and MUCH better strategic icons.
Yeah, the planet is round, you know. The premise of a sphere is that you can never see more than 50% of it at a time.
They are working on solutions about it, because a strategic view where you can't see half of what is happening is not really strategic, and in a game that will be focused on macro, it's not a good thing.
Or even a rebuild bonus where the T1 extractor contributes to the completion of the T2 extractor. Similar to building on top of a wreck.
