What I'd like is TA++ + a sophisticated macro/AI system where you could give orders to a "task force commander" unit and maybe where multiplayer would allow some other humans to stand in for "task force commander".<p>Like, "take this expansion" or "assault this base" or "harass harvesters" as a high-level goal, with OOB specified (units or output of specific factories). More strategy, less APM. People could still micro or do strategy at the Group level, but not at the battlefield level.
Total Annihilation is probably my favorite RTS. I love the resource model and unit/structure construction model.<p>I was really stoked about Supreme Commander but it really just wasn't as good. I've played countless hours of TA: Spring and this looks pretty awesome.
Looks cool, although...<p>It says "gameplay visualization" at the very beginning of the video, which means (if you could not already tell) it is a pre-rendered video. I don't doubt the studio's ability to execute on this, but I think they are actually asking for too little. A twenty person team could probably create a game like this in 2-3 years, with luck, which would probably cost about $4-6 million (and that is actually quite a low budget). Hopefully they get over-funded. :)
This is neat. As I was reading the description I started thinking about Total Annihilation and when I got to the bottom I happily discovered that some of the team worked on TA. I loved that game - felt it was more fun than Starcraft.
I was under the impression RTS games were synchronous because doing client-server with multiple hundreds of discrete units in existence would require a lot of network bandwidth. The game is "held back" by the slowest machine in synchronous models because the game state would de-sync otherwise, as all that is being sent over the network is player input, rather than every unit's state. Maybe my understanding is wrong, but the "heavy lifting" being done on a central server is not very important in consideration of the required up/download to and from every client.
Space-based is the wrong way to go for RTS. Much like quidditch, you can't do a decent battle game in 3D because there are too many ways to go around each other. See homeworld for a fantastic effort that sadly has no tactical depth in multiplayer. Then compare that to supreme commander where a key part is deciding which areas to place static defences at, and which to rely on your mobile units to control.<p>/currently working, very slowly, on an improved TA-like RTS
I loved TA and all, but unless this has two features I'm skeptical it will have lasting interest for me:<p>- More than two races. There just isn't enough variety.<p>- Balanced units that are useful through out the game. I'd rather have 15 total units that are all useful in late game than having 200 units and only 10 are good and only 5 of those in late game.<p>I do really like the idea of no edges on the map. It would be cool to have Starcraft 3 with maps on a small planet like this with no edges.
Interesting game.<p>Reminds me of TA/Sup Com: Good!
Reminds me of Spore: hmmm<p>I just hope they haven't been too ambitious with this. RTS games are very difficult to get right.<p>I will pledge anyway :)
"Expand your empire to harness the resources of entire solar systems to create vast armies with which to annihilate enemy planets, destroy rival systems and win the Galactic War!"<p>It will be interesting to see how that pans out. Star Wars: Empire At War tried a similar thought of thing, but lacked depth.
I'm a little surprised that they aren't showing what the stretch goals are. Presumably, they'd be features the players would want, so it seems like it would help funding if they at least mentioned them.