What was Total Annihilation really like?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
totalwar series failed as soon as they favored graphic whoring over gameplay :]
stw + mtw good
Rtw + mtw2 shit
stw + mtw good
Rtw + mtw2 shit
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
Shogun was best.
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
Im going to assume you a referring to BA.
The fact that you could take down lots with a couple of units in OTA is probably because you were playing the AI, which was, to be frank retarded. I feel it is possible to cause havoc with small groups of units in both OTA and spring, infact I think its easier in spring with the fact that defences cannot shoot through friendly buildings.
I also disagree about the statement of there being bigger battles in spring that OTA. I've had games in OTA on a scale that I have never had in spring, I think this is to do with the more powerful level 2 and faster gameplay in BA than in OTA.
On a micro level I feel one can manipulate units to be more cost effective in BA compared to OTA (with the exception of the bomber - <3 multibombing), whereas macro is much the greater focus of OTA.
The fact that you could take down lots with a couple of units in OTA is probably because you were playing the AI, which was, to be frank retarded. I feel it is possible to cause havoc with small groups of units in both OTA and spring, infact I think its easier in spring with the fact that defences cannot shoot through friendly buildings.
I also disagree about the statement of there being bigger battles in spring that OTA. I've had games in OTA on a scale that I have never had in spring, I think this is to do with the more powerful level 2 and faster gameplay in BA than in OTA.
On a micro level I feel one can manipulate units to be more cost effective in BA compared to OTA (with the exception of the bomber - <3 multibombing), whereas macro is much the greater focus of OTA.
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
I miss gods of war.
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
heh, that was my fave ota map too
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
OTA was more primitive than Spring in most ways, but it felt better than most Spring mods do.
I hate how, now that it's both perfectly possible, and saves CPU, most Spring mods claiming to be "like OTA, only bettah" don't even bother allowing units to shoot through each other, like they did in OTA.
Er, y'know, I'm going to end with that... I could go on a long, flaming rampage about how badly most of the major Spring mods actually emulate OTA's gameplay, but it'd just cause bad feeling over something I don't even care about all that much, tbh.
I hate how, now that it's both perfectly possible, and saves CPU, most Spring mods claiming to be "like OTA, only bettah" don't even bother allowing units to shoot through each other, like they did in OTA.
Er, y'know, I'm going to end with that... I could go on a long, flaming rampage about how badly most of the major Spring mods actually emulate OTA's gameplay, but it'd just cause bad feeling over something I don't even care about all that much, tbh.
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
I see where you're coming from, there are a lot of (mostly aesthetic, or what i would interpret as unitintended buggy quirks) differences between *A and TA:CC, but things like figher dancing, line bombing, "lol ur mizzile dont hurt mah pelican" etc are things which i really dont miss.
A vast swathe of the units in OTA were effectively useless in competitive play; i cant remember what the number was, but a vulcan/buzzsaw gets X kills then through aiming code hilarity and the accuracy it gains through experience it can no longer hit anything (think it was something like 20ish).
Id rather have a semi-believable physics simulation, where friendly fire becomes an issue worth conisdering, any time.
A vast swathe of the units in OTA were effectively useless in competitive play; i cant remember what the number was, but a vulcan/buzzsaw gets X kills then through aiming code hilarity and the accuracy it gains through experience it can no longer hit anything (think it was something like 20ish).
Id rather have a semi-believable physics simulation, where friendly fire becomes an issue worth conisdering, any time.
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
Have you ever thought of the possibility that they're not trying to recreate TA?Argh wrote:OTA was more primitive than Spring in most ways, but it felt better than most Spring mods do.
I hate how, now that it's both perfectly possible, and saves CPU, most Spring mods claiming to be "like OTA, only bettah" don't even bother allowing units to shoot through each other, like they did in OTA.
Er, y'know, I'm going to end with that... I could go on a long, flaming rampage about how badly most of the major Spring mods actually emulate OTA's gameplay, but it'd just cause bad feeling over something I don't even care about all that much, tbh.
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
AFAIK, Spring didnt support firing through friendlies until later in development, when the gameplay of the OTA mods was already set.
For what it matters, i think more people should play zwzsg's OTA port, Classic TA is it called? Units fire through others there. Honestly though, that takes away a remarkable amount of planning (turret placement) and micro.
The micro/tactics vs macro/strategy thing will always attract a different type of player and playstyle. Me? I enjoy both. I enjoy intelligent micro. Something like ship micro, where you have to consider your units facing, its acceleration and current velocity, its turnrate, its turrets facing and turnrate, and landing each shot is crucial. Ships are also expensive, allowing you to spend plenty of time getting everything you can out of them. I just wish the engine supported it a bit better, and i could give more precise orders to my ships.
But sometimes, i really wish i could play a more strategic game. I verymuch enjoy a game of wits with my opponent and outsmarting him.
As for *A, i think it does have a lot of micro. But i also understand the point being made, because you usually have to micro several dozen things at once. Its not so much deep, considered micro as frantic, 100-things-to-do-at-once-and-only-so-many-hands-to-do-them micro. I think there is a big distinction between 'More micro' as 'more frantic micro' and 'more micro' as 'micro matters more for victory'.
Concept mods based around pure micro and pure macro would be interesting, if only as a thought experiment. I think its sad that KP has incorporated so many micro elements, as it prettymuch was an experiment in macro.
For what it matters, i think more people should play zwzsg's OTA port, Classic TA is it called? Units fire through others there. Honestly though, that takes away a remarkable amount of planning (turret placement) and micro.
The micro/tactics vs macro/strategy thing will always attract a different type of player and playstyle. Me? I enjoy both. I enjoy intelligent micro. Something like ship micro, where you have to consider your units facing, its acceleration and current velocity, its turnrate, its turrets facing and turnrate, and landing each shot is crucial. Ships are also expensive, allowing you to spend plenty of time getting everything you can out of them. I just wish the engine supported it a bit better, and i could give more precise orders to my ships.
But sometimes, i really wish i could play a more strategic game. I verymuch enjoy a game of wits with my opponent and outsmarting him.
As for *A, i think it does have a lot of micro. But i also understand the point being made, because you usually have to micro several dozen things at once. Its not so much deep, considered micro as frantic, 100-things-to-do-at-once-and-only-so-many-hands-to-do-them micro. I think there is a big distinction between 'More micro' as 'more frantic micro' and 'more micro' as 'micro matters more for victory'.
Concept mods based around pure micro and pure macro would be interesting, if only as a thought experiment. I think its sad that KP has incorporated so many micro elements, as it prettymuch was an experiment in macro.
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
The reason for those additions was that I was bored watching battles play out with little interaction from me and I wanted more ways to influence the events on the screen.Saktoth wrote:I think its sad that KP has incorporated so many micro elements, as it prettymuch was an experiment in macro.
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
= more micro?KDR_11k wrote:The reason for those additions was that I was bored watching battles play out with little interaction from me and I wanted more ways to influence the events on the screen.Saktoth wrote:I think its sad that KP has incorporated so many micro elements, as it prettymuch was an experiment in macro.
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
IMO interacting with individual units (or small groups) in a battle is micro.
- Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
Argh wrote:OTA was more primitive than Spring in most ways, but it felt better than most Spring mods do.
I hate how, now that it's both perfectly possible, and saves CPU, most Spring mods claiming to be "like OTA, only bettah" don't even bother allowing units to shoot through each other, like they did in OTA.
Er, y'know, I'm going to end with that... I could go on a long, flaming rampage about how badly most of the major Spring mods actually emulate OTA's gameplay, but it'd just cause bad feeling over something I don't even care about all that much, tbh.
FunTa does, so does evolution for that matter. Not being able to thoot thru stuff may be a game mechanic, but as fas as spring mods go, it is one that I lothe.
Re: What was Total Annihilation really like?
That is why I still keep the Evilless mutator!Saktoth wrote:I think its sad that KP has incorporated so many micro elements, as it prettymuch was an experiment in macro.