Planetary Annihilation: Total Annihilation IN SPACE

[Wingflier]

Personally I think huge battles for the sake of huge battles is a bit silly (though I can see why you'd like it).  If each unit in the battle serves its own purpose and is used in an important way, that's fine, but that rarely happens.

Games like Balanced Annihilation and Wargame: European Escalation are my favorite type of Strategy Game because of their emphasis on squad-based tactics and intelligent use of your team.  AI War has this to a lesser extent but most of the battles seem to devolve into "my blob" vs. "your blob" combat, which like you said, may look cool, but doesn't offer a lot of depth or take much personal skill from the user, save what to actually put into your composition.

Even in SupCom 2, you could build 100 units or you could build a Monkeylord.  The problem with games that emphasize massive unit battles (from my experience) is that many of the units just turn out to be cannon fodder for your real weapons (we've been having this discussion in General lately ).  Obviously in real war, no self-respecting general would sacrifice their own men as cannon fodder for their heaviest weaponry, this only happens in some RTS games.  If every unit on the battlefield didn't have an important purpose, it wouldn't be on the battlefield.

Anyway, I guess the realistic aspect of it for me outweighs the "wow" factor of 2 giant armies clashing together for the sake of clashing together.  Though I have to admit that I haven't played many "historical" RTS games (like the Total War Series), so maybe they offer that sort of thing, I don't know.

I donated $95 to the Planetary Annihilation project.  They just announced that it will be DRM free, and offer Offline/LAN support.  What an amazing company, I can't wait to play.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/659943965/planetary-annihilation-a-next-generation-rts/posts/289765

[RCIX]

Personally I think huge battles for the sake of huge battles is a bit silly (though I can see why you'd like it).  If each unit in the battle serves its own purpose and is used in an important way, that's fine, but that rarely happens.

Which is strange, because you're playing AI war

[keith.lamothe]

Personally I think huge battles for the sake of huge battles is a bit silly (though I can see why you'd like it).  If each unit in the battle serves its own purpose and is used in an important way, that's fine, but that rarely happens.

Which is strange, because you're playing AI war

Yea, he fusses at us for it too

AIW is far less focused on massive-unit-counts than it used to be, though.

[Wingflier]

Well AI War has a few things that no other RTS does (or at least does well) -

The AI (obviously), which is sucky for most other RTS games.
Huge number of configurable settings and minor factions.
80 Planet battles where the enemy has a massive advantage over you.

Besides that I've always liked the concept of space battles, and most other Space RTS games (especially the recent ones) are either really shallow or just flat-out bad.

So I guess what I'm saying is that even though AI War has its flaws, I still think it offers an experience that can't be matched by other games.  I don't think people realize how much better it would be if it wasn't so much about two big blobs smashing into each other indiscriminately, but it's still worth playing in spite of that.

AIW is far less focused on massive-unit-counts than it used to be, though.

And it's much better for it

[Wingflier]

By the way, allied unit pathing in Balanced Annihilation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDsp6i2Yv8w&feature=player_embedded#!

[eRe4s3r]

3 stragglers

So they fixed this then? So what mod "Game" to try, and remember, I like epic battles and good AI, not 30 units TA style battles ;P

[RCIX]

So I guess what I'm saying is that even though AI War has its flaws, I still think it offers an experience that can't be matched by other games.  I don't think people realize how much better it would be if it wasn't so much about two big blobs smashing into each other indiscriminately, but it's still worth playing in spite of that.

AIW is far less focused on massive-unit-counts than it used to be, though.

And it's much better for it

Have you considered doing a "starship only" game? Where you just build Spire stuff, Golems, starships ofc, and any fleetship with a cap <= 20 (the may-as-well-be-starships-but-isn't stuff*)? Should be quite doable now that there are a ton of super-heavy fleetships and a bunch of extra starship types from days of yore.

*glares at Keith and Chris for not adding bonus Starship types

[doctorfrog]

Askin' again: is there a single player AI in Balance Annihilation, and is it worth a poop? If so, how's the comp stomp action?

I'm not real optimistic here if the pathfinding ain't great.

[chemical_art]

Obviously in real war, no self-respecting general would sacrifice their own men as cannon fodder for their heaviest weaponry, this only happens in some RTS games.

Rest of your post I mostly agree with, but since you brought up real life it is more common then you think. It isn't quite the "this is a meatshield" like it feels in RTS, but the military evolves surprisingly around having most of the military simply supporting a select few.

For aircraft, weasels (aircraft made to shoot ground to air defenses) and interceptors exist solely to give bombers the best chance to deliver their payload safely. In one form or another, all avenues of the airforce exist to either protect its own bombers or to shoot down enemy bombers except transports.

For ground combat, infantry and mounted infantry is used to suppress and screen for the heavier and more powerful armor, for while the armor is in many ways stronger they are blind. This is a very murky situation, but it is common enough in offense and in defense to bring up.

In naval combat, aside from raiders like submarines and pickets most action involve battle-groups which are eerily like blobs in ai wars. The battlegroup is made so the lighter vessels surround to protect the biggest, most vulnerable, and most destructive ship, the aircraft carrier.

To conclude, while it is not the sometimes portrayed rts strategy of a meat shield, even in military today generals willingly put cheaper, more common assets to protect the more valuable, higher firepower assets.

[keith.lamothe]

In naval combat, aside from raiders like submarines and pickets most action involve battle-groups which are eerily like blobs in ai wars. The battlegroup is made so the lighter vessels surround to protect the biggest, most vulnerable, and most destructive ship, the aircraft carrier.

I really have no idea, just curious: when's the last time a naval combat action got to the stage of two battlegroups getting into shipboard cannon (not guided-missile) range of each other?

[chemical_art]

In naval combat, aside from raiders like submarines and pickets most action involve battle-groups which are eerily like blobs in ai wars. The battlegroup is made so the lighter vessels surround to protect the biggest, most vulnerable, and most destructive ship, the aircraft carrier.

I really have no idea, just curious: when's the last time a naval combat action got to the stage of two battlegroups getting into shipboard cannon (not guided-missile) range of each other?

I think it was World War II, USA vs. Japan. Battleships and cruisers giving broadsides in the middle of the night around some channels between islands...can't remember which island though. Not a true battlegroup though. Most gun battles had carriers out of action for some reason.

I've always been in the boat (I never apologize for puns) that guided missiles are just the technological leap forward in gun ranges. Aircraft however are sneakier, faster, more cheaper as a whole (100's of aircraft instead of two dozen ships), and more flexible so  they are used via carriers instead of just cruiser wars.

[My dad's a sailor, can you tell?]

[Wingflier]

For aircraft, weasels (aircraft made to shoot ground to air defenses) and interceptors exist solely to give bombers the best chance to deliver their payload safely. In one form or another, all avenues of the airforce exist to either protect its own bombers or to shoot down enemy bombers except transports.

I think this is a very oversimplified view of air combat.  For one thing, the term "Bomber" is quite nebulous in today's aircraft world.  The F-15 is technically considered a Fighter Jet, but it can carry quite an explosive payload lethal to ground targets as well.  The Stealth Fighter can carry a nuclear missile on-board and be immune to most radar detection.

Even the pure Fighter roles can be dangerous to ground targets.  In other words, Anti-Aircraft Jets do not exist just for the sake of destroying enemy bombers.  That is one of their roles yes, but not all of them.  Controlling the airspace above a battleground is extremely important for survey and reconnaissance information.  As they say, knowing is half the battle.  Fighters keep the air clear so that the recon aircraft and drones can gather information about hostile threats and future targets.  This is just as, or more important than the role of protecting Bombers, because Bombers won't know which target to strike if they don't have any intel.

Also, all military aircraft used today are multi-million dollar machines.  I hesitate to say that any of it is designed as cannon-fodder.

For ground combat, infantry and mounted infantry is used to suppress and screen for the heavier and more powerful armor, for while the armor is in many ways stronger they are blind. This is a very murky situation, but it is common enough in offense and in defense to bring up.

Infantry can sometimes be used for reconnaissance for a tank yes, but this can be done with binoculars and high-tech gadgetry, not by having to be on top of the enemy.  Tanks are actually designed to soak up fire for the infantry in order to give them cover, they are not a back-line weapons like artillery.  In other words, I don't see how the introduction of the Tank to the battlefield suddenly makes infantry into cannon fodder.

I really have no idea, just curious: when's the last time a naval combat action got to the stage of two battlegroups getting into shipboard cannon (not guided-missile) range of each other?

Well the last Battleship was decommissioned what like, 20 years ago?  If that tells you anything.

I can't speak for how naval combat worked in the olden days, though I would assume that protecting the Aircraft Carrier at all costs was the priority.

[chemical_art]

For aircraft, weasels (aircraft made to shoot ground to air defenses) and interceptors exist solely to give bombers the best chance to deliver their payload safely. In one form or another, all avenues of the airforce exist to either protect its own bombers or to shoot down enemy bombers except transports.

I think this is a very oversimplified view of air combat.  For one thing, the term "Bomber" is quite nebulous in today's aircraft world.  The F-15 is technically considered a Fighter Jet, but it can carry quite an explosive payload lethal to ground targets as well.  The Stealth Fighter can carry a nuclear missile on-board and be immune to most radar detection.

Even the pure Fighter roles can be dangerous to ground targets.  In other words, Anti-Aircraft Jets do not exist just for the sake of destroying enemy bombers.  That is one of their roles yes, but not all of them.  Controlling the airspace above a battleground is extremely important for survey and reconnaissance information.  As they say, knowing is half the battle.  Fighters keep the air clear so that the recon aircraft and drones can gather information about hostile threats and future targets.  This is just as, or more important than the role of protecting Bombers, because Bombers won't know which target to strike if they don't have any intel.

Also, all military aircraft used today are multi-million dollar machines.  I hesitate to say that any of it is designed as cannon-fodder.

I specifically said in the end they are not used as cannon fodder, but the goal of cannon fodder is to protect the most valuable units, and that goal is still done today. Whether it is recon, interdiction, ground defense suppression, or resupply the goal is to get an aircraft of some sort to deliver its payload. All bombers do this, but all bombers don't have to be just a bomber. All aircraft are multimillion, but the best bombers are a billion, and thus while the goal may be for cannon fodder operationally you might have a few dozen fighters / multirole fighters, dedicated bombers are much fewer (dozen or less), so every effort is made to protect them.

For ground combat, infantry and mounted infantry is used to suppress and screen for the heavier and more powerful armor, for while the armor is in many ways stronger they are blind. This is a very murky situation, but it is common enough in offense and in defense to bring up.

Infantry can sometimes be used for reconnaissance for a tank yes, but this can be done with binoculars and high-tech gadgetry, not by having to be on top of the enemy.  Tanks are actually designed to soak up fire for the infantry in order to give them cover, they are not a back-line weapons like artillery.  In other words, I don't see how the introduction of the Tank to the battlefield suddenly makes infantry into cannon fodder.

Again, I did not say they were directly cannon fodder. However, much more numerous friendly infantry is used to counter enemy infantry when needed to protect armor in urban settings. Friendly infantry have to be on top of enemy infantry if not to eliminate but to at least suppress them in urban combat, which is were dismounted infantry is strongest. Binoculars and such help with recon, but infantry is best as a suppression tool for other infantry on the ground. Having binocluars won't slow enemy infantry. Modern infantry can destroy modern armor. The American "Javelin" strikes from the top of a tank's armor, and can defeat any tank today in most environments. The Russian mainstay RPG, the RPG-29, is strong enough to damage the frontal armor of a British Challenger, and is feared by the American Abrams. It's newer one the RPG - 32 is said to defeat the reactive armor, which puts it among the Javelin as able to puncture any armor. To conclude, infantry can defeat main battle tanks , so other infantry counter it since it is easier to bring sufficient numbers of infantry then it is to bring sufficient numbers of armor if possible. Which is why I also said above its so murky, because while modern infantry can modern armor tactics are designed to be mobile to prevent this as well, and in open combat the main battle tank is still king.

I really have no idea, just curious: when's the last time a naval combat action got to the stage of two battlegroups getting into shipboard cannon (not guided-missile) range of each other?

Well the last Battleship was decommissioned what like, 20 years ago?  If that tells you anything.

I can't speak for how naval combat worked in the olden days, though I would assume that protecting the Aircraft Carrier at all costs was the priority.

[eRe4s3r]

That is all nice and well, but can someone actually tell me a decent Sprint RTS mod/game with a proper AI and a proper lobby (with links?) that is not TA Balanced and NOT TA AT ALL... because if I wanted to play TA, I would do that (have the original and all bonus units ever released...)

[chemical_art]

Also, any question invovling battle groups is skewed. The last time true battle-groups clashed were in WWII iirc.