Planetary Annihilation
Align
Remain Calm Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 5216Forum Moderators, Constellation
Remain Calm Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 5216Forum Moderators, Constellation
<a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/659943965/planetary-annihilation-a-next-generation-rts" target="_blank">http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/659943...-generation-rts</a>
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FhEYvOYceNs"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FhEYvOYceNs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
"Say, that narrator sounds familiar - oh"
Thanks DHP for this link.
Basically it seems to be a Total Annihilation-inspired RTS but on a much grander scale. Their FAQ states that "Team members have worked on the following games:
Total Annihilation, C&C Generals: Zero Hour, Supreme Commander 1, and SupCom: Forged Alliance.", so it seems to be in good hands.
I'm kind of excited!
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FhEYvOYceNs"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FhEYvOYceNs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
"Say, that narrator sounds familiar - oh"
Thanks DHP for this link.
Basically it seems to be a Total Annihilation-inspired RTS but on a much grander scale. Their FAQ states that "Team members have worked on the following games:
Total Annihilation, C&C Generals: Zero Hour, Supreme Commander 1, and SupCom: Forged Alliance.", so it seems to be in good hands.
I'm kind of excited!
Comments
But seriously, I can't wait for this. I love Total Annihilation
--Scythe--
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They did?
Many of you are excited about the idea of more planet types and more gameplay to take specific advantage of those planets. This stretch goal is to add gas giant planets (similar to saturn or jupiter) to the game and an expanded set of orbital units with unique gameplay. Gas giants have no land in WAthe real world but we may allow some buildable areas on “high mountains†on these planets. Imagine massive fusion reactors sucking helium-3 right out of the atmosphere and giant orbital defense lasers. A more expanded set of orbital recon units, space platforms and other types of orbital units based on your ideas will be added as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny you mention gas giants
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>$1,500,000 - Lava and Metal Planets</b>
We’re excited to introduce two new types of planets- lava and metal. Lava is extremely volatile but provides vast amounts of energy and raw materials. Geothermal plants and liquid metal processing mines provide the next level of resource extraction technology. Build in strategic locations to take advantage of the natural defense provided by rivers of flowing lava.
That’s no moon. It’s a space station! Metal planets are wandering relics of wars long past, giant artificial battle stations that can be recycled or reactivated to bring a new level of destruction. Harness the lost knowledge and brute power of the ancients by repairing their installations. Then take over the control structures and rain destruction on your opponents.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/659943965/planetary-annihilation-a-next-generation-rts/posts/299852" target="_blank">Link</a>.
Lolf, I hate a lot of games, but even you make me look like a COD-playing Xbox ######.
Lolf, I hate a lot of games, but even you make me look like a COD-playing Xbox ######.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He has a problem with planets being "destroyed", not really using an asteroid to do it. It takes a ludicrously high amount of energy to truly destroy a planet. Wipe out intelligent life? Fairly easy. Wipe out ALL life? Harder. Destroy the planet? Remarkably hard.
But yes, Stickman has it right. The problem is specifically with turning a planet into not a planet, not with using large kinetic impactors as weapons. That other part is perfectly fine.
But yes, Stickman has it right. The problem is specifically with turning a planet into not a planet, not with using large kinetic impactors as weapons. That other part is perfectly fine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forgive me for asking, but wasn't that the whole point of the devs saying that they were aiming for awesome instead of realism?
You can't seriously be <i>put off</i> by the fact you can destroy planets in a particular way in a game that doesn't even attempt to be realistic at all.
You can't seriously be <i>put off</i> by the fact you can destroy planets in a particular way in a game that doesn't even attempt to be realistic at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1970591:date=Sep 3 2012, 02:04 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Sep 3 2012, 02:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1970591"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm the first one to acknowledge that this very specific failure of suspension of disbelief doesn't really make sense in context, but there you go. It's there. Can't help myself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There ya go. He knows it, you know it, we all know it and can move on now? :)
I think it looks awesome, and I'm loving the art style. The planets look very unique, the units styilized but effective, the effects awesome (especially the planet turning to cracked molten), and even the UI has a nice cartoon *fun* feeling to it.
What.
<!--quoteo(post=1970695:date=Sep 4 2012, 02:49 AM:name=Bloodshot12)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bloodshot12 @ Sep 4 2012, 02:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1970695"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Forgive me for asking, but wasn't that the whole point of the devs saying that they were aiming for awesome instead of realism?
You can't seriously be <i>put off</i> by the fact you can destroy planets in a particular way in a game that doesn't even attempt to be realistic at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends on what you mean by put off. Sure there's a little part of me that says <a href="http://www.mspaintadventures.com/?s=6&p=003552" target="_blank">this is stupid</a>, but that part of me usually gets overruled by my inner gamer. Unfortunately my inner gamer doesn't care about rts games at all. So instead of this being "meh, this looks cool, but not cool enough to override my dislike of rts games" like it was with, say, Supreme Commander, this is like a little piece of broccoli on top of a dish I find unappetizing to begin with - it's not the broccoli that's keeping me from eating it. If it was a super delicious dish I could probably deal with the broccoli.
Dawn of War 1 and its expansions have units being transported into battle by some means, generally, rather than produced at the building itself. Space Marines, for example, come down in drop pods from an orbiting ship that they're all based on.
Does that help?
But yes, Stickman has it right. The problem is specifically with turning a planet into not a planet, not with using large kinetic impactors as weapons. That other part is perfectly fine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They aren't technically destroyed, just rendered unusable by you or the enemy since magma starts pouring all over the place.
In TotalBiscuit's interview with the PA guys they said that only the biggest asteroids will completely mess up a planet, most will just mes up a big base or around half the planet.
<!--quoteo(post=1970628:date=Sep 4 2012, 12:50 AM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TychoCelchuuu @ Sep 4 2012, 12:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1970628"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My "suspension of disbelief" broke at about the time RTS games started making units magically appear from buildings that you built. So... basically Dune 2. There hasn't been a plausible RTS since, with the possible exception of the Close Combat series.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
TA had you seeing units get built inside the factories.
They were all AI piloted in the lore, though.
Guess that's why other RTS haven't done this, besides wanting to make it more simplistic and not simulation based.
In TA you could kill unit on it's construction pad, quite awesome in some air rush games where you could deny the enemy from building from his vehicle factory till he got AA.
<img src="http://aicentral.tauniverse.com/siege2.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
In TotalBiscuit's interview with the PA guys they said that only the biggest asteroids will completely mess up a planet, most will just mes up a big base or around half the planet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oooooooh. Yeah, that's way more plausible. (No, that's not sarcasm.)
Or just alter the earths orbit so it falls into the sun if we are talking about absolute destruction.
Or just alter the earths orbit so it falls into the sun if we are talking about absolute destruction.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope to number one. Destroying the earth by crashing <b>Mars</b> (approximately 10% of earth's mass) into the earth would require accelerating it to well beyond the speed it currently orbits. The moon (approximately 1% of earth's mass) is MUCH smaller than Mars. Remember, it's not enough to just crack the marble, you have to get the pieces to fly apart too, otherwise they'll just smash together again and re-form a planet.
Yes to number two, but now we're talking about moving an object with ten times the mass of Mars and a hundred times the mass of the moon. Trivial this ain't.
So since we're talking about this again, here's one of the more plausible ways of destroying the earth: Bringing it in close proximity to Jupiter. This is a much better option, because while the earth is almost impossible to move in any significant manner, Jupiter, being a gas giant, isn't. You just build a fusion candle (or five hundred), which is a staggeringly huge tower with fusion reactors inside, and then stick one end into Jupiter's atmosphere, where it sucks in gases for fusion. Then you "light" the candle at the bottom, meaning you use the fusion to power a thruster that keeps the candle afloat in the atmosphere so it doesn't sink and get crushed. Next, you light the candle at the top in the same fashion, which exerts a downward force on the entire Jupiter/candle system. Since the thruster at the bottom keeps the candle floating, the end effect is that you can now (slowly) move Jupiter around.
From there on out it is (comparatively) trivial to set Jupiter on an intercept course with the earth, where you then have various options:
Swallow: Just collide 'em. Gets the job done, but boring. Lacks grandeur.
Rip & Tear: Get earth to orbit Jupiter. Tidal forces tear the smaller planet apart, and Jupiter now has a beautiful ring system that makes Saturn's look like a cheap hula hoop.
Bank Shot: This one's tricky, but scores major style points: Pass Jupiter by earth far enough so that earth survives the tidal forces, but close enough to alter earth's orbit. Send earth spiraling into the sun, or go wide and send it into the far reaches of the solar system to hit another gas giant out there. I'll leave it to the judges to decide which target scores the most points.
Semantics: Like the bank shot, but send earth so far out that it leaves the solar system, becoming a wandering interstellar body instead of a planet. Yeah yeah, very clever. <i>Get back to work.</i>