Planetary Annihilation by UberEnt

I found the site that track the progress of kickstarter projects. The funding for this project is slowing down but the low (yesterday ) was 24.6k$ /day . The projection is at least 1.27~ million . If it slow down to $20000/day the game will be funded in about 6 days. the funding can slow down to 6.25k/day and it will get funded in the end.

Niseg wrote:

I found the site that track the progress of kickstarter projects. The funding for this project is slowing down but the low (yesterday ) was 24.6k$ /day . The projection is at least 1.27~ million . If it slow down to $20000/day the game will be funded in about 6 days. the funding can slow down to 6.25k/day and it will get funded in the end.

There's usually a ramp-up in backers for most projects in the last few days which that site can't take into account. I think they're going to be fine and will probably hit the stretch goals they already listed.

Funded! Woohoo! Now for those stretch goals!!

Naval is nice but I am mostly interested in Orbitals.

I actively don't want naval units, as that part of every RTS game I've ever played has always just felt like an annoyance, but I suspect I'm very much alone in that.

Thin_J wrote:

I actively don't want naval units, as that part of every RTS game I've ever played has always just felt like an annoyance, but I suspect I'm very much alone in that.

Even in TA/SupCom? I thought they were very useful there for heavy artillery support.

I loved the naval units in TA and Supcom was superior to that, so I'm stoked. I played Cybran pretty much entirely due to their walking Destroyers.

MisterStatic wrote:
Thin_J wrote:

I actively don't want naval units, as that part of every RTS game I've ever played has always just felt like an annoyance, but I suspect I'm very much alone in that.

Even in TA/SupCom? I thought they were very useful there for heavy artillery support.

"TA/Supcom" are included in "every RTS game I've ever played"

But yes. They annoyed me in those games. They annoyed me in Red Alert and Red Alert 2. They annoyed me in Age of Empires. Pick an RTS game that had naval units. If I played it, I probably hated the naval units and everything to do with them.

When I played the singleplayer campaign in TA, I used cheat codes to bypass levels with a lot of water. When I played multiplayer I avoided maps with water whenever possible.

I sea

Not just real-time strategy games, Thin J, the turn-based ones too. Hated naval combat in Civ 2, 3, 4, Rome Total War as well.

Total Annihilation & SupCom naval combat had fewer unit types, and also both suffered horribly from movement and pathfinding problems. Absolutely a nightmare to keep them in any kind of formation.

Ooh, that's a good point. I never liked it in Civ either.

Thin_J wrote:
MisterStatic wrote:
Thin_J wrote:

I actively don't want naval units, as that part of every RTS game I've ever played has always just felt like an annoyance, but I suspect I'm very much alone in that.

Even in TA/SupCom? I thought they were very useful there for heavy artillery support.

"TA/Supcom" are included in "every RTS game I've ever played"

But yes. They annoyed me in those games. They annoyed me in Red Alert and Red Alert 2. They annoyed me in Age of Empires. Pick an RTS game that had naval units. If I played it, I probably hated the naval units and everything to do with them.

When I played the singleplayer campaign in TA, I used cheat codes to bypass levels with a lot of water. When I played multiplayer I avoided maps with water whenever possible.

I thought Red Alert 3 did the whole Naval thing pretty well.

But didn't Red Alert have a "every unit is amphibious" mechanic to it? Battleships floated around at sea but would sprout tracks to drive around on land and vice versa. Water was just another kind of terrain to move on.

It's different from having to manage a whole separate wet navy with it's own production facilities and logistics train. I watched someone playing SupCom on youtube once and the map was basically donut shaped with water around the edges. The guy would prosecute a good land battle, but every now and then one or two battleships would just mosey up the coast and wreck his entire base from a ridiculous range. He didn't have a navy of his own so the only thing he could do was spam bomber aircraft and the ships seemed to chew them up quickly.

I'll agree that the naval warfare in most games is garbage. It just doesn't have the same depth as land battles. Shogun 2, Master of Magic, WAMOTA, Rome Total War, AoE... Better to focus on other things.

Not really. Every unit wasn't amphibious. There were dedicated land and dedicated land units. Some did have amphibious capabilities. I just felt it was actually pretty good. Granted, it's not the large scale RTS like this one, but still felt it did a solid job of Naval combat.

I thought TA handled fighting on water very well. They even added hovercrafts as a hybrid unit, so if you didn't want to build a navy, you were able to still able counter one.

I thought SupCom and FA did a good job with them. I often don't use them but I felt they made it so it was not necessary but an option.

Even though I liked Naval Units in TA and SupCom, I still can't figure out why the hell a water planet would make a difference in the context of this game unless you made water a critical resource.

Traditionally, navies have mattered in war because for all of human history it's been easier to ship in bulk by water than over land (trains helped make up some of the difference, but trains are even rarer to be properly modeled). If you don't need to control the sea lanes, and the small sizes of the maps make the mobility and scale differences irrelevant, then navies become more about the water as a temporary barrier for your tanks.

Most strategy games (and even most war sims) tend to ignore most of the things that make naval combat different, and without the vital resource shipping it's not as relevant. Plus the AI seldom knows how to handle the mutually exclusive terrain issues and is terrible about creating beachheads.

Well said.

Pledges are slowing down. I wonder if we will get the lava planets.

IMAGE(http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/659943965/planetary-annihilation-a-next-generation-rts/minichart.png)

Also, Kicktraq is awesome.

Kier wrote:

Pledges are slowing down.

There's usually a sizable bump to any project in the last 3 days. Although, another 300k in a little over a week seems a little dubious. Gas Giants will probably happen though.

I doubt the pledges will reach the $1.8 million amount, but that's the level of the stretch goal they just revealed - galactic war.

It looks like they are going to hit metal planets and lava planets soon.

Maybe we do have a chance at Galactic war.

Hey, I didn't get a response on twitter so I'll just ask in here. If I backed this, got an email confirming that a charge has been authorized to my account, but also show nothing in my Backer History on the Kickstarter site... what does that mean? Did the pledge not go through?

I'm super confused. I tried to back it, and for a not small amount, but it was for one of the limited tiers and there were only two left when I clicked submit. So was there a weird thing where the reward tier I chose ran out of its limited number before my pledge got completely submitted?

My backer history being empty is making me nervous. I haven't been able to find anything on Kickstarter itself to answer the question.

If you contributed and Amazon authorised it, it should show up in your backer history. Not sure if it's instant but the latest project I backed was yesterday and I see it there. Might want to e-mail Kickstarter about it.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

If you contributed and Amazon authorised it, it should show up in your backer history. Not sure if it's instant but the latest project I backed was yesterday and I see it there. Might want to e-mail Kickstarter about it.

I did and got a canned response and a promise of a follow up email. So far no follow up email. Leaning toward canceling the Amazon payments authorization and doing the pledge all over again.

The planetary combat moving to interplanetary combat thing reminds me of the space age Empire Earth expansion. On a much much larger scale.

Thin_J wrote:
Parallax Abstraction wrote:

If you contributed and Amazon authorised it, it should show up in your backer history. Not sure if it's instant but the latest project I backed was yesterday and I see it there. Might want to e-mail Kickstarter about it.

I did and got a canned response and a promise of a follow up email. So far no follow up email. Leaning toward canceling the Amazon payments authorization and doing the pledge all over again.

That is what I would do.

I grabbed the last $15.00 - Early bird discount of $20 tier! It reminds me of this.

IMAGE(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/Star_Trek_-_In_Before_the_Lock.gif)

If you go to the kick starter page it should also highlight the level of pledge you have made. If nothing is highlighted you may have a problem.