[HN Gopher] Beyond All Reason: Open-source RTS reimagining Total...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Beyond All Reason: Open-source RTS reimagining Total Annihilation
        
       Author : mcbuilder
       Score  : 139 points
       Date   : 2021-08-16 18:31 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.beyondallreason.info)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.beyondallreason.info)
        
       | ra33o wrote:
       | I've tried BAR and my experience was: - 150 fps when starting. -
       | Under 50 fps when quitting (after 1 hour or so). I hope they can
       | manage to improve the performance. - Air-units was only able to
       | attack ground or air. Not both. With so "many" air units, that
       | felt a bit too old school for me. - The AI needs some work. - BAF
       | is still miles away from SUPCOM 1/2.
       | 
       | But I love the RTS genre and I am always excited when I find new
       | titles.
       | 
       | I do hope they will develop this game further. Mods can hopefully
       | fix the rest.
        
         | Teifion wrote:
         | With the 50fps issue, was that in the lobby or during a large
         | battle? Secondly, how long ago was this. There have been some
         | improvements which may have resolved this issue.
         | 
         | As for the AI, depending on how long ago it was we've either
         | made lots of improvements or a few small ones. Unfortunately
         | it's one of the areas we have fewer devs.
        
           | rhn_mk1 wrote:
           | For me, this was after ~2 hours on a medium-sized map, this
           | January. The game started out with about 20-30 fps, and ended
           | as an unplayable slideshow, <10fps.
           | 
           | For comparison, I have never experienced such low frame rates
           | on Zero-K regardless of unit count or map size, and the other
           | player didn't complain either.
        
             | Teifion wrote:
             | How many units did you have at that stage? We're finding
             | games with 8 or more players a side can slow down after an
             | hour; though this is because of the number of units present
             | (often in excess of 4000).
        
               | rhn_mk1 wrote:
               | I would have been very surprised if we exceeded 500,
               | although I was getting my ass kicked, so I might be
               | underestimating.
        
               | Teifion wrote:
               | If you decide to try it again and get a similar slowdown,
               | please report it on the discord and we'll look into it.
        
       | glial wrote:
       | Does anyone know of a way to interact with BAR or another of the
       | TA clones via an API or in some other way? I'd love to have a go
       | at building a game AI.
        
         | Teifion wrote:
         | I'd try the BAR Discord, AI channel -
         | https://discord.gg/uNDxk5MX
        
       | hangonhn wrote:
       | I was just playing Total Annihilation last night! It's kind of
       | amazing coming back to this game after so many years. A lot of
       | the aspect of the game actually aged really well. I was able to
       | bump up the resolution to fit a modern wide screen monitor using
       | a few registry changes. The game still looks great and on a
       | modern CPU it absolutely flies even with 1,500 units per player.
       | 
       | The scale of the game has never been replicated by any other
       | game/series as far as I know. There is so little micromanagement.
       | It's almost half economy planning and half strategy. Once you
       | have enough energy production and MOHO metal makers, the economy
       | can basically scale infinitely. I basically just queue up my
       | factories with the different unit types and automate their orders
       | to patrol certain areas and watch the mini-map to see how the
       | front line is shifting.
        
         | cheese_van wrote:
         | What system were you using? I've been waiting AGES for this to
         | come to Steam but for linux.
         | 
         | I think I might be willing to buy a Windows box just for this
         | as I've waited long enough. I haven't had a Windows box in 20
         | years but for TA, yeah. Any recommendations?
         | 
         | TA was a marvel when it first appeared. The gameplay was very
         | much, for me, a revolution.
        
           | Teifion wrote:
           | BAR supports Linux natively, I'm running it on Mint right
           | now. We're hoping for a steam release "some time in the
           | future".
        
           | hangonhn wrote:
           | I'm on a Windows box. I'm in a similar boat as you and
           | basically caved when it came to gaming and built a Windows
           | box. I don't love Windows but I mostly just use Steam
           | anyways.
           | 
           | At one point I used the version sold by gog.com
           | 
           | That version worked on OSX for a while but it doesn't look
           | like that's the case anymore:
           | https://www.gog.com/game/total_anihilation_commander_pack
           | 
           | BTW: I've run TA on a VM before. I think I used VMware
           | Fusion. You'll still need a Windows license but at least you
           | won't need extra hardware.
        
       | Gremlin123 wrote:
       | If you want to play something similar to Total annihilation with
       | better graphics and balance check
       | https://balancedannihilation.com
        
       | skytreader wrote:
       | First of all, interesting how there's a lot of (seemingly)
       | massive and feature-rich open source games, very specifically
       | today on HN's homepage (two by my count, which is a lot!). Open
       | source games have come a long way since the last decade.
       | 
       | Second of all, nostalgia time! I didn't play TA, rather TA:
       | Kingdoms, the medieval-fantasy version. I think today it might
       | qualify as a re-skin but don't quote me on that (edit: I just
       | checked Wikipedia, and no, it isn't a "re-skin" by any means). I
       | started for the story mode but eventually I found myself drawn to
       | the RTS mode. It's my very first RTS and, without aid of the
       | internet, I independently developed tactics and strategy,
       | identifying map choke points and which "kingdom" is best suited
       | for which terrain.
       | 
       | With the traditional human faction, the best result I managed was
       | this stalemate of a scenario in a labyrinthine map. I only ever
       | managed to win with the dark/evil faction. I didn't like how they
       | looked or their back story but their stats and abilities suited
       | my style.
       | 
       | Good times! I didn't really keep up with the RTS genre but maybe
       | I'll give these games a spin when I have the time.
        
         | dogma1138 wrote:
         | The original TA had a thriving modding community with 100's of
         | custom units for download, scenarios and many other modes.
        
           | midasuni wrote:
           | Annihilated.com was one of the first sites I frequented on a
           | regular basis
        
       | PAPPPmAc wrote:
       | It looks like it's a clever double-bacronym, since BAR is also
       | "Balanced Annihilation Reloaded" which is what this project
       | started as. Balanced Annihilation being the most influential and
       | TA-like of the several games built on top of the Spring (
       | https://springrts.com/ ) engine... which was originally made for
       | TAlikes though there are several other projects on the engine
       | now. Zero-K is also a popular Balanced Annihilation-derived
       | Spring engine game, but is less TA-like.
       | 
       | I think the original Balanced Annihilation had the
       | feature/problem that it used a bunch of a original Cavedog models
       | and Reloaded is carefully avoiding that in addition to visual and
       | gameplay improvements.
       | 
       | I played a ton of Balanced Annihilation like a decade ago and it
       | was already a "better TA" than TA or SupCom in many ways.
        
         | Teifion wrote:
         | That's accurate. BAR's roots are indeed with BA but split in
         | part due to this copyright concern. We've since implemented a
         | number of improvements and a huge amount of remodelling.
        
         | Mac675 wrote:
         | There is an active BA community. Check discord
         | https://discord.gg/GkvfDMZA or BA site
         | https://balancedannihilation.com.
        
       | egypturnash wrote:
       | For those of us who are not into RTS games, which of the features
       | listed on this front page are ones that Total Annihilation was
       | known for (and which other RTS games presumably failed to follow
       | up on), and which ones are further innovations this game is
       | making atop TA's take on the genre?
        
         | GasPoweredMaker wrote:
         | Two key characteristics of TA/SupCom that set it apart were
         | economic.
         | 
         | First, map resources (metal patches) were not depletable. So,
         | the game would see massive economic growth as every metal patch
         | would give resource indefinitely. Big econ ramp up, and a
         | marked ability to come back due to non-exhausting resource
         | patches.
         | 
         | The second characteristic is the flow-based economy that worked
         | with build queuing. A player could queue up as many units or
         | structures to be built as desired, as opposed to "buy and
         | build" where you must currently have the resources necessary to
         | build something.
         | 
         | "Queue" may be an imprecise word here, as the player could, for
         | example, have ten factories all attempting to produce a series
         | of units simultaneously (and similarly, have a swam of engineer
         | units all attempting to build a number of structures
         | simultaneously). That is, it was simultaneous building that
         | would consume resources on the fly as they came in that was the
         | core of this model.
         | 
         | The flow economy model meant that a player tracked resource
         | income and resource usage: kept positive, all the queued up
         | units or structures could be built. Go into the negative,
         | however, and the resource buffer would be eaten into and the
         | player would see all currently-building units/structures slow
         | down in their rate of build progress, awaiting resources to
         | come in.
         | 
         | The last bit was disabled in SupCom 2, out of concern that
         | newer players often bottomed out their economy and had a bad
         | time. However, after fan outcry, the flow-model and infinite
         | queuing was re-enabled as an option.
        
         | GrumpyYoungMan wrote:
         | Total Annihilation was the first to have projectile physics for
         | artillery and other weapons. One could actually have, for
         | example, an artillery projectile in mid-flight accidentally
         | collide with an aircraft.
         | 
         | [EDIT] Not mentioned on the BAR front page but also pioneered
         | in TA was wreckage. Destroyed units left wreckage behind that
         | had to be navigated around or fired upon to clear a path.
         | Wreckage could also be scavenged to recover the material used
         | to construct them, allowing the construction of more units. In
         | the race to build enough infrastructure to overwhelm the enemy,
         | this could be the difference between life and death.
        
         | astine wrote:
         | In addition to what majormajor said, there TA had a bigger
         | sense of scale than Starcraft or Command and Conquer. There was
         | a greater discrepancy between the size of large and small units
         | and the size of the units had a bigger impact on the movement
         | speed and how much room on the map the unit took up. This went
         | a long towards making the game _feel_ bigger in scope whereas
         | SC and C &C always felt more tight and controlled.
        
         | Karunamon wrote:
         | One thing TA and _all_ of its successors kept was the ability
         | to have units assist in construction. For instance, you have
         | your commander plunk down a factory, then order the commander
         | to assist with anything the factory is doing. Early on, this
         | will be creating engineers (builders) and your first defensive
         | units. Then you have your commander and engineers build
         | /upgrade your level 2 factory.. rinse and repeat. It turns into
         | a virtuous cycle.
         | 
         | The upshot of this is that it creates opportunities for
         | prioritization (and opportunities for blowing past your income
         | if you're not careful).
        
           | majormajor wrote:
           | Oh, yeah, THIS was a huge one. As well as just how
           | construction/payment worked in general. This thing costs you
           | X metal, and this factory can deliver metal at a rate of
           | x/sec... but if you throw in all these helper units, you can
           | up that. Very interesting and unique twist.
           | 
           | You also didn't have to pay up front when queuing things,
           | like you say with the opportunity to blow past your income,
           | so your cash flow was the counter-balancing production speed
           | limiter, but not in a way where you had to be constantly
           | watching that bank account dollar amount before clicking
           | "build."
        
         | majormajor wrote:
         | Unit count and "planning" were the two things that separated TA
         | from others for me.
         | 
         | You could build more units and you could command larger groups
         | of them compared to something like SC where you couldn't group
         | more than 12 per hotkey. The sheer number of units you could
         | crank out also had interesting strategic effects if, say, your
         | opponent had a balanced defense but not quite enough flak
         | cannons, say, to hold up to a giant swarm of air units. I
         | remember having to worry more about the specifics of what they
         | were building than in games where there was a unit cap that
         | increased the relative value of fortifications and defensive
         | structures.
         | 
         | Sequencing was great too. Tell your commander to build a
         | factory, then another factory, then a solar plant, etc, with
         | seemingly no queue size limit. Queue up dozens of things in
         | each of those factories too. Etc.
         | 
         | It always felt less "clicks per minute" dominated because of
         | these things for me - though I was not a high level player or
         | anything, just playing for fun - while the industry went the
         | opposite, way into the Micro side and turned into things like
         | Warcraft 3 and then LoL.
         | 
         | (I forget the name of Cavedog's TA sequel set in a fantasy
         | world, but even that, IIRC, backed away from the giant armies
         | thing.)
        
           | tomc1985 wrote:
           | In its successor, Supreme Commander, you could completely
           | automate your base construction using those assist features
           | and looping build queues
        
         | vosper wrote:
         | They don't seem to mention the thing I most remember TA for:
         | the soundtrack
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljDyp__ejco
        
           | blunte wrote:
           | Same. Although I do remember the graphics and number of
           | simultanously visible independent units as being
           | impressive...
           | 
           | But the music was magnificent orchestral work. It was also so
           | depressing [ https://youtu.be/ljDyp__ejco?t=995 ] that I
           | decided to play the game without music after a while. It's
           | gorgeous, but too emotive.
        
             | tomc1985 wrote:
             | I found the non-combat music in TA strikes a very
             | compelling balance between emotion and tranquility without
             | becoming monotonous, but I definitely agree that the in-
             | combat music is a bit too bombastic for its own good
        
           | blunte wrote:
           | Another great game with a soundtrack that was a delight: Re-
           | Volt. https://youtu.be/_83cPS87tYM
        
           | robertlagrant wrote:
           | Well that brings back memories! Beautiful. First game I
           | played where the music dynamically changed with the action.
        
           | mcbuilder wrote:
           | The BAR music is really good, in the same theme done by a
           | professional composer. It's not a full orchestra on the level
           | of the TA soundtrack, which is simply one of the best of all
           | time, but it excellent on its own and captures much of the
           | essence.
        
             | tomc1985 wrote:
             | I really hope its better than Zero-K's music, their
             | "professional" composer produced some of the most eye-
             | rollingly awful syntesized orchestral music I've ever heard
        
               | mcbuilder wrote:
               | It's here if you'd like to judge for yourself.
               | 
               | https://soundcloud.com/ryankrause94/sets/beyond-all-
               | reason-f...
        
       | beprogrammed wrote:
       | A contender appears for FAF(Forged alliance forever), looks very
       | good.
        
       | Svperstar wrote:
       | For a time after its launch in I think 1997 people were calling
       | Total Annihilation the greatest RTS and maybe the greatest game
       | of all time. I wish the RTS community wouldn't shit so hard on
       | any game that isn't StarCraft.
        
         | EamonnMR wrote:
         | It's very much a taste thing. TA-likes are a whole different
         | kind of RTS and demand a different type of skill. SCs reward
         | quick thinking whereas TAs seem to much more reward
         | overwhelming scale. I can usually counter my way out of a
         | problem in SC, but in Planetary Annihilation if I've committed
         | in the wrong direction or just not made as many mines as my
         | opponent, I'm sunk.
         | 
         | Also there is the number of units. Over three hundred in this
         | game! TAs tend to have lots and lots of units whereas the other
         | shall we say branch of RTS design tends to have far fewer.
        
       | torhorway wrote:
       | If you're into this style of RTS, I've found Zero-K to be a very
       | good free similar game.
       | https://store.steampowered.com/app/334920/ZeroK/
        
         | dTal wrote:
         | Both this and Zero-K use the same engine (SpringRTS).
        
         | tomc1985 wrote:
         | The scale on Zero-K is much smaller, sadly. My favorite aspect
         | of TA was thousands of units on thousand-square kilometer maps
        
           | willis936 wrote:
           | Then perhaps look at Planetary Annihilation, if you haven't
           | already. It has a very high skill cap.
        
             | bsder wrote:
             | While I love Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander, I
             | never took to Planetary Annihilation.
             | 
             | I think the problem was that they worried too much about
             | making it Twitch-friendly and forgot to, you know, create a
             | fun game.
        
               | tomc1985 wrote:
               | Twitch and eSports have ruined a lot of the fun in gaming
        
             | tomc1985 wrote:
             | I've played that. Unfortunately I don't think the spherical
             | planetoid map concept works... navigating from one place to
             | another is a huge PITA, and even the largest planetoids are
             | still too small
             | 
             | I can't quite put my finger on why I don't like PA, but
             | something about it just feels off. Which is a shame, I
             | really want to like it, and the planet-smashing aspect of
             | it seems like it would be a lot of fun.
        
           | hangonhn wrote:
           | 100%!
           | 
           | It's the first and probably only RTS game where I don't even
           | care about my individual units and just send them en mass to
           | the front line automatically. I literally count on the
           | wreckage of the dead units to clog up the spaces where I am
           | defending. In some sense the game is not tactical at all but
           | really more about strategy and economy planning. There is
           | very little micromanagement on my part and I love it.
        
       | senjin wrote:
       | It's not open source but Planetary Annihilation is a lot of fun
       | and developed by some of the original TA team.
        
       | garmaine wrote:
       | I played Total Annihilation back in the day. One thing that I
       | remember standing out about it was the ability to automate
       | production and tactics to a significant degree. I had factories
       | pumping out drone ships with preprogrammed flight paths, which
       | would engage any hostiles they encounter then resume flights.
       | Then so long as I kept factories supplied with metals, I ensured
       | air superiority and was able to focus on moving land forces, or
       | other things.
       | 
       | Whereas most RTS devolve into micromanagement matches, TA seemed
       | to be more about high-level strategy since automation really let
       | you focus on theatre management.
        
         | dane-pgp wrote:
         | > pumping out drone ships with preprogrammed flight paths,
         | which would engage any hostiles they encounter then resume
         | flights.
         | 
         | I love the idea of being able to program a collection of
         | routines which you can change the parameters of, or swap in and
         | out, depending on how the battle is progressing.
         | 
         | There's probably a danger, though, that by making the
         | programming language/runtime too capable, the game ends up
         | being "solved" or at least ends up only leaving boring work for
         | the human to do.
        
         | Teifion wrote:
         | These mechanics are very much present in BAR. Micro can
         | certainly play a role but it's typically in the context of the
         | macro.
        
       | zbrozek wrote:
       | I'd love to see an RTS explore single sovereignty multiplayer.
       | One player might be the industrial minister and another the
       | military minister. You could imagine letting the tree deepen to
       | allow more players. Bob runs the navy, Alice does resource
       | acquisition, etc. Would lend itself to team games that solves the
       | problem of defeated player boredom.
        
         | robbmorganf wrote:
         | Alternatively, maybe the navy minister could beat the army
         | minister if there are more sailors than soldiers. It would be
         | interesting to simulate/play the dysfunction of bureaucratic
         | militaries...
        
         | Teifion wrote:
         | You are able to play with multiple players controlling one team
         | (Archon mode in SC2 I think). I've used it once or twice for
         | coaching and it works pretty well.
         | 
         | In a team game you can gift units to allies so if one ally gets
         | knocked out but the game isn't over then you'll often find them
         | being given units to rebuild with.
        
       | tomc1985 wrote:
       | This is really cool! I found Zero-K very good in some areas and
       | very disappointing in others, particularly the scale (or lack
       | thereof).
       | 
       | SupCom is great, but it has its own issues....
        
         | 411111111111111 wrote:
         | Uh, why is scale an issue with ZK? Some Maps are way larger
         | then the biggest in TA ever were. The 1vs1 maps are generally
         | pretty small, but that's just because players generally prefer
         | shorter games.
        
           | tomc1985 wrote:
           | All the maps I played and saw in the map selector were really
           | small. The couple of single player campaign missions I played
           | through seemed to be a couple of large hills and nothing
           | more.
           | 
           | And scale is an issue because I hate the tacticality of
           | small-scale RTS games. I find tactical-scale gameplay
           | incredibly boring. That is my biggest
           | complaint/disappointment with Starcraft, Dawn of War, C&C,
           | etc, and why TA and SupCom are #1 in my book.
           | 
           | Besides, micromanagement turns these games into actions-per-
           | second showdowns, and that misses the point of RTS games
           | entirely. I much prefer a more relaxed pace and being able to
           | focus on strategy.
           | 
           | Can you recommend a couple of large scale maps that support
           | multiple factions duking it out with hundreds or thousands of
           | units per side?
        
       | smnscu wrote:
       | I was curious to see it in action, here's a random Twitch video
       | https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1118988304
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-08-16 23:01 UTC)