Total Annihilation's Spiritual/Actual Sequel Planned?

Thanks to IGN PC for its article discussing hints from Chris Taylor of Gas Powered Games regarding a possible follow-up to seminal RTS Total Annihilation. Apparently, at a recent gaming career day, Taylor, the original designer of TA, informally confirmed "...that Gas Powered Games was working on 'an RTS follow-up to Total Annihilation'", but IGN note "it's not exactly clear yet [from his brief comment] on whether or not the game will be a true sequel... or simply a new RTS in the vein of Total Annihilation." Although Gas Powered Games are currently working on a sequel to Dungeon Siege for Microsoft, their jobs page confirms they're also looking for RTS genre artists, and an earlier GameSpy interview discusses this long-under-wraps strategy title. Taylor also mentioned the publisher of this new title is "a big one... one that doesn't also publish operating systems [like Microsoft]" - it seems Atari own the rights to Total Annihilation 2, and previously asked Korean developers Phantagram to develop a sequel before that deal allegedly fell through, though Taylor's game could still be a sequel in concept only.

Comments

only rts game i ever liked

[ophix]

TA was the only RTS game i have EVER liked. I really hate RTS style games, but TA just totally rocked. i especially loved it after the core contengency pack and with 3rd party units from a group called TADD. It would be awesome if someone could come out with an RTS worth of the TA legacy.

Re:TA was great but a sequel?

[0x0d0a]

Great AI that can actually defend itself a bit. Meaning not stand there and get hammered by artitarrly or soldiers attacking tanks and thanks attacking soldiers.

Yeah, TA wasn't perfect here, though it compares well to what other computer RTSes can do.

True 3D terrain and the use of it. Make hills and valleys important

TA does this. Probably to an unrealistic extent (are future engagements even likely to use artillery?) but it really is more fun with a lot of emphasis placed on terrain.

Large maps. You know I can hardly think of any military engagements in wich it took the soldiers a few minutes to run from one end of the battle field to another.

True, true. TA does this. It'd be interesting to see what it'd be like with even *longer* range weapons. The ranges in TA are *much* larger than in most other RTSes (how many games have weapons that can shoot at things seven screens away?), but it's still, frankly, relative small-scale compared to what a real game would be like. And is there some reason that buildings need to be scaled down? From a gameplay standpoint, it seems like accurately-sized buildings are feasible.

Frontlines. Call me silly but it is usual practive to have rings of defence around the homebase. I want to be able to make a line on the map that troops will defend.

Agreed. I think TA came closest in terms of overarching orders, but I'd still like more. "Defend this area" "Ambush anyone coming through this area", "repair any damaged units in this group when not in combat", "attempt to fall back from any enemy units at 80% health", etc.

Proper artilary. Strange as it may sound artilarry does not target tanks. It targets an area. TA allowed this and it was devastating against the computer as it would constantly march its troops accross the same line and you could just pound any assault with a few guns.

Hmm. I agree, but while not realistic, it may be good for gameplay. Conventionally, it is pretty difficult to maintain the integrity fixed positions, if both sides have advanced weaponry. Buildings are pretty much sitting ducks. Tanks can chew buildings to shreds. TA let bases be *built* and construction occur, which is not realistic for the immediate vicinity of battle, but which is traditional for the RTS genre. Ensuring that buildings are a bit tougher to wipe out than in real life is pretty much necessary -- you wouldn't have your aircraft factory half a mile away from enemy ground units supported by aircraft in real life (or if you did, you wouldn't for long), but TA tries to allow you to do so.

Yeah, Close Combat is fun too. Man, I wish Blizzard had never started the whole micromanagement dumbed-down-gameplay kick. I'd like a slower-moving but more complicated game, closer to a traditional strategy game.