The real Total Annihilation Vs Starcraft!

[Bowser]

I don't see how Starcraft would not be able to support large maps. Personally, I liked how the map scaling was sized; I felt that it was perfect and just right.

Starcraft didn't have to use large scale maps. With its intense strategy and minute detail to management and control the game didn't have to center around the size of the map. Instead, the game focused on more of the unit and grouping control as well as base and resources management. Not to mention that the player had to be up to par with the strategies of his opponent and what he was using and going.

Noddingdog, I'm perfectly fine with Starcraft; I think it's a great game. And no, I'm not saying TA is a bad game; but I have never played it and never intend to. With that said, with the many other games I've played I feel Starcraft is the absolute best out there. I feel that the cinematics are absolutely spectacular and awe-inspiring; the story is compelling and intense; and the game interface itself is entirely user-friendly and efficient in how it is designed.

Professional 'Crafters' and newbies alike can play with relative ease and great enjoyment; it's just an extremely fun game to play.

 

[dragannia]

Well that's a matter of opinion I guess. I personally think Starcraft is a boring and repetitive game. However, I'm not going to be completely slack to it and I will say that its cinematics are rather good and its story is very well thought out. But TA has a much more intense strategy system due to its 3d-terrain, true line of sight and firing, the radar and radar jammer concepts, its, and I quote, physics engines and small details such as how forest fires damage units hiding in them and the size of a unit depends on its evading capabilty, etc. And I might add that TA's resource management is very tight because of the scarce metal and therefore a need for expansion (unless you are on a metal map) and resource is only a bit easier once you get up several Moho Metal Makers and even more Fusion Plants.

And for those who think TA gets boring, there are thousands of 3rd-party units and even more maps to download. So there.

 

[BladeZ]

Simon you ***......

Change your nic for goodness sakes. Killer the Great?!!??

Anyway, with all the 3rd Party Units out there, TA is going for quantity than quality.

 

[dragannia]

Shut up, I've been using that name for 3 years now. And its not actually quantity over quality because:

1. Some of these units are really quite good

2. Cavedog didn't make them so you cannot use it for your tiresome 'quantity over quality' argument

 

[Noddingdog]

Besides, you can only get 512 units max IF you can get around all the weapon id issues. If you want to make a pack it is very wise to go for quality IN quantity.

I don't see how Starcraft would not be able to support large maps. Personally, I liked how the map scaling was sized; I felt that it was perfect and just right.

Starcraft didn't have to use large scale maps. With its intense strategy and minute detail to management and control the game didn't have to center around the size of the map. Instead, the game focused on more of the unit and grouping control as well as base and resources management. Not to mention that the player had to be up to par with the strategies of his opponent and what he was using and going.

Noddingdog, I'm perfectly fine with Starcraft; I think it's a great game. And no, I'm not saying TA is a bad game; but I have never played it and never intend to. With that said, with the many other games I've played I feel Starcraft is the absolute best out there. I feel that the cinematics are absolutely spectacular and awe-inspiring; the story is compelling and intense; and the game interface itself is entirely user-friendly and efficient in how it is designed.

Professional 'Crafters' and newbies alike can play with relative ease and great enjoyment; it's just an extremely fun game to play.

Well, I guess that's down to personal opinion again, but it is nice to be able to choose between large and small maps.

Unfortunately the micromanagement was one of SC's problems: constantly having to babysit the units because you could only select a certain number at a time, etc. I would personally find this very annoying, but then again other people may not.

Well, that's fair enough Bowser, I don't have a problem if you wish to stay with SC. Of course, I would disagree with you there on many points, but that's another point in the debate

Once again depending on personal opinion, the same could be applied to TA.

 

[dragannia]

Something else that needs to be discussed is the fact that TA is much more customizable than SC. You can limit stuff, chose mapping, line of sight, etc.

 

[Bowser]

Well of course it's personal opinion!

I agree with Dragannia in that TA is probably more customizable. I've never played the game, but I can understand that it has more player created units and such.

Noddingdog, micromanagement is one of the keys to Starcraft. Working and controlling the units, buildings, and etc is micromanagement. Micromanagement was not a problem with SC; it's perfect.

 

[dragannia]

Matter of opinion I guess. Noddingdog obviously is a TA fan and he might forget that in TA you need to micromanage your troops' position a lot due to terrain advantages/disadvantages. He probably doesn't really like the fact that in SC you need to constantly scroll back to your base tp make sure your production plants don't sit there and do nothing, because he prefers to pay more attention to troops.

 

[Noddingdog]

Well of course it's personal opinion! Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to reconsider their thoughts!And, what is so wrong with personal opinion, anyway? You act as if it's a bad thing...

Nope, just being diplomatic.

I agree with Dragannia in that TA is probably more customizable. I've never played the game, but I can understand that it has more player created units and such.

Cool.

Noddingdog, micromanagement is one of the keys to Starcraft. Working and controlling the units, buildings, and etc is micromanagement. Micromanagement was not a problem with SC; it's perfect.

Well, Bowser, I feel that having to select units and order them to move 10 at a time, and having to return to each production facility to requeue units constantly, and having to always babysit your resources/overlords etc. is a little bit distracting from the actual purpose of the game: war. TA lets you fight without thinking so much of babysitting units all the time, and includes almost unlimited strategy while it's at it.

 

[Noddingdog]

Matter of opinion I guess. Noddingdog obviously is a TA fan and he might forget that in TA you need to micromanage your troops' position a lot due to terrain advantages/disadvantages. He probably doesn't really like the fact that in SC you need to constantly scroll back to your base tp make sure your production plants don't sit there and do nothing, because he prefers to pay more attention to troops.

But that kind of micromanagement is a positive thing; shooting over obstacles and terrain and guiding your troops is all part of the battle. You can't just build Peewees and expect them to form a squad and attack on their own, that doesn't even happen in real war. But if I can only send 10 troops at a time, and have to constantly requeue units as said, that isn't going to help my war effort a lot and the game turns into an insane who-can-be-the-fastest click-fest.

 

[Bowser]

Yeah, I understand what you mean.

Given, the micromanagement can be an absolute pain but it also gives you absolute control over the entire game.

And, with the limited resources you cannot just produce as many units as you want to. A good strategy in Starcraft is to produce two units at a time at all of your buildings; this gives you leftover money that you wouldn't have otherwise had to spend on buildings, expansions, upgrades, etc.

Also, you don't necessarily always have to go back to your base in Starcraft everytime you want to train a unit. You simply Control # the building.

 

[dragannia]

There is no point in having mounds of extra resources unless you are saving it up. Many times I have defeated enemies and they have like 2k minerals and vespene gas left because they were 'conservative.'

 

[Noddingdog]

Agreed. Many games I have loads of resources on the go but am limited by space, time etc. Happens in real war too I guess.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

The thing about Starcraft's micromanagement at the home base is that when you've only got 200 unit points available. In 400 or 600 point games I've played, it's a lot harder to utilize all my points and keep my army regenerating. So TA went with the less administration-more units route, while SC has more administration with fewer units. The question of which takes more skill is just up in the air then.

 

[dragannia]

It is much harder to micromanage a TA assault than a Starcraft one. You have to constantly center on your attack groups to see if any aren't hitting their target due to terrain, etc, any terrain advantages you could use, which units to put on the front line, etc. Given, SC uses abilities but they aren't really hard to control. Plague almost always hits. Yamato cannon hits no matter what if the the Battlecruiser charging up and doesn't get destroyed. SC is hard to some extent that you can only control 12 units at a time, but then we get to the click fest that Noddingdog was talking about.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Agreed. Many games I have loads of resources on the go but am limited by space, time etc. Happens in real war too I guess.

This happens to many players who have not played for a while. It's really the mark of a new player (not newbie, just a player who is new to the game). It's really easy to solve this problem - spend the money. Upgrades are a good choice, since they really help in the late game (where you have excess money) and are expensive. This all goes out the window if you're playing money maps, but Starcraft really doesn't work as well on them (Most TA players love them, since they are when Starcraft most resembles TA).

Dragannia - unit groups. Useful in TA, VERY useful in starcraft, where unit abilities must be used. You can control up to 120 units very easily with them. That's more then anyone ever has.

 

[dragannia]

Still, you need to pay much more attention to a TA assault because of:

1. Terrain advantages/disadvantages.

2. You usually have more units attacking in TA than in SC so you need to manage more units and therefore harder.

3. Units. You need to make sure your artillery is at the back, everyone is under the radar jammer or which units to attack which units with. For example, in SC when the enemy attacks you with Battlecruisers, you can use (Zerg) Defilers, Devourers, Scourge, Hydralisks or Mutalisks to attack them with. In TA if the enemy attacks you with hordes of bombers you can use (Arm) Jethros, Copperheads, Freedom Fighters, Hawks, Panthers, Samsons, or if naval (something SC does NOT have) Skeeters (or was it Searchers), Archers or Rangers. All this depends on what your forces consists of so you must make sure that you have balanced everything in your army. Granted, in SC you have to do this as well but there are so little units compared to in TA that you can mass Hydralisks and take care of both air and ground troops. So, therefore, more strategy.

4. Map size. Usually the maps in TA are larger than in SC so you have to manage your troops who are quite far away from each other. This results in that you cannot merge your troops together in the heat of battle so you'll have to find some other way of supplying reinforcements.

More coming.

 

[Bowser]

I don't know why you all keep bringing up the terrain advantages in TA. I have no idea what it's like in TA, but in Starcraft there is a percentage difference of hits missed when you are on low ground and on high ground.

So, Starcraft does have terrain advantages/disadvantages. Also, in Starcraft, if you hide your units behind trees you 'get' a 30% chance that your enemy will miss your units by covering or concealing yourself.

As far as units go: the unit placement and position of your troops can have a huge impact on the game and strategy involved; and I feel that only Starcraft fans can truly appreciate this. For instance, pretend you are offensive bunker rushing an enemy's expansion: you have two tanks; two scv's; two goliaths; and a mixture of marines, firebats, and medics. You start them all at once, but leave them just behind the enemy's fog of war so he can't see you. You immediately start building one bunker and one missile turret with your two scv's. When construction is halfway done you move one tank just behind and one just in front of your turret and siege them. Since the enemy can now see one of your tanks, the one in front of your turret, you immediately bunker your marines and firebats for protection. You also move and HoLD the two goliaths near your tanks while leaving your two scv's to repair the buildings. After the enemy's initial rush to overtake your offensive bunkering you take one scv to build another bunker closer into their expansion while the other scv fixes whatever needs to be repaired. After the second bunker is finished you move the tank that was in the back to the front of the line...
Well, you just continue with this strategy until you are either in his expansion and have overtaken it, or he has defeated your attempt - and the game just goes on from there...

Anyway, the unit control and placement in Starcraft is critically important. If you're not careful then your opponent can upset what would be your advantage, eventually costing you the game...

 

[Bowser]

Still, you need to pay much more attention to a TA assault because of:

4. Map size. Usually the maps in TA are larger than in SC so you have to manage your troops who are quite far away from each other. This results in that you cannot merge your troops together in the heat of battle so you'll have to find some other way of supplying reinforcements.

In Starcraft, I felt that one of the biggest high points of the game was how the player could make the units work dynamically with each other. For instance, you could counter against a Terran rush of marines with dragoons and zealots. Zealots for the 'meat' of the army and dragoons for the range. In other words; it really takes at least two different types of units or more that all work dynamically and competitively with each other to competently secure a win in the game. And, the mixture of units constantly changes as the opponent's strategy does; you counter his units differently as the game progresses. So, I do really like the 'closeness' I feel with the bases and units. Starcraft is a game based more on the battle perspective than an overall war.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Still, you need to pay much more attention to a TA assault because of:

1. Terrain advantages/disadvantages.

The major terrain disadvantage is that your units will drive headfirst into a mountain and stay there for 15 minutes. [/QUOTE]

2. You usually have more units attacking in TA than in SC so you need to manage more units and therefore harder.

The units need less management though. Starcraft you are constantly stimming, assigning medics, retreating units, etc. TA its very much click attack, and wait (trust me, I micro in TA, most of my friends don't, and it's much easier to avoid micro entirely in the game then in starcraft).

3. Units. You need to make sure your artillery is at the back, everyone is under the radar jammer or which units to attack which units with. For example, in SC when the enemy attacks you with Battlecruisers, you can use (Zerg) Defilers, Devourers, Scourge, Hydralisks or Mutalisks to attack them with. In TA if the enemy attacks you with hordes of bombers you can use (Arm) Jethros, Copperheads, Freedom Fighters, Hawks, Panthers, Samsons, or if naval (something SC does NOT have) Skeeters (or was it Searchers), Archers or Rangers. All this depends on what your forces consists of so you must make sure that you have balanced everything in your army. Granted, in SC you have to do this as well but there are so little units compared to in TA that you can mass Hydralisks and take care of both air and ground troops. So, therefore, more strategy.

So more names = better units? I think not. The fact is, there are 3 major categories of counters (excluding navel, which I never really use because me and a few friends proved using Ror Shock that Nukes>>Navel units) Land counters, Air counters, and defenses. Starcraft forces you to think very hard about which one to use. For instance Scourge is a very good counter to valkeries, but a poor one to battlecruisers. You HAVE to know what your opponent is doing to win, and the game is very tactical. TA is long-term strategic, which would be better if it had more long term strategies, and less reason to hole up in your base with Fusions and Mohos.

4. Map size. Usually the maps in TA are larger than in SC so you have to manage your troops who are quite far away from each other. This results in that you cannot merge your troops together in the heat of battle so you'll have to find some other way of supplying reinforcements.

Starcraft plays very well on small maps. TA, thanks to the commander, sucks utterly on small maps, since rushing is completely impossible (except against newbies, trust me I can rush, but I can't be rushed, I took out 25 guys with my commander once). Starcraft works well on everything from 64x64 tiny maps to something 16 times larger, a 256x256 epic map. TA ranges from 8x8 to 25x25 (practically, larger maps are nearly unplayable). That's a range of only 10 times, making it LESS flexible then starcraft.

More coming.[/QUOTE]