Planetary Annihilation: Total Annihilation With Planets

This doesn't even begin to do it justice. Go watch the video. Seriously.

That headline may seem obvious, but wow. So Total Annihilation (and, more recently, Supreme Commander) were big, but Planetary Annihilation is shooting for the stars. And potentially shooting at them, as well. It’s all the absurdly large-scale mechanized warfare you’ve (probably) known and loved since the late ’90s, but now you can zoom out into space, build a fort on an asteroid, and then crash it into an enemy planet. So basically, total insanity. After the break, you’ll find a video from Super Monday Night Combat maestros Uber Entertainment explaining their ambitious RTS (ambitiouRTS, for short) and – yes – asking for money.

As explained by Planetary Annihilation’s Kickstarter, the project’s being headed up by former Total Annihilation devs, and the aim is to raise a whopping $900,000 to realize their grand vision in full. It certainly looks and sounds promising, though – especially when backed up by words like this:

“Play a quick skirmish with a friend on a single planet map with a low unit cap or a 12+ hour game with 40 of your closest frenemies and thousands of units. You can also hone your skills against Planetary Annihilation’s AI or team up with a friend against multiple AI’s.”

“Create custom or randomized maps with our procedural planet creator. Like what you see? Save them and share them with the Planetary Annihilation community… Our engine will allow you to explore vast, new procedural worlds with diverse terrain and build on everything from small, airless rocks to huge earth-type planets. No two maps are exactly alike.”

Uber’s also touting “advanced modding features” and a return to the RTS glory days of yore. So basically, it’s the now all-too-familiar nostalgia-rooted Kickstarter song and dance, but linked to a serious attempt at doing something new. Or – at the very least – making the old stuff so big that it can no longer fit on a single planet.

I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t rooting for it, but support it or don’t – it’s your call. As for me, I’m pretty hungry right now, so I’m gonna go bake some meatballs and have horrific trouble restraining myself from pretending they’re tiny asteroid starbases.


  1. ThatAznGuy says:

    That asteroid drop gave me flashbacks to the Gundam UC universe’s “Operation British” .

    • DarkFenix says:

      That asteroid drop alone has me reaching for the ‘donate’ button.

      My mind = blown.

      • Dreforian says:

        could you say it was….annihilated?

      • innociv says:

        It was actually the client-server network so one person being slow doesn’t lag the whole game that made me chip in $50.

        As good as the rest looks, I wouldn’t have backed it without that. I hate that crappy lagging in most RTS.

        I wish I was rich so I could have chipped in $10,000. Well, I guess it’s more hurled from orbit than chipped with that kind of money.

    • Splynter says:

      That asteroid drop reminds me of my favourite university exam question ever: calculating the necessary velocity a certain comet would need to completely blow the Earth apart.

      • TechnicalBen says:

        I hope you mentioned how gravity prevents this. Most instances just turn it into a hotter planet. Actually blowing it apart takes an explosive force from inside, not an impacting one. Unless I’m mistaken.

        So, the games visual ending is correct, it turns the planet into lava! :D

        • jon_hill987 says:

          Oh it’s possible, it’s just a matter of having enough kinetic energy that all the chunks (and there will be chunks) have enough energy to meet the escape velocity of the body in question, but yes, most instances it will have no where near enough.

    • Geen says:

      Welp, there goes my money, so they better shut up and take it.

  2. rockman29 says:


  3. Chaz says:

    I loved TA, still got it installed on one of my PC’s for the odd game now and then.

    Never played SupCom as my PC at the time wasn’t up to it. Is it any good?

    So will have to put some money down for this. Although troublingly high goal.

    • Pony Canyon says:

      If you are that much of a TA fan, I give you a 97.3% chance that you will enjoy SupCom.

      • Cinek says:

        I loved original TA, really enjoyed TA Spring, and…. hated Supreme Commander – even more: it’s sequel.
        IMHO these two games were seriously overpriced for what they were. None of them got the “feel” of old TA, breaking some most decent things that were in the original game.

    • Zeewolf says:

      Yeah, it’s a high goal. But it’s been on Kickstarter for a day and they’ve passed 160k. So I have a feeling they’re going to make it.

      I hope so, at least. Looks awesome.

    • feffrey says:

      SC and SC:FA are awesome.
      DO NOT BUY SC2 though!

      • Aaax says:

        SC2 was pretty good, lasers were way more awesome than in SC1. Recommended to everyone to pick it on steam sale.

        • fish99 says:

          Compared to SupCom and FA, SupCom 2 had a dumbed down economy and smaller maps. Basically most of the depth was removed to make it more accessible (and having tried to teach a friend to play SupCom I can say it definitely has a steep learning curve). Only things it did better were graphics and framerates really.

          • westyfield says:

            I’m pretty sure they patched SC2 to make the economy more like SC1’s. Not exactly the same, but it changed it a bit and removed some major annoyances.

          • fish99 says:

            They added the ability to queue stuff up without having the resources on hand, but they didn’t change the actual economy, there’s still only one tier of MEs for instance. It’s been a while since I last played it but doesn’t it only have one tier of engineer and factory too? I seem to remember adjacency (edit) was much simpler too, and I think it only had one mass converter. Plus it had far less unit types.

            TBH I’ve never had the urge to go back and play more SupCom 2, but I’ve put hundreds of hours into FA and still play it to this day.

          • Dark Nexus says:

            I’ve heard that elsewhere, but I’ve never bothered to find out for myself.

        • Xocrates says:

          “SC2 was pretty good”

          It really really wasn’t.

          I’m no fan of the original SC, but at least that one managed to be interesting. SC2 lacks everything that made the original interesting, being essentially unrecognizable as a sequel, and on its own merits its a completely standard RTS with loads of minor problems.

          It’s not bad, mind, just completely unremarkable.

          • Aaax says:

            That’s wierd, I usualy find vast majority of games unremarkable and unoriginal, even though a lot of other people find them awesome (like Skyrim and SotSE nad GalCiv 2) but skrimnish in SC2 was pretty good and original. Just as SC1, but in different aspects. Campaign was horrible though.

          • Xocrates says:

            No offense, but how the bloody hell is SotSE unremarkable and unoriginal while SC2 isn’t?

            Unless you’re using those words to mean “I didn’t like it” (in which case you’re using them wrong).

      • zeroskill says:

        It’s not that bad and it goes for really cheaps on steam deals, so yeah.

      • Mollusc Infestation says:

        Yeah, but they tampered with formations, which rendered mobile shield generators mostly useless.

        Edit: missed the post i was aiming at. I mean in SC2 specifically. Get SC1 and SC:FA, they are splendid.

    • Abbykins says:

      Haters gonna hate. SC2 is different, but awesome in it’s own way. Firstly, an amazing graphics engine that makes SC & FA look like crap. Secondly, the research tree upgrades existing units, so you don’t have to build new point defenses and AA. Lastly, killer experimental units.

      Definitely pick this up on Steam!

    • pepper says:

      For all of you discussing Supreme Commander, the gold edition(SC, SC:FA) is 3 euro’s on gamersgate, or about 6/7th of a fine belgium beer.

      link to

      • neonordnance says:

        Sadly, I have to recommend that people DO NOT BUY this version. The original online multiplayer service for SupCom has been shut down, so multiplayer (besides LAN and direct connect, obv.) WILL NOT WORK.

        Apparently the Steam version is the only version that still has operational MP, due to it using SteamWorks.

        • bjbrains says:

          The gamersgate version can be activated on steam, so no need to worry.

          • pepper says:

            Actually, it NEEDS to be activated on Steam, atleast that is what the installer told me. It does register as a retail version though, which is rather odd.

        • Surlywombat says:

          There is a fantaboulous community for Supreme Commander, with it’s only matchmaking and lobby system. link to (not spam!).

          • Kronic says:

            Damn it, was just about to post that one. Highly recommend it – good community and never had trouble finding a game.

        • Lynchbread says:

          Google FAForever, it is a fan run Supcom FA Multiplayer client and they have hundreds on per day.

  4. Stardog says:

    Looks good. The money seems to be piling in too. Just hit $160k.

    It’ll make the money easy.

    • DuddBudda says:

      when I linked from this article to KS the pledgew as ~$175k
      I watched the video, finished the article, read some more bumff
      when I got back from pledging through amazon KS had hit ~$185k
      that might be a thousand dollars per minute
      that might be awesome

      • Cinek says:

        Hehehe, guess I was one of the people donating in between :) Loved it, can’t wait to see the Beta version!

  5. SXO says:

    As much as I would love this game, I just don’t see it coming even close to its funding goal.

    • Abbykins says:

      The Kickstarter has been out for less than a day and already @ 21% of the goal. Care to make a small wager on your prediction?

      • SXO says:

        Nice, already 1/3rd of its way to its goal. I truly did not expect this despite throwing my own $50 into the pile. This is one of those times where I want to be wrong really bad, cause I want to see this game get made.

    • Aradalf says:

      It’s at $210k already, so it’s definitely making it.

  6. John Connor says:

    Why would you give an epic wargame such stupid kiddie graphics?

    • zeroskill says:

      Sounds like somebody is insecure about his maturity.

      • John Connor says:

        Sorry if I can’t take a wargame seriously if it looks like PlaySkool.

        I’d donate if it looked more like a proper war game.

        • lasikbear says:

          Yeah, giant robots fighting in space and throwing planets at each other is a really serious theme that needs to be treated with appropriate gravitas.

          • John Connor says:

            No, but their game is supposed to be about massive battles and interplanetary war and it looks like an interplanetary pillow fight with ponies and rainbows.

            It just looks shit. Sue me.

          • socrate says:

            people graphic whoring are the biggest disease on this planet that and people that need a game dumbed down and wont put in the effort of making their brain work a bit to enjoy a product

          • Toberoth says:

            It’s not graphics whoring, it’s a perfectly legitimate complaint about graphical style.

          • zeroskill says:

            Yes because I personally dislike the style of the visuals it’s perfectly reasonable to whine about it, because obviously I’m important and totally not entitled.

        • MasterDex says:

          You’re totally right. It needs more brown. And more blood. And Micheal Bay Explosions. And more brown.

          It’s people like you that are stymieing artistic expression in games.

        • Maltose says:

          The game will have modding support, so I’d be surprised if someone didn’t make a grimdark unitpack.

      • Setheran says:

        I think it’s a fair complaint. The devs keep talking about the emphasis on huge scale war, epic battles, etc, but everything about the visual style of that trailer works against the vision they’re describing. It’s obviously all placeholder and probably put together hastily, but it’s still a bit worrying that this is the look they chose to present their idea.

        I mean, is it really interplanetary war when the planets don’t really look like, well, planets? “Crash meteors into enemy bases!” sounds awesome, but when what happens on screen looks more like a lump of colorful plastic drifting into a slightly bigger lump of plastic, it’s no longer epic. This overly clean, colorful look basically makes everything look smaller and lighter than it’s supposed to be, when one of the awesome things about TA and SupCopm has always been the epic scale of things – watching your tanks flatten forests, seeing battles gradually turn a lush landscape into a scarred wasteland, etc. That’s completely missing here.

        • Zeewolf says:

          Consider the concept, though. If they go for a realistic style that’ll clash with the completely unrealistic scale of the thing. The planets are really small, when you think about it (either that, or their robots are country-sized), and no matter how gritty they make the graphics it’ll still look a bit silly. It’s probably better to embrace the over-the-top-ness of the concept when designing the visual style, than to make something that just looks wrong.

          • Setheran says:

            Yeah, I guess they couldn’t have anything approaching a realistic scale without making a completely different game. But still, I hope they find a better compromise between style and believability than this. It’s not more graphical fidelity I’d want – the blocky, low-poly look for the robots is cool, and true to the original TA – I’m just hoping to see a more grounded, believable look to things.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      well, it possibly helps with the amount units on screen (less complex models meaning you can have more without stressing the system) and clarity (clean exaggerated lines means it’s easier to tell the unit types apart).

      It sort of grew on me, after I realised the blockiness is reminiscent of Lego and TA (though TA really was about working with low poly, but trying for detailed robotic style)

    • Lynchbread says:

      Well I assume it’s just placeholder graphics and it will hopefully run better than SupCom.

    • Giaddon says:

      Because the technical tradeoff of rending a solar system with dozens of simultaneous players and armies is that each individual component must be pretty simple. Using bright colors and low-polygon shapes is how the designers can make the game run well and look good.

      • John Connor says:

        But it doesn’t look good. It looks shit.

        Rome 2 looks good. Company of Heroes looks good. This looks like My First RTS Ages 3+.

        • FriendlyFire says:

          You’ll grow out of your gritty phase, don’t worry.

          For now, feel free to judge a book by its cover and declare it “shit” repeatedly because it’s not brown and grey.

          • Torn says:

            That link is amazing, thanks for that!

            I really don’t get the ‘If it’s not photo-realistic with brown and GRITTY REALISM it’s shit” attitude. If the final PA game ships with anywhere near as good graphics and smooth UI it’ll be fucking incredible.

          • Hmm-Hmm. says:

            I hear you, Torn. I hear you.

            I recall people saying Dragon Age looked bad when it came out. Also, TotalBiscuit ranting on about bad texture work in Darksiders 2.. sure, I notice the textures but I still think the game looks great.

            Different strokes, I suppose.

          • socrate says:

            graphic as never “MADE” a game….game are about gameplay

            and this look really great im really excited for this one…until they fill it with DLC and Pre-order crap then il just cry and wonder wtf is wrong with this world

        • iniudan says:

          Company of heroes got a very limited number of unit, so they had lot of headroom for graphic, was also a AAA game so they had money for it (not sure about the AAA money for the sequel since of THQ financial trouble, but they most likely have the most available budget along Metro Last Light since those are the two game that will most likely save them).

          Rome 2 is a multimillion dollars AAA games sequel to one of the most popular RTS after Starcraft, they got money for graphic and they know they game will sell even if they pack Action 52 on the box. (people will what to kill them if they do that, but they will still have sold a lot of box before murder happen =p)

          • neonordnance says:

            I had to look up Action 52, but I’m glad I did. Well played, sir.

        • socrate says:


          also i totally hate Total war game now they all end up feeling the same and having next to no tactic when they could have added tons of tactic of each era they represent…i mean did they even read the art of war instead of just copy pasting a few line….

          the art of war isn’t just clever little quote its about how to engage each fight…but you end up with each faction looking the same with a very few exception that aren’t even worth mentioning…tactic that are simple as hell compared to real clash of army in these days and a system of even more complicated agent that basically end up being the same and just adding a rock,paper scissors to the agent system instead of making it clever and tactical

          lets not forget the totally OP DLC content faction

          see now why i just shrug at Rome:total war 2

        • MasterDex says:

          Rome 2 looks like Jupiter took a massive piss all over it. If you think that looks good, you have no taste. You’re like the people who think brickwalling makes everything sound better.

    • OrangyTang says:

      Kiddy? I see a nice, clean vector look with some satisfyingly chunky buildings and some stylised terrain. Could you explain why this is ‘kiddy’?

      • John Connor says:

        Because they look like toys and not machines of war.

        • abandonhope says:

          If there’s anyone who would know about machines of war, it’s John Connor.

        • Brise Bonbons says:

          Are you telling me the vehicles in a game like Supreme Commander or Planetside 2 don’t look like toys? For that matter, a lot of things look like toys, and toys look like a lot of things.

          I think they should go for total realism, and make every unit a flying drone or tiny robotic car. It would be a war as envisioned by NASA. Somehow I think it still wouldn’t look awesome enough, though, because only the mainstream action film vision of what FutureWar looks like is serious and mature enough.

        • Abbykins says:

          Remember, this game takes place in the far future where machine intelligence alone governs design. There is no grittiness, and the machines have no conception of what children’s toys look like. Nanotechnology and matter-energy synthesis have rendered your primitive notions of war both obsolete and irrelevant.

    • Trithne says:

      The official word on that is ease of unit identification.

    • Flappybat says:

      …it’s a pitch video.

      • Torn says:

        If it comes out looking as smooth and as stylised as that then I’ll be a happy punter

    • Gnoupi says:

      All a matter of personal taste, obviously. If it had been yet another grim-dark realistic-looking game, I wouldn’t have been as hooked by the concept video.

      There is no shortage of grim-dark, I personally welcome any cartoony graphics in “serious” games with joy.

    • uninvitedguest says:

      I think what’s being overlooked is that it the graphics are high reminiscent of Total Annihilation. When I first saw this video I didn’t know what I was looking at, but I thought “Holy, that looks like TA”. Everything from the robots, to the construction animation. It’s obviously more stylized but I liked it a lot- none of the art direction took away from the game for me. Think of how colourful older RTS’ were. I also think it will have a very important part in actually playing the game – when you have a crapload of units/player smashing against each other, you need something to be able to visually pick them out. If everything was gritty/realistic you’ll have a hard time seeing what’s what.

      • Tacroy says:

        Not just the construction animation, my favorite way of building stuff was to get an airport up, then have the airport pump out airplane constructors, then have each of the airplane constructors help build more airplane constructors. Then I’d have a giant wad of airplane constructors that could build anything in ten seconds flat.

        Then I’d get stomped because I spent too much time playing around with airplanes, but it was so much fun.

        Anyway the point is, they were totally doing that in the video.

    • PoulWrist says:

      Because with those graphics you can do things like throw planets and whatever else around just like that. You cannot do that with more realistic visuals.

    • Strangerator says:

      You wouldn’t, that’s why this is a demo video and not final game footage. This was just to demonstrate what their concept was, I’m sure the units will all get a lot more detail lavished on them if/when game development starts wrapping up. At the moment I don’t think much more exists than this video.

    • fish99 says:

      Those aren’t graphics, that’s a rendered movie.

  7. VileThings says:

    Pledged when it was around 140k, returned an hour later to find it sitting at 160k. This will be great.

  8. Dark Nexus says:

    So…. is Kickstarter showing up as horribly broken for anyone else? I get no formatting, so suspect a CSS isn’t loading.

    I also get this:

    THIS PROJECT IS NOT LIVE This is only a draft that the creator has chosen to share.
    Funding Suspended Funding for this project was suspended about 19 hours ago.
    Funding Canceled Funding for this project was canceled by the project creator about 19 hours ago.

    …which I’m hoping is just an artifact of a missing CSS.

    • zeroskill says:

      It is for me too, at this time.

      • Dark Nexus says:

        It appears to be working correctly now for me, and the nasty suspended/cancelled text is nowhere to be seen.

    • Master_of_None says:

      I got this also, but if you keep clicking to try to fund the project, it will let you. I promise.

  9. zeroskill says:

    “Advanced modding features”? What sorcery is this? Don’t they know they have to milk the crap out of their fanbases to be successful? FOOLS.

  10. jack4cc says:

    Hell yes. TA with a bit of new stuff, just what I need, after the c&c generals 2 disappointment-

  11. Master_of_None says:

    As someone who recently spent actual dollars to download the original Total Annihilation from the fine folks at, obviously I am thrilled about this. Please take my money.

  12. Sokurah says:

    I’ve said it before (to people unlucky enough to be near me and unable to get away in time) and I’ll say it again – “if you can’t afford to make your game – then don’t”. I’m SO effin’ tired of everyone and their cat begging for money on Kickstarter.

    They can’t possibly have started and gotten as far as they have without thinking they couldn’t make it without further funding – and they’ve come far enough that they’ll most likely finish the game under all circumstances – they just want more money. Like everyone else, but at least it’s not another fucking Tower Defence game. :-)

    That being said, I totally loved Total Annihilation, and this game looks pretty damn cool. I love the ridiculous scale and cartoony style of it, and I hope it gets finished…which is why I MAY just support this…all things considered. ;-)

    • frightlever says:

      Loved TA, and still play it. Supreme Commander and the sequel though… not so much.

    • Harlander says:

      You’re right – projects that can’t meet corporate investors’ carefully focus-grouped criteria shouldn’t be made.

    • Dark Nexus says:

      They can’t possibly have started and gotten as far as they have without thinking they couldn’t make it without further funding – and they’ve come far enough that they’ll most likely finish the game under all circumstances – they just want more money.

      Option 1: “Hey guys, we can shackle ourselves to a publisher and surrender creative control for the rest of the money we need, or we can try a Kickstarter…”

      Option 2: “Hey guys, we can put the game on hold for a year while we subcontract ourselves out for the rest of the money we need, or we can try a Kickstarter…”

      Option 3: “Hey guys, we can all go into horrendous personal debt for the rest of the money we need, or we can try a Kickstarter…”

    • DarkFarmer says:

      Where do you think they are? Looks to me like nowhere but some art and a high design concept. This video is a mockup made of art and rendered using some game engine, I don’t think they have any gameplay yet. It’s rather suspect that they press a single button and suddenly moon fortress raid. That they want to support 9 guys who clearly have AAA chops and could work anywhere they want means that if this doesn’t get funded, probably beyond $1M tbh, this probably isn’t getting made. Kareful what you kickstarter.

  13. frightlever says:

    “I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t rooting for it, but support it or don’t – it’s your call.”


  14. The First Door says:

    I never quite got around to playing Total Annihilation when I was younger, even though I had friends who raved about it.

    Even without the nostalgia though, the idea/pitch for this game looks brilliant!

    • Mungrul says:

      What’s stopping you?
      The version on even supports modern resolutions, and it STILL has the best order queuing system of any RTS ever.
      It’s one of the best games ever. I just never really bothered with the campaign and jumped straight in to skirmish.
      Krogoths and Vulcan Canons, mmmmmmmmm.

  15. Zarunil says:


  16. caddyB says:


  17. Skystrider says:

    Just when I was about to call it a day with Kickstarters, of course something über-awesome comes along.

    Okay! Fine! Take my money! Bah!


    …Actually, I think I will wait until the single-player stretch-goal is unlocked. I’ll keep it starred until then.

    Edit 2:
    Never mind edit #1, there will be a single-player skirmish mode anyway. Good enough for me! And my wallet. ^.^

  18. Kantorai says:

    This will totally annihilate my savings account!
    (a tiny bit of hyperbole never hurt nobody)

  19. HisMastersVoice says:

    It was 160k just a moment ago when I pledged. It’s just over 170k now. I don’t think this will take long.

  20. Inigo says:

    Gameplay visualisation

    Which means what? Is it in-engine? Beta gameplay? Someone fucking around with a copy of Maya?
    Points for bringing back TA’s narrator to do the voicework, though.

    • HisMastersVoice says:

      Pre-rendered in a graphic pipeline, you can see it being composed on the kickstarter video. As far as I can tell, they have nothing real to show.

  21. Freud says:

    Gimmicky but I have to admit it’s a pretty cool gimmick.

  22. neolith says:

    Ooooh, that looks good. :)

  23. Prokroustis says:

    I like the guy who knows enough about beer to know that something strong and hoppy is what pairs best with planetary destruction. And any kind of destruction really.

  24. Lordcrazy says:

    The first kickstarter project I’m actually considering funding. Big plus with the TA narrator, now all we need is an awesome intro cutscene. Though, I’m pretty sure this doesn’t need a campaign when you could probably spend hours on end playing the skirmish mode, but it would be nice. I have nothing against the graphics at all, because for one thing you have to consider that they are running on a lower budget than other RTS devs and that this will be a game on a massive scale, so you have to sacrifice some things for playability in FPS terms.

  25. Pray For Death says:

    I created a kickstarted profile just for this game. 2013 is gonna be awesome

  26. Bobka says:

    When I was young and dreamed of being a game designer, this was EXACTLY the kind of game I wanted to design. Thus, this is the second Kickstarter game I am backing (after Castle Story). I really, really hope they make it.

  27. Adriaan says:

    Words alone can’t express how much I want this. Good thing I can throw money at them instead!

  28. Brise Bonbons says:

    I made my first foray into Kickstarter a few weeks back with Moon Intern, which I felt a need to back simply due to its ridiculous premise and the fact that the developers are situated about an hour from where I live.

    I am definitely tempted by this one, but I’m nervous that they don’t describe the game’s business model. I respect Uber a lot when it come to making games, but the business end of SMNC is a real let down, with the dumb free pro rotation BS and everything costing way too much. I get nervous that this game will somehow wind up with silly DLC tacked on, or go F2P after a few months and start asking me to buy special units.

    Eh, will probably throw some money at them. I’d love to have a large scale RTS that deals with solar-system scale combat rather than some nonsensical abstraction of interplanetary travel.

    • Soulless says:

      It’s not free to play, there is a sub reddit where one of the Dev’s in answering questions. Also check out the Interiviews on PC gamer for more info.

      Edit: Here it is;
      link to

  29. irongamer says:

    Woooooo! YES! FRAK YES! This has the true spirit of the original Total Annihilation. Also allows for friends vs AI. Thank you!

  30. skinlo says:

    Hmm, I’m not totally convinced this will get its target unfortunately. Its going up very fast now, but I imagine it will start level off as the numbers get higher. I reckon it won’t get past $600000 easily.

    • Soulless says:

      It’s been up for about a day and has already got $190k don’t be such a a sad-sack pessimist.

    • Abbykins says:

      If Shadowrun Returns can get $1.8 million, this will have no problem getting half as much.

    • spectone says:

      I hope your hat is made out of something tasty.

  31. MythArcana says:

    WhatWhatWhat?? Did someone say 90’s?? Oooooooh, that’s back when they made real PC games! I’ll be checking this one out…please don’t SupCom2 this one.

  32. RegisteredUser says:

    Since Amazon keeps bugging me: Is the non-super F2P Monday Night Combat thing worth playing?

  33. wcanyon says:

    We have a professional studio, plenty of experience and have made a similar game in the past that sold just fine.

    Can haz monies?


  34. Vandalbarg says:

    Great, now all I want to play is this.

    PA is going to be responsible for a lot of game neglect I bet. Who wants to play with a piddly little strategy game that doesn’t even feature shooting robots from a moon to a planet?

  35. MadMatty says:

    mm lovely-only interesting gaming news ive heard in weeks. Remember the asteroid move from Fragile Alliegance….. wish i could still get it to work in multi, but it uses the defuct IPX networking system.

    And no, Monday Night Combat , is for me, a more sluggish and dull TF2 version. Might be something if you have really bad reactions and want to play something more tactical/strategic.

  36. LionsPhil says:

    Awesome; they’ve got the TA voice bloke.

  37. Oasx says:

    The trailer just made me wish for an updated version of K240, man i loved that game on the Amiga

  38. MadMatty says:

    Supreme Commander : Gold Edition on sale at Gamergate for 3 quid- try it out if you havent

    avoid the sequel like the plague.

    link to

  39. Lacero says:

    I was totally up for this, then I read the map layout:
    So what we’re doing in this game, the actual topology of these planets is not what it appears to be. I don’t know if I want to say much more than that, but the actual flow of them, as you move around them, is much more like a rectangular wrapping battlefield than it is like an actual round planet. It looks like a planet, but it’s not necessarily going to act like one.

    So, looks like a toroid like map with it looking like a planet in space. I don’t understand how this can work without the planet and space being related so I’ll need more details before I put up money.

    • Aaax says:

      IMHO their battlefield won’t have topology of torus but they’ll use topology with upper border as one point, lower border as another and points on other borders identified in obvious way. This would have the same topology as a sphere.

      Nice and clean solution, I have to say! Playing on a real sphere would be a horrible mess I think, but this looks like fun!

      • LionsPhil says:

        So, Civ-shaped.

        • Aaax says:

          I don’t know. Could you go across the poles in civ?

          Also I don’t know how are they going to resolve the distances. One does not simply map a square onto a sphere. In isometric way.

          • Lacero says:

            There’s just too many questions for me. Borders top and bottom is almost worse, as it brings back the edge of map bombing runs nonsense. Where you used momentum to get as far off the edge as you could to minimise casualties.

            I’m considering paying for the alpha to moan about it though :D

  40. JToTheDog says:

    I saw this yesterday and was just waiting for RPS to post it.

    Came in my pants when I saw that it actually was the TA ppl.

  41. LintMan says:

    I want to like this – I loved TA and SC1, but my gut has a bad feeling about the “RTS on a teeny tiny sphere” thing. If that panet was earth, those units would have to be Texas sized. beyond scale, The “planet” struck me a being quite a bit smaller than a traditional RTS map, while at the same time being far less easy to tell what’s going on:

    You can’t just “zoom out” to see the entire map; you have to rotate the planet around and around to see all the sides. In previous strategy games I’ve played that had similar spherical mechanics, all this rotating just to see what’s going on or to find your unit got to be a big annoyance after a while.

    Having to potentially do this across several planets, in real-time, seems potentially like a jumbled clickfest to me. I find this a real shame since SC1 did such a fantastic job of making epic-scale maps manageable.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Yes, that is a bit worrying. I believe the PCG article did say they had Clever Ideas to keep it thinky rather than frenetic scrabbling, but it could be a real blow if they don’t work out.

    • Aaax says:

      As 2 posts above is explained, they will have for each planet 2d battlefield.

  42. silverhammermba says:

    Everything about this is awesome. Want want want. $50 pledged.