Talk:Total Annihilation

5k Unit patch and Supreme Commander references
Ive removed the 5k unitpatch comment since the 5k unit patch produced by Yanker Spankers, who later created the SPRING engine, was released in 5 versions, it was [u]incredibly unstable[/u] and if one version didnt work, chances are none would. The patch did NOT work in skirmish and if multiplay was entered it would crash the program it only worked in single player, as said around 1k-1.5k is the usual amount of todays mods.

PLEASE PUT BACK THE COMMENT ABOUT THE 5K UNIT PATCH, I will record 8+hours of gameplay to prove the patch both worked and was stable, there were different versions based on the version of the executable you had in order to match memory addresses for the path. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewCarven (talk • contribs) 20:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Also: SupCom is NOT TA2, SupCom has no relation to the TA universe and is only linked by a few of the SupCom dev's also having worked on TA and the fact that SupCom was touted as a "Spiritual Successor". the intellectual property of TA is currently owned by a korean company who have been developing an official TA2 and plan to release it in Korea this year (2010) with a english version being released in 2012. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.3.252 (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Also it would be nice to see Phoenix Worx (sic) who produced a multiplayer client based on the Inter Galactic War that Cavedog held. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.3.252 (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bugfix?
Should there be a mention of bugfix? It's a patch written by Switeck that fixes lots of bugs in 3.1c. You can find it here: http://switeck.tauniverse.com/ There's a discussion of unofficial patches in the Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines article, so it might have precedent. Thanks. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kbot merge
I added the stuff on Kbot from the Kbot article. I realize it's kind of messy in this article, which is actually in fine shape, but that's what the VfD decision was. Sorry. --Scimitar parley 19:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Redundant POV section
I'll remove the following section:


 * Total Annihilation is a near-perfect game; much of it was far in advance of its competitors when it was released in 1997, and it still outshines even the most current RTS offerings in many areas. It contained technologies that had not been seen before, and many gameplay elements that, years later, have yet to be emulated.

it's redundant and 'near-perfect game' and 'still outshines even the most current offerings' is too POV in my book. Martijn Faassen 21:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * the game didnt aged very well, after 7 years the fan base is nearly dead (cave dog is also very dead at this momment). I wouldnt say that its a "near-perfect" game if it never really got to be as big as Starcraft (who was released just one year after Total Annihilation, and its still very popular). Although between starcraft and Total Annihilation, i stick with total annihilation, mostly because above all things, its much fun to play, as you dont have to worry about things in other games that are dead boring (such as micro managing every little operation yourself).


 * To be fair, StarCraft got a lot more developer support post-release (Cavedog buying the farm, as well as the shutdown of the BoneYards servers didn't bode well for new players trying to find a match online, forcing the TA community to resort to creating their own micro-servers such as GBL - Gaming Battle League - just to have a place to meet and play).. Battle.Net, by contrast, is still up and running, though probably not in the same numbers it used to (with the exception of the Koreans, of course, who will probably be playing till the end of time :P).  TA just wasn't given the same chance that StarCraft got for the community to really get to know and embrace it, though I feel that Chris Taylor's new Supreme Commander (coming December 2006) will engender a newfound interest for TA in those RTS enthusiasts who haven't been fortunate enough to play it yet.  TKarrde 16:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Total Annihilation had amazing longetivity. Even well after Cavedog went out of business (which would have to be a killing blow 99% of the time), the community was very healthy, online games were still happening regularly, mods were still being produced, etc.  It's certainly not what it used to be now, but I can't believe that having an ailing fanbase after SEVEN YEARS is some kind of indictment.   I could probably count on one hand the games that have an active fanbase after seven years! SubSeven 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I severly agree. If I am correct the guys of Starcraft made Warcraft aswell, so they already had a large fanbased and respect, as Total Annihilation was Cavedog's first game, as well as having an active fanbase after 7 years, while the company has been dead for many years also. Technically it has been on very bad footing, 'but it is still revolutionary and was years ahead of it's time.' I propose that be put in somewhere. After all, it's true. Hardcores Forever 14:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Its an encyclopedical article, not a video game magazine damn it.


 * The para removed (top of this post) has over-the-top phrasing and lacks citations, but it had a point. TA and Starcraft still get rated as the best RTS games ever in many halls of fame and pages for and by game designers - the 2 games just take different views of what an RTS should be, especially in terms of micromanagement. TA scored highly for the realistic physics, tools to reduce micromanagement and very good unit AI (the strategic AI was not great but could be improved by mods). I'll see if I can find some of these articles.
 * I'm also not so sure it has an "ailing fanbase" - Google just showed me plenty. Possibly there's been a consolidation of fan sites into "supermarkets" rather than "corner shops".Philcha 16:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Consciousness Repository
Hmm. Where'd this come from? I hung around the Cavedog boards for a couple of years and never heard the term before (most theories - in the absence of any official explanation - seemed to centre around the idea of the core and arm of a spiral galaxy.) It's a pretty nifty abbreviation. Cammy 22:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Core and arm of galaxy... those were indeed the official explanations for the names according to Cavedog back then. I never heard of this "Consciousness Repository" before either, and I was also a member for quite a while, so a source would be nice. In my opinion otherwise this (probably?) misinformation should be removed. The whole story was more of an afterthought for this game, that didn't even have the final name until near the end of production. Hmmm, it seems the article doesn't even mention "Really Cool Wargame", the name it used to have internally until "TA"... Retodon8 23:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering the responses, I think the "Consciousness Repository" can be considered "made up by a fan" and therefore not-canon, and should be deleted. Retodon8 19:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added the meanings Cavedog (or Chris Taylor) had in mind, but left the supposed meaning. Not sure if it's purely fan-made or just something Cavedog thought of later, so I didn't delete it. Retodon8 03:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the Repository note, http://ton-of-clay.blogspot.com/2006/09/ta-ncient-history-2-non-story-story.html (Clayton Kauzlaric's blog recounting when TA was being made) says that Core was originally just a a short version of "The Corporation". In addition, I was unable to find any other reference to this online, except in articles copied from Wikipedia. Twinge 02:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack
It says in the article that the music is written by an orchestra, however the composer Jeremy Soule is well known for making electronic music which sounds almost indistinguishable. Admittedly, it's an easy mistake to make for anyone who's played the game (I thought it was an orchestra for the longest time as well), the soundtrack section should be changed, no? Coppertop 00:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I recall the game having an orchestrated soundtrack. Let's check MobyGames' entry. Yep, they agree with me. I also recall pictures of him with the orchestra, probably on his own site, but they're not there. Retodon8 01:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "His score for Total Annihilation, a popular strategy game released in 1997, was recorded by Northwest Sinfonia, a 95-piece orchestra made up of musicians from the Seattle Symphony, Seattle Opera, and Northwest Ballet."


 * I'd like to hear some of his symphonic music which is indistinguishable from a live orchestra. :) Some of the tracks from the TA soundtrack do sound like they could be synthesized (a few of the "building" tracks), but definitely not the "battle" tracks. &mdash;Miles←☎ 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know if anyone out there happens to know the individual track titles.RSido 14:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't remember the source I got these from, it was some years ago, but the track titles I have are:

— Balthazar  (T 22:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Brutal Battle"
 * 2) "Fire and Ice"
 * 3) "Attack!!!"
 * 4) "Warpath"
 * 5) "The March Unto Death"
 * 6) "Ambush in the Passage"
 * 7) "Forest Green"
 * 8) "Death and Decay"
 * 9) "Stealth"
 * 10) "Licking Wounds"
 * 11) "Futile Attempt"
 * 12) "On Throughout the Night"
 * 13) "Desolation"
 * 14) "Charred Dreams"
 * 15) "Where Am I"
 * 16) "Blood of the Machines"
 * Actually, scrap that; they are fan titles. — Balthazar  (T 07:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not. Those are the actual track titles. I put the Total Annihilation CD with the music into a PS3 and these track titles were shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.38.19 (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ta fluff
is the stuff in the TA fluff section really needed? seems to me like fans pimping their favourite game for the "TA versus *" discussions


 * I was wondering about how old this was, and apparently the Fluff section has been deleted just today. (Try adding 4 ~s after your post to add name/IP, time, and date.) Retodon8 03:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unlimited?
"Screen resolution as well as the limit of maximum units per player are customizable, depending only on the quality of computer hardware."

Neither the screen resolution nor the unit limit is unlimited. I believe the unit limit was originally 200 in the earlier versions, then later set to 250, and by changing a line in a configuration-file one could set the limit to <= 500. Is it possible to exceed even 500?
 * Screen resolution is not unlmited, but as long as your hardware/moniter supports it, TA will run at it. TA thus offers great support for widescreen, also the higher resolution you run it at, the more you can see of the map.Mirddes 03:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, although it requires hacking the executable. I have 1.5K and 5K unit limit patches, and I've heard of 50K patches, although they're unstable as hell. Degraine 02:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The most common amount seen online now is a 1500 unit cap (though some people still have it set at 500). This is considered stable and isn't know to crash the game (the 5k patch is less stable, and cause some problems, so it's not generally used).  Perhaps this should be clarified in the article (I can't think of a good way to phrase it right now).  Twinge 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this biased?
To me the sentence, "Total Annihilation was unparalleled for its time, and even today it is widely considered one of the finest games in the RTS genre (by people who have no taste in video games)." seems a little biased, just thought I'd bring it up.
 * I have removed the "by people who have no taste in video games" piece... vandels... but the initial statement is correct. It was well reviewed and praised for innovation. Fosnez 15:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I wasn't quite sure how to go about it, I do agree with the initial statment though.

AI Section
The ai section has about one sentance related to AI in it. Sure, it discusses the comlexities of the game but it never relates any to the AI. Very poorly written.

The AI uses a combination of hardcoded orders such as how much units it builds up before it attacks, along with a subfolder in the data files (ccdata.ccx/rev31.gp3/totala1.hpi) that includes .text format files that have things such as weights and limits for what to build.

Source: I mod the game --Flashbang232 (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent News
This is available to be added if chosen. There are rumours of a "Total Annihilation" Clan starting to form for "Battlefield 2" (PC Version), in which all members use an account named after any TA Unit (Cavedog or 3rd Party). Apparently, these TA fans will not let their game die in anyway. Darkseide 03:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Inferiority Complex in the article?
Why is there so much comparision to other games in the article and attempts to imply that TA is somehow better than everything else? TA's gameplay and so forth should stand on their own; you don't need extensive comparisions to every other popular RTS. Parts of the article almost read more like a watered-down manifesto than a neutral article. ShardPhoenix 07:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As mentioned below, positive statements should come before comparisons and biased comparisons should be done away with entirely.

203.10.77.190

Supreme Commander
Perhaps we should mention the up-coming Supreme Commander, which is to all intents and purposes; TA2 TheMongoose 15:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I do not have the time to do it tonight, but if it's not done soonish, i will add it. If i did not do that within two weeks, feel free to poke my talk page :) RichiH 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Multiplayer section
I think this section with its many, many external references should be moved to the end with a title like multiplayer resources or some such. Ideas? RichiH 22:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Resource Section
The start of the resource section looks too much like a strategy guide, with the exact 'energy' produced listed, anyone agree? -- ARC Gritt 02:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Invalid criticisms in article
I find some of the listed criticisms to be extremely subjective and based on personal aesthetic opinions which are inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Objective criticisms of the game engine and pathfinding AI are valid but others not so:

1. The main cause of criticism towards the game was the weak in-game storyline and plot, consisting of a few brief lines describing the player's reason for fighting each particular battle...

2. Players also found the pathfinder AI for naval units problematic...

3. Another criticism sometimes voiced was that the game encouraged "spamming" large masses of a particular unit that was generally effective (such as the Flash tank) in order to win. This was perceived to cut down on the number of actually viable strategies in favor of simple massing of units.[1]

4. Also noted is that even though the official unit limit is 250, the pathfinding AI of all units break down noticeably upon approaching this number. While third-party AI programs have largely solved this problem, it lingers due to an engine deficiency.

5. ...games can last for multiple hours due to unlimited resources and the high power of many defensive structures.

Arguments 1. and 5. are subjective and based on a personal interpretation of what an RTS should be or what one should expect of them. RTS games should be allowed to have their own style (long, short, strong/weak storyline) without being seen as deficient.

2. and 4. are neutral and valid but need references.

3. is tentative. This is an issue specific to how a game unfolds under certain conditions and most players would debate this.

Discussions welcome.

203.10.77.190

Pending no responses, I will elaborate on argument 3. This argument accuses the game of encouraging "spamming" which affects game balance by Caltrops, a videogame review website (http://www.caltrops.com/pointy.php?action=viewPost&pid=42112).
 * Affecting game balance is not the same as destroying game balance. Both sides can spam units.  Both sides have similar units.  It does affect making all the units effective.  Missiles are more common for ground combat than lasers online, due to the fact that missiles shoot farther and track, however, I have found that most units have a place.  Spamming makes the game more lifelike.  In a real war, you are not arbitrarily limited on the number of tanks you can field, given you have the resources to build, deploy, and man them.  Also it might be noted that in a Multiplayer game of TA, you CAN limit the number of units you can field, so you could limit the number of flash tanks to 5, however, this is not done often online.  You also CAN adjust the unit cap.  There is a custom play style called Crazy TA in which you play a Metal Heck, you start with 10k each of resources, no fog of war, and the unit limit is 20. TAU Croesus 03:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose to delete this criticism because the source is obscure with relatively little credibility compared to bigger sites like Gamespot, Gamespy, Adrenaline Vault, etc. The Caltrops site does not have a wiki article and does not appear in the first ten results of a Google search on 20 October (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=caltrops&btnG=Google+Search&meta=), hence I have no reason to believe it is reputable and authorative. There will always be criticisms of games from obscure sources; we should only post those which are acknowledged widely by the big players to avoid a bloated article.

203.10.77.190

Too many comparisons
I recommend a more positive style for the article. Let's talk about what the game is rather than what it isn't and state facts before making comparisons (if at all). 203.10.77.190
 * Your large-scale elimination of comparisons seems like several steps too far. No game exists in a vacuum, and this goes double for TA, which I believe can be neutrally said to be exceptional in both design and longevity (unsurpassed and actively played after nine years?). I can't quite see why comparisons are undesirable, either, and besides I get the impression that you'd like see Total Annihilation get the respect it deserves, and the they're largely favorable. Thank you for your invitation for discussion; I intend to do so properly shortly when my academic pressures and level of lucidity are more favorable. --Kizor 22:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, comparisons can be helpful, but biased comparisons are not. Comparisons made before objective facts have been set down, ie fancruft masquerading as fact, are even worse. 203.10.77.190 02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons such as this are what happen when those who know about the game are very enthusiastic about it, and the popularity of the game does not match the quality. It's generally considered that TA should have done much better considering the gameplay quality, and would have if it had some real marketing, promotion and distribution muscle behind it (like Blizzard has).122.57.41.162 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC) TAU gamma.

Invalid AI criticism
"The artificial intelligence of computer-controlled players in Total Annihilation is often considered one of its weakest aspects. The computer player, for instance, cannot detect what types of units are feasible for a given map and will produce as many land and sea units as can be fit into available space, which often results in humorous scenarios such as desert islands packed tight with tanks and infantry and small ponds full of battleships."

Surely this is the fault of the player, who should have 'scouted' the terrain first? Unit AI can hardly be expected to tell the player what units to build.

203.10.77.190
 * It doesn't concern unit AI at all - it's about the higher AI of the computer 'player' and not something affected by the player's decisions. --Kizor 13:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, signing your messages with four ~ instead of three would add their date and time. This is not required, but makes discussions easier to follow. --Kizor 13:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a valid criticism of the AI. ARC Gritt 21:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Should there be any mentions of the attempts by fans to improve the AI? 202.72.187.152 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, agreed. 203.10.77.190 02:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"...but in fact the better TA players can defeat one-unit spammers easily.[2]"

The link pointed by [2] leads to a TA review where the reviewer compares TA with other games, and appears to not like TA. Might be an interesting review to read (and maybe to keep a link to), but it does not mention about defeating one-unit spammers.

--CrazyTerabyte 06:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The one unit spammers generally used the ARM side for the Peewee Kbots or the Flash tanks. Cavedog released the CORE Immolator unit on their Total Annihilation website to provide balance (I'm assuming under the assumption that ARM versus ARM can just rush themselves to stalemate). The effects of that might deserve a mention, but I'd imagine finding references to it could be hard. 202.72.187.152 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Finding a reference to this would be very difficult indeed, because the unit does not effectively function as desired. The Immolator is considered far too expensive for it's effect in most cases during online play, so it is only very rarely used.  There is some merit in saying that spamming units such as flash tanks can be annoying, but it really is far from all there is in the game.  There are tons of units available, and the majority of them are useful in some circumstances.  Units such as the Flash amd Samson are more "general purpose" and work for most circumstances, and are thus seen a lot more often (but hardly constitute the only effective strategy and useable units). Twinge 02:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The AI for this game has an awful design behind it. There are efforts to improve it and some do work to make the game challenging, but is no where similar to the playstyle of an actual other human. Flashbang232 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Mod screenshot
Right in the platforms section, there's a screenshot to a mod. I don't think it's got anything to do with the article, besides as advertising for the mod. Should I remove it?

No one answered, now it's removed. Cthulhugoat 00:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

D-gun vs Krogoth
As it stands, the article says that the Krogoth is destroyed by a single D-gun shot. I do not believe this to be true -- if I recall correctly, a shot with the D-gun will knock it down to about 40% health, but won't actually kill it. (Another shot will, if your commander lives that long ..) dougmc 23:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The d-gun does 30k damage per hit. It usually hits the Krogoth 4 times, because it has such a large footprint. It is overkill. The Krogoth has a little over 30k hp. One hit will take it down to a little sliver, but the chances of one hit with a weapon like the d-gun is slim. You'd have to not aim at the Krogoth.TAU Croesus 03:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If Krogoth isn't modified by the third party it has slightly BELOW 30k damage capacity. Therefore, a cloaked commander can kill it easily but will always loose some health.

The damage of the d-gun is at the engine limit. Even if modded, Krogoths are still killed by a single d-gun shot. Damagemodifiers can greatly increase the toughness of a Krogoth (as it is in many mods), but Cavedog was rather clever about the way it handled damage and damage modifiers - even with an impressive damage modifier (and "ARMORED" state in script) a single d-gun shot will still destroy it.122.57.41.162 (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)TAU gamma

Invalid Strategies and Corrections
Having played TA online, I'd like to say that some of the strategies on this page are not used in a player versus player setting. Examples include using a vulcan or buzzsaw at all, much less against flashes. If you really wanted to counter flashes, rows of Missile Towers with dragon teeth work fabulous. If you want to go expensive, a Laser Tower with DT around it works nice. No where have I seen the strategy in 2v2 of one player attacks, the other player builds a krogoth. Seriously, this might only work on a LAN game. On non-metal maps, advanced players usually constantly build energy producing structures and metal makers. Metal extractors can be built anywhere, but the article says only on metal deposits. Can we change these things? TAU Croesus 03:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Krogoths and RFLRPC such as the vulcan and buzzaw are rarely built in multiplayer games, if at all. 70.51.57.246 19:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire "General Strategy" section needs to be rewritten. It is riddled with inaccuracies (for example, Nukes are expensive for their effect, Krogoths are almost never built in multiplayer because they cost far too much and can be killed easily, reclaiming wreckage is VERY important later in the game despite the management required, etc.). It should also be clarified what applies to mutiplayer and single player, as needed. Mentioning the importance of not "wasting" a lot of resources online may be a good idea too. -Twinge 03:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Content Dispute: Resource Management
There seems to be a content dispute with these particular sentences in the page:

Resource production structures vastly increase in effectiveness as the technological advancement of the player progresses. The most advanced energy (fusion reactor) and metal production structures are significantly more effective than the most basic (wind turbine), with a 50x and 10x increase in output respectively.
 * While the entire section needs to be re-written, this part was easily removed for it's inaccuracy, and so I did. I was of the opinion that it was better to have no information than wrong information =)  If you prefer to leave it, I imagine I can wait until I or someone else has the time to edit some of this section to actually be somewhat real and accurate. -Twinge 21:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong, fusion reactor (~1000 energy) is 50x better than wind turbine (~20 energy). Moho metal mine (~20 metal) is about 10x better than metal extractor (~2 metal). – ARC GrittTALK 23:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But it implies that, for example, Moho extractors are worth building at all, which they only very rarely even ever are. Wind averages vary from 0 to 30, so that's a rough estimate at best, which again doesn't seem to help that much.  Since it's a strategy section, it should be accurate to real strategy used by good players, instead of the vague misleading stuff that is there now.  As I said, the whole section needs to be re-done, and this part really isn't worse than the rest.  Games rarely last more than 1.5 hours, it's quite inaccurate on wreckage (this is essential throughout the game; not ignored later on like it implies), etc. -Twinge 07:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A single bomber can take out about 5 wind turbines in one pass (many more if you know the infinite bombs trick). Fusion reactors are much much tougher. An accurate estimate, not a precise range of possible wind turbine output, is all that is needed in wikipedia, it's not a strategy guide it's an encyclopaedia. – ARC GrittTALK 18:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Classic
This game is such a classic. I can still remember myself playing this game ten years ago, whining about the maps being to large for my 16 MB memory. Almost as good as Command & Conquer. --MrStalker 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Metal Production Units
I noticed that Metal Extraction units are considered to be the most efficient and useful in this article. I believe that Moho Metal Extractors (available to Arm only) are an important metal resource. Using 800 energy to produce 16 metal, these units each paired with their own fusion reactor raise a player's metal levels a great extent.
 * I can't remember whether it was Core Contingency or one of Cavedog's periodical unit releases that introduced Moho Mexes for Core, but they've been around for a long time. And IIRC Core's Moho Mex is more efficient and so is its Fusion Reactor. Philcha 16:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Moho Metal MAKERS (not extractors) produce 16 metal for 800 energy. The Moho extractors produce metal according to where they are placed - they are useful on metal planet maps, but on other maps where metal is less available, they tend to be rarely used because of their expense.122.57.41.162 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)TAU gamma

Restructure needed?
Various sections of the article appear to cover similar ground: the first examples in the current version are that mods are mentioned in "Features", "Units" (3rd-party units), "Extensibility"; Unit counts are mentioned in several places; and so are the basics of the economy. I therefore suggest the following structure: - About TA:K but many comments on / comparisons w TA, incl flushing & slushing What do you think?Philcha 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Intro: add mention of TA:K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcha (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Platforms (so readers know whether they can play it!).
 * Types of game (campaign, skirmish, multi-player) and victory conditions (e.g. whether commmander death fatal).
 * Gameplay
 * The sides (Core and Arm).
 * The economy: inexhaustible resources collected by buildings rather than by builder units; energy and metal; "whoever gathers most metal usually wins"(?);reclaimable energy and metal; "pay as you go" (like Commad and Conquer / Red Alert series) rather than "pay in advance" (like Warcraft and all its descendants). Note: economy comes early as you can't understand or formulate any strategy without understanding economy.
 * Types of building (resource collector; factory; combat (you can't call LRPCs and nukes defenses); radar.
 * "Tech tree": no research; levels of units; level 2 factories expensive (especially in metal).
 * Units: "unit" includes buildings in TA-speak; major types (Commander; land / sea / air / buildings; k-bots vs vehicles; construction; combat; specialist units include radar, jammers, etc.); unit limits and how to modify them; originally Core and Arm had only small but significant differences in unit stats (giving Arm the initiative in the early game), but additional Cavedog units made the sides more distinctive; late to mid-game deadlock breakers (LRPCs, nukes, etc.).
 * Importance of terrain (land combat only): height and slope; forest fires increase damage; weapon trajectories vary and flat trajectories are easily blocked by slopes, rocks, trees, wreckage (otherwise Fidos would rule on land).- Review w criticisms Forest fires; sea maps; resource hog; races v similar; m-player not x-platform; commander kidnap
 * Shooting range greater than sight range, so expendable scouts needed.
 * Managing units: unit AI, order queues, "rules of engagement", squad numbers (all can be applied to factories too).
 * Strategic AI: weaknesses; AI mods.
 * Implementation:
 * Physics model.
 * Units complex and scripted in VB-like language.
 * Graphics and sound.
 * Mods: types and objectives; sites
 * Multiplayer: servers; need to use compatible sets of mods; ability to vary rules.
 * Reviews and criticisms (pointing out first that TA was a big advance).- Review w criticisms
 * Fan sites
 * Backstory - very brief, as it's not an important feature.

Lore
None of the TA lore is on this page, while the TA:TCC page implies that one understands the campaigns' plot(s). 128.120.187.221 (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

3D & "Innovation"
This game is not true 3d. All you have to do is look at the screenshots in the article and you can see that it's not. Easiest example is the first screenshot in the article. Notice the turrets in the top left and bottom right of the screen. If it were a 3d game, parallax would mean we'd see those turrets from different angles, but they are clearly at the same angle. At best this is '2 1/2d', a stupid term, but it's more accurate than calling it 3d. None of this "it's 3d but from a fixed angle" nonsense, the units are CLEARLY sprites, the fact that they're sprites of 3d models doesn't make the game engine 3d. I can't help but thinking that whoever wrote 3d either hasn't played the game or doesn't understand the use of the word in relation to games. It doesn't matter if it *looks* 3d, it's not rendering depth. Watch this gameplay clip if you are unfamiliar with the game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85vGL7aez4s Sprites.

It's also claimed that the game pioneered a lot of concepts long before anyone else, but a huge number of those concepts showed up in Dark Reign too, which came out in the same year, and included unit production queues up to 99 per unit type, advanced AI behaviour (including the ability to customise unit independence, aggression, pursuit range and survival traits), fully developed waypoints for paths, patrols and loops, and special unit orders like "scout", "harass" "search and destroy" etc., as well as much more developed line of sight and terrain features. I'm not claiming that TA ripped off DR because they were contemporaries, it wouldn't make sense given how long games take to make. The issue is that this game is being deified in a way that never happened when it was current and in a way that is out of proportion with its actual influence. I say this as a fan of both games (and as someone disappointed with both sequels :P ). Anyway, I'm heading over to the Dark Reign page to add a lot because it's missing volumes of what made the game worth writing an article about. 121.45.3.244 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not true at all. There may not be parallax, but it is all rendered in real time from models, no sprites involved.  If you have the game, all you have to do to see that it's really 3D is load up a hilly map and make some spider units crawl over around in steep areas, giving you infinite angles of view.  Or get hpiview and open the data files to see that there are only models and textures.  Even that video you linked to is pretty good proof: the units under construction in the factories show as wireframes and slowly fill from the bottom with texture while spinning in a circle.  No sprites there.75.218.120.44 (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, way points in TA are not just a copy of other way point systems. TA's waypoints allows the player to set an infinite number (sufficiently large amount) of orders as well as mix different types of orders while allowing for the removal of the way points after a set of way points have been specified by the player without having to reset all the orders. As the previous post already stated, TA does not use sprites for units. The map elements such as trees and rocks are prerendered, but the player controlled units and buildings are rendered in real time, both primary research as well as notable sources (game reviews) will confirm this fact. However, to correct the previous poster's statement about an infinite number of angles, TA only allows 32760 different angles around its x, y, and z-axis. so that only makes for 32760^3 or 35158608576000 different angles, far from infinite. 70.54.93.86 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I should have said 'effectively infinite', as to view even a single unit from each possible angle would take millennia. 164.107.198.99 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be very pedantic, but your math is wrong in two ways. first, it is 32765.  small difference.  Second, you only need two angles to point every direction in 3D. so it is 32765^2.  Back to the real discussion, the background in TA, ie the Map, is a pre-rendered background, with a height map.  Another proof of the 3D'ness of the units is making a unit walk in water.  It is especially cool in multiplayer since you won't see the feet or legs of units unless you have sonar. TAU Croesus (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

CD Backups don't copy audio
It has been my personal discovery that creating a copy of Total Annihilation will successfully copy the data portion of the CD, but not the audio portion. Is this worth noting in the article? Incidentally, this is also a plea for help. I wish to back up my 7 year old TA discs without losing the audio. Could anybody point me in the right direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.50.231 (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

it is wikipedia policy that there should be no original research 70.52.18.223 (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The music on TA CD2 IS audio, not data. You can put it in a regular CD player and it will play.122.57.41.162 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)TAU gamma

Awards
Just feeling nostalgic about the assault I participated in against StarCraft for the Gamespy top ten for RTS. Good times. The real problem with the thread that promoted TA vs SC was that no one defended SC really well. During that time, I made the list of why TA is better, and have now copied it to my talk here. TAU Croesus (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Main preamble
"Total Annihilation is no longer sold or supported, due to the bankruptcy of Cavedog."

Two accuracy issues with this statement.

Cavedog was closed, not "bankrupt". See wikipedia's own entry on Cavedog. Cavedog was a division of Humungous entertainment, and such I gather it couldn't actually go "bankrupt" so the use of the word is entirely inaccurate. Also, you can still buy TA online from Amazon - Infogrames aka Atari continued to sell the game for years once it bought Humungous in 2000.122.57.41.162 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)TAU gamma


 * I think your changes were obviously justified and needed no explanation. Feel free to edit; the only time you need explicit justification for doing something is when you think it's controversial or contentious and suspect it needs consensus in advance, or if they get reverted.  Xihr  05:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory statements
"Given their robotic nature, units are self-contained with no limiting factors such as fatigue, fuel or morale." "with the Arm mass-producing clones as pilots for its vehicles"Dalek9 (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed that ridiculous sentence. All units are made by nanobots anyway.  The stories of the TA games aren't known for being reasonable of course.   D r e a m Focus  06:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

When did GOG put Total Annihilation up on their site?
As you may know, GOG sells Total Annihilation and its expansions here. When did they put this up? Was going to add this next to the mention of Stardock's Impulse download of it, so just wondering if anyone knew. Skirmisher2048 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

guys i put up a line to show the online scene is still alive, i think it's important, mentioned warzone and gameranger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.125.196 (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Total Annihilation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103055314/http://tauniverse.com/?page=articles%2Feditorials%2Farm_v_core to http://www.tauniverse.com/?page=articles%2Feditorials%2Farm_v_core

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)