Total Annihilation or Kingdoms

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Hi all

A number of people have recommended that I try the original TA and though
I've seen copies of Kingdoms in my local stores they insist to track down
the original online through Amazon or something...

I've been told that both games are quite different (even tried Wikipedia)
but can anyone here tell me what they think and any key positive or
negatives between the two.
Thanks

--
Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"mikepro" <mike@diamondgeezer.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42f4d3df_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> Hi all
>
> A number of people have recommended that I try the original TA and though
> I've seen copies of Kingdoms in my local stores they insist to track down
> the original online through Amazon or something...
>
> I've been told that both games are quite different (even tried Wikipedia)
> but can anyone here tell me what they think and any key positive or
> negatives between the two.
> Thanks

With TA you are fighting mass armies of machines, with TAK you are fighting
smaller armies of organics.

TAK is more limited in the number of units you can have, there is no real
mod community coming up with 3rd party units and buildings, and the maps
have a smaller more organic feel to them.

TA has umpteen 3rd party unit packs available and utilities like conflict
crusher to iron out the conflicts when more than one set of new units is
loaded. TA also has 3rd party AI routines that allow the AI to play in
different fashions depending on the AI loaded.

That being said, I prefer the smaller TAK battles instead of the swarm
battles that TA tends to. Where a handful of units can make a difference,
instead of watching 100 bombers blowing holes in one side of base's defense
so that the 300 bots you have waiting can run rampage thru it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I'm too tired to write an in-depth review atm, but, I will say TA
is the only RTS game that got me hooked. I actually felt like
I had some decent control over the units, unlike most RTS
games where the commands seem to reduce to - "everyone
go that way".

Highly recommend TA, if you can find it.

As far as Kingdoms, for whatever reason, it just didn't "do it"
for me.

There were a couple of expansion packs for TA that came out,
so try to get a TA Gold version or whatever they call it that
has the original + expansions.



"mikepro" <mike@diamondgeezer.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42f4d3df_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> Hi all
>
> A number of people have recommended that I try the original TA and though
> I've seen copies of Kingdoms in my local stores they insist to track down
> the original online through Amazon or something...
>
> I've been told that both games are quite different (even tried Wikipedia)
> but can anyone here tell me what they think and any key positive or
> negatives between the two.
> Thanks
>
> --
> Michael
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"erico" <emolsen@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dqSdnZ2dnZ3gjZyanZ2dnb69aN-dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com...
>
> There were a couple of expansion packs for TA that came out,
> so try to get a TA Gold version or whatever they call it that
> has the original + expansions.
>


I think that would be the Commander's Pack or something very similar. I'm
still kicking myself to this day for not buying it when I saw it at a store
about 4 years ago for $15. But luckily I did later find the Gift Pack
containing the original game plus Core Contingency.

 

[norm]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"mikepro" <mike@diamondgeezer.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42f4d3df_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> Hi all
>
> A number of people have recommended that I try the original TA and though
> I've seen copies of Kingdoms in my local stores they insist to track down
> the original online through Amazon or something...
>
> I've been told that both games are quite different (even tried Wikipedia)
> but can anyone here tell me what they think and any key positive or
> negatives between the two.
> Thanks
>
> --
> Michael
>

I would say TA!! Great with a couple of friends on the home network.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 13:11:14 +0100, "mikepro" <mike@diamondgeezer.co.uk>
wrote:

>Hi all
>
>A number of people have recommended that I try the original TA and though
>I've seen copies of Kingdoms in my local stores they insist to track down
>the original online through Amazon or something...
>
>I've been told that both games are quite different (even tried Wikipedia)
>but can anyone here tell me what they think and any key positive or
>negatives between the two.

TA is the more popular of the two - however, I preferred TA:K. I also
don't see why TA:K is still being given negative reviews, since most of the
flaws are either in the original game, or do not apply anymore.

TA does play properly with the patch. While the expansion is recommended,
there are script bugs that make some units much harder to kill than they
should be.

I preferred TA:K because there was less worry about having to hunt through
the interface to find a unit to build. While the build system isn't
optimal (esp. with Zhon), everything that can be built by that unit fits
into one page. The only standing problem is that the mod community is
smaller - however, there is at least a few AI patches for both games.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I highly recommend TA, and also enjoyed TA:K. TA:K got some bad press
because it was buggy in teh extreme before they managed to patch it.
Far buggier than most games... But they got their act together and
sorted those problems out.

Sadly, it wasn't done fast enough to keep the (then) strong TA
community onside, and was far too late to get any good press.

Even after the patches and updates, I still preferred TA though.
IMNSHO it still is, by far, the greatest RTS ever created.

For more information, head over to http://tauniverse.com. It's been
around since nearly the very beginning and has a strong community even
today.



HTH...

Googleboy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

mikepro wrote:
> Hi all
>
> A number of people have recommended that I try the original TA and though
> I've seen copies of Kingdoms in my local stores they insist to track down
> the original online through Amazon or something...
>
> I've been told that both games are quite different (even tried Wikipedia)
> but can anyone here tell me what they think and any key positive or
> negatives between the two.

I found the Kingdoms campaign AI/difficulty level to be much, much
weaker than the original TA one. I never finished the Kingdoms campaign,
but I didn't find myself under threat in any of the scenarios I did play.

Possibly, my RTS skills improved substantially between the two, but I
still think Kingdoms is unbearably easy and TA is just decent.

--
Leons Petrazickis
import java.lang.Disclaimer;
http://slashdot.org/~LPetrazickis/journal/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"NightSky 421" <nightsky421@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> I think that would be the Commander's Pack or something very
> similar. I'm still kicking myself to this day for not buying it
> when I saw it at a store about 4 years ago for $15. But luckily
> I did later find the Gift Pack containing the original game plus
> Core Contingency.

I did buy the Commander Pack, however the only CDs I have kept are
the original game plus the Core Contingency. I seriously think you
are not missing anything. I haven't played in years and probably
never will again, but will probably keep those two CDs.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"erico" <emolsen@comcast.net> wrote:

> I'm too tired to write an in-depth review atm, but, I will say TA
> is the only RTS game that got me hooked. I actually felt like
> I had some decent control over the units, unlike most RTS
> games where the commands seem to reduce to - "everyone
> go that way".

Definitely a great user interface. Almost as good as voice scripting
control.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Petrazickis wrote:
> mikepro wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> A number of people have recommended that I try the original TA and though
>> I've seen copies of Kingdoms in my local stores they insist to track down
>> the original online through Amazon or something...
>>
>> I've been told that both games are quite different (even tried Wikipedia)
>> but can anyone here tell me what they think and any key positive or
>> negatives between the two.
>
>
> I found the Kingdoms campaign AI/difficulty level to be much, much
> weaker than the original TA one. I never finished the Kingdoms campaign,
> but I didn't find myself under threat in any of the scenarios I did play.
>
> Possibly, my RTS skills improved substantially between the two, but I
> still think Kingdoms is unbearably easy and TA is just decent.
>

The biggest problem with the TA:K campaign (for me) was the fact that
they decided to 'split' the campaign up while you were playing it, so
that you played each different race along the way, rather than playing
one side entirely. YMMV.

-layne

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:58:54 -0400, Petrazickis
<spamPETRAZIspam@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>mikepro wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> A number of people have recommended that I try the original TA and though
>> I've seen copies of Kingdoms in my local stores they insist to track down
>> the original online through Amazon or something...
>>
>> I've been told that both games are quite different (even tried Wikipedia)
>> but can anyone here tell me what they think and any key positive or
>> negatives between the two.
>
>I found the Kingdoms campaign AI/difficulty level to be much, much
>weaker than the original TA one. I never finished the Kingdoms campaign,
>but I didn't find myself under threat in any of the scenarios I did play.

You might not be under threat, but you will find completing some missions
in a reasonable amount of time to be difficult. For example, an enemy
that builds an array of mortars will be hard to penetrate as one of the
main means of attack cannot be performed.

One of the late Iron Plague missions will show trouble - around mission 30
where you have to build and hold 12 refineries for 15 minutes. Here, the
enemy keeps charging with powerful attack forces that somehow pummul your
defences.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:36:04 -0700, Beetlecat <beetlecat@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Petrazickis wrote:
>> mikepro wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> A number of people have recommended that I try the original TA and though
>>> I've seen copies of Kingdoms in my local stores they insist to track down
>>> the original online through Amazon or something...
>>>
>>> I've been told that both games are quite different (even tried Wikipedia)
>>> but can anyone here tell me what they think and any key positive or
>>> negatives between the two.
>>
>>
>> I found the Kingdoms campaign AI/difficulty level to be much, much
>> weaker than the original TA one. I never finished the Kingdoms campaign,
>> but I didn't find myself under threat in any of the scenarios I did play.
>>
>> Possibly, my RTS skills improved substantially between the two, but I
>> still think Kingdoms is unbearably easy and TA is just decent.
>>
>
>The biggest problem with the TA:K campaign (for me) was the fact that
>they decided to 'split' the campaign up while you were playing it, so
>that you played each different race along the way, rather than playing
>one side entirely.

That's a non-issue when compared to other games. TA, as you know, has 25
missions in the Core Campaign, where you retaliate from the brink of
destruction and destroy Arm once and for all. This plotpath gets thrown
out entirely - meaning there was very little point to completing that
mission set (except for practice.)

It's also a great way to learn all four factions at once. The alternative
Starcraft style, while more traditional, results in a disjointed pattern of
progressing through the story of you want to learn all three factions
equally.

I can soo why RoN decidid to skip any plot entirely - it's much easier to
focus on gameplay.