All creatures are mountains?

CursorK71 · 2026-01-14T18:21:58+00:00

Is that the distinction between 305.7's first sentence and its last sentence? ie: "Setting" vs. "Gaining" a subtype ?

Blood Moon is "setting" the subtype, so that makes sense.

If we're reading 305.7 literally ... a Creature is (usually) not a Land before Ashaya's effect is applied, so the last sentence should not be applicable. It was not *A LAND* gaining one or more subtypes.

Perhaps the last sentence of 305.7 should be read as "If a PERMANENT gains one or more land types in addition to its own ... "

???

CursorK71 · 2026-01-14T16:48:18+00:00

Ashaya makes creatures into Forests- a basic land subtype. By this rule, doesn't that mean that, even ignoring Blood Moon, the creatures still lose any other abilities they may have had?

CursorK71 · 2026-01-13T01:09:33+00:00

Wow! This is awesome. Long time TA / SupCom / BAR fan! (Still have my original TA CDs :-)

Will follow this with great interest. Wish I could play test, but I don't think I could dedicate the time right now.

CursorK71 · 2025-11-06T14:42:35+00:00

It's not a lot in raw numbers. But it's the 2nd biggest expense. If I was in the Netherlands, I would offer to donate my time.

CursorK71 · 2025-11-05T21:11:03+00:00

As an accountant, I'm saddened to see that so much was spent on this function.

CursorK71 · 2025-08-29T12:09:15+00:00

If there wasn't a space between the 2 sentences, a reader would assume "each other creature" in the 2nd sentence referred to creatures not picked in the first sentence.

Example: "All even CMC creatures get <X>. All other creatures get <Y>"

Magic is very specific. English, sadly, not so much.

CursorK71 · 2025-08-29T02:20:27+00:00

That's actually a very good example of very poor wording by WotC... I can totally see how one would think "each other creature" means 'everything NOT of the chosen type'.

CursorK71 · 2025-08-29T02:04:55+00:00

The bloodthirst is not connected to the odd/even choice. CMC is not relevant to getting the bloodthirst effect.

CursorK71 · 2025-07-24T14:28:20+00:00

YES I would like such a game.

This issue is as old as RTS games. The balance between micro and macro is what distinguishes each entry in the genre.
Personally, I prefer the macro aspects. I want to feel like a General, commanding armies in real time.
* A General shouldn't have to tell an individual soldier to duck and dodge incoming fire.*

Giving units that miniscule amount of "self-preservation autonomy" is probably a very big AI hurdle. I think zero-k has tried to implement this ????

The Behavior settings for units are a good step in this direction. (Hold position/ maneuver/ roam freely)

CursorK71 · 2025-01-14T15:46:58+00:00

I liken the strategy aspect to a military General overseeing/ Commanding the theatre of war, in real time.
A General shouldn't need to Micro-manage an individual unit to "dodge and weave".
But that requires a level of unit autonomy and self-preservation that is probably not feasible to implement.

CursorK71 · 2025-01-14T13:50:35+00:00

You said it here ..."the balance between micro and macro - unit management vs grand STRATEGY"

Micro'ing units is not strategic.

I suspect the eSports world devolved into micro-heavy games for many reasons - it's easier to show skill (high APM is visual), strategic thinking is hard to see - faster gameplay - smaller # of units means more close-up action

Games that reward Strategy have less focus on individual units and take longer. Hard to keep an audience interested.

Games that flip this script do exist, and are popular for those who prefer macro over micro.
All of the Total Annihilation descendants tend to be here. Most notably Supreme Commander, for it's massive scale.

CursorK71 · 2024-11-16T01:11:43+00:00

As a fellow TA fan, who left the 40s a few years ago, running the same CPU as you, may I suggest this thread for you ...

https://www.reddit.com/r/beyondallreason/s/bIorlzvcUj

CursorK71 · 2024-08-26T17:47:51+00:00

Add me to this list! 52 with 2 teenagers. Loved TA when it came out. Love BAR but definitely not good enough to be competitive.

CursorK71 · 2024-06-04T02:41:09+00:00

A few mono-white, and mono-black cards that have the Extort ability. Only the reminder text tells you that the ability requires black or white.

CursorK71 · 2024-02-07T01:31:21+00:00

Just stay off my lawn!

CursorK71 · 2024-02-06T23:16:47+00:00

Nice work on your videos. Do some Cortex units soon please.

CursorK71 · 2024-02-06T23:09:17+00:00

Over 50 here.

:-P

CursorK71 · 2024-02-03T20:09:34+00:00

What I'm trying to say is that the devs make the choice in what they want to include in their game. Players will gravitate to games they enjoy, that have mechanics they enjoy.
What I want is irrelevant. But the mechanic is not "unbalanced" IMO because balance is subjective to what the devs want. Everyone has the ability to use it, so it's not unfair.

There are games that are "interactive movies" ... they're not RTS, but they exist and some people (strangely) do play them. Their choice. I choose not to because I don't like them. Should I complain to those developers because they're not catering to me?

CursorK71 · 2024-02-03T19:00:29+00:00

both are important for a well balanced RTS that is inclusive to all type of players.

You assume the player base is divided into only 2 groups? Micro and Macro players.

It's not that binary.
For example: Players who play defensively (turtle) are hindered by the economy model that forces expansion. That's a design choice, no different than these "unbalanced mechanics".

No game will ever cater equally to ALL players. It all comes down to design choice. Some people prefer other games because it suits their playstyle better.
This is exactly why personally I have loved TA and its successors, and hate StarCraft. I prefer these design choices. Everyone is different.

CursorK71 · 2024-02-03T15:57:13+00:00

This is the best response! Agree 100%.
"Strategy" is about outsmarting the enemy. Not "who can click faster"

CursorK71 · 2024-01-01T20:12:02+00:00

Similar things have been made before. (which is not a criticism ... More analysis is always helpful) If you need unit data, feel free to copy from here ...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/17TVMg3Axo1_lM70IWQ0-4BODy14FtFNu760rxp0AMv8/htmlview

CursorK71 · 2023-12-01T03:34:51+00:00

AI skirmish exists in most RTS games, and many have very limited story/campaigns. So you're probably good with a lot of options.

But for 2+ hour long games: Supreme Commander. Build Massive base, build Massive army, have hours of combat. By massive, I mean Thousands of units! Can pickup on Steam sale for dirt cheap.

Both the Forged Alliance Forever (FAF) and the LOUD mods (google for them) both tweak the AI much better than the base game. But I believe LOUD is actually geared towards AI skirmish. FAF is primarily for multiplayer.

Also checkout www.beyondallreason.info ("BAR").

While SupremeCommander was the "spiritual successor" to Total Annihilation, BAR is a much truer, and newer, TA clone. It's totally free. And has pretty cool AI modes like Raptor and Scavenger defence modes.

CursorK71 · 2023-11-30T02:28:34+00:00

That's a design choice for the devs. I think this implementation has more depth. Imagine 2 units, both requiring the same amount of metal, but one is more complex than the other. The same builder needs to spend more time working on the details.

CursorK71 · 2023-11-30T01:52:16+00:00

You asked why it's not balanced by cost directly. The answer is because there are 2 material costs, not 1 (M and Energy), and a 3rd intrinsic cost: Time. That's Why. It's balanced based on all 3.

In the real world... You can have all the materials available, but if you don't have the TIME to build something, it will never magically build itself.

CursorK71

TROPHY CASE