Rise of Nations -- Time for your ideas!

[Blue Moose]

Are supply wagons going to move? I envision that ideally you'd "make" an army by assigning troops to it. You could then assign supply wagons to the army as well. Supply wagons would hold a fixed amount of resources, and when those resources were used up, they'd head back home to refill themselves. That way if you surrounded an enemy army, eventually they'd run out of supply (I am not sure how the system works currently, hopefully it is like this). Naturally, the supply wagons should be smart enough not to go off and get killed if the army is surrounded, or at least you should have an order available so that they won't leave the army to be refilled. This would make it important to guard your supply lines, while not adding that much work and basically not micromanagement (you just remember to add supply wagons to your army). Also, supply boats for land units should be possible (if they stay near or return periodically to the cost). Persia used this system when invading Greece. Also, supply boats should be able to fill up supply carts. Lastly, when you get decent aircraft, supply planes should make an appearence.

I think some people's conceptions of army/societal leaders is a bit flawed. Some have said that they should provide random bonuses, or even have a ruler at any time that might be good or bad (totally randomly). The problem with this, is that it would make for some awful games. You don't want a run of bad luck ruining things for your civ. Random factors should be there, but should, overall, have a small influence. The game is about people as a civilization competing, hence it is called "Rise of Nations," as opposed to "The Whimsy of Chaos." Just my two cents. (not that there shouldn't be leaders, rather any random effects should be minimal).

As for nukes, every civilization should have an equal chance with them. A game like civilization or Rise of Nations *should not* be trying to duplicate the current world, rather it should be about how things might have gone if the world had been a bit different. Any superpower in the modern era would have had a lot of nukes, and even more nukes if there was a major threat that had them. That's just how it is. Also, will be a mutually assured destruction system? That is, can you assign potential targets for your nuclear silos (say multiple groups of potential targets, so in scenerio A group 1 targets would be attacked, while in B group 2 targets would be hit). Either that, or allow some sort of AI retaliation system, where all you have to do is "give the word" and your nukes will be launched at the civilization that attacked you (with perhaps an option as to wether you'd want civilian targets the focus, military, or you didn't care). Perhaps this would also include any nuclear bombers you had as well.

Also, aircraft need some intelligence system, since the rally-point idea in EE is nice, but can lead to problems of stupidity where they'll keep flying to their deaths over and over, and even if you change the waypoint all the ones in the will still keep going to their deaths...a bit messy). Perhaps at least some automap functions so that your air units/ground units/buildings/etc are easily distinguishable, so at least you could manually see your air units and redirect them.

As for sea battles, EE's system could use some work. Ships were too big and bulky and made moving those units around a pain. Boats should be much smaller relatively, and subs should be on a different 'plane' than other ships, so that they can occupy space underneath a surface ship, and don't need to worry about bumping into surface vessels. Naturally, there should be some sort of supply system for sea vessels, but in the modern era it should be slightly demphasized (compared to land units), since a Aircraft carrier is almost a city unto itself.

As for taking over enemy cities...even after they have converted, there should still be possible some resistance. An "underground" if you will. This could just be added by having a great supply problem inside an conquered town (or something similar that deals some damage to your troops, but rarely if ever kills any). This could be based on how strong politically and culturally that civ was compared to yours.

The last thing I can think about is this. New cities should require a fair amount of resources to make, and trying to make a city far, far away from any of your current ones should be strongly discouraged (via the supply system). This will prevent the unrealistic strategies of building cities as close to other player's starting locations as you can, and later backfilling...historically this simply didn't happen at all.

[admiralk]

Ok, here's some of my ideas Brian:

1. Garrison units shoot out of Buildings. One thing I like about AOK and Starcraft was that you can garrison units in buildings and they'll fire out of it. That was interesting and realistic. I think that'll be cool for RON.

2. Taunts. Taunts are soooo fun online. Many people have good times taunting away. I think it'll be cool if u have national only taunts.

3. USA. Ok, ok i know its been mentioned a million times but thousands of people want to see USA in this game. I don't want to cough up another 30 dollars for and xpack with USA in it when it could've been in the full. I doubt you'll listen to this one but i still wanna mention it.

Thats all I can think of now I'll say more later.

[admiralk]

I know many ppl understand why USA isn't in or why it should be in. I can accept it but it still needs mentioning. Forget it don't worry about it, I shouldn't have mentioned it.

Another thing that would be cool though is Regulars for the ages that involve 1700-1800. Regulars were mainstay army at that time those troopers with the funny hats like in Patriot. Ahh I hear some people call them Fuseliers. They were mainstay army grenadiers were elite.

[Bmtmich]

I think that for nukes there should be proportional damage realated to how close to where the nuke landed. So right where the nuke hit would be ground zero and anything there would be destroyed, but the farther away from where the bomb hit the less damage you take, so near the edge you will only take one or two pts damage. This makes bigger and more powerful nukes possible, but then at the same time wouldnt be like in EE, where you can take out all of a force with one well placed bomb

And I think there shouldnt be walls, but instead once your city gets to a certin size, walls will be constructed around it automatically. That would make the player focus more on building up each of their cities.

[Starspangled]

One thing I didn't like in SWGB is that you couldn't make alliances with computer players they had to ask you to become partners

You shoud have a button to make alliances.

[Starspangled]

You should have a way to cunduct seiges. In other games like SWGB & AOK you can't because they already have every thing they need within their walls (either you can't or it takes increadibly long to do it).

[admiralk]

Ya i think it'll be cool if you can talk to the AI computer players and be friends with them. Or mess up and they'll hate you.

[Starspangled]

Also, do any of the African civs have elephants?
Because the Cathagenians used them aganst Rome and they are african.

[Starspangled]

You should be able to lend or barrow units with your friends (human & computer)

[Strategy Master]

Satalites
When you reach the modern day ages, a building should be requried (call it NASA) and satalites can be built. They would be expensive and be able to uncover parts of the map as your satalite moves in orbit.

This means that satalites won't uncover the whole map unless you have about 6. You won't be able to see the actual satallite. It will move very slowly at first and only reveal small circles of area. The more you build, the more of the map you can see and technologies can be discovered to make them move faster.

Circular map
You could have an option button that allows the map to be round. e.g when you walk a man off the right side of the screen then he appears on the other side. No more staying in the corner and having only one side of a base to defend. You would need defences nearly all the way around your base. The enemy could attack from anywhere.

Special Technologies
At some points in the game certain actions (You gain a high culture or something) could cause a special bonus to be given to a civ. e.g You learn the ability to make your units protect themselves in a turtle formation (shields covering your whole army) so arrows would be useless. This was used by the romans but any civ should be able to get a special technology.

Revolts
A counter should be created which is how likeable you are. If you give your villagers rewards the counter increases. If you neglect them or build millitary, the counter decreases. When this reaches a low number, villagers may start to revolt slowly and cause destruction as well as economic problems. If you kill villagers with millitary then the revolts stop as counter increases. If the revolts destroy a certain number of buildings then the counter also increases stopping revolts. This stops revolts from destroying your whole race.

[Mahdimael]

Some suggestions:

1. Artillery/siege weapons. Infantry losses to these weapons should be relatively slight. Even in WWI, when thousands of artillery pieces were massed, they did not have the effect of killing as many infantrymen as was expected. Perhaps artillery should only damage troops to a certain degree, but never kill them.

2. As I mentioned before- I like the idea of researching different tactics for different time periods. For instance, the invention of the machine gun allows research of trench warfare, and the invention of the tank allows squad-based warfare. Using obsolete tactics should be as deadly as using obsolete weapons (see Maginot line). Another example would be the innovation of a main body and flanks, as opposed to a single line.

3. Similarly, I think walls should have various levels of technology. Pre-gunpowder walls would be more effective against catapaults, while post-gunpowder walls/fortifications would be more effective against cannons.

4. I like the idea of more in-depth diplomacy, rather than just "neutral","war", "peace". Not Civ3 in-depth, but the ability to exchange technology and resources would be cool.

5. I don't think this should be a problem, given the way cities and borders work, but I would hate for the game to come down to a race for technology or units (a la Warcraft 3) followed by a single massed battle. Perhaps there should be some kind of resources or something that give a bonus/ allow production of something scattered around the map. Battles could be fought over these resources. For instance, a mountain with iron in it would allow the player to build swordsmen (or whatever) at an increased rate.

6. Finally, in the same spirit as the latter, don't make key resources available in specific locations (i.e. Gold Mines in WC3). I don't like having predetermined locations where I need to build to win

Ok, all done!

[DarkSide of Day]

The Role "Government Types" could play in RoN.

I think the type of Government chosen could add an interesting element to how the strategy in RoN will play. The types of government a nation choose to follow defiantly played a role in its fate. I think it would be a great addition that should be included in the game. However it sounds like BHG is having a little trouble finding a way to introduce it to RoN & RTS and have it meaningful and not tedious.

As you can read below. A part of an Article from GameSpy. Tim Train wrote....

We originally had governments almost as a technology upgrade, where different Age or Civics advancements allowed you to move from Theocracy to Monarchy and so on. However, in practice that just meant that you always had to remember to press a particular button after getting the appropriate upgrade, and if you forgot to press the button then blood shot out of your eye because you had lost valuable time to your opponent who may have remembered the magic button. In short, it wasn't an interesting choice.

Thus, we then tried to jazz it up by making "separate but equal" choices for governments that might be chosen in different circumstances -- Communism for a strong military strategy or Democracy for a booming economy, for example. However, these ideas proved very abstract and difficult to grasp in the context of a real-time game, and seemed to detract from the fun for most people. Although we still have fond dreams of eventually working governments into a real-time game system, for now we've had to table the idea.

Well I have a few ideas......

I don't think "type of government" should simply be a tech in the Nations Tree. It should be a strategic part of the game that can effect the outcome of the game.

When you look back at the history of many of the nations of the world that influenced mankind you can find points in their history were they made conscious decisions as to what style of government that nation would have. Examples of this would be Russia in the early 1900's or France in the 1700's as well as the USA. Some were drastic changes that happen very fast as in Russia going from a Monarchy to communism, and then to democracy, or in Iran switching to a religious style of government from a Monarchy. While other nations changed the style of they’re governments more slowly as in England going from a Monarchy to a democracy. Each of these changes in government had a profound impact on each nations
future. Some good, some bad.

With that in mind there a several ways that " Government Types " could be introduced into this RTS.

Progressing to the next Age.

This is where and when Types of Governments can be chosen. Take a page out AOM's manual. When you progress to the next age you decide what demi-god you will follow. In RoN you could decide what government type your nation will follow. ( with a twist that I will get to later )

If Starting the game in the "Ancient Age" when your nation has no real government to speak of other then one person in charge (you). And your countries have little contact with other nations and combat really does not play a huge role in most RTS's, and even if it did, it wouldn't matter as most techs would not have been researched yet. ......There would be no " Type of Government ".

If starting in later Ages you would chose your style of Government at the start of the game. ie: you chose England as an Monarchy., etc.

Progressing to the "Classical Age"

This is were Government Types could be chosen for the first time. The Type of Government chosen here could and should have benefits and drawbacks depending on the Nation you have chosen and the strategy you will be using in the game.

Progressing to the "Medieval Age"

Here is where the Twist comes in!

You can decide if you want to change Government Types, or keep it the same when advancing Ages.

If you decide to switch the type of government your nation is using the time it takes will be longer to progress to the next age. If you decide to keep the same type of government the progression to the next age would be quicker (for now). Everytime a nation changes it's government type there is a period of unrest ( as used in the Civ series of games ) and that would delay the progression to the next age. During this unrest all resource gathering would come to a halt, your military would become weaker either through moral or reduced hitpoints and attack. In addition it should also be expensive to change governments. But there should also be big future benefits when changing to a more advanced form of government. hehe, you should even be able to revert back to older forms of government if you want. Why you would want to revert back to an older form of government is hard to say; maybe monarchies will give you greater control of your army or your nation and reap short-term advantages.

A Nation would be faced with this decision every time it was about to advance!

This could add an interesting element to the game that you could consider a "double edged sword"

You have a real choices to make, when should you progress to the next Age, and at what age should you change government types?

Change Governments at an early age:

.....and if too quickly or when your nation is at war, or if your nations defences are not adequate and you could leave yourself open to an invasion by another nation.

Change government types too late:

.....and risk falling behind in advancement in tech's and gathering improvements, military upgrades, etc. Eventually sticking with an outdated form of government for too many ages will even slow the progression time to future ages.

Certain government types could have advantages in different ages.

Monarchies worked well in the Medieval Age but not so good in the Industrial Age. Old and outdated forms of government would slow down that nations advancement in other ages.

This could be done in many different ways. Perhaps older forms of governments would slow down and add to the times that it took research techs, some of these techs being requirements to advance to further ages. Perhaps these nations vills would gather resources slower, hence taking more time to gather the resources needed to buy the techs, and improvements, etc.

Government Types and their Advantages and Drawbacks.

Certain government types would benefit trade and commerce; others would benefit their military, etc. Each form of government would also have its drawbacks that could be introduced.

I know that BHG want to introduce "Government Types" to RoN and perhaps the above ideas might provide them with a way that would still make it simple and not complicated, but also have government types play a real role in the game and help impact the outcome of games played. It could really add some depth to the game not seen in RTS games before!


Just food for thought.....

[DarkSide of Day]

Conceding Territory:

As part of the diplomacy function RoN should allow one player to hand over territory to another player for certain concessions? ie: not to attack them, to attack someone else or to ally with, for resources, etc, ( like Napoleon sold the mid west to the US after defeating Spain )

[Mahdimael]

On Governments:

I like the idea. Maybe have each country have 3 or 4 choices through the course of the game. Each country's choices would be individualized. So Russia in the Industrial Age could choose between Communism and Monarchy, but Germany would choose between Republic and Fascism.

Another way to do it would be to have a small dialog onscreen that would allow you to choose quickly between a few different types of government, each with generalized bonuses and penalties. You could switch between governments at a click. Some switches would be painless (i.e. Despotism to Monarchy), while others might cause temporary problems or revolution (Communism to Fascism). There would be some kind of time limit between governmental changes (10 minutes or something) so people couldn't constantly be changing. Maybe there could even be a wonder to eliminate the time limit or penalties when switching.

[Strategy Master]

Blacksmiths
When upgrade units they always have weapons which have not yet been researched. You should have to research the weapon at the blacksmith first.

e.g I upgrade an old clubman thing to a legion or something. Thing is that the legion will look like the clubman still. You have to research new armor and weapons before the legion looks like a proper legion, not a clubman.

I would think this would be great if implemented into the game.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Strategy Master
Blacksmiths
When upgrade units they always have weapons which have not yet been researched. You should have to research the weapon at the blacksmith first.

e.g I upgrade an old clubman thing to a legion or something. Thing is that the legion will look like the clubman still. You have to research new armor and weapons before the legion looks like a proper legion, not a clubman.

I would think this would be great if implemented into the game.

Sounds like this would just add needless management. I don't want to be clicking and reasearch 3 or more things just to upgrade one single unit.

[Strategy Master]

Maybe you havn't understood me blue moose. You upgrade a unit as normal. e.g. one button to upgrade man (even though i think big huge games have changed the way this works by automaitically upgrading). It will be called whatever the new unit is but the units graphic can be changed by improving its armor and weapons. At the blacksmith researching an upgraded weapon gives the graphic effect of a new weapon. New armor shows the unit with better armor.

It dosn't add new mangement. It just adds sense to the blacksmith upgrades. The units don't stay with the same weapon even though you've upgraded to new weapons.

This new feature adds realism to the game.

[Mahdimael]

On automatic unit upgrades-

I don't like the idea of automatic upgrades for all units. I think that some units vary from each other so differently enough that they should coexist. My primary example of this would be cavalry->tanks. Besides the fact that these did coexist (in WWI), I think that going from a shock troop to a shooting mechanized shock troop is too great a leap. Another example would be siege equipment. Trebuchets should not upgrade to cannons. (i.e. non-splash damage -> splash damage)

Also, it seems like it could be unbalancing if you could time an invasion with an upgrade, so that when you arrive at an enemy city, you're attacking with riflemen instead of arquebusiers.

Perhaps units should not upgrade in enemy territory. Another idea would be to have units make a check after an upgrade is researched- if they pass the check, they upgrade. If not, they stay the same. After a bit, do another check with the remaining antiquated units. If by the next technology they haven't upgraded, they upgrade 1 step to the newly antiquated technology.

Example- musketeer becomes rifleman becomes infantry.

I have 10 musketeers. I get rifle technology and 6 become riflemen. while I research infantry, 2 more become riflemen. I get infantry and 4 of my riflemen become infantry. The remaining musketeers become riflemen. At the end I have 4 infantry and 6 riflemen.

[Starspangled]

In some games you can shoot and miss your target, which is cool, but even if it is a very dense area you don't hit anyone else




Please put allow a missed shot to hit someone even when it isn't the original target (I'm not talking about a splash efect).

[theponyguy1]

To Big Huge Games



My name is theponyguy. I am fourteen years old and live in San Diego. I love real time strategy games. I am a big fan of the Age of Empires series, and my two favorite games that are out right now are Starcraft and Age of Kings. I bought Empire Earth when it came out but I wasn’t hooked on it like I was to AOK. When I had AOK, I played it for hours without end, but I got bored of Empire Earth fairly quickly.

Then, around June, I found out Big Huge Games was coming out with a new computer game called Rise of Nations. I looked at the screenshots and was amazed at
the detail of the graphics. Every thing was perfect except for one thing. When a unit stands behind a building or a tree, a filled in outline of the unit appears. This in turn covers up the beautiful artwork in Rise of Nations. I’ll admit, there were some features that I disliked when I first heard of the game. For example, the one infantry unit represented by three soldiers idea and the fact that transports were not in the game really annoyed me. But the more that I thought about these ideas, the more that I liked them. I was pretty upset when I learned that governments and leader artwork, like in Civ3, were not in the game, but I got over it. But one thing that annoyed me from the start and annoys me to this day is the filled in outline of a unit behind a tree or building. It would make the game perfect if BHG could include an option to leave the unit outline not filled in, like in AOE: Age of Kings. In AOE: Age of Kings, when a unit got behind a building or a tree, an outline appeared of the unit in the player’s color. This let the player know that there was a unit behind the building or tree, but it did not sacrifice the game’s artwork while doing so.

So please, consider my idea. Imagine how unattractive it would look if thirty tanks rolled up right behind a city. The city would turn into a big blob in the player’s color. None of the city’s artwork would be seen because the filled in outlines of the tanks would be covering it. Or if there was a lumber camp with a lot of villagers chopping would behind it, the whole entire lumber camp would turn into a blob in the player’s color. So please, Big Huge Games, please include an option so that a player can choose whether he/she wants an empty outline of the unit, like in Age of Empires: AOK, or a filled in one, like in RON’s screenshots, when a unit gets behind a building or a tree. This would make the game look more attractive. Other gamers and I would be very thankful if BHG featured this option.

If you have some time, please write or e-mail me back at theponyguy1@yahoo.com with a response. Thank you.
Your loyal fan,




theponyguy

[Vushum]

I have to agree with theponyguy1. Have you seen how rediculously awfully turdish it looks! So please. Just do this. Have you seen your screenshots BHG? To make this game more popular, this game has have outlines or an optional button like EE.

[Mahdimael]

Here's an idea: I tend to like to play island games so that I'm relatively unmolested during a game. This leads me to my idea- naval warfare innovations. In many games, this kind of thing tends to be boring or fall flat - whoever has more ships wins. I'd like to see some innovation in this area, to make naval battles more interesting. Here's three things off the top of my head.

1. Tactics upgrades for ships (as suggested earlier for land units). Early ships would row towards and ram each other, then you would have galleons where the aim is to kill the soldiers on the enemy ships, then ships of the line travelling in a line, using cannonades, and so on

2. Boarding- just as you can set your land units to flank the enemy, you should be able to set an attitude for your ships in battle- board, evade, destroy. Each ship should have a crew number and rating (which goes against what BR said in interview 4 regarding veteran troops, but I think ships should be considered differently because you build so few of them compared to land troops). Your attitude, crew number and rating determine if you're able to capture the enemy's ships.

3. Instead of an individual transport for units or having them automatically turn into ships for crossing the ocean, how about loading troops onto normal ships (galleons, battleships, whatever) according to some capacity for each ship. Perhaps this can detract from the crew amount to compensate for loss of fighting ability

So, as an example: I load 2 infantry units on a ww2-era battleship. The crew amount goes from 2500 to 1500 and the ship sets sail with avoid orders and a normal crew. It meets an enemy battleship that is carrying nothing and has attack orders and a crack crew. In this case, the enemy battleship would sink my battleship relatively quickly

4. It seems silly that my stone age ships can explore the whole of the map. Maybe there should be some kind of attrition for ships that are exploring the unexplored areas (due to lack of fresh water, food, etc)

I know these may seem like complex suggestions, but when you consider that most people don't create many ships over the course of a game (For instance, I'll build maybe 40 ships in EE), I think it could add another dimension to the game.

[One_Dead_Villy]

those are some interesting idea. I also believe naval combat has been neglected in most RTS's.

in regards to your points:
2) I think to satisty this and not get into veteran units. Just have those things as tech ungrades that either improves your attack in different ways. One would improve range attacks, another would improve close combat attacks. actually for close combat the attack should be like towers and you have to garrison troops in them to use ships to close combat, and would work like city capture. close combats upgrades would say add+1 or +2 or whatever to attacks by garrisoned troops. These techs would be stuff like fore and aft deck castles.

4. there should definitely be some kind of attrition for ships. Not just in stone age but even up to the age of sails and the 1700's that was a BIG deal with people getting proper provisions in ships. Actually that never stopped we just have better provisioning now, so that should just be an upgrade like airplane flight range, before they have to go to port and if they dont they take attrition damage like troops.

[Kazid]

I completely agree with the posts on this board. supply is probaly the defining factor to large military campains and the limited existence in ancient, medieval and modern times. even in present times global military operations are limited to a very few nations which often can only successfully execute it by relying on an intesive logistic organisation which costs a lot of resources. only the economically most powerfull nations can afford such organisations and they rely on civil transportation (commerce) most of the time.

Most of the naval war in ww2 was about supply and logistics (German subs against US/UK supply convoys) and the offensive of the US in the pacific which had to go from island to island establishing new bases (waypoints) for supply.
Even modern wars are very reliant on a well run logistics organisation. (There is probably a very good reason, why the US President stopped the strikes in the West Coast harbors -> Maybe his plans in the middle east).

In terms of RoN I think that supply should always be a significant drag on resouces and not reduced by technology. technology and relevant commerce infrastructure should be a means to come up with enough resources to supply a large army accordingly.

This would prevent 2 issues discussed in this thread already: rushing and expanding too far from the existing territory. In the early ages the nations would simply not be able to come up with the resources needed to supply any unit too far away from its homeland. The only way to do that would be by establishing a corresponding commercial and logistical infrastructure.



Looking foreward to your comments.

SeeYa
Kazid

[Kniprode]

After composing a short novel, and having subsequently lost it in an attempt to post the message, I'll try again. My prejudice, admitted up front, is for custom scenarios. Replayability is the key to game success, and more people play custom scenarios (at least in AOK) than ever compete in multiplayer tournaments. AOK had replayability (hence the success of the Conqueror's expansion), EE did not. So I would like to see more eye candy buildings (e.g., trade workshop in AOK), banners and flags, torches, waterfalls, bridges, tents, etc. that are not strictly necessary from a gaming point of view, but make for great looking scenarios. The more variety, the better. I like to create historically based scenarios, arranged into campaigns, or semi-historically based "what if" scenarios. I like it when I can make Constantinople at least resemble Constantinople in an abbreviated way.

I liked EE's ability to customize civ bonuses, and specify a tech tree for each player. I very much liked the ability to rename all units of a particular type for a particular player (e.g., Partisans became Boer irregulars in a Boer War scenario; Elite Guard became Ottoman Infantry in a Gallipoli scenario, etc.). The ability to set parameters (range, hit points, etc.) for each unit via triggers was quite nice as well. Easy to use foolproof triggers would be very nice. AOK's triggers were easy to understand, if a little tedious to use and not very flexible. EE's are much more inclusive, but are harder to use and don't always work as expected.

I would like to see an extensive tech tree in RoN; EE's tech tree was very limited, with only about a half dozen new techs that could be researched in each age. I did like the ability in EE to research unit type specific techs, with the ability to trade off speed vs. armor vs. range vs. hit points. I would also like to see a downside to certain research or advancing epochs. For example, moving up to the modern age would mean higher military recruitment costs (prospective recruits demand higher pay, better food and housing, etc. to coax them from the creature comforts of today's world). A "draft" tech could be researched to overcome this downside, but at the risk of some civil unrest (translated in game terms by a less efficient gathering of resources). Markmanship would also be lessened by moving to the modern age, as fewer people own guns or hunt for their food. This downside could be overcome by researching telescopic sights, sniper training, etc., but these cost money, and therefore it might make sense in the short run to not advance to the next age while you are in the middle of a shoot out with your neighbor.

I would also like to see a "decision tree" in researching techs. For example, one could choose "research merchants" OR "research military training". The player who choses merchants has various techs available to him/her earlier than those players who chose a military culture (i.e., Central Bank, allowing the merchant focused player to borrow gold two ages earlier in the game; Rifled Barrel, allowing the military player to research more accurate firearms one age earlier than the merchant player). Later in the game some techs would only be available to the military player (e.g., Long Range Artillery, Heavy Tanks), but at the expense of all of the increase in profits that the merchant player had accumulated over the years and possibly led him/her to defeat the military player before he/she got to the long range artillery stage. Some dead end techs (a famous example being Russia's attempts at aircraft with 10 wings or more) would be nice too, although with our benefit of hindsight and player forums no one would choose them after the first mistake. Small, incremental improvements are nice too, as they entail a trade off in cost versus benefit. I don't like the simple "race to research everything and advance in age as fast as possible" game play. I like more real world trade offs. Other trade offs could be Land based versus Naval based; or later Land versus Naval versus Air (once at that stage of the game). Small attack or defense bonuses would be attached to having chosen Air over other lines of research, and some techs would be available earlier or cheaper for the Air player (jet aircraft earlier; synchronized machine guns on WWI era planes, etc.). Some techs could be for those players with certain combinations (those who chose Land in the first decision, then Air later could research paratroops; those who chose Naval then Air could research Aircraft Carriers; those who went Land - Land would have better armies; etc.). Of course, all of these research choices would have costs, so not everyone would have ever chosen any specialty. I would like to see the ability to research some techs "expire." For example, if by a certain age, the Merchant versus Military choice was not made, then it cannot be researched. That player saves some money in the short run, and maybe used that money to save his nation or research other important techs, but now will never be able to research every single military or merchant tech. Another layer of strategy. Again, I wouldn't want these bonuses to be so great as to unbalance the game, but I would like to have some variation in the civilization outcomes and strategy in choosing what to research. I wouldn't want the player who chose Land-Land to be completely unstoppable in a land based war, but would expect that they would be an extremely tough opponent in this type of war, depending upon the extent to which they had taken advantage of their specialization by researching the techs earlier or researching the exclusive Land-Land techs.

I love the idea of formations in the middle to late stages of the game; however, this is problematic in the modern age in which cover is used. Cossacks had a great idea in this regard (encourage formations through morale boosters like drummers). Modelling battle as practiced by Frederick the Great or Napoleon is not possible without formations. Close Combat was great at modelling more modern warfare, but that methodology would not work well in an RTS (much as I would like to see someone take up the Close Combat mantle again) in which you must have the ability to see inside buildings and behind cover. I would like to see more intelligent units; formation marching, and stopping when fired upon instead of marching blindly single file past the enemy's guard tower only to be picked off one by one, would be a great start. Additionally, airplanes that return to base when damaged, instead of continuing to circle until shot down by AA fire; at least have them target the AA first if they do decide to stick around. Don't use the EE Rock-Paper-Scissors method of determining heirarchies; while a fighter is better at shooting down a dive bomber than vice versa, one fighter shouldn't be able to take on 10 dive bombers as a routine matter of course.

Along these lines, one of the previous postings mentioned naval attrition. While I agree that this a real world effect, I am worried about the micromanagement this would entail. I hated this about Europa Universalis; I constantly had to check on my naval blockades to assure that they didn't wither away to nothing (or in the case of EU, 3 ships) These type of games let us assume the role of the leader of the country, and should not make us perform every bureaucratic function ourselves. What player would not, given enough time and awareness, send his ships into port periodically to minimize or eliminate attrition?

Last thoughts (at least that I have time to write up) - while I liked "monuments" in AOK (they could be placed in any city, and didn't have to be destroyed by the conqueror), I don't like Wonders that give special powers unless they have some real world basis. I can see a Library of Alexandria providing some university bonuses; or a Brandenburg Gate providing a morale bonus to your troops (not to mention that it would look really cool in a Battle for Berlin scenario); but having a "self healing" power (for example) above and beyond medics really detracts from game play for me. Again, I like to try to model real world scenarios/cities/battles as closely as the game in question will allow. While admittedly, this is in and of itself a "fantasy", I can at least convince myself that it has some basis in fact. Along these lines, please no prophets calling down earthquakes or priests yelling to "convert" enemies in the middle of a battle (yes, that priest over there is so persuasive that I'll change to the opponents side in the middle of my formation so I can be immediately shot by the troops surrounding me). Just an opinion, and no offense intended to those individuals who do like more of the overt fantasy elements - we just have different tastes.

And thanks for reading this diatribe.

[Mahdimael]

Good ideas!

The problem I've found with OR technology trees is that invariably (as you yourself pointed out), people come up with strategies to maximize the numerical superiority of their tree (or they choose the "best" technology, a la MOO2). Maybe there could be a slider or something between military and economy (i.e. Guns or Butter). The farther the slider was over to one side, the more bonuses would be in that area. For instance, if I had the slider all the way on military, I would gain +5 on all attacks, but half-effective economy buildings.

I think modern tactics could be something as simple as smaller groups that would take cover when attacked. Smart AI is very important, not only for the enemy but for your own troops. Troops should (be able to) scatter when attacked by artillery or bombers.

Finally, in terms of ships, I think that attrition or supply could be handled automatically. You could send a ship out to explore, but as soon as it ran low on supplies or had too much attrition, it would return to port. By doing this, you could have a maximum distance from a port that you could explore (which would increase as naval tech increased).

[mrboo123]

Will, there be a Demo??? Thats how I know the game works or is it good or not, (I'm think RoN is going to be good, but just to be sure....)

[Starspangled]

Will there be or could you add a "general" of the sky like Air Force One or a Boeing Sentry?

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Axehilt


I seriously doubt this would be the case, considering the IC in ICBM is "Inter-Continental".

Can was supposed to be can't.

And no one was the wiser...

[Viking Berserk]

Include these civs:

Vikings
Persians
Arabs
Celts

after that you all go visit this page:

http://www.empiregaming.net