Announcement

**Alex** · May 10, 2003, 08:00

Really?

Next, please.

**Solver** · May 10, 2003, 10:11

Sure, it may have borders, but it is only an added mechanic to a RTS.

Actually, it's that of giant importance - borders have a ROLE in the game.

Trade routes? They were in AoM.

AoM trade routers are late-game, and not always used. RoN trade routes are absolutely critical.

Research? Every RTS has research.

Oh, really? Every RTS game just has some unit upgrading and age advance, nothing even similar to this research model. And does any other game have a Knowledge resource?

Diplomacy? Give me a break. The diplomacy in RoN is a joke.

Give ME a break. In other games, it's a pure either war or peace diplo state. 95% MP games are played either 1v1 or with preset teams, so diplo is ZERO.

Long games? Nope, not anything like that in here. On a Big Huge map with Research at Very Expensive and Very Slow with 6 other nations, the battle only took 2 hours to complete. The speed at which all research is conducted is quite odd. Since technology comes so fast at even the "Very Slow" setting, all of the units fly by without any notice given to them.

Speed is just fine, and you say 2 hours isn't long? For RTS, it's very long. AoM games take about 15-20 minutes, normally. 1v1 game over 30 minutes is VERY long and rare.

Gee, you actually played the game

?

**One_Dead_Villy** · May 10, 2003, 10:31

Well it seems the original poster had the idea that RoN was a TBS game or something, where you sit there an play for a day save it and come back and play for another day. I would have thought it was clear from the many postings and feedback from BHG that RoN is an RTS. it borrows IDEAS from TBS like CIV and AC (although apparently he cant see beyond the surface how ideas from those games have been integrated into RoN), but it never claimed to even be anything but an RTS. So it seems strange the poster said he was lied to, more like he misunderstood what the game was about to begin with.

But anyways maybe he should try that CTW campaign, that should take him a while.

**Immortal Wombat** · May 10, 2003, 10:46

EE smooth running

**Triphosphatase** · May 10, 2003, 14:35

The flames from the fanboys! The best course of action for them would be to sit on their hands and nod to what I say.

Diplomacy is zero in RoN. Forging an alliance is only reliant on a simplistic formula for the required tribute. Making a proposal to every nation, I found out that all nations require the exact same amount of tribute for the agreement. How silly.

Actually, it's that of giant importance - borders have a ROLE in the game.

READ my POST again PLEASE. Don't YOU LOVE random CAPITALIZATION?

Oh, really? Every RTS game just has some unit upgrading and age advance, nothing even similar to this research model. And does any other game have a Knowledge resource?

Ah! The game has a Knowlege resource! I am sure RoN would have been a better game if it also had fish, meat, barney, rice, clay, coal, iron, gold, silver, fir, cedar, pine, and cabbage resources!
Have you actually played the game? The research model in RoN is still similiar to other RTS games. Instead of clicking a button to upgrade to a higher epoch, now I have to click five buttons. The added strategy!

As for my dissapointment, it stems from the utter overhype present in this game. I should have been told outright that this is a plain EE clone.

**Solver** · May 10, 2003, 14:48

Hmm, actually I have written the beta preview for this game...

No offense, but you sound like a complete newbie, not someone with many years of gaming experience. RoN and EE have very little in common, except for on the surface, but they are very, very different games. EE just tried to bring strategy into RTS, but it was still all about clicking faster than the opponent. RoN is not, and if you fail to see that, you just don't understand the game at all.

If you want a game with lots of diplomacy, play Civ. RoN doesn't try to become a TBS. It just brings TBS ideas into RTS, and now that is what is done very well. At least you use those diplomatic options sometimes...

**Triphosphatase** · May 10, 2003, 17:02

When in doubt, say newbie!

Do you play RTS games at all? If clicking faster than my opponent won games in any RTS game, I must have been living under a rock.
Ah clicking faster! I think I play all RTS games better already.

Why is a RoN site hosted on apolyton?

**Locutus** · May 10, 2003, 17:37

Originally posted by Solver
Speed is just fine, and you say 2 hours isn't long? For RTS, it's very long. AoM games take about 15-20 minutes, normally. 1v1 game over 30 minutes is VERY long and rare.

Solver,
Is 2 hours your experience as well for a very drawn-out game? I know from previous discussions that I play RTS at about 1/4 the speed of you, so if so, I should be able to manage some 8 hour games

**Solver** · May 10, 2003, 17:47

Do you play RTS games at all? If clicking faster than my opponent won games in any RTS game, I must have been living under a rock.

I have played RTS games ever since the first Age of Empires game came out, and I've been an Age of Empires wembaster...

. And, if so you wish, I shall play you at any of the Age games anytime you wish.

I do not deny that there is strategy in all RTS games, but the most vital part is putting it to action by fast clicking. No matter how good you know unit counters and such stuff, you will fail if you are slow. Or not? Pray tell, which games you have played (RTS), and what are your experiences... any other than EE?

**Solver** · May 10, 2003, 17:49

Solver,
Is 2 hours your experience as well for a very drawn-out game? I know from previous discussions that I play RTS at about 1/4 the speed of you, so if so, I should be able to manage some 8 hour games

Yeah, I was pretty amazed at your speeds

. I haven't played RoN in multiplayer, but in my experience, 2 hours is pretty long for a game. Most games I have played lasted for about an hour, with me actually attempting to keep things pretty slow. I have, though, tried to see if I can get quick games, and the answer is surely yes.

And players like you will probably be able to score 4-5 hour games

.

**SMIFFGIG** · May 10, 2003, 17:57

jeez give the guy some credit, hes obviously played the game so at least has backing for his opinions

i think dismissive comments like

Really?
next please

and calling him a n00b just because he has opinions you dont like to hear is riduculous quite frankly

and if this game follows the current trend of 90% of released games today and if it plays anything like it looks

then im afraid this guys right

oh and all this stuff youve heard about the game, just remember to take into account that a tiny percentage of it has been from actual players and its mostly from the company itself. Now im not calling the company liers

but just take into account they are trying to sell a product here
thats what it comes down to at the end of the day, so if any! of you get hyped up about amazing and ground breaking features this game is GOING to have and take it as gospel (100% truth for ppl who dont know what i mean) then your fools

im not trying to start an argument here or say that this game is going to be crap

but please take ppls points and opinions and view things realistically

**Solver** · May 10, 2003, 18:05

I'm giving him some credit, and am just arguing. And I didn't call him a noob, I just asked if he is a RTS noob

.

**Triphosphatase** · May 10, 2003, 20:35

Warcraft 2
C&C
Total Annihilation
Starcraft
AOE
C&C Tiberium Sun (Ugh)
AOK
EE
C&C Generals
AOM (Ugh)
Warcraft 3 (This game doesn't even belong on this list)
And some minor games that are irrlevant (Earth 2150 was it?)

The only RTS out of that bunch that had any merit was Total Annihilation. Six years later after its release, not a single RTS played like it. Having only one useful offensive unit and one useful defensive structure on a land map will seem to play like a simple game, but the strategy and concentration required is unprofounded.
All future games employ the rock-paper-scissor model which is a uncreative design to force unit diversity.

TA had near a hundred mobile units to choose from, and only one was useful. Was the game a drab? I certainly didn't think so. The developer of TA did not intentially design the game to be played in this manner. This 'mistake' of unbalanced units turned the game into simply the best game that I have ever played. I still enjoy a match online playing a six year old game.

Why am I praising TA? Must be because I had to list the RTS games that I have played and have been sorely dissapointed by every single one that I listed.

**One_Dead_Villy** · May 10, 2003, 21:13

In that case, I think you should stick to what you like. No one is forcing you to play a new game...you have your opinion, and many dont agree with it. It seems your opinion is more reactionary then any kind of objective view of the game, simply cause it wasnt what you were expecting.

although saying a game having unbalanced units, and only one useful unit out of hundred made it a great game...one can only say that your criteria for a good game doesnt match much of the gaming industry or anyone's concept of a well designed game.

Announcement

I was lied to; this game isn't unique at all!

I was lied to; this game isn't unique at all!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment