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

[One_Dead_Villy]

Originally posted by SMIFFGIG
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
.

depends on what you mean by right. It seems to me, he was expecting a different game then what he thought it was. I dont think BHG ever said the game played like anything but an RTS. Althought the CTW campaign does indeed add a quasi turn based, risk like game over an RTS. Saying that the 4 research track as merely just more buttons to click, simply shows the lack of understanding how it changes gameplay, especially in competitive play. Purhaps the subtlety of it is lost in his disillusionment that RoN is more an RTS, then it is like CIV. (at least the apparent objection to RoN being hosted here seems to imply this).

also some people dont want that much of a departure from other RTS's with RoN, yet some say RoN is too much of a departure from past RTS, although apparently we have someone here who thinks its not enough of a departure. Well that just shows u one thing, you cant please everyone.

Originally posted by SMIFFGIG
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.

mostly? most of the people I see on here posting, I dont think are working for the company. There's maybe 3 people from BHG that frequent and posts. The rest are just fans. Of course the people posting only can get info from what game preview sites has published or what the developers chooses to say. But I dont think its a fault of them, or the fan community, if he didnt ask the right questions about the game, and ended up thinking it was one thing when it was another.

[Bridger]

RoN is unique for it's gameplay, how do you not see that? Are you playing RoN exactly like you would play age? I don't see how, as each has totaly seperate economic requirements. In Age or any other RTS you can build anywhere on the map (save C&C), including right next to the enemy base. In RoN you can only build in your territory and next to a city and only one of each economic building. Plus there's infinate resourses, 4 seperate research trees, 18 very different but not seemingly imbalanced. The strategy invovled in the research and economic aspect of RoN is double that of any other RTS i can think of. Choosing which path you should upgrade next is a huge stratetic decision, in other games you don't have this kind of situation with 4 equally critical upgrades.

This poster really sounds like somebody expecting to play the single player like a Civ game. "All the computer players offered me the same ammount of tribute," wtf? It's a MULTIPLAYER GAME first, and single second, that's how every RTS in the last 2 years has been. Why would you judge diplomacy based on the AI? Maybe if you didn't have a modem...

[Triphosphatase]

One_Dead_Villy: Have you actually played Total Annihilation frequently online?

Bridger: Have you played RoN yourself? If you had, you would realize that the game plays very closely with AOE.

Explain how the strategy involved in research and economic aspects of the game is double of any other RTS released.
Place Woodcutter's beside trees, place mines beside mountains, lay a few farm... Snore.
Click on tiny icons at the bottom of the screen to research and advance in a predetermined order... Snore.

[One_Dead_Villy]

I wasnt the one touting that TA, is the best designed game, cause it has unbalanced units. TA maybe a good game, but having unbalanced units is NOT what makes it a good game.

Since I am here first I'll answer for Bridger, he has and have played the beta version. So it is an informed opinion, and has as much validity (if not more so then) as anyone else. As far as RoN playing like AOE, I think thats a great complement, that game is a classic.

Since you asked how the research and strategy in RoN is more then other RTS. In old RTS's, its simple villager production, , so that u can have a continuous stream of villagers being produced. It is completely reduceable to rate of villager production that determines how well your economy will be. Besides rushing, you also have to boom in all past RTS's to be truly competitive. So its a simple matter of being able to create enough farms to create a continuous villager production out of all your Towns. Whoever has the highest rate of villager production will have the better economy. All resources are equal, and all you have to do is pile on as many villagers in one spot to gain the production. EE does limit the number of workers on certain resources (and adds garrisoning in addition to tech upgrades but this is essentually the same as investing in tech upgrades). The older RTS's doesnt even have this garrisoning, and only has tech upgrades.

In RoN you have resources that yield different amounts of resources determined by where you place your collection points (which limits how many workers you can have on a resource) which mean its important where and which resource you exploit, not just a matter of placing them close to the resource to minimize walking distance. The commerce cap also prevents you from mindlessly producing villagers to boom your economy. You have to actually preplan your research, so that you arent producing villagers unnessarily and therefore incurring opportunity costs. You have to micro and plan your villagers to put them into resources that not only are what you are lacking, but also determined by your commerce capacity. (this latter point is not even in any of the other RTS, as their is no limit to the rate you can collect if you have the villagers to do it). Also the fact that you can only have ONE collection point per resource area (and in particular one mine per mountain), means that who ever gets to a mountain will have a big advantage, you cant just have two people share at one resource. and also makes your initial choices of where to place collecting points even more important. This makes these terrain features strategically important. With farms, in other RTS's there's no limit to the number of farms you can make, so all u need to do to boom is to just lay out as many farms as you feel you need. With a limited number of farms slots, you are forced to consider your food production capacity and capability (two separate things) in producing your army, and how you expand your empire. None of this needs to be considered in past RTS's since there is no such limit.

[Solver]

Triphosphatase, I think that also the problem of EE was a bit too many units and balance problems, don't you think so? Nukes couldn't do more than destroy a few closely packed buildings. Good cybers are so good that they make infantry wasted, etc. And quite some useless units in it, too.

You're saying RoN plays closely to AoE. Well, in the terms of the basics and interface, it's just that for an AoE player it's easy to pick up. You can play RoN the same way as you play AoE, but you will lose to the better players.

Again, look at EE. I was an AoE veteran when I got that, and, of course, I could immediately play it, using the many similarities. However, first I tried playing much the same way and using the same strategies, but only then I learned that it's not efficient, for the games are different. For example, a tower rush/push won't do you nearly as much good in EE as AoE.

[Alex]

Originally posted by SMIFFGIG


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

My comment was a reaction to the fact that he apparently was just disappointed because RoN didn't fancy him.

He wasn't offering any objective comments about the game, just disillusioned remarks like "this has been done before, this other doesn't mean nothing to me, oh god I want something different". Fine, he has every right to dislike the game... I just think that his comments were not adding anything new to me.

I'm not a fanboy, certainly not a BHG fanboy. I didn't play RoN and I don't like RTS very much, but I plan to give RoN a try because it seems to have some novel things in it. Maybe our chemical guy is right, maybe I'll hate RoN after playing it for a while, who knows? But, right now, our lovely chemical guy is just the first in a group of people that will not like RoN. It happens. Me? I want a good analysis of the game. Not anything like "I don't like it because I don't like it".

No hard feelings.

[Bridger]

Originally posted by Triphosphatase
One_Dead_Villy: Have you actually played Total Annihilation frequently online?

Bridger: Have you played RoN yourself? If you had, you would realize that the game plays very closely with AOE.

Explain how the strategy involved in research and economic aspects of the game is double of any other RTS released.
Place Woodcutter's beside trees, place mines beside mountains, lay a few farm... Snore.
Click on tiny icons at the bottom of the screen to research and advance in a predetermined order... Snore.

Seems to me you don't even like RTS's, so why even bother to post a review about one?

And researching in a predetermined order? I've had ot change my research path order countless times when playing depending on the resourses i've found, the ammount of tension i'm feeling over militery vs. economy, and if i feel i need to age up yet or can maybe get my commerce cap up first. Those 4 research tree's are all critical and depending on the situation in the game your going to want to upgrade in a different order. This is the strategy. Do i upgrade my science so that my age research will be cheaper and take a risk or should you age now? Should you go for civics to get another city up for increase the commerce cap first?

Those are not predetermined, they can't posibly be, not like any other RTS game i know.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I think this guy's viewpoints are valid just because he has an unpronounceable chemical username. I remember the days over at the Thief forum where the posters all had names like

pentahexaduotridecameraldecode

and

MegasuperultramaximaniaWWFWrestling

Compared to these, "Triphosphatase" is a like a breath of fresh air to me.

So what if his posts are controversial. In this day and age where the websites look like news channels and the news channels look like websites, ALL I WANT IS INSTANT GRATIFICATION AND SURFACE GLITTER MORE MORE MORE

Next please.

[ACEofHeart]

well, I was intially scratching my head why a RTS game was on Apolyton.
Because virtually every RTS game I have ever played the "S" in RTS did not stand for strategy", it stood for "speed". It always came down to how "fast" you gather resourses, how "fast" you went to the next age..how fast you cranked out units,, how "fast" you can scroll the map in battle, how fast .. well....blah,, blah,, blah... you get the idea.
hmmm,,,was it put on Apolyton just because of Mr Reynolds ?

[One_Dead_Villy]

i think you're quite right AceofHeart....

i think as far as RoN is concerned...it really depends on where u're coming from. If you're an RTS player looking for more depth then RoN is a good choice, and if you're a history buff also then its the best thing out there. However, if you're a hardcore TBS'er and hate RTS's then I dont think RoN will be your thing.

[MarkG]

was it put on Apolyton just because of Mr Reynolds?

our initial thought was "if someone is going to make a good rts that tbs players can enjoy, our best chance is the people that made civ2 and smac"

imho, we have been proven right

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by One_Dead_Villy
i think you're quite right AceofHeart....

i think as far as RoN is concerned...it really depends on where u're coming from. If you're an RTS player looking for more depth then RoN is a good choice, and if you're a history buff also then its the best thing out there. However, if you're a hardcore TBS'er and hate RTS's then I dont think RoN will be your thing.

\\


Interesting comment.

Im mainly a TBS'er, but have enjoyed dabbling with AOE. And I am definitely a history buff. I was hoping that when they said RON was a Civish RTS, they meant something like EU, but an RTS thats more civish than AOE or EE sounds good to me. So i guess im part of the target audience (well once i replace my dinosaur computer, anyway) OTOH I play SP only, have never attempted to fit MP into my schedule. Of course i havent played any RTS released in the last 2 years .

So is RoN decent in SP?

[yin26]

I think somebody had better send me this game ASAP so I can decide this dispute once and for all ... anybody need my address?

[Solver]

Download the demo which is supposed to be public today .

Really, Yin, I believe that your taste should be enough to persuade many Apolytoners .

[The Templar]

Smells like a MoO3 forum in here ...

I don't see anything particularly special about this game. Speaking of MoO3, I think we need more TBS/RTS hybrids. Maybe more RTS than MoO3 and more TBS than EU. But RoN is just straight-up RTS with the typical Reynolds flourish of more features. But if you like straight RTS, RoN isn't bad.