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

[Triphosphatase]

"Oh no! You can't even queue in the game!!!! You can't heal units!!! But TA........it roxors cause you can lag it and win!!! And there are 2 units that you can build! OMG yeah.....But RoN. Borders don't even mean anything! And you can't even queue units!!!"

Judging by your post, you are stupider than you sound.

well its truely astounding that you're basically enamoured with the bugs in the program. and creating lag in the game as strategy? give me a break. u want the game to freeze, and lag? just get a crappy graphics card and computer, i'm sure it will choke the machine when playing RoN, if u want to get that effect. Your arguments are just plain silly.

Congratulations. You are at the same level as Tassadar. Illiterate!

1.) No more click fest crap. Meaning that spead will not equal victory, that slower players have a chance at winning if they use their brains.

Every new RTS that comes out claims to achieve that. Try playing RoN again.

5.)Finally a RTS were you acitually are building cities, gives me a feel of civ game but in real time.

So what? The same concept was in AOE/AOK/EE/AOM...

5) How hard is it to garison after a battle? This literally takes 2 minutes, Hotkey your pikes into 1 barracks, your archers into another, cav go in stables, seige goes in factory and anything left over goes in you castle (you have one don't you?). Then 30-40 seconds later you got fully healed units. Is this really so hard?

Yes. Easier said than done.

7) Well they arn't going to let the computer do EVERYTHING for you. Just because the redundant micromanagement was taken out doens't mean they should take out the strategic micromanagement also.

Define redundant and strategic. Frankly, almost all user functions in RoN are redundant.

RoN has been made by the Brian Reynolds, the same guy who lead designed SMAC (one of my all time favourites). This game holds the legacy of Civ2 and SMAC, while borrowing from most recent RTS and I'm glad it shows; great diplomacy, plethora of options, fast action and deep thinking etc. If you are looking for awesome graphics then you will be disappointed (Altho I find the graphics just fine, but thats only my opinion mind you =), but if you are looking for a sweet marriage between fast action and *real* strategy then welcome aboard.

Good deplomacy! "Real" strategy! Ha! Spoken like a PR drone. The game is practically a carbon copy of EE.

Last but not the least, if you are to argue, at least mix in some logic and good sense, that complaining about the rock-paper-scissor (counter system) which is the basis of balance in mp games makes you look crazy.

Since you have never experienced anything other than rock-paper-scissors, (meaning you never played TA to that point where you understood the game) you will find it crazy when I say that strategy can exist without that concept.

I don't know what's up with TA, beside some innovative ideas (nothing more than Dark Reign) and crappy unit design. I played it a lot, trying to find what was so hot about it, until I gave up and went back to my beloved SC, AoE and WC2.

What you are trying to say is that you gave up and ran to games where online strategy guides with clearcut build orders and strategy "procedures" helped you understand what "strategy" really means.

After RoN will have it's "best" build orders and pre-rehearsed tactics developed for it, it will be thrown into the same pile of redundant and uncreative RTS from the past few years.

[Ianworld]

Well i too ams glad to see quite a few TAers around...

The reason why i compare TA to RoN or anyother RTS right now is that nothing has yet to compare to it. It didn't have the diplomacy of a TBS game but what it had was military strategy. Its the only RTS i've ever played where i can watch and control the action and not worry that i'm falling behind in unit production, resource gathering and research. That was 6 years ago and still i have to rush back to worry about resources or in RoN constructing new cities, researching and making sure my units are being produced. I'll be damned if i have to worry about another villager gathering resources again or sitting around doing nothing.

But comparing RoN to AoK or any of the other historical RTS's it fares pretty well. I like all the new improvments and it is a step in the right direction. It's great that diplomacy is finally in an RTS and borders are a wonderful creation. I just wish i could sit a moment and see whats going on instead of waiting for that correct amount of resources.

Thats my little plea for the RTS genre to get a hint.

But i'll go back to TA... (oh and with all the mods, units,user-made patches etc... its not only balanced but even more playable than it was)

edit-- same ole triph

Some other comments i left out... DOWN WITH ROCK PAPER SCISSORS!!!! i can play that on my own time with friends i can see, infact the strategies on this website would apply to all non-ta RTS's. TA was built with the idea of having a unit for each role, not each unit having a counter. Let the human decide which way is the best to counter such an assualt not hold him to one and only one method like a cage. (had to uset that smile)

[PrinceBimz]

I think what Triphosphatase is trying to say here is RoN is similar to other RTS games. I agree it is similar. In fact I don't think he said he did not like the game he just mentioned it was similar. Now, what he forgot to mention is its better. The reason RoN is better is because it does everything all the other RTS games do but it does it all better and its BIG and HUGE, hence the company's name Also, RoN has more units, more techs, more resources, better interface, better playablility, better realism, better everything then Starcraft and Warcraft 3 put together as well as the rest of the RTS games currently out. The only exception is EE, because it is very big as well especially with the expansion pack. I like AoM and I love EE but I am thinking about selling AoM and Warcraft 3 to get RoN. I will keep EE of course. Keep in mind, I only played the RoN demo of course, so the full game is going to be the real deal and better then ever!

[PrinceBimz]

Originally posted by Ianworld
Well i too ams glad to see quite a few TAers around...

The reason why i compare TA to RoN or anyother RTS right now is that nothing has yet to compare to it. It didn't have the diplomacy of a TBS game but what it had was military strategy. Its the only RTS i've ever played where i can watch and control the action and not worry that i'm falling behind in unit production, resource gathering and research. That was 6 years ago and still i have to rush back to worry about resources or in RoN constructing new cities, researching and making sure my units are being produced. I'll be damned if i have to worry about another villager gathering resources again or sitting around doing nothing.

But comparing RoN to AoK or any of the other historical RTS's it fares pretty well. I like all the new improvments and it is a step in the right direction. It's great that diplomacy is finally in an RTS and borders are a wonderful creation. I just wish i could sit a moment and see whats going on instead of waiting for that correct amount of resources.

Thats my little plea for the RTS genre to get a hint.

But i'll go back to TA... (oh and with all the mods, units,user-made patches etc... its not only balanced but even more playable than it was)

edit-- same ole triph

Some other comments i left out... DOWN WITH ROCK PAPER SCISSORS!!!! i can play that on my own time with friends i can see, infact the strategies on this website would apply to all non-ta RTS's. TA was built with the idea of having a unit for each role, not each unit having a counter. Let the human decide which way is the best to counter such an assualt not hold him to one and only one method like a cage. (had to uset that smile)

Oh yeah, TA what a game that was. I remember those days, heck that game is still fun.

[Bridger]

Re: I suppose...perhaps...

Originally posted by The Rusty Gamer
I suppose it would be good to have a button on the units that you push so that they will automatically find the nearest appropriate bulding and garrison in it instead of us having to hunt around for the building.

I believe that was suggested and the devs replied with something like "hmmm, maybe in a future patch" or something, but don't quote me on that.

[Bridger]

Originally posted by Triphosphatase

The game is practically a carbon copy of EE.

I'm done reading this guys crap. This statement proves to me he has no idea what he's talking about. He either never played the game or played it for 10 minutes and decided "i'm gonna rant about how much it sucks!"

This statement has lost him the last bit of credability he had, no need to even read anymore of his posts.

[MahoTsukai]

Triphos, cry me a river then bridge and get over it.

I'm done with this crap.

[Galilee]

It's obvious that Triphosphatase is trolling I know the type.
While he may have some valid points, it seems to me that even when some points are argued against with facts he will try to find new things to complain about. It's the way they work.
Great, he doesnt like the game. Fine, now move on to another forum where you can have a now turn complaining about RoN

[One_Dead_Villy]

yep...he said he was "done with RoN"...guess he's still playing it cause he seem quite frustrated still.

[olaf]

I've played the game.

It is just like other RTS games. Exactly like them. He who gathers the most resources and builds the most units the fastest wins. I suppose there could be exceptions to that, like if you built all the same unit, never upgraded, and sent them piecemeal to their doom. But generally speaking and assuming a basic RTS competency level, being successful in RoN is just like being successful in any base building RTS game and that has most to do with having a build order and being able to implement it faster than the other guy.

There are some new wrinkles, sure. But they dont fundamentally change the way to play and win unless you arbitrarily remove victory conditions.

There isnt really anything turnbased about the game. The conquer the world mode just adds the ability to choose which territory to fight in and to upgrade existing provinces (which translates to more buildings/units if you are on the defensive in them). Borders, tech, and diplomacy might be elements common to TB games, but they dont have much new or practical impact here.

Bottomline for me is, its one of the better RTS games because its extremely polished. If you despise RTS games, you wont like this. If you love them, you will. If you are on the fence, download the demo.

My biggest personal gripes would be: 1) You cant save the game except between battles in conquer the world mode and 2) No America to play 3) Healing/repairing units is an absolute pain (if you think I am gonna play the French to be able to heal/repair easier you are smoking crack) and adds way too much micromanagement to a game already heavy with it

olaf

[Alex]

Hm... there seems to be a disagreement between those who wanted the game to be a RTS version of civ and those who understand that the game is a RTS with some new tweaks and wrinkles.

Actually, I don't recall any statement from BHG that RoN would be a Civ in real-time. Brian Reynolds left Firaxis because he wanted to work with RTS games, and he did not want to make a new version of Civ (this is what Firaxis did).

Originally posted by olaf
Bottomline for me is, its one of the better RTS games because its extremely polished. If you despise RTS games, you wont like this. If you love them, you will.

This pretty much summarizes things for me. I'm not the greatest RTS fan in the world, but if the game is good, I'll give it a try.

[One_Dead_Villy]

i smoke crack...and i'm calling one Olaf the French! hehe j/k

[Bridger]

Originally posted by olaf
I've played the game.

It is just like other RTS games. Exactly like them. He who gathers the most resources and builds the most units the fastest wins. I suppose there could be exceptions to that, like if you built all the same unit, never upgraded, and sent them piecemeal to their doom. But generally speaking and assuming a basic RTS competency level, being successful in RoN is just like being successful in any base building RTS game and that has most to do with having a build order and being able to implement it faster than the other guy.

There are some new wrinkles, sure. But they dont fundamentally change the way to play and win unless you arbitrarily remove victory conditions.

There isnt really anything turnbased about the game. The conquer the world mode just adds the ability to choose which territory to fight in and to upgrade existing provinces (which translates to more buildings/units if you are on the defensive in them). Borders, tech, and diplomacy might be elements common to TB games, but they dont have much new or practical impact here.

Bottomline for me is, its one of the better RTS games because its extremely polished. If you despise RTS games, you wont like this. If you love them, you will. If you are on the fence, download the demo.

My biggest personal gripes would be: 1) You cant save the game except between battles in conquer the world mode and 2) No America to play 3) Healing/repairing units is an absolute pain (if you think I am gonna play the French to be able to heal/repair easier you are smoking crack) and adds way too much micromanagement to a game already heavy with it

olaf

There's a lot more to RoN then a build order IMHO. The research trees are so varied and unique that based on the situation you will want to go one way more than another. Based on the map you might want to take a stab at the enemy capitol or you might want to build defences and counter-attack. Or maybe you want to send spies and commando's in to kill his economy shortly before you invade. I think the strategic posibilities of RoN are much more than a build order and that if you follow a build order in RoN every game, you will loose, every game.

Also, if you have even looked at RoN at all, you will notice that they got RID of as much micromanagement as posible while at the same time not letting the computer do everything for you. The goal of this game was to remove tedius micromanagement. Things like drag select filters, auto-join groups and default stances along with the tab key setup, and auto-transports all reduce or eliminate anoying micro that other games have had. To say RoN has "too much micro" is to say you don't like RTS games (i'd love to hear this guys thoughts on WC3! lol).

[olaf]

How are the research trees varied at all? They are completely linear and most of them are must haves to get a) more cities (civics) b) more units(military) c) bigger commerce caps (commerce) d) knowledge (science) all of which you MUST have if you are going to be competitive.

Have you played the game? Because from your comments, it sounds like you havent. The guy who collects the most resources and builds the most units the fastest is going to win. Just like most RTS games, the S is for speed not strategy.

There is a lot of micromanagement. If you dont micromanage your troops you will be slaughtered if the other guy does because they are braindead. They do not focus on their strengths at all. The game preaches combined arms tactics, but the individual units have never heard of the concept. Calvary will happily impale itself on pikemen and heavy infantry will try and go after missle troops. If you dont correct them, you will pay for it. Changes their stances only does so much to keep them alive.

Healing units also requires a lot of micromanagement unless you are the French or are happy to just let them die when they get low.

The sheer amount of things you have to do once you have multiple cities going requires a lot of attention to detail, ie. micromanagement. The way citizens find things to do when idle helps, and being able to set stances globally and per building also helps. And of course hotkeys are a must. But, keeping your men from suiciding while also trying to manage a multi-city economy is no mean task.

As for WC3...RON plays much faster than WC3 at the default speed and has a lot more things to focus on so I dont really understand your last sentence.

olaf

[rausrh]

Triphosphatase,
I would think that after $500 you would figure out that maybe this genre isn't for you.