Why *YOU* Should Buy Rise of Nations...

[Bridger]

ok, so say civ3 and AoK have the same ammount of strategy. The problem is that with AoK you need perfect hand-eye coordination to implement that strategy, which makes hand-eye coordination more important. You can still coordinate a bad strategy very quickly, but without speed in the first place your strategy doesn't get implemented. Therefore speed is more important that strategy in AoK. See how that works?

[PrinceBimz]

Originally posted by Bridger


Don't mislead people Enriquillo, if you don't have a navy your enemy will own those transports. Transports are weak and slow. Any castles/towers on the coast will probably kill half your invasion force if you don't bring a navy along, and if the enemy is blockading your island with patroling boats he'll find and kill 3/4 of your invasion force if you don't have a navy to defend it.

This is exactly true!

[One_Dead_Villy]

yes and if u notice...when in transport mode all units die VERY fast..ive seen one shot take them down (or what looked like one shot) and they were expensive tanks etc

[One_Dead_Villy]

Originally posted by yin26
Cool! If they can do that for on-line play as well, we'd have something for everybody ... though you'd be looking at a 3 hour game.

yes it should work if all people concerned has the same modded files I hear. You'd have to try it out to make sure of that. Graphics mods that are straight replacements of the graphics files vs modding the rules wont care..assuming its a one to one switch.

That's still much better than 3 year play by e-mail nightmares!

3 years?! dayam...someone should get a degree at the end of that!

[Enriquillo]

Hand eye coordination isn't nearly as important as you guys make it out to be.
You just need to play clever and use a few hotkeys. I've always been a slow player, yet I've made it to inter level in AoK.
Sure speed plays a role, but a minor one. Focus and strategy are way more important.

As for autotransporting, you don't seem to get the point.
Say your main force is on a far away island and you need to get them off that island quickly. You just sail across with your 50 unit army. Most likely 40 or so will make it even if there are a few enemy ships there.
But that's not the issue, the issue is that it's unrealistic to be able to sail across without even as much as a single dock in sight.
The strategy part of watermaps involves thinking ahead, bringing a few transports and probably a navy to defend them. It's called logistics and it makes a watermap much more 'strategic'.
Also, there's no wait time for units to turn into transports, they just instantly transform which I think is very unrealistic.

Healing units should probably be a bit easier, I like the way EE handled it, you could either build hospitals or medics for healing purposes. The hospitals especially made the homeground advantage so much more real.

[One_Dead_Villy]

i see your point...maybe they should make it so that u can only get off an island if u have dock on that island...so what happens is u can land but unless u have a dock on the new island u cant get off

[Bridger]

"rememebering" to bring transports is strategy? I'd call it common sense...

[Chronus]

Nice article, Yin.

I was wondering if you, or anybody else, would be willing to elaborate more on the economic, "peaceful playing" aspect of the game . . . if, indeed, anything more can be said. Incidentally, if you have ever played 1602, I'd be curious to know if you enjoyed or disliked the game.

I don't know how long or how much you've been playing this game but I find your support rather . . . bold. I say this because I noticed, in the GalCiv forum, that you've appeared to have taken a different viewpoint of that game after your initial "love feast" with it (not that you're no longer supporting it). I suppose time has a way of revealing things that even the best, most scrutinizing efforts cannot do.

And finally, (a bit off topic here) considering your mediocre fondness for Civ 3, I find it interesting and ironic that some of your main points, such as borders and resources, can be applicable to Civ 3 (in my opinion). But, as I said, this is rather off topic . . . the Civ 3 debates have long been over with.

Thanks for your (and everyone else's) input!

[Dominae]

Re: Why *YOU* Should Buy Rise of Nations...

I'll be the troll:

Originally posted by yin26
While I could go on here, I'd sum up RON like this: Far more strategic possibility with far less *physical* work.

I agree that this sums up Rise of Nations well. However, there is very little that's really new, and so I feel like this one can be filed under the "another RTS" category. As time progresses the better the games in a specific genre will become (at least we all hope); this game is good, better than its predecessors in some ways, but nothing to get too excited about.

Some comments in specific (by the way, I've played quite a bit of the demo):

As you might guess, borders signify the edge of an empire's territory, and in this case you simply can't build anything if it isn't your land you're building on!

I agree that this is an elegant solution to a problem that has plagued TBS games for a long. Unfortunately, it is not much more than a solution, and offers no major strategic implications (yes, even Attrition, but I'll get to that).

Many games have tried to tackle this problem with things like not being able to build something beyond a certain distance of another of your buildings, but players would simply build an insignificant building as far forward as possible and leap frog.

You can do this "leap frog" strategy in RoN, so I fail to see how this solution is any better in this respect.

The entire map is *not* your playground in RON. If you want those resources, you've got to expand your borders.

I admit that this makes the games more "coherent", as there will not be patches of civilization all over the map. Strategic implications? Strategy is actually reduced: you have fewer options of where to gather resources; scouting is also a lot less important.

So, expansion is no longer taken for granted ... it's earned and, quite frankly, demanding in interesting strategic ways.

This was true in all other RTS games as well; if you wanted that Gold Mine up fast, you had to be prepared to defend it from potential raids.

Adding to a border’s significance in a clever and 'realistic' way is the introduction of attrition, which only affects your units on enemy land. This affect is lessened if you have a supply line unit along; this unit is only available with the proper techs, of course.

Most RTS battles involve large strikes instead of extended campaigns in enemy territory. I fail to see how Attrition does anything but support this fact. To me, Attrition was nothing more than a nuisance when going on the offensive.

In RON, however, your ability to gather resources is much more limited and, therefore, strategically important. With wood, for example, a wood camp highlights a section of forest that can be harvested, and the size of that section determines absolutely how many workers can be assigned. Past that number and any peon assigned there is wasted. The implication? You've got to command more real-estate, which means you've got to always worry about those borders. The theme here is becoming clear ...

This also was already true in most TBS games; eventually you had to find other sources of certain resources, which meant you had to go out and claim new sites and defend them. The introduction of borders just means you do this in a more linear fashion (instead of getting that Gold Mine on the other side of the map).

Yes, gone are the days when brutes alone rule the landscape. If you aren't stocking your universities with scholars, might as well quit! Knowledge points are your key to advancing in any number of technologies, and while these are gathered automatically at schools at a rate dependent on the number of limited scholar slots you fill, it adds to the sense that thinking is somehow just as important as fighting.

Most recent TBS games have had included a heavy focus on progress (improving your units in Warcraft 3, getting to Castles in Age of Kings, etc.).

Remember, after all, that in many RTSs you are encouraged to slop workers this way and that, exponentially adding to the clutter and time needed to manage it all.

Actually, it seemd to me that this was still present in RoN. Just because a Lumber Mill can only support 5 Peons does not mean you can only build one of them! From my minimal play experience, it seems like there's even more of an "he who practices at generating a huge economy will win" effect, unlike Warcraft 3 for instance (where economy was actually a secondary concern after the first 3 minutes).

Now add in your army general and things become very interesting. Like a 'hero' in other RTSs, the general gives nearby units unique abilities, such as entrenchment and forced march.

I've not played with the combat options much, so I have no real comment here. But it seems to me like like the abilities that the Generals get are copies of abilites available in other RTS games (Ambush is Invisibility, etc.).

1. Expansion isn't some automatic benefit of swamping the map with as many units as you can squeeze on the map. Not only are you limited by how many workers can be on any given work spot at a time, but the population limit (200) itself insures that between workers, scholars, caravans, merchants and soldiers that you'll find yourself in a delicate balancing act between pushing for expansion and being able to defend what you've just expanded.

There is a reasonable pop limit in most RTS games. As I said above, I believe RoN is just as much about covering the map as other RTS games were, if not more. What would Civ be without REX?

3. Resource gathering now plays with much greater intelligence with much less trouble. More thinking and planning, less clicking and map clutter.

I'm not sure why you need more thinking and planning. If you're almost out of Wood, expand your borders and claim that patch of Forest, just make sure you defend it. Standard fare.

And as players learn these fine points, I think we'll begin to see the true genius at Big Huge Games that is bringing something tremendously important to the RTS genre: Strategy! Yes, the "S" in RTS is often called "speed" instead, but RON --even if it doesn't eliminate the importance of speed-- brings the "s"trategy in more focus than any other RTS I have played.

Now, I'm not saying this will not be a good game, gameplay-wise. I'm sure many people will spend hours playing online without getting bored. But is RoN revolutionary; does it add much to the genre? My opinion is "no" on both counts. IMO it's nothing more than some Civ concepts applied to RTS, which end up not altering the genre all that much. I'll keep playing, because I could very well be wrong. But if I want to play a RTS, I see no reason to pay money for this one, instead of going back to the many many that already exist.

P.S. As for the graphics, I think they are wonderfully animated. The entire scene has a truly organic feel to it. Sure, these are not the best graphics on the market from a whiz-bang perspective, but they are fast graphics (zoom in and out is instantaneous, etc.) that are full of wonderful details in their own right.

My sound screwed up every time I zoomed in. Not a complaint, just something for the bug reports.


Dominae

[Leonidas]

Yin26: Another well-written review. I'm glad to see that you are in top form.

I have never played RoN. However, I am always leary of initial first reports on a game, especially if it is based on a demo.

RoN is a RTS game. Yes, it has many new innovations. But it is still a RTS game.

I have played most RTS out there; each in turn promised something special, something unique. But after the initial love-fest and first blush of innovation, they usually all devolved into the "first with the most". . .

It was also a "be everywhere, while trying to do everything" type of game.

This may all be great for those who LOVE RTS. But for those of us who are a bit older (and are not as fast with the mouse trigger) it can be down-right irritating (even with a pause button - because you are always hitting the pause button).

This is not to say that RoN is not a good game, and with the retail release, it could be a great game. . .

But for me RTS is RTS. . .

I just hope that BHG (and Microsoft - its backer) makes a pile of money from RoN. Then with this cash I hope it then goes on to create the Mother of All Turn-based Strategy Games.

Cheers!

[Rohag]

Originally posted by Leonidas
But for those of us who are a bit older (and are not as fast with the mouse trigger) it can be down-right irritating (even with a pause button - because you are always hitting the pause button).

As enthusiastic as I am about RoN, I do have the same problems and continue to experiment with game settings to find the most satisfying way to play.

FWIW, one of the things I have found enjoyable in historical games in general is the experience of taking an inherently chaotic situation - war, politics, history, dismantling it and looking at it "frame by frame." When that kind of recreational dissection turns into repeatedly cycling through 150 units and cities, though, it ceases to be fun. It's also no fun for me when the frames go by so fast decision and execution lose their distinction and the procession of situations blurs such that I cannot grasp and enjoy any. The pause function goes only so far to remedy this.

[Solver]

Hmm, this has been linked to at RONH .

[Sirotnikov]

Wow.

I was very hopeful about RON, but to have such a favourable review by the guard dog of strategic gaming on Apolyton (Yin's Civ III review, anyone? ) is amazing.

Yin -thak you for assuring me that RON will be worthy of spending my money on, after not paying for any games since Commando.

[Enriquillo]

I just hope that BHG (and Microsoft - its backer) makes a pile of money from RoN. Then with this cash I hope it then goes on to create the Mother of All Turn-based Strategy Games.

How can that be, Civ2 is the MoATbSG's (not sure about that abbreviation there ).

You can easily enjoy RoN even if you're slow with the mouse, just turn the speed to slow and set research to slow and expensive.
In addition, play a huge map with lots of opponents and a 50 minute no rush rule

There's something for everyone in this game, just give it try you'll see.

[Bridger]

Re: Re: Why *YOU* Should Buy Rise of Nations...

Originally posted by Dominae

You can do this "leap frog" strategy in RoN, so I fail to see how this solution is any better in this respect.

But in other games the "leap frog" used very cheap buildings, thus you could leap frog very quickly and cheaply (say the silo in C&C games). In RoN, you can only expand borders with a city or castle, both of which are not cheap buildings. Thus leap frog is "posible" but not "probable" as a strategy.

I admit that this makes the games more "coherent", as there will not be patches of civilization all over the map. Strategic implications? Strategy is actually reduced: you have fewer options of where to gather resources; scouting is also a lot less important.

Actually, that makes scouting MORE important. Where do you want to expand on your first city? You have to scout to find a good mountain (rare on some maps) or patch of forest (rare on some maps). You have to scout to determine where to put your next city. You can't just plop it down anywhere on the edge of your borders. If you place economic buildings outside the city radius they don't get the bonus of the economic upgrade buildings, so you alaways want your cities placed opimally to take advantage of the most resourses in the area.

how Attrition does anything but support this fact. To me, Attrition was nothing more than a nuisance when going on the offensive.

If you play against the russians or somebody who's built the colloseum/kremlin it's certainly not just anoying, it's completely deliberating. And even without those, if your playing against somebody who's keeping up with their attrition tech (maybe your oponant only researched 1 or 2 levels?) then your army will probably loose 25% of it's health on the attack. Even if you win, you will be very vulnerable to a counter-attack. A person playing without the aid of supply wagons (as long as they arn't mongols) WILL loose against an equally skilled player. I feel that says enough about the effectivness of attrition as anythign else.

I've not played with the combat options much, so I have no real comment here. But it seems to me like like the abilities that the Generals get are copies of abilites available in other RTS games (Ambush is Invisibility, etc.).

Well yeah, but what's wrong with that? A good idea is still a good idea...

There is a reasonable pop limit in most RTS games. As I said above, I believe RoN is just as much about covering the map as other RTS games were, if not more. What would Civ be without REX?

Territory should be the most important strategic goal of every RTS game IMHO. It controls resourses and direction of attack along with population. In fact most every war in history was a territory dispute, so it makes sense to me that territory is important.