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

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Enriquillo


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.

If I'm not mistaken, I think Brian had a lot to do with Civ2 and SMAC in their design. I think BHG could produce a killer turn-based strategy game that would leave all others in the dust.

You're right, at this point Civ2 is still the king of TB strategy games.

As for the speed setting, you may be right about that one. I'll have to wait and see what others have to say about the game, once the retail version is out.

[cpbeller]

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

Originally posted by Dominae



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.





Dominae

Yeah, but the thing about RoN...all the many many that already exist is present in one game of RoN....Sure, RoN may not bring a new game to the board....but it takes everything that was good in the other games, and forms a great game...the good things in AoK, the good things in EE, the good things in C&C....all the good things are in one game....

[WarpStorm]

Originality is great, but polish is better, IMHO. This looks to be one of the most polished version of the RTS genre yet.

[G to the rant]

The reason I am buying this game is that there is a great deal of customization. Also the fact that you don't have to level an entire city to take it, just get rid of the military buildings and units and fend off the attackers and the city is yours. I also think that they should make
a patch to fix the healing of buildings!!!!
Thanks for reading.

[yin26]

Wow, guess I need to get Internet access from home so I can keep up with threads on the weekends! LOL!

Whitra:

Thanks for the spiel, Yin, I'm playing the game in a completely different light since reading that.

Interesting! In what ways? I guess the more important question is: does the game play differently for you now ... hopefully more rewarding? Or have these changes not made much difference?

Enriquillo:

And finally, Yin , what makes you think AoK is a thing of the past. There are still thousands of online players everyday playing a variety of different setts and maps.

Yes, I didn't mean to give that impression. I dropped out of the scene a while ago because of work, life, etc., so I honestly wouldn't know how popular AoK is still. I'm happy to hear that it's going strong! I looked at AoM and thought "Naw, I like the 'reality' of AoK much better." Reality here just refers to the types of units, etc.

I was part of the Mystics clan for a while. It was fun.

Rohag:

Absolutely sterling essay, yin26!

Well thank you, sir!

Tassadar5000:

I DEMAND THAT YIN MAKE AN INCREDIBLE RATING MACHINE FOR RON!!!!

LOL! Oh, Lord. Those things take so much time to make!!! But if you're serious, I'll do one.

Chronus:

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.

Well, as in most games (TBS and RTS) of this kind, money rules everything. RoN is no different *except* that money in particular cannot be gained simply by claiming gold mines. You've got to secure resources (spice, salt, etc.) with vulnerable merchants and caravans -- but these have to be in your borders. I think what this does is to force players to have much more map awareness and planning to hold those parts of the map early. I'll write more about this in a reply to something else below.

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).

Fair point. I will go back and keep adding to the GalCiv stuff. Really I shouldn't have come straight to Poly after completing a Gigantic map! I was tired and, to be honest, annoyed at Metaverse and a number of UI issues in the game. I should have said more clearly that I think GalCiv wasn't designed for the Gigantic map: you run through techs too fast, the distances you have to cover don't match ship speeds, etc.

I do think, though, that Brad is making an amazing effort to listen to fan feedback and make changes. The core design of GalCiv is still strong enough to make it, indeed, on of the finest strategy games ever. I know that's a bold claim, but I'll stick by it! No doubt, though, the game needs some serious tweaking, otherwise, like I wrote, I'd probably stop playing simply because it's too easy to manipulate the AI on larger maps. Having said that, I think the smaller maps are much, much better experience.

As for RoN, it's too early to say that it will be well liked by many ("many" here meaning on the scale of AoK, Warcraft, etc.). I'm actually quite worried that it will be seen as too clumsy for the hard-core RTS crowd and too click-festy for the hard-core TBS crowd. In other words, I think it might become a niche game unless the support is very good ... which I'm betting it will be.

Leonidas:

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

Much appreciated!

Sirotnikov:

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.

...blush... Well, please do remember that I'm just some guy with a computer and that my gaming preferences no doubt color how I see the game. As I hope I made clear in my preview, the game is only at its best when you explore the strategic possibilities these new design elements allow. If you don't do that, I'm afraid RON comes off as really no different from what we've seen before ... perhaps even done much better with the likes of AoK.

Still, if my post helped you decide to at least give the game a fair try, that's great! And I'm sure BHG is going to give stellar support, so the game will only get better in coming months.

Dominae

I'll be the troll:

Actually, I don't see your posts as trolling at all! In fact, I think you raise many good points, which is why I left your post for last.

However, there is very little that's really new, and so I feel like this one can be filed under the "another RTS" category...but nothing to get too excited about.

Actually, you are right, especially insofar as what RoN does offer has to be explored and utilized *in-game* -- I used the words 'subtle' and 'nuanced' in my preview many times, so I hope I'm not misleading anybody. Dominae is right that little here is new, but I guess the things that are new seem, to me, rather exciting even if they don't hit you on the head with a big stick.

Unfortunately, [borders] is not much more than a solution, and offers no major strategic implications (yes, even Attrition, but I'll get to that).

Interesting. Well, I think that borders has such a profound strategic implication that it's one of the main reasons I'm so happy with the game and its potential! Particularly regarding gold-generating resources, oil, etc., which are vital to your survival. In other games, I could just walk an army anywhere on the map and get these things ... better yet, I could sneak a single villager onto a corner of your backyard and start taking gold from you (if you aren't watching, which many people don't until too late).

A good example is a game I had against the AI last night: I couldn't figure out why the comp. wasn't coming at me harder and earlier. So I watched the replay: there were 3 major resources in the dead center of the map. I had been consious of those from the early game and push my borders in that direction, towered them up, etc. As it turns out, this left the comp starving for trade routes! I had effectively won the game by map control alone.

In another RTS, even if I did virtually the same thing, the only thing stopping my opponent from getting at those resources would be to take down my towers and go for it. Of course, I'd have some troops defending, and we'd be in a battle. For some, this is a preferred way. But in RoN, his forces alone can't take back those resources until his borders expand over them. So while he could certainly kill my caravan (this did happen a time or two), he's still got the larger problem of having to expand his border. This, to me, means he's got larger strategic planning to consider.

I realize, of course, that this is perhaps a nuance many people don't see as a big deal. Well, then, call me crazy!

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

In RoN, the only buildings that push out your influence (unless I'm wrong) are forts/castles. So you can't just build a granary next to your border and have the border expand. This is quite a difference, IMO.

Strategy is actually reduced: you have fewer options of where to gather resources; scouting is also a lot less important.

Fewer options here means, to me, fewer options for simply slathering the map with villies and hoping some of them stick! It also means that focussed raids on the enemy can make a huge impact. In AoK, for example, it was rather easy (once you'd played for months, so 'easy' is a relative term, I suppose) to have the map simply so crawling will resource-gathering villies, that a raid on any one or two or three parts of the map often made no difference.

As for scouting, this is where I come back to the trade resources, which are absolutely vital to your efforts. So much so that if I scout and find these early enough, preferably even capturing some by pushing my borders forward and taking some away from the enemy in that way, I've made a huge leap forward. Scouting is also vital for the raiding purposes! If I see where the enemy is getting his metal ... and then deny him that resource even for a few minutes by raiding, I'd tipped the scales in my favor.

This was true [importance of expansion] 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.

Yes, and I guess an important difference, again, is that you can only get gold through trade. You can only get any of these things if they are in your borders. But, as you say, in any RTS expansion is crucial...I guess I just see RoN's model as a more interesting one.

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.

Certainly if the enemy has researched the higher attrition techs, it makes a huge difference. I think Brian wanted to make an RTS in which it would be more costly to simply horde units, lose them all, and repeat. So far I think I've had to be a bit more cautious in losing units, and attrition plays a part in that.

However, you are right that the effect seems dulled down. Perhaps this will be more noticeable in a patch or two?

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.).

Oh, I certainly don't mean to say RoN's implemenation on progress through various ages is new. Heck no! It's virtually a complete copy of Age of Kings. What I mean to say, though, is that something like knowledge requires you to use up population slots and investment in order to do your advancing.

And remember: In AoK, you could buy any resource you needed to advance an age. In RoN, knowledge is not for sale!

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!

Actually, a moutain, for example, can only support one mine. Forests are very limited in the number you can place as well. This kind of limitation is found throughout the game: one university per city, for example. Much, much different from any RTS I've seen in this regard.

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.).

Fair enough. I'm just glad RoN has them!

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?

It absolutely *is* about covering the map, it's just that the mechanisms you use to do so are different in RoN. Sure, simply killing the enemy will help expand borders, but against a like-skilled player, simply killing won't be so easy. You'll need to pay attention to more facets of your economy, and more focus on a particular section of the map you want expanded, in order to gain the edge.

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.

...because expanding a particular part of the map won't be so easy if your opponent is savvy!

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.

This, of course, is my worry ... that the things RoN has to offer will not be given enough chance to be perfected by players. It's an understandable reaction, of course, but I hope folks will begin to submit recorded games that show some of this in action.

Still, I also think that for many it might be too little in an over-tired RTS market.

[UnOrthOdOx]

First let me thank everyone for the comments and reviews so far. It is really helpful.

I spent a good deal of my weekend playing the demo, (after 10 hours of downloading while I slept Thursday night) and I have several questions reguarding the game that will help me to decide whether to buy or not.

First and foremost, I liked the additions of boarders and some of the other features like wonders, but this alone is not enough to make me buy the game. There are plenty of things I still need to learn as well, notably the generals and formations I have not had time to play around with. Reguarding attrition, I like the idea, but I would have prefered the reverse that is used in the Kohan series (your units HEAL within your boarders *called 'supply' in that series, but the boarders would be a better use of this to prevent some of the cheaper strategies like pushing buildings as yin has already alluded to)

I was testing out both some rushing and some massing, and both seemed to work well against the AI at least. Stands to reason then that they would work against at least inexperienced Human opponents as well, perhaps even experienced players, too soon for me to tell (I don't have MP in the demo). the boarders AND attrition were both compensated by taking out the poorly defended towns, and later capturing them after assimilation. A good focus on the town will instantly push back the boarder once the town is captured, and attrition did not hurt THAT much especially early in the game. It also seemed that CAPTURING a town did not count to your total# of allowed towns, making early capture even more of an appealing option for land-grabbing.

I have largely gone away from RTS's lately, seeing them as generally shallow in gmeplay, they soon lose my interest. One notable exception is the Total War series. I enjoy the RT battles that it presents with heavy enphasis on positioning your army, flanking, and such, but they could use some more in depth gameplay instead of the rock-paper-scissors unit matchups that occur. RoN seems to offer more choice in terms of TYPES of units, but I am unable to test out the Conquer the World section.

How does it compare to the Total War series campaigns? How long is it? (# of turns, etc)

This section is one most likely to influence my own decision as my dial up connection is unlikely to be able to really support serious MP, which also looks promising.

[Dominae]

yin26, thanks for addressing my points. Due to lack of more experience with the game, I'm forcing myself not to get too opiniated; who knows, I might end up loving RoN! I guess my initial reaction to the game was negative, while yours was positive.

Let me just push one point, though: are Forts and Cities that expensive to build? I know you need a bunch of Civics techs to build more cities, but I played an hour-long game and could build more than enough cities to expand my borders to cover enough land to be competitive. And on the "front lines' I just put Forts, to expand my borders for conquering enemy settlements. My point is that, since expansion is a good idea on economic grounds, it also being strategically important on cultural grounds (borders) is a moot point. When you do one, you get the other "for free". If Forts and Cities were really expensive, the borders aspect would suddenly be a lot more interesting.


Dominae

[Bridger]

The TBS element of RoN is not quite that of TW series. Think of CtW as an expanded risk game. It's got a lot of nice new additions (aliances, buying territory, buying cards, resoures and supply points) but does not include the same level of depth that the TW series had. You don't pick your generals or create economies in the provinces or create troops.

[albiedamned]

[SIZE=1] Let me just push one point, though: are Forts and Cities that expensive to build? I know you need a bunch of Civics techs to build more cities, but I played an hour-long game and could build more than enough cities to expand my borders to cover enough land to be competitive. And on the "front lines' I just put Forts, to expand my borders for conquering enemy settlements. My point is that, since expansion is a good idea on economic grounds, it also being strategically important on cultural grounds (borders) is a moot point. When you do one, you get the other "for free". If Forts and Cities were really expensive, the borders aspect would suddenly be a lot more interesting.

If I am reading the xml files correctly, then the first city you build (the second overall) will cost 60f, 60t but each successive city after that will cost 50f, 50t more than the previous one. So the next one will be 110f, 110t, then 160f, 160t etc. In my opinion these costs aren't too high since food and timber are the most common resources and you generally have more and more of them as the game goes on. Forts, on the other hand, start out very expensive at 100g, 300m (I have found it's very hard to amass that much metal early on), with each successive fort costing 25g, 75m more than the previous one. Thus the metal costs skyrocket quickly.

So overall it's not too expensive to push your territory with new cities (provided you keep advancing in civic research as well), but protecting those new cities with forts or just using forts to push your borders is tough to do.

[One_Dead_Villy]

fortresses definitely are expensive enough to make it a bit of a deterent to leap froging with them..towns less so, but u are severly limited by your civics city cap

[Alex]

Originally posted by One_Dead_Villy
fortresses definitely are expensive enough to make it a bit of a deterent to leap froging with them..towns less so, but u are severly limited by your civics city cap

and don't forget that, as albiedamned mentioned, even if you maintain a good civics research rate, building new cities without being able to build forts to protect them is extremely risky.

[yin26]

Domniae:

Actually, I think your reaction will be the more common one! There's no doubt in my mind that BHG took a big risk in trying to take on the RTS market. What I think that means, though, is they'll be superb about patching (one already came out!) and listening to the fans on how to improve the gameplay. Well, that's the most obvious strategy they could use to win market share...

On the fortress question, metal is really your most limiting factor. But I also see it as a sort of game of chess because if the other guy also puts up a fort/castle, you cancel each other out. Furthermore, artillery has a long range in this game. I was able last night to pound the enemy from a good distance, forcing him to bring over tanks, etc., to try to stop the bombardment. So it's rather easy to lose forts, etc., to such tactics if you aren't ready ... in other words, you can't just push a fort and be done with it.

Of course what happens is really good players begin to design the 'killer build order' so that they practice and practice and practice villie assignments to have enough metal to push forts and, therefore, borders earlier and earlier. But this at least still seems a whole lot more fair than allowing a person to build stuff right on top of you from the very start of the game!

Again, subtle stuff. Maybe I'm too easily pleased? Naw!!!

[DarthVeda]

ogh... 9am here... time to go get it!

[Cookie Monster]

15:30 over here with only 1hr 15min to go before I can go home and play!

[Solver]

Actually, I think your reaction will be the more common one! There's no doubt in my mind that BHG took a big risk in trying to take on the RTS market. What I think that means, though, is they'll be superb about patching (one already came out!) and listening to the fans on how to improve the gameplay. Well, that's the most obvious strategy they could use to win market share...

I have no doubt that they will be reading the posts at Apolyton a LOT when they are planning for the expansion.