A TRUE Civ/Strategy game....???

[Alfonsus72]

Hi,
I´ve just played multiplayer RON and I must say it´s much more a warcraft-style experience than a civ-building one. You can´t win without gettin mad with the mouse. I wonder how many mouses have broken playing the game those who are at the top of the rankings.
What I really find interesting in RON is the Conquer risk-style campaign. If only it were a little more deep, the game would be the perfect empire-builder.
The idea of a good empire building for me is as simple as: TURN BASED BUILDING (production, research, diplomacy,...) + REAL TIME COMBAT. This way you have the fun and spectacularity of the RTS without losing the sense of control over your civilization.
Good examples of this(not all RT combat, but all showing battles in detail): FALLEN HAVEN(sci-fi), LEGION (romans) and IMPERIALISM(XIX cent.). But never in a 4000 BC-2000 AC game.
I also like EU and HOI, if only you could have a little control of the combat...

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: A TRUE Civ/Strategy game....???

Originally posted by Rolfski

I played them all so this is my opinion:

If you like traditional RTS like AoE or Cossacks series play RoN, it's better. If you like space setting I can also recommend Homeworld 2.

If you like fast paced micro clickfests buy WC3, Empires DotMW or Generals. These are all solid games with high mp value.

If you like casual turnbased empire building buy CIV 3: Conquest. The lastest CIV is polished and has some nice alternative campaigns. If you like space setting go for Galactic Civizations, it looks dated but the gameplay is good, diplomacy is deep and the AI is incredible.

If you like deep (and I mean really deep) and highly realistic empire building RTS buy Paradox games: EU 2 (1420-1820), HoI (1936-1947) or Victoria (1836-1920). Their latest Victoria has an unsurpassed complexity and realism, still it is fairly easy and inituitive to play. And the diplomacy options will make Henry Kissinger feel like a boyscout.

If you want it all buy Medieval: Total war. IMO the best overall strategy game that combines turnbased empire building with very tactical realtime 3D battles. The latest VI expansion is good and there is an incredible mod (MedMod) available that enhances overall gameplay a lot.

In your case I would probably go for MTW, deep strategy and very controllable action although a bit light in diplomacy.

Very good post, that encapsulates alot across genre and setting. May i suggest posting this to Other games as well, where someone is looking for new strategy games.

[Rohag]

I'd like to echo the praise of Rolfski's comments above. Though much more could be said about all the games mentioned, I appreciate the comparitive summary by someone who has played them all (I certainly haven't).

[ACEofHeart]

Empire Earth ,which came out first, is so similiar to RON..
You can argue about the graphic difference and even the AI, but both are real-time games that deal with different civilizations advancing thru different time Eras..Doing their research, gathering resourses,winning thru Military actions, making Wonders etc..etc..etc..
Just find it interesting that Empires was not embraced here but RON, which was not original, was..hmmm more so because Brian Reynolds was involved with it I think..

[SpencerH]

Re: Re: A TRUE Civ/Strategy game....???

Originally posted by Rolfski

If you want it all buy Medieval: Total war. IMO the best overall strategy game that combines turnbased empire building with very tactical realtime 3D battles. The latest VI expansion is good and there is an incredible mod (MedMod) available that enhances overall gameplay a lot.

I agree and I'm looking forward to Total War Rome, where they will do away with the Risk-type strategy board and hopefully improve the diplomatic side of things.

[VitalyB]

Just find it interesting that Empires was not embraced here but RON, which was not original, was..hmmm more so because Brian Reynolds was involved with it I think..

Or.. Maybe because it was much more innovative than EE?

Lets be fair, EE didn't make anything all that new. They had a LOT different units that seemingly made it look like you're advancing in human history.

RoN added to the whole RTS really new concepts like borders, attrition, support, spies etc etc etc. Sure, most of the GOOD concepts were recycled, but they were recycled the good way which resulted a great game.

P.S When IS Rome Total War out?

[SpencerH]

They say "when its ready". Hopefully soon.

http://www.totalwar.com/community/rome.htm

[SpencerH]

from the rome total war faqs

"A. Total War games are in genre of their own. If you love strategy games, you will love RTW, but this isn't an RTS, it's much, much more. You can tailor how you play the game to appeal more to your tastes. If you want a perfect balance of politics, micro management and real time epic sized battles you've got it. If you want to spend more time in the senate than on blood stained battle field you've got it. If you want to prove your might purely on how you master the art of war then you've got it.

The biggest change you'll notice is on the campaign map. The 'Risk-style' provinces have disappeared to be replaced by point-to-point movement for armies, and settlements with their own regions (hinterlands) that they draw on depending on the size of the settlement. A big, advanced city will have more influence on its surrounds than a small town. Armies and characters on this map are now fully animated and march (or sneak, in the case of spies!) to fulfil your orders.

Cities generate income and train new troops, drawing on local resources. Each city can be assigned a governor, who will do his best (well, probably) to manage the place and keep order.

What is cool and new is that when you fight a battle to control the city, every building that's in a city on the campaign map is there on the battlefield. Destroy a building in a siege, and it's gone on the campaign map. Storm a city and take it with siege towers, batterings rams or artillery and you'll find that you can use any buildings still standing to further your plans of conquest. Better still, the buildings in a town even show who made them, as each culture has its own style of architecture!

Q. Can you make your own treaties?

A. You will be able to negotiate specific treaties and other agreements with other powers. This lets factions agree military treaties, trade agreements, trade cities and territory, arrnage diplomatic marriages, demand tributes, pay blackmail money, swap information and so forth. Deals don't have to be symmetrical, so you can trade a city for military access, and some cash if you want!

Q. Are maps fully dynamic i.e. what happens on the battle map has a physical effect on the strategy map and vis versa?

A. Rome: Total War features a continuous 3D map covering the whole of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, and any point on this map could be a battlefield. The Campaign map is comprised of thousands of 'battle maps'. This means that you could fight on approximately 10,000 battlefields, each of which can change according to your actions in the game.

Every mountain, hill, forest, farm, volcano, city and Wonder of the World that you see on the campaign map is right there on a battlefield. As the map changes with roads, forts and farms being built it is reflected on the relevant battlefields. As the seasons change you see snow on the north of the campaign map and on northern battlefields. This continuity between the two levels of the game opens up all sorts of strategic options. You can build forts to guard mountain passes, set ambushes in forests, make beach landings, launch fast raids into enemy territory, move your armies through allied territory to co-ordinate campaigns, capture Wonders of the World, ford rivers and generally try to out-manoeuvre your enemies. It all helps to make you feel like you are in one epic, continuous world."

[Panzeh]

Actually, counters do work, but its not complete and utterly brutal to counter a unit.

I hate it when counters utterly slaughter the countered without any tactics needed.

I think fusiliers are a tad underpowered, though.

[Sartek]

I've played RoN and I loved it, and now I'm playing Civ 3, waiting for TW:R

[Sartek]

Light cavalry are great aganist archers, but masses of musketeers can kill heavy cavalry fairly easily

[Panzeh]

Of course masses of heavy cavalry will do a lot to musketeers.

[Russian_King]

Originally posted by Vipermmx
Cruddy? lol


Look at RON

Its fanbase shrinks daily! Its boring!


SPAM warfare is all it is. Set rally point on target and spit out endless units till one of ya dies and claims city. The economy is far to fast and gameplay is a drag once ya figure out all the units are the same.


No units counter there counters worth a damn. 1 tank cant take 5 infatry? LMAO ''

Uniqie units arent! There same with same stats!

Techs all the same.....after 3 times of teching up the tree its boring. Why no Auto tech? Thats the worse part of the game!


Even on VERY EXPENSIVE its far to easy to tech and build a war machine!






Lets compare!




Graphics---

- Empire wins here. Even though RON has very nice animations for units and they do small perks its ugly. Tanks look bulky and boxy! Infatry are pixeled! Explosions suck! No blood!

-In Empire all graphics are amazing! Water that reflects its surroundings! Trees that seem real! Units up close still look good and tanks and everything look like they belong in the world! Not to bulky or unattached unlike RON!


Counter system----


Empire wins! In RON no unit counters worth a crap!


Gameplay-----

Empire yet again. In empire you actually have different races with there own units and strategys! Unlike RON where its mostly all about out producing your enemy and climbing the tech tree fast as possible!


Favorite RON moment!


Hey look im in classical age! 10mins later hey I got a nuke!



Thanks :

WOW!!!
could not have been a better description of RoN!
the only remotely interesting part of RoN is the conquer the world mode!

otherwise the strategy is to get up to nukes as fast as possible get a fiew ICBMs and nuke the hell out of the world until 3 turns to armaggeddon, while capturing the newly undefended cities!

A TRUE combat strategy-wise RTS game i know of is C&C GENERALS! (and zero hour as the expantion)
if you like to TRULY control your combat this is the game to have>! along with its amazingly realistic graphics, ability to rotate the map 360 degrees and zoon in and out, you control all kinds of battle (but sea)
build a combined force that isw NOT utopian like other games, most battles consist of no more than 20 units, half of whitch are infantry hidden inside mobile bunker vans or tanks. have a front line of heat wave generators that repel missiles and other defenders, directly after come some tanks and anti infantry counters, behind you have artilery, some capable of firing all the way across a 1024 pixel screen! but should you leave those undefended, the enemy can march in with a couple of tanks or 5 rocket troopers and get a very easy promotion!
If you think the force upcoming defends their artilery all too well and you fear for your immobile base defences to go down without a fight: god invented AIRSTRIKE! with either your own built airfield's aircraft groups OR general's promotion points u acquire during combat, in which case u get some kinds of powerful free strikes and such every set amount of time. but beware, the opponent might have hardcore AA defences for their artillery (or base) and while your aircraft is likely to succeed, it will go down on its way back if the defense is overpowering!

with combat planning in such detail, Civ seems very boring. However, europa uneversalis approach was quite good.
if you mix full timeline generals (perhaps with less graphical enhancements) with civ 3 (eg whenever there is a battle, you go into a short generals mode game where the battle's outcome is decided between the players on a relatively small random map featuring the terrain which the battle takes place on), you would not only have to master civilization building, but also be a proffessional general! (of cource sometimes you can make your automated general take control of certain battles and account for the losses that you could have possibly avoided as a HUMAN player )

[Russian_King]

By the way im not a hardcore EE lover, i have never played it, im just saying the bits about RON were correct! (strategy wise anyway) and also the graphics are a bitspeedy, i like AoE graphics, nice and slow! easy to track

[Panzeh]

I really think Generals is more like what army you bring more than how you use it.