Good and bad

[lord of the mark]

Good - political techs that help expand boundaries
Boundaries - based on settlement, culture, etc
More serious diplomacy

Bad - unique civ attributes and techs - was this really necessary Brian - if there will be opportunity to specialize in research path, as you claim, then i should get my own unique civ, without history on rails approach which has of AOE and Civ3.
Lets get through the ages fast - really, this is a 6000 (?) year game, how can it go through several ages in 2 hours and be at all reasonable? I was hoping for slow paced, pausable RTS, a la EU or city-builders. This looks like it is designed for MP.

It looks like this may be most 'civish" of the RTS attempts yet. But it looks like it will mainly show that it is possible to use RTS to make a playable MP civ-light. Not that RTS can fully revive the Civ genre, and re-connect it with serious history. For those who wanted something that took CIv2 and added realism, while keeping elegance, which Brian might have been capable of this is a disappointment. OTOH i can readily understand that there is more money (and real accomplishment as well) in making a civish game that really works in MP.

LOTM

[Leonidas]

When BR first formed his company he said that he wanted to concentrate on making RTS games, so that didn't get me too excited to begin with. . .

RoN looks exactly like AoE. At least it will be a very polished clone. And it will sell well.

Hopefully, the money he makes from this game will allow him to make a few "deeper" games, but I'm not holding my breath.

Instead, it seems that I am moving in the direction of the gameplay of EU and the like.

In fact, there is an up and coming European game company called "Antik Games" that is making nothing but big historical strategy games (similar to EU) that will focus on all aspects of nation building and ruling.

They are currently at work making "Pax Romana", as well as a Napoleon and Imperialism game, and several others. It all looks VERY promising.

Check it out at:

http://www.antikgames.com/English/ARES.htm

[Apocalypse]

Though RoN and AoE do look very similar, the gameplay aspects are very different. Though improvements such as boarders do not seem that large, they do affect attrition, thus adding a way to protect against rushes. Battles are now much more complex with elevation and moral coming into play. Combined arms is more important than many other games now too.

[August Borms]

Originally posted by Leonidas
Instead, it seems that I am moving in the direction of the gameplay of EU and the like.

In fact, there is an up and coming European game company called "Antik Games" that is making nothing but big historical strategy games (similar to EU) that will focus on all aspects of nation building and ruling.

They are currently at work making "Pax Romana", as well as a Napoleon and Imperialism game, and several others. It all looks VERY promising.

Check it out at:

http://www.antikgames.com/English/ARES.htm

Sounds very interesting, Leonidas

I'll have to bookmark that site

[Leonidas]

Assur:

Here is a link to a discussion on the game "Pax Romana". It's scheduled to be released this fall:

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28229&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

[August Borms]

Thanks for the info

[Cookie Monster]

Re: Good and bad

Originally posted by lord of the mark
This looks like it is designed for MP.

It looks like this may be most 'civish" of the RTS attempts yet. But it looks like it will mainly show that it is possible to use RTS to make a playable MP civ-light.
LOTM

That statement right there is the essence of all RTS games (with the exception of EU because that's a game in a category all by itself).

Let me reiterate that RTS games are great for MP because of all the mindless clicking. Might as well play Half Life online if you want rapid clicking.

I agree with Leonidas's statement of when first hearing of BHG intentions WRT RTS games it was a big huge turnoff.

[Brian Reynolds]

Couple of comments

Hi guys... I'm baaaaaaaack!

Couple of comments--

RoN will definitely be pausable (and give-orders-able), including the option to do this during a multiplayer game. We're also working on the idea of letting you give each player a set "allowance" of amount of total time paused (not # of times paused, more like "you can hold the game paused for up to 5 minutes during the whole game, you pick the minutes").

And you'll be able to choose larger maps & other game settings if you want to "dig in for a longer game".

BUT a lot of people want to be able to play a multiplayer game on their lunch hour and be able to see all the ages, and we have that too. In most hour-long (or two hour long) real time games you upgrade your units; in our game the upgrades are just more visceral and graphically obvious, e.g. muskets to rifles to assault rifles.

On "unique powers" we've tried to balance between:
(a) interesting powers for each nation to begin the game with; lots of people like this.
(b) interesting powers you develop for yourself during the game--by controlling strategic resources, building particular wonders of the world, or specializing your technology development in a certain way (e.g. more Commerce, more Civic, etc).

We've worked hard to eliminate "excess clicking", but no question it's a real time game, and as such I don't have illusions that everyone is going to give up turn-based forever to play it, but I do think a lot of turn-based players either already do or would like to do some "cross over" gaming, and RoN will definitely be a game they should check out.

See ya,

Brian

[Cookie Monster]

Those are encourageing words Mr. Reynolds!

I wish you all the best for you and your company and look forward to satisfying my curiosity. One thing's for sure, this game has sparked a lot of controversy and it hasn't even come out yet! That alone must say something.

Although I'm a little shy with RTS games, I'm a TBS'er by heart, I will give RON a chance. Hopefully there will be a demo a month or two before the game hit's the shelves?

[Alex]

Certainly I'm going to give it a try. I'm also a TBSer by heart, but I think that this kind of "cross-over" approach, as Brian himself says, will be interesting to try and see if it can be enjoyable.

Good luck, Brian, and keep us informed!

[The Rusty Gamer]

Re: Couple of comments

Originally posted by Brian Reynolds

And you'll be able to choose larger maps & other game settings if you want to "dig in for a longer game".

BUT a lot of people want to be able to play a multiplayer game on their lunch hour and be able to see all the ages, and we have that too. In most hour-long (or two hour long) real time games you upgrade your units; in our game the upgrades are just more visceral and graphically obvious, e.g. muskets to rifles to assault rifles.

Brian, does this mean that we can still have a really long in-depth game that will take days and days (much like the Civ series) if we want to?

[Leonidas]

Re: Couple of comments

Originally posted by Brian Reynolds

And you'll be able to choose larger maps & other game settings if you want to "dig in for a longer game".

BUT a lot of people want to be able to play a multiplayer game on their lunch hour and be able to see all the ages, and we have that too. In most hour-long (or two hour long) real time games you upgrade your units; in our game the upgrades are just more visceral and graphically obvious, e.g. muskets to rifles to assault rifles.


Brian

Brian: This sounds encouraging. So, as I understand it, there will be "settings" to choose from? A person can choose to play an hour long game, or a game that is much longer.

What will be the settings that will determine how long a game will be?