Rise of Nations -- Time for your ideas!

[Brian Reynolds]

Okay, guys, go for it! Remember this IS a real time game, it's about human history, and our goal is to combine the best elements of real time with the best elements of turn-based gaming. We don't claim we can be everything to everyone but now that our game is announced we'd love to hear your ideas.

Brian

[lord of the mark]

Ok, I'll bite.

This isnt particularly original, but something I presume youve thought about. Trevor Chan's Seven kingdoms had a very nice ethnic identity/happiness model, which worked nicely in real time. I thought it would have been better placed in a historical game rather than 7k's fantasy setting. Certainly the thing that is most "uncivish" about AOE is the lack of any happiness model. Your thoughts?

LOTM

[mactbone]

I'd like to know wether the emphasis will be on a small number of good units, or a large number of cannon fodder.

If it's a small number, than you need to have people with special abilities, but not a whole lot of things you need to activate.

If it's a large number, then don't have many units with special abilities that need activation.

One thing I would like to see, are commander units. They would confer bonuses to their troops, like better attack, range, or whatever.

[General Ludd]

I have admittedly not read much of anything on this game, But the only change or new addition I really desire in 'standard' RTS games is a real diplomacy system - like the kind you would find in Civilization or Alpha Centauri. Trading would be nice, aswell. But I'd rather not see something as simple as giving tributes and sending a caravan unit to their marketplace, ect...

Maybe being able to negotiate treaties where you will give peace (or other resources) in exhange for 5% of all the gold they collect, for example


I would also like to have the option for tech stagnation (and maybe also an increase in resources required to construct buildings and units) to stretch out a game - provided, of course, that the game would allow this to still be fun.

Another thing which is really important to me is that there should be an infinate supply of resources on the map - but still a requirement to expand your 'country'. A resource system similiar to Total Anhilation minus the generators which can be put anywhere on the map would be nice.



Lastly, Unit AI is extremely important. I don't want to have to baby sit every single one of my units all the time, and I don't want to have to always give specific targets to attack. Alot of RTS games really suffer in this department, and can make playing the game a really frustrating experience. But hopefully, you don't need to be told this.

[Apocalypse]

I'd like files that can be editted easily...continue the replay value that has been present in your last two games.

[FrostyBoy]

Hi Brian,

I really want to help you with this game, it's good to know that there are people that want to have a go at the genre; but its bad to know most of those people don't strive for the best. Ensemble Studio's did extremely well and still are. But I feel that you are attempting a "Empire Earth" game, but with the fun of AOE/K. The thing about Empire Earth is that its too fast, too much war, it's like the entire game is just one big battle throughout history, there's no story, there's no depth, it's quite flat; and its interface feels flimsy. I mean, it's a great interface and all, but it's difficult to control, to layout your buildings, to see everything, it's annoying having to move from one place to another in split seconds.

The good things about TBS games is that it has stability in the interface area, you don't have to be quick, you *can* stop, think and act. In RTS it's just act.

The bad thing about TBS is that it can get long and boring, the bad thing about RTS is that it can get continous. You need to blend the two together, find a median, so that people feel that it's not going too fast in all areas so that the game is all most over and you've almost done everything the game has to offer, yet make it fast so that it's fun to watch and play.


I notice you have used the idea of cities, GREAT!!!!!! This is something I would try to make in a game of AOE, I would set up a few towns and one massive town (like London), so that it's much like real life. But it doesn't seem to work well. If you are wanting to make these cities a big part of the game, I would try to keep each of the buildings a PART OF the center (those houses, I take it are the center). So for example, if you were to build your first city, and called it London, then built a barracks near London, then those barracks would belong to London and so forth. And this way the cities can be self supporting. Also by doing it like this, you can use trade between your own cities and allied cities. So lets say Dover was settled near a lot of stone, but has no iron, so you would get London to send iron in trade of stone from Dover and this way each city can now build what those resources required.
A lot of trading games (like Trade Empires) are complicated, because you have to set these things up and it gets messy. So I would keep this sort of thing very simple and nothing really goes wrong (except sabotage? bandits?).
So when setting up trade routes, the game could pause maybe, and this gives you time to set things up in a TBS type of mode, and so this way you don't get frustrated when you are being attacked by thousands of men when you're trying to set a trade route up!


The war system is fine with me, make it fast, active, bloody and massive. But when it comes to the modern army of today, I think the soldiers could use the surrounding enviroment, so they hide behind tree's and buildings, and your men will do the same when you are attacking or defending. - ok could be hard to implement, but would be bloody wicked if it was in.

My next suggestion is to extend the technology system. I don't know what you have, but I don't like the idea of clicking a button to discover something.

I think that discoveries need reason behind them. This could be difficult to implement aswell, but would be a change in the way ppl make games that have a tech tree in them.

Here's the story:
You can't just know that planting a apple seed will grow a apple tree. You would have to have worked with apple tree's a long time to discover it. You see where I am getting at?
So lets say its the beginning of the game, we get a bunch of idiots to pick berries off the bush, and one fine day, one of the idiots discovers that if he puts a berry seed in the ground, he will get a new berry bush! And lo and behold, you now know how to make more berry bushes to increase your food! This is just an example, I am not suggesting you actually do this berry bush growth thing.

Another example:
Why do you build clubmen, when there's no reason to? What should happen at the beginning of the game, is that an animal (not another civ player) attacks your little puny pathetic village, but one of your men/women attacks the animals and wins (must win everytime). You now have a man/woman who can fight and he is your villages first fighter. When you get your first fighter, you will have the option to build a barracks, and the more fighters you have OR the more they fight, the more they will learn how to fight better, so they will use stones, clubs, etc.

Eventually, all these 'reasons' stop when you can build a university. I think universities appeared quite early so you wouldn't have to have this 'reason system' too long, but it would make more sense and the game more interesting rather than push button to activate.



Territory (policital borders), so if an enemy crosses onto your territory, YOU WILL KNOW ABOUT IT and this gives you a chance to get ready for a fight and makes the game more interesting.



If it's not possible to have extremely large maps (capabale of supporting a earth sized map that fits at least 2 cities on England), then would it be possible to have multiple maps?
So on the arial view of the world map, you have the option of seeing all maps, or the map that you are viewing on, and if you wanted to see another part of the entire world, then you would simply click there. I am getting way out of league here, but these sorts of things would make these games huge and put 5 gold stars on them.


good luck!

[FrostyBoy]

I write too much.

[ColdFever]

social intelligence - smart units

Originally posted by Brian Reynolds
Okay, guys, go for it! Remember ... it's about human history

You asked for it, here it comes:

My personal wish would be, that the game concludes a form of "social behavior" as it was first roughly implemented in Alpha Centauri. Here the leaders had sympathies and antipathies for each other depending on their belief. This existence of human values did influence the diplomacy. I loved that kind of human-like behavior and am missing it in most of the current games.

I suggest to build on that and perhaps even go a step further: how about, if the people of a nation, in our term "units", also would develop a social behavior? In most of the games a player just sets the desired parameters like a god and the people follow like slaves, even in modern times. Perhaps it would be interesting to play a more realistic game, where the player still gives concrete commands like "build a university" or "build an army", but as there is something like "social resonance", the targets the player sets are resulting in a preference of certain kinds of people, for example scientific people or military people while others may be suppressed, for example religious people. This preference then is forming a unique society, that may be strong in one aspect, but weak in another.

And as some forms of societies can mean suppression of human desires, if crucial parameters are getting to hard on the people, some precious units might even like to leave the county to look for a another one that might better suit their desires (examples: history of the New World (Mayflower) or Einstein leaving Nazi Germany).

So I suggest to implement a kind of "people AI = unit AI" where the player is faced with a unique behavior and intelligence of his units.

With a concept like this a game would even run "faster", because the "smart" units would have an own "living" and do what they could do best. I heard about the new "smart worker" who looks for effective work. There also could be "smart settlers" who look for the best place to found a town, or "smart soldiers" who develop own strategies to attack and retreat (when do I finally see a military unit flee in panic?)

There even could be "smart geniuses" or " smart revolutionaries" who influence the society in a way not foreseen be the player (kinds of "Spartakus" or "Ghandi" who may release new ideas so that the people might even follow other ideas and not the ones of the ruler anymore).

In a game written in 2010 the player probably plays with "virtual human units" that do behave like humans. Wouldn't it be nice, if RoN could be the first modest (cpu limited) step into this direction?

[The Rusty Gamer]

Competition for citizens

This is an idea that just came to me and I don't know of it specifically being implemented in a game like this.

I'm not sure how you are going to have citizen growth but I assume (or hope) it will be natural growth rather than press for a citizen on the town hall. In other words, citizens would be a resource pool which would grow over time through reproduction, immigration etc from which you would use to create units.

The idea is for this pool of citizens to grow, you need to build a city that would encourage that growth, make them happy etc.

The twist here is that if another civilization is building a civlization with better living conditions, many citizens will desert yours or emmigrate to that one and vice-versa. In other words, you would be competing for citizens, they would be like a limited resource. Giving them places to live (houses) would only be allowing room for growth, you would still have to find ways for them to want to stay and you could do things to encourage the birth rate etc.

There wouldn't be the potential for immigration/emmigration until you encounted another civlization and only thn, as the citizens weigh up the pros and cons will they begin to make choices.

Having to have citizens via a growth rate before you can build units from them (even peasants) would certainly forestall a "unit rush" problem.

[Brian Reynolds]

Thanks, guys--keep 'em coming! A number of you will already be happy.

Brian

[Apocalypse]

It would probably really help diplomacy if there were both war pacts (for offense) and alliances (for defense) like there was originally going to be in Europa Universalis.

[General Ludd]

Another thing on the subject of AI

One thing that I have always hated about RTS games is how the AI is always incapable of building a base, or any kind of formible (or aesthetically pleasing) defense, and would rather just sprawl across the map ploping down buildings and defenses in a seemingly random and useless fashion.

[The Rusty Gamer]

Originally posted by Brian Reynolds
Thanks, guys--keep 'em coming! A number of you will already be happy.

Brian

Great but can you be more specific Brian? Am I one of that number? Am I going to be happy?

Will it be or

[The Rusty Gamer]

Originally posted by Sn00py
My next suggestion is to extend the technology system. I don't know what you have, but I don't like the idea of clicking a button to discover something.

I think that discoveries need reason behind them. This could be difficult to implement aswell, but would be a change in the way ppl make games that have a tech tree in them.

Here's the story:
You can't just know that planting a apple seed will grow a apple tree. You would have to have worked with apple tree's a long time to discover it. You see where I am getting at?
So lets say its the beginning of the game, we get a bunch of idiots to pick berries off the bush, and one fine day, one of the idiots discovers that if he puts a berry seed in the ground, he will get a new berry bush! And lo and behold, you now know how to make more berry bushes to increase your food! This is just an example, I am not suggesting you actually do this berry bush growth thing.

Another example:
Why do you build clubmen, when there's no reason to? What should happen at the beginning of the game, is that an animal (not another civ player) attacks your little puny pathetic village, but one of your men/women attacks the animals and wins (must win everytime). You now have a man/woman who can fight and he is your villages first fighter. When you get your first fighter, you will have the option to build a barracks, and the more fighters you have OR the more they fight, the more they will learn how to fight better, so they will use stones, clubs, etc.

Eventually, all these 'reasons' stop when you can build a university. I think universities appeared quite early so you wouldn't have to have this 'reason system' too long, but it would make more sense and the game more interesting rather than push button to activate.

I'd like to take this a step further. The whole technological shape of your civilization could occur as a result of your experiential encounters, particularly the early ones which would effect your civ's whole way of thinking and devlopment through the ages. So one civ's early experiences could lead to quite a different outcome from another's, sort of giving it a tunnel-vision way of thinking early on that would shut out other trains of thought. This is more realistically the way different cultures were shaped in the real world. It is only with globalisation that we have become more alike and yet still we are very different.

Suppose you just start with a peasant. He starts exploring. Depending on what he encounters first will depend on what to experiment with. So, he might first discover some stones, so he starts mining the stones and putting them in a little pile and then it occurs to him to build some sort of storage pit out of stone. However, if he encounters trees first and starts chopping them, it will occur to him to build a storage pit out of wood instead. Or if a mixture of stone and wood are being collected, the storage pit may compose a combination of the two. In other words, the composition of buildings, the shape and size of them, everything will depend on experimentation. So different civilizations could end up looking very different with different cost balances of resources, strength (HP points) etc.

However, maybe this is too radical and would be better used for a different game.

[Dale]

Unit grouping/formations

One thing I'd love to see is REAL unit grouping/formations.

- Anchient eras: not much grouping or formations. Mostly people acted as individuals.

- Medieval eras: catapults/trebs way out back, bowmen middle, infantry centre, cavalry flanks. And their formation is in lines.

- Renais eras: similar to Med where artillery is at the back, and riflemen at the front in ranks with cavalry on the flanks.

- Modern eras: corps running around where it's possible to have artillery miles back, infantry skirmaging and tanks blitzkreiging around the flanks.


This type of formations would be awesome! Also, if possible have some standard tactics that your battlefield generals can automatically order. IE: click a button and suddnely the riflemen retreat under an arty barrage, the enemy advances seeking the ground, and the cavalry out-flank to cut up the reserves. All this as one order.

Also, when armies are marching around the map, make them march in some semblance of formations!

Oh, and you must be able to group and store armies on quick-keys (like command & conquor)



Is this too much?