Rise of Nations -- Time for your ideas!

[chronocrator]

Like LOTM pointed out there are no really good models for supply and support. They are either too simple (supply vehicle with unlimited supply) or they demand too much micromanagement. IMO BHG should rather focus on good diplomacy options and a good trade system than on supply of the troops (everything is not possible since that would really be to much micromanagement for an RTS).

And yin I don't think you really understand me, it is possible to have a large territory without getting a penalty, the player just needs more culture than a small nation would need.

[yin26]

the player just needs more culture than a small nation would need.

Well, looking at Civ3, I want nothing to do with 'culture'!

[WarpStorm]

Even a simplistic supply model would be better than none. Even an old style upkeep model (say like Civ's or SMAC's) where you have to continuously pay for your units, will keep troop sizes down to what your empire can really afford.

I disagree with the statement that supply hasn't been adequately done before. Many of the computer wargames dealt with this in a totally automated way (no micromanagement, unless you did something stupid and needed to correct it). No RTS has ever done this to my knowledge.

[chronocrator]

Originally posted by yin26
Well, looking at Civ3, I want nothing to do with 'culture'!

I just used the term to give everyone a general idea what it is similar to, I suppose you could call it 'influence', too.
It could look like this: Every building under a player's control has a certain influence/culture (some more, some less). Influence does not build up like in Civ3. If the player gets a larger territory he needs more influence to maintain it - he has to build more towns with buildings.

Warpstorm: I've never played an RTS game with a good supply system, then again I've not played many wargames. So you must be right.

[mactbone]

For a new and intersting supply suystem, you could check out Cossacks.

You would lose food at a rate proportional to the number of people you had. You would also lose other resources like iron and coal if you had ships. Then, if a ship or gun fired, you would lose iron and another resource for every shot.

Like I said, it was interesting, but not necessarily all that fun. Especially when all of your villagers started "dying from starvation". Really though, the game was just plain hard, and I shouldn't just blame the supply systyem.

[Nostromo]

Hi Brian! I bought AoE a while ago because I was expecting a grand, epic empire-building game. Something like Civ, but in real-time. Boy was I disappointed! After a couple of games, I realized that AoE is really not an empire-building game: you build one city, maybe two, but not an actual empire. Well its seems that RoN will finaly deliver the goods! I'm a bit concerned, however, about the potential micromanagement nightmare. And I'm not the only one: others have voiced similar concerns in this thread. Imagine playing AoE or AoK with 10 to 15 town centers!

Another thing bothered me about AoE: it's a tactically shallow game. IMO it rewards the Henri Fords out there, not the Rommels. I'm glad to hear that RoN promises to be a much deeper game on the tactical level. Great news!

One more thing. I would like to see the bastard's face whose kicking my butt in a game. It would create an emotional link. This technique was used with great effect in a game you may have heard of: Alpha Centauri. All the faction leaders had a face and a personality. Some of them even had an attitude problem! Take Yang for instance: I hate his guts. Who can say the same for the AI leaders in a SP game of AoE? I don't even remember their names! (I hear though that you can meet the likes of Yang in MP.) I would implement it this way: if you're trying to strike a deal with Napoleon, for example, a small 3d portrait of him would appear at the bottom of the interface. He could even have different reactions. Moreover, it would be cool if players could control the reaction (evil grin, shocked, smile) of their leader's portrait in a MP game.

[chronocrator]

I just thought I'd post that:

from the RoN Pantheon:

Resources work this way:
Peasants do not "carry" and "deposit" resources as in other RTS games. Once you assign a peasant to a resource collector, they gather a steady stream of the resource. This reduces the micromanagement required to deal with peasants. So the first number is the amount of resources being collected over time, i.e., +150. The second number is your "commerce cap", which tells you how much you COULD be collecting if you had enough peasants and resource collectors. So a reading of +50 / 150 metal means you are producing 50, but you COULD be producing 150 if you had enough peasants. The second number goes up over time as your technology and building infrastructure increases. If your reading says +150 / 150 (and it would then be blinking as a visual cue), it means you are maxed out and need to research more commerce techs or build more of the appropriate building.

This systems doesn't seem bad since it eliminates quite some micromanagement. But from what I understand the player now just has to protect the place where the resources are gathered and not the place where they are dropped off by workers or the route they take to go there.

[Brian Reynolds]

Couple answers/responses to things that have come up--

* Getting resources (e.g. Metal from Mines) is definitely based on controlling territory. There is an ultimate limit on how fast you can gather metal from any one mine (based on the size of the mountain it services), and it doesn't do you any good building a bunch of mines next to the same mountain. If you want more metal, you'll need to go take over more territory.

* If you don't want to micromanage your workers, the Auto Peasants option is MUCH more advanced than what you're used to in most games. I often just pump out some peasants in a town, and let them figure out what kind of gathering to do.

* Villages and Forts are used to claim and control territory. If you just build up in one city, you won't control much territory. But of course undeveloped villages are pretty weak and easy to take over, so there's a tradeoff. The Russians have a fun ability (Russian Winter) that causes damage to all enemy units in their territory--a good nation if you don't like to get rushed, but of course you have to take over territory in order to have it cause people damage.

See ya,

Brian

[yin26]

Well, those are some promising tid-bits. Sounds like you view the standard RTS fare as needing less micro in favor of more strategic/tactical thinking. Thanks, Brian.

[Jeje2]

Colonization

Thanks for the replys Brian.
Many good things coming.

Now I just would like to once more advertice your Colonization game.
(It really is a good game - like it a lot.)

Now I would like to hope that you somehow implement a rule "One city cann't do everything" - like in Colonization. Thus forcing the player to expand and build a few cities at miniumun and to deside what each city is to do.

[Leonidas]

Yes Brian, RoN is sounding better all the time. . .

I hope that you can provide us with a separate upgrade screen to allow us to tinker with changing a unit's armour, sword, shield, gun, etc. . .

Maybe the upgrade screen could be similar to SMAC, HoMM 3 or similar games. I love this sort of thing. . .

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Brian Reynolds
* Villages and Forts are used to claim and control territory. If you just build up in one city, you won't control much territory. But of course undeveloped villages are pretty weak and easy to take over, so there's a tradeoff. The Russians have a fun ability (Russian Winter) that causes damage to all enemy units in their territory--a good nation if you don't like to get rushed, but of course you have to take over territory in order to have it cause people damage.

See ya,

Brian

I really liked Z: Steel Soldiers concept of having to gain territory to get resources. In that case your income increased as you controlled more territory areas and each area was worth a certain amount so certain areas became hotly contested 'cause they were so valuable. You had to balance how much you could expand and defend at any one time. It encouraged early fighting which I think is a good thing in an RTS. Unfortunately hardly anyone played the game so I never really got to play it MP.

[illmacnino]

was up my people.

I dont know about the rest of youll. But i would like to see seasons in the game. Also treaties would be very cool to have in the game. I cant wait for this game to be out.

[illmacnino]

If this isnt already in the game i think biological weapons should be added to the game. You could find a way to balance the bio weapons as you did the nuke. Ive always wanted a game with bio weapons in it. Please have this in RON.

[Jac de Molay]

Just an AI that actually launches coordinated attacks.

Dave