Take everything here with a tanker of salt

[mactbone]

After reading everyone's comments, I've come to the conclusion that almost everyone giving suggestions to BR is a die-hard TBSer that only cares a little bit about this because of the person designing it.

News flash - BR is making an RTS.

There are some of us who appreciate TBS games and like to play them over the course of days and hours. We also like to play RTS games and finish them within a couple of hours, or even sooner. There is a difference, and I do not think I would enjoy a game like RoN if it were to take more than a day to complete a scenario, or skirmish.

That said, there have been good suggestions, but we all need to realize the difference between RoN and a typical TBS. I have high expectations for RoN, and I hope that it is truly revolutionary. Having played Cossacks, AoE, EE, and EU1 and 2, I can tell you that there are good ways to make a game work and there are bad ways. I would never play EU against humans, because it would take entirely too long. On the other hand, me and a few other guys like to get together and play a few rounds of AoE that, if we team up can last for a couple of hours, and it's generally fun. EE and Cossacks on the other hand, aren't in depth enough for a great SP experience and aren't fun and quick enough for a good MP experience.

[Capt Dizle]

Do you think it possible that a game could be both?

[mactbone]

Certainly, I was just giving my opinion on which ones have worked and why.

AoK had a decent campaign (mainly due to the special occurences), but the AI was very weak and the skirmish mode was awful unless you cranked up the difficulty and let the comp cheat.

What I'm hoping for is either a very good AI with a flexible skirmish mode which translates well into an MP mode or a very good campaign mode. I would like FUN MP. I don't care if it very realistic, or if it's too short, or whatever, I just want to be able to get my buddies to buy the game, and play games with them and enjoy it.

BTW there is nothing more satisfying than whupping on someone you know. Especially if that someone whups on you regularly.

[lord of the mark]

the first computer game i ever bought was Simcity 2000. Like the man who is surprised to learn he owns an "analog" watch, i did not realize for quite some time that i was playing an "rts", but Simcity IS real time. Ive played AOE, but I dont play MP, am not particularly interested in "whupping" people, and dont have fast reflexes. ive played demos for C&C and warcraft, and was not interested in them. So i see no reason why the in depth gaming i like needs to be confined to turn-based, nor do I see why Real time needs to mean something in the C&C, warcraft, AOE style. In fact there are intrinsic inaccuracies in turn based combat, and no reason given full pausability why an in depth single player experience cant be done in real time (if will wright could do it years ago, someone can do it today) My own impression from the Civ3 discussion is that TB civ is played out, has reached a dead end. It seems that the future of the "civ" genre (4x, 6000 +years, full sweep all of human history) is in a completely different approach, perhaps RT. Thats been talked about for years - that was Shelley's original claim of AOE - but they did civish buildings, techs and units in what was fundamentally a clone of existing RTS games with a totally different gameplay. Then Goodman claimed EE would be more like Civ, but AFAIK it is only more like Civ in that does cover all human history, but gameplay is still fundametally like AOE (ie like warcraft). Given Brians background many of us are hoping for a genuine Real time civ, something that acheives the same focus and depth of the civ series, while improving the gameplay through the use of RT. Im not sure how you do it, but i must assume thats what Brian is trying to do. If he's just trying to make an EE clone with better graphics and a few new features that would seem to be a waste of his talent.

[mactbone]

First of all, you could say Civ2 was a clone of Civ with better graphics, yet BR worked on it. So does that make it somehow worse? No, it does not. If people never worked on trying to perfect and improve existing TYPES of products we'd have a bunch of crappy products that people care about just for the gee-whiz factor.

Second, you should check out Europa Universalis, and you'll see what a great RT single player in depth game can be.

Third, Warcraft != AoK != C&C just as Civ != MoO != AoW.

Warcraft is about two resources, and massing units (which is radically changing with WC3 and is like a mesh of WL:BC and WC). AoK is about managing peasants, grabbing new resources, researching and using efficient counters. C&C is about massing the best units and building defenses, all with a modern flair.

RoN does not seem like them, but it will be similar to the AoE series as far as I can tell, but it will be more of the relationship MoO and Civ have.

You can't dismiss this game as "just another clone" when everything points to this being a different game. If it is similar to other games, then hopefully it is because it takes the best parts of excellent games and uses them to enhance the experience. I don't want an exact clone, but I also don't want something so radically different that it sucks. I'm open to new games, but there are certain things that are tried and true (mouse use, ambient sound, clicking) that it would be stupid not to include something just because it may be construed as a clone from the use of a feaure.

[Kataphraktoi]

AoK had a decent campaign (mainly due to the special occurences), but the AI was very weak and the skirmish mode was awful unless you cranked up the difficulty and let the comp cheat.

aok is a crappy game,if you dont play it online. and the campaigns sucked.try downloading some from AoKH much better than any scen that shiped with the game.

...just a AoK fan getting defensive over nothing

[Straybow]

Still waiting for a revolutionary strategy game, TB or RT

"News flash - BR is making an RTS."

But not a revolutionary one, by every indication. More's the pity, although I wish Mr. Reynolds and BHG well (and judging by the success of AoE they will do well). And you are correct that most here are die-hard TBSers. OTOH, I can see why he bailed out of Civ3. I was involved in the List, and I still haven't bothered to get Civ3.

[s_qwert63]

dunno how about you but i hated the campaigns in all age of empires games.
they do have the story but since (especially in AOK) you can only have 75 units, it sux! i had to send 5-15 waves of troops as mongols to complete the second mission.
what i want is a game with a high POP limit, like empire earth.
eg. 1000-1500 units.
if it were like that i would divide my units into 3 sections:
400 workers.
100 merchants/traders
800 foot soldiers, cavalry/tanks
200 navy, airforce

[Switch]

Originally posted by MacTBone
AoK had a decent campaign (mainly due to the special occurences), but the AI was very weak and the skirmish mode was awful unless you cranked up the difficulty and let the comp cheat.

Do I really suck that bad? (having trouble on the 3rd Joan of Arc scenario (destroy three English castles) on STANDARD level. I also had a bit of trouble with the last William Wallace scenario)

[Straybow]

"dunno how about you but i hated the campaigns in all age of empires games"

I wouldn't know because I only tried AoE once. I got tired of nudging workers and herding mindless units in about 15 minutes. Been there, done that, wouldn't want the T-shirt if they paid me to wear it.

[Kataphraktoi]

they do have the story but since (especially in AOK) you can only have 75 units, it sux! i had to send 5-15 waves of troops as mongols to complete the second mission.

umm,aok has a pop max of 200. the option is right below the resource settings option...unless you are not using the xpac *gasp* you might as well throw it away then.

try cossacks.you can get 16000 units....since it sounds like you want a high pop game.

[Switch]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
umm,aok has a pop max of 200. the option is right below the resource settings option...unless you are not using the xpac *gasp* you might as well throw it away then.

try cossacks.you can get 16000 units....since it sounds like you want a high pop game.

I think he's talking about the SP Campaigns, which all had 75 pop limits. It gets annoying, especially when you have to start killing off villagers to get a decent army.

The army size limit is also annoying. I want 100 Cavaliers in one wave, thank you very much.

[JMarks]

Originally posted by SwitchMoO


I think he's talking about the SP Campaigns, which all had 75 pop limits. It gets annoying, especially when you have to start killing off villagers to get a decent army.

The army size limit is also annoying. I want 100 Cavaliers in one wave, thank you very much.

ROT, in AoK I can whip Impossible AI ass with just a handfull of Longbowmen, a couple of priests, and a small contigent of cavalry. Place them in the center of the map, you get AI from everywhere outnumbering you. Easy as pie, though a few defeats on occassion. I have yet to play a real person, so I'll hold out on this type of ranting untill I get a really good cable connection and someone I can readilly play with.

Now what was the real topic again? Oh well, my spiel is that I would like Brian to lean a little more to EU than to civ for its nations 'civs' concepts. That would be more deserving of a really Big Huge Game! And on populations, those workers should be able to become military and the military should be able to upgrade and 'retire'. Most civs should be agrarian societies (all those people have to eat somehow) which would lead to possible disintigration of society if war goes on too long. People are taken from the fields and farms go wild. Hopefully you win so your soldiers can live off the spoils and all those former farmers can become plebs and vote for whoever gives them the most food and entertainment. Well, thats one of the narrow possibilities. Mabey not this time around, but that is deserving of a truely big huge game.