Why Should I buy This?

[Crazy Dog]

Civs got unique architecture.

Cities, unlike most RTS's, which have one power base.

More resources (jewels, etc)

[Crazy Dog]

I mean u build cities like in Civ games unlike in most RTS (Take RA2 as example) unless of course u build another MCY u are pretty much restricted 2 have 1 base.
Also u can name your cities like if u are playing British one of your cities is probably gonna be called London.


There is also possible (though restricted) trench warfare.


Finally, I admit that A LOT of RoN's features come from AoK, the Civ games and EE.
But ya never seen all thier features combined, have u?

[Kataphraktoi]

Why Should I buy This?

because its going to be a great game?

[Peter Triggs]

Here's some reactions from people who've just had a chance to play it.

On June 19, 2002, Microsoft stopped by the Computer Gaming World offices to show off the latest build of Rise of Nations. After watching and playing for a few hours, here are the CGW editors' thoughts:

http://www.gamers.com/game/1098414

Thanks to Coldfever for the link.

[Calorman]

If you're reasoning for possibly not liking the game is because it is nothing more than a clone of another (your examples being EE and AOE, implying that you weren't happy with those games) then I'd steer clear of it right now.

If you're more open-minded than that then I'd wait until the game comes out and read some reviews or play the demo before deciding whether or not to buy it.

[Vanguard]

After having played AOK quite a bit and EE to a much lesser extent, I have to agree that I'm not exactly enthusiastic about a new RTS game. And I am especially not enthusiastic about an RTS that starts with sharp sticks and ends up with Stealth Bombers. I thought it was a dumb idea in EE and I think it is a dumb idea now.

But I will probably give BHG the benefit of the doubt for now, since Brian helped design Gettysburg, which was a first rate RTS that I still have fond memories of.

[Crazy Dog]

Why is it dumb?

[Immortal Wombat]

Too much breadth, not enough depth I would think...

Cossacks is one of the best RTS games I've played, and it focuses on just 200 years.

[Vanguard]

Yes, exactly. And usually such games come down to either rushing with stick-armed warriors or advancing as rapidly as possible to the final age where you overrun his musketeers with your M-1 tanks.

That works okay in a game like Civ where the focus isn't really combat. But in an RTS you want to fight knights with pikemen or musketeers, not with airstikes by stealth bombers.

[Axehilt]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Yes, exactly. And usually such games come down to either rushing with stick-armed warriors or advancing as rapidly as possible to the final age where you overrun his musketeers with your M-1 tanks.

That works okay in a game like Civ where the focus isn't really combat. But in an RTS you want to fight knights with pikemen or musketeers, not with airstikes by stealth bombers.

If you played Random starting epoch games in EE, you wouldn't have to worry about the stick-armed rush. I agree that it's not very fun. And I haven't seen the the M1 tanks vs. Musketeers scenario very often, at least not in games with mostly expert players in them. If it occurs, it generally occurs in a large 3v3 team game where one side has established a pretty decided advantage and their extra player techs up to an advanced age in order to deliver the crushing blow to their opponents (who were pretty much defeated anyways).

[Vanguard]

Actually I had no problem with the "four ages" concept in Age of Kings. But the technology difference there is much less. It isn't laughable to attack men-at-arms with paladins.

But Rise of Nations looks to be much more like EE in terms of technology.