Why waiting until certain tech before war option will not work

[windupmerchant]

No rush until Gunpowder

I have been reading this discussion fairly quickly so excuse me if im duplicating what someone else has said.

"No Rush Until Gunpowder"
In my opinion, i don't know if this is why the rule was implimented, but I think that it will give the player more time to build up the appropiate defences to counter the rush not provoke the inevitable rush all togerther. Some players will always want an easy way to win, and theres no way to stop specific tactics completely as there is always generally a way to bend a rule.

[tniem]

Re: No rush until Gunpowder

Looked this thread up to cross refrence with another thread and I noticed this point without any other discussion. Since I think rushing is a huge issue on how RoN turns out, I want to post this response to see if this generates any new discussion.

Originally posted by windupmerchant
In my opinion, i don't know if this is why the rule was implimented, but I think that it will give the player more time to build up the appropiate defences to counter the rush not provoke the inevitable rush all togerther. Some players will always want an easy way to win, and theres no way to stop specific tactics completely as there is always generally a way to bend a rule.

I would agree that is the reason the rule has been implemented into the game, what I am saying is that it doesn't work. You look at any game with this type of rule and as soon as the limit goes away the stronger player attacks and usually wins. The stronger opponent will know what he needs to build to launch his attack and will be unconcerned with defense. That is not strategy to me.

Strategy is making a person worry about attacks coming at different times. Making them consider every potential use of resources quickly. Not simply direction troops to rush in a certain direction but to weigh how valuable those troops are. These things add strategic depth as I explain more in depth ealier on in the thread.

To me BHG has not solved rushing. It is ok, no other RTS has satisfactorly done so either. I just think with formations, with supply units, with cities that RoN could be the game where strategy wins out. And the first place that could be seen is with enough options in early game to make viable strategies for attack and defense instead of a hardwired no rushing rule.

[Viking Berserk]

well, i heard you can limit rush with time too.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Viking Berserk
well, i heard you can limit rush with time too.

Exact same problem as described before. As soon as the time limit ends someone attacks immediately with huge numbers. It is just not a good addition to the game. There is no added strategy or choices.

[Rohag]

Perhaps someone from BHG can tell us about how this option is working in their office playtesting...?

[Main_Brain]

I dunno but reread the linw

and you can build some defense fortresses,

if you are the Player who knows the other one will rush to Gunpowder you have at least a CHANCE to build enuff Defensive structures to fend him off for a while

[Graham@BHG]

It's a really broad term now. Rushing has come to be used for everything from an attack that you weren't expecting, to an early attack made at the expense of your economy.

I'm not sure if this is the case or not, but it seems that you are under the impression that Gunpowder Age units are amazingly more powerful than those of the Medieval Age. They are stronger, but some are quite costly, take time to upgrade, and are still vulnerable to the appropriate counter units. Being one age behind isn't good, but it's not the end of your game. Building a massive Medieval Age army while you wait for your opponent to spend a ton of resources on getting to Gupowder isn't a bad idea.

The no rush rules give players the exact same amount of peace time to prepare their nations for whatever strategy they want to try. There will be no unexpected attacks until a player reaches the stated Age. If player A was the first to reach the Gunpowder Age, then player B had the same amount of peace time and should not be out of the game. It will take time and resources for player A to upgrade and produce units in order to be able to take advantage of his new age, time that player B can use to deal with the situation if he already isn't advancing himself.

"It just means the faster, more practiced player will always get to that age first with a better infrastructure and be able to build up a massive army quickly and win at the same point every time."

Is that a rush? The only thing that seems unfair about this situation is the match-up with the slower, less practiced player.

A player trying to reach the Gunpowder Age first will not be fooling anyone. His opponent will know when he has reached the Medieval Age (a message pops up, "Player A has researched Medieval Age", or something like that) and should expect him to advance again within X number of minutes and be ready to defend or attack or advance in age himself. Medieval Age units are not totally out classed by early Gunpowder units, so the game will not be over in a flash of unbalanced units.

On rushing in general: one reason that rushing has been very successful in RTS games is that players can forward build. You can't build barracks and stables right near an enemy city in Rise of Nations. Your reinforcements don't appear right on the front lines like in some other games, so they must march from your territory. (possibly taking attrition damage along the way) A defenders reinforcements will emerge much closer to the battle and be able to engage more quickly.

[Sarxis]

This won't be the first game to implement a peace time (PT) option; several other RTS games I've played have it, and its a lot of fun, and not inbalancing in any way.

[Viking Berserk]

Originally posted by tniem

Exact same problem as described before. As soon as the time limit ends someone attacks immediately with huge numbers. It is just not a good addition to the game. There is no added strategy or choices.

lol??? strategies become much better with bigger numbers, instead of those lame attacks after 2 minutes with 5-10 units ruining the game.

[arstal]

Well- right now RON and Kohan II are competing for my dollar pretty closely. I have interest in both. I may even get both... Just as long as one is out before 2004 I'll be happy though.

It's largely going to come down to whether RON is not much more economic management then Kohan was. I will not be happy if it takes as much micro as AOK-type games do.

A lot of this is in response to Graham's comments:

Lack of forward building could give a huge bonus to cavalry-type units for raiding. I am making the assumption that a person's might will be largely decentralized, so you can't be everywhere at once.

The no rush option will not work as a no rush option. All it will do is change the rush to a gunpowder-era rush, which may be one of many things. It may have benefits as a variant- but I really don't think rushing will be a problem if defenses are balanced with offense.

Attrition damage sounds very interesting- wonder if there will be doctrines to reduce it.

Even with the knowledge you won't be attacked for x minutes- you will still feel rushed for time building your econ/defenses/infra up.

As for your last paragraph: you just about described one of the core elements of the gameplay of Kohan: it's almost identical. (Great minds think alike sometimes)

I really think Kohan II vs RoN will be a hot topic next year. (Assuming Kohan II is an improvement over the original) I'm sure they'll both be MUCH better then WC3/AOM though.

[Graham@BHG]

"I will not be happy if it takes as much micro as AOK-type games do."

One of our goals is to reduce micro-management and allow the player to focus on the big picture. Villagers will be able to find work for themselves around your cities if you don't assign them anything to do. Not having to take yourself away from a battle or construction of a new city to task a bunch of idle villagers elsewhere is a real joy for me.

[i]"Lack of forward building could give a huge bonus to cavalry-type units for raiding. I am making the assumption that a person's might will be largely decentralized, so you can't be everywhere at once."[i]

Cavalry units are certainly a great choice for raiding, and you are correct that it is difficult for players to defend a large empire. There is only so much damage raids can do though, before they run into defensive structures and or counter units. (towers, forts, cities) Then it's time to bring in the big guns.

"All it will do is change the rush to a gunpowder-era rush..."

Being the first to the specified Age to break the peace isn't always an advantage. If it were an advantage in a certain game, each player has had the same amount of time to build up, it probably won't be an advantage for very long.

There is a lot of strategy to when you advance in Age and with what types of units, buildings, and resources you have at your disposal. Winning a game while behind an Age isn't the ideal situation, but it is possible.

"Even with the knowledge you won't be attacked for x minutes- you will still feel rushed for time building your econ/defenses/infra up."

No rush rules weren't meant to take the feeling of being rushed out of the game. Isn't that part of the nature and excitement of RTS games? The thrill of seeing that counter tick down and knowing that in a short time peace will end. You and your opponent will be locked in a throw down, what did you call me, knock down, drag out fight to the finish.

The rules allow you to start that fight on your own terms. There isn't going to be anyone to raid you or perform any sort of sudden/unexpected attacks while you build up for the conflict that's to come.

"...you just about described one of the core elements of the gameplay of Kohan..."

I have never played Kohan. (I'm ashamed to admit) I'll have to remedy that.

[arstal]

-Please don't take any of this as criticism.

"I will not be happy if it takes as much micro as AOK-type games do."

One of our goals is to reduce micro-management and allow the player to focus on the big picture. Villagers will be able to find work for themselves around your cities if you don't assign them anything to do. Not having to take yourself away from a battle or construction of a new city to task a bunch of idle villagers elsewhere is a real joy for me.

-That is a plus, though there would have to be a way to issue "general orders" to make sure the AI does the right thing. Otherwise- your villagers may do something you don't need- like build roads all over the place. Automation preference hotkeys might be a solution.


"Lack of forward building could give a huge bonus to cavalry-type units for raiding. I am making the assumption that a person's might will be largely decentralized, so you can't be everywhere at once."[i]

Cavalry units are certainly a great choice for raiding, and you are correct that it is difficult for players to defend a large empire. There is only so much damage raids can do though, before they run into defensive structures and or counter units. (towers, forts, cities) Then it's time to bring in the big guns.

-Will cavalry have any affect against those? Historically, they had little. Mechanics-wise, I've never seen a game do that. If units have upkeep (and they should)- their econ will be so degraded that it won't matter too much.



[i]"All it will do is change the rush to a gunpowder-era rush..."

Being the first to the specified Age to break the peace isn't always an advantage. If it were an advantage in a certain game, each player has had the same amount of time to build up, it probably won't be an advantage for very long.

There is a lot of strategy to when you advance in Age and with what types of units, buildings, and resources you have at your disposal. Winning a game while behind an Age isn't the ideal situation, but it is possible.

-I can see "artifical" strats where you make a ton of units and try to ignore the tech, then attack as soon as the other person gets it. I do not oppose the option being in the game, as I think it is interesting- but I don't think it will have an anti-rush effect.

"Even with the knowledge you won't be attacked for x minutes- you will still feel rushed for time building your econ/defenses/infra up."

No rush rules weren't meant to take the feeling of being rushed out of the game. Isn't that part of the nature and excitement of RTS games? The thrill of seeing that counter tick down and knowing that in a short time peace will end. You and your opponent will be locked in a throw down, what did you call me, knock down, drag out fight to the finish.

- Actually, no. Part of the fun of RTSes (the good ones, which there aren't that many- it's the hardest genre to do right) is trying to guess your opponent- and how much time you'll have to develop and build a counter army, or how much time he'll be vulnerable, and can you send enough in that time. Kohan's solution to the rush was to give each town militia, and require units to heal in zones of supply- though they had AI scripting problems that allowed players to use one company to draw off the town, then the others attacked the town directly (the infamous "townsteal" exploit- which was banned in MP games as a house rule) Usually the only rushes good players worry about are in team games, where one is scouted, and the others gang up on him. If a person is rushed 1 on 1, it usually means there is a big difference in building ability (due to luck, skill, or oth), or the other person guessed totally wrong.

The rules allow you to start that fight on your own terms. There isn't going to be anyone to raid you or perform any sort of sudden/unexpected attacks while you build up for the conflict that's to come.

- couldn't some annoying little twit just refuse to build to gunpowder though? I can see some less mature players doing that.

"...you just about described one of the core elements of the gameplay of Kohan..."

I have never played Kohan. (I'm ashamed to admit) I'll have to remedy that.

- I'd recommend it. RoN in terms of everything I've heard is similar in terms of gameplay, though Kohan went in a different direction.

[Viking Berserk]

Everyone is talking about that whatever age rush.
Meaning you can set no-rush to a certain age...

But what if the game settings are; Medieval-Medieval?
How would you set up a no-rush then? Is there a time system too?

[Miha]

I havent read all youre post (sorry for that)
yes firstly novice players (like me) will loose but in time skills will come to them/us we will play more to train.
I would say give only some peace time that players can choose from 0 min to 2 hours or more I dont know. If there would play skilfull players they may play without any pt at all. But not to much defending buildings

[One_Dead_Villy]

one thing...from playing the beta...upgrade costs in units can not be avoided by delaying your tech upgrades. u cant build a bunch of units not upgrade them till a later age, to save money. It is proportional to how many units u have. So u can have 10 cavalry....but it will cost about 10 times (i dont know the exact cost increase but its significantly higher then if you had no units built) the cost to upgrade to tanks, then it would normally if u had NO cavalry units.