Why waiting until certain tech before war option will not work

[tniem]

I appreciate what BHG is trying to do with RoN - a RTS with some depth and strategy. And what they see as the two biggest problems are that battle is about attrition and numbers instead of tactics and that the faster player with some plan will almost always win because he can 'rush' his troops to the hotspot faster than the losing player. So they want to try and counter these two things with a series of game options and designs to add strategy.

Again, let me say that I appreciate this effort and wish it would succeed. And depending on how army formations work and terrain elevetion factors into battle, tactics might become more important in winning battles. Likewise, the uses of cities and territories may also aid to slowing down rushes because it will force a more methodical thought out game. So hopefully a few of these problems will be addressed and fixed.


That said, I fear the worst with the limits to when battles can begin. In my mind, there is no good way for this to work. In fact it is going to make rushing worse in my opinion just for other things. Here is why:

Lets say that you cannot start war until the invention of gunpowder (an example used in one of the interviews). So your about to play a MP game and you want to beat your friend. You know that war will not start until gunpowder. So you know until either of you get gunpowder you are safe. This safety zone is something that if you are a smart player you can exploit. For one, you know you do not need to build a very big military during this safe zone. Instead you can build scouts to get the lay of the land to figure out your invasion tactics and you can build some defense fortresses, but mainly you can invest in your cities, in researching new technologies and infrustructure that will make you stronger than your opponent. In essence, you are going to use the safe period to get ready for war.

The quicker you are as a player, the faster you can build up. You will be rushing to make it to gunpowder. With an effective plan, you will have a good infrastucture to immediately build up a strong army right before your discovery of gunpowder and launch your invasion just when you acquire the technology. Then just as your friend is trying to fight off your attack, you launch another with your recently constructed units using the new technology that is supperior than anything he has had time to construct and game is over. Yes war could not start until half way through the game because of an artificial limit, but rushing still took place. It was simply a rush to get that limit. As soon as the limit was reached, the war began and the one that rushed faster won. It will happen every time. Sure, maybe one player will be able to simply rush to build the proper defenses and ward of such an attack and then let the game go for a while letting both build up before attacking. But why? If you are able to rush fast enough to build the suitable defenses, then you will have the army to immediately launch a counterattack and destory your enemy that used everything they had to win the war fast. So in the end the one that rushed better will win.


This is different than a game without a limit on rushing. In this game, you cannot expand too fast or simply rely on building infrastucture too much at the start. There always a threat of an attack to prepare for. On the other side of things if you invest at the start in a rush and it fails than you are screwed. What I mean is that if your opponent can defend against it than he has the infrastucture to rebuild quickly and send a more formidable force than you can defend against because you did not build a suitable defense. So a failed rush means that you are doomed, which leads to a strategic game of consequences for each decision. This is how RTS works, it is a series of quick decisions with consequences. Each one (if the game is good) has a way to be beaten such as in StarCraft where the Zergs tended to be used as rushers but both the Humans and Protoss had suitable defenses for this type of attack. If you fail on a rush you are out of the game.

So why is it bad for RoN to have this limit? As I see it, they are taking out any reason not to heavily invest in infrastucture. It is simply going to be a race to see who can build up the biggest cities and construction sites so that when the proper technology is acquired to wage war then those with the biggest factories will be able to churn out the biggest forces. Rushing will not be stopped as BHG would like us to believe, instead it will resurface in a different way. One that I fear will be worse. Because there will be no counter, there will be no consequence. You will have to rush yourself to building the bigger infrastucture and get to the technology yourself to defend yourself. And there will be no way to attack before your opponents plans are ready. In the end the artificial limit on when one can attack will hurt the game.

[One_Dead_Villy]

well u're right of course...
basically there isnt any way to protect (and one shouldnt protect) bad players from being beaten.

[Vanguard]

Yes, well, if you don't put a limit on rushing then every on-line game will devolve into a quick rush against the enemy's homeland. Counter-units didn't work in Starcraft or Age of Kings. What makes you think they are going to work here?

The history of RTS's clearly show that the key ingredient in victory is not strategy or tactics made up in the field. Rather it is one single simple strategy, like a quick rush, combined with machine-like precision of execution.

Unless BHG can change this to make historical tactics more useful, I just don't see how this game is going to be any more interesting than the other RTS's out there.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Yes, well, if you don't put a limit on rushing then every on-line game will devolve into a quick rush against the enemy's homeland. Counter-units didn't work in Starcraft or Age of Kings. What makes you think they are going to work here?

Yes there is a way to stop this. It is simply make units earlier in the game weaker on the attack while being stronger in defense. Also, allow more ways to build defensive fortifications early in the game. This will allow early game war strategy to be more defensive - as it was in much of history. The game will then allow players to defend against early attacks and allow players to play on and have more strategic decisions on down the road.

The history of RTS's clearly show that the key ingredient in victory is not strategy or tactics made up in the field. Rather it is one single simple strategy, like a quick rush, combined with machine-like precision of execution.

I agree and that is what I am trying to make a point about. By artifically adding a "no battles until x" option they are not changing that. In fact they are making it worse. It just means the faster, more practiced player will always get to that age first with a better infrastucture and be able to build up a massive army quickly and win at the same point every time. They have not changed anything but instead made it worse and in a different form. There will not even be a counter for it.

Unless BHG can change this to make historical tactics more useful, I just don't see how this game is going to be any more interesting than the other RTS's out there.

Again agreed. That is why I am trying to point this problem out now. It seems to me that they are saying that they have figured out rushing with this rule but have not solved a thing. They have just made things different with rushing. In the end it will be the same problem - the one I want to see solved with RTS.

[One_Dead_Villy]

you are so right tniem...only way i think they can help these perpetual slow ass players is to allow better defensive structures.

[Rohag]

I too believe a type of rush will develop in RoN, even if it’s different from the rushes we’ve all seen so far. Hopefully it will not be as bad as you describe.

Rushing is a legitimate game strategy. Elements of rushing, however, violate my sense of history – which is one of the reasons I play games. Even successful expansionist nations have had difficulty projecting their power far beyond their borders. There comes a time when the momentum of the expansion is exhausted, and force and law strain to maintain imperial cohesion. “Rome wasn’t built in a day,” so, when a single explosive offensive decides the game, it tends to dissipate the aura of history I find enjoyable.

[Axehilt]

Rush 'prevention' and Innovation in RTS Games

I disagree that they're trying to prevent the faster player from winning.

The faster player will always win.

Knowing the strategies available to you in an RTS game is pretty easy stuff after you've played 50+ games. It simply becomes a matter of executing them in a superior matter after that point. Executing them in a superior matter means being faster at it.

Based on your definition of their intent, the anti-rush options do not work. However, I seriously doubt that their intent was to somehow let the slower player win with superior innovative strategy (more on that later).

Does a "No Rush Til Gunpowder" option eliminate the concept of rushing? No. It simply delays the time at which a rush occurs. But if you look at Starcraft's classical definition of a rush, then enforce a 5-minute no rush period into that rush where players can't enter other player's territory, does that same classical definition of a rush remain - or does it become something different?

And why do some players dislike rushing? In my experience, they want to build more. More units, more buildings, more defenses. If a rush in Starcraft was held back for 5 minutes, a 6-zergling rush would be laughed at. All of the rushes would occur with much larger armies.

So the important question to ask is does RON's "No Rush Til Gunpowder" option satisfy the RTS community's desire for larger battles overall? The answer is yes!
As a side note to this, if you feel the "delayed rush" concept won't be fun, you'll be free not to play with that option in RON.

Innovation in RTS Games

As for innovation in an RTS? It exists in a temporary way. When you're first learning RTS games, any strategy you figure out on your own is innovation. Did real life generals have 400 wars under their belt? No.

The closest an RTS game can come to imitating real life innovation of strategy is during the first 50 or so RTS games you play - including all your previous RTS experience. Remember when you didn't know what a rush was? If you would have been the first to come up with that strategy, that would have been innovation. Did you figure out how to arbiter drop a huge wave of templars and zealots before you saw anyone else use that strategy? That would be innovation. Did you figure out how to 14-minute Monk Rush someone in Age of Empires 2? Did you figure out a lightning quick skiing path in Tribes 1 that you developed totally on your own before skiing paths was a major well-known strategy? Innovation is only limited by (a) the number of potential strategies in a game and (b) how many similar games you've played before (since you'd bring your previous experience to the new game).

Ironically, players seem to be assuming that games should allow for this "on the field innovation" after they've been playing the game for 2 months and have explored every strategy already. Is it the idealistic end-all of game design to be so complex that players are finding distinct new strategies 6 months after the game's release yet still remaining easily playable for Joe Shmoe who can't figure out how to move his villager? Sure. But it's not an easy thing to accomplish.

[One_Dead_Villy]

I agree with Axehilt on the purpose of an anti-rush rule and why peoplel want that. Now I also think a TIMED anti-rush rule could/should be added for people who want to play that way, its not difficult to implement at all, if they already have a rule for age linked anti rushing.


Now the reason they cant have a setting for no attack till EVERYONE gets to a certain age is some players are SOOOOO slow or purposely delaying their age advancement to either hinder another player and to just bore people into resigning, when really they have no skill to defend themselves.

[tniem]

I thought ALL players had to get the advance or else it wouldn't work....Because then, each player would get an 'equal' amount of time to build up defensive/offensive forces.

This can't be the case because then whoever gets there first simply uses the technology to build a large army and puts it on the border. Then his enemy gets the tech and he lays slaughter to them. If his enemy does not get the tech - either on purpose or because he is to slow, the game never ends and so that cannot be what BHG intends.

So the important question to ask is does RON's "No Rush Til Gunpowder" option satisfy the RTS community's desire for larger battles overall? The answer is yes!
As a side note to this, if you feel the "delayed rush" concept won't be fun, you'll be free not to play with that option in RON.

Your probably right that this solves the answer to a classic rush. But I do want more. If they are going to say that they have solved rushing then I expect that. Not this but instead some reason why it won't work. Such as better defensive units or that supply lines won't reach. That adds strategic depth to the game and still allows early wars that could knock out a weak opponent without having to simply rush to the higher technology level.

Which brings me to this point:

Rushing is a legitimate game strategy. Elements of rushing, however, violate my sense of history – which is one of the reasons I play games. Even successful expansionist nations have had difficulty projecting their power far beyond their borders. There comes a time when the momentum of the expansion is exhausted, and force and law strain to maintain imperial cohesion. “Rome wasn’t built in a day,” so, when a single explosive offensive decides the game, it tends to dissipate the aura of history I find enjoyable..

Exactly. This is what BHG should be doing to counter rushing. They claim that formations are going to be important. You will be able to control these type things. Terrain is going to be important. Well add these things together and you can see how rushes can be stopped, for the first time in RTS there will actually be a good defensive nature to the game. Add a couple defensive building such as towers and walls and rushes should easily be stopped with a defensive formation. Cities should be easily defended early on with better defensive than offensive units.

Likewise, they have mentioned supply units. Well I don't know how important they will be to the game but an easy way to slow down rushing is make units less strong early in the game being away from there cities. So you can only attack and advance as far as your supply units can move. This again will slow down quick rushes.

What I am saying is that while a timelimit or what not might slow down rushing or cause a new strategic rush, it will not end it or make it more strategic/enjoyable. Instead it is the same whose fastest that it has always been. They should instead look at the things in RoN that could counter rushes thus making them irrelevent with better players and at the same time adding some strategic depth so that you still could fight early battles over resources or for the game if you can build a big enough army.

[One_Dead_Villy]

well one thing should be maybe make the supply wagons have better abiliy based on a research path. I mean logistics wasnt born in a day either. which reminds me, their should be supply ships for ocean going units, as well as variable attrition rate for different terrain types. ie) deserts would be more attrition, while being around farms would be the lowest attrition.

[tniem]

So anyone out there at BHG want to weigh in?


We have heard that both defensive formations and supply lines are included in the game. Why not use that to counter rushes?

Simply make defensive formations stronger than attacking early in the game with some buildings that make it harder to attack early. And make it so that you cannot have a long conquest without building an early supply line. This should counter rushing in a strategic non-artificial way. So any thoughts?

[One_Dead_Villy]

yes this kind of thing should be well thought out...like in EE the moral bonus for being near your capitol was a good idea but still not enough to make a difference for the defensive player. It has always been that the attacker usually gets an advantage even if the rush was not completely sucessful, cause the defensive player is loosing resource collection time or at least one of more peons. Even if they manage to beat the rush off, that bit of damage could be the linch pin to defeat vs victory. Now what we need is something that if the defense minded player spent time to build a defensive structure it would be sufficient to completely nullify a rush, without the defender having to worry about loosing any production time or peons. Having to build units for defense isnt optimal even though they can defend a rush since those units would have been better off attacking.

[Axehilt]

Yeah, I'd agree that the anti-rushing stuff in EE was both void of options and not powerful enough to really allow players to totally reflect a rush. In Starcraft/War3, anti-rush options allow you a decided advantage, giving the advantage to a skilled defensive player who repels against an average rusher. It's also nice to have different anti-rush options for each race you choose, so you're not doing the same exact anti-rush strategies every game.

The thing that bothers me most is if it takes more than 20 minutes to resolve a game between a high-intermediate player and a newbie, like in Age2. Granted, I wasn't the best player out there, but when it takes more than 19 minutes to defeat a newbie because they can garrison in their Town Center, that's simply eating up too much of my time while not having fun.

[simwiz2]

TC's should automatically shoot 1 or 2 arrows w/o having to garrison so that the defender doesn't almost always lose villie-time because they need arrows to help repel the rusher. I think AoM is doing this for the Egyptians to make them less vulnerable to rushes, and IMO it could work in RoN

[One_Dead_Villy]

yes thats not a bad idea