Combat

[G.S. boy]

One of the things that i don't like about RTS games is that when i send a large army into enemy territory, the computer sends over units in groups of 4 and 5. In RoN i think the computer should rally its troops together in to one giant army and then march out to meet you. This would allow for better battles, and would supply a challange for the player. Also, i dont think you should be able to attack any of your enemies cities until you have defeated their entire army.

[tniem]

Re: Combat

Originally posted by G.S. boy
Also, i dont think you should be able to attack any of your enemies cities until you have defeated their entire army.

The latest preview indicated that you could multiple cities each with the capabilities to build units. If we had to wait to take out an entire army before taking out cities there would be a lot less strategy to the game.

One would take their army up into the hills and defend against attackers. Leaving cities defenseless. But of course that would not matter because cities could not be attacked unless the army was destroyed. This makes no logical sense. Conquests take place as you push back the enemy's army and seize cities one at a time. When in history did the war happen and all army deaths occur before a single city was captured. Just not historical nor is it fun.

[simwiz2]

The army-killed-before-city-capture rule would make turtling easy and the game very exploitable. Imagine this: the person not only does tneim's suggestion of putting their army in a defensible spot, but also scatters units all across their territory. The opponent would have to kill the army (at a disadvantage) and then hunt the individual units with the rremnants of his army. By the time they were all killed and city conquest could begin, attrition would have wasted the army remnants and the defender would have built more units.

[tniem]

Exactly what sim said.

It is already a problem in most RTS games that you have to destroy all cities to win. So an opponent that wants to be a jerk about it can hide farms around the map that you cannot find. You have to keep playing until all the farms are destroyed. It is not very fun and an annoyance in most RTS games. The unit thing would make it worse. Just send units to obscure places hiding and when you can't find them, the opponent builds a bigger army.

Ah, this idea just blows my mind at how bad it would make a game. Thank goodness that this idea will never make its way into any game.

[One_Dead_Villy]

here here

[Q Classic]

the unit thing was horrible when it existed. back in the days of the original red alert and command and conquer games, one could have subs in the water, and destroy every land unit... but not beat the mission. often, it could take just as much time to find the sub as it did trying to destroy the enemy base.

besides, history is littered with examples in which case the army was not destroyed, but lost cities. RoN is trying to go for a slightly more realistic combat experience than most rts, even going so far as to try and include flanking considerations.

[Rohag]

I share this observation:

One of the things that i don't like about RTS games is that when i send a large army into enemy territory, the computer sends over units in groups of 4 and 5. In RoN i think the computer should rally its troops together in to one giant army and then march out to meet you.

Yes, this is a challenge RTS designers have yet to master (speaking from my own limited experience). In some ways I think EE achieved its goal of making the AI play like a human – albeit a human who doesn’t have to worry about resources. But no RTS – with the notable exception of Gettysburg, which some might describe as a real-time wargame – I’ve yet played has done a good job of mounting an historically plausible offensive.