RoN vs. Empire Earth

[Solver]

Currently, RoN looks pretty much like Empire Earth - can be an epic game, but is also playable in hour games, etc, etc. The screenshots are also very similar to EE. I've liked EE pretty much, but found that it lacks a certain element... I was playing it for 2 or 3 weeks, but then stopped. Most players had the same feeling... EE was just lacking something, unlike AoE 2, it couldn't keep me addicted for a long time.

So, what are the key differences between RoN and EE, in what way is RoN going to be more like civ? My next two game purchases are Age of Mythology and Civ3: PtW, so there has to be a reason to buy RoN, too .

[Sonic]

EE is better than AoE/AoK in my opinion. EE major power is not it's multiplayer, but campaings. Also, ability to create your own campaigns with all the realistic units given and all the capabilities to alter them even more.

I believe RoN will not be as good. For example, there will be only 5 air units in RoN - Fighter, Bomber, Jet Fighter, Strategic Bomber and Helicopter. maybe this reminds Civ 3 (6 air units here), but it doesn't fits for RTS. For example, you won't be able to create good campaigns about WW1 without this time planes and about current times without stealth fighters, ect. For example in EE (only in WW1-modern epochs since digital and nano aren't covered by RoN) there were 22 regular planes and helicopters, also about 10 campaign-only flying units. All those units were named and designed after real ones, thus allowing creating realistic scenarios. AoE/AoK also had realistic units and many of them, same as EE. however RoN doesn't seems to cover everything correctly. It's only quality over EE might be unique units, but I'd better make more ordinary units than many unique units.

[Solver]

You're surely missing some of the fun of EE. Did you play AoK in multiplayer much? You see, the EE campaigns are very fun , but once they're completed, there are, of course, two things to do. Play random games vs. AI or online. The AI was cheating badly, what made it more or less of a challenge, but was just as insane and stupid as most other RTS AIs are.

Air units... eh... while air combat was great in EE, it was spoiling the game a bit. You see, in Atomic Age II and later on, the game turned out to be a race for Nuclear bombers, everyone building them, villagers making lots of AA guns, and both sides making other planes to cover Nuke bombers. But nukes were the most important part of the game... hell, if I manage to fly over you with 10 Nulcear bombers, you'll not be happy.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

I would agree that Empire Earth was second to AOE etc,I particually found it to be tedious and at times very hectic without any real gain on the AI.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Sonic
For example, you won't be able to create good campaigns about WW1 without this time planes and about current times without stealth fighters, ect. For example in EE (only in WW1-modern epochs since digital and nano aren't covered by RoN) there were 22 regular planes and helicopters, also about 10 campaign-only flying units.

Well, that is because they are cattering to two different markets. RoN is focusing on making a balanced, solid game with strong RTS AI that spans history (so that means relatively the same amounts of units and choices throughout time). That means less units but higher quality, more thought out ones. This does not mean that you won't be able to make good campaigns or scenarios, simply that you will also have to work on the graphics for the units and if this game is a success, those units will be floating around the net very quickly.

It's only quality over EE might be unique units, but I'd better make more ordinary units than many unique units.

This may be the truth, if they were using the same engine but they are not. What RoN hopes to do and is the only way the game will be a success is if the game is balanced throughout history and has a decent AI. That is their goal - not the number of units. Just because you like tons of units does not mean this would be a good solution to this game.

[tniem]

As for Solver's question...

I don't think anyone can say for sure whether its all going to come together but the hope is...

better AI and a more balanced game.


RoN could truly be a strong evolution in terms of an RTS game with cities and AI that defends and attacks these entities. Brian has done it in the past with his other games and could achieve a strong AI once again. If he does create one that can rival a human that would be a great step, but again that remains to be seen. But with cities as a strategic element, RTS will be given a new life that could have a profound impact on AI and strategy.

Same goes for a balanced game. In the little I played EE, I always found it unbalanced at times in history. It was too much a rush to the present day. The rest of history was simply a stepping ground to get there. Hopefully the creator of Civ II can come up with a balanced game where early game decisions will matter and become important. We will see how well they will do. But balanced units and time epochs could make or break the game.

So what RoN is trying to do is special. It will be totally worth the purchase if they are successful in what they are trying to accomplish. What remains to be seen is whether cities and balanced time epochs will have an impact on strategies and whether or not a very good AI can be achieved in RTS. If both of these can, RoN is going to be a very good purchase.

[Main_Brain]

Well we will see :=)

[Solver]

Tniem - I generally believe it will be balance, not the AI. Simply put, RTS games are played much more in MP, and AI there isn't as important as in Civ... so unless it works fine in MP mode (with balance), RoN will not succeed.

[Rohag]

Regardless of its visual aspects, RoN’s gameplay appears headed in different directions from that of EE.

I heard about RoN just about the time I was getting vaguely disappointed with EE. EE was certainly enjoyable, but it didn’t seem to be the game I had hoped it would be. Something with less fighting and more development and diplomacy would have been more satisfying.

Based on previews, RoN shows promise to be playable either as the more deliberative game I described above or as the battle royal more competitive gamers enjoy. BHG’s stated goal of layering some of the depth of turn-based strategy into an RTS is ambitious but potentially rewarding - I agree with tniem. I applaud BHG for their effort and risk.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Solver
Tniem - I generally believe it will be balance, not the AI. Simply put, RTS games are played much more in MP, and AI there isn't as important as in Civ... so unless it works fine in MP mode (with balance), RoN will not succeed.

Oh I agree that balancing is the most important thing in RTS. But BHG is trying do more. They are trying to make a game that has a ton of strategy and stuff. That hints at making it a big single player game as well. And to answer your question this is what is going to distinguish it from EE. If they pull it off, it will be a game with cities that impacts strategy, balanced epochs, and a decent AI. That will make a very solid game.

[isaac_newton]

After reading some of the interviews, i believe the main difference between RoN and EE is simply the multiplayer options and balancing issues. In EE while playing multiplayer it was putrid, It got boring really fast becase the only civs ever played where mainly austrian and assyrian. Even though EE probably will have more units but what is the use of 100 units if only about 10 are used? Personally i perfer 50 units and have them all used. Case in point, the helocopter in EE. I have played tons of RM games and i have never seen one helocopter unit used.
The multiplayer options are quite ovious. It seems BHG as well as Microsoft seem to take the multiplayer community more seriously then, take this quote from
Sierra PR guy:

"A lot of very smart people have done a lot of research and determined that a very small number of people actually use recorded games or would use multiplayer scenerios. Too small, in fact, to spend the time and money to include them in the game. For some of you it probably seems like everyone in the world wants these features, but let me tell you that it's not the case.

We already spend a ton of time and money supporting features that the majority of our owners don't or will never use. Multiplayer in general is only utilized by about 10% of our playerbase (albeit a VERY vocal 10%) and yet we have spent a tremendous amount of effort to upgrade the multiplayer experience in AOC (which will be available as a free download for EE owners). MODability is another area in which even less than 5% of owners are interested, and yet we were adamant that the scenerio builder be as full featured as possible.

Well lets hope BHG dosen't take this same attitude Sierra has taken. Even if its true that only 10% play multiplayer, remember those 10% are very vocal and usually the ones who recomend games. Im sure if you had your "very smart people" do the research more indepth you will find out that would be true. It seems they put out the same effort on Public relations research as they do with EE.

[XarXo]

EE is souless. RoN? I don't know, yet...

[Solver]

Sierra is right in fact that a small portion plays MP, however, here it is, for BHG, what I want RoN to have it I'm going to buy it:

Balanced units. No damn nuclear bombers that destroy whole cities. Maybe less units than EE, but useful ones, mind you! Really, that many useless ones in EE... An AI. None of the RTS I played had a reasonable AI. EE was supposed to actually, but it cheated terribly, the only reason why it could more or less succeed - and in tactics, it sucked. Therefore, single player stuff to do. That's pretty much it, then I'll probably give it a try.

[Crazy Dog]

I haven't even played the demo of EE. When I heard about all civs bieng the same I was put off.


Mne ne nravetsa Empire Earth