Rise of Nations

Bosco

It's the dogs. I recommend that everyone should buy it and play it and be enlightened.

Pugsley

I thought it was an OK game, the battles weren't great and the resource gather was stupidly simplistic (get up a basic economy at the start and never even touch it except when a new resource arrives). The advancement method was also quite annoyingly simple, out of one buildign you can turn a stone hut village into a huge village.......... the power of books eh?

And stealth bombers were far too powerful, first team to get them won basically. The game was OK to play, but there was nothing really new in it, and it got quite repetative quite quickly.

Bosco

Resource gathering is indeed simplified so no more chasing gold patches. Who could object to that? You still have to defend your resource collectors from raiders.

With entrenching, real flanking, decoy armies and forced marching all possible, and with a proper penalty for running around enemy territory unsupported in the form of attrition, the battles are more realistic and require much more skill than those in games such as Age of Empires.

As regards the stealth bombers you're right in that they are massively powerfull, as are the ICBMs and each of the other three final game-winning technologies. That said, neither are any of those technologies guaranteed to win you the game, as there is a counter-tactic for each. Personally I like these all-powerfull technologies as they bring the game to a timely close in all but the closest of games. In my book if you can afford stealth bombers when the other guy is still using WW2 units then you deserve to win the game.

Nothing new? How about the spies, generals, supply wagons and the whole notion of territory and attrition? Ripped-off from the Civilisation games I know (same game designer) but it makes a massive difference in an RTS. Add to that the subtle but powerfull advantages that building each individual Wonder offers and you have, in my book at least, the best RTS out there.

kayos

I'm with Bosco on this one RON is simply the best RTS game I have played yet!!!!

Lets deal with the points here:

1) Resource Collection
This has been made simpler than in AOE and its no bad thing. While the resources dont run out as in AOE it still takes some serious work early on to create a stable and good econ. Once you have your main resource collection dealt with increasing your income is as simple as a research or a building away, nice and easy. Your resource collection is open to attack early on so raiding is something you have to be aware of and be able to counter if/when it happens.

2) Tech Tree
Well I for one simply love the tech tree and the way you advance up the ages. It really does make getting a good econ up and running early important. There is the subtle balance of winning the age race and having an army...There is no point having a huge army of horsemen and pikemen when the enemy have a reasonable army of tanks and antitank rifles...

3) Territory
What a simple yet brillant thing to bring into a RTS. Add to this the attrition aspect and its one of my favourite parts of the game. Its possible to beat back the largest of armies with just a few horse's if you just take out the supply wagons and let the attrition do the rest. It forces you to make sure you are sending a proper force in when attacking also as there is no point in attacking unless you are sending in enough supply wagons and that they are guarded.

4) Wonders
Who cares about wonder points just build them for their abilities... also its fun when the other guy starts to build the same wonder as you when your nearly finished it Not that that would happen at all .

5) Game winning techs
Stealth bombers, ICBM's, Instant units, Missle Shield, Insant timers etc. These are some of the most powerful techs in the game and are designed to bring a game to an end in anything but the closed of battles. To say that the stealth bomders are too powerful is not exactly true. If you get your airbases up in time with enough fighters in each it can become a very expensive air battle for the enemy. The same can be said about ICBM's all you have to do is get missle shield up and running. There is always a way to combat any of the game winning techs. For the cost of a cruise missle you can cause the other player to lose a huge amount of resourses if you know when and where to attack...

6) Battle's
Flanking, decoys, ambush, attrition etc etc all lead to a very interesting game...Taking someones city with a force of about 10 units in total is very possible even late on in the game if you know what your at.

I like my RTS's and I have played many different ones but I have to say RON has to be my favourite out of them all. In what other RTS can you send in a volley of ICBM's at your friend, follwed up by a wave or two of Stealth bombers and last but not least your army . Its pure world domination fun .

Pugsley

I hate a flowing economy, means you have no need to attack except for the simple perpose of kill the other guy, you have nothing to gain by an attack, just units to lose. Whereas in most ofther RTS's when you wipe out an enemy you get all the resource's still left in their base.

With entrenching, real flanking, decoy armies and forced marching all possible, and with a proper penalty for running around enemy territory unsupported in the form of attrition, the battles are more realistic and require much more skill than those in games such as Age of Empires.

Warcraft3 anyone? And if you think AoE games are won by largest army, a small squad of onegers (and i mean about 3 here) can wipe out a full squad of 40 swordsmen in about 4 or 5 seconds, combined with use of attack ground you will hit every time too, even knight charge's against supported onegers (ie: hand cannoneers) are very hard to get through, but if you bring siege cannons, jobs a good one. Everything counters everything, whereas the attack bonus's in RoN is virtually unnoticable in a large scale battle as the control you have over you force in a battle is simply limited.

As for attrition, it just beefsu p the unstopable power of stealth bombers, bomb supply trucks, enemy cant shoot you down, so you can wipe out any army as the russians without having to even send a land army. Also, what are these so called 'counters' to stealth bombers? you have yet to name any, maybe bombing the airstrips, but to get past flak you need stealth bombers too, therefore they only counter themselves.

Nothing new? How about the spies, generals, supply wagons and the whole notion of territory and attrition? Ripped-off from the Civilisation games I know (same game designer) but it makes a massive difference in an RTS. Add to that the subtle but powerfull advantages that building each individual Wonder offers and you have, in my book at least, the best RTS out there.

Spies, Command and conquer done them, well, about 7years ago? Warcraft3 has done generals long before RoN (and much more battle winning ones). Every RTS has 'territory' it just isnt marked with a big red line, if you into an enemy base its hardly open terrain, RoN just added the dotted line. Attrition is new yes, but thats it, nothing more.


The only real thing I liked alot about this game was the wonder system was was pretty damn excellent, (terra cotta army anyone?) as they actually help you in a fight, quite considerably at times too

Bosco

Originally posted by Pugsley
Also, what are these so called 'counters' to stealth bombers?

Build many airbases (some as decoys and backups) and build 4-6 fighters in a few of those airbases. Group them for a quick response to attack. Build SAM sites along your borders (so you can see them coming) and around important buildings to discourage fighter-escorts. A single jet fighter will make short work of 3-4 Stealth bombers, a group of 6 will destroy 10 stealth bombers before they destroy more than a building or two, and way before they can take down a Wonder. As stealth bombers are very expensive to replace, a good fighter defence will quickly discourage most players from using them. If the opposing players is persistently sending wave after wave of bombers, building the Space Program (behind a good fighter defence) allows you to see the Stealth Bombers coming even before they've all taken off from their bases, allowing you to shoot them all down before they reach their targets. If you manage to upgrade even a moderate, well-organised fighter defence to Advanced fighters, Stealth bombers become practically useless. If you manage to get Artificial Intelligence researched, then given enough spare airbases you can instantly create enough jet fighters to shoot down any number of incoming aircraft.

You speak as someone who has played the game litttle. Give it another chance and I think you might be surprised by it's balance and depth.

Bosco

Originally posted by Pugsley
I hate a flowing economy, means you have no need to attack except for the simple perpose of kill the other guy, you have nothing to gain by an attack, just units to lose. Whereas in most ofther RTS's when you wipe out an enemy you get all the resource's still left in their base.

You get a resource bonus from every unit you kill and every city you take. Killing enemy peasants, merchants and caravans (best done using ranged cavalry who can shoot and move at the same time), particularly when done early in the game, is crippling to an economy and very frustrating for an opposing player to deal with.

...the attack bonus's in RoN is virtually unnoticable in a large scale battle as the control you have over you force in a battle is simply limited.

The attack bonuses in RON are utterly massive. Seven units can, in the right circumstances, destroy a huge army. I dare you to play the game online for a month and make that claim again with a straight face.

Every RTS has 'territory' it just isnt marked with a big red line, if you into an enemy base its hardly open terrain, RoN just added the dotted line. Attrition is new yes, but thats it, nothing more.

Terroritory in RON means more money through taxation, safer trade between cities, more special resources (which are very very important) and once the Industrial age comes, more oil wells. 'Pushing' out your borders early on can be a game-winning tactic, never mind the extra options it opens up when the time comes to attack.

The only real thing I liked alot about this game was the wonder system was was pretty damn excellent, (terra cotta army anyone?) as they actually help you in a fight, quite considerably at times too

There we agree. Every single Wonder in the game is very powerfull when the proper advantage is taken of it at the right time. My personal favorite is the Supercollider combined with Artificial Intelligence. You can go from having no nuclear capability to launching 5 ICBMs in a matter of seconds

tba

Every bad point leveled at it seems to be that its to simple,

Remember its meant to be played over about an hour and I dont konw about you guys but my games usually do and only because of the steamlined interface.

Pugsley

Cirtually every point you mentioned is in, just about every RTS, killing peasents early game cripples economy, in every game. No Player is going to build an army with one unit, so the attack bonus's are therefore hardly noticable against a 'proper' mixed force. Territory means more resources in just about every game, the only diffrence is taxation, pushign borders of an empire can win a game in any RTS, a player who controls half the resources with outposts has a huge advantage over a turtler sitting in his corner of the map.

Bosco

Originally posted by Pugsley
Cirtually every point you mentioned is in, just about every RTS

Exactly my point. So how is RON's 'flowing' economy inferior to that of any other RTS? By your own admission it's the same, but in my view it requires less clicking.

No Player is going to build an army with one unit, so the attack bonus's are therefore hardly noticable against a 'proper' mixed force.

In any RTS an attack on a 'proper' mixed force using insufficient units is suicide. How is Rise of Nations any different?

Territory means more resources in just about every game, the only diffrence is taxation...

One difference you may have missed is that unlike any RTS I've played before, you can't hide small mobs of raiders on enemy land indefinately. You have to return to your own territory to recover from attrition, even if your raiding party doesn't get a chance to attack. Another difference is the very realistic effect of an army losing it's supply wagons deep in enemy territory. Even a massive army can be forced to retreat if it strays too far from it's own territory, especially once fighter planes come along. In other RTSs I've played any corner of the map is an equally good place for an army to defend itself, and sending an army round the corners of the map to avoid defences is too common a tactic. In RON an army needs to fight close to a place where supply wagons can be made if it's to take on another reasonable army successfully, and taking the long way around usually results in having to run away again.

Pugsley

You say not being able to sneak anywhere at all is a good thing, and that the only offence is a fast tank rush type attack. Thx but Ill take my sneaking tactics and slow advances over simple blitzing anyday. You can only blitz an enemy and run once your supply wagons die so many times before it bore's the p*ss out of you tbh. (which is another flaw in Warcraft3, but to a lesser extent, and thats a diffrent rant)


As for your second point:

In any RTS an attack on a 'proper' mixed force using insufficient units is suicide. How is Rise of Nations any different?

Thats kidn of what I was saying, you said it like it was new and unique, when in fact its been done many dozen times before, infact in more or less every RTS there is.

Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe

but pugsley you cant just expect people NOT to create new games such as RON bwased on a mixture of games such as civ3 and aoe. these games were like the best sellers of their type. obviously people who liked them are going to rush out to buy RON when it is a mixture of both. People dont like change from what they like. well i dont. i cant speak for everyone. but who really wants to play a game that has basically no carry - ons from a previous game available??? there aint no point in this... im sure most people here will agree with me when i say "when i go to buy a game id prefer to know what im buying in the scence that ive played a fairly similar game to the new one and its a game that i can pretty much like....."

im my opinion RON IS the dogs bollox. this game is unbeatable by any currently available. i loved civ 1 , 2 and 3. and also test of time. but then again i loved age of empires 1, 2, rise of rome and also aoe. all these games ruled 9 years of my life. and when someone finally combined a lot of feautres like territory control, attrition damage(new), major fighting styles(a lot of new ones) and the basic concept of building cities and growing ALL MIXED IN WITH AMAZING GRAPHICS AND CINEMATICS AND UNITS then **** it its worth my 50 EURO. or how ever much it cost...

"but hey every man has his own"

Pugsley

I liked the civ games, and i loved AoE to bits. But RoN does nothing for me at all really.

Bosco

Originally posted by Pugsley

Thats kidn of what I was saying, you said it like it was new and unique, when in fact its been done many dozen times before, infact in more or less every RTS there is.

I admit that much of what I like about RON has been done before in other games. For example, the damage bonus given to units attacking from the side or behind (flanking) has been done before in games like Shogun. Also in Shogun was a general unit, which like in RON has a large effect on how long an army lasts in a fight. Shogun however didn't have a real-time economy element.

The combination of a real time economy element, a territory element, and advanced battlefield tactics such as flanking, forced marching and entrenching is to my knowledge new to RTSs. If I am wrong in this please feel free to point out my error.