Rise of Nations Goes Gold

[WSUCougar]

From the Gone Gold (http://www.gonegold.com/index.shtml#Guide2) website:

Rise of Nations Goes Gold, Ready to Redefine RTS

Microsoft Game Studios today announced that Rise of Nations has gone gold and is scheduled to ship to stores on May 20 in North America. Virtual field commanders will soon get the opportunity to "Conquer the World" in single player, or lead their troops into battle online with this revolutionary real-time strategy (RTS) game from Brian Reynolds. To celebrate this milestone, gamers will be able to chat live with Reynolds on Zone.com today, April 22, at 5pm PDT. For more information on the chat, visit the Zone.

Rise of Nations combines the epic scope of traditional turn-based strategy (TBS) games with the fast-paced action of RTS games. The game allows players to create new cities, improve their city infrastructure and expand national borders. Players have the option to win through military might using everything from slingshots to cannons to stealth bombers, corner the market on key commodities, and wheel and deal with a wide variety of Nations. Unlike other historical RTS games, Rise of Nations allows gamers to quickly play through eight historical epochs of time from the Ancient Age to the Information age, covering 6,000 years of history. Gamers can play a quick battle on any map as one of 18 nations, or play Conquer the World, the unique blending of TBS and RTS gameplay. This latest title from Big Huge Games Inc. founder Brian Reynolds (designer of Civilization 2 and Alpha Centauri) will be available for an estimated retail price of $49.95 U.S. For more information about Rise of Nations, visit the official site.

[ice4277]

Isn't this essentially an updated version of Empire Earth, or is there a bunch of new stuff I don't know about?

[Blackadar]

Um, no. This is by Brian Reynolds, who did Civ 2. It should be VASTLY superior to Empire Earth.

[Schmidty]

This sounds semi-interesting even though I think that the RTS genre is stale and played-out.

Hopefully it'll be closer to Civ2, and less like a traditional RTS.

[Anrhydeddu]

Not when the main selling point is the ability to play 10,000 years of history in one hour. Brian is a frequent participant at apolyton and it had been interesting to see the debates between traditional civers and rts-players. It wasn't in the initial design, but he did add a turn-based strategy screen and mode that will be take a longer period of time to play, but he had said all along that he wanted a fast-paced civ-like game that can be played in sitting. No thank you, Brian.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Not when the main selling point is the ability to play 10,000 years of history in one hour.

Sounds realistic.

Ugghh.

:rolleyes:

[Calis]

Hmm, just from hearing tidbits from folks in the beta of this, I hear quite a few comparisions gameplay-wise to Kohan, if that's the case count me in. I'm actually pretty interested in this one, it does some things that I think sound really neat, and it looks like it could be more tactical than just the standard RTS zerg rush. Realism be damned. :)

This one will be waited on though, I've got too many games to play right now, and I don't need to buy another game I might hate, so I'll see what the feel is a month or so after release.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Calis
This one will be waited on though, I've got too many games to play right now, and I don't need to buy another game I might hate, so I'll see what the feel is a month or so after release.
Bingo! :cool:

[cincyreds]

YEAH WSUCougar, I pre-ordered this it back in January and I am looking forward to this one.

I am just waiting for it to arrive now.

This should be one heck of a game.

[AgPete]

I didn't know the Civ2 designer worked on it. I had hopes for a little bit after reading that in this thread but after reading some of the descriptions it looks like a typical RTS game. I know lots of people that love those games but for me, once you've played one, you've played them all. I'd love to see some more world conquest games like Civ and Europa Universalis.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Yeah its true that all rts are all the same to an extent ....capture a city with your 10 guys and convert the population so you can mine the ore and pound the other city .

[Anrhydeddu]

Brian and Sid designed Civ2 10 years ago. Brian bailed out on the Civ3 development because he really wanted strategy games (esp. Civ) to be an agressive, intense RTS game. In other words, what made Civ2 brilliant in its simplicity yet depthness, he forsake that bring in the short-attention span, console-type gamers who have no patience for the thoughtful play of TBS (and text-based sims for that matter).

[cincyreds]

Here is a good fansite for any of you wanting read up on the discussion board and all.

I think it is going to be a good game for sure.


www.riseofnationsheaven.com (http://)

[cincyreds]

Oops! Sorry. Try this one.

http://ron.heavengames.com/

[cincyreds]

ron.heavengames.com/ (http://)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu ... he forsake that bring in the short-attention span, console-type gamers who have no patience for the thoughtful play of TBS (and text-based sims for that matter).

Thanks for the concise explanation of why I haven't bought a non-sports title in ages.

Nothing chases me away from a game faster anymore than the letters RTS.

[Calis]

Heh, I love how everyone brands all RTS's in the Warcraft/Starcraft/C&C vein. No patience for thoughful play, let us be a wee bit more conceited eh? :)

I love a good TBS, but I also believe a RTS can be excellent as well. The EU series of games comes to mind, and the Myth series(not the same focus granted, but still strategy) are some of the best games I've ever played. I'll bring up Kohan also, as I consider that an RTS that isn't a "micro", "button-masher" like most of them, it was more focused on tactics and such. Excellent game, and definitely included "thoughful play".

I just hate when people automatically jump on the bandwagon that RTS's are for impatient, non thinking gamers. Making a game give you infinite time to make a decision doesn't make it more thought-intensive, just slower paced.

Anywho, not here to bash TBS's or RTS's, and for the most part I prefer TBS, but not because of the mechanics, just because of the general way they're implemented.

edit: I should add, I'm not sticking up for RoN, as I know a minimal bit about it, I just don't like broad generalizations. :)

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Calis

I just hate when people automatically jump on the bandwagon that RTS's are for impatient, non thinking gamers. Making a game give you infinite time to make a decision doesn't make it more thought-intensive, just slower paced.


I agree with you but my main problem with most RTS they all feel the same no matter what aliens, historical empires, knights, etc. you put in the game. It's build base, get resources, build army, take over other guy, rinse and repeat.

My brother loved those types of games and he was one smart cookie. (Ya know, one of those guys that switches between different engineering majors because he's "bored." :p ) He would enter tournaments and I was always amazed at the level of competition in the elite brackets of RTS games. I hated playing against people as good as him. I'd be proud of myself for building my base thinking I had come up with the ultimate strategy to finally beat my bro and suddenly a gazillion troops would come marching into my base plundering and raping the entire place. :mad: The sad part is my bro usually drank a six pack of beer while he did it. :D I would watch him play and saw how fast I had to be to kick ass in those games and I knew the RTS genre was not for me. I like an occasional fast first-person shooter but in general, I sit down at my computer to relax.

[Calis]

Oh I agree with ya, I think for the most part RTS's have grown into a very very stale genre, as I believe for the most part FPS's have...with a few exceptions. I definitely agree with how they feel the same, but there ARE some that break that mold a bit, I guess my point is to just not discount a game because of the genre it's advertised in. It's such a broad generalization, and there's such a wide variety within it, just keep an open mind.

I will say this though, if RoN is like Blizzard standar fair RTS, to hell with it! :) I'm hoping it's not about who can rush the fastest or micromanage their units better.

We shall see I guess.

[Anrhydeddu]

It took a little longer than I expected but Calis finally put forth the expected reply. Let me prove your point and then I will make mine. Look at what is perhaps my top 5 favorite strategy games of all time are: Civ2, Pirates!Gold, Railroad Tycoon, Medieval and Imperialism II. See anything about the middle 3? Yep, they are RTS games.

But that's not what Brian was refering to when initially developing RoN.

"a lot of people want to be able to play a multiplayer game on their lunch hour and be able to see all the ages, and we have that too "

"As Rise of Nations is a somewhat-historical (fauxstorical if you will) recreation of history, you`ll go trough eight ages in the game, ranging from the Stone Age to the modern Information Age. Thankfully for you impatient gamers, you won`t have to dedicate 50 hours to make your way through thousands and thousands of years or history. "

"Visually the game is really a step up from the bland, flat RTS titles that are so abundant in the realm of PC gaming, and the game actually bears a lot of resemblance to Empire Earth, at least in the visual sense. "

Since then, they have added a TBS strategic (ala Medieval) and scenarios that can play out over quite a long period of time, as well as a Slow Speed setting.

But you are right, Calis, it's a fun and silly argument to make and for many of us older folks, we sometimes like to take things slow and easy. ;)

[HornedFrog Purple]

Anr what do you consider M:TW to be? Turn based, real-time combat? Not arguing or anything, just curious.

[Anrhydeddu]

The Total War series (Shogun, Medieval) is termed a Hybrid TBS/RTS. Gangsters was one of the first that did this (albeit not as well) and this is really my prefered style of games, assuming it fits the scale (which would have been impractical for Civ2).

[Calis]

Heh, I was wondering the same thing actually.

To tell ya the truth though, I think I could agree with him on it being an RTS, as I think the game is definitely centered around the RT Combat, the turn based portion really isn't the point of game imo.

edit: He beat me to it! I will once again agree though, it's the best way to do things. Combat Mission does this, albeit with the RT part having no user interaction, but it's just the best way to work things.

Gangsters, I actually enjoyed the hell outta the first one. Even though the game was basically a spreadsheet you played, not a whole lot of options, you either did the right thing/ or you lost. I never played the 2nd, heard it was pretty horrid.

But then again, you could argue the exact same thing opposite.

I see what you're saying about RoN also, it's not so much what is as what he said it would be? I can definitely understand that. I also hear ya on needing a slower paced game every now and then.

P.S. Pirates Gold frigging rocked.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Yea I agree, what I like so much about it is that I can take my time with the macromanagement, can sim battles I deem inconsequential (mainly the peasants uprising if I have adequate forces) and can get down-and-dirty on the battlefield when I want to.

But I agree I think these hybrids are practical for a limited time scope, I could not imagine playing Civ 2 or 3 on that scale.

[Calis]

If I can just make my dream known here, if the Total War folks would/could make a game detailing more modern times, a la a WW2 game. I think I could very well never buy another game again. :) That one would be a bit tougher to do than the previous ones for sure, but man I'd love it.

[WSUCougar]

It's a fine line with "RTS" as far as I'm concerned. If, as noted above for ROS, the intent is to expedite the strategy elements and make into a reaction-based clickfest, then I am skeptical at best and completely turned off at worst. However, if the "real time" element is used to enhance to strategy experience, then I'm all for it. Medieval is a great example.

I'd love to see the Medieval game system put to use in a fantasy setting. Take someting like Age of Wonders or HOMM and utilize the Medieval template. Yowsa!

Hey Calis, Combat Mission does not meet your WWII needs, or is it that you want the strategic/tactical combo?

[Calis]

Combat Mission is great, I did mean it more for the combined Grand Strategy/Tactical combat. I'm picturing a game like Hearts of Iron using the Total War engine.

And to be completely honest, I really suck at Combat Mission. :) I still need to buy the 2nd one also, I spent so much time trying to get the hang of the first one I've never bothered. I love playing it though.

[WSUCougar]

If you ever want to play Combat Mission via e-mail, I'm game. We can always load you up with extra purchase points to even things out, if you fear my formidable* skills.



*That was a colossal squid reference. I'm not being conceited. :cool:

[tucker342]

sounds interesting...

[henry296]

The demo is now available. It downloaded it last night and it reminded me exactly of Age of Kings. I like to take things slow and this game doesn't seem to be for me. If anyone has played this and the EU or Hearts of Iron series, how does the pace compare.

Todd

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by WSUCougar


I'd love to see the Medieval game system put to use in a fantasy setting. Take someting like Age of Wonders or HOMM and utilize the Medieval template. Yowsa!



Exactly. This is exactly the type of game I've wanted for ages and have been stunned that it hasn't been done. Given the HUGE amount of material out there, as well as the ability to come up with your own fantasy setting, plot, etc., I am surprised no one has caught onto this.

To be honest, I'd prefer the tactical aspect of the game to turn-based, as opposed to real-time, but at the grand scale of Medieval, as opposed to the small-scale of Age of Wonders or HOMM.

It could really be something impressive. Great animations, cool armies with heroes, massive beasts-of-war, etc., etc.

It's the type of game I've always thought that would be perfect for the Warhammer Fantasy or Warhammer 40,000 system. Instead of tooling around with first-person shooters and the like, why not just make a game Grand Strategy/Tactical Combat game for these? Both worlds are huge and well-developed. Expansion packs would be easy, as would on-line play. Set the army point limits, scenario goals, bingo-bango it's showtime.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Brian bailed out on the Civ3 development because he really wanted strategy games (esp. Civ) to be an agressive, intense RTS game.
Not exactly. Sid and Brian (and Reynolds is given the credit for designing the game) did do their sequel to Civ2. At the time, they promoted Alpha Centauri as the next installment in the Civ series (and next logical step, given the goal in the Civ 1&2 games) but their was still some contention between Sid and MicroProse over who owned the rights to the "Sid Meier's Civilization" franchise. So, Firaxis made the sequel to Civ2, and avoided legal trouble by not attaching the Civ name.

[Samdari]

Dola,

The RoN demo is out. I am downloading it now.

[cincyreds]

RON is going to be great!

I hoping that my copy will come in early.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Yes I can see it now ...The Aztecs dropping an A Bomb on Prehistoric Spain.....HA HA HA .

[Anrhydeddu]

...and it will only take you 45 minutes of playing to progress so you can develop the A Bomb. :rolleyes:

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
...and it will only take you 45 minutes of playing to progress so you can develop the A Bomb. :rolleyes: I bought it, and got it home just a few minutes ago. Leave it to our buddy Buc/Anr to speak curmudgeonly without all the facts. ;) Actually methinks this is a Buc kinda game. It has a ridiculous amount of customization for RTS or TBS multiplayer. In fact, I'm really curious if the multiplayer community will ever take off, because there are sooooooooooooo many game options. I am about to start my first solo game with the following settings:

Difficulty: VERY EASY (Hey, I'm just tring to see how things work, ok???)

Other Nations: SEVEN (that's the max)

Teams and Allies: SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST (No alliances, every civ for itself--nine different options here)

Map Style: NEW WORLD (New World starts off everyone on a small, fairly barren island, with a large resource-rich land mass in the middle. There are 17 different map types, plus 6 "extra" options--Random, Random Land, Random Sea, Secret Random, Secret Random Land, Secret Random Sea)

Map Size: BIG HUGE (The biggest. There are six different settings.)

Game Speed: NORMAL

Game Rules: CUSTOM (There are 10 different "general" rules settings, and then custom allows that ridiculous amount of customization I was referring to. The rest of the options from here on out are the "custom" options I'm using.)

Start With: NOMAD (like a Civ game...just a few citizens to start with, no base whatsoever. There are four settings here: Nomad,
City Center Only, Small Town, Large Town)

Resources: LOW (Nine different options here {Low, Standard,X2,X3,X5,X10,X20,Deathmatch,Infinite} plus variable low, variable medium, variable high and a "random" option

Technology: VERY EXPENSIVE AND SLOW (Nine differnt options here, any combination of {cheap,normal,expensive} and {fast, normal, slow}

Reveal Map: NORMAL (Fog O' War style--options are no ally LOS, normal, explored and all visible)

Population: 200 (highest available---6 options available--50 to 200 in increments of 25)

Rush Rules: STANDARD (Rushing allowed. Jeez, there are 14 different rush rules options--peace until any of the 8 eras, plus non-violent, and peace for 2,5,10,15,20 or 30 minutes)

Start Age: ANCIENT (Can begin in any age, also a random option)

End Age: INFORMATION (Final age. Can end in any age

Elimination: CONQUEST (Nations are only eliminated when their nation is conquered. Other options are to die when capital is captured and not quickly retaken, sudden death if capital falls, and sudden death when ANY city falls.)

Victory: CONQUEST (Conquer the whole planet. 10 different options here--Standard, Conquest, Economic, Musical Chairs {nation is last place is eliminated at time intervals until one is standing}, Score, Sudden Death, Tech Race, Territory, Time Limit, Wonder)

I'll let y'all know how it goes.

[Anrhydeddu]

Ben, I'll take your review with a grain of salt since I know you loved Empire Earth. :)

Brian, to his credit did add many more options and design elements after the initial designs were ridiculed to death..."a lot of people want to be able to play a multiplayer game on their lunch hour and be able to see all the ages, and we have that too "

"As Rise of Nations is a somewhat-historical (fauxstorical if you will) recreation of history, you`ll go trough eight ages in the game, ranging from the Stone Age to the modern Information Age. Thankfully for you impatient gamers, you won`t have to dedicate 50 hours to make your way through thousands and thousands of years or history. "


I'd be curios if these remained because it was not clear from your list of options. Maybe it (being able to play thousands of years in a lunch hour) solely is a multiplayer thing?

[Ben E Lou]

1. I loved Empire Earth for VERY different reasons than Civ2. I still like the fact that counters and resource piles are such CRITICAL aspects of the game, and that at the expert level of multiplayer challenge, one must be able to think very quickly in a strategic manner to have a chance. Don't knock me just because I enjoy diverse gaming experiences, while it appears you're stuck in your ways. (Incidentally, an Empire Earth game at Standard, with low resources, versus a Very Hard computer player STILL takes me probably 5-10 hours of game play, and I know from my multiplayer exploits that I'm one of the better players out there.)

2. Actually if you read carefully you'll see that certainly that is still an option. I'd imagine that if you start with high resources, very fast speed, and fast/cheap technology advances, getting to the final age in 30-40 minutes is very do-able. However, in the game I described above, I was in the 5th Age (the one after gunpowder, can't remember the name) after almost 2 hours of play, and that is at easiest level, where the human player has resource gathering bonuses. At that age, things start to REALLY slow down, as the resources needed to advance become fairly difficult to gather, while still maintain the necessary military defenses. I accidentally kicked my power strip, rebooting the computer, so I can't tell you how long the game would have taken. At any rate, I think it is quite reasonable to assume that at the higher difficulty levels, the game will play much more like TBS than RTS. Due to the addition of attrition to this game, it is going to become VERY VERY VERY difficult, if not impossible, to win by rushing to attack with a small early force. Attrition, combined with the ability to convert citizens into militia units, make attacking a much more strategic endeavor than any RTS I've seen.

3. Don't knock the game because others enjoy it. Not everyone is going to make the game that you want to play. Face it and get over it.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola--

I just looked at the Conquer The World campaign for the first time. It looks well done, and my first guess is that it is gonna take longer to complete than a game of Civ2.

[Anrhydeddu]

[rambling rant]Ben, what are you jumping all over me for? Did you not wait to see the smiley thing come up??

If you read carefully my posts in this thread, it mostly was focusing on what Brian (not I or you) said about the concept of the game and how he had to add many more features and options to appeal to more strategy gamers besides the EE crowd. At first, as you may have followed along at Apolyton, he really wanted to differentiate this game by making the main selling point the fact that you can play thousands of years in one sitting (as oppose to 30 hours or as oppose to just hundreds of years). There is nothing wrong with an engine that can support a very fast game or a very slow game (or everything in between), I prefer that actually.

Anyway, why did you make the crack about diverse gaming experiences? I fully suspect that half of the games I play almost no one else plays. Just because I am not an impatient gamer (Brian's words) for the standard AoE/EE style of RTS play, I didn't see you get on board with Combat Mission, or the city building RTS games or the Total War RTS/TBS games. 2- to 5-10 hours per game is still relatively fast, compared to the 25-30 hours for a CM or a city building campaign or the 100+ hours for a single TW game. But that's just quibbling.

But as I had suspected, it is really multiplayer that must be sped up because Civ MP just did/does not work at all (too much time) and TW is just about battles. For solo play, a strategy game must have the options for a wide variety of game plays, as your setup options very clearly stated. But going back to the original point, half of those options were not in the initial design. So what? The only point was to knock Brian, which I have done in the forum, because I just don't believe in some of his gaming concepts and his impetus for developing RoN (perhaps it is bitterness for leaving Civ3 in incompetant hands). This was not a knock on you at all (despite the friendly jab at you liking EE). If I wasn't interested in hearing your comments and review, I would have ignored this altogether but I still reserve the right to have critical opinions, esp. for a game that started out with a flawed design, imo.
[/rambling rant]

The one question I have at first is the ages. One of my peeves is a game that forces the players into the linear research pattern of Ages. Is this flexible in that you can choose your own research line without having to waste time researching other techs just so you can get out of an age? This, imo, was one of the fatal flaws of Civ3 and I would be surprised to see it in RoN.

[Anrhydeddu]

Did I write that??? I really have to learn not to post late at night, esp. when I'm tired and cranky. :rolleyes:

Being more clear headed now (relatively speaking), I think it all comes down to one thing. It doesn't matter how slow or fast you want to play a strategy game. If you want to take only a few hours to play a whole campaign in MTW or hundreds of hours, both are perfectly fine. However, to me, the gamer should be the one dictating how slow or fast to play not the game forcing you. This has been my criticism of Ages-based research, as well as some traditional RTS games where it becomes a clickfest just to keep up. That's all.

[cincyreds]

SkyDog, I have been playing the trial version the last 4 days. My retail copy comes in tomorrow.

How are the Turks civ? Are they pretty cool looking?

Thanks man!

I cannot wait to get my hands on the real game.

[daedalus]

More comments, reviews and opinions? Please? Pretty please?

[Ben E Lou]

Thoughts galore….

1. Response To B.A. Rant (hehehe….B.A., that’s what we ought to shorten his names to for good…..)

Look, there’s probably no point in going around and around any more about this, but let me state my as clearly as I know how. I read your posts carefully, and it just seems like the same old thing: you want/expect/hope that a developer will make the game that you want to play. When the game clearly isn’t to my liking, I just move on. It is unrealistic to expect/want/hope that a developer to re-design a game to your liking. Patch? Yes. Typically though, your suggestions would call for a complete overhaul.

2. Response to B.A. Question About Linear-ness

No, age advancement is not completely linear. There are SOME restrictions though. For example, you can’t get to Level 8 science while you’re still in the 2nd Age. :p The way it works it that in each Age, you have to research a given number of techs before the Age Advancement becomes available. Which technologies you research are your choice.

3. Respnse to B.A. Next Post About Speed

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here, and what your beef is with RoN in this area. I can’t IMAGINE that you want more things that affect gameplay speed than this:

MAP SIZE: 6 options
SPEED: 4 options
START WITH: 4 options
INITIAL RESOURCES: 9 options
TECHNOLOGY: 9 options

Those are five different settings that all have a DIRECT effect on gameplay speed. (Others such as number of other nations, whether it is a diplomacy game, free for all, or team game will have an “indirect” effect as well.) There are 7,776 variations available (6*4*4*9*9). What is the problem???


4. Response To Cincyreds Regarding The Turks

I haven’t used the Turks yet. I have been playing with a Random Civ each time. I will say that they all look nice, and is nice-but-not-overdone eye candy to have each nation having unique architecture.

5. Thoughts on The AI

:eek: It is still early, but it appears that this is the best AI I’ve ever seen!!! :eek: It attacks with combined arms. It uses its supply units well. It attacks at strategic places. And, best of all, IT DOESN’T CHEAT TO DO ANY OF THIS! I can’t say enough about it. Here’s a GREAT post from another board about the AI: Having run the game through its paces for the past few days, I've finally begun to poke and prod the single player experience enough to come to some initial conclusions regarding the AI. I have to say that I am *very* impressed in certain ways.

I was also quite concerned that RoN's creators would leave the single player experience on the backburner and focus on multiplayer. I'm happy to say that this concern was off-base and that Big Huge Games has done a superb job in remembering that not all of us have the time and/or resources to play on-line.

First is the Conquer the World (CtW) campaign, which you've probably heard is something like a game of risk with RTS battles for chunks of territory. While many will be disappointed that your armies do not carry over from battle to battle, this was done to ensure that you couldn't simply mass an uber army and wipe out the map without challenge.

CtW is a novel and clever device to give the single player a story of sorts (but not a scripted one) to keep interest high. I must say that it is quite satisfying to take over your bits of territory, to have sneak attacks launched against you, to have alliances form with/against you, to win and put into play the bonus cards earned throughout the game, etc.

I do think, though, that RoN's AI is not in full form in battles that don't feature the ability to build an empire completely. That is, particularly in the early battles of CtW, you and the AI are limited in the number of troops and techs, etc. I found that this favors the player since there is a lot more chance to focus on keeping troops safe and generally wearing the comp. down. But at any rate, CtW is simply the coolest 'plot device' I've seen for an RTS without getting into some long drama about the Protoss and the Zerg (which was fantastic, mind you, but over scripted).

But it's the Quick Battle option where RoN really begins to shine! First, you can customize virtually everything from available techs to what kinds of diplomacy is/isn't allowed in-game. The options screen truly makes it clear that the folks at BHG wanted the player to craft precisely the challenge he or she is seeking. Some people are critical, though, of the population cap at 200-250. Frankly, most systems can't play well much beyond that, particularly if there are more than two players at a time. Further, much of the finessing that makes RoN so fun would be thrown out the window if you had 1000 units running around. Mods, however, are already on the scene to allow you to set this even to infinite, if you want.

But here's what really struck me: the computer last night beat me on Moderate (no added AI bonuses) difficulty! Now I don't just mean barely beat me because it had some lucky access to resources or something ... No, I mean completely pounded me! I think I almost teared up watching what the AI did.

This was a land map (not sure which because I had options set to 'random land') that featured some sparse forests, a small pond in the middle, and perhaps 4 resources (before oil) spread evenly. I did my normal 'boom' by bringing out as many villies early to setup a solid econ base. Things were going well.

I grew disappointed, though, when the comp. never attacked for the first several minutes. "Well," I thought, "I guess I'll just do the usual build up of troops and begin the massacre." Honestly, I was coming to the conclusion that RoN's single player experience was to be a flat one.

Wrong.

I had a small army guarding a resource in the center of the map (I needed this resource in a bad way since there's no other way to get gold without selling some of your other resources!). My artillery was taking pot-shots at the AI's most forward-built city. Easy, I thought. Not unlike all the other easy victories one normally has against RTS AIs.

Then the AI attacked ... but not at my army in the center the map: at my capital!!! "What the hell?!" I couldn't figure out if this was lunacy or genius. Blind chance? At any rate, this had the effect of drawing me from my carefully staged battle point. In most RTSs, the comp is drawn pretty easily to fight you where you want to be fought. This turn of events really had me thinking...

While I repelled that first attack, the AI then had time to rebuild that forward-built city and begin pushing back on my strong position in the center of the map. Now the *AI* was lobbing artillery shells on *my* forward position! Of course, I was worried to leave my capital open to attack, so I split my forces, built up some towers there and effectively found myself fighting a two-front war against a single AI. Geez. That had never happened to me before...

Things only got worse for me from here. The AI had out-aged me and was apparently out-producing me as well. He soon had planes straffing me long before I even had access to the techs to do the same to him. In panic, I research enough to get some anti-air units in play, but it seemed too little too late as the AI carefully (maddingly so) rolled in a very nicely mixed army of tanks, infantry, artillery, etc. Yes, a nicely mixed army. From the AI.

At least, I thought, I had brought the AI back to my kill zone in the center of the map. I was sure that he'd wear himself out in a war of attrition doing stupid things like sending infantry against towers of death.

Wrong again.

The AI himself had split his army and was now attacking me at both my capital and at my position in the center of the map. It honestly felt like a 2v1! His attacks on my capital were never very serious, but they included enough artillery hitting my city that I couldn't just ignore it. This had the effect of spreading my resources and ability to react beyond normal limits against an AI player.

I suppose I realized the beginning of the end when my towers started to fall in the center of the map. First one tower then another. I called up some villies to rebuild, of course, but by now helicopters were straffing me, and I had no chance to keep the outer edge of my forward-position viable. I fell back again to make a second kill-zone. Unfortunately (well, wonderfully!) I was the one doing most of the dying.

You see, the loss of my towers was followed by the loss of my two forward fortresses. The AI was simply relentless in rolling in tanks and infantry, all the while now bombing me overhead. This caused one of the most beautiful things I've experience in an RTS: my borders pushed BACKWARD! I was running out of real estate. And that computer city in the center of the map I had been shooting at earlier now seemed about 100 miles away as I repeatedly fell back to regroup.

I can't really say what the nail in my coffin was: perhaps the AI cranking up the pressure on both fronts? Perhaps the mix of AI troops that kept me from simply wiping him out with some simple flood of cheap troops of my own? Perhaps it was his out-producing me?

Not sure, but I think the 3 nukes had something to do with it! Yep, once the "Nuclear missile luanch detected" message came up, I just started to smile. I had been beaten like a diseased dog. In slow succession, 3 of my 4 cities went up in smoke ... literally. All farms there evaporated and the cities were open to being overtaken by AI infantry.

With borders collapsing on me, with my resources dwindling, and with no access to key money-making trade routes, my death was sealed. I watched as my capital began to fall. Only the computer's territory victory kept me from seeing my capital city become his own.

Stunning. I've played at good deal of RTS games and never had something like this happen ON MODERATE LEVEL! The computer had no advantages on me besides truly outstanding programming.

Now, let me just poke at some of the AI's weaknesses I saw: it seemed *too* careful against me by not comitting to a complete assault deep in my territory when it could have knocked me out much sooner. It also didn't ever really do any serious raiding. If it had added some more raiding on my resource villies in addition to this two-front war, I really would have been frantic. In the AI's defense, though, I see the point: it didn't want to fall into any traps. It was outproducing me and could afford to play the waiting game. In fact, I almost felt like it was using some of my favorite strategies against me! Moreso, I felt like I was playing Brian Reynolds.

I also didn't ever put the kind of serious pressure on the AI that I know I'll be capable of once I learn the game better. I was convinced that I could sit back, build up and attack. Wow, no. While I'll need to see what happens when I put more pressure on the AI early, I can say that without a doubt this AI will take advantage of a build up opportunity and put the hurt on you. This, also, I haven't seen much of in other games in which the AI typically had one good attack launched against you, and if you absorb it, you win. Here, the AI poked and prodded me, nibbling at my edges but keeping his growing force always safe enough so that I couldn't just mow and roll.

I suspect, of course, once I get better at hitting the AI hard in the early game that I'll win on moderate with general certainty. But the very fact that I *have* to play this well against the AI in order to win is outstanding!

Finally, I watched the recorded game from the AI's view ... and what I saw was superb: the AI never let his resources lay unused in the bank. It was *always* building, upgrading, researching, etc. The only time I ever saw any of its resources go above 200 was when it was getting ready to advance an age. This is precisely how the top RTS players do it! They beat you by maximally efficient use of resources, and this AI does this.

Not only that: the AI out-boomed me!!! Christ. Humiliating.

I can't really say if the AI's build order changes according to the unfolding battle or if it is following a build script, but even if it's just following a script, it's a highly optimized one. Now if this build order changes on the fly depending on what you are doing, I'll be floored.

DISCLAIMER:

I do not want to overstate the case here because it's easy to be impressed when an AI beats you like this when, in fact, you are still learning the game. As I noted, I think my loss was due as much to my bad play as it was to the AI's good play.

Then again, I'm an experienced player, and I certainly am no slouch (most days) in these types of RTS games. So let's call this a wake up call. The AI face slapped me with style last night, and now I realize I'd better bring much better stuff tonight to get some revenge...

6. A great strategy post that will give you a feel for the game.



Initial RoN strategy tips
This is my third, I think, day with the retail version of RoN, and it is, therefore, time to publish some strategical tips that I for now believe useful through my games. Bear in mind, the AI is tough and provides a challenge, and that my experience still is very limited (some messing with beta, with limited time and a bit worse AI), so...

Attrition:

Actually, it's a highly important thing, for it makes the defending player quite well-stuited to his position. Maybe this is unlike some other RTS games, where the attacker had an advantage just because he was attacking and pushing the other guy. So, build your first tower in an area that the enemy might reasonably attack, and be sure to research attrition techs there. Once you're at attrition level 2, enemy just doesn't want to risk attacking you by sending 3 units, for that will do him no good - attacks will come in serious numbers then. So, also when planning on building peacefully, get the attrition upgrades and make yourself a less inviting target. Well, that's pretty obvious, I guess.

Of course, this works both ways, never forget that attrition when you're the attacker. However, in some cases, you may see that your units enter enemy territory and take no attrition, which means that the enemy is still to research attrition level 1. If this is the case, attack his economy with haste! You have a free go through his territory, which is just a good motivation to have some Slingers chase his gatherers around for a bit. This will force the enemy to get a tower up, because he will now get quite wary of future attacks on his villagers, even if you're not planning any.

Speaking of attrition, it's an absolute must to mention the Kremlin wonder. If you happen to play as the Russians, GET IT!! Kremlin coupled with your Russian Winter ability results in some very, very serious attrition damage, and an enemy without sufficient amounts of Supply Wagons is going to have a real tough time invading you. This would also make your inner cities quite safe, because enemy units wouldn't be in much of a fighting shape after marching through lots of land controlled by a Russian player who has the Kremlin. Now, this brings me exactly on the topic of Supply Wagons.

You just can't underestimate these guys (or whatever they are). Be sure to bring at least one when attacking with you, and don't leave it too hard behind. Theoretically, the best position is in the centre of your attacking group, but that might make the wagon a relatively easy target. Do as you please, but don't leave him so far behind that he serves little purpose. All in all, the effect countered by Wagons is pretty huge, and you can even offset advantages of those Russians! Again, this is something that goes both ways. If you're under attack, make an effort to get rid of enemy supply wagons, and do it fast. Once your siege is upgraded to Bombards or better, it's a good idea to have a few field guns target the Supply Wagons. If you can manage to wipe enemy supplies at very start of the battle, it might even cause the enemy to flee (well, this particular note is more with MP in mind).

Remember them French here! If you're French, build many supplies, those units are your friends. And, against, the French, hit them with all possible speed, using your siege or Light cavalry or whatever is up to the task. When playing French, I've tried having 3 Supply Wagons in close proximity of my army at any time, and it worked reasonably well, even healing my troopers in enemy land, love that! Note that other nations can also achieve this via research, but it's quite a while till the respective technology can be researched.

City building.

Cities are crucial. Since most of you here are Civ players, you know that fairly well, and this is no different in RoN. You start with just one city, and the benefits that you get when building additional ones are fantastic. Therefore, don't forget to make that Civic research level 1, then find a few free citizens, or create them, and go make a new city. Once you have two cities, you can start to generate wealth better, as well as have a huge boost to your economy. Now, about what to build in your cities.

Farms are really, really important. They're what provide you with all the food, and if you lack food, you're in a weak position. Unfortunately, the cities have a limit of only 5 farms per city, unless you're playing the Egyptians. You will, no doubt, quikcly notice that 5 farms just aren't enough to get your economy going and also have some other developments in your nation. This means that you want a second city quickly. A word about the Bantu here, they have an absolutely fantastic bonus of cheap, cheap, CHEAP cities. So cheap that there's no excuse for not making a second city early in the game. Now, once you have your second city, fill it with 5 more farms, and now finally, with 10 farms, you have quite a surplus of food to continue your research and expansion.

Every city I build or conquer gets a temple as soon as I can reasonably afford it without giving up too much, which is actually soon enough. Temples provide the much-needed boost to your territory. This is important, because a) enemies can't be building up right outside one of your cities, b) you have more land to use, c) it increases your total land control %, which is a crucial play for taxation income. Of course, research your taxation level 1 tech as soon as feasible, because wealth comes into the play rather early. Now, every city also gets a Market, and this one should really be obvious to you. Consider this, you make Caravans at markets, and they trade between your cities. Each pair of cities you have can trade. Therefore, with your city number of n, every city can trade with n-1 cities. So, your total possible amount of trade routes is n*(n-1), which is quite obvious. Now, with 5 cities, which isn't THAT much, you have 20 possible trade routes, which means that you will not be having a wealth problem for quite a while. In fact, the Caravan limit is there for a reason - you shouldn't just be able to run away with as much wealth as you want. Note here - once you build a Caravan, you don't even need to do anything, it will automatically find a city to trade with and will engage the trade route, if possible.

Universities. A pretty high priority build for my cities. Mainly, for my first two cities, I get them very soon (and, of course, fill with scholars), and for the third city, it's medium high priority. I don't want to spend all my wealth on scholars, but 3 unis with them is a nice amount to get the research going quite easily.

Economic buildings. Well, what can I say here? It should be obvious that every mountain you can find should have a mine. It's not like there's dozens of those mountains, you know. For forests, make sure you are using a couple of them, but later it really becomes unwise to lumberjack every single tree you can find. As for Farms, I've already said much, but let me add a bit else. For third city, it's also 5 farms, a must have. For fourth and beyond, they're not that high of priority anyway, but build them nonetheless. Just don't hurry to make 5 farms at once with your 6th city. Gathering enhancement buildings. Show me a single reason NOT to build them when available, please. Lumber Mill, Granary and Smelter should pop up in every city. Well, for me Smelter is usually the highest priority, for mountains (and Metal, therefore) tend to be limited, but Granary and Lumber Mill also gets built. It's a very good prospect, you build it and forget, while getting additional resource output... sounds great? Well, it is.

Research

No comment :p. There's quite a lot of technologies to research anyway, but you want to make your progress through them quickly, yet with consideration. First rule of a thumb - never have just one Library! It's not like they're expensive, and at some point in the Classical age, you're quite well suited to dropping one or two more libraries. Then, you can research multiple techs at once.

Early in the game, my personal priority seems to be commerce research, because I tend to hit the commerce cap limit pretty soon, especially with Timber gathering. IF playing Bantu, Civics is of utmost importance, for being able to go and build my second city for almost nothing. Military research is nothing something I value this much, for attacks can generally wait till a later point in the game (and they should, really), but military tech still is important, at least first 2 levels. First, it's the population limit, second, you need the ability to raise an army, even if not planning to use it! In fact, you should always have some military buildings at the ready, even at peace. Well, any RTS player will find this quite obvious. Science research is fine in the various stuff it provides, and never forget that it actually makes the other techs cheaper, making it well worth a path to pursue.

Advance ages at your own convenience, but don't delay it too much. In fact, if you have the resources, it's mostly better to advance. First, it always provides some bonuses, like the Classical age ability to build mounted units (and Mines!). Second, units from later ages are better, and really they are. Once you're in Classical, you can quite certainly expect your cavalry units to beat any Archaic unit that might come. Besides, the Classical Age opens doors for things such as wonders and some interesting prospects. Same goes for other ages, they all are worth it.

Industrial Age

Deserves a few sentences on its own, for it really changes the game. This is where the game changes economically and militarily. Mainly militarily, of course. Tanks become available, and that's a huge change. Simply put, no Enlightment age unit can reasonably fight against a Tank. Once you get the Light Tank tech, you get your heavy cavalry upgrades to those, and enemy infantry and archers suddenly are all doomed. Also note that Artillery is that much more deadly. The second big military change of Industrial Age is the arrival of airpower. OK, all you get for now is primitive fighter aircraft, but it all marks the beggining of a new area in military development. Fighters may not seem like much of a threat to your cities and ground forces, but take my advice - build them anti-aircraft guns! They become available now, and this is the time you HAVE to get them. Otherwise, you'll be very disappointed when in Modern Age 16 bombers fly up to your land and beat the crap out of one of cities. AA guns have quite a reasonable range, and you should clearly put them in proximity of every city center you have, as well as any wonders. I have lost my Collosus because of bombings, and I'm not going to forget that.

City attacking

A few words here, too. First, be sure to bring in supply wagons, because you will likely have to fight at least a bit inside enemy borders. Second, have siege at the ready, there's no other really effective method of getting rid of buildings. Now, my preference is to target the city center immediately with my siege, just trying to outflood the enemy with my units, and take down his military structures with other methods. In fact, once you have some 5 siege guns, taking the city center down to 0 HP isn't hard, and that's when the territory becomes neutral. Great stuff, no attrition, no building for enemy, and it all is going to be yours soon. This is usually where I turn my siege to other military strucutres nearby, while the infantry troopers are made for a more defensive role, often entrenched. Also, 2-3 citizens go for repairing the city center.

Be sure to remember that your siege, once level of Cannons or later, is also good against units, doing serious splash damage.

All in all, so far I am thrilled. This one has all the early earmarks of becoming a classic.

--Ben

[Ben E Lou]

Dola---here's a link to the thread with the "single-player" post. Brian Reynolds drops in to give a little more insight into the AI. [CLICK HERE] (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86759&pagenumber=1)

[Calis]

Let me just chime in here and back up SkyDog a bit. I was kinda busy last night, so I didn't get a chance to sit down and fire this game up until about 11 or so. Needless to say, next time I looked up it was around 3 a.m. :( Great game, I'm no fan of RTS's for the most part, but occasionally one comes around that I can get into, I think this is one of those. I only got to play through the tutorials, and did one quick battle taking the English against the Mongols. With just the standard setup, I didn't modify anything, I personally thought it got FRIGGING PSYCHOTIC to manage everything by the time I hit the Industrial age. I won't complain about that though until I try fiddling with the options, and play more than one game.

I'll write a more in depth review after I get some more time with it the next few days, but so far I'd say it's a pretty good game.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Calis
With just the standard setup, I didn't modify anything, I personally thought it got FRIGGING PSYCHOTIC to manage everything by the time I hit the Industrial age. I won't complain about that though until I try fiddling with the options, and play more than one game. 1. The TAB key is your friend at the higher levels. It cycles between every building that has available upgrades.
2. The "." (period) key is your other friend. It cycles through idle civs.
3. Given that this is a hybrid TBS/RTS game, (and given the phenomenal AI), it probably isn't cheating to slow down to VERY SLOW speed as things start getting hectic, and even using the pause key seems appropo, at least at this point.

[BFleming]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Did I write that??? I really have to learn not to post late at night, esp. when I'm tired and cranky. :rolleyes:

Being more clear headed now (relatively speaking), I think it all comes down to one thing. It doesn't matter how slow or fast you want to play a strategy game. If you want to take only a few hours to play a whole campaign in MTW or hundreds of hours, both are perfectly fine. However, to me, the gamer should be the one dictating how slow or fast to play not the game forcing you. This has been my criticism of Ages-based research, as well as some traditional RTS games where it becomes a clickfest just to keep up. That's all.

I think I may be able to clear things up a bit...As far as the clickfest goes, you have 2 basic options to slow things down a tad....First, there is a pause button hotkeyed, in which you can still issue commands to your units then turn the pause back off and have them do your bidding. Secondly, you can increase or decrease the overall speed of the gameby several notches. And I'll admit, even being 23 and a former avid starcraft player-- this game is fast on its default setting, especially since you're working on controlling multiple cities....BUT turning the speed to slow or very slow (I personally like slow although I may have to change again once I have a larger area to cover) makes things much much more manageable.

For you, Anrhydeddu, the way you'll get the most fun out of the game would probably be the conquer the world mode which plays slightly like a cousin to M:TW if you will. You have the tactical map where you plabn your move, make your attack, then it jumps into the battle sequences..

On that note, my credit card company would once again like to thank those of you (SkyDog, etc) who once again convinced me to line their pockets with more of my money :D

If I can be of any more help, feel free to ask as long as Joey Crawford doesn't give me 2 technicals for reading coverage of his asinine officiating last night (And I'm not a fan of either team, but not trying to threadjack)...

[BFleming]

Originally posted by SkyDog
3. Given that this is a hybrid TBS/RTS game, (and given the phenomenal AI), it probably isn't cheating to slow down to VERY SLOW speed as things start getting hectic, and even using the pause key seems appropo, at least at this point.

The mini strategy guide that EB gave away talks about this. They said the computer has a "no hands" advantage, which makes complete sense, just never thought about it. While we have to click different parts of the map/buildings/hotkeys whatever, the AI just does it. Therefore, the difficulty of the campaign/battle would be where the challenge should (and I think it does) lie. Let the better strategist win, not the fastest clicker...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by BFleming
The mini strategy guide that EB gave away talks about this. They said the computer has a "no hands" advantage, which makes complete sense, just never thought about it. While we have to click different parts of the map/buildings/hotkeys whatever, the AI just does it. Therefore, the difficulty of the campaign/battle would be where the challenge should (and I think it does) lie. Let the better strategist win, not the fastest clicker... Good point. In other games with weaker AI's, the need to click could probably be construed to be an "added challenge." Given what we've seen so far about the AI, such an artificial difficulty improvement probably isn't necessary.

I didn't get any "mini-strategy guide" :(. Can you scan that sucker and change it to text?

[BFleming]

How about if I do it this way-- the little mini-guide goes through all the civs, including recommended conditions for victory, as well as a build pattern from Brian Reynolds for either an early, middle or late game win...I could just post it here, since most of the rest just covers rts games for those who never played an rts..

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by BFleming
How about if I do it this way-- the little mini-guide goes through all the civs, including recommended conditions for victory, as well as a build pattern from Brian Reynolds for either an early, middle or late game win...I could just post it here, since most of the rest just covers rts games for those who never played an rts.. That sounds cool to me!

[cincyreds]

Gamespot gave RON a 9.3(Superb) rating!!

Check it out for those who are interested in a little more infor about Rise of Nations.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/riseofnations/review.html (Review)

[cincyreds]

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/riseofnations/review.html

[cincyreds]

Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/riseofnations/review.html)

[BFleming]

So here we go (Since the specific attributes are covered in the little tech-tree like fold-out insert, I won't post those, unless someone who doesn't have the game has a specific question...)

Aztecs: Right choice for a fast, aggressive game. Unique units suited for rush tactics. A peaceful game would erase all special advantages. If playing the Aztecs, best bet is small to medium size, land only, adequate resources

Bantu: Perfect for players who expand quickly and peacefully. In war-like games, build as many cities as quickly as possible. Strong advantage early in the game, building cities to force opponent into corner. Recommended for medium-sized land only maps

British: Proverbial safe bet. British shine defensively on maps with numerous obstacles. All strategies equally viable. Best bet, sea and land maps with plently of resources

Chinese: Best in peaceful setting. Focus on science upgrades. Instant civilians mean fast to build. Best bet scarce resources with many obstacles.

Egyptians: Best in peaceful setting. Deadly in any game where wonders will win. Develop economics quickly. Best on land-only maps with lots of obstacles.

French: Ideal for experienced, finesse gamers. Economic and military advantages work hand-in-hand to build offensive. Best used on large maps with few forests.

To be continued...

[Ben E Lou]

"That boy run so good, it make your DICK hard!"--an old man in the stands at a Tucker High School football game, referring to RB Thomas Brown

"That AI play so good, it make your DICK hard!"--RoN players across the world...

My goodness. This AI is FREAKING ME OUT!!! As usual, it attacked a crucial city with an army of seige units and mixed support units. It also sent two supply wagons and stationed them in the rear. I hit and destroyed the supply wagons first, and the combination of attrition, my few remaining units, and a tower caused the AI to retreat. (Yes, it knows when to retreat even...) The SOB comes back at me again a few minutes later, only this time, I don't see any supply wagons, but I'm wondering why he isn't taking any attrition damage at all. It turns out the @#$(%* AI had a General with the army, and was using the ambush feature to keep the supply wagons hidden while the units in front of them fought. :eek: WOW!!! :eek:

[Ben E Lou]

Dola---Thanks BFleming. I'm reading!

[BFleming]

Germans: Strongest Civ according to the game. Strong economic bonuses, powerful military. Capable of victory under any conditions, and lethal if allowed to develop unharmed. Best bet is large map area scarce in resources

Greeks: Onl;y real advantage is cheaper, quicker research. Must use speed to stay a step ahead, although still easier in peaceful situations. Best bet in a large map with several obstacles.

Inca: Best for economically focused players. Very difficult to maneuver in wartime. Must build fast and push for economic victory. Best on maps with little resources and many obstacles

Japanese: Best for players who want to go on the offensive, and stay on the offensive for the majority of the game. Strong infantry early could make for potential rush. Best on large sea maps

Koreans: Another all-around civ. Very strong on defense and very quick to develop, If going on the offensive, go early. Best bet is a large map with lots of resources

Maya: Effective for a player who likes to build into enemy territory. Defensive in nature with more poerful towers, forts, etc. Best on small to medium land-only maps.

Mongols: Best in an offensive game. No advantages at all in a peaceful game. Build stables as quickly as possible and overwhelm the enemy. Best on large maps with easy movement.

Nubians: Better in peaceful games, but viable in wartime games as well. Special abilities tail off toward late game. Best on medium to large maps, land only, lacking metal. Also big plus for Nubians if on a map with numerous rare resources.

Romans: Good choice if looking for war. Must expand early to be successful and winning early is the best bet. Look for small-medium maps with plenty of resources.

Russians: Another civ suited best for war. Strong on defense, giving newer players a chance against more experienced players. Unique units span a wide variety of eras and would be best played on a large map with plenty of resources.

Spanish: Solid in multiplayer through exploration bonuses. Almost too good for experienced players to the point it may get bland. Best on large sea areas with average resources.

Turks: Another choice for those who like conquest. Expand and attack. Lather, rinse, repeat. Best on large maps with plenty of resources.

[BFleming]

Now for an attack pattern, courtesy of Brian Reynolds..

1) Research the yellow tech from the library

2) Auto-explore the scout

3) Research blue tech

4) Set waypoint from city to lumber camp, then build citizens

5) Build more citizens to build 5 farms and make sure lumber camp is full

6) Build city #2

7) Build a lumber camp in new city

8) Repeat steps 4 & 5

9) Figure out your plan of attack

For quick attack:

10) Research red tech

11) Build barracks

12) Create 5 hoplites and 2 slingers

13) Attack city of choice, keeping slingers out of range of attack, while producing more units and sending them directly into the fray

14) Reinforce front lines or raze city, then advance to classical age

For short-term growth and large early army:

10) Build a market and caravan

11) Advance ages

12) Construct a university in each city, spend whatever you have on scholars

13) Research level 2 commerce

14) Start mining metal

15) Research military 1 and 2 and science 2

16) Build 2 barracks and a stable

17) Upgrade troop types and spend all resouces on military to build an army

18) When production slows, build a siege factory and create 3 siege units

19) Attack or advance to Medieval Age, upgrade troops again and buy a supply wagon

For long term economic growth:

10) Construct a market and caravan

11) Advance to classical

12) Build universities in each city, fill with scholars

13) Research science 2, then commerce 2 to max out lumber and farm production

14) Research civic 2, build 3rd city and set caravan routes

15) Build university and maybe temple to research taxation

16) Build 2 mines and mine metal

17) Keep universities stacked with scholars while trading metal if needed

[BFleming]

Triple dola,

help that was a help to you guys...time to play some more...

[Anrhydeddu]

Thanks BFleming for your response. Ben just seems to be a little defensive these days. :)

My point about this
Being more clear headed now (relatively speaking), I think it all comes down to one thing. It doesn't matter how slow or fast you want to play a strategy game. If you want to take only a few hours to play a whole campaign in MTW or hundreds of hours, both are perfectly fine. However, to me, the gamer should be the one dictating how slow or fast to play not the game forcing you. This has been my criticism of Ages-based research, as well as some traditional RTS games where it becomes a clickfest just to keep up. That's all.

wasn't targeted at RoN but just a general comment on game designs. I knew that the Conquer the World campaign would be right up my alley but my original point, which seems to have been miscommunicated, was that this was a later addition to the game. In other words, Brian had to add more options just to get this game out of the EE-clone. As Ben said, there are many options and that is excellent. But again, he had to do that in response to his initial statements and to broaden its appeal to more strategy gamers, not just me. In other words, this has become a game that I can (and will) buy (as well as many others) whereas at first it wasn't.

As far as specific comments to RoN, I am disappointed to read that there is some linearity to the Ages. But it is not clear whether there are specific tech lines, like a military-centric one or a economic one where you can have the most advanced army on the board but severely lacking in more peaceful techs. If you have to research a bunch of techs of all kinds before you can advance, than that defeats the purpose of choosing what kind of civ you want to be.

BFleming, as far as the mechanics, that is perfectly suited to me for this is exactly how I play games like Pharaoh and Zeus. Thanks for you posts.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
As far as specific comments to RoN, I am disappointed to read that there is some linearity to the Ages. But it is not clear whether there are specific tech lines, like a military-centric one or a economic one where you can have the most advanced army on the board but severely lacking in more peaceful techs. If you have to research a bunch of techs of all kinds before you can advance, than that defeats the purpose of choosing what kind of civ you want to be.Well, actually I may have led you astray slightly here. Upon further examination, it appears that you CAN go crazy in one line while ignoring the others. The problem is that it gets REALLY expensive to do it that way. There are four specific tech lines (military, civic, commerce and science). For example, to be eligible to advance from Epoch 2 to Epoch 3, you have to research 3 different techs. You can research them along the same tech line. It appears, though, that the become prohibitively expensive when researched "before their time."

So, I guess because I called you on something, I get chastised for being defensive, even though I answered your question.

[Anrhydeddu]

"before their time" implies trying to adhere to a known or predictable or historical model. Without having the game (and I got to be curmudgeonly about something), I am glad that they do give you the option (albeit expensively) to stick to a line.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
"before their time" implies trying to adhere to a known or predictable or historical model. To some degree it does. Being able to research Computerization (Science Level 7) when your nation is in the Medieval Age should be an unusual occurence imho.

[Anrhydeddu]

But it is the level of progress or advancement that defines a nation's "Age", not the other way around. If my nation was able to develop computers than by definition, I wouldn't be in the Medieval Age (but in the Information Age?). It is also irrelevant to where other nations are technologically so why have any nation or any historical constraints hold me back? When I develop a certain tech is irrelevant as well. After all, this (speaking more to my criticism of Civ3) is a strategy game not a historical simulation.

I know where this comes from. It is in response to the criticisms that certain ages go by too fast where one minute you have Vet Knights and then all of a sudden, you got Riflemen and Cavalry. My response always had been that you should have the freedom to do so, if you are good enough to be really progressive. Also, if you want to make a certain age last longer, than play a scenario specific to that age. Civ3 took that way too far in forcing you to spend X number of years in a certain age.

Sorry, this has always been a sore point for me when a game's design (not specific to RoN) forces you to play a certain way because of artificial limitations.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
But it is the level of progress or advancement that defines a nation's "Age", not the other way around. If my nation was able to develop computers than by definition, I wouldn't be in the Medieval Age (but in the Information Age?).I see what you're saying, but the problem with that scenario is this: what "Age" is a nation in if it has developed Computerization, but hasn't even developed government (Civics) enough to create City States, or Commerce past Bartering (not even having Coinage yet)??? You know I believe that gameplay is more important than realism, but I can't fault a developer for having a system where the concept of a civilization that has developed Computerization, yet still barters goods, has a despotic government, and hasn't even figured out the most basic military concepts put out by Sun Tzu, is a very far-fetched notion. The reality in gaming and in real life is that such a nation would be conquered and its secrets stolen by an ambitious country with a decent military.

RoN offers a "sandbox" mode, where you have ZERO AI opponents. That's really the only way such a nation could survive.

[Anrhydeddu]

Let's use a better example instead of computer (which by themselves aren't worth much). Let's say I can develop mechanized armoured vehicles which, because of the choices I made, puts me far ahead militarily of my opponents. However, I still have a barter-based economy and is run by a despot. I probably can't do much else except build these suckers at the expense of my people but I could use it to overrun my enemies who have Musketeers and Knights. In Civ2, I can come close to doing this but it was impossible in Civ3 where it purposely held you back. What about in RoN?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Let's use a better example instead of computer (which by themselves aren't worth much). Let's say I can develop mechanized armoured vehicles which, because of the choices I made, puts me far ahead militarily of my opponents. However, I still have a barter-based economy and is run by a despot. I probably can't do much else except build these suckers at the expense of my people but I could use it to overrun my enemies who have Musketeers and Knights. In Civ2, I can come close to doing this but it was impossible in Civ3 where it purposely held you back. What about in RoN? I think it would be theoretically possible--but it would be VERY VERY difficult to realistically pull off, because you'd need to have a decent economy to make it that far. Military, economy, government and science, while not linear, ARE interdependent, both in real life and in this game. Again, it COULD be done, but I can't for the life of me figure out why you'd WANT to. Probably the only way to do it would be to forego spending resources on ANYTHING (including a decent defensive force) until gaining the ability to build mech infantry. You'd end up losing before you built the first advanced military unit.

[Anrhydeddu]

Thanks, you know I love to talk about game theory and design concepts, good or bad. I'm just trying to get a feel for how this game plays since no reviews or promotional info can tell me that.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Let's use a better example instead of computer (which by themselves aren't worth much). Let's say I can develop mechanized armoured vehicles which, because of the choices I made, puts me far ahead militarily of my opponents. However, I still have a barter-based economy and is run by a despot. I probably can't do much else except build these suckers at the expense of my people but I could use it to overrun my enemies who have Musketeers and Knights. In Civ2, I can come close to doing this but it was impossible in Civ3 where it purposely held you back. What about in RoN?

I am sure that North Korea could be a good example of how a country could be backwards and still be advanced in real life.

[daedalus]

Yin is . . . happy about a game?

[Calis]

Played a bunch more last night, doing some random quick battles. I'm really loving this game so far, seemed to be a nice variety to how the games played out, and there just seems to be an insane variety in how you can plot out your game. I moved it down to slow speed and had a much better time handling the game, I'm not sure if I'm alone here, but does anything else think normal speed in this game is waaaaayyy fast compared to other RTS's?

I haven't even touched the Conquer the World campaign yet, and I imagine it will be a while, I'm having too much fun doing quick battles. :) I love the amount of options for setting up a game also, I think this is a game that will have a pretty long lifetime.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Calis
I moved it down to slow speed and had a much better time handling the game, I'm not sure if I'm alone here, but does anything else think normal speed in this game is waaaaayyy fast compared to other RTS's?Yeah. Normal speed is fine for the first few minutes, when all you're doing is waiting for the next citizen to appear, or to get enough resources to build that next building, but I have started taking it down to slow after that.

I am still LOVING the AI.

[BFleming]

I definitely think slow is the consensus pick, since there is just so much to do, so much to monitor, etc.

[Calis]

Heh, I started to notice the AI some last night. On several occasions I would bite for a feint the AI was pulling, only to send my Armies over there, and wind up getting slammed by the real force from behind.

The other funny thing, I was playing random, ended up as Japanese against the Turks and the Russians. Well in the end game we basically all ended up almost at the same exact moment nuking the hell out of each other, needless to say that game ended in a loss for everyone. :D

I'm anxious to get away from work and get back to it, haven't been able to say that about a game for quite a while.

[daedalus]

Do you guys ever pause to give orders at all? I know I did that a fair bit with EU (entirely unrelated, I know). But I saw quite a few people talking about doing that on GoneGold and I was wondering how that works out.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by daedalus
Do you guys ever pause to give orders at all? I know I did that a fair bit with EU (entirely unrelated, I know). But I saw quite a few people talking about doing that on GoneGold and I was wondering how that works out. With this game, I think it is an absolute MUST to pause to give orders. As I've thought about it, I think that playing RTS games "real-time" against the AI is an artificial difficulty-enhancer, because in reality the AI can micromanage all of its units instantly, while we have to click and hotkey around to do so. In other games, poor AI strategy made our click-time somewhat of an "equalizer." With an AI opponent like this one, pausing may be quite appropriate.

[Blade]

How would this game be for someone who is mainly into Turn-based games? I have played a few RTS games in my time, but never got hooked on any, except Warcraft II...never tried III.

[cincyreds]

Yeah SkyDog me too!!

I played until 1 AM in the morning last night. Right now, I am at work and I need to get some sleep, but I keep thinking, "That I must get home to play RON again".

I guess I am hooked!!

Anyway so the game is getting some good overall scores as far as reviews are concerned.

Gametab has an average review score of: 88%.

Game Rankings has an average review score of: 91.3%

Not bad, not bad at all.

www.gametab.com

www.gamerankings.com

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Blade
How would this game be for someone who is mainly into Turn-based games? I have played a few RTS games in my time, but never got hooked on any, except Warcraft II...never tried III. The game includes the ability to give pretty much all kinds of orders while paused. You could always pause it, give your orders, let the game run for 30 seconds or so, pause it again, etc. There's enough strategy involved that playing that way probably would work just fine.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by SkyDog
The game includes the ability to give pretty much all kinds of orders while paused. You could always pause it, give your orders, let the game run for 30 seconds or so, pause it again, etc. There's enough strategy involved that playing that way probably would work just fine.

And this is the reason I will be buying it sometime this summer (I want to play Medieval Viking Invasion for a while). But my whole point in this thread had been that this was not what Brian envisioned when initially developing the game. Through constant contact with his potential customers in various fora, he subsequently added many more options. In my opinion, that is how a developer can interact with his community and he (as well as Ben's persistance) sold me.

[Anrhydeddu]

I don't know, I'm seeing some red flags as I read through the ron.heavengames.com site.

It seems that most who talk about and review this game are strictly RTS gamers who like the fact you can play in one sitting. Here's one With 8 ages to progress through over the course of a 30-60 minute game, the impact of advancing ages is not as dramatic as it is in many other games. Instead, the bonuses and requirements have been spread out across all five tech paths.
and from the list of features (this is the first one) Rise of Nations Features
Combines pulse-pounding real-time gaming with the epic scope of turn-based strategy games. Real-time gaming creates a fast and fun experience in under an hour. The epic scope ties together the mysteries of ancient philosophy and wonders of the world with the silk routes and intrigue of the middle ages and the technology of modern tanks and paratroopers.
But most importantly, this is from the FAQ Can games last longer than an hour?
Certainly. They can also be over sooner. We've balanced our "standard game" around a one hour experience, however Rise of Nations has a wide range of game settings and can be adjusted to whatever play style you prefer.

I realize full well that you can play the CtW scenario or adjust many of the customized settings, but the reason why I picked up (and kept pushing) the point about "playing in one hour" is that it is balanced (or optimized) at that experience. Do I assume then that turning this into a much longer game will not be balanced? What do they mean when they said the standard game is balanced around an one hour experience?

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by daedalus
Yin is . . . happy about a game?

daed, I read yin26's full post and had to chuckle. He and I go way back when we battled at Civ3-General. I told him publically that his Civ3 List was unrealistic and unworkable and he left soon after release because he thought Civ3 was not revolutionary enough while I wanted to keep it close the Civ2 (how's that for turning the tables?). Anyway, he then got on board with RoN from the very beginning because Brian and others at BHG was there listening, asking questions and bouncing ideas off of the community (while Firaxis was saying "no comment" over and over). But I have to admit that yin saw the red flags of Civ3 much earlier than I did (as well as Blackadar) but I did come around to agree with everything they said.

[Calis]

I'll see if I can't check this out for you B.A., to be honest, every game I've played so far has been right smack dab at an hour basically, but this is just a pure 1 vs. 1 on slow speed.

In all honesty, I'm not sure how easy lengthening the game would be. I have read on some various sites that people are modding the techs to be a lot more expensive and such, and they've had good luck having lengthy periods through each age with lots of fighting. Haven't heard any complaints on it.

Personally I'm kind of liking the 1 hour games, as the last strategy games I've really sunk into have been M:TW, Combat Mission, and HoI, which were pretty lengthy affairs. :) I see what you're saying though, but in all honesty, I don't think you'll be pleased if you're looking for an extended game, but I haven't fiddled around enough to say for sure.

Unfortunately tonight was spent out drinking, and then coming home to watch the Spurs game and play TDCB, so it might have to wait until later this weekend.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, I don't see that there is any way to win an 8-player Survival-Of-The-Fittest on a big map with the slow gather rate and expensive tech in an hour, even if you played at the highest speed and never, ever paused. I'm thinking this would take wayyyyy longer than that. I myself played a 4-player FFA against 3 AI teams at Moderate difficulty (and there is one level higher that the AI doesn't cheat), Standard resource gathering and tech updates, and allowed myself all the pauses and slow play that I needed, since I had never won at Moderate level. I'm guessing that took me about 4-5 hours (3 different gaming sessions) before winning.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I realize full well that you can play the CtW scenario or adjust many of the customized settings, but the reason why I picked up (and kept pushing) the point about "playing in one hour" is that it is balanced (or optimized) at that experience. Do I assume then that turning this into a much longer game will not be balanced? What do they mean when they said the standard game is balanced around an one hour experience? My guess is that this is a selling point to the RTS-only crowd. I *THINK* what "balanced" means is that the average game at default settings would take about an hour. The play is still "balanced" (meaning the AI knows how to respond, it is a challenge, etc. etc. etc.) with different settings. I played my first few games with the default settings, and still stick fairly closely to them, with one exception: I start in "Nomad" mode (you get 3 citizens, and nothing else...no buildings) rather than in the default "Small Town" mode (you get a town center, 3 farms, a scout and a library). Just doing that alone adds at least a good 10-15 minutes to the game (maybe more, I haven't counted), and there are more decisions to be made in that earliest-of-early-going. Even from the very start, there are merits to each of the following strategies:

A. use all three to build a city as quickly as possible, without doing ANY exploring at all.
B. Explore for a bit for an optimal city location.
C. Use only one or two to build that first city, letting the other(s) explore for ruins. The extra resources can be a HUGE boost in the early game.

From there, you've got a whole bunch of options as to how to proceed. It definitely has that "non-linear" feel. (Side note: That's why I like EE, and not AOK. AOK was an exercise in executing what was determined to be an optimal build order: to win, or even compete, in a multiplayer game there was no other way to start out--very linear. EE, on the other hand, requires the player to assess the initial situation and make decisions from there based on the situation.) I'd advise that anyone coming at it from a pure TBS background to start in Nomad mode.

[daedalus]

Any other impression? Is this game holding up for y'all?

Out of curiosity, have y'all tinkered with the skills games under Tools & Extras yet? What is it? What does it consist of?

. . .

Entirely unrelated . . . Anrhy, have you checked out a game call "Blitzkrieg"? Might be the type of game you could get interested in, in spite of its real-time nature.

[Blackadar]

I'm holding out buying this one until next week.

Which happens to be my birthday (can you say Best Buy gift card?) and my son is going to stay with his grandparents for 2 weeks. Can you say "free time"?

[Calis]

Daedalus-

As far as the skill games, it's just little stuff, like they start you off, and you need to advance an age in the shortest amount of time possible, etc.. etc.. They have some for hotkeys, clicking, combat, just little fun minigames. I haven't really tried them out yet, been too busy playing quick battles.

I haven't played all that much this weekend, but I would say so far I'm liking it more and more as I play. I keep on finding out little things I didn't know about, and it just keeps getting better. Playing a game as the Chinese now who get insta-peasants, which rocks.

Anrh-

Just an fyi, I'm in the midst of playing a game now, I can remember exactly what I set, but I set the research to take an extra long time to try and lengthen up the ages and such. I'm playing a 4v4, and it's been going about 45 minutes or so, and most everyone seems to be in the 3rd age, moving to the 4th roughly. I think I have it on slow research/normal cost? I'll have to check. That seems about a perfect fit to me, but of course it can be slowed down even more if you want.

They actually do something though I think as a last resort to end the games and those are the uber techs you get after you research everything. These are actually pretty damn cool, but they're WAAAYY powerful. I can't remember them all, but one instantly creates any units you queue, another one gets rid of all objective timers, so if you trigger say a wonder timer...you win. I don't really see these as bad things personally, but just an fyi. I do believe they're there to make sure a game doesn't stick in a stalemate. Also I suppose, the time I actually saw this I was playing on an easier level JUST to see what happened, I don't think I'd ever make it that far on moderate. :)

I honestly don't see anything that would lead me to believe it's not balanced for a longer game. I would say it's actually a BETTER game with it extended, as you get a chance to have a lot more skirmishes in each age.


OT- Arnh, I'm not sure if there's been a post, but what're your thoughts on the Viking Invasion expansion? I've been contemplating picking it up, but I haven't played M:TW in a while, is it good enough to warrant a purchase? Good enough to get me back into playing?

[Anrhydeddu]

Calis, thanks for the comments. I started a MTW:VI dynasty in the said forum, please check it out. I do need to get back to a continue playing it but overall, it is absolutely superb. I put off playing MTW for awhile until VI came out and the wait was worth it, imo.

[ColtCrazy]

I'm glad to hear the progress from ages can be slowed down. I think games where you can have a challenge at each level, not just a race to the finish line. I'm assuming there's no option, such as was in EE, where you can play in one era only?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by ColtCrazy
I'm glad to hear the progress from ages can be slowed down. I think games where you can have a challenge at each level, not just a race to the finish line. I'm assuming there's no option, such as was in EE, where you can play in one era only? Yes, there is such an option. You can pick the starting age, as well as the ending age. Also, like EE, you can start in a randomly chosen age.

[Anrhydeddu]

Okay, here's the thing I am still not understanding. If the game is typically played at one hour (which would take me at least five since I normally play slow anyways), there are 8 Ages and 22 Techs (only 22???). That would work out, typically, of 7.5 minutes per Age and you would get a tech every 3 minutes (assuming you go through everything). Is the game designed so that rushing through the ages is normal (and spending very little time in each) as well as quickly getting what few techs there are? Even if I or you slow down the pace a great deal, you still don't have to do much of anything to get a new tech (since with so few, it seems to be almost automatic) since the same engine is used regardless how fast or slow you play. Does that make sense?

Everywhere I have read about RoN, it appears that Brian's original design of playing in one sitting is the way to play for most and that is what the game is designed for - despite me getting shot at for bringing that up several times in this thread.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, the 22 techs is not accurate. There are 32 "techs" to be researched in the library--one per area per "age." Then there are 8 "Age" upgrades, also researched in the library. Also, after all 40 of those are researched in the library there are 4 "Super Techs" that cost a GIGANTIC amount of resources that can be researched in the library. However, there are also a BUNCH more technology upgrades available in other buildings. Each of four or five types of infantry units can be upgraded in every age at the barracks. (so...another 40 or so there). The stable and seige factories also have 20-30 upgrades each over the course of the game. Ditto for the dock (20-30 more). Then, there are temples, towers, castles, granaries, smelters and timber yards, which each have one or two upgrades per age related to their area of influence. The game only refers to library stuff as "techs", but all of these other upgrades are essentially technology upgrades. They all cost resources and provide you with performance upgrades.

So, as I've said, there are TONS of things to research and many directions to go and decisions to make. For example, you may be in the Gunpowder Age, which *should* allow you to have arquebusiers. However, if you haven't researched any upgrades at the barracks (which of course cost resources, which would slow down your fast-march forward in Ages), you'll just have slingers until you research the upgrade at the barracks. Believe me, there is LOTS to do within each age--probably too much to keep up with at standard speed unless you know every single hotkey in the game. There is a fast-developing consensus that the "standard" speed for the game is too fast for most. (I think I even saw Brian say that standard was not "calibrated" to standard speed in other games. I'm guessing that they did this to get the "average" game time down to one hour. Like it or not, the younger generation just doesn't like long games. High school kids still like board games in general, but I can *never* get a game of monopoly going because they think it is just too long.) Fortunately, there is "slow" (1/2 speed) and "very slow." (1/3 speed)

As far as Brian's original design to play in one sitting, it is very clear to me that is for one-on-one games. Either you vs. the AI, or you vs. another human. I've got an 8-player 2v2v2v2 game paused right now that I've played in three different fairly long sittings. It is at the 1 hour 30-minute mark (meaning it would have taken three hours of gameplay if I had run it at "Slow" speed only--but I run at very slow once things get REALLY hectid--which they usually do for me from around the Gunpower Age on.) At any rate, in this 8-player game, all 8 players are still in it, and all 8 still control all the cities on "their" island. (I usually play Random Map, and it came up "British Isles" for this particular game.) This one is a LONG way from over. There is no possible way that this game could have been won in one hour. I doubt it will be won in three hours, for that matter.

[Anrhydeddu]

Thank you, that clears up things better.

[Calis]

Anrh- I'm not sure I'm following what you're asking exactly. You can slow down research/teching separately from the actual gameplay, so it is actually set different. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you(likely).

I also am not sure, but I do believe there's more than 22 techs. I think there's 4 base with 7 levels of each, then 4 more after those. You could possibly add in all the techs for increasing production/units/building/etc. Well more than that, but for straight "Library" techs, I think there's 32. I'm not sure what you mean by automatic also? I mean, it's a matter of just having the resources. With them set to a more expensive level, it's not all that easy. If you add in the fact of being attacked and having to build a military to keep you alive, you can run into some serious issues with teching up.

As for your last point, I think you're right. For all intents and purposes this game is aimed at folks who want to play a one sitting game, but I think it's definitely plausible for a longer game, I just haven't had the patience to try it yet. :) When it comes down to it, the game is definitely more traditional RTS than it is anything else, it just has some nice features added.

edit: Bah! I knew SkyDog would beat me! Not only that, but made a helluva lot more sense. ;)

[cincyreds]

What a game!! I just got tail handed to me by playing in only the last age.

Now I need to go try again!'

[Neuqua]

Just thought I'd mention that RoN is now a part of the gogamer's 48 hour madness special and is being sold for $34.90... After wasting hours on the trial alone, I think I'll pick it up now...

[bamcgee]

great call. Never been to that site before, but it seems like they have several decent deals.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

bump

[Chubby]

bump
why?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

To help G-Man on his quest to buy the best RTS out there.

[Coffee Warlord]

Ironically, my Xmas gift card bought me this one as well. Quite an enjoyable game, really. Pretty surprised.

[sachmo71]

why?

I was going to ask the same question, but I figured I was missing something. :)

[maximus]

Yeah Baby! Gonna pick up Rise If Nation: Gold Edition tonight. :D

Any recommendations on how to play this beast? I've played Total War:Rome and I picked up on that pretty well. I also beta test for Supreme Ruler 2010 , which is very indepth and deep.

[jbmagic]

Yeah Baby! Gonna pick up Rise If Nation: Gold Edition tonight. :D

Any recommendations on how to play this beast? I've played Total War:Rome and I picked up on that pretty well. I also beta test for Supreme Ruler 2010 , which is very indepth and deep.


Maximus you going to love it

install Rise of nation and the expansion pack and get latest patch for Rise of Nation

http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/9/5/b95728f8-9727-43cd-834f-a11d019cae9f/ronpatch.exe

then load original game up and hit update on menu when online..

then load up the expansion and hit update on menu

then start playing just the expansion...

Awesome game


also check out Empire Earth 2 , that coming Feb 2005..Another great RTS game it looks like

http://empireearth.sierra.com/empireearth2.jsp

[maximus]

So you recommend playing the expansion over the original? Or are they basically the same game but the expansion just has more "perks" to it?

[jbmagic]

So you recommend playing the expansion over the original? Or are they basically the same game but the expansion just has more "perks" to it?


expansion has more units, more perks, new civilization, etc

just way better

[Eaglesfan27]

So you recommend playing the expansion over the original? Or are they basically the same game but the expansion just has more "perks" to it?

With the gold version, it automatically has you play the expansion. I have the Gold Version and am really enjoying it. I'm doing a conquer the world campaign with Alexander. I just finished reuniting all of Greece.

[jbmagic]

With the gold version, it automatically has you play the expansion. I have the Gold Version and am really enjoying it. I'm doing a conquer the world campaign with Alexander. I just finished reuniting all of Greece.


cool

when i bought RON i had to buy the original and expansion seperate. i got them when it came out.

for people that get gold? does it only let you play expansion? thats good because expansion is better.

and is there an update button on the menu to update it to latest patch.

Maximus,
if so then do it like Eaglefan says

[Eaglesfan27]

cool

when i bought RON i had to buy the original and expansion seperate. i got them when it came out.

for people that get gold? does it only let you play expansion? thats good because expansion is better.

and is there an update button on the menu to update it to latest patch.

Maximus,
if so then do it like Eaglefan says
I have the gold version. It only lets you play the expansion. Yes, there is an update button the menu to update it to the latest patch. All I did was install the gold discs (2 of them in one installation) and then hit update and I was good to go.

[maximus]

I'm doing a conquer the world campaign with Alexander. I just finished reuniting all of Greece.

Alexander is da man! :D

[jbmagic]

Maximus

your going to love it alot....so many different ways to play. you can play the campaign map like Alexander, or can skirmish vs cpu, you can do alliance, win my destroying there capital building, or getting a certain % of terrority, win my building the most wonders. can start in any age, you can set it to no rushing allow for the first so many mins, there land maps, water maps, etc. there coop mode, where you and cpu work together vs the other cpu, you can do 2 vs 1 , 2 vs 2 , 1 vs 1, etc . there online play vs human players

the game options are all customize. there a great Tutorial on there

the cpu is challenging on higher level

you going to have a lot of fun...

[maximus]

Thats cool. :)

I'm going to try to conquer the world. I like world domination war/strategy games.

[maximus]

Well, I just went out and bought two PC games. One being Rise Of Nations: Gold Edition (it includes the expansion pack and the other Civilization III: Complete (includes all expansion packs-Play the World and Conquests).

I have never played a Civ game so I may need some advice on how to play it.

[maximus]

OK, since I will undoubtably will not have time to play both tonight, I was wondering which one of these two games (Civ II or Rise Of Nations) I should install first. I mean, which is better?

My goal is to build a government, rule, advance and then conquer. :D

[Eaglesfan27]

OK, since I will undoubtably will not have time to play both tonight, I was wondering which one of these two games (Civ II or Rise Of Nations) I should install first. I mean, which is better?

My goal is to build a government, rule, advance and then conquer. :D

I like them both equally. They are quite different types of games. It really depends which genre you are more in the mood to play.