Civ's for SW:GB 2?

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Wow. You've really taken this seriosly.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

- 8 different ages, from the stone age to information age

 

- 18 unique nations

Unique only in terms of AI. Their diversity is countered by the lack of MP support.

 

- minimum of 4 UU's for every nation

Okay, and a few UU's.

 

- resources that dont run out

I thought you were supposed to expand to survive. Why would you when the resources at home do not run out?

 

- national borders

That's just a pain in the butt. It doesn't add, it damages gameplay.

 

- 'smart villagers' = less micromanagement

Well, several games are like that.

 

- different lines of research for extra replay value

...or added confusion.

 

- conquest is the name of the game, you must expand to survive

Woah, finally a strategy game where conquest is included .

 

 

- more complex diplomacy, not just 'ally, neutral, enemy'

Okay, so Civ 3 has it's moments . I liked that part.

 

 

- spies, to check up on your enemy

Okay, fine.

 

- cities you can capture

Oh, wow, you can actually do damage fighting? I thought you had the armies just for fun :sarcasm:. Excuse me, but in every wargame you can capture or destroy cities. This might be new to you, but you can in AoM and GB as well.

 

- special forces to jam radar&use of tanks, battleships, fighters and bombers

Woah, different units . That's new. In GB we had only one single type of unit :sarcasm:.

 

- different unit costs/build times for each nation

About every video game has that.

 

- different nation personallities (eg aztecs very aggressive)

This might matter if RoN is going to be without MP like Civ3, but not in GB2, which is a game that supports MP. AI national traits do not matter as much and tends to ruin the fun in MP games.

 

- excellent 2D building, 3D unit art

Okay, fair enough.

 

 

RoN and Civ3 are shallow and linear. The only ways you could "change gametype" in Civ3 was to remove objectives. There was still the time limit, you still started at random places (which made scenario construction really hard). A game with only variations of a single game type is not worth the money, IMO, and that's what CIV 3 was.

 

Ewoks do not have the technology to build Assault Mechs. What would they do, fire giant arrows?

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Exellent idea! Thier assualt mech could be a sort of giant crossbow with wood to cover the crew!

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You're kidding, right?

 

A tree-sized arrow doesn't have the same strenght as a laser bolt anyways.

 

And what of the other units? I'll give you some challenges:

 

-Anti-Air units. Something out of the woods, powerful enough to take out a really fast, shielded A-Wing. Think the speed of an F-22 PLUS you have to hit it a couple of times to destroy it.

 

-Cannons. Something strong enough to take down a fortress with 7-8 missiles. How do you make that ?

 

-Fighters and bombers. Something fast, strong, and powerful enough to take down a shielded, fast Z-95 Headhunter, or just powerful enough to take down a boat. Yet it all has to be light enough to be flown without an engine (read: Glider).

 

I do have a suggestion for Ewoks that I "borrowed" from AoM: Mercenaries. Ewoks were Alliance-supporters during the Battle of Endor, which lasted for a relatively short time in the epic war. So Ewoks could be like the Mercs in AoM: Trained in the CC, quick to create, cheap, fight weakly, and die after 50 seconds.

 

But seriously, the Ewoks could not be a civ. Yes, Wookies made it in because LEC could just make up stuff. Well, in this case, LEC cannot make up stuff. WUSIWYG -What you see is what you get. Wookies had a civilization on Kashyyk all the time, although you only saw Chewie and thought -hey, these things are savages.

 

With the Ewoks, however, you can't say something like that. You saw everything there was to them in SW ROTJ: Primitive, indigenous people in primitive villages. You could say "yes, but actually they had these big Assault Mechs and Fighters and boats, they just didn't use them in ROTJ". Well,

 

- Why did they resort to primitive measures when they had powerful bombers and assault mechs .

 

- If they are such a great civ, the Empire would have destroyed them when they invaded Endor. They would simply have scanned the surface and found evidence of laser weapons, fighters, and shields.

 

You can't make stuff up for the Ewoks. It'd be like a game with the US Army, the British Army, and... the Aztecs. "Hey, let's just say they could improvise and be able to fight F-22's and ICBM's. Hey, they're so cute, they have to be in there!" Uh, yeah. The reason why they stood a chance during Endor was an alliance with the Rebels, knowledge of terrain, and superior numbers.

[Darth Windu]

Eagle - why do i get the feeling you dont like RoN?

 

Anyway with the expansion thing, you can only put a certain number of workers on each resource, so in order to get resources more quickly, you have to expand.

 

Techs - you invest in certain areas instead of doing simple upgrades. For example investing a lot in the military means you will get access to more units and upgrades, if you invest in civics your borders increase and pop limit increases

 

Borders - means you actually have a nation. It also stops your enemy from building anything within your territory, same goes for you

 

cities - these are actual cities, not just 'troop center' and 'command center', they are actually large cities. When a city's hp's reach zero, the player with the most military units around gains control of that city, although it takes a while to gain complete control, which gives your opponent more time to re-claim it. Also, each nation has a 'capital city'. If this falls, you lose.

[Arthur2]

Originally posted by Darth Windu

Eagle - why do i get the feeling you dont like RoN?

---> no judgement

 

Anyway with the expansion thing, you can only put a certain number of workers on each resource, so in order to get resources more quickly, you have to expand.

---> eh that's not a good idea....that's what happens in EE too, but after u expand u'll discover that ur enemies are expanding , too....and obvious there isn't enuff mine for u to build a great army, this is what slows down the game...u have to wait, wait, wait...to build up ur forces, and if someone comes over the bomb the hell out of u, u have to start all over again....not a good idea for games like SWGB...SWGB is a;ready slow paced in contrast with blizzard games, ....we don't want the resource gathering to lag the game even more...

 

 

Techs - you invest in certain areas instead of doing simple upgrades. For example investing a lot in the military means you will get access to more units and upgrades, if you invest in civics your borders increase and pop limit increases

---> hmmm like free tech trees, hmm well one thing is that the research takes time...i don't think u'd want the research to lag the process of gameplay, do u?

 

Borders - means you actually have a nation. It also stops your enemy from building anything within your territory, same goes for you

----> .... a nation??? man ur country is so small...and walls are useless, u blow them up and then invade...

 

cities - these are actual cities, not just 'troop center' and 'command center', they are actually large cities. When a city's hp's reach zero, the player with the most military units around gains control of that city, although it takes a while to gain complete control, which gives your opponent more time to re-claim it. Also, each nation has a 'capital city'. If this falls, you lose.

---> eh...SWGB is a RTS game, not round-based...

i know round-based games are cool, but then they are aiming for a lot of strategy, not fast-paced and exciting game playing like RTS games. the idea of cities....only exist in round based games, cauz...i dun think it makes any sense with RTS games...how u gonna border the map? the map is so small, how many cities u gonna have? and in RTS u are always synchronizing, that's a problem too....

 

well ur ideas are not bad

but then just not suitable for RTS games

i play round-based games too, Heroes of Might and Magic Vi...yada...yada

i think the reason why is that...RTS games sacrificed part of the strategic elements for the excitement of game playing

in RTS game u try to screw ppl up by killing their units and steal their resource..

but in round-based u try to screw ppl up by taking over their territory and produce army...

Territory = the strength of a nation = income = military

 

can u see the difference between the structure of the two genres?

[simwiz2]

RoN is an RTS with many turn-based elements to add strategy and make war and peace more realistic and fun. It's no longer just a race to wipe out your opponent's base first.

 

RoN is not round-based.

[Sithmaster_821]

RoN is an RTS with many turn-based elements to add strategy and make war and peace more realistic and fun. It's no longer just a race to wipe out your opponent's base first.

Ohhh. Lets see who can make the prettiest towns. "My barracks is sexier than yours". Gameplay>realism, simwiz. City building is fun in SimCity, not in an RTS

 

Although I pretty much agree with Dagobahn (as i have no matter where this thread goes), Ill quote Windu too, just because Windu is such an easy victim.

- 18 unique nations

This is an oxymoron. You cant have 18 unique civs, just 18 finitely different ones.

- resources that dont run out

Now turtling is easier than ever. Although that might appeal to weaker players or people like yourself who dont even want to group units, god forbid you actually have to micro your economy.

- national borders

Like Eagle said more damaging than helpful. Creates long games that consist entirely of fighting over a handful of tiles.

- 'smart villagers' = less micromanagement

smart villagers=more micromangement and time spent fighting unit ai so your villagers do what you want them to do, not what they feel like doing. Also, you'll wind up losing track of alot of villagers

- different lines of research for extra replay value

- special forces to jam radar

- use of tanks, battleships, fighters and bombers

Oh, wow! So revolutionary! I cant think of any games that had tanks and airplanes or research. BHG is so original.

- different unit costs/build times for each nation

If they come in the form of bonuses, see above. If each has different costs/build times for every unit with the units having the same stats, then the game will be using whatever unit you can build the cheapest compared to its strength.

- different nation personallities (eg aztecs very aggressive)

I cant think of a single RTS that hasnt claimed that.

- excellent 2D building, 3D unit art

The buildings look cartoony, the units look like polygon blobs and the unit/building size ratio is the worst ive seen since the original AoE. And thats supposed to be excellent?

Eagle - why do i get the feeling you dont like RoN?

Windu, why do i get the feeling that your sixteen points are cut and pasted of the RoN website?

Techs - you invest in certain areas instead of doing simple upgrades. For example investing a lot in the military means you will get access to more units and upgrades, if you invest in civics your borders increase and pop limit increases

And this is different from the current ideas because...? If you do mostly military techs in SWGB then you get more techs and units avaiable to use. If you invest mainly in "civics" upgrades, then your buildings are stronger and your town is more advanced.

 

All in all, RoN isnt a revolutionary game, just an obvious money making game that rips off the two most popular historical strategy series: the Civ games and the Age games.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Geez you sure like RoN!

[Sithmaster_821]

Who me? Thats too funny!

[lukeiamyourdad]

No I was talking about Windu.

[Arthur2]

well how u gonna do this with a RTS?

 

i agree with sithmaster,

city-building is fun with round-based, not RTS

it takes too much time and it makes the gameplay too orderly

[simwiz2]

Before anything I would like to say this: THESE FORUMS' SERVERS SUCK!!

I typed this entire post and went to preview it, and after taking about 10 minutes to go though the forum's 56K connection and reaching their Acer servers, the page refused to load. Not only that, but my little post box was removed in favor of an error page. The back button brought me to A BLANK POST BOX!!!!

 

Needless to say I spent another 30 minutes of my life rewriting the entire damn post.

 

Originally posted by Sithmaster_821

(1) Ohhh. Lets see who can make the prettiest towns. "My barracks is sexier than yours". (2) Gameplay>realism, simwiz. City building is fun in SimCity, not in an RTS

 

(3) This is an oxymoron. You cant have 18 unique civs, just 18 finitely different ones.

 

(4) Now turtling is easier than ever. Although that might appeal to weaker players or people like yourself who dont even want to group units, god forbid you actually have to micro your economy.

 

(5) smart villagers=more micromangement and time spent fighting unit ai so your villagers do what you want them to do, not what they feel like doing. Also, you'll wind up losing track of alot of villagers

 

(6) Oh, wow! So revolutionary! I cant think of any games that had tanks and airplanes or research. BHG is so original.

 

(7) If they come in the form of bonuses, see above. If each has different costs/build times for every unit with the units having the same stats, then the game will be using whatever unit you can build the cheapest compared to its strength.

 

(8) The buildings look cartoony, the units look like polygon blobs and the unit/building size ratio is the worst ive seen since the original AoE. And thats supposed to be excellent?

 

(9) And this is different from the current ideas because...? If you do mostly military techs in SWGB then you get more techs and units avaiable to use. If you invest mainly in "civics" upgrades, then your buildings are stronger and your town is more advanced.

 

(10) All in all, RoN isnt a revolutionary game, just an obvious money making game that rips off the two most popular historical strategy series: the Civ games and the Age games.

 

1 - Not only is this stupid, idiotic, and completely incorrect, it also is very wierd of you to think that.

 

2 - By this remark I assume you believe that everything put into RoN is for realism only. That does nothing but prove your ignorance on the subject. Borders are to give the feeling of actually controlling some sort of nation, not some rapidly thrown-together base that exists for the sole purpose of wiping out another haphazardly assembled amalgamation of barracks, towers, siege workshops, etc. Doesn't the same old build troop center here rush here bring in air here, etc, ever get boring to you? RoN will break up the monotony with actual DIPLOMACY, bonus resources, and capturing cities rather than just annihilating everything.

 

3 - There's your characteristic negativity again. Can't do this, that's impossible, etc. BHG seems to be very competent and I think if anyone can get 18 unique civs they can. At least they are trying, ES just gave up and settled with 3 truly unique civs. THE 18 CIVS OF RoN WILL BE MORE UNIQUE THAN AoM's 9 SEMI-CIVS.

 

4 - BHG has specifically stated they were careful to make turtling difficult.

Did you get dropped on your head as an infant? Or maybe it was just that time you skiied into a tree... well for whatever reason you seem to have difficulties in posting intelligently and using accurate information.

Let me explain how these resources work. I know, you are thinking: well they never run out then the turtle will have as many resources as the attacker. Not quite. You see, each resource only accomodates a certain number of villies. This isn't your normal RTS where you just pump out more villies to get more resources; you have to expand. If your opponent has 3X as much of the map under his control as you do, your opponent can gather resources 3 times faster than you. Period. So a turtle will be facing an opponent who can replace losses 3X as quickly. Aside from all that a turtle is likely to have fewer cities, and therefore a lower pop cap. I'm not sure if there is a limit to how close cities can be to each other, but I would think there is one as it makes sense to stop ICS similar to Civ2's.

 

5 - Dumb as a brick... If you don't want smart villies, then you can TURN IT OFF!!!! And I thought Windu didn't think enough before posting...

 

6 - And I can't think of any games that has heroes and spells. Wow, the amalgamation of Age and Warcraft is sooo original.

 

7 - The civs of RoN are unique: they have more UU's than AoM's Major Gods, and have at least as many bonuses. Plus there is none of the bull**** overlap that plagues AoM. What happened, did ES run out of Minor Gods to use?

 

8 - Gameplay > realism, Sith. Why do you think the scale isn't correct? You think they just measured wrong and - "oops!"? Perhaps it's so the units can actually be deciphered from one another without having to click on each unit. Great, AoM has these realistic graphics, but a slinger looks like a spearman looks like an axeman. Greek units look nearly identical to each other. With flanking and other such strategic innovations in RoN, seeing your units becomes more important. I will repeat: Gameplay > realism and pretty little historically accurate graphics. And I see nothing cartoony about the buildings. They sure look better than the blocky, polygonal, rigidly square buildings of AoM. And as for the slightly blocky units... well if that is the price to pay for actually being able to tell the damn things apart, then I am fine with them.

 

Actually, when looking at screens of AoM, my first reaction was "these graphics look like ****!" Screenshots do not give full credit to a 3d game's graphics. You judge RoN's graphics based on nothing more than a few screens and perhaps a low-quality video or two. When you see the actual game the graphics will be much better.

 

9 - Mainly the RoN method of research is more organized and gives the impression of technological advancement over time, rather than just saving up 800 food 400 gold and getting the next upgrade.

 

10 - Hmmm... let's compare to your precious AoM.

All in all, AoM isnt a revolutionary game, just an obvious money making game that rips off two popular RTS series: the Blizzard games and of course the Age games.

 

Basically it is Ensemble trying to milk more money out of Age by selling out to the WC3 style of game.

[Arthur2]

rips off blizzard games

are u nutz?

 

some of the ROn things are good

but then....

i don't think anyone would want to spend 100 hours to play one game

 

i know there is a game called "enemy nations" made by some crappy korean company, and i don't think any of you has ever heard of this sucky game

 

actually the game is pretty cool

u need to research before u can build anything

and the research is not like...specified

it's more like technological-orientated than unit-oriented research.

for example u need to research gas engines, fire control , heavy armor and some other crap to build a decent tank

 

and the game is also by city building

u need to construct ur city

manage ur population

send raw materials to smelter and refinary to make usable resource (iron --> steel)

and u ur building and vehicles may halt if u don't have enuff population to support ur labor needs

...there is no population limit in that game, u can build as many vehicles as u can

 

it's a cool cool game

one thing tho, it takes too damn long to play the game

the map is HUGE , almost impossible to find ur opponents

and it takes a hella long time to research enough to build military units

definitely a cool idea, but then that's what makes a game complicated...and we definitely don't want that in RTS

btw, enemy nations is an RTS game,

it's impopular partially becaz it's by a small korean company and ppl don't really want to advertise it since the game graphics is so bad, and there are uncountable number of bugs present.

 

it's revolutionary, but....aiya..... it ruins the main factor of RTS -- excitement... I prefer SWGB.......relatively fast(to enemy nations) and slow(to blizzard games) pace and good unit balance

[Darth Windu]

You REALLY want go know why RoN will be better than any other RTS? Okay then-

 

- ages that go up to the present day, from hoplites to main battle tanks

 

- borders = prevents opponents building in your territory, also gives the feel of having your very own empire

 

- resources = dont run out so that you can keep building an army even if you only have a small amount of territory, and of course the amount of resources under your control is proportional to how fast you get resources

 

- turtling = not in this game mister. In RoN walls dont exist, and as the game progresses static defences are less and less effective against an aggressive enemy

 

- different personalities = i will use the Aztecs as my example. Due to their history as an aggressive civ, they are given a certain amount of resources for every enemy unit they kill. Therefore for the Aztecs killing is profitable

 

- smart villages = if unused for a certain amount of time, they will look for something to do, helping to construct something, mining resources etc so they dont just sit around and go to waste

 

- cities = every time you build or capture a city, your population goes up. This means that to have a great army to stand up to your neighbours, you must expand

[Arthur2]

Originally posted by Darth Windu

You REALLY want go know why RoN will be better than any other RTS? Okay then-

 

- ages that go up to the present day, from hoplites to main battle tanks

---> juz like EE huh? i don't like the idea

 

- borders = prevents opponents building in your territory, also gives the feel of having your very own empire

---> and is that a good thing or a bad thing? u are taking away the excitement factors of RTS games by doing this...isn't it cool to discover someone's forward command center somewhere near ur base , and now u gonna take away that excitement.

 

 

- resources = dont run out so that you can keep building an army even if you only have a small amount of territory, and of course the amount of resources under your control is proportional to how fast you get resources

---> that's like EE , too...resource never runs out (it does but then takes forever to really deplete the mine)

that's BORING, again, u are eliminating the factors of excitement....steal resource from ur opponents, now everybody are just gonna camp in their bases and play defense (not just towers but camp their forces inside their base all the time), ....is that how u play?

 

- turtling = not in this game mister. In RoN walls dont exist, and as the game progresses static defences are less and less effective against an aggressive enemy

--->that doesn't make any sense, static defense should be able to sustain a good amount of damage, defenders are always at advantage, a game like war3 doesn't make sense becoz the towers are way tooo weak comparing to other units.

 

- different personalities = i will use the Aztecs as my example. Due to their history as an aggressive civ, they are given a certain amount of resources for every enemy unit they kill. Therefore for the Aztecs killing is profitable

---> and then when u reach modern age u gonna at Aztec tanks, wow....given resources every time u kill, that's some old crap idea from games like 7th legion...gosh...

 

- smart villages = if unused for a certain amount of time, they will look for something to do, helping to construct something, mining resources etc so they dont just sit around and go to waste

---> yeah that's why i suggest heroes, tactical heroes for making battle units smarter, and strategic heroes help u manage ur national crap like economy and farm-replant...and stuff like that...

 

- cities = every time you build or capture a city, your population goes up. This means that to have a great army to stand up to your neighbours, you must expand

this is a BAD BAD BAD idea, something that belongs to round-based games....city building and capturing will only lag the gameplay and put restrictions....dude....read my other thread, there is a game just like RoN called enemy Nation, it's cool...but it's bad RTS game becoz it's pulled back by all these city management crap and round-based game factors...

u are looking at different types of games

the game that u are talking about is definitely not something that u gonna be playing MSN Zone.

and tell u what? SWGB is different!

[Darth Windu]

You have no idea how these will work in an RTS, of course neither do i. I am very optimistic about this game, and i think its features will ensure it is one of the greatest RTS's so far, so how about we put this discussion on hold till RoN comes out.

[Arthur2]

Originally posted by Darth Windu

You have no idea how these will work in an RTS, of course neither do i. I am very optimistic about this game, and i think its features will ensure it is one of the greatest RTS's so far, so how about we put this discussion on hold till RoN comes out.

 

oh so u must be referrring me as being pessimistic...

greatest RTS so far....don't think so

i can't remember who said but i agree with that the person said about this RTS : "there is no point buying a game in which u only play against computers"

 

actually htere are some games worth buying, such as all round-based games..u know, u can't really play ppl on the internet cauz u have to wait for them to make decisions, but then it's still worth buying....

 

well just not for RTS players

obviously this is an RTS forum, dun bring factors that'll ruin this game

well i dunno about RoN, yeah we'll see

but then i doubt that it's gonna work out

cauz what u posted is pretty much the description of Enemy Nations, and i can relaly tell u that Enemy Nation sux, ...in terms of game playing... it's a cool game, revolutionary, but u don't feel crap when u win....not enuff excitement factors...for a RTS

 

anywayz, we'll see

btw, what's RoN?

[simwiz2]

Originally posted by Arthur2

---> (1) juz like EE huh? i don't like the idea

 

 

---> (2) and is that a good thing or a bad thing? u are taking away the excitement factors of RTS games by doing this...isn't it cool to discover someone's forward command center somewhere near ur base , and now u gonna take away that excitement.

 

 

 

---> (3) that's like EE , too...resource never runs out (it does but then takes forever to really deplete the mine)

that's BORING, again, u are eliminating the factors of excitement....steal resource from ur opponents, (4) now everybody are just gonna camp in their bases and play defense (not just towers but camp their forces inside their base all the time), ....is that how u play?

 

 

---> (5) that doesn't make any sense, static defense should be able to sustain a good amount of damage, defenders are always at advantage, a game like war3 doesn't make sense becoz the towers are way tooo weak comparing to other units.

 

 

---> (6) and then when u reach modern age u gonna at Aztec tanks, wow....given resources every time u kill, that's some old crap idea from games like 7th legion...gosh...

 

 

---> (7) yeah that's why i suggest heroes, tactical heroes for making battle units smarter, and strategic heroes help u manage ur national crap like economy and farm-replant...and stuff like that...

 

 

(8) this is a BAD BAD BAD idea, something that belongs to round-based games....city building and capturing will only lag the gameplay and put restrictions....dude....read my other thread, there is a game just like RoN called enemy Nation, it's cool...but it's bad RTS game becoz it's pulled back by all these city management crap and round-based game factors...

u are looking at different types of games

(9) the game that u are talking about is definitely not something that u gonna be playing MSN Zone.

and tell u what? (10) SWGB is different!

 

1 - There is no game that has every aspect being totally unique right now. Now, of course, Windu should not have cited this as a unique feature as it hurts the argument more than helps it, but then again we all know Windu is just copy-pasting stuff from the RoN page.

 

2 - The way current RTS's play gives no feeling of actually running a nation. You are running a pathetic little base, and the fact that someone can throw up a base next to your base easily only stresses the paltriness of the bases. Also the idea that 1 villager behind a base can create a stable which can create hundreds of paladins is a bit stupid. I suppose the volunteers and the horses all teleported there.

 

3 - OMG!!! You mean that some of the things that are in RoN have been in other games??! But I thought... I thought that EVERYTHING about the game was completely new...

Practically every game made has some things that have been done before.

 

4 - Sigh. I will explain to you what I explained to Sith, but I will leave out the whole dropped on head part since I don't know you.

 

Let me explain how these resources work. I know, you are thinking: well they never run out then the turtle will have as many resources as the attacker. Not quite. You see, each resource only accomodates a certain number of villies. This isn't your normal RTS where you just pump out more villies to get more resources; you have to expand. If your opponent has 3X as much of the map under his control as you do, your opponent can gather resources 3 times faster than you. Period. So a turtle will be facing an opponent who can replace losses 3X as quickly. Aside from all that a turtle is likely to have fewer cities, and therefore a lower pop cap. I'm not sure if there is a limit to how close cities can be to each other, but I would think there is one as it makes sense to stop ICS similar to Civ2's.

 

THAT is why people simply CANNOT turtle/camp in base and hope to win. Also it adds to gameplay to have incentives to control more of the map, rather than a main base and a forward base and a massive void in between. In AoK-type RTS this is what happens, and to get the resources in between you just send in about 30 vills and mine the resource dry. Now in RoN you actually need to defend your resources.

 

5 - Then you end up with a turtle fest if the defenses are so strong. You don't want turtling, defensive games, but you want strong defenses. You are contradicting yourself.

 

6 - No, I think in the modern ages Aztecs will have archers and spearmen. And remember Gameplay > realism; it doesn;t matter what time period it is when you plunder resources in a GAME. Unlike other RTS, RoN isn't just about war, but with Aztec bonuses they have more of an incentive to declare war on a neighboring nation. This isn't your AoK game where you start out with set allies and slug it out with another team. There will be wars, sometimes periods of peace if no one wants war right then, real DIPLOMACY. The Aztec bonus reflects the fact that there will be diplomacy.

 

7 - Why have heroes (that may need to be micromanaged) to reduce micromanagement when you can just have the game reduce micromanagement??? HEROES TO REDUCE VILLIE / UNIT MICRO ARE A DUMB IDEA AND I WOULD BE VERY UNHAPPY IF IT WERE IMPLIMENTED IN RoN.

Wow, I just got the Great Gold Miner hero, now my villies near him will start mining gold after building a gold mining camp without me having to tell them!!

 

And look, here's the Inventor of the Plow hero, now I can queue up my farms so I don't have to keep replanting them!

 

8 - Are you against innovation in games altogether? Claiming that something "belongs here only" or that it "can't be done" stifles new ideas. I'm sure that when AoE was being made, there were people that thought that random maps would hurt gameplay and that they belonged in TBS only. AoK, GB, AoM, and yes, also RoN, may not ever be made if those people had been listened to.

Also, other than your greatly exaggerated fears of turtle-fests and complicated games, you have not given any real reasons that cities could not be implimented in a good RTS.

 

9 - "History in a lunch hour" is a game type of RoN that will take less than an hour to get through all of history and seems very reasonable to be played on the zone. Was your comment by any chance based on Sith's bull**** 5-hour game statements? If it was then you based it on information about as accurate as the "sexy barracks" and "ice cream shoppes".

 

10 - GB is AoC gilded with Star Wars units. But it's still a fun game, and puts AoC to shame.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

1 - There is no game that has every aspect being totally unique right now. Now, of course, Windu should not have cited this as a unique feature as it hurts the argument more than helps it,

 

He didn't say that, he said "I don't really like EE, so I don't think it's a good idea.", or "that didn't work too well in EE, so I don't think it should be in RoN." He didn't say "hey, they're ripping EE off!!".

 

---> (2) and is that a good thing or a bad thing? u are taking away the excitement factors of RTS games by doing this...isn't it cool to discover someone's forward command center somewhere near ur base , and now u gonna take away that excitement.

 

In real life, you can't see units crossing your borders unless you keep units posted at your borders, build radars or station radar units near your border line, etc. In Civ 3 (I don't know if RoN will change that), I seem to remember, there was fog of war, but for some reason your borders were not grayed out, even if the area was deserted. How's that for realism?

 

Also, RoN was not about tactics when it came to city fights. You just moved a unit group onto a town and they fought automatically. Then if they won, the town was yours (and so was a lot of unhappy citizens .) In AoM, you can destroy a lot of buildings, then retreat -you used tactics in battle and strategy to build your army. RoN is more the US Revolutonary War where two armies lined up on each side of a field and then just stood there shooting at each others (didn't rush at each others, take cover, or anything, just stood there), then the one with most soldiers won :sarcasm:. Actually, before the Native American and Napoleon started rushing on the enemy, all battles were fought this way. You think the Finns would have held out as long as they did if they fought this way with the Soviets? Maybe a couple of thousands people agains tens of thousands of soldiers? If they hadn't employed camouflage, skis, and guerillia warfare, they would not have lasted for as long as they did. I can picture 2000 Finns lining up in a row 100 meters away from 4000 Soviets and they both open fire at each others, just standing there .

 

Civ III eliminated the aspect of tactics. You may say it's impossible to implement tactics in a round-based game? Well, look at Heroes of Might and Magic IV. Also, I've heard, RoN will be RTS, which makes it even more likely to get boring without tactics.

 

It's just not fun in games, though, as you've got no flanking, tactical retreats, diversions, etc. To put it short: No tactics. It's just a matter of having the most units.

 

Also the idea that 1 villager behind a base can create a stable which can create hundreds of paladins is a bit stupid. I suppose the volunteers and the horses all teleported there.

 

Yeah, and what about people (citizens) moving from town to town in Civ III? I supposed that instead of walking, thus being visible on the map, just teleported from city to city . And I guess the people building fortresses and such in Civ 3 just got the mateirals out of thin air. No, wait, you don't need resources, you just sit there poking at the ground with a stick/hammer/whatever then suddenly a fortress/road will just *POOF* spawn onto the building site ). The same way as those F-16s just hover over tiles by some magical force. Not to call you a hypocrite or flame Civ 3 or anything, but hey...

 

Also, it IS possible to build nations within other nations. Just look at the Vatican State inside Italy.

 

RoN/Civ3 is like the Sims: You either LOVE it or you HATE it. Personally, I HATE Civ 3. Also, many who play Civ 3 HATE GB. Now if we can get back on topic and discuss which/how many civs there will be in GB2, that would be nice.

 

10 - GB is AoC gilded with Star Wars units. But it's still a fun game, and puts AoC to shame.

 

He meant different from Civ 3 , not different from AoK.

 

but then again we all know Windu is just copy-pasting stuff from the RoN page.

+

(...)Or Windu's other stupid ideas.

 

Will you stop flaming Windu. I hope the mods will get your sense of humor, because you've just been reported:mad:.

[Sithmaster_821]

the feeling of actually controlling some sort of nation

Actually you are controlling a small settlement that is associated with a nationalistic entity. Nations didnt come into existence until the 15th century, but nationalism, which is a sense of unity through ethnicity, religion, or location, has existed forever. Even then, you never control whole nations in an RTS, just timy fragments, so borders arent even realistic. Added to the fact that they ruin gameplay, im not seeing how they are a plus.

THE 18 CIVS OF RoN WILL BE MORE UNIQUE THAN AoM's 9 SEMI-CIVS.

Say what you want simwiz, but i personally find +5% bonuses not condusive to uniqueness.

8 - Gameplay > realism, Sith. Why do you think the scale isn't correct? You think they just measured wrong and - "oops!"? Perhaps it's so the units can actually be deciphered from one another without having to click on each unit. Great, AoM has these realistic graphics, but a slinger looks like a spearman looks like an axeman. Greek units look nearly identical to each other. With flanking and other such strategic innovations in RoN, seeing your units becomes more important. I will repeat: Gameplay > realism and pretty little historically accurate graphics. And I see nothing cartoony about the buildings. They sure look better than the blocky, polygonal, rigidly square buildings of AoM. And as for the slightly blocky units... well if that is the price to pay for actually being able to tell the damn things apart, then I am fine with them.

When things are that blocky, i can barely tell who is sitting on a horse and who is standing, not to mention differentiating different calvary based on minute differences in there polygons, i mean guns:)

Gameplay > realism and pretty little historically accurate graphics.

Simwiz, it has become apparent that you are using "Gameplay>Realism" just because other people are saying it. Gameplay>realism relates to the fact that the stats, purposes, and creation of a unit/building/option is based first on gameplay, then adjusted to be realistic. Graphics, especially in hisorically based RTS's, strive only to be historically accurate and not be incredibly taxing on the players computer.

they have more UU's

UU's dont make civs unique, they add to the unit selection and army variation. And conserning this topic i would also like to point out that the multiple UU's are actually one or two true UU's and their subsequent upgrades. Saying that the the Germans have 6 UUs (when it is really just one light infantry+3 upgrades and one tank+an upgrade) is like saying the Empire has 3 different fighters. All games do something like this, proclaim that there are x number of units/buildings/techs, when really they're just playing with numbers to inflate their game. AoC claimed to add 11 new units, but really it was just 7 UUs that came with the civs, two upgrades to current units, one unit that only two civs got (basically a UU), and finally one universal unit, but it had little battle field impact unless you were fond of flooding waves of petards.

When you see the actual game the graphics will be much better.

And you know this how?

Mainly the RoN method of research is more organized and gives the impression of technological advancement over time, rather than just saving up 800 food 400 gold and getting the next upgrade.

Could you elaborate further. Im curious how they did this. Honestly.

All in all, AoM isnt a revolutionary game, just an obvious money making game that rips off two popular RTS series: the Blizzard games and of course the Age games.

Seeing that AoM is the heir to the AoX throne, it should incorporate some of the Age games. And, as for the Blizzard games, dont even try. Not only have you never played a game by Blizzard (as many of the forumers including myself have), it is obvious here as in other places that you are striking out at other games in place of arguing whenever the subject is something RoN displays poor numbers, like originality.

The way current RTS's play gives no feeling of actually running a nation. You are running a pathetic little base, and the fact that someone can throw up a base next to your base easily only stresses the paltriness of the bases. Also the idea that 1 villager behind a base can create a stable which can create hundreds of paladins is a bit stupid. I suppose the volunteers and the horses all teleported there.

This is opposed to pushing your borders into places where there are no people, and then teleporting them.

Then you end up with a turtle fest if the defenses are so strong. You don't want turtling, defensive games, but you want strong defenses. You are contradicting yourself.

Static defences arent required for turtles and similarly, people arent labeled turtles if they build static defenses. Its a mindset that makes a turtle and RoN supports that mindset.

Why have heroes (that may need to be micromanaged) to reduce micromanagement when you can just have the game reduce micromanagement??? HEROES TO REDUCE VILLIE / UNIT MICRO ARE A DUMB IDEA AND I WOULD BE VERY UNHAPPY IF IT WERE IMPLIMENTED IN RoN.

Agreed. Thats why ES got rid of paying for allied LOS. Its like having to have a cartographer/do mapmaking tech to use the minimap. And also why you dont have to pay to replant farms.

"History in a lunch hour" is a game type of RoN that will take less than an hour to get through all of history and seems very reasonable to be played on the zone

"History in a Lunch Hour" is similar to turbo in AoK or Lightning in AoM. It condesnses a typically 5h game into a game that spans to somewhere around the 1h mark, just like turbo reduced AoK from 45 minutes to about 15. Your still playing a 5h game. It just takes 1h to complete. And on a side not, if a game's base game length is 5h and must have a special option to be done to reduce that time to slightly higher than even moderate RTSs, they should really reconsider the game time.

Will you stop flaming Windu. I hope the mods will get your sense of humor, because you've just been reported.

...bad boy, bad boy, whacha gonna do? Whacha gonna do when they come for you?...

[Arthur2]

 

Let me explain how these resources work. I know, you are thinking: well they never run out then the turtle will have as many resources as the attacker. Not quite. You see, each resource only accomodates a certain number of villies. This isn't your normal RTS where you just pump out more villies to get more resources; you have to expand. If your opponent has 3X as much of the map under his control as you do, your opponent can gather resources 3 times faster than you. Period. So a turtle will be facing an opponent who can replace losses 3X as quickly. Aside from all that a turtle is likely to have fewer cities, and therefore a lower pop cap. I'm not sure if there is a limit to how close cities can be to each other, but I would think there is one as it makes sense to stop ICS similar to Civ2's.

 

THAT is why people simply CANNOT turtle/camp in base and hope to win. Also it adds to gameplay to have incentives to control more of the map, rather than a main base and a forward base and a massive void in between. In AoK-type RTS this is what happens, and to get the resources in between you just send in about 30 vills and mine the resource dry. Now in RoN you actually need to defend your resources.

 

5 - Then you end up with a turtle fest if the defenses are so strong. You don't want turtling, defensive games, but you want strong defenses. You are contradicting yourself.

 

 

 

 

Contradicting?

eh...no

turtling means u keep ur troops in ur base and don't do crap

strong defense structure will not make u turtle

 

LOL the resource part, dude that's stolen EE

EE is exactly like that

it's not good when u try to strike back to ur enemy...cauz u cannot get resource fast enuff

it's kinda like our ideas on another thread about mining structures autometically mining resource...

maybe garrison a couple of villigers inside

well i guess it's a nice idea....worth considering

 

i think this discussion is becoming pointless...

let's stop repeating ourselves....and time for us to really consider wut SWGB should be, and not pull round-based elements into a RTS ... cauz from the RTS games (with round-based elements) i've played....either it's a bad game, or it's a game that takes a long time and ppl don't play with each other....

SWGB is not that kind of game...

so...try not to make it complicated

[Teabag]

Okay, Rise of Nations..never heard of it..lol..and there's probably a good reason why. AoM will be just like Age of Kings only 3d; less units, and only 3 castes instead of 5. Back to SWGB. The Ewoks civs could be like an easter egg. Something thrown in for fun, nothing serious. Ever play Madden 2002,2003? Remember all the cheessy teams they had hidden in the game like Sugarbuzz, The Monsters, The Mummies, The Marshals? Does it make sense for a bunch of egyptian mummmies to be on a football field playing against the Rams? NO, but they were in there for fun. The Ewoks could be the same; just for light hearted fun. I got some ideas for the Ewoks.

 

Ewoks-

-----------------

+ Strong mechs and troops

- Weak air and jedi

 

*Unique Unit: Giant Monster: Some kind of large beast that the Ewoks have captured that has a super thick hide and can sustain tremendous laser fire. Has a powerful melee attack that is good against troops, mechs and buildings.

 

*Civ bonuses-

-Ewoks gather carbon 15% faster

-Ewoks farms have +100 food and workers gather food 10% faster.

 

*Technologies-

-Creature armor: self explanatory

-Forrest Vison: self explanatory

-Multiplication: Ewoks troopers are built 15% faster

-Camoflauge: Ewok troopers are stealth at long ranges

-Animal Training: Ewok animal units have increased rate of speed and hitpoints

-Super Goo: Ewok units deal more damage (Ewok units dip their wooden spears in Goo that is corrosive to metal and flesh, but is somehow not corrosive to wood)..work with me..hehe

 

*Command Center units-

- Worker: Basic Ewok

-Medic: Shaman like the witchdoctor in ROTJ

 

*Troop Center units-

-Ewok recruit/trooper/repeater: Ewok carrying a weird crossbow that fires goo bolts; repeaters have fast action bolts.

-Ewok mounted unit/heavy: Ewok riding a strange dog looking creature; fires a stream of Goo.

-Grenadier: Ewok that lobs large balls of goo.

 

*Mech Center units-

-Scout: Fast moving deer-like unit

-Strike mech: Large alligator like unit with fast action Goo slinger on its back..lol lol lol.

-Mech destroyer: Woodland tauntaun looking unit with fast action Goo slinger on its back.

-Assault Mech: Large wooden contraption that is armored in the shell of a giant tortise like creature with large Goo cannon on its back.

 

*Heavy Weapons factory-

-Pummel: Beast similar to Cerrabore

-Artillery: Ewok Catapult

-Anti Air: Ballista type unit with Goo tipped bolts

 

*Airbase-

-Fighter: Large Birdlike Creature with fast action Goo slinger on its back

-Bomber: Large Zeppelin underneath a giant tortise shell. Goo bombs loaded inside

-Transport: Same as bomber but with no bombs

 

*Shipyard-

-Destroyer: Fishlike creature with giant hooks for arms

-Frigate: Fishlike creature that fires large quills

-Cruiser: Giant floating plant-like jellyfish that lobs huge poisonous spores at land units and buildings

 

*Fortress-

-Bounty Hunter: pick one

-Air Cruiser: Giant alien blimp like creature that fires poisonous saliva at units.

-Unique Units: Great Ewok Giga Beast: Massive beast that deals full damage against troops, mechs, jedi, and buildings.

 

LOL LOL LOL...Yes...i do have too much time on my hands i guess....what do you guys think? *Ducks from the incoming debris*

-

[Arthur2]

Do we have to go over this again???

NO

we are not gonna add some Ghetto crap because Ewoks would there ass whoooped on the battlefield

Ewoks will be a just-for-fun race....

no air, no mechs...maybe some wooden heavy weapons

but no ghetto units

ok???

try to make an original game, and not be creative

[Dagobahn Eagle]

"Blizzard 2 to Blizzard 1, we have a giant Ewok mechanic firing arrows at us. Standing by for new orders."

 

"This is Blizzard 1, our armor can repel laser blasts, there is no way sticks can not harm us. Hold on to your present course."

 

''Aye, but... sir, the sticks have slime all over them!"

 

"Noooo! We're doomed!" Uh, yeah

 

---

 

A side note on research without obvious results, though:

 

In the first X-Com games, you wold research stuff you brought in without directly knowing what you researched -except if you were playing the game over again, that is.

 

For example, researching Laser Weapons would give you Laser Pistols, Rifles, Cannons, and Anti-Air Laser Cannons. Obvious, right?

 

Well, researching UFO Navigation computers and UFO Reactors allowed you to build stronger, faster ships. That's still obvious, but not quite.

 

Researching UFO Hull plating, however, let you build new armors -not stronger fighters. That's not obvious at all.

 

Then, interrogating the Commanders of a certain alien race would teach you how to make devices that let you take over the enemy's mind (Psi-Amp, in my opinion, is one of those things that really added to X-Com gameplay ).

 

I don't think this would be a good idea in AoM, though, and I'm unsure as to this in RoN. I mean, RoN is mainly a wargame. If it was implemented in a peace-only game, like Sim City, I'd like it (I still would not play Sim City, but you get the idea ).

 

This "different tech tree every time" thing is IMO a great idea. I'd love to see that in X-Com 1 or 2. It adds realism, you know, not really knowing what your eggheads can use your artifacts for ..although it would be harder to implement in XCm, of course.

 

And I still think the only civs should be Pirate, Rebel, and Empire. I think an idea might have been to divide it into sub-civs like in AoM: Empire is Remnants, Empire, and Old Republic, for example. But these sub civs would not be as diverse as in GB, as they were not diverse in SW.