Rise of Nations and SWGB2

[Darth Windu]

I was quite shocked during the poll to see what engine people would like for SWGB2 when i saw that people would prefer the AoM engine or the old AoK engine than the RoN engine! Anyway, i will now post the good points of RoN that would make it a good basis for SWGB2.

 

- LOS is now greater directly forward, with the unit seeing less to their sides and behind

- Larger units now have slower turning rates

- Armoured Units and aircraft, plus ranged armoured and infantry units are an integral part of the game

- More Unique Units for every one of the 18 Nations

- Big bonus' for every nation make each very unique

- Inovative new units such as Generals give bonus' to nearby friendly units

- Flanking attacks (sides of behind) do more damage than attacking front-on

- Holding the high ground matters - you do more damage to the enemy

- Excellent 3D/2D hybrid graphics (units 3D, buildings 2D)

- A hybrid RTS/TB engine giving the excellent and fast-paced action of an RTS wit the epic scale of a TB game

- More strategic gameplay with national border's and no walls. This means you cant build in an opponents territory

- You can only increase your pop limit (350) by building of capturing cities, but loose your capital and your gone

- You must expand to survive - only a certain number of workers on any particular resource and with many unique resources such as diamonds to find

- Wonders now give very good bonus' to those who own them

- 'Smart villagers' who will go looking for a task if left idle

- New grouping system that will only select military units making groups less micro-intensive

- Units transform into transport ships to go across water, no need to build transports

- Different units take up different numbers of pop slots. Eg. Tanks/Bombers take up 3 pop sposts, whereas infantry takes up 1, but comes out as a group of three!

and more!

 

If you want to find out more about Rise of Nations go to-

http://www.bighugegames.com

http://ron.heavengames.com

http://www.microsoft.com/riseofnations

[Admiral Vostok]

Doesn't sound too bad and if LucasArts doesn't make their own engine, RoN would probably get my vote over AoM and AoK.

 

However, I'd much rather see an original engine.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Windu, u forgot Conquer The World which can be converted into Conquer The Galaxy with different scenario's like Clone Wars, etc.

[CorranSec]

I laughed quite a lot when I saw the poll results. Ah, poor RoN fanatics...

 

Thank you for that little plug for RoN, Windu. Which fan site did you pull it off this time?

And anyway, none of those have anything to do with why it should be the engine for GB2 or if it would make a good Star Wars game, and plenty of them could be considered bad things.

 

Crazy_dog: Perhaps he didn't bring it up because he knows it's a terrible idea for GB2?

[Sithmaster_821]

I laughed insanely at the poll (mostly at simwiz)

Windu, u forgot Conquer The World which can be converted into Conquer The Galaxy with different scenario's like Clone Wars, etc.

Good idea! Lets use game spot's Most Dissapointing Game as our new engine. Im sure it will be a smash:rolleyes:. Especially since its a X-PACK for a TBS game that has NO MP

[CorranSec]

Simwiz is a RoN fanatic too? Lol!!

 

I don't mean to sound stupid, but what does TBS stand for?

[Darth Windu]

Corran - exactly how would those features be bad for GB2? Ebout RoN is more detailed and better done than anything in the AoE series. Also, this wasnt taken from any site, all of it is what i already know about RoN. Do you even take the time to read the post?

 

Sith - hardly. RoN has been declared time and again by many gaming sites to be one of the most promising and interesting games out there, i think you are reffering to AoM as Gamspot's most dissapointing game.

[CorranSec]

I want to know why they'd be good for GB2. You didn't give a single reason- all you did was list some of RoN's (rather disappointing) features.

I took plenty of time to read the post. I just re-read it to check if you gave reasons why it'd be good for GB2 instead of LA making their own engine, but... there's none.

 

1. LOS is directly forward... that's rather minor. LA's engine could do that.

2. That's basically a feature of every new RTS (eg. AoM).

3. "Integral?" What is that supposed to mean? Everyone has to use armoured units and aircraft? Well, that's a bad thing.

4. My idea for GB2 is for all civs to have unique unit sets, so that's not very impressive.

5. I prefer the Officers idea in the GB2 thread.

6. Wowee.

7. Okay. Another tidbit of enjoyment. I'm sure that in 2 years, every engine will be doing that.

8. GB2 has several years. I'm sure the graphics will improve.

9. Now it's really starting to sound like it's copies off a website. Okay, so it's not just RTS? Well, it's not even in the running.

10. That proves it's a completely different type of game. No walls? National borders? Sorry. Not anywhere near GB1, and it's just not SW. It's also anti-turtle and anti-building in other people's bases.

11. See? Another bad thing. You have to build cities. It's too large-scale. And don't make any cracks about me not being able to comprehend it- it just doesn't fit with GB or SW.

12. Say goodbye to a whole lot of playing styles. "You have to play the way we want you to!"

13. Okay, that might be good.

14. Wow. This game doesn't like you to think at all, does it?

15. What if you want to select non-military units?

16. Once again, this game makes it too easy. I want to build transport ships. I especially want to build air transports.

17. Okay, sure. Different pop requirements is a good idea- but every new RTS has that. However, infantry popping out in groups of three etc. isn't a good idea.

More? I can hardly wait....

 

Basically, it just doesn't fit. It's practically a different genre of game to GB1, and the whole 'battle of nations' doesn't fit Star Wars. It's designed for our countries to battle over areas on our planet- not for Star Wars. And I don't even want to get started on "Conquer the World..."

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by Darth Windu

Sith - hardly. RoN has been declared time and again by many gaming sites to be one of the most promising and interesting games out there, i think you are reffering to AoM as Gamspot's most dissapointing game.

 

Actually I think he was confused and mixed up RoN's Conquer The World campaign with Civ 3's Xpack , Play The World, which is gamespot's most disappointing game of the year.

[Admiral Vostok]

Well I have to agree with all of Corran's points about Windu's points.

 

Above all I would like to see an original engine. But if it comes down to using either RoN, AoM or AoK then I think I would probably chose RoN and hope LA can change it enough to fit Star Wars better.

[Admiral Vostok]

After checking out some of Windu's links, I agree that this game looks pretty cool, and I think I will probably get it, but I do not think it will be suitable at all for a Star Wars RTS (but still better than AoM or AoK).

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by CorranSec

1. LOS is directly forward... that's rather minor. LA's engine could do that.

2. That's basically a feature of every new RTS (eg. AoM).

3. "Integral?" What is that supposed to mean? Everyone has to use armoured units and aircraft? Well, that's a bad thing.

4. My idea for GB2 is for all civs to have unique unit sets, so that's not very impressive.

5. I prefer the Officers idea in the GB2 thread.

6. Wowee.

7. Okay. Another tidbit of enjoyment. I'm sure that in 2 years, every engine will be doing that.

8. GB2 has several years. I'm sure the graphics will improve.

9. Now it's really starting to sound like it's copies off a website. Okay, so it's not just RTS? Well, it's not even in the running.

10. That proves it's a completely different type of game. No walls? National borders? Sorry. Not anywhere near GB1, and it's just not SW. It's also anti-turtle and anti-building in other people's bases.

11. See? Another bad thing. You have to build cities. It's too large-scale. And don't make any cracks about me not being able to comprehend it- it just doesn't fit with GB or SW.

12. Say goodbye to a whole lot of playing styles. "You have to play the way we want you to!"

13. Okay, that might be good.

14. Wow. This game doesn't like you to think at all, does it?

15. What if you want to select non-military units?

16. Once again, this game makes it too easy. I want to build transport ships. I especially want to build air transports.

17. Okay, sure. Different pop requirements is a good idea- but every new RTS has that. However, infantry popping out in groups of three etc. isn't a good idea.

More? I can hardly wait....

 

1) Name a succesful RTS which has done so.

2) Fair enough, but it's not a bad point is it?

3) If not everyone can use every kind of unit (even with UU sets, there has to be like an anti-vehicle infantry for each civ), then the game is unbalanced.

4) I like RoN, and I will still like that feature of the game although I see ur point.

5) That's not a point against the game is it?

6) That would imply we are using C&C Generals as an engine.

7) We can't wait 2 yrs! Again, it's not a point against the game.

8) All graphics get better with time. Not a point gaianst the game.

9) It's still an RTS but with large scale features more commonly found in TBS.

10) I think the national borders should be taken away.

11) I think cities is too drastic. Let's call them "bases".

12) It's more realistic.

13) ----------

14) It's a very nice feature. Besides, I have looked on screenshots and in options u can always turn it off. Also if u are going all over the map, fighting ur war, chances are u'll forget about ur workers. Also it's more realistic

15) What he means is so u don't send off ur workers to fight. U'll lose anyway unless u have a lot of them, but in order to have a lot of them that wouldn't qualify as losing.

16) I think that among the new features for the SW version is air transports. Also I am open-minded about sea transports. There are good points for both sides of the arguement.

17) It's not that u build a unit and u get 3. Units are made of 3 guys graphically. If the unit suffers enough damage 1 guy dies, and so on. This only applies to infantry.

[CorranSec]

1. Let me just grab my 1-year time machine. Whoops, I'm missing the transdimensional duct tape..... All I'm trying to say is that it's a minor detail, and could be done by any other engine. And I'm not even sure if I like it... if you want to explore an area, you have to have people walking in every possible direction!

2. It's not a good point either.

3. Well, what you're saying is quite different to whatever Windu means by "integral." Could you explain?

4. Okay.

5. It's a point for the Field Officers idea, which basically ends up as a point against the RoN generals.

6. What does C&C Generals have to do with anything? I said "Wowee," sarcastically. I'm not too excited about that particular piece of the game.

7. We can and probably will wait two years.

8. Not a point for the game either, when you think about it.

9. It could be a TBS with RTS features. Whatever you want to call it, it's just not the same type of game as GB. It's epic-scale, GB is medium-scale, WC3 is close-scale. You get me?

10. Good. But they're one of the main points of the game (and the engine), so why don't we just make a new engine?

11. Cities is what's in the game.

12. Gameplay>realism, as always. "It's more realistic" is one of the worst arguments out there.

13. On a side thought... is this like the Vault of Plenty in AoM?

14. Yes, but it makes more sense that people should have to worry about their workers. That's the whole point of the game- it's not just battle, you have to think about your econ, 50/50.

15. But what if I want to move my workers to build something, and have my warriors defend them.... Oh. Wait. You can't build in enemy nations. It's all tied up nicely, isn't it?

16. Thankyou.

17. Another example of how it's epic-scale, and not suited for GB or SW.

[Darth Windu]

corran - if you just stop being an arse and be a little open minded about this, you may find that RoN includes features that alter gameplay significantly and which portray war in a much more reliastic fashion.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Allright Windu that's directly insulting someone which you shouldn't do!!!

If I was a mod, I would ban you for calling Corran an arse.

 

And by the way...

Gameplay>Realism

[Sithmaster_821]

Windu, every thing you point you posted was either:

1. Realism>Gameplay(i.e. Officers, LoS going forward)

2. An empty point ("Armoured Units and aircraft, plus ranged armoured and infantry units are an integral part of the game"-WTF does that mean?)

3. Common Sense ("Holding the high ground matters - you do more damage to the enemy"-They've been doing that since AoE1)

 

Not to mention they are written like they were copied and pasted of BHG's website

[Darth Windu]

sith -

1. Officers will greatly improve gameplay, as will the altered LOS

2. That means that the game, unlike any of the AoE series, is specifically designed to use armour, ranged infantry (guns) and aircraft therefore making it more suitable for SW modding

3. No, they havent. In most of the game i have played, you dont hurt enemy units more if you hold the high ground or if you flank them, in RoN you do.

[Admiral Vostok]

1. Sith, the gameplay doesn't suffer from the realism, so it isn't Realism>Gameplay

2. Windu, I have to agree with that point, but you could have been clearer when you originally posted.

3. Yes, they have been doing the high ground thing since AoE1, but not the flanking thing.

 

Sith and Corran and other opposition, you have to admit that if it came down to being forced to chose between RoN, AoM and AoK rather than LA making their own engine, you would prefer RoN. If you do not, tell us why AoM or AoK would be better choices, not why RoN would be bad.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Well that's true...

 

Anyway, LA's own engine before and foremost. If you want to play SWGB2 then play SWGB2. If you want to play RoN then play RoN. If they used RoN's engine, SWGB2 will bring the same reaction as SWGB 1 did, it will feel like a rip-off of another game...

[Darth Windu]

I would just to point out that im not suggesting SWGB2 be based on RoN, just that if LA were going to use someone else's engine, RoN would be the best.

[Admiral Vostok]

Exactly what I was saying, Luke's Dad. Of course we all want LA's own engine (who doesn't?) but in case we don't get LA's own engine, Windu makes a good point.

[CorranSec]

Windu: I apologise for being an 'arse,' but opposing your idea isn't being closed-minded. I want something. You want something else. I'm entitled to oppose you. No personal abuse, please.

 

Great! Wow! Features that alter gameplay significantly... that's one of the worst comments I've ever heard. Worse than anything involving the Gunship even.

They portray war in a 'more realistic fashion.' More realistic than what? More realistic than AoM? Well, considering that AoM is set several thousand years before RoN, they really can't compete. More realistic than GB? Considering they're set in different galaxies, they really can't compete.

 

1. Field Officers (see the GB2 thread) will greatly improve gameplay. The altered LOS is a fairly minor point and does impede normal scouting and the like for the sake of realism.

2. GB has armoured units (war machines) ranged infantry and aircraft. LA's engine will certainly have them. If LA could achieve that with AoE2, they could certainly do it with AoM.

3. Once again, this is a fairly minor point. Also, the whole 'flanking' debate seems fairly irrelevant unless we're talking about really epic battles- which is not the genre (or whatever) that GB2 is. Sending armies in a pincer movement to flank the enemy- that makes sense. However, this doesn't make sense:

"Ooh! An enemy speeder bike! Hmm... oh, I just fired at his side, and I did more damage. Weird."

Or this:

"X-Wings versus TIEs! But wait, I have the advantage... yes! Shoot them from the side!"

Flanking only fits in an epic-scale game, and thus is good for RoN but bad for GB2.

 

Vostok:

Actually, if it came down to the wire, I'd have to choose AoM.

It's only a logical choice- GB1 was based on AoE2, so GB2 should be based on AoE3 (if it must be based on another game).

It's the same scale (medium, not epic-scale like AoM), the gameplay (econ/military split and all that) is quite similar to AoE2 and GB1, and I'm sure LA could convert plenty of AoM stuff into SW stuff quite easily.

 

I could list mountains of simple and perhaps petty gameplay/realism/whatever reasons why RoN is bad, but it all comes down to two simple thinga.

 

1. It's just not the same type of game as GB.

I've said it before, and I'll say it many times again: GB is medium-scale. The Age series is medium-scale. The Crafts are small-scale. RoN is epic-scale.

Thus, GB is not the same type as game as WC3 or RoN. Oh, sure, they're all RTS games, I'd compare reviews and the like, but if we're considering engines, WC3 and RoN are hugely different to GB and the Ages. Look at two important things Windu and Crazy_dog have said:

"- A hybrid RTS/TB engine giving the excellent and fast-paced action of an RTS with the epic scale of a TB game"

What we should be looking for is a RTS with balanced econ/military, research, all that good stuff that we've come to know and love... not some kind of mutant hybrid freak.

"Conquer The World, which can be converted into Conquer The Galaxy with different scenario's like Clone Wars, etc."

What could be more reflective of the difference?

Was there a Conquer the World in GB1? No. Okay, this may seem closed-minded, but I'm not looking for such radical differences. It's possible to have a quite wonderful game (which I'm sure RoN is in its own right) without practically changing the genre.

 

2. It's designed for our world. Our time periods. Our countries, civilisations, whatever.

And, sure, you can say that about the Ages. But they didn't have things like countries. And this is definitely not Star Wars.

I mean, come on. Look at it. Countries? National borders? In Star Wars? Nope, sorry. Planets, systems, sectors, yes. But, I can tell you, there's a big step from country to world. Conquer the World couldn't be Conquer the Galaxy even if you wanted it to be.

If there was a (non-SW) Conquer the Galaxy game, with planets and all that, I'd happily accept a conversion of it into Star Wars. But it would be Star Wars: Conquer the Galaxy. Not GB2.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Nothing personal.

 

1) Officers. What do officers do in that thread? If they change the gameplay of the civ, then that implies u are using C&C Generals, which I am looking forward to, and would be 3rd on my list for GB2 engines, but only 3rd.

 

2) I would agree that's an empty point, and though LA's engine can do that and pretty much all the feutures RoN has, at liest it is designed for aircraft unlike AoM or AoK.

 

3) Actually flanking is like taking the enemy from suprise by the side, or circling them into a tight circle of death, as well as hitting them were they can't defend themselves.

Well shooting a TIE in the back of it is were it can't defend itself, and flanking works in ground battles as we saw in TPM.

 

4) That's pretty much why I want it!

Also u can disable lot of things in options, and alway play on a smaller map.

 

5) That's what I've always wanted to do! U can't get Rebellion any more except in LA's store and that's in America, so as I don't live in America I have to pay for shipping which I can't afford.

Also can we play Rebellion with Republic and Confideracy? I think not.

 

6) I already said, take away borders.

Provinces could be planets. Why not?

[lukeiamyourdad]

GB2 will be for short battles and action packed which is what RoN does not seem to have...

 

And those border things suck! You won't be able to build in an enemy base! What is that about?

[Admiral Vostok]

Quite clearly, a second-hand engine will not do. I still think RoN would be the best if we HAD to have a second-hand one, but here's the main problems I see with it:

 

The only relevant Ages of RoN that could work for Star Wars are the last two, Modern and Information I think they're called. So basically we have to reduce the number of Ages to make it fit Star Wars. People who aren't huge Star Wars fans will see that there are less ages and say "why would I want less?" and buy RoN instead.

 

Borders don't work, no matter how you look at it.

 

Capturing cities isn't a bad idea, but the fact that you have to base your civ around a city is. I would hardly call Echo Base a city, but it is still a major staging ground for a civ. We are building armies not nations.

 

Building Wonders doens't fit Star Wars either. It didn't in GB1 and it won't in GB2.

 

But there are some things that I think will work well in a Star Wars game:

 

For starters the planes strafe, which is something we all want but that Age Of Whatevers can't provide.

 

Resources that don't get used up (we've discussed this on other threads long ago), but I suppose some would see that as a bad thing.

 

I like the unique resources and I think that fits Star Wars quite well too. You'd have Spice, Naboo Plasma, Tibanna Gas, Moisture (on desert planets), and maybe even Bacta. But again, the amount of unique resources should probably be decreased from 32, which again counts against the game like reducing Ages.