 |
| |
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
I appreciate what BHG is trying to do with RoN - a RTS with some depth and strategy. And what they see as the two biggest problems are that battle is about attrition and numbers instead of tactics and that the faster player with some plan will almost always win because he can 'rush' his troops to the hotspot faster than the losing player. So they want to try and counter these two things with a series of game options and designs to add strategy.
Again, let me say that I appreciate this effort and wish it would succeed. And depending on how army formations work and terrain elevetion factors into battle, tactics might become more important in winning battles. Likewise, the uses of cities and territories may also aid to slowing down rushes because it will force a more methodical thought out game. So hopefully a few of these problems will be addressed and fixed.
That said, I fear the worst with the limits to when battles can begin. In my mind, there is no good way for this to work. In fact it is going to make rushing worse in my opinion just for other things. Here is why:
Lets say that you cannot start war until the invention of gunpowder (an example used in one of the interviews). So your about to play a MP game and you want to beat your friend. You know that war will not start until gunpowder. So you know until either of you get gunpowder you are safe. This safety zone is something that if you are a smart player you can exploit. For one, you know you do not need to build a very big military during this safe zone. Instead you can build scouts to get the lay of the land to figure out your invasion tactics and you can build some defense fortresses, but mainly you can invest in your cities, in researching new technologies and infrustructure that will make you stronger than your opponent. In essence, you are going to use the safe period to get ready for war.
The quicker you are as a player, the faster you can build up. You will be rushing to make it to gunpowder. With an effective plan, you will have a good infrastucture to immediately build up a strong army right before your discovery of gunpowder and launch your invasion just when you acquire the technology. Then just as your friend is trying to fight off your attack, you launch another with your recently constructed units using the new technology that is supperior than anything he has had time to construct and game is over. Yes war could not start until half way through the game because of an artificial limit, but rushing still took place. It was simply a rush to get that limit. As soon as the limit was reached, the war began and the one that rushed faster won. It will happen every time. Sure, maybe one player will be able to simply rush to build the proper defenses and ward of such an attack and then let the game go for a while letting both build up before attacking. But why? If you are able to rush fast enough to build the suitable defenses, then you will have the army to immediately launch a counterattack and destory your enemy that used everything they had to win the war fast. So in the end the one that rushed better will win.
This is different than a game without a limit on rushing. In this game, you cannot expand too fast or simply rely on building infrastucture too much at the start. There always a threat of an attack to prepare for. On the other side of things if you invest at the start in a rush and it fails than you are screwed. What I mean is that if your opponent can defend against it than he has the infrastucture to rebuild quickly and send a more formidable force than you can defend against because you did not build a suitable defense. So a failed rush means that you are doomed, which leads to a strategic game of consequences for each decision. This is how RTS works, it is a series of quick decisions with consequences. Each one (if the game is good) has a way to be beaten such as in StarCraft where the Zergs tended to be used as rushers but both the Humans and Protoss had suitable defenses for this type of attack. If you fail on a rush you are out of the game.
So why is it bad for RoN to have this limit? As I see it, they are taking out any reason not to heavily invest in infrastucture. It is simply going to be a race to see who can build up the biggest cities and construction sites so that when the proper technology is acquired to wage war then those with the biggest factories will be able to churn out the biggest forces. Rushing will not be stopped as BHG would like us to believe, instead it will resurface in a different way. One that I fear will be worse. Because there will be no counter, there will be no consequence. You will have to rush yourself to building the bigger infrastucture and get to the technology yourself to defend yourself. And there will be no way to attack before your opponents plans are ready. In the end the artificial limit on when one can attack will hurt the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Yes, well, if you don't put a limit on rushing then every on-line game will devolve into a quick rush against the enemy's homeland. Counter-units didn't work in Starcraft or Age of Kings. What makes you think they are going to work here?
The history of RTS's clearly show that the key ingredient in victory is not strategy or tactics made up in the field. Rather it is one single simple strategy, like a quick rush, combined with machine-like precision of execution.
Unless BHG can change this to make historical tactics more useful, I just don't see how this game is going to be any more interesting than the other RTS's out there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard
Yes, well, if you don't put a limit on rushing then every on-line game will devolve into a quick rush against the enemy's homeland. Counter-units didn't work in Starcraft or Age of Kings. What makes you think they are going to work here? |
Yes there is a way to stop this. It is simply make units earlier in the game weaker on the attack while being stronger in defense. Also, allow more ways to build defensive fortifications early in the game. This will allow early game war strategy to be more defensive - as it was in much of history. The game will then allow players to defend against early attacks and allow players to play on and have more strategic decisions on down the road.
quote:
The history of RTS's clearly show that the key ingredient in victory is not strategy or tactics made up in the field. Rather it is one single simple strategy, like a quick rush, combined with machine-like precision of execution. |
I agree and that is what I am trying to make a point about. By artifically adding a "no battles until x" option they are not changing that. In fact they are making it worse. It just means the faster, more practiced player will always get to that age first with a better infrastucture and be able to build up a massive army quickly and win at the same point every time. They have not changed anything but instead made it worse and in a different form. There will not even be a counter for it.
quote:
Unless BHG can change this to make historical tactics more useful, I just don't see how this game is going to be any more interesting than the other RTS's out there. |
Again agreed. That is why I am trying to point this problem out now. It seems to me that they are saying that they have figured out rushing with this rule but have not solved a thing. They have just made things different with rushing. In the end it will be the same problem - the one I want to see solved with RTS.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rohag
|
|
I too believe a type of rush will develop in RoN, even if it’s different from the rushes we’ve all seen so far. Hopefully it will not be as bad as you describe.
Rushing is a legitimate game strategy. Elements of rushing, however, violate my sense of history – which is one of the reasons I play games. Even successful expansionist nations have had difficulty projecting their power far beyond their borders. There comes a time when the momentum of the expansion is exhausted, and force and law strain to maintain imperial cohesion. “Rome wasn’t built in a day,” so, when a single explosive offensive decides the game, it tends to dissipate the aura of history I find enjoyable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Axehilt
|
|
Seattle
May 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
I disagree that they're trying to prevent the faster player from winning.
The faster player will always win.
Knowing the strategies available to you in an RTS game is pretty easy stuff after you've played 50+ games. It simply becomes a matter of executing them in a superior matter after that point. Executing them in a superior matter means being faster at it.
Based on your definition of their intent, the anti-rush options do not work. However, I seriously doubt that their intent was to somehow let the slower player win with superior innovative strategy (more on that later).
Does a "No Rush Til Gunpowder" option eliminate the concept of rushing? No. It simply delays the time at which a rush occurs. But if you look at Starcraft's classical definition of a rush, then enforce a 5-minute no rush period into that rush where players can't enter other player's territory, does that same classical definition of a rush remain - or does it become something different?
And why do some players dislike rushing? In my experience, they want to build more. More units, more buildings, more defenses. If a rush in Starcraft was held back for 5 minutes, a 6-zergling rush would be laughed at. All of the rushes would occur with much larger armies.
So the important question to ask is does RON's "No Rush Til Gunpowder" option satisfy the RTS community's desire for larger battles overall? The answer is yes!
As a side note to this, if you feel the "delayed rush" concept won't be fun, you'll be free not to play with that option in RON.
 Innovation in RTS Games
As for innovation in an RTS? It exists in a temporary way. When you're first learning RTS games, any strategy you figure out on your own is innovation. Did real life generals have 400 wars under their belt? No.
The closest an RTS game can come to imitating real life innovation of strategy is during the first 50 or so RTS games you play - including all your previous RTS experience. Remember when you didn't know what a rush was? If you would have been the first to come up with that strategy, that would have been innovation. Did you figure out how to arbiter drop a huge wave of templars and zealots before you saw anyone else use that strategy? That would be innovation. Did you figure out how to 14-minute Monk Rush someone in Age of Empires 2? Did you figure out a lightning quick skiing path in Tribes 1 that you developed totally on your own before skiing paths was a major well-known strategy? Innovation is only limited by (a) the number of potential strategies in a game and (b) how many similar games you've played before (since you'd bring your previous experience to the new game).
Ironically, players seem to be assuming that games should allow for this "on the field innovation" after they've been playing the game for 2 months and have explored every strategy already. Is it the idealistic end-all of game design to be so complex that players are finding distinct new strategies 6 months after the game's release yet still remaining easily playable for Joe Shmoe who can't figure out how to move his villager? Sure. But it's not an easy thing to accomplish.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
I thought ALL players had to get the advance or else it wouldn't work....Because then, each player would get an 'equal' amount of time to build up defensive/offensive forces. |
This can't be the case because then whoever gets there first simply uses the technology to build a large army and puts it on the border. Then his enemy gets the tech and he lays slaughter to them. If his enemy does not get the tech - either on purpose or because he is to slow, the game never ends and so that cannot be what BHG intends.
quote:
So the important question to ask is does RON's "No Rush Til Gunpowder" option satisfy the RTS community's desire for larger battles overall? The answer is yes!
As a side note to this, if you feel the "delayed rush" concept won't be fun, you'll be free not to play with that option in RON. |
Your probably right that this solves the answer to a classic rush. But I do want more. If they are going to say that they have solved rushing then I expect that. Not this but instead some reason why it won't work. Such as better defensive units or that supply lines won't reach. That adds strategic depth to the game and still allows early wars that could knock out a weak opponent without having to simply rush to the higher technology level.
Which brings me to this point:
quote:
Rushing is a legitimate game strategy. Elements of rushing, however, violate my sense of history – which is one of the reasons I play games. Even successful expansionist nations have had difficulty projecting their power far beyond their borders. There comes a time when the momentum of the expansion is exhausted, and force and law strain to maintain imperial cohesion. “Rome wasn’t built in a day,” so, when a single explosive offensive decides the game, it tends to dissipate the aura of history I find enjoyable.. |
Exactly. This is what BHG should be doing to counter rushing. They claim that formations are going to be important. You will be able to control these type things. Terrain is going to be important. Well add these things together and you can see how rushes can be stopped, for the first time in RTS there will actually be a good defensive nature to the game. Add a couple defensive building such as towers and walls and rushes should easily be stopped with a defensive formation. Cities should be easily defended early on with better defensive than offensive units.
Likewise, they have mentioned supply units. Well I don't know how important they will be to the game but an easy way to slow down rushing is make units less strong early in the game being away from there cities. So you can only attack and advance as far as your supply units can move. This again will slow down quick rushes.
What I am saying is that while a timelimit or what not might slow down rushing or cause a new strategic rush, it will not end it or make it more strategic/enjoyable. Instead it is the same whose fastest that it has always been. They should instead look at the things in RoN that could counter rushes thus making them irrelevent with better players and at the same time adding some strategic depth so that you still could fight early battles over resources or for the game if you can build a big enough army.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
So anyone out there at BHG want to weigh in?
We have heard that both defensive formations and supply lines are included in the game. Why not use that to counter rushes?
Simply make defensive formations stronger than attacking early in the game with some buildings that make it harder to attack early. And make it so that you cannot have a long conquest without building an early supply line. This should counter rushing in a strategic non-artificial way. So any thoughts?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Axehilt
|
|
Seattle
May 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
Yeah, I'd agree that the anti-rushing stuff in EE was both void of options and not powerful enough to really allow players to totally reflect a rush. In Starcraft/War3, anti-rush options allow you a decided advantage, giving the advantage to a skilled defensive player who repels against an average rusher. It's also nice to have different anti-rush options for each race you choose, so you're not doing the same exact anti-rush strategies every game.
The thing that bothers me most is if it takes more than 20 minutes to resolve a game between a high-intermediate player and a newbie, like in Age2. Granted, I wasn't the best player out there, but when it takes more than 19 minutes to defeat a newbie because they can garrison in their Town Center, that's simply eating up too much of my time while not having fun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
windupmerchant
|
|
I have been reading this discussion fairly quickly so excuse me if im duplicating what someone else has said.
"No Rush Until Gunpowder"
In my opinion, i don't know if this is why the rule was implimented, but I think that it will give the player more time to build up the appropiate defences to counter the rush not provoke the inevitable rush all togerther. Some players will always want an easy way to win, and theres no way to stop specific tactics completely as there is always generally a way to bend a rule.
Last edited by windupmerchant on 16-07-2002 at 12:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
Looked this thread up to cross refrence with another thread and I noticed this point without any other discussion. Since I think rushing is a huge issue on how RoN turns out, I want to post this response to see if this generates any new discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by windupmerchant
In my opinion, i don't know if this is why the rule was implimented, but I think that it will give the player more time to build up the appropiate defences to counter the rush not provoke the inevitable rush all togerther. Some players will always want an easy way to win, and theres no way to stop specific tactics completely as there is always generally a way to bend a rule. |
I would agree that is the reason the rule has been implemented into the game, what I am saying is that it doesn't work. You look at any game with this type of rule and as soon as the limit goes away the stronger player attacks and usually wins. The stronger opponent will know what he needs to build to launch his attack and will be unconcerned with defense. That is not strategy to me.
Strategy is making a person worry about attacks coming at different times. Making them consider every potential use of resources quickly. Not simply direction troops to rush in a certain direction but to weigh how valuable those troops are. These things add strategic depth as I explain more in depth ealier on in the thread.
To me BHG has not solved rushing. It is ok, no other RTS has satisfactorly done so either. I just think with formations, with supply units, with cities that RoN could be the game where strategy wins out. And the first place that could be seen is with enough options in early game to make viable strategies for attack and defense instead of a hardwired no rushing rule.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Viking Berserk
well, i heard you can limit rush with time too. |
Exact same problem as described before. As soon as the time limit ends someone attacks immediately with huge numbers. It is just not a good addition to the game. There is no added strategy or choices.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rohag
|
|
Perhaps someone from BHG can tell us about how this option is working in their office playtesting...?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Main_Brain
|
|
Economic World Center
Jul 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
I dunno but reread the linw quote:
and you can build some defense fortresses, |
if you are the Player who knows the other one will rush to Gunpowder you have at least a CHANCE to build enuff Defensive structures to fend him off for a while
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Graham@BHG
|
 |
Baltimore
Aug 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
It's a really broad term now. Rushing has come to be used for everything from an attack that you weren't expecting, to an early attack made at the expense of your economy.
I'm not sure if this is the case or not, but it seems that you are under the impression that Gunpowder Age units are amazingly more powerful than those of the Medieval Age. They are stronger, but some are quite costly, take time to upgrade, and are still vulnerable to the appropriate counter units. Being one age behind isn't good, but it's not the end of your game. Building a massive Medieval Age army while you wait for your opponent to spend a ton of resources on getting to Gupowder isn't a bad idea.
The no rush rules give players the exact same amount of peace time to prepare their nations for whatever strategy they want to try. There will be no unexpected attacks until a player reaches the stated Age. If player A was the first to reach the Gunpowder Age, then player B had the same amount of peace time and should not be out of the game. It will take time and resources for player A to upgrade and produce units in order to be able to take advantage of his new age, time that player B can use to deal with the situation if he already isn't advancing himself.
"It just means the faster, more practiced player will always get to that age first with a better infrastructure and be able to build up a massive army quickly and win at the same point every time."
Is that a rush? The only thing that seems unfair about this situation is the match-up with the slower, less practiced player.
A player trying to reach the Gunpowder Age first will not be fooling anyone. His opponent will know when he has reached the Medieval Age (a message pops up, "Player A has researched Medieval Age", or something like that) and should expect him to advance again within X number of minutes and be ready to defend or attack or advance in age himself. Medieval Age units are not totally out classed by early Gunpowder units, so the game will not be over in a flash of unbalanced units.
On rushing in general: one reason that rushing has been very successful in RTS games is that players can forward build. You can't build barracks and stables right near an enemy city in Rise of Nations. Your reinforcements don't appear right on the front lines like in some other games, so they must march from your territory. (possibly taking attrition damage along the way) A defenders reinforcements will emerge much closer to the battle and be able to engage more quickly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
arstal
|
|
Well- right now RON and Kohan II are competing for my dollar pretty closely. I have interest in both. I may even get both... Just as long as one is out before 2004 I'll be happy though.
It's largely going to come down to whether RON is not much more economic management then Kohan was. I will not be happy if it takes as much micro as AOK-type games do.
A lot of this is in response to Graham's comments:
Lack of forward building could give a huge bonus to cavalry-type units for raiding. I am making the assumption that a person's might will be largely decentralized, so you can't be everywhere at once.
The no rush option will not work as a no rush option. All it will do is change the rush to a gunpowder-era rush, which may be one of many things. It may have benefits as a variant- but I really don't think rushing will be a problem if defenses are balanced with offense.
Attrition damage sounds very interesting- wonder if there will be doctrines to reduce it.
Even with the knowledge you won't be attacked for x minutes- you will still feel rushed for time building your econ/defenses/infra up.
As for your last paragraph: you just about described one of the core elements of the gameplay of Kohan: it's almost identical. (Great minds think alike sometimes)
I really think Kohan II vs RoN will be a hot topic next year. (Assuming Kohan II is an improvement over the original) I'm sure they'll both be MUCH better then WC3/AOM though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Graham@BHG
|
|
Baltimore
Aug 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
"I will not be happy if it takes as much micro as AOK-type games do."
One of our goals is to reduce micro-management and allow the player to focus on the big picture. Villagers will be able to find work for themselves around your cities if you don't assign them anything to do. Not having to take yourself away from a battle or construction of a new city to task a bunch of idle villagers elsewhere is a real joy for me.
"Lack of forward building could give a huge bonus to cavalry-type units for raiding. I am making the assumption that a person's might will be largely decentralized, so you can't be everywhere at once."[i]
Cavalry units are certainly a great choice for raiding, and you are correct that it is difficult for players to defend a large empire. There is only so much damage raids can do though, before they run into defensive structures and or counter units. (towers, forts, cities) Then it's time to bring in the big guns.
[i]"All it will do is change the rush to a gunpowder-era rush..."
Being the first to the specified Age to break the peace isn't always an advantage. If it were an advantage in a certain game, each player has had the same amount of time to build up, it probably won't be an advantage for very long.
There is a lot of strategy to when you advance in Age and with what types of units, buildings, and resources you have at your disposal. Winning a game while behind an Age isn't the ideal situation, but it is possible.
"Even with the knowledge you won't be attacked for x minutes- you will still feel rushed for time building your econ/defenses/infra up."
No rush rules weren't meant to take the feeling of being rushed out of the game. Isn't that part of the nature and excitement of RTS games? The thrill of seeing that counter tick down and knowing that in a short time peace will end. You and your opponent will be locked in a throw down, what did you call me, knock down, drag out fight to the finish.
The rules allow you to start that fight on your own terms. There isn't going to be anyone to raid you or perform any sort of sudden/unexpected attacks while you build up for the conflict that's to come.
"...you just about described one of the core elements of the gameplay of Kohan..."
I have never played Kohan. (I'm ashamed to admit) I'll have to remedy that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
arstal
|
|
-Please don't take any of this as criticism.
"I will not be happy if it takes as much micro as AOK-type games do."
One of our goals is to reduce micro-management and allow the player to focus on the big picture. Villagers will be able to find work for themselves around your cities if you don't assign them anything to do. Not having to take yourself away from a battle or construction of a new city to task a bunch of idle villagers elsewhere is a real joy for me.
-That is a plus, though there would have to be a way to issue "general orders" to make sure the AI does the right thing. Otherwise- your villagers may do something you don't need- like build roads all over the place. Automation preference hotkeys might be a solution.
"Lack of forward building could give a huge bonus to cavalry-type units for raiding. I am making the assumption that a person's might will be largely decentralized, so you can't be everywhere at once."[i]
Cavalry units are certainly a great choice for raiding, and you are correct that it is difficult for players to defend a large empire. There is only so much damage raids can do though, before they run into defensive structures and or counter units. (towers, forts, cities) Then it's time to bring in the big guns.
-Will cavalry have any affect against those? Historically, they had little. Mechanics-wise, I've never seen a game do that. If units have upkeep (and they should)- their econ will be so degraded that it won't matter too much.
[i]"All it will do is change the rush to a gunpowder-era rush..."
Being the first to the specified Age to break the peace isn't always an advantage. If it were an advantage in a certain game, each player has had the same amount of time to build up, it probably won't be an advantage for very long.
There is a lot of strategy to when you advance in Age and with what types of units, buildings, and resources you have at your disposal. Winning a game while behind an Age isn't the ideal situation, but it is possible.
-I can see "artifical" strats where you make a ton of units and try to ignore the tech, then attack as soon as the other person gets it. I do not oppose the option being in the game, as I think it is interesting- but I don't think it will have an anti-rush effect.
"Even with the knowledge you won't be attacked for x minutes- you will still feel rushed for time building your econ/defenses/infra up."
No rush rules weren't meant to take the feeling of being rushed out of the game. Isn't that part of the nature and excitement of RTS games? The thrill of seeing that counter tick down and knowing that in a short time peace will end. You and your opponent will be locked in a throw down, what did you call me, knock down, drag out fight to the finish.
- Actually, no. Part of the fun of RTSes (the good ones, which there aren't that many- it's the hardest genre to do right) is trying to guess your opponent- and how much time you'll have to develop and build a counter army, or how much time he'll be vulnerable, and can you send enough in that time. Kohan's solution to the rush was to give each town militia, and require units to heal in zones of supply- though they had AI scripting problems that allowed players to use one company to draw off the town, then the others attacked the town directly (the infamous "townsteal" exploit- which was banned in MP games as a house rule) Usually the only rushes good players worry about are in team games, where one is scouted, and the others gang up on him. If a person is rushed 1 on 1, it usually means there is a big difference in building ability (due to luck, skill, or oth), or the other person guessed totally wrong.
The rules allow you to start that fight on your own terms. There isn't going to be anyone to raid you or perform any sort of sudden/unexpected attacks while you build up for the conflict that's to come.
- couldn't some annoying little twit just refuse to build to gunpowder though? I can see some less mature players doing that.
"...you just about described one of the core elements of the gameplay of Kohan..."
I have never played Kohan. (I'm ashamed to admit) I'll have to remedy that.
- I'd recommend it. RoN in terms of everything I've heard is similar in terms of gameplay, though Kohan went in a different direction.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Miha
|
|
I havent read all youre post (sorry for that)
yes firstly novice players (like me) will loose but in time skills will come to them/us we will play more to train.
I would say give only some peace time that players can choose from 0 min to 2 hours or more I dont know. If there would play skilfull players they may play without any pt at all. But not to much defending buildings
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-06-2002 23:31
|