 |
|
Bridger
|
|
ok, so say civ3 and AoK have the same ammount of strategy. The problem is that with AoK you need perfect hand-eye coordination to implement that strategy, which makes hand-eye coordination more important. You can still coordinate a bad strategy very quickly, but without speed in the first place your strategy doesn't get implemented. Therefore speed is more important that strategy in AoK. See how that works?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PrinceBimz
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bridger
Don't mislead people Enriquillo, if you don't have a navy your enemy will own those transports. Transports are weak and slow. Any castles/towers on the coast will probably kill half your invasion force if you don't bring a navy along, and if the enemy is blockading your island with patroling boats he'll find and kill 3/4 of your invasion force if you don't have a navy to defend it. |
This is exactly true!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Enriquillo
|
|
Holland
Nov 2001
time: 06:28
|
|
Hand eye coordination isn't nearly as important as you guys make it out to be.
You just need to play clever and use a few hotkeys. I've always been a slow player, yet I've made it to inter level in AoK.
Sure speed plays a role, but a minor one. Focus and strategy are way more important.
As for autotransporting, you don't seem to get the point.
Say your main force is on a far away island and you need to get them off that island quickly. You just sail across with your 50 unit army. Most likely 40 or so will make it even if there are a few enemy ships there.
But that's not the issue, the issue is that it's unrealistic to be able to sail across without even as much as a single dock in sight.
The strategy part of watermaps involves thinking ahead, bringing a few transports and probably a navy to defend them. It's called logistics and it makes a watermap much more 'strategic'.
Also, there's no wait time for units to turn into transports, they just instantly transform which I think is very unrealistic.
Healing units should probably be a bit easier, I like the way EE handled it, you could either build hospitals or medics for healing purposes. The hospitals especially made the homeground advantage so much more real.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bridger
|
|
"rememebering" to bring transports is strategy? I'd call it common sense...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chronus
|
|
Nice article, Yin. 
I was wondering if you, or anybody else, would be willing to elaborate more on the economic, "peaceful playing" aspect of the game . . . if, indeed, anything more can be said. Incidentally, if you have ever played 1602, I'd be curious to know if you enjoyed or disliked the game.
I don't know how long or how much you've been playing this game but I find your support rather . . . bold. I say this because I noticed, in the GalCiv forum, that you've appeared to have taken a different viewpoint of that game after your initial "love feast" with it (not that you're no longer supporting it). I suppose time has a way of revealing things that even the best, most scrutinizing efforts cannot do.
And finally, (a bit off topic here) considering your mediocre fondness for Civ 3, I find it interesting and ironic that some of your main points, such as borders and resources, can be applicable to Civ 3 (in my opinion). But, as I said, this is rather off topic . . . the Civ 3 debates have long been over with. 
Thanks for your (and everyone else's) input! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I'll be the troll:
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
While I could go on here, I'd sum up RON like this: Far more strategic possibility with far less *physical* work.
|
I agree that this sums up Rise of Nations well. However, there is very little that's really new, and so I feel like this one can be filed under the "another RTS" category. As time progresses the better the games in a specific genre will become (at least we all hope); this game is good, better than its predecessors in some ways, but nothing to get too excited about.
Some comments in specific (by the way, I've played quite a bit of the demo):
quote:
As you might guess, borders signify the edge of an empire's territory, and in this case you simply can't build anything if it isn't your land you're building on!
|
I agree that this is an elegant solution to a problem that has plagued TBS games for a long. Unfortunately, it is not much more than a solution, and offers no major strategic implications (yes, even Attrition, but I'll get to that).
quote:
Many games have tried to tackle this problem with things like not being able to build something beyond a certain distance of another of your buildings, but players would simply build an insignificant building as far forward as possible and leap frog.
|
You can do this "leap frog" strategy in RoN, so I fail to see how this solution is any better in this respect.
quote:
The entire map is *not* your playground in RON. If you want those resources, you've got to expand your borders.
|
I admit that this makes the games more "coherent", as there will not be patches of civilization all over the map. Strategic implications? Strategy is actually reduced: you have fewer options of where to gather resources; scouting is also a lot less important.
quote:
So, expansion is no longer taken for granted ... it's earned and, quite frankly, demanding in interesting strategic ways.
|
This was true in all other RTS games as well; if you wanted that Gold Mine up fast, you had to be prepared to defend it from potential raids.
quote:
Adding to a border’s significance in a clever and 'realistic' way is the introduction of attrition, which only affects your units on enemy land. This affect is lessened if you have a supply line unit along; this unit is only available with the proper techs, of course.
|
Most RTS battles involve large strikes instead of extended campaigns in enemy territory. I fail to see how Attrition does anything but support this fact. To me, Attrition was nothing more than a nuisance when going on the offensive.
quote:
In RON, however, your ability to gather resources is much more limited and, therefore, strategically important. With wood, for example, a wood camp highlights a section of forest that can be harvested, and the size of that section determines absolutely how many workers can be assigned. Past that number and any peon assigned there is wasted. The implication? You've got to command more real-estate, which means you've got to always worry about those borders. The theme here is becoming clear ...
|
This also was already true in most TBS games; eventually you had to find other sources of certain resources, which meant you had to go out and claim new sites and defend them. The introduction of borders just means you do this in a more linear fashion (instead of getting that Gold Mine on the other side of the map).
quote:
Yes, gone are the days when brutes alone rule the landscape. If you aren't stocking your universities with scholars, might as well quit! Knowledge points are your key to advancing in any number of technologies, and while these are gathered automatically at schools at a rate dependent on the number of limited scholar slots you fill, it adds to the sense that thinking is somehow just as important as fighting.
|
Most recent TBS games have had included a heavy focus on progress (improving your units in Warcraft 3, getting to Castles in Age of Kings, etc.).
quote:
Remember, after all, that in many RTSs you are encouraged to slop workers this way and that, exponentially adding to the clutter and time needed to manage it all.
|
Actually, it seemd to me that this was still present in RoN. Just because a Lumber Mill can only support 5 Peons does not mean you can only build one of them! From my minimal play experience, it seems like there's even more of an "he who practices at generating a huge economy will win" effect, unlike Warcraft 3 for instance (where economy was actually a secondary concern after the first 3 minutes).
quote:
Now add in your army general and things become very interesting. Like a 'hero' in other RTSs, the general gives nearby units unique abilities, such as entrenchment and forced march.
|
I've not played with the combat options much, so I have no real comment here. But it seems to me like like the abilities that the Generals get are copies of abilites available in other RTS games (Ambush is Invisibility, etc.).
quote:
1. Expansion isn't some automatic benefit of swamping the map with as many units as you can squeeze on the map. Not only are you limited by how many workers can be on any given work spot at a time, but the population limit (200) itself insures that between workers, scholars, caravans, merchants and soldiers that you'll find yourself in a delicate balancing act between pushing for expansion and being able to defend what you've just expanded.
|
There is a reasonable pop limit in most RTS games. As I said above, I believe RoN is just as much about covering the map as other RTS games were, if not more. What would Civ be without REX?
quote:
3. Resource gathering now plays with much greater intelligence with much less trouble. More thinking and planning, less clicking and map clutter.
|
I'm not sure why you need more thinking and planning. If you're almost out of Wood, expand your borders and claim that patch of Forest, just make sure you defend it. Standard fare.
quote:
And as players learn these fine points, I think we'll begin to see the true genius at Big Huge Games that is bringing something tremendously important to the RTS genre: Strategy! Yes, the "S" in RTS is often called "speed" instead, but RON --even if it doesn't eliminate the importance of speed-- brings the "s"trategy in more focus than any other RTS I have played.
|
Now, I'm not saying this will not be a good game, gameplay-wise. I'm sure many people will spend hours playing online without getting bored. But is RoN revolutionary; does it add much to the genre? My opinion is "no" on both counts. IMO it's nothing more than some Civ concepts applied to RTS, which end up not altering the genre all that much. I'll keep playing, because I could very well be wrong. But if I want to play a RTS, I see no reason to pay money for this one, instead of going back to the many many that already exist.
quote:
P.S. As for the graphics, I think they are wonderfully animated. The entire scene has a truly organic feel to it. Sure, these are not the best graphics on the market from a whiz-bang perspective, but they are fast graphics (zoom in and out is instantaneous, etc.) that are full of wonderful details in their own right.
|
My sound screwed up every time I zoomed in. Not a complaint, just something for the bug reports.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rohag
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Leonidas
But for those of us who are a bit older (and are not as fast with the mouse trigger) it can be down-right irritating (even with a pause button - because you are always hitting the pause button). |
As enthusiastic as I am about RoN, I do have the same problems and continue to experiment with game settings to find the most satisfying way to play.
FWIW, one of the things I have found enjoyable in historical games in general is the experience of taking an inherently chaotic situation - war, politics, history, dismantling it and looking at it "frame by frame." When that kind of recreational dissection turns into repeatedly cycling through 150 units and cities, though, it ceases to be fun. It's also no fun for me when the frames go by so fast decision and execution lose their distinction and the procession of situations blurs such that I cannot grasp and enjoy any. The pause function goes only so far to remedy this.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bridger
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
You can do this "leap frog" strategy in RoN, so I fail to see how this solution is any better in this respect. |
But in other games the "leap frog" used very cheap buildings, thus you could leap frog very quickly and cheaply (say the silo in C&C games). In RoN, you can only expand borders with a city or castle, both of which are not cheap buildings. Thus leap frog is "posible" but not "probable" as a strategy.
quote:
I admit that this makes the games more "coherent", as there will not be patches of civilization all over the map. Strategic implications? Strategy is actually reduced: you have fewer options of where to gather resources; scouting is also a lot less important. |
Actually, that makes scouting MORE important. Where do you want to expand on your first city? You have to scout to find a good mountain (rare on some maps) or patch of forest (rare on some maps). You have to scout to determine where to put your next city. You can't just plop it down anywhere on the edge of your borders. If you place economic buildings outside the city radius they don't get the bonus of the economic upgrade buildings, so you alaways want your cities placed opimally to take advantage of the most resourses in the area.
quote:
how Attrition does anything but support this fact. To me, Attrition was nothing more than a nuisance when going on the offensive. |
If you play against the russians or somebody who's built the colloseum/kremlin it's certainly not just anoying, it's completely deliberating. And even without those, if your playing against somebody who's keeping up with their attrition tech (maybe your oponant only researched 1 or 2 levels?) then your army will probably loose 25% of it's health on the attack. Even if you win, you will be very vulnerable to a counter-attack. A person playing without the aid of supply wagons (as long as they arn't mongols) WILL loose against an equally skilled player. I feel that says enough about the effectivness of attrition as anythign else.
quote:
I've not played with the combat options much, so I have no real comment here. But it seems to me like like the abilities that the Generals get are copies of abilites available in other RTS games (Ambush is Invisibility, etc.). |
Well yeah, but what's wrong with that? A good idea is still a good idea...
quote:
There is a reasonable pop limit in most RTS games. As I said above, I believe RoN is just as much about covering the map as other RTS games were, if not more. What would Civ be without REX? |
Territory should be the most important strategic goal of every RTS game IMHO. It controls resourses and direction of attack along with population. In fact most every war in history was a territory dispute, so it makes sense to me that territory is important.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cpbeller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Now, I'm not saying this will not be a good game, gameplay-wise. I'm sure many people will spend hours playing online without getting bored. But is RoN revolutionary; does it add much to the genre? My opinion is "no" on both counts. IMO it's nothing more than some Civ concepts applied to RTS, which end up not altering the genre all that much. I'll keep playing, because I could very well be wrong. But if I want to play a RTS, I see no reason to pay money for this one, instead of going back to the many many that already exist.
Dominae |
Yeah, but the thing about RoN...all the many many that already exist is present in one game of RoN....Sure, RoN may not bring a new game to the board....but it takes everything that was good in the other games, and forms a great game...the good things in AoK, the good things in EE, the good things in C&C....all the good things are in one game....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
G to the rant
|
|
The reason I am buying this game is that there is a great deal of customization. Also the fact that you don't have to level an entire city to take it, just get rid of the military buildings and units and fend off the attackers and the city is yours. I also think that they should make
a patch to fix the healing of buildings!!!!
Thanks for reading.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:28
|
|
Wow, guess I need to get Internet access from home so I can keep up with threads on the weekends! LOL!
Whitra:
quote:
Thanks for the spiel, Yin, I'm playing the game in a completely different light since reading that. |
Interesting! In what ways? I guess the more important question is: does the game play differently for you now ... hopefully more rewarding? Or have these changes not made much difference?
Enriquillo:
quote:
And finally, Yin , what makes you think AoK is a thing of the past. There are still thousands of online players everyday playing a variety of different setts and maps. |
Yes, I didn't mean to give that impression. I dropped out of the scene a while ago because of work, life, etc., so I honestly wouldn't know how popular AoK is still. I'm happy to hear that it's going strong! I looked at AoM and thought "Naw, I like the 'reality' of AoK much better." Reality here just refers to the types of units, etc.
I was part of the Mystics clan for a while. It was fun.
Rohag:
quote:
Absolutely sterling essay, yin26! |
Well thank you, sir!
Tassadar5000:
quote:
I DEMAND THAT YIN MAKE AN INCREDIBLE RATING MACHINE FOR RON!!!! |
LOL! Oh, Lord. Those things take so much time to make!!! But if you're serious, I'll do one.
Chronus:
quote:
I was wondering if you, or anybody else, would be willing to elaborate more on the economic, "peaceful playing" aspect of the game . . . if, indeed, anything more can be said. Incidentally, if you have ever played 1602, I'd be curious to know if you enjoyed or disliked the game. |
Well, as in most games (TBS and RTS) of this kind, money rules everything. RoN is no different *except* that money in particular cannot be gained simply by claiming gold mines. You've got to secure resources (spice, salt, etc.) with vulnerable merchants and caravans -- but these have to be in your borders. I think what this does is to force players to have much more map awareness and planning to hold those parts of the map early. I'll write more about this in a reply to something else below.
quote:
I don't know how long or how much you've been playing this game but I find your support rather . . . bold. I say this because I noticed, in the GalCiv forum, that you've appeared to have taken a different viewpoint of that game after your initial "love feast" with it (not that you're no longer supporting it). |
Fair point. I will go back and keep adding to the GalCiv stuff. Really I shouldn't have come straight to Poly after completing a Gigantic map! I was tired and, to be honest, annoyed at Metaverse and a number of UI issues in the game. I should have said more clearly that I think GalCiv wasn't designed for the Gigantic map: you run through techs too fast, the distances you have to cover don't match ship speeds, etc.
I do think, though, that Brad is making an amazing effort to listen to fan feedback and make changes. The core design of GalCiv is still strong enough to make it, indeed, on of the finest strategy games ever. I know that's a bold claim, but I'll stick by it! No doubt, though, the game needs some serious tweaking, otherwise, like I wrote, I'd probably stop playing simply because it's too easy to manipulate the AI on larger maps. Having said that, I think the smaller maps are much, much better experience.
As for RoN, it's too early to say that it will be well liked by many ("many" here meaning on the scale of AoK, Warcraft, etc.). I'm actually quite worried that it will be seen as too clumsy for the hard-core RTS crowd and too click-festy for the hard-core TBS crowd. In other words, I think it might become a niche game unless the support is very good ... which I'm betting it will be.
Leonidas:
quote:
Another well-written review. I'm glad to see that you are in top form. |
Much appreciated!
Sirotnikov:
quote:
I was very hopeful about RON, but to have such a favourable review by the guard dog of strategic gaming on Apolyton (Yin's Civ III review, anyone? ) is amazing. |
...blush... Well, please do remember that I'm just some guy with a computer and that my gaming preferences no doubt color how I see the game. As I hope I made clear in my preview, the game is only at its best when you explore the strategic possibilities these new design elements allow. If you don't do that, I'm afraid RON comes off as really no different from what we've seen before ... perhaps even done much better with the likes of AoK.
Still, if my post helped you decide to at least give the game a fair try, that's great! And I'm sure BHG is going to give stellar support, so the game will only get better in coming months.
Dominae
Actually, I don't see your posts as trolling at all! In fact, I think you raise many good points, which is why I left your post for last.
quote:
However, there is very little that's really new, and so I feel like this one can be filed under the "another RTS" category...but nothing to get too excited about. |
Actually, you are right, especially insofar as what RoN does offer has to be explored and utilized *in-game* -- I used the words 'subtle' and 'nuanced' in my preview many times, so I hope I'm not misleading anybody. Dominae is right that little here is new, but I guess the things that are new seem, to me, rather exciting even if they don't hit you on the head with a big stick.
quote:
Unfortunately, [borders] is not much more than a solution, and offers no major strategic implications (yes, even Attrition, but I'll get to that). |
Interesting. Well, I think that borders has such a profound strategic implication that it's one of the main reasons I'm so happy with the game and its potential! Particularly regarding gold-generating resources, oil, etc., which are vital to your survival. In other games, I could just walk an army anywhere on the map and get these things ... better yet, I could sneak a single villager onto a corner of your backyard and start taking gold from you (if you aren't watching, which many people don't until too late).
A good example is a game I had against the AI last night: I couldn't figure out why the comp. wasn't coming at me harder and earlier. So I watched the replay: there were 3 major resources in the dead center of the map. I had been consious of those from the early game and push my borders in that direction, towered them up, etc. As it turns out, this left the comp starving for trade routes! I had effectively won the game by map control alone.
In another RTS, even if I did virtually the same thing, the only thing stopping my opponent from getting at those resources would be to take down my towers and go for it. Of course, I'd have some troops defending, and we'd be in a battle. For some, this is a preferred way. But in RoN, his forces alone can't take back those resources until his borders expand over them. So while he could certainly kill my caravan (this did happen a time or two), he's still got the larger problem of having to expand his border. This, to me, means he's got larger strategic planning to consider.
I realize, of course, that this is perhaps a nuance many people don't see as a big deal. Well, then, call me crazy!
quote:
You can do this "leap frog" strategy in RoN, so I fail to see how this solution is any better in this respect. |
In RoN, the only buildings that push out your influence (unless I'm wrong) are forts/castles. So you can't just build a granary next to your border and have the border expand. This is quite a difference, IMO.
quote:
Strategy is actually reduced: you have fewer options of where to gather resources; scouting is also a lot less important. |
Fewer options here means, to me, fewer options for simply slathering the map with villies and hoping some of them stick! It also means that focussed raids on the enemy can make a huge impact. In AoK, for example, it was rather easy (once you'd played for months, so 'easy' is a relative term, I suppose) to have the map simply so crawling will resource-gathering villies, that a raid on any one or two or three parts of the map often made no difference.
As for scouting, this is where I come back to the trade resources, which are absolutely vital to your efforts. So much so that if I scout and find these early enough, preferably even capturing some by pushing my borders forward and taking some away from the enemy in that way, I've made a huge leap forward. Scouting is also vital for the raiding purposes! If I see where the enemy is getting his metal ... and then deny him that resource even for a few minutes by raiding, I'd tipped the scales in my favor.
quote:
This was true [importance of expansion] in all other RTS games as well; if you wanted that Gold Mine up fast, you had to be prepared to defend it from potential raids. |
Yes, and I guess an important difference, again, is that you can only get gold through trade. You can only get any of these things if they are in your borders. But, as you say, in any RTS expansion is crucial...I guess I just see RoN's model as a more interesting one.
quote:
Most RTS battles involve large strikes instead of extended campaigns in enemy territory. I fail to see how Attrition does anything but support this fact. To me, Attrition was nothing more than a nuisance when going on the offensive. |
Certainly if the enemy has researched the higher attrition techs, it makes a huge difference. I think Brian wanted to make an RTS in which it would be more costly to simply horde units, lose them all, and repeat. So far I think I've had to be a bit more cautious in losing units, and attrition plays a part in that.
However, you are right that the effect seems dulled down. Perhaps this will be more noticeable in a patch or two?
quote:
Most recent TBS games have had included a heavy focus on progress (improving your units in Warcraft 3, getting to Castles in Age of Kings, etc.). |
Oh, I certainly don't mean to say RoN's implemenation on progress through various ages is new. Heck no! It's virtually a complete copy of Age of Kings. What I mean to say, though, is that something like knowledge requires you to use up population slots and investment in order to do your advancing.
And remember: In AoK, you could buy any resource you needed to advance an age. In RoN, knowledge is not for sale!
quote:
Actually, it seemd to me that this was still present in RoN. Just because a Lumber Mill can only support 5 Peons does not mean you can only build one of them! |
Actually, a moutain, for example, can only support one mine. Forests are very limited in the number you can place as well. This kind of limitation is found throughout the game: one university per city, for example. Much, much different from any RTS I've seen in this regard.
quote:
I've not played with the combat options much, so I have no real comment here. But it seems to me like like the abilities that the Generals get are copies of abilites available in other RTS games (Ambush is Invisibility, etc.). |
Fair enough. I'm just glad RoN has them!
quote:
There is a reasonable pop limit in most RTS games. As I said above, I believe RoN is just as much about covering the map as other RTS games were, if not more. What would Civ be without REX? |
It absolutely *is* about covering the map, it's just that the mechanisms you use to do so are different in RoN. Sure, simply killing the enemy will help expand borders, but against a like-skilled player, simply killing won't be so easy. You'll need to pay attention to more facets of your economy, and more focus on a particular section of the map you want expanded, in order to gain the edge.
quote:
I'm not sure why you need more thinking and planning. If you're almost out of Wood, expand your borders and claim that patch of Forest, just make sure you defend it. Standard fare. |
...because expanding a particular part of the map won't be so easy if your opponent is savvy!
quote:
IMO it's nothing more than some Civ concepts applied to RTS, which end up not altering the genre all that much. I'll keep playing, because I could very well be wrong. But if I want to play a RTS, I see no reason to pay money for this one, instead of going back to the many many that already exist. |
This, of course, is my worry ... that the things RoN has to offer will not be given enough chance to be perfected by players. It's an understandable reaction, of course, but I hope folks will begin to submit recorded games that show some of this in action.
Still, I also think that for many it might be too little in an over-tired RTS market.
Last edited by yin26 on 19-05-2003 at 18:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:28
|
|
First let me thank everyone for the comments and reviews so far. It is really helpful.
I spent a good deal of my weekend playing the demo, (after 10 hours of downloading while I slept Thursday night) and I have several questions reguarding the game that will help me to decide whether to buy or not.
First and foremost, I liked the additions of boarders and some of the other features like wonders, but this alone is not enough to make me buy the game. There are plenty of things I still need to learn as well, notably the generals and formations I have not had time to play around with. Reguarding attrition, I like the idea, but I would have prefered the reverse that is used in the Kohan series (your units HEAL within your boarders *called 'supply' in that series, but the boarders would be a better use of this to prevent some of the cheaper strategies like pushing buildings as yin has already alluded to)
I was testing out both some rushing and some massing, and both seemed to work well against the AI at least. Stands to reason then that they would work against at least inexperienced Human opponents as well, perhaps even experienced players, too soon for me to tell (I don't have MP in the demo). the boarders AND attrition were both compensated by taking out the poorly defended towns, and later capturing them after assimilation. A good focus on the town will instantly push back the boarder once the town is captured, and attrition did not hurt THAT much especially early in the game. It also seemed that CAPTURING a town did not count to your total# of allowed towns, making early capture even more of an appealing option for land-grabbing.
I have largely gone away from RTS's lately, seeing them as generally shallow in gmeplay, they soon lose my interest. One notable exception is the Total War series. I enjoy the RT battles that it presents with heavy enphasis on positioning your army, flanking, and such, but they could use some more in depth gameplay instead of the rock-paper-scissors unit matchups that occur. RoN seems to offer more choice in terms of TYPES of units, but I am unable to test out the Conquer the World section.
How does it compare to the Total War series campaigns? How long is it? (# of turns, etc)
This section is one most likely to influence my own decision as my dial up connection is unlikely to be able to really support serious MP, which also looks promising.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
yin26, thanks for addressing my points. Due to lack of more experience with the game, I'm forcing myself not to get too opiniated; who knows, I might end up loving RoN! I guess my initial reaction to the game was negative, while yours was positive.
Let me just push one point, though: are Forts and Cities that expensive to build? I know you need a bunch of Civics techs to build more cities, but I played an hour-long game and could build more than enough cities to expand my borders to cover enough land to be competitive. And on the "front lines' I just put Forts, to expand my borders for conquering enemy settlements. My point is that, since expansion is a good idea on economic grounds, it also being strategically important on cultural grounds (borders) is a moot point. When you do one, you get the other "for free". If Forts and Cities were really expensive, the borders aspect would suddenly be a lot more interesting.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bridger
|
|
The TBS element of RoN is not quite that of TW series. Think of CtW as an expanded risk game. It's got a lot of nice new additions (aliances, buying territory, buying cards, resoures and supply points) but does not include the same level of depth that the TW series had. You don't pick your generals or create economies in the provinces or create troops.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
albiedamned
|
|
Ellicott City, MD
Sep 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
[SIZE=1] Let me just push one point, though: are Forts and Cities that expensive to build? I know you need a bunch of Civics techs to build more cities, but I played an hour-long game and could build more than enough cities to expand my borders to cover enough land to be competitive. And on the "front lines' I just put Forts, to expand my borders for conquering enemy settlements. My point is that, since expansion is a good idea on economic grounds, it also being strategically important on cultural grounds (borders) is a moot point. When you do one, you get the other "for free". If Forts and Cities were really expensive, the borders aspect would suddenly be a lot more interesting.
|
If I am reading the xml files correctly, then the first city you build (the second overall) will cost 60f, 60t but each successive city after that will cost 50f, 50t more than the previous one. So the next one will be 110f, 110t, then 160f, 160t etc. In my opinion these costs aren't too high since food and timber are the most common resources and you generally have more and more of them as the game goes on. Forts, on the other hand, start out very expensive at 100g, 300m (I have found it's very hard to amass that much metal early on), with each successive fort costing 25g, 75m more than the previous one. Thus the metal costs skyrocket quickly.
So overall it's not too expensive to push your territory with new cities (provided you keep advancing in civic research as well), but protecting those new cities with forts or just using forts to push your borders is tough to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
|
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:28
|
|
Domniae:
Actually, I think your reaction will be the more common one! There's no doubt in my mind that BHG took a big risk in trying to take on the RTS market. What I think that means, though, is they'll be superb about patching (one already came out!) and listening to the fans on how to improve the gameplay. Well, that's the most obvious strategy they could use to win market share...
On the fortress question, metal is really your most limiting factor. But I also see it as a sort of game of chess because if the other guy also puts up a fort/castle, you cancel each other out. Furthermore, artillery has a long range in this game. I was able last night to pound the enemy from a good distance, forcing him to bring over tanks, etc., to try to stop the bombardment. So it's rather easy to lose forts, etc., to such tactics if you aren't ready ... in other words, you can't just push a fort and be done with it.
Of course what happens is really good players begin to design the 'killer build order' so that they practice and practice and practice villie assignments to have enough metal to push forts and, therefore, borders earlier and earlier. But this at least still seems a whole lot more fair than allowing a person to build stuff right on top of you from the very start of the game!
Again, subtle stuff. Maybe I'm too easily pleased? Naw!!!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-05-2003 09:21
|