Eh. That does no justice to either game/mod. But DoD IS the best HL mod EVAR, even though it looks dreadful.
I hear they have fixed the nadebugs on Avalanche & other levels, and the Garand’s gonna load faster. And it’s got the British!
Does anyone know if they are using the AoE engine? There are so many simularities that I’d be surprised if it’s not that engine revamped.
Definitely not. Personally I would say there were more differences between RoN and AoE, and the similarities are mostly superficial or common to all RTS games.
The warning is that the acid in the cranberry juice would curddle the milk!
Exactly. Anyone that hasn’t tried this before is welcome to give it a shot. I hope you like Rise of Nations more than you like the results of this experiment, though… ;)
I liked the RoN beta I played, but the game does have more micromanagement than I prefer.
The dynamic campaign part of the game seems like it could be interesting. It wasn’t working for me in the beta – couldn’t save – but I fooled around with it a bit. I’m glad to get away from canned missions.
Could i ask a few about RoN?
Does attrition really matter or is it simply a +1/-1 affair; that is, just a seesaw between attrition and anti-attrition technologies? Does it get better (logical) or worse (ahistoric) later in the game (in general)? Is Russia the coolest civ?
Soft counters (Age of X) or Hard counters (Empire Earth)?
Which game am i like the most: Seven Kingdoms, Cossacks, Civilization, Age of Kings, Empire Earth, Leisure Suit Larry?
Can i capture cities instead of destroying them, i.e., civ vs. age?
Is technology simply a researchable upgrade or a strategic decision? Is the whole tech tree accessable or only portions of it? (For ex., Empire Earth had tons of techs but you generally just researched them all without much thought as they became available. Even in multiplayer you would get most techs once past the rushing early game.)
Are Generals and Spies essential or merely complementary elements? That is, do you have to make them every game (like War3 Heroes) or are they just helpful additions to certain strategies?[/list]
Does attrition really matter or is it simply a +1/-1 affair; that is, just a seesaw between attrition and anti-attrition technologies? Does it get better (logical) or worse (ahistoric) later in the game (in general)? Is Russia the coolest civ?
Attrition works best at limiting early encounters to simply raiding, rather than full onslaughts. It doesn’t prevent full scale altogether, but it does reduce their effectiveness, and give the advantage to the defender. Once the Middle Ages has been reached, you can build Supply Wagons, which negate the effect of attrition. As long as you are careful to have a Supply Wagon or two around, then there is little need to worry about attrition, so it is definitely an early game issue.
Soft counters (Age of X) or Hard counters (Empire Earth)?
I’m not sure what you are talking about, as those terms are meaningless to me. Empire Earth operated on a fairly straight-forward scissors-paper-stone system, that translated itself through every age, making it a reasonably easy job of remembering which unit countered what. The Age series operates a more complicated system, which it can afford to with less ages, but still used the scissors-paper-stone system underneath (archers-kill-pikemen-kill-knights-kill-archers). From what I have seen RoN lies somewhere between the two, perhaps closer to AoK.
Which game am i like the most: Seven Kingdoms, Cossacks, Civilization, Age of Kings, Empire Earth, Leisure Suit Larry?
For me, it is like Civilization meets Age of Kings. It’s like someone took the macro elements of Civilization, and zoomed into their micro level, and put them into an eminently understandable and finely crafted RTS engine.
Can i capture cities instead of destroying them, i.e., civ vs. age?
Yes.
Is technology simply a researchable upgrade or a strategic decision? Is the whole tech tree accessable or only portions of it? (For ex., Empire Earth had tons of techs but you generally just researched them all without much thought as they became available. Even in multiplayer you would get most techs once past the rushing early game.)
You have to research all of the library techs in order to advance, but the order in which you do so, is where the strategy lies. You can research along just one line, and ignore others, but it is usually a bad idea, and advancing ages requires you have a certain number of pre-requisite technologies. There are other technologies besides the library, such as economic techs in the lumber yards, etc, which double as military bonuses. These, however, aren’t essential to progress. Overall I would say that technology in RoN is more important than in AoK and EE.
Are Generals and Spies essential or merely complementary elements? That is, do you have to make them every game (like War3 Heroes) or are they just helpful additions to certain strategies?
I’ve not really played it enough to give a reasonable answer here, but it does seem that the Generals give a significant boost to the effectiveness of troops in battle.
Thx for the indepth replies.
Ive don’t think there is a consensus opinion on what constitutes a soft vs. hard counter; in my mind a soft counter is one that defeats its nemesis by a small margin (~50%), or a counter that can be overcome with micro or position, while a hard counter beats its nemesis by a decisive margin (=>200%) and cannot be overcome with micro. For ex., in War3 ranged units were supposed to be beaten by melee, but if the ranged player micro’d and the melee player did not it was possible for the ‘counter’ to lose; a soft counter. In Empire Earth, if one player went AP Tanks and the other Doughboys or Marines, the infantry player lost by a huge, rediculous margin (like 300-400% in this ex.) and couldn’t use tricks to survive; thus a hard counter. In AoK while many counters were ‘hard’ position and pathfinding made it possible to lessen a counter’s effect. Archers wedged up against a forest could do decently against cavalry, and halbediers could all but break even against Champs (maybe 2-1.5/1). Hussars had no particular value except that they were cheap and disposable (in the late game free); they were essentially an ‘economic’ counter unit.
Hmm. Couple more questions…
How does the Conquer the World campaign interact with the ‘tactical’ portion of the game? When you invade enemy territory is that map random or based on geography (and therefore permanent)? Do the invading forces have to capture cities/territories of the opponent, or does the tactical portion just become another skirmish vs. ai game? Does a defending opponent carry any advantages over into the game? (like, pre built cities, larger borders, ect.)? Are rare resources pre-spawned, or somehow associated with the territory map, or are they just randomly placed every battle?
Been awhile, but the tactical portion is a skirmish, but there are different victory conditions. One might be conquer, while another might be to hold out and survive for 15 minutes. I think territories have resources in the form of cards you collect (not sure they’re called that) that you can then play in subsequent battles. There’s also a diplomacy option you can exercise. I have no idea if all this is randomized or pre-set. I suspect it’s a mix of both.
You start off in a single square or hex (can’t remember) and you choose which adjacent square or hex you want to invade. It’s a lot like Diplomacy in this regard.