Considering that we non-Americans will never be considered for beta-testing, I’m throwing myself on the testers/previewers’ mercy to ask a few questions. (As far as your NDA/professional discretions will allow).
Is it that good?
Does it eventually fall into the gather more resources/win the game aspect of gameplay?
Are there any diplomactic aspects in multiplay beyond ‘pay money to declare war’?
Is combat still a case of scissors/paper/rock loop 'em and direct 'em at the enemy tactics?
I’m just wondering because I’ve just been through an intensive bourbon therapy session with my friend and I was explaining how AoM still follows the quick agression + resource gathering paradigm of many games that enables people to figure that they’ve lost the game pretty early on.
I explained RoN’s use of borders and its closer links with the Civ series. He got quite animated (as we do in these sessions) and went on at length about diplomatic options and the need for an extra layer of strategy in these games. It would be nice to think that the game tries to break free from the idea that a stronger nation will automatically sweep the map but I doubt it if it is still based on the AoE style of gameplay. Tell me that there are some checks and balances, please. Otherwise, please tell me why the USA hasn’t just simply selected all of its forces and clicked on that little pissant backward dictatorship of Iraq.
I don’t know much about RoN but if its anything like the economic model of Seven Kingdoms it should be cool. imo, 7k is the closest you’ll get with strategy in an rts (moreso than Kohan), meaning most rts games are tactical imo.
I’m not American, and I’m on the beta team, so I guess you just need to know the right people ;). As for the game itself, I’ve not had time to look it over in that much depth, but it looks awesome, particularly the battles, the technology model and the economic/city management aspects. The diplomacy is currently disabled, as far as I can see, but the screen looks to have plenty of options available. I doubt that it will ever be as complex as you seem to want it to be, though, simply because the speed the game plays at wouldn’t allow it. That’s just an opinion, though, as they could offer different play options to suit different preferences, and they would only have to slow the game down a bit to allow you to think tactically. As this is a really early build, I’m very excited about this game’s potential.
What would make the game really interesting is if there’s a viable way for players to beat other players that doesn’t rely on military units. Can a nation that’s an economic power defeat a nation that’s a military power?
That’s something I’d like to see- a way to diplomatically outmaneuver someone. If declaring and maintaining war caused enough disruption to trade and the economy, you could make it in everyone’s interest not to attack you. Attila has to think- ‘I live for war and pillage but I couldn’t do without their jeans and cola flavoured soft drinks… Let’s attack France instead’. Don’t know how much actual fun it would be to play for the other sides though.
#1 - Yes, in my opinion it is that good. #2 - Yes, it does … it’s like an improved Civilization III with the RTS objectives still playing an essential role in the gameplay. #3 - Not sure I can/should address this so I won’t. #4 - Not quite sure what you mean but if you mean “build and attack”, yeah that’s about it.
Regarding #4, it’s really two things. Firstly- do the units have counter-units like in EE (Sword beats spear beats cavalry beats sword) or is it more civ based in that researched units are stronger all round. Secondly- Civ 3 introduced the Army unit, I was wondering if RoN has anything similar or do you just churn out the units, lassoe them and click on somewhere for them to attack in a swarm. It would be nice to have Kohan-like formations, ie faster in column, stronger in line maneuvering.
Thanks for the brief answers either way.
