What I think is still missing in RoN

[Adagio]

...or RTS games in general:

I'd like to able to take care of the peoples need for food... each soldier/citisen should require maybe 1 food each 50 seconds...
This makes farms more valuable, and more important to protect

If there's not enough food, a random unit gets killed...


I'd also like to see moral in this game... the more temples you have, the more cities you have taken, the less cities the enemy has taken (When in a fight), etc. tells how much moral your soldiers has in a fight... if you're in a fight, against two different nations, at two different places, your two (or more) armies has different moral values...
Also it could be with how many temples you have lost during battles, nomatter if you have build the temples again...

The more moral they have, the better they fight

this also makes temples more valuable...

[HuangShang]

i agree to having moral (and veterancy too)

but i dont like having upkeep costs, those are painful in a RTS for balancing

[Adagio]

I think it went very well in American Conquest, about the upkeep cost (food to units)

[Andrew_Jay]

The only thing that keeps RoN from the potential of being a real-time Civilizaition game is that it doesn't have a model of your citizens' mood.
Your workers go about their work and never complain about lack of entertainment, or the continuity of warfare. That is a bit dissapointing.
Imagine if you could build some buildings like stadiums in addition to your temples, or even put a portion of your wealth income towards the welfare of your citizens. If they do get unhappy you cold see the people workng the mines/farms/lumber yards in that town just stop. You coud raise the wealth given over to happiness . . . or you could just march in the army at the risk of even more unhappiness elsewhere.

[la0tsu]

I like the idea of citizen mood inasmuch as it could be a useful tool for balancing nukes. Beyond that, it just seems like more micromanaging, which I can live without.

[Adagio]

I thought about the happines also, but I couldn't come with a good idea on how to implement it in RoN.

If the city wasn't a city, but instead a town hall or something, it would look better to build stadiums and other entertainment. But how it's done now makes it look weird to have entertainment OUTside the city...

also the more times you attack during the last x minutes, the more angry are the citizens


I don't mind the extra micromanagement...

[Sava]

it's MORALE dammit!



I agree though, morale would be a good aspect of realism that would be nice to have in this game, or future AoE-type RTS's. I'd like to see BHG, Microsoft, or any other game developer, to go to the next level of RTS's. The basic layout of these AoE games has gotten tiresome. This, however, is a topic for another discussion.

[ajbera]

At the very least, morale could affect efficiency. Low morale = less efficient resource collection (for workers), less efficient fighting (for battle units), whereas higher morale translates into greater efficiencies. Perhaps low morale also provides greater susceptibility to conversion by spies, bribery, etc. It could be funny if (rarely, when morale gets quite low) a few workers will flee to join another civilization.

Morale could be raised by temples, recreation facilities, supply wagons, and wonders. Success in battles could raise morale, and defeats could reduce it.

Just a thought.

[MattH]

There are enough things to worry about already! I thought about this a couple days ago. Then I remembers that this is a RTS- meant to be fun, not make a lot of sense. And that my Civilization III disk, with all that stuff, was on the shelf behind me.

[Bridger]

Morale is modeled very nicely in Medieval: Total war, it's a very important concept. Being near a general with high valor will increase the morale of your units, etc. I don't think it would work as well in RoN though, RoN is just too fast, the battles are over in some 3 minutes tops, whereas battles in MTW lasted 20-40 minutes.

[Bridger]

How much lower can you get than a sub 1ghz computer and 32mb vid card? Mid range these days is 1.4ghz with 64 meg card.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Bridger
How much lower can you get than a sub 1ghz computer and 32mb vid card? Mid range these days is 1.4ghz with 64 meg card.

I want to play on my computer (133 MHz 32 MB Ram)

[Sava]

OH PLEASE TASS!

buy a better comp... if my poor ass can afford a decent system, YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE!

[Fayadi]

Moral is a bad idea I think,dont do anything foolish to change the gameplay of the game.
First,it would create irritating micromanagement that will take your attention away from the grand strategy.Your so called "morale" has been improved if you build a general. Rise of Nations is ten times better than those silly Warcraft III because there is no silly micromanagement involved.

I mean why do you like those irritating micro,RON has done a good job balancing Macro and Micromanagement.Too much micro will take your attention away from the grand strategy which makes the gameplay less fun.Isn't it more fun for you to concentrate building your empire,concentrating how to attack with your units rather than waiting to attack building all those craps.Just build Generals if you want the strength of the troops to improve
RON is smart enough not to create those irritating weapons upgrade research(like in AOE and Starcraft) which will spend a lot of time clicking here and there taking out the fun.
Like putting citizen moods and morale they will make the game more complex.The balance of simplicity and complexity of RON has been excellent.Putting factors like these will devalue the game's great gameplay.
Again Macro and Micro balance is great.So for me RON is the best rts of all time.

Your idea is quite unrealistic anyway,in the real world ,10 000 churches or 5 churches in America does not affect the morale of the American troops fighting in Iraq.So does bigger population country does not affect the morale too.Generals did affect the morale.


For me what kind of addition I want? I want RON to have a paratrooper.It will be a great addition to the gameplay. I would like to try amassing paratroopers before beach invasion sets in(just like 101st Airborne division arriving in France before D-Day invasion in 1944)

[Azrikam]

I think morale and a unit advancement system (a la SMAC) would be great, but would probably end up being ignored by 90% of the players. It takes enough micro-management just to garrison injured units and return them when they are healed. (something I had ignored until recently) I think things like this would be very cool, but would only bog down the game.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Fayadi
Moral is a bad idea I think,dont do anything foolish to change the gameplay of the game.

Well... things could always be optional...

Originally posted by Fayadi
First,it would create irritating micromanagement that will take your attention away from the grand strategy.Your so called "morale" has been improved if you build a general. Rise of Nations is ten times better than those silly Warcraft III because there is no silly micromanagement involved.

Why mention Warcraft III??? That game doesn't have moral... I've only seen moral in one game: American Conquest, and they did it real good, I'd say...
Sure, it adds more micromanagement to the game... but ehmm... that's a good thing, not a bad thing...

[Josephus I]

Originally posted by Fayadi



For me what kind of addition I want? I want RON to have a paratrooper.It will be a great addition to the gameplay. I would like to try amassing paratroopers before beach invasion sets in(just like 101st Airborne division arriving in France before D-Day invasion in 1944)

Paratroopers would be great. I was thinking about that last night in a game I was in, how cool it would be to send in a commando team and take out my enemy's missile silos.

[Fayadi]

Originally posted by ADG

Why mention Warcraft III??? That game doesn't have moral... I've only seen moral in one game: American Conquest, and they did it real good, I'd say...
Sure, it adds more micromanagement to the game... but ehmm... that's a good thing, not a bad thing...

Well ,Micro is good but not to the extreme of Warcraft III
I mentioned Warcraft III to show you an example of how a RTS game will become bad with too much micromanagement which will seriously devalue the gameplay of the game which in turn won't be played by people who loves macromanagement.AOE II might be better than Warcraft III but the micromanagement of worker is irritating.RON has the best balance of micro/macro and is superb because it can combine the gameplay feeling of CIVIII,AOE II and Starcraft. I just love RON too much,the battles ,wow....so cool,especially seeing those cruise missile,tanks ,fire lancer,musketeer in action,these effects are so great.
If you want to increase the strength of your troops ,build a General!Spy and General special ability is fine,too much units with special abilities will make the game feel like RPG and less like Strategy game.Adding a(perharps 1 or 2?) few more is fine

I think we should not contribute ideas that will affect the perfect balance of micro and macromanagement of RON

[Adagio]

I still don't see why you'd mention Warcraft III... I just played the game a few hours ago, but I didn't feel the micromanagement... There's more micromanagement in RoN, than there is in Warcraft III

...or am I misunderstanding the word micromanagement..?

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by ajbera
Success in battles could raise morale, and defeats could reduce it.

Bad idea. Could too easily create the snowball effect in a war: the more battles you win, the more your morale increases, leading to better troops; while the more your adversary loses, the more his morale plunges, leading to lesser troops. It just feeds on itself at that point.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by optimus2861
Bad idea. Could too easily create the snowball effect in a war: the more battles you win, the more your morale increases, leading to better troops; while the more your adversary loses, the more his morale plunges, leading to lesser troops. It just feeds on itself at that point.

Just make sure, battles doesn't change that much in morale, that it kills the troops moral totally...


For those who haven't yet, you should try out American Conquest, it really shows how this moral thing could work...

[Brab]

Originally posted by ADG
I still don't see why you'd mention Warcraft III... I just played the game a few hours ago, but I didn't feel the micromanagement... There's more micromanagement in RoN, than there is in Warcraft III

...or am I misunderstanding the word micromanagement..?

It's funny that a French gaming magazine that I read (Joystick) thinks the same thing: the great thing about Warcraft III is micromanagement (if I remember correctly, they also complained that there was not enough of it in RON).

It seems that to them "micromanagement" means dealing with units individually (setting them to attack some enemy, or use a special power). Their complaint about RON was that the battles were confusing and one would just amass enough firepower and throw it at the enemy with no need to think about tactics.

I disagree with their assessment of RON, but until now I must admit that my tactics have been quite limited (mainly having a separate cavalry whose mission is to take out the supply wagons and siege weapons). Maybe there are too many resources available and we tend to build huge armies ... This is why I really enjoy the first battles (around or before the 4mn mark) were there are not that many units in the engagement, it forces one to be more ... subtle.

[Finarfin]

Originally posted by Sava
it's MORALE dammit!

This can't be said enough! I twitch every time someone writes "moral" when they mean "morale", or "calvary" when they mean "cavalry".

[Trifna]

Food consumption isn't higher for state worker and soldiers than the rest of the population, so I guess food should be based on the total population and not on the number of units.

[maxevan]

I have seen morale in an RTS. The close Combat Series used it very effectively. ALthough, of course, there was no empire building involved.

Your troops would, flee,cower go beserk, etc. depending on how the battle was going. If they saw lots of casualties on their side, the may break and run.

However, I think in a game of RON's scope that morale is not something that needs to be modeled.

[Grond]

Kohan has the best implementation of morale and Veterancy. You can pick up KAG for around $15 now. Its one of the 5 best games I've played, I definitely recommend it.

[Skanky Burns]

Knights and Merchants also implemented the military and civilian need for food. It is a fun game.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Finarfin


This can't be said enough! I twitch every time someone writes "moral" when they mean "morale", or "calvary" when they mean "cavalry".

What really ticks me off is when it's mispelled in a GAME. I can think of several (though I must say they were freeware/shareware).

[PTM]

Originally posted by ADG
I still don't see why you'd mention Warcraft III... I just played the game a few hours ago, but I didn't feel the micromanagement... There's more micromanagement in RoN, than there is in Warcraft III

...or am I misunderstanding the word micromanagement..?

You must be misunderstanding the word.

WC3 requires huge quantities or microing that many players don't enjoy. Microing entails things like clicking on a unit, clicking on one of the spells it has in its spell list, and clicking on another unit - and then having to contstantly do this or risk death. To be anything near good at WC3 you need a tremendous amount of microing. Heroes, items - all that stuff is micromanagement. Alot of people don't like it.

- PTM

[Adagio]

Ahhh, ok... that's what I thought it was, though don't think it's that bad in War3...