Opinion of RoN

[cost]

"Is it anything like Cossacks"

Other than being an RTS, no.

Cossacks is a fast-paced no-holds-barred game. At least on 0 peace time (like I play). If you play with long peace times, it's closer to RON--long buildup then frantic action.

I put the new patch on and finally there's people on Gamespy. See you online.

[Rolfski]

GUI: 10
Finally a developer that understands how to incorporate the best features of other games, very intuitive.

Gameplay: 9
As said, some may find it a clickfest, others too slow. Still the gameplay is very solid and settings are highly adjustable to your personal style.

Graphics: 8
Some nice details but nothing too spectacular.

Sound: 8
Some nice sounds but also nothing spectacular.

AI: 10
Except for Galactic Civilizations RoN has the best AI on the strategy market today.

Longlivety: 5
The singleplayer Conquer the World mode is simplistic and gets booring soon. Also the game lacks a good story driven campaign.

Multiplayer is fun for a while untill you realize this game is overly balanced. Meaning that most battles end up in a big mess between mixed armies where the guy who has the biggest army up fastest usually wins.
Also the border/attrition system, although an innovative feature, seriously limits the strategic possibilities a player has. I came to realize that when I started playing Homeworld 2, which imo is more fun in mp and gives me more of that strategic chess feeling.



Overall:

If you like traditional RTS like AoE or Cossacks series buy RoN, it's better. If you like space setting I can also recommend Homeworld 2.

If you like fast paced micro clickfests buy WC3, Empires DotMW or Generals. These are all solid games with high mp value.

If you like casual turnbased empire building buy CIV 3: Conquest. The lastest CIV is polished and has some nice alternative campaigns. If you like space setting go for Galactic Civizations, it looks dated but the gameplay is good and the AI is incredible.

If you like deep (and I mean really deep) and highly realistic empire building buy Paradox games: EU 2 (1420-1820), HoI (1936-1947) or Victoria (1836-1920). As cost said complex but top notch. Their latest Victoria has an unsurpassed complexity and realism, still it is fairly easy and inituitive to play.

If you like it all buy Medieval: Total war. IMO the best overall strategy game that combines turnbased empire building with realtime 3D battles. The latest VI expansion is good and there is an incredible mod (MedMod) available that enhances overall gameplay.

[flash9286]

Multiplayer is fun for a while untill you realize this game is overly balanced. Meaning that most battles end up in a big mess between mixed armies where the guy who has the biggest army up fastest usually wins.
Also the border/attrition system, although an innovative feature, seriously limits the strategic possibilities a player has. I came to realize that when I started playing Homeworld 2, which imo is more fun in mp and gives me more of that strategic chess feeling.

Really how many mp games have u played, u have many option u can do an ancient rush, or the more conseravtive 150/150 rush or my personal favorite the raid/medival attack or the boom. These are the basics then u get into specfic civ straties. Take Japanese for example your got two choices the regular ancient rush, or what i like to do is the tweaked 150/150 jap rush go early classical build about 5-7 hi and some lc to take out archers and attack. The only balance problem in the game is the slightly overpowerd mayans

[Rolfski]

Originally posted by flash9286

Really how many mp games have u played, u have many option u can do an ancient rush, or the more conseravtive 150/150 rush or my personal favorite the raid/medival attack or the boom. These are the basics then u get into specfic civ straties. Take Japanese for example your got two choices the regular ancient rush, or what i like to do is the tweaked 150/150 jap rush go early classical build about 5-7 hi and some lc to take out archers and attack. The only balance problem in the game is the slightly overpowerd mayans

Exactly what I mean. I played most rushing, raiding and booming tactics but they all come down to being as fast as possible. Speed is overly decisive in this game.
However, deciding where to attack with what army is not that critical in RoN if compared to other games like HW2. Your options are relatively limited, at least untill modern ages. The border system and unit balance limits most midgame battles to frontline city clashes with mixed armies. Swarm strategies like in HW2 & AoE or surprise strategies like in C&C Generals & HW2 are relatively hard to pull of and play an insignificant role. So speed becomes more critical in this game which makes it kind of booring for me in the end.

[flash9286]

Exactly what I mean. I played most rushing, raiding and booming tactics but they all come down to being as fast as possible. Speed is overly decisive in this game.
However, deciding where to attack with what army is not that critical in RoN if compared to other games like HW2. Your options are relatively limited, at least untill modern ages. The border system and unit balance limits most midgame battles to frontline city clashes with mixed armies. Swarm strategies like in HW2 & AoE or surprise strategies like in C&C Generals & HW2 are relatively hard to pull of and play an insignificant role. So speed becomes more critical in this game which makes it kind of booring for me in the end.

In which game is speed not a factor of wining? I will even agree that during the early statges of ron most battles were front line battles. But know they are not common. Why would u attack a front line city just use general ambush ability and attack that crucial 2 econmic city. Or even better do the enlightment capital rush, maybe u should play game with me. One other thing about speed most people tech up to fast leaving a attack point where the rescoures are depeleted. Overall this game has many stratgies and they are all not front line gunpowder battles.

[Rolfski]

Try out C&C Generals or HW2 (demo if u want) and you will understand what I mean.

[flash9286]

i have played c&c, never played HW2. The only game that comes close to the stratgic depth of RON is Aoc(IMO).

[Alex]

I'm a TBS player, and RoN was the only RTS game that I could play and find it enjoyable.

But it is a RTS game, so you won't find there the deliberate pace of a TBS. Sure, there is the pause button, which makes things more bearable to me.

It is certainly one of the more polished RTSs in the market now.

[Capt Dizle]

I consider BR to be head and shoulders above other designers. SMAC was simply amazing. Still, I didn't buy RON because it was RTS. In fact after the Civ3 debacle I quit buying computer games period.

If BR regains his senses and builds another TBS game I'll buy it. Maybe he will look at games like Shogun and do something that combines turn based empire building and real time combat. I would like that.

[Sarxis]

Oh man! That would be a dream come true! Brian making TBS games again? ::sigh::

His name on a TBS game would mean insta-purchase for me.

[Skanky Burns]

Pause and setting the game to run on slow speed makes quick mouse-using not necessary in single-player mode. Still, it isn't TBS.

[ACEofHeart]

Its a real time game that is made exeptional well..Some nice touches like city building with borders...
Now with that said,, I still see no "real" strategy involved".. I think its only in comparasion to other RTS that you might say there is ..
You still collect resourses as fast as you can, then you zoom thru most ages without ever really experiencing the units, benefits and buildings of that age.. And you still have very little control over most ending larger battles, can you say click,, click, click,,.. you can only make sure your units are upgraded and in starting postion..
The announced Expansion will have Goverment chioces which might add to the "strategy" side..
This is not a "Real Time" version of Civilization. If you accept it for what it is,, you'll have fun..

[flash9286]

there is alot of strategy invlolved ace, there are many generic stratiges like the rush, the 150, the boom, the kamaize, etc... After this u have specific civ strats like egygpitan one city raiding, french and turk classical attack and many mores. Play mp and u will see if u zoom though the ages that you want last long. As for the battles yes there is micro in them but there is still strategy like the type of units you use and general/spies/scouts abilities, there also bonous for where u fight liek on rocks/river.

[ACEofHeart]

I guess I don't consider Game Setup options the same thing as Strategy applied during the game. Regardless
of what Setup options you choose, the game still plays out the same way. Collect those resourses,build those same buildings and upgrade ,,upgrade asap...
I see no real strategy decisions that take your civilization into its own distinct different ,, as I stated earlier, maybe Goverment choices and a True Scientic victory or Economic Victory ( not just setting a number of your choosing in Game Setup options) would add to strategic gameplay..
Hey,,I still like the game... , I think its misleading tho to consider the gameplay with other turn based world builders... some Reviewers have done this.
Anyway... Happy New Year !!!

[Sarxis]

They are adding Government choices to the Xpack. And you can do economic victory in some form IIRC (forgot if its wonder victory). I do know you can do research race too.

[flash9286]

I'm pretty sure u do that in every stratgey game ace. If u would please tell me how this differs from civilzation maybe i can better comment.

[El_Capitan]

The strategy in MP against other people is a LOT deeper than going against the Computer. The AI is very good, but it's still the AI. Although I play at the fast end of the RTS spectrum, I have played many TBS games and always enjoyed playing them. The only downfall (like in Shogun: Total War, and many other games) is that the MP aspect in those games don't have the World Campaign like they do in single player. They just instead mimick a crippled version of an RTS game in their MP.

As a TBS game, RoN may not be exactly what you were looking for. However, if you wanted to experience the Real-Time aspect of Strategy, then RoN can give you a good experience. There are many "noobs" playing, and it shouldn't be difficult to get a few people from the TBS community to play some "Slow" Speed with a lot of "Cannon Times" to get you going. However, RoN doesn't have a MP save and restore function, so don't take too long in your MP endeavors. =)

As far as click-fest goes, I'm not the fastest of the players out there, I'm actually probably one of the slowest. I've just won many games by out-thinking my opponents. I've rarely won that way in WCII, SC, AoC, AoM, or WCIII. Now THOSE, are click-fest games.

[flash9286]

nice post sums it up pretty well

[Enriquillo]

I still see no "real" strategy involved".. I think its only in comparasion to other RTS that you might say there is ..

Typical TBS arrogance.
RTS like RoN, EE and AoK have a lot to offer strategically.

I find myself clicking more in Civ then in RoN for instance yet I wouldn't call Civ a clickfest.

If you're a 'builder' then I guess RTS hasn't got much to offer, for the serious warmonger on the other hand you can actually implement strategy on the battlefield without the casino like results we all know from Civ.

That said, civ is still the most addictive game ever and despite me constantly dissing it, I still play it. Go figure

I'm sick and tired of people saying RTS has no strategy, that's just rubbish. Just because you don't know how to play under timepressure doesn't make the game a click-fest.
As stated before , you don't have to be a fast player to compete in RTS at rook to inter level. Be smart and learn to avoid mindless clicking, use hotkeys.
Fact is, strategy is infinitely more difficult in real time, that's part of the fun of RTS imo.
Don't want to start a big flame here, just stating my honest opinion, so relax

[Jeepster]

Great game!

I played the demo for an hour one morning and picked up the game that night, the next day I played it for more than 7 hours straight, and I havnt done that since I got Diablo 2.

I love the graphics, seeing a cruise missle hit a tank and have it hop up and get destroyed tickles my funny bone.

By reading many posts, I think this game can appeal to all kinds of people.

There are some that love to hit pause and strategically give orders to certain troops to try and counter what is being thrown at them, and then theres people like me that just ammases huge amounts of armies and equipment then throws in wave after wave of troops and heavy artillary, tanks etc until I overwhelm my opponent (never played multiplayer, always play single player against the computer).

I really like the conquer the world campaign, I've not yet finished it, but the chinese were kicking some major butt, and held most of the board, then I tried to capture one of their areas, little did I know it was their capital city, took me two tries, but in the end I went back to the strategic map and saw the chinese were gone and all that was left was me and the Incas. Lots of fun.

Nukes are a blast! At first I thought them weak, but apparently hadnt advanced far enough yet, then I advanced in tech and sent off a nuke that basically anihailated everything in a city, unfortunately I didnt move my troops out in time.

I've had no stability problems in single player at all, and the game doesnt chug on my computer at all.

Battles are great to watch, but if your fighting a multiple faced war, the pause key does come in very handy. Sometimes I just feel overwhelmed and have to pause to see whats going on everywhere.

Definately I can see playing this for many many months, and see my weekends being eaten up by it.

I wasnt a big fan of AOK, or AOE, or EU, or any of the Civ series, and hated Empire Earth, but this RON, I absolutely love.

[ACEofHeart]

Love how people state its just their opinion but then crush somebody's else's that doesn't agree with it..
Opinions are just that,, as I'm a player of PC strategy games for nearly 15 years, if you don't respect mine well don't expect any from me....
I didn't crush the game, in fact i said I enjoy it for what it is.. a well made Real Time game..
And those people who say Multiplayer is a deeper strategy game, uh,, doesn't that depend on the intelligence of your opponent, you have NO control over that.. pretty silly comment , don't you think

[Enriquillo]

If that was directed at me, I was reacting on your comment about how RTS doesn't involve any 'real' strategy, which is ofcourse total nonsense even it's just an opinion

And those people who say Multiplayer is a deeper strategy game, uh,, doesn't that depend on the intelligence of your opponent, you have NO control over that

Gotta agree with you there, but...
I've yet to see an AI that can think on my level, strategically that is. This is probably why people say MP is a deeper strategy game, even though that comment in itself is wrong.
Also, strategy under stress (real time) is infinitely more difficult then turnbased.
It's just that against the AI in CIV3 you don't need to do much thinking, just a lot of micro and you gotta stick to the basics, that is:

*deny resources
*hit early
*hit hard
*hit where it hurts (see point 1)

Basically the same as in RTS mp, now that I think about it

[El_Capitan]

I think the typical RoN MP game is very much akin to Chess. In Chess, you can be a good player without knowing any real openings, because you can set up your opening game to trade pieces in your middle game and be a good end-game player (booming to Gunpowder Age, etc.).

Now, stronger players have more knowledge of openings. In RoN, it's learning and being able to manipulate the build orders necessary to execute a strategy (opening). For example:

In Chess, you have openings which lead to closed (boom) or open (aggressive) games. Supposing someone as White uses the Ruy Lopez opening for an aggressive opening game, Black can counter with a just as aggressive opening with the Sicilian Defense, or try to play it safe with the French Defense (boom), or even play it tricky with the King's Indian Defense (counter-offensive).

In RoN, you can use your Scout to go hunting for Ruins at the corners, or have it go towards your enemy to see if he could be Kamikaze rushing you (I usually just send a Citizen). It will slow your Ruin gathering, but it will secure you from being surprised by a rush. If the rush isn't coming, and you don't have any immediate plans of being aggressive, you just continue scouting your enemy and make sure to see how fast they go up to Classical. The earlier they go, the more you have to watch out for an oncoming raid. If they go up about the same time as you do, or even slower, you can expect they have a good boom going, so you can decide if you want to engage in raiding him, start an early assault, or engage in a booming contest.

A favorite strategy of mine (although a bit risky), is letting my opponent over-extend his cities, or go heavy on fishing. The reason is that an early over-extention of cities leave them vulnerable to early attacks or rushes. Those that fish heavily need a good navy to protect their investment. Raiding early makes them spend more resources, negating their fishing advantage. Once you let the raiding dull down a bit, you boom ahead while massing a huge naval fleet, and later take out all their fishing. This means they'll need to waste more Timber on Farms, and they'll be low on Food to get the Citizens neccessary to farm them.

I find RoN to have more strategy than any other RTS game I've played. Now, I enjoy many RTS games, and will always be a lover of StarCraft and Age of Conquerors, but those didn't have nearly as many strategies. Build orders and micro, those were essential. Nowadays, you have AoM (all build orders, less micro) and WC3 (all micro, less build orders). There are still strategies, don't get me wrong, but I find that unit combos and quick clicking are what win me those games, not out-thinking or out-guessing my opponent.

[AluminumKnight]

I find this game to be near perfect. I have Age of Empires II, and I always found I was not fast enough to play that game. Maybe I needed more practice, I dunno, but I've been able to "catch on" to RoN much more and faster than that game.

I also have Civ3. I like the game, but sometimes it's just too slow for me. I enjoy the first 20 turns of the game, but then it kind of gets boring.

With RoN, I think I've found the perfect balance of those two games. It has much more of AoE than Civ3, but the borders and attrition are features that I really like, kind of like in Civ3. Overall, I give this game an 8.5/10. This is my second favorite game ever, next to Diablo II

[HalfLotus]

the casino like results we all know from Civ.

So true. Civ 3 took one step forward and two steps back from civ 2.

[ACEofHeart]

On another thought..
Just curious,, I saw Empire Earth on sale for almost nothing.. I never played it...
How does gameplay differ from RON ???

[Enriquillo]

Don't get me started on Empire Earth, it's brilliant

Beware though, it's very hardcore and unforgiving in it's gameplay.
There are two settings to play on , one being tournament which is fast hardcore and the other being more builder oriented, techs are harder to acquire, towers are stronger etc.

I like it most for the fact that you have to build a military in order to even stand a chance of surviving the first minutes of the game.
You can't hide in your towncenter which makes things kinda tense during the opening moves of a game.
Also in military tactics and sheer unit diversity it's pretty much unrivaled imo.

[ShardPhoenix]

While the game is very polished and has great graphics, good AI, etc, I feel that the basic game mechanics are in some ways fundamentally flawed.

Basically, the severe early-mid-game limits on city numbers, troop numbers and production, the discouragments to aggressive play like attrition and strong cities, the uninteresting generic units, etc, basically dumb down/"newbify" the game too much compared to more cutthroat RTSs, as well as limiting the player's options. On the other hand, the scale of the game isn't large enough to have a truly epic Civ-like feeling (7 cities max isn't much as far as a Civ type game goes).

Basically I agree with the people who said that RON is stuck in an awkward place between RTS and TBS, and doesn't quite manage to capture the essential essence of either. It's still a pretty decent game, it just isn't the second coming that some reviewers seemed to hail it as.

[ShardPhoenix]

Originally posted by El_Capitan
I find RoN to have more strategy than any other RTS game I've played. Now, I enjoy many RTS games, and will always be a lover of StarCraft and Age of Conquerors, but those didn't have nearly as many strategies. Build orders and micro, those were essential. Nowadays, you have AoM (all build orders, less micro) and WC3 (all micro, less build orders). There are still strategies, don't get me wrong, but I find that unit combos and quick clicking are what win me those games, not out-thinking or out-guessing my opponent.

Huh? I find RON to have rather limited strategy thanks to the straightjacket it forces on the player, where as Starcraft has tons. "Out-thinking" and "Out-guessing" are the very essence of that game, as long as you're playing good opponents on good maps, and not playing newbies on BGH. While speed is definitely important, that's true of any RTS - the faster you can play, the better. And if you examine the professional starcraft scene, you can see that while all the best pros are fast, not all fast players are particularly good. There are players with 350+ APM (actions per minute, similar to the "speed" rating in the RON end-game stats) who lose easily to ones with 200 because the other player can outwit and outstrategize their faster opponent.

[Adagio]

I agree with El_Capitan, there's much more strategy options in RoN than in normal RTS games. Speed has nothing to do with number of strategy options. Usually speed only tells how fast you can get tons of soldiers, not how to best use those soldiers...