"What if..." Thread

[desert]

What do you think of Runescape, Olaf?

[Olaf Blackeyes]

I only played it for a few weeks when i was 12, i never really got into it.
For a free game it wasnt bad, not the GREATEST THING EVAR!!!!!!, no, but it wasnt bad. Really a good intro to the MMORPG genera.

To AP: NO i did not sell my char, no real reason to, it wasnt twinked out nor did it come with tons of gold, ect. And before you call me an idiot, let me say this. I AM A GAMER. I AM NOT OUT TO SCAM THE PEOPLE THAT PLAY GAMES, I AM A GAMER. All i want is a creative game that requires skill to play, has a good storyline and plot, has at LEAST people that arent all jack***es and or morons that do nothing but fill the chat with 1337 speak and isnt just a time sink. If you like games like that, go for it, but me NO.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I have my own tastes Olaf. I understand why you do not like WoW, and yes, some of the things you mentioned are noted weaknesses of WoW, but nevertheless I like it. Remember, I am not a battles guy. I love battles in TW, but still, the battles in my campaign are secondary to the campaign map, the micromanagement of empire, and of course the generals, specifically their traits.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

I do not mean to offend and i am sorry if i did.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I do not mean to offend and i am sorry if i did.

Oh, not at all . It is pretty difficult to offend me, especially online. Plus, you have not said anything that I might deem offensive. Your posts are very "colourful" though.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

WoW discussion is certainly off topic for an EB forum.
This thread was just asking for spam to begin with, though. I'm surprised it didn't disolve into spam immediately.
I won't lock it yet, but this is the warning.

[Aemilius Paulus]

WoW discussion is certainly off topic for an EB forum.
This thread was just asking for spam to begin with, though. I'm surprised it didn't disolve into spam immediately.
I won't lock it yet, but this is the warning.

Wait, so what we are doing right now, is it considered as spam? Or is it just off-topic? Seems more like off-topic to me.

Oh, and thanks for the warning MAA! It sure beats what the rest of the mods do. They always swoop down on us, sometimes unsuspecting Orghas and pounce on the thread, locking it. Warnings and deletions of off-topic/spam posts are so much more civilised and just better in general.

[Bucefalo]

edit: Just saw the MAA post, and removed the offtopic

[Atraphoenix]

What if someone managed to adapt EB to empire total war?

Plus, What if CA finally releases a total war game on a real time strategy map like "Knights of Honour" or EU?

P.S. I think I will die after thirst and hunger because of hours even days of playing on PC or I will be a mutant after taking so much radiation from the monitor

[V.T. Marvin]

Actually, I think that turn-based stratmap and real-time battles is a perfect combination. In realtime stratmap it would be clickfest just like in AoE and you woud miss all those beauties like watching your FMs developing new traits and acquiring the offices (), also balancing the progress speed so that you still manage to manage huge empires like AS whie not bore yourself to death with the tiny ones (like Casse at the beginning of the game) would be very delicate if not impossible. I am all to turn-based stratmaps! What I would love, however, if the engine would allow CAMPAIGN multiplayer (I know that there is a work-around, but I do not trust it much (my fault)).

Otherwise, as stated earlier - logistics is seriously missing in the engine and it should be designed to be easily moddable to allow for a broad faction-specfic customization/optimalization.
Attrition of campaignig armies, based on available supply, payment and general´s influence, plus some random factors like disease, local guerrilla, etc., would be nice.
Ability to set one or more provinces on its/their independent budget (including bulding costs, upkeep, etc.) to alow for easier role-playing of various (con)federations will also be great!

But certainly the biggest bulk of the effort should be put into vast improvement of AI - both campaign and battle one!!!

[Atraphoenix]

that is why we call it it "what if" if we can see that it was possible...
but I would like to see a monthly turn system and bigger maps or I play too much I need some fresh air

[Aemilius Paulus]

Actually, I think that turn-based stratmap and real-time battles is a perfect combination. In realtime stratmap it would be clickfest just like in AoE and you woud miss all those beauties like watching your FMs developing new traits and acquiring the offices (), also balancing the progress speed so that you still manage to manage huge empires like AS whie not bore yourself to death with the tiny ones (like Casse at the beginning of the game) would be very delicate if not impossible. I am all to turn-based stratmaps! What I would love, however, if the engine would allow CAMPAIGN multiplayer (I know that there is a work-around, but I do not trust it much (my fault)).

Otherwise, as stated earlier - logistics is seriously missing in the engine and it should be designed to be easily moddable to allow for a broad faction-specfic customization/optimalization.
Attrition of campaignig armies, based on available supply, payment and general´s influence, plus some random factors like disease, local guerrilla, etc., would be nice.
Ability to set one or more provinces on its/their independent budget (including bulding costs, upkeep, etc.) to alow for easier role-playing of various (con)federations will also be great!

But certainly the biggest bulk of the effort should be put into vast improvement of AI - both campaign and battle one!!!

Sounds like you could use some Rise of Nations! The game has much of what you say is missing, and it also has the strat map, although you do not really manage anything on it, just decide your moves mostly. Mostly.

[A Very Super Market]

RoN isn't really the best at the strat map, which is basic at best. But I don't understand why no sequel was made, since the game does an excellent job in the battles, however RTS-like they may be.

[Aemilius Paulus]

RoN isn't really the best at the strat map, which is basic at best. But I don't understand why no sequel was made, since the game does an excellent job in the battles, however RTS-like they may be.

Yeah, I did admit that in my previous post. RoN strat map is basically the same as Cossacks, except marginally more complex. Those rare resources, territory strengths, and bonus cards are pretty nice whoever. And the Cold War campaign is the ultimate experience with its nuclear warfare possibilities.

As for sequel, it is not necessary. A sequel on exact same topic is usually a failure. Just look at the history of computer gaming. Look at Empire Earth. They were basically like RoN. They made sequels that were basically the same. They came out with EEII (sort of rotten) and EEIII (no comment). The only good thing that came out of the series was EEI and Empires: Dawn of the Modern World.

Also, have you not heard of Rise of Legends?

[A Very Super Market]

EEII was made by a different company.

The expansion to EEI was made by another company.

If you did something right the first time, it is hard to screw up on adding to it. CA demonstrates this, although I know you hate ETW, plenty of people think it is a great step forward. Aside from bugs, but that isn't related to gameplay.

Empire Earth wasn't similar to RoN.... It lacked most of RoNs ability to emulate the real world, as well as encouraging "classic" RTS behaviour. With RoN, mods made it impeccable, EE barely changed, since it was made to simply be an RTS.

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

I just wish I had a load of money to throw at the EB team and some extra programmers to make this game. Hell, if you market it properly you can make it work in a financial sense. It might not be with all the sexy graphics, but it would rock!

[Aemilius Paulus]

EEII was made by a different company.

The expansion to EEI was made by another company.

Basically the same team however.

If you did something right the first time, it is hard to screw up on adding to it.

Someone please enlighten this poor deluded fella'. Most games go on a downward curve on ratings and even revenues. Most games start out with an original hit and then get worse every time. Ask veteran TW players. They agree. I hate ETW even more then MiNO

Empire Earth wasn't similar to RoN.... It lacked most of RoNs ability to emulate the real world, as well as encouraging "classic" RTS behaviour.

Look, you know better than criticising comparisons. Most players agree that EE, AoE, and RoN all go along the same lines. They are all very similar in their mechanics and the fact they have historical settings. RoN and EE are very similar in their time period, or specifically the fact that they encompass all (EE) or most (RoN) of the human history.

[A Very Super Market]

Rise of Legends sort of did it for me.

My point is, if you keep the same idea of the game, and not go through the stupid pre-release hype and all that, games only get better. I retract my comment on a sequel, but just change it to asking for another, more progressive expansion. No, scratch that, an entirely different game. I just screwed my own argument, forget it.

I agree that they are all RTS that use human history, but that's where it ends.

[Cyclops]

Lovely to imagine winning Mega Lotto (several billion would do) or inventing and patenting cold fusion, and funding a really mega mega Ancient battlefield/strategy game. I'm not a dev's eye-lash, but I'd want to take the EB tam on of course, and headhunt some back-up talent top put together a suite of truly magnificent games. I'd be askling for Rome of course, but also Middle Earth and Melnibonean games, and maybe some Horse and Musket period too.

Hard to fault the lovely work the team does, and would love to see more of it. I guess donatons is the way to go.

[desert]

Keep in mind that just because you hate a game it doesn't make it bad.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I agree that they are all RTS that use human history, but that's where it ends.

I disagree. They use basic same concepts and game mechanics. You look too mcuh into the small details and not enough into the large. Remember how varied the RTS games are. EE, AoE, RoN, AoM, RaF:CaW, etc all follow the same model.

Anyone else support me?

[A Very Super Market]

RTS's can only differ in small details, because changes to the large would not make them an RTS anymore. These small differences are incredibly influential. Neither EE or AoE takes into accounts actual shifting borders, the importance of supply, the strategic placing of cities, or the importance of on and off wars, not endless deathmatches. In the beginning, at least.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

I have played nearly ALL of the games that you guys are talking about.
EE was by far one of the greatest games EVAR!!!!!!!
RoN & RoL were both awesome as well, i really enjoyed the latter because of its fantasia settings.
AoE I & II were teh 1337!!!!!!! III was when it started the mode.
I will admit the EE and AoE models dont take into account for alot of the real world things, but these games were developed back in the 90s and they ****ing ruled so give them some credit.

[Ca Putt]

one big difference between AoE and EE is that sequels in AoE can take place in a different time setting whereas in EE the first part covered right about everything. if you wan't a success full sequel to a game that has the same setting you have to introduce a really important development (like highly improved graphics as in MTW-M2TW).
That's probably the reason why RoL was set in a world full of steampunk, magic and Divine Power.

EE2 on the other hand had many(partly useless and silly) small improvements which made the game too complex but did not add any depth to the game, but still had the same time line, and the graphics were just marginally better.

or you can take option B and add a storyline to the game like CnC and Starcraft.

[Abokasee]

What if I spelt "Bactria" correct first time...

[V.T. Marvin]

Wrong again, it is Baktria actually...

Great to see you again, I missed you, really.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I have played nearly ALL of the games that you guys are talking about.
EE was by far one of the greatest games EVAR!!!!!!!
RoN awesome as well
AoE I & II were teh 1337!!!!!!! III was when it started the mode.

Yep. Absolutely agree. EE was probably my absolute favourite. And AoE III was a step backwards.

[Strategos Alexandros]

EB, with the option to fight battles Mount and Blade style, and no hardcodes. Nuff sed.

[antisocialmunky]

EE blew. It was a game of get to the next gen tech faster to win. That was it. CIV4 > AOE2 > AOE3 > EE.