RoN2 versus RoN

[bill]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

How different is number Two (Rise of Nations) compared to number One? Worth
the purchase, or basically the same game?

Thanks guys.

Bill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Bill wrote:
> How different is number Two (Rise of Nations) compared to number One?
> Worth the purchase, or basically the same game?
>
> Thanks guys.
>
> Bill

I didn't think RoN2 was ever made (Rise of Legends? is under development).
There's a RoN game called Thrones & Patriots, but it's an add-on, not a
sequel.

--

 

[norm]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Bill" <wlambrukos@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UZmdnfVECqY8FR_fRVn-tA@giganews.com...
> How different is number Two (Rise of Nations) compared to number One?
> Worth the purchase, or basically the same game?
>
> Thanks guys.
>
> Bill
Maybe Empire Earth vs EE2

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

> How different is number Two (Rise of Nations) compared to
> number One? Worth the purchase, or basically the same game?

Do you mean RoN: Thrones and Patriots? If so, it is an expansion rather
than version 2 and I believe it is well worth the money. I hesitated for
a long time to buy TaP because I really, really enjoyed RoN but wasn't
much intrigued by the ability to play cowboys and indians, which is what
I thought it was. My mistake!

RoN:TaP is well worth purchasing, IMO. The extra units and nations are
very cool (i.e. marines, war elephants, etc.). I also think the
governments and elite units are a cool idea. But, more than anything
else, there are the campaign games ... these are what I most enjoyed. I
loved the Alexander challenges.

I recommend the expansion. FWIW.


- Sheldon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I read a review of RoN in Gamespot. The review kept mentioning it was
a
kind of combination of both RTS and turn-based. Is that right?
I assumed it was RTS.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 13 May 2005 17:56:17 -0700, "JHawk" <brycej@truman.edu> wrote:

>I read a review of RoN in Gamespot. The review kept mentioning it was
>a
>kind of combination of both RTS and turn-based. Is that right?
>I assumed it was RTS.

It's an RTS. The "turn-based" thing that the reviewer was talking about
was merely the campaign mission-selector.

 

[bill]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

You are absolutely correct, I was thinking of Empire Earth, but got a brain
cramp. Any real difference between these two?

Bill
"Norm" <Here@here.com> wrote in message
news:OuSge.6424$cf5.3204@lakeread07...
>
> "Bill" <wlambrukos@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:UZmdnfVECqY8FR_fRVn-tA@giganews.com...
>> How different is number Two (Rise of Nations) compared to number One?
>> Worth the purchase, or basically the same game?
>>
>> Thanks guys.
>>
>> Bill
> Maybe Empire Earth vs EE2
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Bill" <wlambrukos@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CPCdnXB96LHd1xvfRVn-1w@giganews.com...
> You are absolutely correct, I was thinking of Empire Earth, but got a
> brain cramp. Any real difference between these two?
>
> Bill
> "Norm" <Here@here.com> wrote in message
> news:OuSge.6424$cf5.3204@lakeread07...
>>
>> "Bill" <wlambrukos@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:UZmdnfVECqY8FR_fRVn-tA@giganews.com...
>>> How different is number Two (Rise of Nations) compared to number One?
>>> Worth the purchase, or basically the same game?
>>>
>>> Thanks guys.
>>>
>>> Bill
>> Maybe Empire Earth vs EE2
>>
>
>

Yes, EE 2 has neat new interfaces for assigning civilians, making war plans,
sending war plans to allies for their part of the action, rewards for being
the first to max out a branch of one epoch's tech tree, a "strategic" map
for placing resource-using structures, a better spy, and more sensible
campaigns. I suppose the graphics are better, also.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Raymond Martineau wrote:
> On 13 May 2005 17:56:17 -0700, "JHawk" <brycej@truman.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>I read a review of RoN in Gamespot. The review kept mentioning it was
>>a
>>kind of combination of both RTS and turn-based. Is that right?
>>I assumed it was RTS.
>
>
> It's an RTS. The "turn-based" thing that the reviewer was talking about
> was merely the campaign mission-selector.
>

It is not that simple. The Conquer the World mode in RON is a risk like
turn based game. When you attack a country, then you fight the battle
in Real-time. Those battles are often in 1 epoch and you cannot
advance. The epoch advancement is done through the turn based game. It
is completely different than playing a skirmish game against the
computer, but some battles can feel like a 1 epoch skirmish depending on
win conditions.

Regards,

javajeff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Sun, 15 May 2005 15:44:45 -0400, javajeff <javajeff@NOSPAMadelphia.net>
wrote:

>Raymond Martineau wrote:
>> On 13 May 2005 17:56:17 -0700, "JHawk" <brycej@truman.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I read a review of RoN in Gamespot. The review kept mentioning it was
>>>a
>>>kind of combination of both RTS and turn-based. Is that right?
>>>I assumed it was RTS.
>>
>>
>> It's an RTS. The "turn-based" thing that the reviewer was talking about
>> was merely the campaign mission-selector.
>>
>
>It is not that simple. The Conquer the World mode in RON is a risk like
>turn based game. When you attack a country, then you fight the battle
>in Real-time. Those battles are often in 1 epoch and you cannot
>advance.

Actually, there is one epoch advancement allowed in the individual battles
- sort of a minor benefit that gives more powerful units to the player that
can first research the tech.

>The epoch advancement is done through the turn based game.

This epoch advancement is at a fixed rate and applies equally. It's more
like a time limit where the player is expected to complete the game in a
reasonable amount of time.

I would have liked to seen more of a strategic element to the turn-based
control, as opposed to just expanding as much as possible.

 

[norm]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Bill" <wlambrukos@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CPCdnXB96LHd1xvfRVn-1w@giganews.com...
> You are absolutely correct, I was thinking of Empire Earth, but got a
> brain cramp. Any real difference between these two?
>
> Bill
> "Norm" <Here@here.com> wrote in message
> news:OuSge.6424$cf5.3204@lakeread07...
>>
>> "Bill" <wlambrukos@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:UZmdnfVECqY8FR_fRVn-tA@giganews.com...
>>> How different is number Two (Rise of Nations) compared to number One?
>>> Worth the purchase, or basically the same game?
>>>
>>> Thanks guys.
>>>
>>> Bill
>> Maybe Empire Earth vs EE2
>>
>

I don't have EE2...but I have looked at it several times!! Not sure if I
need another game to take up closet space..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Raymond Martineau wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 15:44:45 -0400, javajeff <javajeff@NOSPAMadelphia.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Raymond Martineau wrote:
>>
>>>On 13 May 2005 17:56:17 -0700, "JHawk" <brycej@truman.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I read a review of RoN in Gamespot. The review kept mentioning it was
>>>>a
>>>>kind of combination of both RTS and turn-based. Is that right?
>>>>I assumed it was RTS.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's an RTS. The "turn-based" thing that the reviewer was talking about
>>>was merely the campaign mission-selector.
>>>
>>
>>It is not that simple. The Conquer the World mode in RON is a risk like
>>turn based game. When you attack a country, then you fight the battle
>>in Real-time. Those battles are often in 1 epoch and you cannot
>>advance.
>
>
> Actually, there is one epoch advancement allowed in the individual battles
> - sort of a minor benefit that gives more powerful units to the player that
> can first research the tech.
>
>
>>The epoch advancement is done through the turn based game.
>
>
> This epoch advancement is at a fixed rate and applies equally. It's more
> like a time limit where the player is expected to complete the game in a
> reasonable amount of time.
>
> I would have liked to seen more of a strategic element to the turn-based
> control, as opposed to just expanding as much as possible.
>

Thrones & Patriots?