View Full Version : Rise Of Nations coming on April 22

25-01-2003, 05:51:46
Found at:

Because I know there are some Brian Reynold fan club charter members out there, I\'m dropping this info. Microsoft has announced the date. Check the link for more details.

Resource Consumer
25-01-2003, 17:00:25
I for one hold faith that the sainted Brian will be proven the true Game God. I for one will give this a try...

26-01-2003, 05:14:32
I knew you would. ;)

Resource Consumer
26-01-2003, 12:31:19
Some people have no faith...

26-01-2003, 20:35:02
Oh goody, another Age Of Empires clone - except this one looks like it is already a few years old before being released!

I'm just trying to start an argument.

Resource Consumer
26-01-2003, 20:41:29
You must not insylt the Great Game God Brian...

26-01-2003, 22:07:28
Another RTS rush-fest? Yawn.

Resource Consumer
26-01-2003, 22:10:21
Brian will throw off his chains of Sid-ness

27-01-2003, 04:15:33
It should be better than Daikatana and take less time than Freelancer and Duke Nukem Forever. :)

27-01-2003, 04:26:45
And be almost as balanced as the original command and conquer.

27-01-2003, 09:26:36
It was really balanced if you played the same factions against each other and there was a great handicap system if you were much better than your opponent you could play NOD instead. :D

27-01-2003, 21:50:29
Long live the massed armor attack, often called the "Tank Rush". :)

28-01-2003, 07:43:06
Ha ha! I can build more tanks faster than you can!

28-01-2003, 09:32:41
I used to have great fun with the NOD bikes making hit and run attacks on harvesters. They can't make tanks if they can't harvest.

I liked the concept of the guerilla army against the normal mechanised army. You could win with NOD but only if you defended hard and fought dirty.

But hey, it was just the best RTS around at the time, and that was a long time ago. :beer:

28-01-2003, 10:34:47
It was certainly more satisfying to win with NOD:).

28-01-2003, 10:36:09
I imagine Shakey would have been really annoying with them.

For me actually the main problem with C&C was the strategic importance of the construction yard. Destroy the construction yard and you'd win.

28-01-2003, 10:59:57
Mostly true, but then again that gave the games a good focus and stopped them going on too long. And you could still theoretically win if all they destroyed was the construction yard, and you'd already got your war factory and enough refineries built.

28-01-2003, 11:03:02
I think that normally then you'd find yourself in a war of attrition you couldn't win because certain resources you couldn't rebuild.

28-01-2003, 13:50:10
Getting your construction yard destroyed probably indicates bad base defense, so I'll go along with that.

28-01-2003, 14:02:17
True, normally if you get to the stage when your construction yard gets destroyed you are fucked anyway.

28-01-2003, 15:21:05
Were there any engineer rushes in the original C&C?

28-01-2003, 15:35:05
Yes, APC + engineer early on was extremely tough to beat.

28-01-2003, 15:36:56
But also the engineer was quite expensive $500 I think and extremely easy to kill. Normally one anti infantry guard tower would kill him. You just had to be really vigilant.

28-01-2003, 18:14:54
More power to the GDI:).

29-01-2003, 03:51:26
Red Alert had MiGs, which could blast an enemy CY in no time. I never thought that was quite fair, but the Allied light tank is pretty good too.

29-01-2003, 12:44:37
Yeah that was the easiest way to win, then again if you spend that much on migs your base was probably pretty vulnerable. The Allied boats were too slow to really be useful. I never really liked Red alert as much as C&C. The allies weren't a viable force.

29-01-2003, 13:17:30
Cause they had crap tanks!:)

29-01-2003, 13:50:22
Well yeah but they didn't have anything that would compensate. The Russkis had the best tanks and the MiGs which were great but the Allies didn't have anything to make up for having crap tanks.

29-01-2003, 14:20:33
I liked the helicopters...

29-01-2003, 14:25:21
They were cool but they were too slow to move and fire. You could zoom in 7 MiGs over a heavily AA defended base and knock out the CY and get out losing only a couple of MiGs. The same air defences would wipe out all the 'copters before they'd fired half their weaponry.

29-01-2003, 14:44:33
They were strictly intended for tank killing in the field, that much was clear.

Mammoth tanks are just so cool, though. I don't know why anyone would every consider building anything else... except helicopters and MiGs, I guess.

Actually, all up Red Alert really had some pretty fantastic units in it.

29-01-2003, 14:50:02
Same problem in the field. The tanks air cover could knock out the helicopters faster than the MiGs and a fleet of MiGs could wipe out a tank at a time a lot quicker. I used to bind my 7 MiGs as a group and just keep sending them out to pummel stuff. They were great on harvesters as well. Basicaly the MiGs were way, way too good.

I'd build medium tanks over Mammoths and just stick a few rocket men with them for air cover. The Medium tanks are so much more maneuverable and fire faster. Concentrate your fire on one Mammoth at a time and keep moving.

29-01-2003, 16:02:45
That's pretty much all I'd do, is MiG people to death.