RTS-City Builder genre

[Son of Moose]

At the risk of hogging this forum, I would like to pick up upon some of the points that were raised in my earlier CotN-specific post regarding the specific reason why fans would actually buy the game.

Quite a while ago, I prepared the following document (largely for my own edification) which I would like to share with other interested gamers. In addition, I would really be honoured if the developers at Tilted Mill were to have a quick glance at it as well. [Hopefully they will forgive me for my earlier less than charitable comments relating to the possible capacity of CotN].

Here goes ... please remember that it was written a little while back:

I have been interested in RTS and City Builder games for some time now. My initial exposure to the RTS genre was with AOE/ROR. I found this game to be an eye-opener --- one was able to use many different strategies in order to win a game. It was far more than the average first person shooter (FPS) game that merely required quick hands but very little intellectual input. In addition, the scenario editor allowed one to exercise one’s own creativity to unprecedented heights. My introduction to the City Builder genre was with Pharaoh. It was amazing to be able to use such a wide array of buildings in order to construct a fairly lavish city. The best part was building the giant pyramid --- this was a major challenge and logistical experience. It also took an immense length of time --- so that it was a really rewarding experience to be able to successfully complete this major exercise.

Ever since playing these wonderful games, I have tried to actively follow the evolution of the RTS and City Builder games genres. I try to read the various computer and gaming magazines stocked at our local bookstores in order to assess the merits of each new RTS or City Builder game and see how it varies from its predecessors --- especially how it “stretches the envelope” with respect to game play or scenario builder features. Of late, I have been contemplating how these two different genres could best be integrated into a single gaming platform set in the classical period. I have followed the development of Stronghold and 1503 A.D. with great interest as they have attempted (with varying degrees of success) to combine the RTS and City Builder genres.

A possible solution for future City Builder games:

In order to try to successfully combine an historical RTS game with a classical City Builder game:

# Start from the economic perspective of the established City Builder games --- i.e. Caesar 3 (the Romans), Pharaoh (the Egyptians) and Zeus (The Greeks).

## Include all the economic buildings that are common to the various civilizations appearing in these games --- one can readily note that the majority of the buildings either have the same name (e.g. granary) or are equivalent structures (the various medical facilities). The underlying principle seems to be that a basic building is often required in order to develop a more advanced one that (in turn) is often required for the manufacture of key resources. This hierarchical interconnectedness of the buildings (and their individual functions) adds a depth to these City Builder games that is often absent in the RTS genre. This depth and variety should be incorporated into the “perfect” game.

## The harvesting model used in AOE/ROR where the initial villagers are required to gather basic resources (such as wood, stone, food and gold) in order to build structures and/or military units (without an ongoing maintenance cost) seems fairer and (potentially) more challenging than that adopted in the City Builder games (i.e. the initial stash of gold coins that tends to disappear at an alarming rate - due to often prohibitive maintenance costs - leading the unwary player to early bankruptcy). [In order to facilitate massive civic and military growth, all city structures and military units should be maintenance free].

## Do not include the spontaneously collapsing and combustible houses that have an alarming tendency to autodestruct at the most inconvenient time. (In Pharaoh, it is at least possible to counter this devastation with the liberal use of municipal structures such as Architects Posts and Fire Wardens. However, this does seem to constitute a waste of ones resources --- unless additional benefits could be derived from these buildings). It is extremely annoying to see the “fruits of ones labour” disappear for no good reason!!! The “perfect” game should not annoy (or possibly alienate) prospective players in this way.

# Continue from the military perspective of the established RTS games --- such as AOE/ROR.

## Include the impressive range of military buildings appearing in AOE/ROR --- academy, stables, archery ranges, barracks and siege workshops (which would each produce a fairly wide range of units --- many of which would be unique to different civilizations featured in the game) augmented by ballista towers (top range version for towers) and fortified walls (top range version for walls). This array of structures is generally more inclusive than those appearing in any of the City Builder games. However, these purely military buildings would need to be supported by the wider range of weapon manufacturing structures appearing in the City Builder games. Therefore one would need to combine the best features of both these genres for military combat to occur. This would greatly add to the strategic and tactical options offered by the “perfect” game.

## Include a tech tree for ALL the buildings appearing in the game. While this option would present a fairly major challenge to the designers, it would yet further add to the depth provided by the “perfect” game. In fact this combination of a building-specific tech tree (which is the strongpoint of AOE/ROR as well as AOK/TC and AOM/TT) with the much wider range of hierarchically interconnected buildings (featured in Caesar 3, Pharaoh, Zeus and Emperor --- which has the best agricultural and market-based system of this genre) would provide the “perfect” game with an unrivalled strategic and tactical depth.

Compare to two other games that have attempted to combine these genres --- i.e. Stronghold and 1503 A.D.:

# Stronghold, while an interesting and challenging game to play, certainly does not offer the player anywhere near the above suggested complexity. There is a fairly limited range of buildings available (with no supporting tech trees) combined with a fairly extensive (RTS-style) military model. Therefore Stronghold is proof that the RTS and City Builder genres can be successfully combined --- although it still lacks the depth offered by the “prefect” game. The maps are also ridiculously small which serves to severely limit ones scenario design options.

# 1503 A.D. is a far more intricate game than Stronghold and is an extremely competent attempt at combining these two genres in the Renaissance period.

## The economic model requiring the player to gather a wide range of resources and build an equally wide range of hierarchically interconnected buildings is indeed extremely comprehensive and challenging.

## However, the prohibitive ongoing maintenance costs for each of these buildings is totally excessive. This feature (which could actually discourage development of ones city/civilization) could very easily alienate a large sector of the gaming community. [As previously stated, the AOE/ROR harvesting model --- which could easily be extended to cover all available resources --- would be much more conducive to city/civilization and military development].

## The game features five different civilization levels (Pioneers, Settlers, Citizens, Merchants and Aristocrats --- which can (with some latitude) be roughly equated to the Stone, Tool, Bronze and Iron Ages featured in AOE/ROR). The main conceptual difference between the two games is that the levels in 1503 A.D. are determined by how well the player manages to provide their populace with resources (initially fairly basic for the early levels of the game but becoming ever more demanding with the higher levels) while AOE/ROR is mainly based on the availability of fairly large quantities of certain categories of harvested resources (usually food and gold).

The “perfect” game should manage to:

# Innovatively combine these seemingly diverse pathways to civilization advancement.

# Make extensive use of aesthetics (featured in both 1503 A.D. and the various City Builder games) as a legitimate game strategy. Possibly aesthetics could be linked to individual building and unit hit points so that a city/civilization that is extremely high in aesthetics would feature buildings and produce units with (say) +20 per cent hit points. This enhanced defensive and offensive capacity could prove decisive.

[Son of Moose]

The influence of Turn-Based games:

# Civilization III:

## There can be little doubt that Civilization III is a truly epic game featuring a vast array of technologies, Wonders and resources (even if these items are restricted to the ancient era). Possibly the single most impressive feature about Civilization III is the ability of the community to add new technologies, Wonders and resources to the game. (This topic has already been extensively covered in our preceding correspondence). It would certainly be extremely useful to take time to examine some of these community-based mods --- especially those exclusively set in the ancient era (e.g. the “Ancient Mediterranean” mod by Jan van der Crabben et al.).

# The Total War franchise:

## These games (set in Japan, Medieval Europe and, shortly, in Ancient Rome) have allowed gamers to not only build enormous armies but also to participate in epic (real life sized) pitched battles employing many thousands of military units. However (from what I have read --- I am subject to correction here), the player does not seem to have total control of his military units once they engage in battle. If true, this would seem to be a somewhat counter-productive measure that would remove much of the pleasure and excitement from military combat.

In the “perfect game”:

# The gamer would be presented with the major challenge of not only assembling an enormous (real life sized) army but also producing a correspondingly large civilian complement to both gather the vast array of resources and construct the buildings required to suitably equip the army for war. This would present the intelligent and patient gamer with an extremely potent challenge which could be solved by employing a variety of strategies:

## An aggression-dominant strategy that would mainly concentrate on the development of offensive military units instead of defensive structures to protect ones cities and resources. [This strategy would mirror the well-established “rusher” strategy found in several other RTS games].

## A defence-dominant strategy that would mainly concentrate on building an extremely well protected city to safeguard ones economic structures instead of “pumping out” military units. [This strategy would rely on a series of well-positioned and well-researched defensive structures to inflict heavy (and ultimately unsustainable) early losses on the “rusher”.


## A combined strategy combining the best of the above.

## There could naturally be less epic and time-consuming challenges for the gamer desiring a considerably shorter version of the game.

Please feel free to reply and make your own suggestions ...

[Maybe (as I suggested in my earlier CotN-specific thread), Tilted Mill could try to develop this proposed RTS-City Builder game in a Roman setting and call it "Children of the Tiber". [Not terribly original --- but would represent a continuation on the CotN theme!!].

As always, I look forward to receiving some feedback. Maybe the community might be able to exercise some say regarding Tilted Mill's next magnum opus. At the same time, we might be able to resurrect the somewhat moribund RTS genre where dozens of near identical products seem to be hitting the shelves.

As previously stated, after RoN with its 27 civilizations and its span throughout the gammit of history, what else is new?

With kindest regards

[Azeem]

I absolutely extremely loathed the resource-gathering system and the battle system of RTS games. That favors only those with quick hands (which I cease to have after smashing most my fingers in martial arts training). Micromanagement in RTS games is horrible. While some may complain about the tediousness of Caesar III, that's nothing compared to having to point and click every half second.

Personally, I feel that the current RTS engines used are the worst to use in 'attempting' to reflect history (unless you're really good at making scripted scenarios). Simply throwing hordes of units at each other or 'rushing' is extremely annoying and should not be in a builder game at all. City-builders should remain city-builders, not become imitations of RTS games.

If there is to be combat, the best engine to use is the 'Total War' system where you can use REAL strategy, not cheap tricks like rusing or build-and-mob, which real generals did NOT do.

[Son of Moose]

Azeem:

I freely admit that I do not have fast fingers either --- mainly because I am somewhat clumsy!! :) However, as a single player mission (admittedly multiplayer format is a completely different kettle of fish), I have not really ever had to resort to rapid-fire manouvres in my RTS playing. (Perhaps one does not really have t owhen playing on the easiest game level. ;) ).

I must admit that I am rather partial to micro-management --- provided that there is some logic behind it. (Admittedly, micro-management for micro-management's sake is ridiculous). In Pharaoh, surely there was quite a lot of micromanagement insofar as it was a major (but always interesting) task to have to mine two separate types of stone at quarries, store it in a warehouse and then move it to the construction site. Trickey but greatly rewarding!!

In many respects, I see the basic RTS genre as an extension of this mode of gameplay. Incidently, I too despise "rushing" (being an avid "turtler" myself). This is why I am advocating a more extensive form of gameplay where it is virtually impossible to rush ones opponent as it would take a long time (and much resource gathering) before a player is able to create a suitably strong military. I really do agree with you in this regard. [Maybe this RTS-City Builder genre can have some form of "off-switch" whereby hard core city builders can peacefully exist without most of the RTS element].

However, it is a reality that RTS games possibly constitute the dominant game genre (although there are regrettably an aweful lot of really nasty FPS games around!!). Therefore it would certainly be in Tilted Mill's interest to try to entice fans of this genre into their fold. Maybe it can be done without necessarily destroying the city builder genre that we so dearly love? Perhaps the city building can be meaningfully expanded and enhanced to include new challenges --- although the advent of the abovementioned "off-switch" might prove helpful to some of our less belicous members!! :)

However, I certainly know that different people have different tastes and that one cannot always please everyone at the same time. Vive le difference ...

With kindest regards

[NeilV]

Very interesting article have you played any of the Cossacks/American Conquest games although more of a RTS than anything else the difference I found which is like city building games was that not only did you need resources to create you units (in American Conquest that also included a healthy supply of peasants to turn in to solders) you need to maintain them as well food Gold ammo etc which maid you thing more strategically as if you just went horde mode and it didn’t work by time you built up again so had the other side so it made you think more about different units and formations were better and with up to 16,000 units on the battleground gave way for large battles

[Keith]

I found most RTS games quite boring and some a clickfest. It seems like a lot of people here would like to remake CotN in the image of their favorite game. I say ignore the examples of AOE/ROR and forge ahead in this new direction. I think TM is on the right track here with CotN.

[Celebithil Dae]

agreed, wholeheartedly!

Just make the game, the way you want it made, and i'll play it, and probably love it. And yeah.

[Son of Moose]

NeilV:

I must admit that I have not played either of these games --- although they are freely available here in South Africa. They sound interesting and seem to have a slightly different modus operandi wrt gameplay options.

Keith and Celebithil Dae:

In many respects, I wholeheartedly agree with you that most RTS games are indeed boring!! :) This is precisely the rationale behind this thread ... CotN is already a fait accompli so that it would be virtually impossible for any forum member to successfully impose his or her views upon the talented developers at Tilted Mill. Believe me, I would never be so presumptious to even attempt this.

However Tilted Mill will make new games in the future and maybe Chris and his team might like to make a forray into the RTS genre (after all, Impressions Games were responsible for the LotR series). Therefore I feel that it is prudent to raise this type of thread in this forum where community members can discuss the composition of possible future Tilted Mill productions.

As Impressions Games made BOTH RTS and City Builder games, why should their annointed successors not try to "break the mould" with a new hybrid incorporating the best features of both of these genres? Yes --- please do make a product that is intellectually stimulating requiring a broad range of strategic and tactical options while promoting player creativity.

This is what I am looking for in a game and I really feel that it should be possible to creatively combine the RTS and City Builder genres in order to create a new genre that will truly appeal to the "thinking (wo)man".

Keith (again):

Therefore, I would be extremely honoured if you could possibly think of a way in which you could visualise your perfect game combining the City Builder genre with the RTS or TBS genre. (I seem to remember reading somewhere on this forum that you are not totally averse to playing the occassional RTS game :) ).

With kindest regards

[Keith]

I play the occasional FPS game. I tend to avoid RTS games now, since tend to bore me to death. The last one I tried was Empire Earth. The only RTS game I think I actually enjoyed was Homeworld.

The only alternative to CotN, where you are Pharaoh, I can imagine is a game where you would actually be one of the people in the city and through your own work and good fortune managed to rise in status somehow. You may remain a peasant or end up a wealthy merchant, a priest, a scribe, a general, thief or dead.

[tobing]

...The only alternative to CotN, where you are Pharaoh, I can imagine is a game where you would actually be one of the people in the city and through your own work and good fortune managed to rise in status somehow. You may remain a peasant or end up a wealthy merchant, a priest, a scribe, a general, thief or dead.
Oh well, this could be some real nice RPG - just think of KOTOR as an example.

[Josh]

No offence, but your ideal game sounds like a game I would absolutely hate.

Basicly AOE with more complex cities...


<-- Hates resource gathering sprites and tech trees so much it hurts

[Son of Moose]

Josh:

No need to apologise --- different people have different tastes. :) It would be an extremely boring world if everything was completely uniform and everyone had the same likes and dislikes. I must admit that I like resource gathering (the greater the array, the better) and I like tech trees (the more complex and involved, the better). Therefore I suppose that I am a micro-management fan.

Nevertheless, despite your great aversion to the RTS genre, you have managed to make an extremely neat summary of my fairly long post. To paraphrase your most elegant commentary:

AOE with more buildings, more resources and more complex cities ...

Thanks for visiting :)

[tobing]

No offence, but your ideal game sounds like a game I would absolutely hate.

Basicly AOE with more complex cities...


<-- Hates resource gathering sprites and tech trees so much it hurts
Should this be part of the 'contructive Criticism'-Thread?

Well, taste is different. I'm not so sure wether I would like AoE with mor complex cities myself, I'm just thinking about how to put CB and RTS together and what this would feel like. Maybe the result is that we can't imagine how to put them together in such a way that it is a fun game, so maybe there is a reason that such a game doesn't exist yet...

to be continued in the 'other' thread...

[Son of Moose]

Tobing:

I look forward to reading your contributions in BOTH threads.

Thanks for your time. :)

[EmperorJay]

I do understand your point, (see below) but let me say this first. Citybuilders are RTS games, the focus is just different from the many other RTS games around.

I will not adress all point separately, there are 2 I've quoted since they got my attention.

## The harvesting model used in AOE/ROR where the initial villagers are required to gather basic resources (such as wood, stone, food and gold) in order to build structures and/or military units (without an ongoing maintenance cost) seems fairer and (potentially) more challenging than that adopted in the City Builder games (i.e. the initial stash of gold coins that tends to disappear at an alarming rate - due to often prohibitive maintenance costs - leading the unwary player to early bankruptcy). [In order to facilitate massive civic and military growth, all city structures and military units should be maintenance free].
The only maintenance I'm aware of in CB games is wage and I don't think that's any less than fair. CotN will represent a "resource based" system far better than the previous CB games (with all buildings needing resources and only labourers and other employeed cost "money" (grain). I think this wish has already been granted :) .


## These games (set in Japan, Medieval Europe and, shortly, in Ancient Rome) have allowed gamers to not only build enormous armies but also to participate in epic (real life sized) pitched battles employing many thousands of military units. However (from what I have read --- I am subject to correction here), the player does not seem to have total control of his military units once they engage in battle. If true, this would seem to be a somewhat counter-productive measure that would remove much of the pleasure and excitement from military combat.
Would you, as a military commander, be able to keep track of every unit (the RL term, not game term) and also give them orders? It all depends on the balance.

Your suggestions sound fine but the key element in creating a game is the balance. If you're required to fight a battle, your city will remain unattended and vice versa. The more complex you make a game the harder it will be to find the right balance. If the player is doing X, won't Y and Z go wrong?

If you want the player to have many options, you will also have to make sure that the AI can handle anything the player hasn't got time to pay attention to. If the player is doing one thing, he just can't do another. Therefore I think it's better that the CB games and RTS games are not combined. Or, if combined, they need to be combined in such a way that the player can neglect either the city building or the military part. Why? Because if you don't allow the player to neglect some aspects of the city/civilization the player will either not have enough time to properly handle things or you have to provide the player with a gameplay that has very little depth.

Give the player a lot of complexity and he can't handle it all; give the player much options with very little depth and there are no challenges.

Of course, you could script the AI in such a way that it handles all other aspects while the player handles one but why not focus on that one aspect from the beginning? Then you have all the time to create the perfect game for that particular genre.

Like Keith said, TM should slowly evolve CotN (and the future games) which I think will eventually lead to more in-dept military and politics perhaps.

Or, as I said a while ago in another thread allow the player to live the life a Roman (or Greek or Egyptian) would have lived it: starting as a soldier, ending up as general, starting as a laundry washer and ending up as a wealthy trader, starting as a simple banker and ending up as etc.

[tobing]

Well, that points out what I would object against a combination of CB and RTS. Too much to handle, to have a game that is fun the player should not be forced to handle too many things at a time. Balance is the keyword here. I think that finding the right balance is difficult, so if the player concentrates on his army the city should run without his attention, at least for a while.

Actually that is one of the things I did not like in AoE (and most of the clones) - you have to look for dumb villagers standing around when some resource is finished and find new places for them to work. In my opinion they should be able to find another place of the same resource without my intervention... or I would like to have an intelligent scout who discoveres the map for me... so I could concentrate on building the base, create an army and think about strategy instead of idle resource gatherers.

[Son of Moose]

Emperor Jay:

Thank you for your most detailed and extremely interesting reply.

Yes --- you are indeed correct insofar as City Builder games could well be classified as a specialist sub-category of the RTS genre. (That being so, it should actually be considerably easier to add further more conventional RTS features to this sub-genre).

In many respects, I am relieved that the maintainance costs seem to have been substantially reduced in CotN. Facing early bankruptcy was my least favourite aspect of Pharaoh!! :( [Maybe I was just a poor player?]. Nevertheless, from a personal perspective (which seems to be in conflict with that of most of the other members of this community), I would not mind having to gather a fair amount of resources in order to "pay" up-front for my structures. Nevertheless, I certainly fully respect my fellow members' opinions on this matter.

I also fully understand your reservations about making the game too complex (and tricky to keep abreast of developments) with a combined military and city builder mode. I suppose that this represents the "heart of the matter". How can one make this situation manageable? It could well help by making an extremely intelligent ai that could "take over" some of your city building, etc. tasks while attending to "pesky" (to many of our forumers) military matters. [In this regard, I strongly advice you to view the official webpage of the soon-to-be-released Supreme Ruler (SR) 2010 by BattleGoat Studios. This game is an extremely ambitious and complicated RTS or TBS (revolutionary concept) game which plays as an economic simulation. This is the type of game that I would truly love to see set in the ancient period with an additional strategic city building element!!].

Perhaps the RTS aspect could be augmented by a TBS mode (like SR210 --- for those who would prefer this more measured type of gameplay) or have a "halt" function (like SR2010) where one could succesfully multi-task. This could possibly be the way to be able to successfully combine ones city building and military activities.

Hopefully I will not be censored for promoting a rival game (like SR2010) but it might well interest some of the forum members who are interested in the possibility of trying to combine the RTS and city building genres. As stated above, I would love to see SR2010 set in the ancient era with a strong city building aspect.

Maybe some of our members might be interested in exploring this concept further in this thread ... :)

With kindest regards

[Bizkit]

Heh.. I remember that in AoE2 I was always trying to build large cities and I got frustrated that I didn't have any walkers, except for the peasants. So I used to place the mills at the other end of town, so they would have to cross it when taking food from farms/fishing, thus giving the impressions of a lively city. :p What a game that would've been.. An Age of Empires with CB capabilities. *sigh* The graphics that were used in AoE2 are mostly out of use nowadays (the latest game that used them was from the Star Wars series, in 2002, I think), but the game is always on my hard-drive. As you guys said, a combination between RTS and CB would require months of hard work from the designers, but the results would be fantastics. It would probably attract both RTS and CB fans.. I mean, you cannot be 100% CB fan, without ever wanting to have a bit of a battle.. Or the other way around.
We can only wait and see, but IMO CotN will pave the way for a new generation of games, that will combine several genres (except RPG, that one couldn't find its place in a real-time universe).

[Son of Moose]

BizKit:

Thank you so much for your extremely interesting and well-considered post. You have really come close to defining this new genre!! :) The graphics in AOE2 (AOK) are extremely attractive and are definitely compatible with those of the city building genre. It is also still an extremely popular game within the RTS community. Just imagine if one were able to add some additional fully functional buildings to the game ...

I really think that you are totally correct when you say that the new City Builder-RTS (sub)genre would appeal to a fairly broad spectrum of the community. From my rather infrequent forrays to the RTS forums, I seem to detect an increasing amount of boredom with this genre. These gamers seem to be looking for something different and for something more evolved.

Maybe we have the answer ...

[tobing]

So far I agree, we come close to sketch some genre-mix, but I would not go so far as to say it is defined. For this we have to be more detailed and describe how such a game would really behave. But that would be a nice thing to think about...

[Son of Moose]

Tobing:

Thank you for your wise input!!

Indeed, I would be extremely interested if the forum members who are interested in further exploring this new genre (and I fully understand that they are possibly in the minority --- no problem :) ) were to come up with some more specific ideas.

Imho, I think that AOE would make a great starting point for this new genre. I would really like to see several cultures (like in AOE) appearing in the game --- especially the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans who have already featured in earlier city builder games. The Babylonians (who were also prolific builders) would add an additional element to this game.

As stated, I really look forward to receiving further feedback. Maybe we might be able to compile some form of design document for this new genre which might actually interest an established game developer?

[Incidently, I have no problem in incorporating some form of Sim-like activity into this proposed genre if it succeeds in adding further substance to the game].

[tobing]

Just during lunch I have been thinking about 'Die Siedler 5' - to appear at the end of this year. That game should also come pretty close to a good combination of CB and RTS, and I'm also really looking forward to that game. Actually, CotN and this one will be most probably the only games I'll buy in the rest of this year.

Here is a link to the homepage: http://www.ubi.com/US/Games/thesettlersv_pc.htm where you can find more details.

[Son of Moose]

Tobing:

Thank you for the link --- I will most certainly follow it. I am sure that we will be able to obtain some ideas from this game. :)

With kindest regards

[Son of Moose]

Heritage of Kings™: The Settlers® is a world-building strategy game with fully rendered 3D visuals and unavoidably addictive gameplay. Players can dive into a detailed medieval world offering a unique mix of RTS and simulation gameplay. A fully functioning community can be created; new advancements can be discovered, and enemy forces will be repelled!

Key Features:
A wide-ranging and addictive single-player campaign: 20 medieval missions challenge players to create their own realm by conquering seven fantastic kingdoms and retrieving the Orb of Power. Multiplayer content will be included.

Cutting-edge visual technology: A breathtaking 3D gaming experience that takes advantage of Criterion™'s RenderWare™ technology.
Dynamic weather and seasons have a direct impact on gameplay: Units travel more slowly on snow; rivers freeze and become battlefields!
A living environment: A wide variety of animals and plant life create immersion and detail.

Expert concept development and game design contributed by Bruce Milligan: The well-respected RTS designer has worked on several best-selling titles in the genre.

Manage more than 70 types of intelligent inhabitants: Within an interdependent community.
Each character type has its own benefits, uses, skills, and abilities!
Barter materials, items, and advancements with sales people to acquire new abilities and options.
Discover important technological breakthroughs by using inventors, scholars, and alchemists.

An exciting combat system with upgradeable RPG elements, including enhanced abilities, weapons, and technologies.

I have taken the liberty of copying the brief outline of game features included in the UbiSoft webpage.

Comments:

# I note (with some interest) that the developers highlight the combination of RTS and simulation play. Therefore it would appear that the "perfect" game should contain at least some element of simulation (like CotN has --- congratulations Tilted Mill :) ).

# The comment regarding "a fully functional community" would appear to re-inforce the simulation aspect. I definitely see clear parallels with CotN here.

# Dynamic weather is interesting and somewhat of a "Holy Grail" insofar as Battle Goat Studios were reluctantly forced to remove this feature from SR2010.

# "A wide variety of animal and plant life" ... This is excellent as these features certainly add to the aesthetics and the ambience of a game.

# The initial two subheadings listed under "manage more than 70 types of intelligent inhabitants" could easily have derived from the CotN handbook (although one might not be able to upgrade one's skills and abilities in CotN in this particular manner)!!

# The use of elaborate technology trees and interconnected industries are extremely important and constitute much of the interest and challenge of any good RTS game.

# The advanced military system seems interesting and compatible with any evolved RTS game.

Summary:

If only someone could create this type of RTS set in the ancient era and featuring most of the AOE-specific civilizations ...

[Azeem]

I've played the "Settlers" series (though I can't re-install it anymore on my blasted Windows XP :mad: ). It was an interesting marriage of city-building, resource distribution management, and RTS combat. However, their attempted inclusion of RTS-style combat in "Settlers III" was only mediocre at best. They automated soldier recriutment (thus taking out the annoying finger exercises), but it was still a major pain commanding hordes and hordes of individual units.

[tobing]

My favorite so far was Settlers 2, I didn't like Settlers 3 too much because it was too much of RTS, but then Settlers 4 was again much better. So I'm curious what Settlers 5 might turn out to be - certainly much different than the prequels. It's similar to CotN which will me much different from any prequels - if one would Pharaoh & Co call a prequel.

Ah, Settlers 4 runs fine with XP - S2 does not and S3 I didn't try...

[NeilV]

Its becouse of problems getting older games to run that i still Duel boot 98se and win 2k which means I still have a ver of DOS for games that need that ;)

[Lannes]

Hi there,

Personally I don't enjoy playing games where the economy is managed for the sole purpose of enhancing the military and fuel wars. For games with a historical theme I'd prefer those where the military either is just one of many sources of power, or the only one (tactical games). One day though I still hope to see a proper Roman age strategy game that covers:

1) city building (with emphasis on building a political, administrative and financial centre).
2) economic development (roads, ports/trade routes, aquaducts, mining operations)
3) military on a strategical (including construction of forts and establishment of veteran colonies) and tactical scale.
4) a diplomatic engine (imperial and tribal)

in a setting that is at least to some extent true to history and geography.
Probably wasted words though. Too far away from pure city building, which I suspect will be TM's core business.

Lannes

[Son of Moose]

Lannes:

Thank you so much for your erudite post. You have pretty well covered most of the aspects that I would like to see in the City Builder-RTS genre.

I agree with you that the military should certainly not be the sole (or even possibly the primary) focus of the game. This is why conventional RTS games are indeed monstrously repetitive and boring. Imho this is precisely the problem confronting the RTS genre --- near total uniformity in gameplay options with minimal new features to lead to any evolution in the genre. We do desperately need something new!! :(

As far as I understand, Impressions (the de facto predecessor of Tilted Mill) made both City Builder AND RTS games (such as the Lords of the Realm series). Therefore it would appear highly logical for them to try to combine these genres with a future (hopefully their next) release.

Perhaps (in order to add further variation and content to this game), Tilted Mill (or whoever) could add the Greeks and the Egyptians (maybe even the Babylonians) to the game. Perhaps (as a way of making a suitable profit on this game) they could add various cultures into the original (Roman) version as fully functional (charged at the full price) expansion packs. This would be an extremely interesting development!! :D

ANY THOUGHTS FROM "THE POWERS-THAT-BE" AT TILTED MILL?

Come to that is there any additional feedback from the community ...?

[Scott7]

I agree with everything EmperorJay said.

The thing I like about City Builders is that they are a different type of RTS. I don't think they should conform with the AOE-esque games. I own AOE and Rise of Nations, and I like both, but not nearly as much as City Builders.

CotN seems be moving even further away from the normal type of RTS's, and I am glad about it. It'd be more fun to have a new type of game than a combination of two existing ones.

That said, I would probably buy a game similar to what Son of Moose described.

[Son of Moose]

Scott7:

As you say, CotN looks extremely interesting and I certainly look forward to playing it. :)

The mixed genre (possibly complete with some of the CotN Sim aspects) would also (hopefully) be great. :) . I would also look extremely forward to playing it.

Therefore, within 100 days we should be able to experience something new and revolutionary!! :D The select few will be able to play it even earlier ... :p

With kindest regards

[Tarquinius Superbus]

I find that RTS' just become a game of who can click the fastest: they are mostly about rushing as fast as you can, and there are usually no turtling tactics involved. If there was some medium between the speedy click-fest of RTS', and the slow, almost confused feel of CB, that would be an excellent game.

Also: I'm not quite sure what you meant when you said that you can't control your units totally in Total War games: they are the most realistic battle simulation tools in existence.
---
Parcere Subiectus et Debellare Superbos

[Son of Moose]

Tarquinius Superbus:

Many thanks for reactivating this dormant thread!! :D

If there was some medium between the speedy click-fest of RTS', and the slow, almost confused feel of CB, that would be an excellent game.

To be honest, I couldn't agree more. However, the challenge would obviously be in getting the balance correct. :) In single-player mode, I find that the "turtler-type" strategy is reasonably effective. It also serves as an interesting way of prolonging the game --- after all, where is the fun in "rushing" and winning the game in 5 to 10 minutes (which you can apparently do in most of the Ages games).

Forgive me, I must have been terribly misinformed :( --- insofar as my comments relating to the Total War franchise are from reading about it. I have actually never played any of the games. :o Maybe I will ...

[tobing]

In all RTS games I have played (less each year, no one currently...) I always had wishes for a little more advanced AI, better control of my units, and especially a game speed adjustment like in the CB games (10% - 100%). That would really give me a chance to klick fast enough without being a struggle, I always hate it to see what to do but I can't give the orders fast enough.

I have Medieval TW installed, but not yet played. But I think I should give it a try (after the beta of course :D ).

[Cironir]

My main trouble with the Settlers 4 was the annoyingly cheating AI. It just ruined the game for me. The only RTS games I liked, and where neither the AI was balantly cheating nor "rushing" was required, was the Kohan series. Here, I felt that strategy mattered more than tactics. The sequal, Kohan 2, is coming out this month. Kohan 1 and its expansion where overlooked because of the slightly lacking graphics. :/

[Tarquinius Superbus]

I have actually never played any of the games.

The Total War series is a must play, no doubt about it: they are evolutionary in their TBS sense, but in their RTS sense, they are, quite simply, revolutionary. Medieval: Total War is one of the greatest games of all time.
---
Parcere Subiectus et Debellare Superbos

[tobing]

Well, I think I should really give it a try. So would you advise to use the Vikings-Addon right from the beginning or can I play it without it? I ask because sometimes an addon adds some significant improvements in gameplay or handling which I would not like to miss.

[Son of Moose]

The Total War series is a must play, no doubt about it: they are evolutionary in their TBS sense, but in their RTS sense, they are, quite simply, revolutionary.

Now I really must add Rome: Total War to my list of must-have games --- as it supposed to be even better than its Medieval counterpart!! :D

[Mosses]

I agree that some military action is require in City Build games but, to go to the far side of the of the City Sims game just is not fun. The purpose for me in playing the City Sims is to deal with the complexities of designing a city and make it function. To have no outside threat just makes it Sim City, boring. Bring on the barbarians!!!!

[Keith]

You don't need military action to spice things up, there could be all sorts of natural disasters that could as much harm or more to a city.

[Kokopelli]

You can have incidents occur within the city: e.g. civil unrest, natural disasters, etc and have the game still be really fun. Depending on the event, a natural disaster/civil unreset could cause more damage than a military attack.

[Tarquinius Superbus]

So would you advise to use the Vikings-Addon right from the beginning or can I play it without it?

I strongly recommend you play with the expansion: it adds new factions, units, and there is a new campaign (it also fixes any problems from the original). Or, if you don't want to go out and buy it, Rome: Total War comes out in less than a month.
---
Parcere Subiectus et Debellare Superbos

[tobing]

Thanks for that info. So then I'll get the vikings expansion and try to find a little time to play MTW. Rome will have to wait :D