NationStates Jolt Archive

I just got it for Hanuka a few days ago and the graphics are: amazing, godly, beautiful, spectacular, pretty, shiny, lovely, colorful...

So who else has it? What strategies and tactics do you use? Which civilization do you prefer to play?(poll)

EDIT: Who would you like to see in an expansion?
I would expect the US and Japan at least and probably focus on Imperialism in the 1800s.

I think it blows.

Messed-up chronologically (trains in the colonial period), and you can't play the native americans. Fancy graphics don't make a good game.

Strelet rushing = ownage.

I play as England almost all of the time. Depending on the map, I usually use a combination of musketeers (or Imperial Redcoats by age 5), culverins, and field guns/mortars. If there's water, I support them with ships, but if it's entirely land-based like Great Plains or Rockies, I use cavalry to support them.

A stack of 50 fully upgraded musketeers supported by artillery is very effective, although it's weakest against the Dutch. Still, field guns cut through their skirmishers quite effectively.

The British settler-spawning ability when they build houses is amazingly useful in the second and third ages.

i love this game, the germans are my race. They have one of the best militaries in the game, and their good with mercs. Economy isn't bad either.

Messed-up chronologically (trains in the colonial period), and you can't play the native americans. Fancy graphics don't make a good game.

The trains don't arrive until the Industrial Age, which is the second to last and coincides with the 1850's or so, given the uniforms. It's only off because there is no United States.

Playing as the Native Americans would've been a nice addition, but given the focus of the game they would have been difficult with the home cities and all.

Eh. I tried the demo; on normal graphics, the game stuttered, and when I loweder the resolution, the graphics dropped to slightly sub-par. Normally I don't mind, but I find the gameplay to be rather bland; the workers took too long to gather resources, and combat required far too many men. I didn't even bother with the actual mission- the tutorial was enough.

At least the Six Nations would have been possible. They had what you would call "cities", and they certainly where very advanced (the US copied their ideas of Federalism from them).

That being said, I loved AoE I and AoE II, but I couldn't get into III. Maybe I just grew out of it. :(

I like Dawn of War, just because of the atmosphere.

The trains don't arrive until the Industrial Age, which is the second to last and coincides with the 1850's or so, given the uniforms. It's only off because there is no United States.

Playing as the Native Americans would've been a nice addition, but given the focus of the game they would have been difficult with the home cities and all.

Did you watch the opening cinematic? The trains are shown in contrast to the colonial-style uniforms.

And who says the natives can't have home cities? They'd just be on the same continent. Speaking of which, I rather dislike the entire card-system, seeing as it carries over to other senarios. That's alright for campaigns, but when I sit down to play at a LAN or I just want a single contained game, it doesn't make sense for anyone to start with an advantage if they've already played a few rounds. No thanks.

Eh. I tried the demo; on normal graphics, the game stuttered, and when I loweder the resolution, the graphics dropped to slightly sub-par. Normally I don't mind, but I find the gameplay to be rather bland; the workers took too long to gather resources, and combat required far too many men. I didn't even bother with the actual mission- the tutorial was enough.

I played the random map. It failed to impress me as well, even though I could put the graphics up to full. I guess i'm just sick of RTS games now...been playing them for some 10 years. :p

Did you watch the opening cinematic? The trains are shown in contrast to the colonial-style uniforms.

They must've changed it, or the musketeers wern't upgraded. When I was playing as the British, their uniforms (if upgraded to the Industrial/Imperial Age level) looked like those of the mid-19th century.

And who says the natives can't have home cities? They'd just be on the same continent. Speaking of which, I rather dislike the entire card-system, seeing as it carries over to other senarios. That's alright for campaigns, but when I sit down to play at a LAN or I just want a single contained game, it doesn't make sense for anyone to start with an advantage if they've already played a few rounds. No thanks.

That would work, and would be an improvement over the current system, which makes the natives kind of like a resource building and not an independent power in their own right. In AoE 2, the Aztecs/Maya added a new feel to the gameplay and could've done the same in AoE 3.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think you can use single-player home cities in LAN or online games?

They must've changed it, or the musketeers wern't upgraded. When I was playing as the British, their uniforms (if upgraded to the Industrial/Imperial Age level) looked like those of the mid-19th century.



That would work, and would be an improvement over the current system, which makes the natives kind of like a resource building and not an independent power in their own right. In AoE 2, the Aztecs/Maya added a new feel to the gameplay and could've done the same in AoE 3.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think you can use single-player home cities in LAN or online games?

Don't know. It didn't impress me enough to research it, all I know was that we always had to start over to have a LAN game because someone hadn't played it yet. IMO, Rise of Nations is a far better game.

Either British, German, or Ottoman. Sometimes Portuguese and Russian, and rarely Dutch. I've never really liked the Spanish or French.

I got AoE III for christmas. I'm now in love with it.

Rome: Total War is better. In fact, any Total War game rocks.

Don't know. It didn't impress me enough to research it, all I know was that we always had to start over to have a LAN game because someone hadn't played it yet. IMO, Rise of Nations is a far better game.

I like both, but RoN does have advantages over AoE 3, especially in terms of unit variety. I'm looking forward to a Rise of Nations 2, especially since the first had so many great ideas.

mastered germans: home city level 37
hell yeah settler wagons and uhlans. two factories also. uhlans can be upgraded so you have one hell of a cavalry early on.

currently trying the french only for the native bonuses. coureurs are a nice bonus. two factories. musketeers better than doppelsoldners imo
i love native americans. no popcap, no mercy!

if you pay attention, the trains come in during the imperial age. it moves past a start of the colonial age. i mean, heavy cannon in the rockies? that takes time.

Meh. I've never been a huge fan of RTS on a tactical level. If I'm gonna go RTS I'll go oldschool and play EU II or Victoria or something.

Plus I hate games with a messed up historical background. I know the Ottomans and the Germans didn't colonize N America, and apparently even though the game covers the applicable time period the US doesn't come into being.

I like both, but RoN does have advantages over AoE 3, especially in terms of unit variety. I'm looking forward to a Rise of Nations 2, especially since the first had so many great ideas.

Rise of Legends. I'm looking forward to it as well; I believe it comes out this month.

I play English.

Sure, the gfx are nice and all, but that doesn't make up for the game's complete lack of historical accuracy. One reason I really loved AoEII is said accuracy, and the fun campaigns about important things that actually happened in history. I REALLY dislike AoEIII.

By the way, Hearts of Iron II is the single greatest RTS of all time.

At least the Six Nations would have been possible. They had what you would call "cities", and they certainly where very advanced (the US copied their ideas of Federalism from them).

The clue is probably in the title. Did the Six Nations have an empire?

I don't have the game yet but I'll buy it sometime in the near future. I played Age of Empires II and thought it was a pretty good game. I played the demo for Age of Empires III and it was pretty fun.

The clue is probably in the title. Did the Six Nations have an empire?
Depends how you would define an empire...

The clue is probably in the title. Did the Six Nations have an empire?

They were working on one; the entire East Coast would have eventually became united under them if the Europeans hadn't arrived when they did and wiped them out.

Meh. I've never been a huge fan of RTS on a tactical level. If I'm gonna go RTS I'll go oldschool and play EU II or Victoria or something.

Good man. :)

Ahem. One word: Starcraft.

The original AOE was quite good, as well as the 2nd. AOEIII, however, is a poor rip-off of EE. EEII doesn't even bear talking about. IMO the best RTS's of all time were Starcraft and Total Annihilation. All others pale in comparison and those two are still insanely fun to play today. The C&C series was good to, but not quite on par with the other two.

I think it blows.

Messed-up chronologically (trains in the colonial period), and you can't play the native americans. Fancy graphics don't make a good game.
It is an excellent game. If you understood the game, you would know that the game ends right before the US Civil War and trains certainly were around then.

Strelet rushing = ownage.
Indeed, except I haven't worked out a good rush. By the time I get the "boilers" going, it isn't much of a rush anymore. Although I think having all villies go hunt and as soon as you hit 800 age up, meanwhile having them cut wood and build houses to support the 13 strelet card.

If there's water, I support them with ships
I have little practice in naval battles because I never really do them. I'd probably be slaughtered on an island map.


The natives wouldn't make good civilizations and it is more accurate to have them as helpers.

mastered germans: home city level 37
hell yeah settler wagons and uhlans. two factories also. uhlans can be upgraded so you have one hell of a cavalry early on.
Damn, I'm only level 10.

The original AOE was quite good, as well as the 2nd. AOEIII, however, is a poor rip-off of EE. EEII doesn't even bear talking about.
Empire Earth is far worse than AOE3. It's good from time to time or if you want robots and nukes. AOE3 is great.


If you watched "The making of--" you would know they weren't shooting for historical accuracy. It came in the $70 bundle pack. :)

My copy is sitting unopened on my desk, awaiting the day I finally get my computer fixed.

I don't know. The last RTS I bought was Rise of Nations. After that I feel all are pretty much the same game: gather resources, build army, attack, repeat.

I'd like to see a RTS with a lot more S. One that allows flanking, cutting off / protecting supply lines, that considers terrain, that's more than a rock-scissors-paper thing.

Suggestions?

I like Dawn of War, just because of the atmosphere.

And the hideously gory dreadnought kills too? Everyone loves those.

And the hideously gory dreadnought kills too? Everyone loves those.
Everyone kills each other in interesting ways in that game...and in a strange way it adds a lot to the atmosphere of that very dark universe they created.

I don't really know anything about Warhammer 40k, but the glimpse one gets with that game is pretty mad.

AoE III never really interested me as a concept - so I've not played it - I'm more of an RoN advocate. It's a bit more attrition based than strategic, but I'm a boomer player, so that never really bothered me - it plays to my strengths. That said, even RoN dies a terrible death when aircraft and nukes start appearing. *shudder*

Still, 2006 will be a good time for RTS games. Empire at War, Rise of Legends, Galactic Battlegrounds 2, Hopefully Supreme Commander.... even if half of those are terrible....

I heard good things about AoE III mind - once it appears in the bargain bin, I might get it.

I don't know. The last RTS I bought was Rise of Nations. After that I feel all are pretty much the same game: gather resources, build army, attack, repeat.

I'd like to see a RTS with a lot more S. One that allows flanking, cutting off / protecting supply lines, that considers terrain, that's more than a rock-scissors-paper thing.

Suggestions?
Flanking-you need a large army to do that and only Cossacks comes close to mustering large armies. Each unit in AOE3 is sort of like 50 soldiers.
Cutting off-In a Black Forest map or similar you can lock up "choke points"
Supply lines-You can't really have it that way in a game.
Terrain-Higher elevation units get a bonus.

Still, 2006 will be a good time for RTS games. Empire at War, Rise of Legends, Galactic Battlegrounds 2, Hopefully Supreme Commander.... even if half of those are terrible....
Really? YAY! Does everyone know about AOK for DS?

AoE3 is one of the worst games I've inflicted on my poor computer.

It's got the same crummy single-unit style as 2 and having come back from playing the Total War games and Homeworld that just isn't going to cut it anymore.

I personally like age of empires III. Still, I gotta hand the prize to the more classic game of AOE II. Though the graphics arent as great, that game made up for everything. As for my strategy, I usually make a lot of skirmishers and falconets. The mortars are to seige like when usually I go for the approach of field battles and blow the other guys socks off with artillery that hurts their men more then buildings.

I think it blows.

Messed-up chronologically (trains in the colonial period), and you can't play the native americans. Fancy graphics don't make a good game.
amen, get civ 4 instead