Age of Empires 2 announced.
Willy
Well the best is about to get better.
Just saw the website for AoE2
http://age.gamestats.com/age2/
Looks amazing.
Here is an excerpt from the site:
Age of Empires II is the sequel to the award-winning and best-selling
real-time strategy game, Age of Empires. Age of Empires II spans from the
Dark Ages through the Late Medieval Age in which players control the destiny
of mankind from the fall of Rome through the Medieval Period. The game keeps
the epic scope of Age of Empires' gameplay, while evolving the combat,
economic, trading, and diplomacy features as well as the user interface.
Best selling RTS game of 1997, and soon to be the best of 1998 (if they meet
thier deadline of 4th quarter).
--
Willy
...King, I didn't know we had one.
I thought we were an autonomous collective!
Monty Python
Dr. Wedge
Willy wrote in message <6cltpl$sg$1...@news.on>...
>Well the best is about to get better.
>
>Just saw the website for AoE2
>
>http://age.gamestats.com/age2/
>
>Looks amazing.
>
Yes it looks nice, but I doubt that it is playable the way it looks.
If you take those screenshots as realistic, you are going to
be spending all of your time scrolling and rotating the map
just to find your units.
And again, one of those screenshots shows a nice
even line of soldiers outside the gates of the city.
Give me a break.
If they have a zoom out so that you can see a bit more
of the playing field, your unit sprites are going to become
motes.
Willy
Dr. Wedge wrote in message <6cmfqa$nii$1...@imsp009a.netvigator.com>...
>
>Yes it looks nice, but I doubt that it is playable the way it looks.
>If you take those screenshots as realistic, you are going to
>be spending all of your time scrolling and rotating the map
>just to find your units.
>And again, one of those screenshots shows a nice
>even line of soldiers outside the gates of the city.
>Give me a break.
>
Apparently they have included the ability to set formations in the AI.
If this is true, your really do get your break.
>
>If they have a zoom out so that you can see a bit more
>of the playing field, your unit sprites are going to become
>motes.
>
As I understand it, the map will zone and rotate. Sort of like Myth.
Myth isn't a bad game, it is just that I like strategic type games (Civ2,
LOTR & AOE) as opposed to tactical (battle only) games.
steve b./cg splus
Dr. Wedge enlightened the world with this pearl of wisdom...
>And again, one of those screenshots shows a nice
>even line of soldiers outside the gates of the city.
>Give me a break.
Formations are part of the new design, as is unit facing.
--
--------------------------------
steve bauman - sba...@cdmag.com
editor - computer games strategy plus | www.cdmag.com
"Most critical writing is drivel and half of it is
dishonest... It is a short cut to oblivion, anyway."
-Raymond Chandler
Tim Kraft
Talking about the unit facing ability.
Did they build in different offensive or defensive advantages
depending on which side of the unit is facing the enemy?
As in the armor composition of say a tank unit. The front
is heavily armored and the rear has its weaknesses...
TimK
steve b./cg splus
Tim Kraft enlightened the world with this pearl of wisdom...
>Did they build in different offensive or defensive advantages
>depending on which side of the unit is facing the enemy?
>As in the armor composition of say a tank unit. The front
>is heavily armored and the rear has its weaknesses...
Good question. I talked to Bruce Shelley a bit about it, and what I
gathered is that you'll be able to properly flank the enemy.
From that, I'd say yes, you will get an attack bonus and a defensive
minus if attacking, or being attacked, from the side or rear.
I think that answers your question (but no, there will not be tanks in
Age II, heh heh).
--
--------------------------------
steve bauman - sba...@cdmag.com
editor - computer games strategy plus | www.cdmag.com
"She said that she was working for the ABC News,
It was as much of the alphabet as she knew how to use."
The Costello Show - "King of America"
Willy
Tim Kraft wrote in message <34EF2539...@home.com>...
>Talking about the unit facing ability.
>
>depending on which side of the unit is facing the enemy?
>As in the armor composition of say a tank unit. The front
>is heavily armored and the rear has its weaknesses...
>
Unfortunately they did not have tanks in the Middle Ages, maybe you will
have to wait for AoE 3 or 4.
Tim Kraft
Willy,
You might have misunderstood the train of thought??
I was using a "tank" as an example, as in other battle games.
Not to include it in AOE - Photon men do the trick there...
The question was about the benifits of unit facing in AOE2...
TimK
PS: Thanks Steve, for your feedback.
Ian Firth
In article <6cltpl$sg$1...@news.on>, wan...@rogers.wave.ca says...
> Well the best is about to get better.
>
> Just saw the website for AoE2
>
> http://age.gamestats.com/age2/
GameStats, where they tell you to download a font (Medieval), and reboot
your system.
What a bright bunch they are...
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Diversions Software - Game Development - http://www.divsoft.com
Home of Prairie Dog Hunt PRO '97 - DS Sporting Clays
Willy
Ian Firth wrote in message ...
>In article <6cltpl$sg$1...@news.on>, wan...@rogers.wave.ca says...
>> Well the best is about to get better.
>>
>> Just saw the website for AoE2
>>
>> http://age.gamestats.com/age2/
>
>GameStats, where they tell you to download a font (Medieval), and reboot
>your system.
>
>What a bright bunch they are...
>
Very true, Ian, you had to reboot, that is why you did not see it correctly
the first time.
You can thank them for the lesson in using Win95. Don't worry, you'll get
there.
Willy
Tim Kraft wrote in message <34EFC406...@home.com>...
>Willy,
>
>You might have misunderstood the train of thought??
>I was using a "tank" as an example, as in other battle games.
>Not to include it in AOE - Photon men do the trick there...
>
>The question was about the benifits of unit facing in AOE2...
>
Actually, there could be alot done with the facing benifits as befits the
era.
Example, a Pikeman coming upon a Knight, from the shield side, the Knight
should win, however if approached from the sword side a pikeman could defeat
the moounted knight with a good shot in the armpit (no armor their).
Naval combat could be handled realistically. I still do not know why ramming
was not allowed in AoE 1.
In AoE2, you could set up for the bow or stern rake.
The list goes on and on....if they chose to handle it correctly.
Good point Tim, thanks
David Pipes
Willy wrote:
>
> Tim Kraft wrote in message <34EFC406...@home.com>...
> >Willy,
> >
> >You might have misunderstood the train of thought??
> >I was using a "tank" as an example, as in other battle games.
> >Not to include it in AOE - Photon men do the trick there...
> >
> >The question was about the benifits of unit facing in AOE2...
> >
>
> Actually, there could be alot done with the facing benifits as befits the
> era.
>
> Example, a Pikeman coming upon a Knight, from the shield side, the Knight
> should win, however if approached from the sword side a pikeman could defeat
> the moounted knight with a good shot in the armpit (no armor their).
There were no pikes in the ancient world, nor were there knights, nor
could mounted troops charge into battle, nor did they use heavy shields,
nor did they fight from horseback with large heavy shields. Roman armor, and
probably earlier, featured coverage of the armpit with chain.
The preferred tactic for a pikeman against a mounted enemy was to get
the horse, not the knight. Pikes in the rear ranks, or footmen mixed
into the formation, would account for the downed rider. A pikeman
attempting to spear a rider would likely be killed by the horse...
Those would be some of the realistic elements. None of them will be
taken into consideration, I'm sure. Just look at the opening video of
AoE - a total crock. Realism is not likely here.
> Naval combat could be handled realistically. I still do not know why ramming
> was not allowed in AoE 1.
> In AoE2, you could set up for the bow or stern rake.
Raking was a tactic developed for use with cannon, not with ballistae or
archers. It's about 1700 years later than the latest AoE stuff.
> The list goes on and on....if they chose to handle it correctly.
It would just be a different list, if they wanted to be accurate. Fun,
now, I'm more with you there. :-)
> Good point Tim, thanks
> --
> Willy
> ...King, I didn't know we had one.
> I thought we were an autonomous collective!
> Monty Python
--
----------------------------------------
David Pipes
Remove P from return address to reply.
----------------------------------------
radiospace
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 16:21:36 -0500, David Pipes <rob...@home.com>
scribbled with the virtual quill:
<SNIP>
>> Actually, there could be alot done with the facing benifits as befits the
>> era.
>>
>> Example, a Pikeman coming upon a Knight, from the shield side, the Knight
>> should win, however if approached from the sword side a pikeman could defeat
>> the moounted knight with a good shot in the armpit (no armor their).
>
>There were no pikes in the ancient world, nor were there knights, nor
>could mounted troops charge into battle, nor did they use heavy shields,
>nor did they fight from horseback with large heavy shields.
But AOE2 isn't covering the ancient world according to what I've read.
It will run from about 400 A.D. to 1450 A.D....i.e., medieval. So
they would have Pikemen, knights, et. al.
>
>The preferred tactic for a pikeman against a mounted enemy was to get
>the horse, not the knight. Pikes in the rear ranks, or footmen mixed
>into the formation, would account for the downed rider. A pikeman
>attempting to spear a rider would likely be killed by the horse...
>
>Those would be some of the realistic elements. None of them will be
>taken into consideration, I'm sure. Just look at the opening video of
>AoE - a total crock. Realism is not likely here.
Those are realistic elements for a tactical medieval warfare
simulation. But AOE takes place on the strategic level.
(Supposedly!). At this level you should be controlling armies of
pikemen and knights, not individuals, so facing should have nothing to
do with armpit armor (I mean, really, come on, can you see Henry the V
running around positioning all his knights at Agincourt: "You there!
Cover thy armpit!"). If they were going for realism (not saying that
they are) facing would be rather an issue of lines and entrenchements
abstracted as "facing".
>
>It would just be a different list, if they wanted to be accurate. Fun,
>now, I'm more with you there. :-)
It would certainly be a different list because if they wanted to be
accurate you'd control mixed armies at the strategic level and not
individual unit types. As long as you're controlling individual
soldiers with only a single ability its so unrealistic that I'm not
sure any additional "authentic" details are pertinent to making the
game realistic.
Also remember for a real time game the more things like "facing" that
are added, the more micromanagement, and the more AI incompetence.
Patrick
Willy
David Pipes wrote in message <34F096E0...@home.com>...
>
> Ancient history lesson snipped.<
Seems you missed the header and first post in this thread there Davy.
We are talking about AoE2, which covers 450AD to about 1492AD.
During these times, the tactics that Tim & I were discussing were in fact
being used.
>
>> Naval combat could be handled realistically. I still do not know why
ramming
>> was not allowed in AoE 1.
>> In AoE2, you could set up for the bow or stern rake.
>
>Raking was a tactic developed for use with cannon, not with ballistae or
>archers. It's about 1700 years later than the latest AoE stuff.
>
Again, see my response to point one. AoE2 ends in 1492, does that mean
raking does not come into effect until 3192AD? How curious!
Tim Kraft
Simply put, wouldn't the facing apply equally to all unit types?
Personally, I can only think of one creature that can see backwards,
an Owl. The rear flank should have weaker defenses from attack.
The front view should have a cone of increased offensive strength.
Actually, a unit can only attack effectively forward?
A unit would have to turn to defend against a flanking attack.
Then have to move a second time, if the attack came from the rear.
These required movements could be used to reduce the battle odds.
Of course, this would all be done for you as the combat is resolved...
This brings up a lot of possibilities...
TimK
Christoph Nahr wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 16:21:36 -0500, David Pipes <rob...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Willy wrote:
> >> Example, a Pikeman coming upon a Knight, from the shield side, the Knight
> >> should win, however if approached from the sword side a pikeman could defeat
> >> the moounted knight with a good shot in the armpit (no armor their).
>
> Aiming for the armpit with a pike? I don't quite know, I think a
> better example would be for the knights to charge at the flank or rear
> of a line of pikemen. :-)
>
> >There were no pikes in the ancient world [...]
>
> David, did you notice that the time covered by AoE2 will be 450 to
> 1450 _Anno Domini_?
>
<snip>
>
> They did promise formation fighting for AoE2, though I wonder how it
> will be integrated into the user interface and the combat rules.
> --
> Chris Nahr (chn...@emailNOSPAM.msn.com)
> Remove NOSPAM to reply via e-mail
Christoph Nahr
>Willy wrote:
>> Example, a Pikeman coming upon a Knight, from the shield side, the Knight
>> should win, however if approached from the sword side a pikeman could defeat
>> the moounted knight with a good shot in the armpit (no armor their).
Aiming for the armpit with a pike? I don't quite know, I think a
better example would be for the knights to charge at the flank or rear
of a line of pikemen. :-)
>There were no pikes in the ancient world [...]
David, did you notice that the time covered by AoE2 will be 450 to
1450 _Anno Domini_?
>The preferred tactic for a pikeman against a mounted enemy was to get
>the horse, not the knight. Pikes in the rear ranks, or footmen mixed
>into the formation, would account for the downed rider. A pikeman
>attempting to spear a rider would likely be killed by the horse...
Or get his head chopped off by another rider. I agree, and I hope
that AoE2 will place troops such as pikemen in formations by default,
instead of having them walk around on their one. The lone "phalanxes"
(ie single hoplites) of AoE looked rather ridiculous.
>Those would be some of the realistic elements. None of them will be
>taken into consideration, I'm sure. Just look at the opening video of
>AoE - a total crock. Realism is not likely here.
They did promise formation fighting for AoE2, though I wonder how it
Ian Firth
In article <6cpkfp$rig$1...@news.on>, wan...@rogers.wave.ca says...
> Very true, Ian, you had to reboot, that is why you did not see it correctly
> the first time.
Um, when I install fonts, they are readily available to every application
on my system.
There is no need to reboot.
> You can thank them for the lesson in using Win95. Don't worry, you'll get
> there.
I've been there much longer than you have silly.
Go ahead and reboot your brain now...
David Pipes
Willy wrote:
>
> David Pipes wrote in message <34F096E0...@home.com>...
> >
> > Ancient history lesson snipped.<
>
> Seems you missed the header and first post in this thread there Davy.
Sure did, Willykins.
> We are talking about AoE2, which covers 450AD to about 1492AD.
Which is what I missed.
> During these times, the tactics that Tim & I were discussing were in fact
> being used.
Ah, well, I disagree there. The shield-side/sword-side modifier is ludicrous
for single combat, and simplistic for mass combat. It's been done better many
times. The points I raised about tactics hold up.
> >> Naval combat could be handled realistically. I still do not know why
> ramming
> >> was not allowed in AoE 1.
> >> In AoE2, you could set up for the bow or stern rake.
> >
> >Raking was a tactic developed for use with cannon, not with ballistae or
> >archers. It's about 1700 years later than the latest AoE stuff.
> >
>
> Again, see my response to point one. AoE2 ends in 1492, does that mean
> raking does not come into effect until 3192AD? How curious!
Okay, I got AoE's dates wrong. Have you wrung enough amusement out of it?
> Willy
> ...King, I didn't know we had one.
> I thought we were an autonomous collective!
> Monty Python
Nighty night.
Willy
David Pipes wrote in message <34F2102C...@home.com>...
>
>Okay, I got AoE's dates wrong. Have you wrung enough amusement out of it?
>
Life tends to get too serious, we have to lighten it up where we can.
Nothing personal, just friendly kidding.
We are all awaiting Bruce Shelley's next great effort.
--
David Pipes
Willy wrote:
>
> David Pipes wrote in message <34F2102C...@home.com>...
> >
> >Okay, I got AoE's dates wrong. Have you wrung enough amusement out of it?
> >
>
> Life tends to get too serious, we have to lighten it up where we can.
> Nothing personal, just friendly kidding.
Yeah, I'm under enough stress as it is. Sorry.
> We are all awaiting Bruce Shelley's next great effort.
Absolutely!
> --
> Willy
> ...King, I didn't know we had one.
> I thought we were an autonomous collective!
> Monty Python
--