PDA

View Full Version : Multiplayer - confirmed


DarthMaulUK
01-03-2005, 09:22 PM
We can confirm that Empire At War WILL have multiplayer features.

There will be a 'head-to-head' campaigns together with the traditional free for all skirmish battles.
PLUS! Lucasarts plan to release a global Ladder system (much like Battlefront)

More info when we get it

DMUK

OverlordAngelus
01-04-2005, 05:46 AM
Head to head campaigns?

So that conquer the galaxy mode of play you mentioned in another thread is in multiplayer too? *drool*

Raxor
01-04-2005, 06:44 AM
wow, will make lan even more fun. im used to playing against the computer and my mates occassionally. but missions, add a whole new level!

lukeiamyourdad
01-04-2005, 10:28 AM
Is this going to be like an MMORTS? That would be interesting.

It's kind of what this head to head campaign will bring I think.

Nairb Notneb
01-04-2005, 03:44 PM
In the multi player campaigns, can two players play as one civ against a common foe? (example: my brother and I playing as the rebels against the Empire?)

Pho3nix
01-05-2005, 01:00 AM
ah, this is splendid! I can't wait for the game to come out

FroZticles
01-05-2005, 01:25 AM
Hehe if multiplayer wasn't available that would be suicide for the gaming market.

lukeiamyourdad
01-05-2005, 07:13 AM
Except if you're making a SP RPG :D *points to KOTOR*

Fishflesh
01-05-2005, 07:34 AM
Great!...what would an RTS be whitout multiplayer.

:p

Nairb Notneb
01-06-2005, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by NL_Ackbar
Great!...what would an RTS be whitout multiplayer.

:p
Left on the stores shelf, that's what.

Alegis
01-08-2005, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Nairb Notneb
Left on the stores shelf, that's what.
Oh no it's sw franchise, it will sell anyways ;)

Don't bother about the league but some more mp options would be swell

DK_Viceroy
01-08-2005, 01:19 PM
It should have the most Online features ever conceived for a game it'll have stiff compotition for AoE3

FroZticles
01-08-2005, 01:58 PM
I don't know because they have not annouced anything excited or new it could just be a AOE2 with buffed up graphics.

DK_Viceroy
01-08-2005, 03:12 PM
AoM did not fall into that catagory.

Sithmaster_821
01-08-2005, 05:41 PM
Head-to-Head campaigns sounds very awesome, although I don't think that it would be to the extent of becoming a MMORTS, which I think would be very hard to do. Instead, it'd be more likely that you start a game with a coupla people, and see who can conquer the set amount of the galaxy.

OverlordAngelus
01-08-2005, 06:53 PM
If they have multiplayer campaigns for more than 2 players, they should include at least a basic diplomacy menu to allow players to create alliances and such.

I can see potential for players having their own factions or for players sharing control of the Rebels and the Empire.

The main problem I forsee is what to do while 2 players are in a battle and other players are not. If players are sharing control, then its easy because they would all be drawn into the battle but that won't work if players are all trying to carve out their own section of the galaxy.

DK_Viceroy
01-09-2005, 02:28 AM
Did anyone play Tiberian Sun and try out the World Domination mode?

You could take territories for your side it was really cool.

They should have it in EaW

boranchistanger
01-09-2005, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by DK_Viceroy
Did anyone play Tiberian Sun and try out the World Domination mode?

You could take territories for your side it was really cool.

They should have it in EaW

THe World Domination mode in Tiberian Sun was very dissapointing. Not fun at all in my humble opinion.

I'm a huge RTS fan. I started with the origional Command and Conquer (Greatest game ever created, I still play it all the time) and have recently gotten Rome: Total War. Now, this game hasd alot of potential but we'll see. Rome: Total War has really raised the bar (10,000 troops in one battle and with good graphics). Let's see if Lucasarts can capitalize.

-Boran

DK_Viceroy
01-10-2005, 09:58 AM
well it's an example of an idea not an example of the best implementation obviously :p

I still thgink the idea is good.

Toonboy
01-13-2005, 08:26 AM
Has there been any word on the number of Players that can play in an RM match??? 8, 6, ?????

Kroven
01-17-2005, 06:18 AM
sounds perfect:p

Admiral Vostok
01-17-2005, 11:21 AM
Well the inclusion of multiplayer mode is not surprising. But I look forward to finding out all the details of a multiplayer mode.

I've said it before but I'll say it again: I believe the most important thing for multiplayer modes in RTS games (apart from balance between factions) is a random map generator. Using set maps like in WC3 and C&CG gets boring really fast, and tactics get very stale.

DK_Viceroy
01-18-2005, 01:16 AM
Those two games though had plenty of maps to go through and they both had a scenario editor not very good one in terms of Generals but an excellent one for warcraft.

I look forward to having some games on it as the V team again:D

saberhagen
01-18-2005, 01:26 AM
Yes, random maps are essential. That's the biggest problem with Dawn of War: there are only 9 1v1 maps and they're always the same every time you play them. I think that contributes to the scout rushing controversy as well, because it's easier to do when you know exactly where the enemy base and their most vulnerable SPs are going to be.

Having said that, I'm not sure if random map generation is feasible in 3D games. I can't recall seeing it in any 3D game. Just another reason why 2D is better for RTS maybe?

DK_Viceroy
01-18-2005, 01:29 AM
Would Age Of Mythology The Titans, class as 3D since it has a Random Map Generator.

Odabhsoj2
01-18-2005, 02:50 AM
:fett: So is it going to be a rpg or is it going to be a battlefront type of a game? Or like a Jedi Academy type?

DK_Viceroy
01-18-2005, 03:27 AM
it will be none of the above since it's an RTS.

Alegis
01-18-2005, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by Odabhsoj2
:fett: So is it going to be a rpg or is it going to be a battlefront type of a game? Or like a Jedi Academy type?
And JA and SWBF are the same type ;) well, at least meant to be. EaW is comparable with the popular Age of Empires series.

boranchistanger
01-20-2005, 05:12 AM
Why are you crying out for a random map generator? I would cry for a random map generator because some maps will always favor one side or the other.

I'm in Rome Total War right now (Best RTS game ever) and I got absolutely pissed off when I am forced to fight on a hilly map. Why? Because your enemy just camps out on top of a hill and blows you away when you come up it. Wow, lots of fun, lots of strategy. That is why I always host my games and is why I always choose the flat-grassy map. That way no one side has any advantage and strategy is a must use.

With a random map generator, that cannot happen. To spice things up they will use hills, crators and God knows what which automatically gives one side an advantage.

So, that's what I think about a random map generator. Now, about multiplayer in general.

Let's compare a good multiplayer RTS and a bad multiplayer RTS.

Good: Rome Total War and the Command and Conquer series
This is good because not only of the scale of the battles but because of the gameplay itself. You don't need to do that chopping down trees nonsense, it's just a straight out battle of wits: whoever is able to outlank the other first. It also implements lots of different conditions (Which you can adjust) like weather, time of day, and amount of money each team has to spend. This allows for excellent multiplayer gameplay which will last for years.
Command and Conquer is also an excellent example to follow. Unlike Rome Total War this involves building stuff which generates your units. They designed this well, however, because it is still an actual strategy battle. You aren't trying to chop down trees, kill deer, and mine for gold and silver. Instead you collect money which you build your units with. This way you can actually muster and army and go fight the other teams army. Good stuff.

Bad: Age of Empires 2
I was a fool for getting this game because it flat out stunk. I mean, we have Shogun Total War here in which you can have 10,000 people on the field at once and I buy this piece of crap which only allows for 150 on the field at once. But beside that, the gameplay was simply terrible online. It was a race to see who could build the most castles first online. Yay! Lots of strategy there! How realistic is it to build a castle right next to comebody else's castle? Or even better, how realistic is it to build a freaking wall our of castles in front of your base? Ya, you saw that alot in the Middle Ages.

But the point is that Empire at War must develop the kind of enjoyable, long lasting multiplayer gameplay that is both fun and unique. To do that it must offer both realistic (No Imperial Hangers built right in the middle of a Rebel base, please) but also entertaining (Wide array of maps which require the use of strategy and provide a different experience each time).

-Boran

boranchistanger
01-20-2005, 05:13 AM
Why are you crying out for a random map generator? I would cry for a random map generator because some maps will always favor one side or the other.

I'm in Rome Total War right now (Best RTS game ever) and I got absolutely pissed off when I am forced to fight on a hilly map. Why? Because your enemy just camps out on top of a hill and blows you away when you come up it. Wow, lots of fun, lots of strategy. That is why I always host my games and is why I always choose the flat-grassy map. That way no one side has any advantage and strategy is a must use.

With a random map generator, that cannot happen. To spice things up they will use hills, crators and God knows what which automatically gives one side an advantage.

So, that's what I think about a random map generator. Now, about multiplayer in general.

Let's compare a good multiplayer RTS and a bad multiplayer RTS.

Good: Rome Total War and the Command and Conquer series
This is good because not only of the scale of the battles but because of the gameplay itself. You don't need to do that chopping down trees nonsense, it's just a straight out battle of wits: whoever is able to outlank the other first. It also implements lots of different conditions (Which you can adjust) like weather, time of day, and amount of money each team has to spend. This allows for excellent multiplayer gameplay which will last for years.
Command and Conquer is also an excellent example to follow. Unlike Rome Total War this involves building stuff which generates your units. They designed this well, however, because it is still an actual strategy battle. You aren't trying to chop down trees, kill deer, and mine for gold and silver. Instead you collect money which you build your units with. This way you can actually muster and army and go fight the other teams army. Good stuff.

Bad: Age of Empires 2
I was a fool for getting this game because it flat out stunk. I mean, we have Shogun Total War here in which you can have 10,000 people on the field at once and I buy this piece of crap which only allows for 150 on the field at once. But beside that, the gameplay was simply terrible online. It was a race to see who could build the most castles first online. Yay! Lots of strategy there! How realistic is it to build a castle right next to comebody else's castle? Or even better, how realistic is it to build a freaking wall our of castles in front of your base? Ya, you saw that alot in the Middle Ages.

But the point is that Empire at War must develop the kind of enjoyable, long lasting multiplayer gameplay that is both fun and unique. To do that it must offer both realistic (No Imperial Hangers built right in the middle of a Rebel base, please) but also entertaining (Wide array of maps which require the use of strategy and provide a different experience each time).

-Boran

lukeiamyourdad
01-20-2005, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by boranchistanger
Why are you crying out for a random map generator? I would cry for a random map generator because some maps will always favor one side or the other.

It depends on the design of the map. With good map designers, you can get pretty good non-randomly generate maps.

Originally posted by boranchistanger
I'm in Rome Total War right now (Best RTS game ever) and I got absolutely pissed off when I am forced to fight on a hilly map. Why? Because your enemy just camps out on top of a hill and blows you away when you come up it. Wow, lots of fun, lots of strategy. That is why I always host my games and is why I always choose the flat-grassy map. That way no one side has any advantage and strategy is a must use.

With a random map generator, that cannot happen. To spice things up they will use hills, crators and God knows what which automatically gives one side an advantage.

So? Overcoming disadvantages are part of a game. Overcoming an enemy's natural defenses requires strategic thinking from you. If everything was always perfectly balanced, nothing would push you to become better.

Sometimes it's not fun to get crushed, but sometimes it is, as long as you get a good fight.

Originally posted by boranchistanger
Let's compare a good multiplayer RTS and a bad multiplayer RTS.

Good: Rome Total War and the Command and Conquer series
This is good because not only of the scale of the battles but because of the gameplay itself. You don't need to do that chopping down trees nonsense, it's just a straight out battle of wits: whoever is able to outlank the other first. It also implements lots of different conditions (Which you can adjust) like weather, time of day, and amount of money each team has to spend. This allows for excellent multiplayer gameplay which will last for years.
Command and Conquer is also an excellent example to follow. Unlike Rome Total War this involves building stuff which generates your units. They designed this well, however, because it is still an actual strategy battle. You aren't trying to chop down trees, kill deer, and mine for gold and silver. Instead you collect money which you build your units with. This way you can actually muster and army and go fight the other teams army. Good stuff.

Bad: Age of Empires 2
I was a fool for getting this game because it flat out stunk. I mean, we have Shogun Total War here in which you can have 10,000 people on the field at once and I buy this piece of crap which only allows for 150 on the field at once. But beside that, the gameplay was simply terrible online. It was a race to see who could build the most castles first online. Yay! Lots of strategy there! How realistic is it to build a castle right next to comebody else's castle? Or even better, how realistic is it to build a freaking wall our of castles in front of your base? Ya, you saw that alot in the Middle Ages.


Apples, oranges and peaches.
Both C&C and Age are traditional RTS. Both have some balancing problems. Both requires you to build up an economy in order to build an army and start attacking the enemy.
Killing deers, mining for gold and stone is part of the realism that ES tried to give to AoK. C&C doesn't require many ressources, only one, so the amount of economic micromanagement is a lot lower. Yet again, they're still both traditional RTS. As a matter of facts, there wasn't a lot more strategy involved in C&C then in AoK.

Also, AoK is a 1998 game. There has been advancements in the genre since then. It's like saying DOOM sucks because it doesn't have the features of the more recent FPS. Or better, how guns are more powerful then bows.

I would also note that it is not true that the Total War serie and the Age/C&C serie are of the exact same genre. Age and C&C concentrates on building up an economy and creating army from scratch. The Total War serie concentrates solely on combat and field tactics, near 0 econ management. The Total War serie is a mix of real-time and turn base. Age is fully real-time.

Which is better? Neither, for gamers who look for fast-paced action with econ management will go to AoK and the hardcore tacticians will go to the Total War serie.

Avoid comparing apples and oranges.

Another example would be saying Rainbow Six sucks because it doesn't have arcade style action like UT2k4.
Again, I'll show you how such a reasoning is flawed. One is a tactical shooter, the other a fast-paced arcade style shooter. While both FPS, they have key differences which shouldn't make you make a direct comparison.

Lex
01-20-2005, 09:00 AM
amazingly stupid.

AoK was certainly the best RTS game since now, and will be at least until AoE 3 comes out. it's simplictiy is great, and why do you think 3000 people stilll play it at any time???

moron, SWGB 2 was based solely in the AOK engine.

DK_Viceroy
01-20-2005, 09:13 AM
All hail luke for he speaks Truth, that Tirade sounded distinctly familiar though....

boranchistanger
01-20-2005, 10:46 AM
It depends on the design of the map. With good map designers, you can get pretty good non-randomly generate maps.

If there is even a small hill one side is already favored greatly. Without hills or anything all maps would be the same. Now, I have no problem with a random map generator as long as it is only an option. Otherwise, if it is mandatory, it is impossible to have a fair match.

Both C&C and Age are traditional RTS. Both have some balancing problems. Both requires you to build up an economy in order to build an army and start attacking the enemy.

And so is Rome Total War. If you have ever played its campaign mode it involves the most realistic nation-controlling tools you could possibly have. Taxes, public opinion, disease, diplomacy, all of these things come into play every turn. Command and Conquer was designed as a military game and it fits that perfectly. You don't need to go out and kill those stupid deer or pick berries.

Age of Empires I and II were designed to be more empire based. Now, they did a crappy job at this. There is not one bit of realism in Age of Empires II period as I will go into more detail later about.

Killing deers, mining for gold and stone is part of the realism that ES tried to give to AoK. C&C doesn't require many ressources, only one, so the amount of economic micromanagement is a lot lower. Yet again, they're still both traditional RTS. As a matter of facts, there wasn't a lot more strategy involved in C&C then in AoK.

You're right Luke. You actually had to figure out whether or not to stick that castle next to your enemies Town Center or next to their Granery. I mean, geez, that is also so realistic. When Jean of Arc took out the English she built a freaking castle right in the middle of London and manned it with a sizeable French garrison!

Unfortinately Age of Empires II became a stupid who could build the most castles game. There was no realism to it what so ever. I mean, at least in Age of Empires I (A very fine game) you actually had to build an army.

I would also note that it is not true that the Total War serie and the Age/C&C serie are of the exact same genre. Age and C&C concentrates on building up an economy and creating army from scratch. The Total War serie concentrates solely on combat and field tactics, near 0 econ management. The Total War serie is a mix of real-time and turn base. Age is fully real-time.

Very incorrect. Pick up a copy of Rome Total War for yourself, or any other Total War game for that matter, and play the campaign mode. You'll find that you are very wrong in your statement there.

[qupte]AoK was certainly the best RTS game since now, and will be at least until AoE 3 comes out. it's simplictiy is great, and why do you think 3000 people stilll play it at any time???[/quote]

Have you played AOK online lately?
http://zone.msn.com/en/root/cdrom.htm
At 3:36 EST there were 700 players playing AOK. That's slightly smaller than 3000. There are more people playing Shogun Total War, which involved strategy and is older than AOK, than there are playing AOK.

And don't call me stupid buddy.

-Boran

DK_Viceroy
01-20-2005, 10:55 AM
You've onviously never played AoK against an intelligent opponenent either that or your one of the noobs thatr's perpetually playing against the computer.

Total War series sucks pure and simple, I know more people who play Age of games than Total war Games.

Warcraft Age of and C & C franchises are considered the best if not the only worthwhile franchises in the RTS Genre because they are ground breaking they innovate and they are known for excellent gameplay and storyline, note that Total War does not enter the league table.

lukeiamyourdad
01-20-2005, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by boranchistanger
If there is even a small hill one side is already favored greatly. Without hills or anything all maps would be the same. Now, I have no problem with a random map generator as long as it is only an option. Otherwise, if it is mandatory, it is impossible to have a fair match.

So then what do you have against forests and any other kind of natural defenses? Open field is fun but not all the time neither.



Originally posted by boranchistanger
And so is Rome Total War. If you have ever played its campaign mode it involves the most realistic nation-controlling tools you could possibly have. Taxes, public opinion, disease, diplomacy, all of these things come into play every turn. Command and Conquer was designed as a military game and it fits that perfectly. You don't need to go out and kill those stupid deer or pick berries.

Then it's a civ building part of the game, not a common feature for what is an RTS. Civ3 have all of those features. Is it an RTS? Absolutely not. Do not confuse civ building game with RTS.
C&C did what it was meant to do. Why would you add deers and berries in your argument?



Originally posted by boranchistanger
Age of Empires I and II were designed to be more empire based. Now, they did a crappy job at this. There is not one bit of realism in Age of Empires II period as I will go into more detail later about.

Yes, it was Empire based...on a medium scale.
AoK, AoM, StarCraft, C&C, etc. are all medium scale RTS designed for you to field a medium sized army, build up a medium size base in a medium size world.
You have small scale RTS(WarCraft 3, War of the Ring, Battlerealm, etc.) and large scale strategy games. RTS on a large scale do not realy exist outside of a mix of turn-based civ building and real-time battles.



Originally posted by boranchistanger
You're right Luke. You actually had to figure out whether or not to stick that castle next to your enemies Town Center or next to their Granery. I mean, geez, that is also so realistic. When Jean of Arc took out the English she built a freaking castle right in the middle of London and manned it with a sizeable French garrison!

Unfortinately Age of Empires II became a stupid who could build the most castles game. There was no realism to it what so ever. I mean, at least in Age of Empires I (A very fine game) you actually had to build an army.

I do not know what game you were playing but in AoK you did need to field an army. I will not deny the existing design and balancing flaws but nevertheless, do not make such baseless claims. There was a lot of problem concerning the Castle tactics which never has been solved though one cannot win using those kinds of tactics alone.
There is a lot of realism in AoK, no less then in AoE 1.
Besides, when did you first play AoK? Outside of Castles, what kind of unrealistic features does it actually have?
Oh and AoK came out in 1999. You cannot possibly compare it to more modern RTS or Strategy games. The genre had many changes in 5 years.

Originally posted by boranchistanger
Very incorrect. Pick up a copy of Rome Total War for yourself, or any other Total War game for that matter, and play the campaign mode. You'll find that you are very wrong in your statement there.


Again, civ building feature. Not a standard RTS feature.


Viceroy-Oddly yes, this does sound Winduist.

DK_Viceroy
01-20-2005, 12:10 PM
I thought it best to see if anyone else thought so as well.

I wouldn't put it past Winduto do something like this, there'll be a rebuttal and muych waving around of him saqying he's not windu, but the proof will build up with each post.

One things for sure this place will certainly be more lively now if only Vostok realised this place is alive unlike the GB forums:p

DarthMaulUK
01-20-2005, 01:32 PM
Im kinda stunned Viceroy by your claims that Total War sucks! It is probably the most amazing RTS out there without fail!

Why?!
tactics! its one of the only games I have played where the tactics you deploy make a difference, rather than having to use brute force to win a battle.

Yes, it simplifies economy, but thats not a bad thing for those wanting pure combat. Im sick of RTS games focusing on microfarming. Battlegrounds annoyed me because in the middle of a battle, a harverster expired, or your farm was out.

Focusing on combat is the way to go, and the total war collection, especially Rome:Total War offers the most amazing experience EVER in RTS gaming. Stunning graphics, easy to use controls - excellent tutorial, superb 3-d map makes this game the King of all.

Empire At War will have its work cut out to beat this beauty. But i like to think that it will or at least equal it, which would make it a true winner.

The only game to come even close to Total War, is dawn of war - which is extremely limited with its population caps. Now go back and re-think a constructive response to prove why Total War is bad.

Just because maybe YOU cant play it, doesnt make it bad.

DMUK

OverlordAngelus
01-20-2005, 01:56 PM
I don't think that its possible to compare games like AoK and C&C with games like Total War.

It's like comparing Star Wars to Star Trek or Harry Potter to Lord of the Rings.

In AoK and C&C, when you start to play, you have to gather your resources and build an army for that scenario/battle and thats it.

In the Total War series you handle building and resources on the strategic map. When the battles start you have only the forces you take with you and you only focus on the battle.

They are different kinds of strategy game and cannot be compared.

swphreak
01-20-2005, 02:07 PM
Just because you like it doesn't mean it's the best game ever. I've played it just fine. It's just too boring and slow. I'll take GC/CC over RTW.

DK_Viceroy
01-20-2005, 02:13 PM
DM to me the Total war series has less risks in it, you don't have to worry about econ in the middle of a battle, I like games where you do that since it adds more depth and realism into it and can really tip the tide in your favour by launching a raid on an enemy base in the middle of a critical battle distracting your enemy while you can micro away unfettered.

DarthMaulUK
01-20-2005, 03:08 PM
You shouldnt have to worry about microfarming in the middle of a battle....thats TOTAL war...hence the name.

RTS games have focuse too much about worrying about the chicken feather plucker providing enough food, rather than combat, which is what its all about.

I dont want to spend essential moments worrying if i have enough baked beans for my troops! All i care about is if my troopers can win the day - with the beans they already have!

I will trade my magic beans for Rome total war anyday. No other RTS even comes close. And to compare Generals in this sentence would be an insult!

DMUK

lukeiamyourdad
01-20-2005, 05:49 PM
Fan boys bashing everything on their way...

Seriously, like I said, different games offer different play styles that suits different tastes.
I'll go back to my Rainbow Six vs UT2k4 example. One is a tactical shooter, the other is an arcade style shooter.

Both have their fan based, both have players that prefer either style. A lot of people like the econ management as part of an RTS, others prefer just the battle part.

It is fine. Stop trying to stir up trouble by bashing this, counter-bashing that, etc.
Get over it people. Just let people like what they want to like, no bashing, everyone has the right to an opinion.


Viceroy-Boran isn't Windu because I know him. They don't even live in the same country.

Jan Gaarni
01-20-2005, 09:14 PM
I like it best when it's set asside from the actual combat segment.

I'll use the downtime to develop, improve and make my forces combat ready, then launch a campaign when and where it's needed.

Admiral Vostok
01-22-2005, 02:27 AM
Boran - obviously the random map generator can be turned off... it's called playing a scenario. Playing a scenario set up in the right way is no different from having set maps like Dawn of War and C&C Generals. A random map adds so much more replayability to a game. Sure, people can make new maps all the time, but playing on a mirror reflection equal-opportunity map just isn't much fun for me in the end.

I much prefer a random map. Sure, occaisionally people get a bum deal and the terrain is against them. That just means you have to prove your ability even more! The terrain won't be against you every game, some games it will work in your favour.

Saber - as Viceroy pointed out Age of Mythology had a random map generator - one of the best and fairest I might add - and it is 3D.

DK_Viceroy
01-22-2005, 05:52 AM
yep it is very fair and balanced, you can pick complete random or pick things like Afelheim Erebus and many more and those are basic templates for maps like Afleheim can be good for long drawn out battles due to easily defendable hilly terrain all over. but the Maps do end up random you'll never get the same map lay out twice.

If you can't take what the game gives you, you shouldn't be playing RTS since you have to think of a strategy to win, if your enemy is on top of a hill wall of the hill make sure they can't escape take map control create a large fortified area and build a wonder, they'll come to you to stop the wonder or when their area runs out of resources, your army will be strong while their's weaknes for lack of resources.

FroZticles
01-22-2005, 09:02 PM
Not many new RTS have random map generators for the simple fact it takes longer and it is harder to balance then just premade maps.

DK_Viceroy
01-23-2005, 08:38 AM
for some though it's the corner stone, I think for EaW we'll be seeing a combination since most of Westwood's games had set maps and a fairly basic RM generator.