View Full Version : 2006 an even bigger year for the RTS

08-11-2005, 07:32 AM
This months PC Gamer (UK) carries a major RTS battle between two top titles due for release in 2006.

Battle For Middle Earth 2 vs Warhammer. Two massive fantasy titans battle it out for room on your hard drive. No release dates yet but importantly for us, how will this have a bearing on Empire At War?

Did you like the first Battle For Middle Earth? (I hated it as an extremely limited experience) - are you a Warhammer fan? Or will your lust for epic Star Wars gaming keep you hooked on Eaw?


08-11-2005, 08:48 AM
I think I'll be hooked to AOE3 until E@W is out.

Darth Alec
08-11-2005, 10:58 AM
AOE 3, EAW and Warhammer are all bougth, its just impossible to know wich one wich!

08-11-2005, 12:54 PM
BFME2 isn't even in my consideration list for RTS games this and next year. (And from the video interview Ive seen it doesn't look like there is going to be enough improvement to keep it from being a boring and limiting game). I don't really play Warhammer though.

Chances are I'll stick with EAW for a while. When I eventually do get bored of it, and if there is no other new RTS games released around the time I get bored (whenever that may be) I'll probably go back to my older games. (HW series and Rome.)

08-11-2005, 10:12 PM
BFME will be the same as the first. Little scared bout AOE3 graphic engine might be alot of lag online :/

08-11-2005, 10:32 PM
The LOTR movies included all of the very important battles from the books, and so they were included in BFME. So now EA have the rights to the books and so we get to play those lesser battles. I'm not convinced it will be as exciting to be only in the background of the story.

For my historical battles, I will stick with Rise of Nations and I don't really like Warhammer, so that leaves Empire at War as the winner!

Darth Windu
08-11-2005, 11:53 PM
Well, can't say any of them are blowing my skirt up.

BFME2 should be interesting, but as Angelus pointed out, its based on the books which I have never read, so while it might be good in that respect, I doubt it will have the epic battles that I loved in LotR.

Warhammer I honestly couldn't care less about. Never played it, never interested in = no way am I going to buy this.

Empire at War - well, you've all heard my rantings about EaW, so i'll spare you a repeat, but frankly I think it will get very boring very quickly, and flop.

08-12-2005, 01:58 AM
Unfortunately I think Windu is right I think E@W will be a 2 month deal for you online gamers then thats it. For you SP players 2 weeks? But lets just wait and see.

08-12-2005, 04:33 AM
Unless the campaign for each side takes only a few hours each and you really have nothing to do except sitting in front of your computer gaming and playing E@W exclusively, I don't think that 2 weeks is a good logical estimation of the life of a game.
So leave the mindless ranting somewhere else. Discuss seriously and leave the stupidity out of here. If you think so low of the game, I wonder why you people are still here.

BFME is dead to me. EA doesn't know how to make good patches and now abandonned the first game. I won't be getting the second one.

AOE3 is too much for my computer. Besides, rank and file battles are supposed to be epic and large to be enjoyable (at least that's my opinion). AOE3's battles look like tiny skirmishes. Not my definition of fun. After Rome:Total War's epic battles, going to back to small epic (quite an oxymoron mind you) is just...well...you know...

I may be getting Warhammer. For those that say they "don't care", well I didn't care about Warhammer 40K until Dawn of War came out. Guess, what, I got the game, then got interested.

Hopefully, E@W will keep me interested long enough if the campaign is long and interesting. I'll admit that two civs doesn't seem much in terms of replay value, but we'll see.
I'm at my third campaign of Rome:Total War and I'm not yet bored (and I only play the long campaign which for me takes 30-40 hours to complete).
And that's without touching MP yet!

08-12-2005, 10:03 AM
From what i've heard on E@W i think it will be a good game and have quite along life even if the replayability will be quite low. The multiplayer parts sound interesting and that always keeps me logging on to Gamespy Arcade.

As for BFME2 and Warhammer, unless they greatly improve (if not completely change the way they make) BFME2 form BFME. warhammer is going to be the vastly superior game.

08-12-2005, 04:38 PM
its based on the books which I have never read,

Techincally it's really only loosely based on the books. Tolkien only passingly mentioned that there was a northern war in the appendix and the surrender of the Easterlings to the dwarves in the final chapters of ROTK. Little to no description was given in the books. Aside from:

Elves had to defend Caras Galadhon multiple times
Dragons from the Northern Wastes aided Mordor
Dwarves were on the fringe of defeat when Ring was destroyed
Dol Guldur was eventually "cleansed"

This means of course that EA will have to improvise. Which IMO is a risky maneuver. I really don't see how they will get many customers since, Anyone who is an avid fan of the movies and never read the books will know little to nothing about the locations. Many fans of the books hate when any company alters the story. (I've seen plenty that despise the movies) And experienced gamers know that EA just can't do strategy games well. So.... what's left?

And I'm with luke about the lifespan of EAW. I'm pretty sure it will last much longer then 2 weeks and even 2 months. And what's with all the pessimism about SP Froz? You all can't leave modification out of the picture as a n extension of a games lifespan. (Someone is already working on models for a Clone Wars modification)

08-12-2005, 11:24 PM
Because I really think that this game is only catering for the MP and even then we are drawing short. They are really not giving anything away kind of like what EA done to market BFME. Where as Ensemble and Microsoft are giving away alot and even now EA nows they stuffed up have given us more then Petro have for BFME 2.

BFME 2- I don't think EA will recover from there reputation they got from BFME this game will flop and may only bring in the hardcore LOTR fans. For online gamers they won't even bother with this game unless they get bored with the other 3 and come back to it. SP gamers I here that the campaigns from the first were shocking and boring I played them through twice and found them very boring so they are giving you story missions might be nice.

AOE 3- The biggest downfall I see is the graphics they are way too high unless you just go out and spend out big for the best parts and buy a new computer every year I don't see you running this game. The specs have not been released yet but I know they are gonna be high. Civs are diverse and this game is more economic startegy more than anything else. The game looks great but I think ensemble tech support will be flooded at game launch. Online gamers of AOK might be sadly disappointed if they expect to be an expert as soon as they log online alot of the old aspects have changed like getting shipments and some other changes. SP gamers might have some fun and you will be sooo lucky (unlike me for games online) you won't have to face the lag nightmare I can see this game producing. Story missions to explain the timeline I hear you get to play Native Americans who you go through the campaigns with and acquire other sides technology.

E@W- Biggest plus is the ground and space battles meshed together. Space looks epic and alot of fun. Ground might need some tweaking but it looks ok cept the uber rancors they have. Graphics look good not as good as AOE3 of course but they have overkilled there graphics in a big way these ones look just right for computers today and not 2 years from now. Ecomony system is a bit iffy I think it may be similar to BFME where you capture farms and castles for more resources just replaced by planets. This game could be great if battle strategy will win you the game and not just a massed unit or the best unit combo that everyone else uses. eg. 5 AT-ATs 5 AA mobile and 20 AT-STs. Otherwise this game sounds promising. If they just listen to there fans and add a nice strategics then this game may be the best choice RTS. This game sounds like it is made for more online gaming but we have not heard anything about SP campaigns besides we are taking over planets on a galactic map so there might be a nice balance between the 2 and catering for both online and offline.

Warhammer- Don't know someone else can do a write up of it...... sorry lol

08-12-2005, 11:29 PM
Ecomony system is a bit iffy I think it may be similar to BFME where you capture farms and castles for more resources just replaced by planets.

It will most probably be like Rome: Total War, where capturing regions/planets would grant you economical benefits. Very different from BFME. I figure that the campaign map will be "similar" and economical management will be blended in nicely with combat.

08-13-2005, 12:32 AM
New BFME 2 trailer and review since we are on RTS topic
Link (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/battleformiddleearth2/preview_6130883.html)

Cmdr. Cracken
08-14-2005, 01:57 AM
New Chris Taylor RTS: Supreme Commander

I think just the words "New Christ Taylor RTS" should make evryone stop and play his new game.

**HISTORIC FACT: for those of you who DON'T know, or are too young, Chris Taylor created Total Annihilation, which did away with alot of the resource wars most RTS's are about, and focused on blowing stuff up, and featured a repritoi or like 30+ units per side, and giant robots. It is still modded and played to this day, after 8 years of being released.

Jan Gaarni
08-14-2005, 04:38 AM
He didn't get rid of it completelly, you still had to find resource spots such as a metal vein and place powerstations to provide power to the various buildings. But even so, once placed, the resources steadily ticked in.

But yeah, TA was/is a great game. :)

Perhaps it's time to reinstall it again.

I am definatly getting Supreme Commander when it get's out. Wouldn't miss it for the world. :thumbsup:

08-14-2005, 11:25 AM
Yeah I heard of SC. TA finally returns. Took long enough lol.

Because I really think that this game is only catering for the MP

You still fail to give any solid reason to beleive so. In my opinon, all they have been talking about is the Single Player experience. (Unlike EA who seems to only talk about MP's features.)

Anyway, chances are I wont play MP at all. Unless I get insanely bored or something.

08-15-2005, 01:47 AM
Because the SP missions sound completely generic and boring.

08-17-2005, 03:11 PM
I'm definately looking forward to the Warhammer game, being a very experienced warhammer gamer. But I don't think it will be taking up my EAW time, I like SW more than Warhammer.

08-20-2005, 06:19 PM
I enjoyed BFME. But I hate the way BFME 2 is turning out. Looks like generic fantasy rubbish. Oh and cashing in on the popularity of Rhovanion Alliance

08-20-2005, 07:19 PM
BFME 2 looks way better then the first but I still won't be getting it. Some are annoyed that they ain't sticking true to the books. It would be generic if they did the same exact storyline but I like the concept of this new game.

08-20-2005, 09:15 PM
It looks better. BFME looked good, was good at the beginning. Then they decided that supporting the game was not a good idea...so a sequel they're making. Unless it's getting incredible reviews and crowned best RTS ever made, I won't be getting this one. I'm not going to waste money on a game that's going to be abandonned 3 months later in favor of BFME3.

08-21-2005, 08:19 AM
Looks awful to me. The art team should be shot. Plus I'm a Tolkien fan.. so the weird stuff EA is making up irks me..

08-21-2005, 11:13 AM
Sometimes, originality is a necessity to make things better ;)

08-21-2005, 11:21 AM
If you look there is plenty of inspiration in Tolkien without going into the realms of D&D and other fantasies. Like I said, it's just cashing in on the success of the Rhovanion Alliance mod, except that the art design on that mod is actually BETTER than what EA are producing and is far more accurate... anyway I can't be bothered to argue this here as I and many others have already said it many many times...

08-21-2005, 02:02 PM
I'm not talking in terms of graphics... I'm talking about the gameplay improvements like no plots for instance...

08-22-2005, 06:29 AM
Personally I don't see that as an improvement... but it's what a whining portion of the community got... so now you'll be free to build barracks outside your opponents base and rush them.. how realistic.

08-22-2005, 11:50 AM
The whole game "NEEDED" a revamp the game just had some many errors and gameplay sucked online. If you played online you would definately see that it needed improvment. Whats so realistic about only having set places to build on? I think the castles look great and look more like fortresses then the first. BTW if we all lived in this realistic land some of you want we would not be playing any fantasy or sci-fi games we would be playing our lives on screen in a Sim type game because Jedi, wizards and witches are not realistic. :twogun:

08-24-2005, 12:34 PM
I'm definately buying AoE3 and EaW. I'll have to see about the rest. Battle for middle earth was for me a bit too meh, it was fun but got boring for me.

AoE3 has the whole 'realistic building damage' thing going for it and EaW is....well, it's a star wars RTS, and I've always nabbed those up on the release date.

The last one I'm looking forward to is one I saw a trailer of, forgot the name, but it was WWII but looked more like an FPS than an RTS

general ackbar
08-24-2005, 12:54 PM
theres another RTS that hasnt realy been looked into much by mainstream audiances much. il do some snooping around to find it (cant remember the name of it right now)

08-24-2005, 05:40 PM
Company of Heroes is another RTS coming out spring 06 that looks pretty decent.

08-24-2005, 06:05 PM
Company of Heroes is another RTS coming out spring 06 that looks pretty decent.

That's the one I was looking for. See my post