legitimately one of the worst rts games ive ever played, why are people hyping it up so much

nostalgia

i didnt have my glasses on and thought this was a pic of company of heroes 2 and was going to call op based but now i can only call him gay

>>2098069
Agreed 100%
Rise of Nations is fucking great
OP is a sissy nancy queer

>>2098069
>glasses
you have a GENETIC DEFICIENCY, you don't get to call me anything

>>2098028 (OP)
Why do you believe that its bad?

>>2098298
zoomzooms feel important when they say contrarian garbage

>>2098028 (OP)
I like it in concept and spent a lot of time with it as a kid, but I'll concede that it's so weird how the game had a lot of hard limits on things.
Like the commerce cap alone makes it a game where you can't really boom by making villagers and instead you boom by prioritizing certain library upgrades over others.
Cold war campaign is amazing in giving you ways to win the cold war without turning it hot but also has a bunch of scenarios for the war going hot, as well as spy missions and peacekeeping operations.
CTW is a good way to string skirmishes together, not the most exciting.
New world is fun and it plays into the asymmetry, napoleon is okay if I'm not mistaken you can lose the campaign and it put you into a second chance scenario where you can win waterloo.
I remember the alexander campaign often put you in a map with like 9 different enemy cities and said "figure it out lmao"

I'd like to revisit it now that I'm half decent at like AoE and understand the genre a little better than "haha nuke goes boom" thanks for reminding me of it OP.

>>2098330
Played a FFA skirmish against 3 hard AIs
I will say the pacing of the game is really weird.
I hate how everything is scaled, like barracks end up costing 600 woods because you have a few of them, same with units.
Kinda keeps everything levelled at all time, like how granary/lumbermill/smelter upgrades make it so you reach commerce cap without needing to put more villagers on the resources.
You don't really get the "I should focus on x and y resource to make unit z" moments like in aoe, instead you economy is always expanding on all resources as long as you're not being harrassed and have decent map control.
If I remember from the little multiplayer I've played the only impactful microing you can do is raiding with horse archers and a despot, trying to micro armies is almost a lost cause because of how unresponsive units are and how slow they are until the later ages.
Sieges are good though, the defender can't repair under fire because artillery damages citizens and the attacker can snipe temples to make it easier.
I still think it's a really fun game for map painting against the AI but I definitely wouldn't play it in ladder if RoN: DE came out or anything like that.

Anons what was/is your favorite nations? I always liked romans because the AI has a lot of trouble dealing with forts and cheap forts means map control and sweet sweet taxes. Also the legion is a strong unit if you decide to be aggressive early on. I also remember liking the germans because they have a ton of unique units.

>>2098394
Russia due to attrition and plunder same withe Germans.

Pretty much every single unique unit is bugged and doesn't work like it should. Extended Edition is a travesty

>>2098056
fpbp

like most RTS games of the time, it's okay but people who played it as a kid think it's amazing

>>2098028 (OP)
I think it's a shame we never got a sequel that would build on the gameplay and iron out quirks. Something that Aoe2 did to Aoe1.

>>2098394
I like Egyptians the most. Nothing better than more food from the start to snowball quicker.

Good civs:
>Mongols
Free ranged cav.

Shit tier civs:
Everything else

It's actually one of the most fun games in the genre