Silver

Actually a rush is to destroy an economy as you grow yours. It's a balance of economy and pumping out (usually) cavalry and some archers. Even a few simple raids can be extremely effective in the long run if you can kill off 3-5 citizens/villagers and slow down the resource gathering as the surviving villagers flee to safety. You'd be really surprised... I don't know for 0AD, but in other games rush is extremely effective.

The Entente? The only one I think that's worth mentioning Most other games failed at making a WW1 RTS worth mentioning. It's a big risk especially with only 1 successful game. I'll have to take another look at that artwork, but the soldier screams WW2. (Checked and it does)

They already have Halo Wars and WW1 & 2 are overdone, unless they can think of a really original way to have an RTS for WW1 and WW2, I would prefer they work on something completely different or a remake.

Do any of you remember "The Zone"?

I think it was and I remember and someone from ES commenting that it was just artwork and it wasn't there plans for future games.

I hope they do, I'm not so sure though, all these people are pushing for AoM and AoK. I keep telling them "That's nice, but AoE 1 is a classic, it needs to be redone especially with all the changes in gaming, RTS games, graphics and computers over the past 10 or so years."

That is a blast from the past, I have so many screenshots on my old computer that no longer functions. I still have the game and CD though!

Widget home page?

Morale, older players have to travel farther to attack the opponent, troop morale is lower, weaker units (because of low morale). It makes sense, what kind of soldier wants to travel thousands of miles to a foreign place to conquer a tiny 'empire' or 'country'. A text game (don't laugh I was really bored and tired, it was easy to do, only had to log on once every few days for 15 minutes.) I used to play had this system, if you had fewer points/kills/conquers, and some huge player tried to attack you, his morale would go so low, the troop investment and resource investment would be huge. That leaves him open to attack from other strong players.

If this were to be implemented in any game, you would need a few things - First off as Scipii said, you would need a dedicated multi player server for this clan/country idea. Secondly, you would need a secondary map, so new players who join, join on the outside, and the center would be full of the oldest and original players. Third, if conquered you should have the option of relocating to the 'rim', or outer edges of the map. Fourth, a newly created account/player would have immunity from higher level players/bigger countries for a certain number of days. Fifth, it should take time for any resources/workers/armies to be sent (depending on distance on the big map) from a leader or anyone to another village, allowing the weaker player to strike before he can be overwhelmed with support. Sixth, members should be able to fight each other inside the country. Seventh, a player can have more then one city/village by conquering them and the player then chooses to relocate to the 'rim'. Maybe then you could achieve some degree of equal opportunity, but even then you might need to clean and restart the server every year or so to prevent one or two clans just dominating everything.

build walls instead of towers, cheaper, and if you wall off except in one place, you can force him to take down your wall or go to the open entrance. Either way you will still know where his troops are, and can respond appropriately. If towers cost a lot, why not just replace with something cheaper. You will get a bigger army and economy faster and will also have the option of building towers later.

Company of Heroes works because of the time period it focuses in on, how resources are acquired, etc...

Byzantines were the eastern portion of the Roman Empire when the Western half collapsed. If I remember my history from quite a few years ago correctly.

I agree with the first one, the second one I would support, but is it possible and will people use walls enough for it to be worth it?

Phases make more sense and it probably will be fairly similar to ages, but then again, what isn't? Without phases or ages games would be less fun and much faster.

Finals and MidTerms suck.

It's more then just grouping.

I thought you were really high on the democrats though.

Rome used to be a Republic and it's a very primitive democracy.

For the average player yes, as soon as people hit that next level or an elite/expert level, it's not just a multiple of 10 or 2. If you have ever been at that level or watched players who are, it's not just about countering troops and building lots of them. In battle, troops are microed, you don't really realize it that much in most games, AoE III it really shows, great example of micro. This is an example of where a higher level of skill is required to win a game. Anyone can scout and counter enemy troops, anyone can line up and make formations, it just doesn't take skill when you have an army of 200-400 units, it's next to impossible to micro and it will just erase a major part of the gap between elite level players and average/good players.

As soon as you mentioned morale, you are giving an advantage to someone, to say everyone can get and have morale would make it just another upgrade. Usually the morale is always low on the losing side, and high on the winning, that means there will be less chance at coming from behind and less chances in general if you lost the last skirmish or battle. No one has the time to do all that, and then it takes away a lot of fun especially if one 'country' has more members then another. It means the leader can just infuse his member with a ton of support and win the game for him. You're relying heavily on the fact that people will divide up huge countries for almost no reason, that almost never happens, the only time an empire 'collapses' online, is due to inactivity, even then, most empires will just re-create and conquer the original leader.

I'm not sure about which game you are referring to, but scouting in a Random Map/Supremacy is a huge part of the game, you scout early, find the opposing players village, scout the surrounding area to find villagers and as he begins to build an army, find out what and build counters. Walls usually come later in the game, when a scout is already on the inside.

So you want to give an advantage to stronger players? Or lucky players who have a huge 'clan' (When I say clan it's a reference to the alliance and conquered people.)?

There's no ONE tactic that will win you every game, what wins you a game is how you scout the opposing player, how you predict what he will do, and how you will counter it. The only advice would be to find the best start possible for this game. A strong early game usually means a win. If you have that and do this - Scout the other player and know everything about his villagers and armies, you basically know what to counter, how many units you will need to counter, where to attack to cripple the economy, where a strategic place to set up an army would be, what his movements will be, etc... With scouting/spying being done every minute or so, you can predict what his troops and villagers will do and how to respond to that. I'm pretty sure the response was no, added with a joke that it would take them an extra 7 years to just get that part of the game into the game. Personally I have never been a fan of shipments and never will be, it's a fun concept, I just don't like what it adds to the game.

Shipments would be a huge part of strategy and tactics, it's a valid question to ask, however it's not big enough to start another thread.