I'd love a modern take Warcraft 2, probably the first big game I ever bought and one I think back on very fondly. I don't like lots of hero micro so I prefer it over games which have lots of manually activated abilities.
I watched your video about the symmetry of age of empires and others. you should send an application to work on the game as a directors advisor. I love age of empires 3 and 2, and I think experience is a valid 4th resource, as it gives you an advantage if you build and destroy more than your opponent (the only thing keeping ffa games from being an uninterrupted hour long boomfest to see who can boom faster. I think that could be an aspect that feels not to foreign but hey it might be to risky.) trade routes become interesting to fight over, native tribes, I really like that aspect. Hometowns made Every civilization so very unique it is nothing but extra unique tech tree technologies, but as you said it is a bitch to balance. but it does make way for unheard amounts of strategy. AND I found myself playing AOE 3 for 13 years, only getting bored after I cycled through the civilizations, which means, more civilizations must have a positive impact on long term players not loosing interest. An active developer listening to feedback, participating in the development after release is crucial for such difficult balance, and you said the studio does appear to be the best choice for aoe4. I think it is important to include a sense of fighting for ressources, as it is kind of present with stone in aoe2 and trade routes and land grabbing in age of empires 3. Age of empires 3 nicely compensates the lack of stone with the benefit of possessing more land (natural ressources are faster), trade routes and such. A booming player can always be defeated by either rushing or outbooming him which is possible even with inferior hometown shipments geared for rushing, just by the fact that you own the map. I feel like age of empires 2 lacks the value of the land, while aoe 2 being overall the slightly better game, aoe3 does a better job with its ressources. owning land in age of empires 2 means nothing at all while in age of empires 3 it is so powerful, defensive buildings are basically turned to shit to to help with that. Again I like both ways the games went, and not having defensive building kind of defeats the purpose, a mix of land value and good buildings might just make the war for land more fierce. Raids are so powerful in aoe3 because natural ressources are so good, they are worth the risk. I would love to see building farms and mills early would put you in a disadvantage as it is now, but a failed raid from the opponent should damage his economy making the playing field favorable to the farm/ mill guy. that way there would never develop a meta, as it is a rock paper scissor game in certain aspects of the game. Rainbow six siege has a huge esports fanbase, and it is arguably the best fps game in the world competitively. Even though it has so many different characters. things get constantly changed, to avoid certain dominant strategies. I would love to see age of empires 4 take a route of asymmetrical civilizations. (similar to the simplicity of age of empires 3 with not to many different types of troops, like ranged and melee cavalry always being kind of the same in terms of weaknesses. it needs to be easy for new players to pick up, and hard to master. Please make another video about age of empires 4. Maybe about meta development, how that plays into harvest build destroy games?
I've seen a couple AoE clones, now a Warcraft clone, it's not going to work.. i don't get these people who think it is even a remotely good idea to copy those old games. If it brings nothing new to the table then it's worthless. there's way less limitations with the current computing power we got. I haven't explored much of the RTS genre, just played the popular ones. If i had the resources i wouldn't mind creating an RTS in a medieval fantasy setting, but currently i'm attempting to create something that comes closest to Dawn of war II i guess. It's going to be in a futuristic setting, with a lot of emphasis on unit customization, micromanagement and connecting a lot more people than your average RTS (will still start small for technical reasons). I can't wait to hear your opinion about my game but there's a long way to go before getting out a respectable prototype. Going back to a standard RTS, what are your thoughts about Military combined with sort of city building/kingdom management? You would generally not be able to control your villagers directly but dictate where to build what and where and when to harvest resource X by opening/closing "jobs". This would be designed in a way that you can effectively start commanding military early on and having skirmishes and dictate what resource production is prioritized instead of commanding every villager manually, i think it's the most boring part in AoE for example, as a casual player spending half an hour to "get started" seems like a waste of time. What annoys me the most with most RTS games in medieval setting specifically is how bad walls, fortifications and buildings are in general. I think a respectable modern RTS NEEDS to have walls that can be traversed and used as an effective fortification, and the best way to deal with someone walling themselves is to siege them (and by that i mean starve them out of resources). I would also completely change how towers work, towers should simply be structures that connect wall sections where your archers get a better vantage point and fire at soldiers trying to climb walls, i wouldn't mind introducing a mini keep where it would be possible to garrison a dozen of units who could effectively hold against 3 times their count. Stone fortifications would be a long term investment that take a while to build and nearly impossible to ram down, wooden fortifications would cost significantly less but are easier to break and even perhaps burn via magic or.. arson? What i think would be cool is all larger structures (definitely fortifications) having a simple inner layout, say you have a keep (or "castle") where you garrison infantry inside and your opponent would actually have to push inside the building to capture it, all the way up top where archers could be positioned, the significance of such structure would be equal to a wonder and 3 castles in AoE, since you have to work hard to capture it, and work almost as hard as it is to build one to destroy one. All structures should be captured instead of hitting them with a sword, so you could deconstruct/burn stuff but that is something the player can decide. Siege towers and ladders would be very common, perhaps you could make soldiers make camp and construct that stuff where ever, i also like the idea of "citizen soldiers" working, like in 0. AD. I would also make crop fields so huge there is no way you could fit them within walls. A player could just paint in or draw a shape to fill in as a field, the citizens in your kingdom take care of the rest. I don't want to get too complicated but i'd also introduce seasons, so you would get a harvest maybe mid summer and late autumn(4 seasons would take maybe 4 minutes?), but these are also the best times to take a couple scouts and set the opponents fields on fire. I don't know how to address harassing villagers, perhaps if you kill them your own villagers will lose loyalty towards you and leave? Or if you approach a resource point like a mine, the villagers quickly disperse therefore not work. I don't particularly like "ages" or big "tiers" in these RTS games, so i thought of a concept where you could max out a specific tech for example, but it would cost a LOT. Advancing all tech evenly would be the most cost efficient, but most time consuming. For example you research some way to forge better weapons, after that other related tech would be cheaper like forging better tools, but if you were to go multiple tiers ahead to gain the knowledge of how to make katanas folded 5000 times with dragon tears, it would cost insane amount since everything else is behind and being ahead in one tech reduces all related tech by a very insignificant amount. Another thing i would change for sure is path-finding in different types of environment, you could traverse forests but vision and movement would be impaired(even more for cavalry), would also work like brush in League or SC. This could be used as an ambush obviously. In a high fantasy setting with more creatures that could mean different mounts could be used for different environments. I like the idea of customization overall, it would be cool if players could build their own civilization. You could manually build roads and dirt roads would naturally form when units travel a path too often, these are little details but would definitely add flavor. I've seen a couple city/kingdom building games and i like many mechanics those games introduce, what they generally lack is military and a purpose overall. What i describe is not easy at all to make playable and not take a long time per sitting, which nowadays is a goal for any game... but these clones that keep popping up are super lazy. So my final word is: A modern medieval RTS that puts no effort into being a bit more logical and interesting is never going to grab my attention and a kingdom manager + standard military RTS is the direction i would go towards. I probably missed a dozen of thoughts iv'e had regarding the subject but, eh.
What clones are these exacty? Empire Earth and Empires: Dawn of Civilizations? These are made by people who have worked on AoE. As for the newer and indie ones, primarily they don’t work because they never reach the same levels as the originals. Even Ensemble themselves started watering down their games after Age II. It takes a lot of resources to create a good RTS and the ideas you highlighted are too much to implement into a single game, even a game like COH2 wouldn’t have that many details in it. City builder with military is a good idea. I definitely have thought that Age series needed to have functions like building roads and other logical placement of your city, despite me not being that big of a city building fan. I wonder why nobody does that
@@vantom9836 I was referring to the indie games that have been popping up in recent years, all these hopeless clones with identical gameplay and a bit better graphics.. it's not enough to be relevant lol. The biggest issue is proper AI navigation through structures but i'd most likely keep it as simple as possible. There's plenty of games already that have walls with the possibility of units standing on them and a keep/castle would have a great hall in the middle and maybe stairs going up to the top to position ranged units. Barracks in AoE look like a little fortress on it's own, it would make sense to be able to garrison units within and make the enemy work for its control instead of destroying it, if a player fails to properly garrison units while enemy is nearby and claims the barracks, it would become neutral and then captured by the opponent. My main pet peeve with RTS games will always be how weak, useless and expendable structures are, especially fortifications. The game i'm describing would have low structure count in the first place, cause once you build them, they stay. A player would be forced to create small villages near resource nodes that are far away from the main town. Look, city building games have complicated mechanics, but the point is that the whole thing monitors itself. The problem that arises is that the player loses control over villagers and at times it would mean production/harvesting of a certain resource isn't started instantly. In such a game, the player would need to start planning early on, and even place "foundations" for the most important structures, including fortifications. You could place structures without having the resources for it, it feels more like a QoL upgrade if anything, resources would be deducted while building is happening. The game would just need a very smooth way of managing job prioirities, and i really like the thought of making plebian military units work, perhaps at the cost of more food. The ideas i highlighted are not too complicated to get into or implement at all, when a bunch of indie studios can make city building games, then a larger one can add a layer of standard military RTS on top. Player experience would be still kept reasonably simple, instead of selecting a villager and making a new farm you simply paint a field on a grassland or place points that then get connected and would be filled in as a field or just drag a box on the ground. A game called Foundation should have a painting mechanic. I would still keep a fine balance of making the game easy to understand while having a more grounded, logical approach with more focus on positioning and terrain advantages in terms of military while redefining the "manager" part in terms of economy, you'd never have to worry about idle workers unless you somehow fail to provide enough jobs, and players would have the option to kill enemy villagers or simply claim a territory (one of those villages that are near a mine for example) which would also claim its inhabitants. Killing villagers should have negative consequences, like the rest of the opponents villagers would no longer get converted to your side or if you piss them off too much, they'd defend their territory and temporarily become militia while your own villagers would also have reduced loyalty, maybe work less or simply begin leaving your kingdom. I know it sounds a bit too complex, but that's how medieval kingdom management works. I would make sure it's easy to get into and understand, maybe even remove big complex tech trees while in game and move them to some customization menu, giving players the choice of creating their own civilizations with certain strengths, weaknesses and look and then take that into a match, that would make it so much easier and games faster. The "advancing ages" stuff makes no sense overall and makes games more lengthy, imagine having customized tech trees, instead of researching how to forge some special steel, you need to add an expansion to the smithy. This would take time and still keep the progression/advancement within a match, but essentially you'd have all the tech, just not the tools for it at the beginning.. so it's the same thing but with a different flavor now that i think about it. My thoughts won't find application though, as it really is too complex for a soloboi like me.. so hopefully some studio one day creates an RTS that works like i see fit, time will tell.
Ok here's my thoughts on this in a wider view of the genre as a person who has been playing RTS since being a kid and really is pessimistic but I think is the reality. I agree that the clones are not effective designs, but I also think the graphics, and importantly art style, of the clones are much worse than the originals by a long shot! As you said there are plenty of games that have some more "realistic" features/features that develop the feel of city-building and kingdom building, but there must be a reason they aren't being carried over into the recent times. I think they will find a good balance of RTS genre-blended games eventually but right now, even though all the AoE clones are just rubbish, the imperative seems to me to be "get back to a more successful time of the RTS", and when you ask anyone, they will always say the "golden era" of the 90s. It's a matter of risk management. ESPECIALLY after the disaster that was Dawn of War III, that just shows everyone what happens when one of the biggest RTS developer tries to infuse MOBA elements into the RTS design, so now is not the time to be experimental. The transition to 3D and the scope of the 3D era of RTS games in general probably aren't that feasible for indie developers with limited resources to copy with their cinematic cut scenes and everything. Not only that, there is still no universal Post-Warcraft III game that is considered to be the RTS Call of Duty game, not even Starcraft II because that's just a clone of Starcraft I. We still don't have a good idea of how the "classic" RTS transitions into 3D because the developers failed to innovate after the 90s (and evidently in 2010s as well), which is partly why I think 3D indie RTS games are failing. It's like choosing to emulate Age III over Age II, as Age II is generally going to be the safer option for various reasons. Dawn of War 1 is good, but that's hard to translate to medieval and other settings (barring CoH, though that hasn't seem many clones either) because it's primarily about ranged combat and unrealistically strong melee units. Games like Total War on the other hand its not even comparable to the 90s formula, but there's still something special about that where if you change too much, it is no longer considered the same genre anymore. New games like Total Wars mean, respectfully, very little to me, as do games like Off-world Trading Company or SupCom. I think we have to be patient, the genre is recovering from a long draught. There are seemingly good things on the horizon for fans of the classics, but really that will just eventually show how blind the developers are. Wait for the reception of Reforged, and see how "wowified" that will be and show that Blizzard has lost their touch, and slowly turn Warcraft into a mobile game series. Wait for Age IV, and see how it's utterly going to fail without a doubt, to see that it's just a cash grab of the series and probably will cancel one of the remasters (do people really think Microsoft is going to bring RTS back?? Halo Wars is a console RTS. They fired Ensemble and then got CHRIS TAYLOR!! to make Age of Empires Online. Their Definitive edition remasters are a joke, not to mention Windows 10 exclusive... smh). And then when the dust settles, something good will finally come, and indie developers will be good enough at copying and able to match the old games and then start to innovate themselves as well. I am curious about what kind of game you are making, but am not realistically expecting anything to add those complex siege features. I just want to see somebody out Warcraft Blizzard right now, but that's not going to happen with this Loria game.
While you covered a lot of the strategic parts of the game, it IS parody of fantasy so it doesn’t take itself too seriously and that might be appealling to some. Otherwise, thanks for covering a rather unknown game
I agree with your assessment, but I enjoy it anyway. I would only enjoy it more if certain things were better, my biggest disappointment though is that there are no angry comments from the units when they are clicked repeatedly.
This game seems to take a lot of aspects from Starcraft 1 of all things, maybe they should lean a bit more heavily on that? also I'm certainly the only person that will say this, but I think roads (from WarCraft 1) need to come back to prevent spammy tower/rax proxy shit.
The real question is: how are the unit quotes?
You know, the Lines of Loria?
LOL. You win.
i buy the game a few weeks ago... no... tey don't have angry quotes or something.. saddly...
I'd love a modern take Warcraft 2, probably the first big game I ever bought and one I think back on very fondly. I don't like lots of hero micro so I prefer it over games which have lots of manually activated abilities.
Doesn’t look interesting, but I’m a fan of your detailed explanation.
I watched your video about the symmetry of age of empires and others. you should send an application to work on the game as a directors advisor. I love age of empires 3 and 2, and I think experience is a valid 4th resource, as it gives you an advantage if you build and destroy more than your opponent (the only thing keeping ffa games from being an uninterrupted hour long boomfest to see who can boom faster. I think that could be an aspect that feels not to foreign but hey it might be to risky.) trade routes become interesting to fight over, native tribes, I really like that aspect. Hometowns made Every civilization so very unique it is nothing but extra unique tech tree technologies, but as you said it is a bitch to balance. but it does make way for unheard amounts of strategy. AND I found myself playing AOE 3 for 13 years, only getting bored after I cycled through the civilizations, which means, more civilizations must have a positive impact on long term players not loosing interest. An active developer listening to feedback, participating in the development after release is crucial for such difficult balance, and you said the studio does appear to be the best choice for aoe4. I think it is important to include a sense of fighting for ressources, as it is kind of present with stone in aoe2 and trade routes and land grabbing in age of empires 3. Age of empires 3 nicely compensates the lack of stone with the benefit of possessing more land (natural ressources are faster), trade routes and such. A booming player can always be defeated by either rushing or outbooming him which is possible even with inferior hometown shipments geared for rushing, just by the fact that you own the map. I feel like age of empires 2 lacks the value of the land, while aoe 2 being overall the slightly better game, aoe3 does a better job with its ressources. owning land in age of empires 2 means nothing at all while in age of empires 3 it is so powerful, defensive buildings are basically turned to shit to to help with that. Again I like both ways the games went, and not having defensive building kind of defeats the purpose, a mix of land value and good buildings might just make the war for land more fierce. Raids are so powerful in aoe3 because natural ressources are so good, they are worth the risk. I would love to see building farms and mills early would put you in a disadvantage as it is now, but a failed raid from the opponent should damage his economy making the playing field favorable to the farm/ mill guy. that way there would never develop a meta, as it is a rock paper scissor game in certain aspects of the game. Rainbow six siege has a huge esports fanbase, and it is arguably the best fps game in the world competitively. Even though it has so many different characters. things get constantly changed, to avoid certain dominant strategies. I would love to see age of empires 4 take a route of asymmetrical civilizations. (similar to the simplicity of age of empires 3 with not to many different types of troops, like ranged and melee cavalry always being kind of the same in terms of weaknesses. it needs to be easy for new players to pick up, and hard to master. Please make another video about age of empires 4. Maybe about meta development, how that plays into harvest build destroy games?
Multiplayer is in the works.
I've seen a couple AoE clones, now a Warcraft clone, it's not going to work.. i don't get these people who think it is even a remotely good idea to copy those old games. If it brings nothing new to the table then it's worthless. there's way less limitations with the current computing power we got.
I haven't explored much of the RTS genre, just played the popular ones. If i had the resources i wouldn't mind creating an RTS in a medieval fantasy setting, but currently i'm attempting to create something that comes closest to Dawn of war II i guess. It's going to be in a futuristic setting, with a lot of emphasis on unit customization, micromanagement and connecting a lot more people than your average RTS (will still start small for technical reasons). I can't wait to hear your opinion about my game but there's a long way to go before getting out a respectable prototype.
Going back to a standard RTS, what are your thoughts about Military combined with sort of city building/kingdom management? You would generally not be able to control your villagers directly but dictate where to build what and where and when to harvest resource X by opening/closing "jobs". This would be designed in a way that you can effectively start commanding military early on and having skirmishes and dictate what resource production is prioritized instead of commanding every villager manually, i think it's the most boring part in AoE for example, as a casual player spending half an hour to "get started" seems like a waste of time.
What annoys me the most with most RTS games in medieval setting specifically is how bad walls, fortifications and buildings are in general. I think a respectable modern RTS NEEDS to have walls that can be traversed and used as an effective fortification, and the best way to deal with someone walling themselves is to siege them (and by that i mean starve them out of resources). I would also completely change how towers work, towers should simply be structures that connect wall sections where your archers get a better vantage point and fire at soldiers trying to climb walls, i wouldn't mind introducing a mini keep where it would be possible to garrison a dozen of units who could effectively hold against 3 times their count. Stone fortifications would be a long term investment that take a while to build and nearly impossible to ram down, wooden fortifications would cost significantly less but are easier to break and even perhaps burn via magic or.. arson?
What i think would be cool is all larger structures (definitely fortifications) having a simple inner layout, say you have a keep (or "castle") where you garrison infantry inside and your opponent would actually have to push inside the building to capture it, all the way up top where archers could be positioned, the significance of such structure would be equal to a wonder and 3 castles in AoE, since you have to work hard to capture it, and work almost as hard as it is to build one to destroy one. All structures should be captured instead of hitting them with a sword, so you could deconstruct/burn stuff but that is something the player can decide.
Siege towers and ladders would be very common, perhaps you could make soldiers make camp and construct that stuff where ever, i also like the idea of "citizen soldiers" working, like in 0. AD.
I would also make crop fields so huge there is no way you could fit them within walls. A player could just paint in or draw a shape to fill in as a field, the citizens in your kingdom take care of the rest. I don't want to get too complicated but i'd also introduce seasons, so you would get a harvest maybe mid summer and late autumn(4 seasons would take maybe 4 minutes?), but these are also the best times to take a couple scouts and set the opponents fields on fire. I don't know how to address harassing villagers, perhaps if you kill them your own villagers will lose loyalty towards you and leave? Or if you approach a resource point like a mine, the villagers quickly disperse therefore not work.
I don't particularly like "ages" or big "tiers" in these RTS games, so i thought of a concept where you could max out a specific tech for example, but it would cost a LOT. Advancing all tech evenly would be the most cost efficient, but most time consuming. For example you research some way to forge better weapons, after that other related tech would be cheaper like forging better tools, but if you were to go multiple tiers ahead to gain the knowledge of how to make katanas folded 5000 times with dragon tears, it would cost insane amount since everything else is behind and being ahead in one tech reduces all related tech by a very insignificant amount.
Another thing i would change for sure is path-finding in different types of environment, you could traverse forests but vision and movement would be impaired(even more for cavalry), would also work like brush in League or SC. This could be used as an ambush obviously. In a high fantasy setting with more creatures that could mean different mounts could be used for different environments. I like the idea of customization overall, it would be cool if players could build their own civilization.
You could manually build roads and dirt roads would naturally form when units travel a path too often, these are little details but would definitely add flavor.
I've seen a couple city/kingdom building games and i like many mechanics those games introduce, what they generally lack is military and a purpose overall. What i describe is not easy at all to make playable and not take a long time per sitting, which nowadays is a goal for any game... but these clones that keep popping up are super lazy.
So my final word is: A modern medieval RTS that puts no effort into being a bit more logical and interesting is never going to grab my attention and a kingdom manager + standard military RTS is the direction i would go towards. I probably missed a dozen of thoughts iv'e had regarding the subject but, eh.
What clones are these exacty? Empire Earth and Empires: Dawn of Civilizations? These are made by people who have worked on AoE. As for the newer and indie ones, primarily they don’t work because they never reach the same levels as the originals. Even Ensemble themselves started watering down their games after Age II. It takes a lot of resources to create a good RTS and the ideas you highlighted are too much to implement into a single game, even a game like COH2 wouldn’t have that many details in it. City builder with military is a good idea. I definitely have thought that Age series needed to have functions like building roads and other logical placement of your city, despite me not being that big of a city building fan. I wonder why nobody does that
@@vantom9836 I was referring to the indie games that have been popping up in recent years, all these hopeless clones with identical gameplay and a bit better graphics.. it's not enough to be relevant lol. The biggest issue is proper AI navigation through structures but i'd most likely keep it as simple as possible. There's plenty of games already that have walls with the possibility of units standing on them and a keep/castle would have a great hall in the middle and maybe stairs going up to the top to position ranged units. Barracks in AoE look like a little fortress on it's own, it would make sense to be able to garrison units within and make the enemy work for its control instead of destroying it, if a player fails to properly garrison units while enemy is nearby and claims the barracks, it would become neutral and then captured by the opponent.
My main pet peeve with RTS games will always be how weak, useless and expendable structures are, especially fortifications. The game i'm describing would have low structure count in the first place, cause once you build them, they stay.
A player would be forced to create small villages near resource nodes that are far away from the main town. Look, city building games have complicated mechanics, but the point is that the whole thing monitors itself. The problem that arises is that the player loses control over villagers and at times it would mean production/harvesting of a certain resource isn't started instantly.
In such a game, the player would need to start planning early on, and even place "foundations" for the most important structures, including fortifications. You could place structures without having the resources for it, it feels more like a QoL upgrade if anything, resources would be deducted while building is happening. The game would just need a very smooth way of managing job prioirities, and i really like the thought of making plebian military units work, perhaps at the cost of more food.
The ideas i highlighted are not too complicated to get into or implement at all, when a bunch of indie studios can make city building games, then a larger one can add a layer of standard military RTS on top. Player experience would be still kept reasonably simple, instead of selecting a villager and making a new farm you simply paint a field on a grassland or place points that then get connected and would be filled in as a field or just drag a box on the ground. A game called Foundation should have a painting mechanic.
I would still keep a fine balance of making the game easy to understand while having a more grounded, logical approach with more focus on positioning and terrain advantages in terms of military while redefining the "manager" part in terms of economy, you'd never have to worry about idle workers unless you somehow fail to provide enough jobs, and players would have the option to kill enemy villagers or simply claim a territory (one of those villages that are near a mine for example) which would also claim its inhabitants. Killing villagers should have negative consequences, like the rest of the opponents villagers would no longer get converted to your side or if you piss them off too much, they'd defend their territory and temporarily become militia while your own villagers would also have reduced loyalty, maybe work less or simply begin leaving your kingdom.
I know it sounds a bit too complex, but that's how medieval kingdom management works. I would make sure it's easy to get into and understand, maybe even remove big complex tech trees while in game and move them to some customization menu, giving players the choice of creating their own civilizations with certain strengths, weaknesses and look and then take that into a match, that would make it so much easier and games faster. The "advancing ages" stuff makes no sense overall and makes games more lengthy, imagine having customized tech trees, instead of researching how to forge some special steel, you need to add an expansion to the smithy. This would take time and still keep the progression/advancement within a match, but essentially you'd have all the tech, just not the tools for it at the beginning.. so it's the same thing but with a different flavor now that i think about it.
My thoughts won't find application though, as it really is too complex for a soloboi like me.. so hopefully some studio one day creates an RTS that works like i see fit, time will tell.
Ok here's my thoughts on this in a wider view of the genre as a person who has been playing RTS since being a kid and really is pessimistic but I think is the reality.
I agree that the clones are not effective designs, but I also think the graphics, and importantly art style, of the clones are much worse than the originals by a long shot! As you said there are plenty of games that have some more "realistic" features/features that develop the feel of city-building and kingdom building, but there must be a reason they aren't being carried over into the recent times. I think they will find a good balance of RTS genre-blended games eventually but right now, even though all the AoE clones are just rubbish, the imperative seems to me to be "get back to a more successful time of the RTS", and when you ask anyone, they will always say the "golden era" of the 90s. It's a matter of risk management. ESPECIALLY after the disaster that was Dawn of War III, that just shows everyone what happens when one of the biggest RTS developer tries to infuse MOBA elements into the RTS design, so now is not the time to be experimental. The transition to 3D and the scope of the 3D era of RTS games in general probably aren't that feasible for indie developers with limited resources to copy with their cinematic cut scenes and everything. Not only that, there is still no universal Post-Warcraft III game that is considered to be the RTS Call of Duty game, not even Starcraft II because that's just a clone of Starcraft I. We still don't have a good idea of how the "classic" RTS transitions into 3D because the developers failed to innovate after the 90s (and evidently in 2010s as well), which is partly why I think 3D indie RTS games are failing. It's like choosing to emulate Age III over Age II, as Age II is generally going to be the safer option for various reasons. Dawn of War 1 is good, but that's hard to translate to medieval and other settings (barring CoH, though that hasn't seem many clones either) because it's primarily about ranged combat and unrealistically strong melee units. Games like Total War on the other hand its not even comparable to the 90s formula, but there's still something special about that where if you change too much, it is no longer considered the same genre anymore. New games like Total Wars mean, respectfully, very little to me, as do games like Off-world Trading Company or SupCom. I think we have to be patient, the genre is recovering from a long draught. There are seemingly good things on the horizon for fans of the classics, but really that will just eventually show how blind the developers are. Wait for the reception of Reforged, and see how "wowified" that will be and show that Blizzard has lost their touch, and slowly turn Warcraft into a mobile game series. Wait for Age IV, and see how it's utterly going to fail without a doubt, to see that it's just a cash grab of the series and probably will cancel one of the remasters (do people really think Microsoft is going to bring RTS back?? Halo Wars is a console RTS. They fired Ensemble and then got CHRIS TAYLOR!! to make Age of Empires Online. Their Definitive edition remasters are a joke, not to mention Windows 10 exclusive... smh). And then when the dust settles, something good will finally come, and indie developers will be good enough at copying and able to match the old games and then start to innovate themselves as well. I am curious about what kind of game you are making, but am not realistically expecting anything to add those complex siege features. I just want to see somebody out Warcraft Blizzard right now, but that's not going to happen with this Loria game.
so instead of one game you want to mix a bunch of games together
@@vantom9836 Exactly
While you covered a lot of the strategic parts of the game, it IS parody of fantasy so it doesn’t take itself too seriously and that might be appealling to some. Otherwise, thanks for covering a rather unknown game
For the alliance i mean loria
I agree with your assessment, but I enjoy it anyway.
I would only enjoy it more if certain things were better, my biggest disappointment though is that there are no angry comments from the units when they are clicked repeatedly.
Are you going to review Tzar (2000 game by Haemimont)?
I'm from Italy, where the game had a moderate success. I grew up playing Age of Empires 1 and 2 and Tzar, and never heard about Warcraft or Starcraft!
I knew about this project, it's amazing! A couple years ago I thought interest in the game had died completely but this madman appeared.
Thoughts about warcraft 3 reforged?
Do you have an opinion on Warlords Battlecry III? :)
I work with someone with the last name Loria
scathing haha, i love it
This game seems to take a lot of aspects from Starcraft 1 of all things, maybe they should lean a bit more heavily on that?
also I'm certainly the only person that will say this, but I think roads (from WarCraft 1) need to come back to prevent spammy tower/rax proxy shit.
They could make a mix of War2, War1 (roads) and Starcraft 1 aspects with some unique solutions for both races. War3 style heroes are pointless here
doesn't allow you to rebind keys, that's kind of big. I'm not using my fucking numpad to play a game.