Rise of Nations™: The Great Debates

Several people have asked about the nations in the game. Since this is a game about global history, we wanted representative cultures from each continent that were around in some form in antiquity. It would have been pretty odd to have American pikemen or javelineers.

Rohag's Rise of Nations Page Rise of Nations: Advancing the Genre Rise of Nations "vs." Empire Earth Rise of Nations™: The Great Debates Rise of Nations Resources Other Great Games!

Why No USA? | The Aztec Question | Scale Distortions These are summaries of "Great Debates" that raged in the pre-publication Rise of Nations fan forums during 2002 and early 2003. Why No USA? Fans of Rise of Nations have long argued over the United States' absence from the game's featured 18 nations. Here are some of the basic arguments put forward in various forums regarding the question of whether or not the USA should be included in Rise of Nations. Why Include America America has become the world’s sole superpower. America is a logical representative for the western hemisphere/North America. American power and energy significantly shaped the 20th century worldwide. America would allow the inclusion of North American Indian structures and/or units in the game. The game already includes much art that is clearly American, both units and structures. Industrial and political revolutions in Britain, France, and the U.S. profoundly shaped the modern world; all three of those nations should be included in RoN. All major combatants of the worldwide wars of the past quarter millennium (Seven Years’ War through the Cold War) should be represented in RoN. If Bantus and Aztecs are included, BHG has no legitimate reason to exclude America. America will be a major market for RoN. Why Exclude America America is a historical latecomer. America is a nation of immigrants, and this is beyond the reasonable modeling capabilities of the game engine. Despite being a nation of immigrants from around the world, America’s core, elite groups have largely Western European roots, and Western Europe is already well represented in RoN. The period of America’s worldwide rise and zenith largely correspond with the development of a close Anglo-American alliance, and Britain is already represented in the game. To adequately model America’s relative power would seriously unbalance the game. Having American hoplites, longbowmen, and war galleys in RoN would create significant historical dissonance for many players. America is over-represented in world media, including computer games. Including America is too controversial and is best left to private modders. Leaving America for an expansion pack makes good business sense. Microsoft is free to retaliate for its treatment at the hands of the US Justice Department by excluding America. Big Huge Games published an expansion to RoN, Rise of Nations: Thrones & Patriots, in mid-2004 and included America as one of six new nations. The Aztec Question: Virtue vs. Geography This short essay attempts to summarize the voluminous and heated fan discussions of the early-mid summer of 2002 when BHG revealed the 18 nations RoN would feature. Some objected to the inclusion - for example - of peoples such as the Aztec, Maya, Inca and Bantu and absence of America, Persia, India and Scandinavia. For a good while now an insoluble debate has raged across RoNP’s main forums. In its simplest form, the question might be put this way – “Why include the x, y, or z civ in RoN? What did they ever do of great historical importance?” Often the Aztecs are the civ in question. The corollary to this is, “What!? How can you include nation x in RoN and leave out America!?” On a deeper level, though, the Question is a more serious one. Some folks take the position that those historical civilizations that fell behind in the race for modernity – and were perhaps destroyed by more “advanced” peoples, the Aztec fall at the hands of the Spanish being a major example – fell behind because of some inherent cultural, racial or moral deficiency. This view holds these historical “losers” invested their energies and intellects in empty matters that, in the end, would not help them flourish or even survive. On the other side stand those who maintain the advance of civilization has had little or nothing to do with any inherent human traits, and has had almost everything to do with geography, something over which people have no control. Those supporting the second position frequently cite the Pulitzer Prize winning study, Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. In short, Diamond argues that the east-west running axis of Eurasia – allowing easy contact between similar climatic zones – promoted the early domestication of seeds, which led to agriculture, which led to large populations, which led to the surplus of idle talent necessary to create and advance civilization. Also, this geographical axis contributed to the domestication of a large number of animals in Eurasia relative to other parts of the world. As animals are the carriers of those germs and viruses most dangerous to humans, the extended contact with domestic animals allowed the Eurasian peoples to develop resistance to disease more readily than the peoples of Africa, the Americas, and Australasia. Consequently, geography and its impact on germs and seeds precede the guns and steel associated with the historical dominance of Eurasia. Natural intelligence or virtue has nothing to do with it. Those of the first position have cited historical events and trends but no specific works. Were the debate to continue, I suspect someone would eventually appeal to the works of Arnold Toynbee and Ibn Khaldun, who saw a connection between the rise and decline of virtues among ruling classes and the rise and decline of civilizations. Then, of course, others would claim that these views complement rather than compete with those of Diamond. Fans have debated these and related issues in many forum threads, particularly those where the worthiness of this or that nation, civilization, or culture for inclusion in the game is the subject. It seems to be a debate with many tentacles and I don't expect it to end with RoN's release. At least then we'll have a powerful editor at the service of our various convictions. Limited time and resources prevented the inclusion of a nation editor in RoN's initial release. Scale Distortions & Realistic Weapon Ranges Different gamers have different expectations of the games they play. Some want a "down in the trenches" experience whereas others look for a "grand spectacle." Getting into any game involves some personal suspension of external reality, and some elements can make that harder or damage one's perception of in-game reality. Distortions of scale and range are significant stumbling blocks to a certain part of the gaming public. Seeing soldiers nearly as tall as the buildings for which they are fighting and what would be long-range, indirect-fire artillery lobbing projectiles about 100 meters in the visual scale of the game world make the experience far less believable to these folks. Others are more accepting of such distortions provided other elements of the game give them a sense of grand scale. These folks are far more interested in playing the role of sovereign than that of sergeant, and envision their soldiers and buildings as icons representing larger units and infrastructure. Of course, one of the eternal challenges of war and strategy games - from the days of miniature games to the present - has been balancing the desires of players to simultaneously be king, general, captain, and sergeant. Depending on what they want to accomplish in a game, designers seek to fulfil players' desires while keeping play within the practical limits of human span of control. Most historical RTS games to date have taken at least a somewhat hybrid approach, mixing tactical graphics with strategic situations. In this respect Rise of Nations is similar to its predecessors. Over the course of the past year [2002-2003] RoN's fans have sought to pull the game one way or the other. Let's divide them into the "Tactical Faction" and the "Strategic Faction" (pardon the exaggeration of typical positions): Tactical Faction RoN is a grand game so why shouldn't it give us a grand scale with realistic weapons ranges, even if artillery fires several screens and cities take up realistic game space? I want a game where I can distinguish a PzKpfw IVb from a PzKpfw IVe and a Polish from a Berg lancer. It's ridiculous for soldiers to tower over tanks and appear as if they could sink a battleship just by sitting on it. Strategic Faction I want a game I can play in an hour without needing several gigabytes of RAM for the map. RoN should give us big battles with lots of units that fill the screen (but not more than the screen). We want a strategy game that isn't one long war. In truth, any number of gamers belong to both factions. How effectively BHG or any group of designers could provide them with all their desires is open to question. In my experience, the closest the two camps approach revolves around the matter of artillery range. For ease of control, some advocate long-range artillery shoot the length of but not longer than a single screen. Others feel long-range howitzers should be able to reach no less than 1.5 to 2 screens, forcing players to use forward observer/spotters for indirect fire. From what we've seen to date, RoN will please the Strategic Faction more than the Tactical, but, as mentioned above, everyone will have a powerful editor at their disposal. We'll see how many different games emerge from Rise of Nations! Thanks are due to scores of pre-publication fans of Rise of Nations for their participation in the forum discussions summarized here. I would particularly like to recognize the contributions of One_Dead_Villy, Max, Bubbles, Parad0x and Instrumentality. On to 'Rise of Nations Resources' Back to the Top

You can contact me (Rohag) at rohag3 "at" yahoo dot com. Trademarks are property of the games' respective developers/publishers; game contents and materials are copyright the same; all rights reserved. No developer or publisher has reviewed or recommended content on this site. This page's content was last updated 7 January 2005.