Yeah, well first of all can they make all this work? The graphics and hype are nice, but this really sounds like recanning endless seas of worms from the development side.

When I saw the title of your post I thought it would be about the decline and fall of Rise of Nations. That game could have been a lot better than it was. Will always be sad that it was not.

It would be VERY VERY hard to get this right. Is it possible? I think so ... however there should definitely be some buffer between old players and new players. I suggest that new players are protected from Developed nations by the UN, and if people abuse this peace-making or peace-keeping forces may be deployed at appropriate junctures.

You guys are matching my circumspection as well.  There is just too much unknown at this point.  However, from what I can gather, it seems that EoN will have a single player mode that is designed to allow new players to level up and get good loot before getting thrown into the mix.  That should help level things out.

One thing I don't like is that it seems EoN will not have any infantry!  This is a terrible idea (and one of the reasons I never could get into SupCom)!  Nothing reduces the fun and realism factors of an RTS game like having no infantry.  I always thought World in Conflict was the best RTS game largely BECAUSE it had infantry that could really contribute to the battle in their own way.

So...yeah.  There's a lot more I need to know before I will truly be looking forward to this game.  

Oh yea ... it should definitely have infantry :/ ... why dost thou have no infantry!? :cries:

In any case, it seems like another Miss-Applied strategy brewed from the low depths of WWII arrogance. You don't win wars by holding the land with large, fancy equipment ... that is just another way to slowly die.

On the other hand, I suppose a rigid command structure lends itself well to direct wars of attrition ... even so there is no way for a war to be single-handedly fought with machines .... we don't need massive Civil War-like infantry regiments from Dawn of War ... but certainly a good element to hold ground and set up ambushes vs vehicles. Machine Gun emplacements? Infantry mounted rocket launchers/ anti-air missiles? The ability to hide in a building for cover!???

Anyways, yea ... boo for no infantry. I suppose the only alternative would be if we used amorphous bio-engineered bug-like things ... like the ZERGLINGS .... to take our land for us. That might be a less-efficient way to clean the ground, however the Zerg's ability to feed off the planet ... or whatever ... and breed in excessively long numbers ... ending with near Xenocide for all humans everywhere (unless they are in their large fancy machines) .... and so the commanders can say HA! I hath won the art of war, and destroyed humanity using a parasitic alien infestation. I ROCK!!! (yey)

So yea ... you need something to hold the land/ convert the people/ commit mass murder ... and missles/machines won't do it. Xenocidal ZERG will, Resistance style ALIENS will (kill) ... and your actual INFANTRY with Unconventional tactics will (convert enemy) ... and even if its conventional warfare you will need some kind of non machine related soldiers to actually control what is happening on the ground (control/hold the land).

Still, the idea of simply "holding the land" and hope that you won is just silly ... and its born from career seeking generals and the game RISK.

http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/4192