What kind of RTS is Northgard ?

[Okami]

I had some Age of Mythology itch to scratch, so I decide to get this one. (I had it on my wishlist for a year or so)

Is it more like classical RTS (Command & Conquer, Age of Empire, Starcraft)
or someway similar to tactical RTS (Compagny of Heroes, Warhammer 40K Dawn of War...)

What is the rythm ? Is it a frenetic APM, or more long term planning ?
What is the balance ? Are all tribes unique and interesting or it's just a slight variations of flavour ?

[Butter Bot]

its not an RTS but a management game
i will not say more because i am bad at the game

[Okami]

So it's more like banished with fight ?

[kyu]

It's a euro board game in an rts format. Not nearly as apm heavy as other traditional rts games, and very light on micro. It *can* get a little hectic with other players or several difficult AI opponents if they are constantly attacking.

I dont mp online but i hear there is a quick rush meta

[Qwesar]

If you ever played the board game Risk. Its a lot like that. Except it does have brutal winters and lots of other mechanics and unique tiles. The combat is a lot weaker than other RTS. But the art style, Viking/nordic themes and exploration make up for it. Since I am bad at the game the only way I can win is late game by just amassing all upgrades and tons of resources and slowly taking tiles.

[Okami]

Originally posted by Qwesar:

If you ever played the board game Risk. Its a lot like that. Except it does have brutal winters and lots of other mechanics and unique tiles. The combat is a lot weaker than other RTS. But the art style, Viking/nordic themes and exploration make up for it. Since I am bad at the game the only way I can win is late game by just amassing all upgrades and tons of resources and slowly taking tiles.

I indeed remember a risk remake with Cats, Robots, Yetis and army men :) very fun

[Enger]

kinda like settler

[Prof. Dawn Feather, Ph.D]

i agree with settler

the fighting was not the best to micro, but the fact is you need to manage your resource very well to keep the flow going

either you wanna go for domination or other condition

you need to absorb the pressure from enemies while maintaining the balance

[Ratham]

Like Catan + Civ

[42]

Originally posted by Prof. Dawn Feather, Ph.D:

either you wanna go for domination or other condition

Can you disable the other win conditions? I've never been an fan of strategy games in which you spend dozens of hours playing just to win by having a menu pop up saying "Game over, you won!" because you researched interstellar travel first. I want to actually have to destroy my opponents when it's all said and done.

[ranakor]

Same question, the promotion is tempting but i want to know if i can play domination only? (also are all DLC pretty much a must have or is just the base game fine to start with?)

[Giraffasaur]

Originally posted by 42:

Originally posted by Prof. Dawn Feather, Ph.D:

either you wanna go for domination or other condition

Can you disable the other win conditions?

Originally posted by ranakor:

Same question, the promotion is tempting but i want to know if i can play domination only? (also are all DLC pretty much a must have or is just the base game fine to start with?)

You can choose what options can be used for victory, though domination is always an option since being destroyed removes your ability to complete the other options.

Personally, the DLCs are NOT a must-have. The main story campaign, and the new conquest mode, should be enough to tide you over for at least 100+ hours for single-playing alone, all without a single DLC purchased. In fact, you experience a bit of the DLC through the conquests, because you'll constantly find yourself up against the DLC clans. (Yup, they're in the game, you simply can't play as them unless you buy the DLC.)

[Deathlilies]

It's a 4x game. Not very deep or intense combat, campaign isn't amazing. As people have said in the thread already it's more of a management game than a strategy game. The hardest part of this game isn't beating the enemy it's having enough food and fire wood so your army doesn't keel over and die while you are stomping your enemy's face in.

[Soho]

To the OP, if you like any of the games you mentioned, I would say you made a really good investment in this game... it is unique among them and there are scores of hours of gameplay learning the basic system (okay, maybe you learn it in about an hour if you are really L33t ... then spend another 2,000 hours playing the game because thankfully there are no hard choices to make or depth to it). Whether you dig the game's basic system or not is really the main gist, like most games. It's a work of art: you might not like the Mona Lisa, I think she's sexy. Northgarde is sexy.

What really makes this game unique (and sexy) is the nuance between managing the resources at hand and fielding your army- I would say that management part is the part of the game that can be frenetic, there is depth in that part alone and the choices you make towards optimizing your outcome may not be hard choices but they do determine the difference between winning and losing. Just about any other RTS game, when you buy your military units that is that, until they die... here, you can switch them back to civilians if needed, and maybe you do need to because your whole village is starving or freezing to death.

Northgarde is much more like classical RTS (warcraft III probably the closest IMO), less tactical/more planning-ahead strategy. Those other games have a lot more depth in the unit choices and the unit countering aspect on the tactical level... that portion is more simplified in Northgarde. There remains the old rock-paper-scissor foundation for combat.

Playing against AI is slower rhythm than playing against other players. It is essentially a race: you are in a race with the other players to do some number of things before they do. Build a bigger army and attack them first. Scout out the map first and get somewhere before they do. Make a bunch of money faster than they do... expand all over and get the most famous before they do. The racetrack itself has obstacles to overcome, and there is some RNG factored in that might really screw you over or provide an advantage, in the form of events that happen, and stuff you find on the map (maps are procedurally-generated... which makes it pretty sexy and different from any of the other RTS mentioned, again IMO).

The different clans I would say are slight variations of flavour... there are a couple that are quite different from the others (dragon.... snake... these are quite different IMO) but generally they each have some kind of advantage, or some mechanic they have unique to themselves. I would say they are sufficiently different to make it refreshing to play a new one once you have played some other one for a significant time. The basic system, though, remains the same... if you like that part, the extra clans are a bonus. If you don't like the basic system, the extra clans won't change that.

Light RTS is the best definition for the game, as it does play generally in under an hour each match. If you've played a euro-type board game with worker placement, the villager mechanic of the game is a lot like that, where your worker can be what you need it to be at a given time, and building new buildings give you more options for what your workers can be. I think that aspect alone is gorgeous design.

[Corpserule]

It's somewhere between Civ and a classical RTS, in that sense, it's rather unique.

The clans don't have their own unit list, and most things are shared between all races, HOWEVER, as a game where a lot of resource production is spent on maintenance, race's unique benefits are pretty much critical to survival, and it's rather unplayable if it wasn't for your clans specialties.

Specific answers unaddressed - Long Term planning is more important in NG, slow-medium speed, will vary based on who you ask. It's probably the only RTS where you can arrive 30s late to a game and still expect to have a decent shot at winning.

At high level APM would matter, just because it's strictly an advantage over someone who isn't good at it