I am a big fan of Rise of Nations - I like to play it in single player, esp. "Qucik Battle" - meaning, no campaign, just ginormous maps. As a family man, I just cannot commit to playing multi-day campaigns, but I love to immerse myself for 2-3 hours.

How does EE2 compare to Rise of Nations, and is it possible to play it the way I just described?

Another question: one big reason I decided not to play EE1, was the stupid AI: when tigers attack my citizens, there's one or two guys running away from the tigers and all the rest are just watching - I have to EXPLICITLY command them to attack the tigers instead of just watching with their hands in their pockets?! Other things are not automated, as well. Rise of Nations has spoiled them, and this sort of ridiculous micromanagement gets to my nerves in a big way. I hope EE2 has improved in this regard????

EE2 is somewhat similar in regards to having 'territory', trading with merchant carts/ships and a large'ish roster of civs, though it feels a little clunkier and more shallow than Rise of Nations. Weather conditions and the ability to build walls and a civilian management interface seem to be the only real additions.

The AI is reasonable though can suffer from a bit of pathfinding.

You can indeed play as you mentioned - quick battles (infact there is an option purely dedicated to quick battle where you choose your starting forces et all)

Quick compare

More useful compare:
AI wise, RON is better than EE2. I have not played EE1, but in EE2... Sometimes they attack well, other times they just stand there or keep running to and fro and get shot. There is a citizen management screen, but I found it not as good as RON's auto-gather/build that you can do.

Territory in EE2 are fixed locations, and you have to build a city (I think) to capture that territory. If I remember correctly you can choose to destroy the enemy city and build your own, instead of capturing it. You cannot "grow" territory in EE2 like in RON.

In general there is more variety in EE2 in terms of eras and units.

Graphics are better in EE2.

There are two ways of delivering nukes in EE2. One is via ballistic missile and the other is using a plane. Unfortunately the nuke in EE2 is very under powered compared to RON.

There is picture-in-picture in EE2.

Yes, you can play quick battles in EE2 and I find both EE2 and RON quick battles good fun.


I used to play both EE2 and RON a lot, but slowly I dropped off playing EE2 because the stupid AI annoyed me and I actually sold the game. I still return to RON now and then though.

Thanks a lot Simonono. Thanks a lot posidyn.

Your comment (as well as the previous one) is extremely helpful. I now have a clear understanding of what to expect from EE2. I like the more detailed technology/science tree in EE2, but virtually every other aspect (I've never cared for graphics) is better in RON, for me. In my own personal humble view.


Among the many things I like about RON, is that I can set my troops stance to Aggressive, Defensive, Stand ground, Raze etc. etc. which greatly helps in removing battle micro-management. As it is clear by now, I am allergic to micro-management.

I wish there were another game like RON.

I've not played Rise of Legends, but have not read much good about it.

There are two things (among several) that stand out, for me, in RON:

1) I don't need to babysit my troops - I can just select a stance and a formation, and send them off. And then I can manage the rest of my empire.

2) Technology advancement.


Many games have one of them, but none (AFAIK) have both. Well, C&C has the vestiges of both...

Jesus H. Christ, I just realized I might never in my lifetime play a RTS as good as RON!