Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Normally I'd agree, but the Impressions Games historic citybuilder series that this game is a spiritual successor to had a military element in most of the titles so it's not unprecedented for a game like this.
Yes and anno 1800 has military too, It’s an annoying distraction and there’s no reason to perpetuate bad ideas. 4x and grand strategy do military a lot better it doesn’t belong in city builders imo.
The thing with historic citybuilders is that they're set in eras where defensive structures were an important part of city planning. A city without walls or troops in those eras was a city that would quickly find itself conquered by a neighbor. It's not like in modern times where the biggest threat to most cities is whether the local government is willing to fund infrastructure.
Besides, the IG games didn't force you to play the military game outside of some of the campaigns - many of the campaigns didn't even use the military tab, or at most only used it for the weapons manufacturer industries as a trading good. Not sure about Anno, though.