I think many people who loved the Settlers 1-4 will be disappointed

[Goran]

This game has some mechanics from Settlers 1-4 but the most important part in Settlers was the fight for resources and conquering the land of your enemies untill nobody but you is left. PoP is more a game like Foundation where you just settle peacefully with a few fantasy monsters here and there and thats it.
After watching the trailer, my hype is gone. Lets hope I am wrong. I will give it a try but honestly I dont think this game can and will replace any of the first 4 Settlers games.

[solarism]

I get the point of no combat focussed, no pvp. but why then no campaign?

[karinundmaedels]

Imo there are two Siedler players - one combat&multiplayer focused, and one focused on colonizing&campaign. I'm in the latter group, I'm really curious if the game is engaging enough without campaign. Demo will tell

[vackillers]

Right now the combat is very limited and the planed combat also seems to be very limited, I hope we do get enemy factions to fight against and not just thieves and bandits.

[Ichzilla]

demo clearly has mechanical elements similar to TS3/4 with the border stone claiming instead of AOE claiming by fort. as well alot of the production is similar to TS4-7.

but you can also see where they try to alter it so its not a clone or remake of those titles. PoP is clearly trying to do something "newer" while still being locked in to those styles. i mean you can only do stone/mining, logging and farming so many different ways before you end up back at the start.
but going by the way the demo is setup. if you make the assumption that it is how the final will play out. i can see it being a letdown in terms of the old MP/scrim system. since the later settlers really sucked for combat since you had points of combat instead of the zone combats from the older versions.

as well the PR page states they plan to add enemy camps... which does not sound like towns but more like "bandit camp X" to go with W,Z,Y... if they make combat points, i dont see the game being super fun long term. since TS1-4 still has replay even today. you can boot up Ts! right now and play for a few hours.. cause it has the zone combat (fighting over forts) where as the later versions were just horrible for combat.

PoP using the later version styles of combat will most likely hurt its replay options down the road. since its alot more fun to power expand for the juicy mountains then push to claim mounting tile 2 from a bandit camp ...

overall PoP isnt not bad so far but its still way too early to crown it or hang it if you ask me.
id wait for more mechanics to flush out namely what options they throw in for MP and combat systems.

[flymar]

Neutral factions and enemy camps are coming so we'll see. there be no RTS element and for me it's a big plus. I preffered point attacks like in 1 and 2.

[andreacelaj32]

no, they have said that there will be more combat in the future and that there will be neutral villages.

[vackillers]

Originalmente postado por andreacelaj32:

no, they have said that there will be more combat in the future and that there will be neutral villages.

I must have missed where they mentioned "Neutral Villages" but that doesn't mean we'll be able to attack them hope, but I hope we can

Edit: ohh they mention Neutral Factions at the end of the demo when you close it

[procnessil]

Originalmente postado por sah3sh:

...

This reflects my take on it as well. Also... and I already wrote it in regards to latest Ubisoft's settlers game...

I think originally settlers were meant as RTS game, however a lot of people loved it for the building part and watching the colony grow. I mean, everything in settlers 1-6 was ultimately aimed at building army and crushing the oponent. If you try to replay settlers 2 as an RTS game it becomes much easier - just rush your opponent before he manages to get gold, and the game is won even before you fully build the economy. And it's not very fun then.

It's a case of "developers wanted to make one thing, players loved it for something else". Which is why the series struggled for so long, where developers wanted to push their RTS vision more, only for it to be disliked.

With that said I am hopeful for PoP, that it will be more about building and less about combat.

[SmokedHalibut]

You need an antagonist such as other nations you're competing with, and the game does have guards etc so I feel like we'll be fighting off invasions at some point. If not, there's not much to do or any time pressure.

I was obviously hoping for what the new Settlers game should have been, but the demo doesn't showcase it yet. There's a number of things I don't like or straight up hate. I would prefer to have AI enemies, and be able to compete for resources and destroy them and ideally turn them on and off at will when generating the game.

The massively thick roads don't make sense to me, they look silly, and there's no upgrading of them yet so it's hard to see where they're going with it. Plus the little square plots make no sense. They don't match up with what you can deploy. I don't get why buildings need access to roads anyway? The settler can't walk the last five yards over grass?

However, it's good for what it is, and better than many. I can't compare it to all the games that have been around in the last ten years but bits of this are quite promising. Even if they don't do AI vs human conflict and it's just animals or something, this could still be a great game by the time it's out of Early Access and I'll happily test it in the future.

[fodder]

you should see the roads in s1... completely gets in the way of things you oh so want to build..

that said. farmlands are said to need no roads, yet there's a road stem that blocks building and stop me from plonking down packed farms? i need to figure out how to demolish placed farmland...

that said.. i hated the combat bit of settler. well, the only settler i played much was the demo of 1... the rest.. basically just a quick look. i also don't like limited resources. but that's just me.

[esturias]

I played settlers 1-4 and never really cared about warfare. For me, those games were always about production chains and relaxed building.

[Plake]

Originalmente postado por esturias:

I played settlers 1-4 and never really cared about warfare. For me, those games were always about production chains and relaxed building.

The production chains only served one purpose in Settlers: to get a strong army and defeat every single tower of the enemy. I do agree with OP that warfare is also important to me, I hope they introduce the 3 soldier types just like in Settlers 3 (still my most fav Settlers)!

[flymar]

Originalmente postado por Plake:

Originalmente postado por esturias:

I played settlers 1-4 and never really cared about warfare. For me, those games were always about production chains and relaxed building.

The production chains only served one purpose in Settlers: to get a strong army and defeat every single tower of the enemy. I do agree with OP that warfare is also important to me, I hope they introduce the 3 soldier types just like in Settlers 3 (still my most fav Settlers)! :fingerscrossed:

There are already like 5 of them plus mages

[esturias]

Originalmente postado por flymar:

Originalmente postado por Plake:

The production chains only served one purpose in Settlers: to get a strong army and defeat every single tower of the enemy. I do agree with OP that warfare is also important to me, I hope they introduce the 3 soldier types just like in Settlers 3 (still my most fav Settlers)! :fingerscrossed:

There are already like 5 of them plus mages

That may make it a bit more interesting, because I always found the combat horribly boring. If I wanted that, I'd play a strategy game.

[IIOIOE]

I really hope for fights like in Settlers 2 at least, but as the watchtowers have tooooo much range yet, they have to decrease it first, so if you conquer a watchtower or whatever you have to conquer to gain the enemys land, it shouldnt destroy 40% of all your economy, cause the tower ranges are immense yet.