Need an Opinion from someone who's played the Anno Series

[BoOb|es]

Seems like this game is getting a lot of bad reviews becuase players were expecting something like Total War. I think anyone who spent more than 15-20 minutes actually watching the videos would have seen that it was anything but that.

This game does remind me a lot of Anno with the trading but more empire focussed than town building focussed. I'm curious to hear from someone who has played the Anno series, if they are enjoying this game?

[Acethiest]

It's just like patrician or port royal. I love anno too but game not really like it.

I ended up requesting refund after playing for two hours. The game is great if you've never played patrician 3. But if you have its not worth paying 40 bucks for a ten year old game with improved graphics. The meat of the game is the robust trading system which sadly isn't innovative.

I pre ordered because I wanted to support similar games like these. But in the end I feel there isn't enough here to justify pricetag.

[Ol' Dracor[Deaf]]

Played all anno games and I love this game.

[Zactastic]

This game is what 1701 should have been, but land based. Carts are your trading vessels. It plays a lot like 1503 AD (my favorite of the series) with Port Royale's supply and demand system thrown in. This game is very nice and the economic model is actually a bit more challenging than anno. Don't be surprised if anno style playing doesn't make you go broke your first couple games.

If you enjoyed 1503 and 1602 but wished military had some value, then I would check this one out.

[zeitbauer]

yes, it's more like 1503, but with complicated with more variables. it's a lot like patrician -- almost as though it were a re-skin with some modded aspects thrown in. my only problem with it is that it's kind of ugly to look at. not as ugly as railroad tycoon 3, but still a little bit two-toned and not quite grass green. their should be a little more gnarly in a medieval sime -- more like hearts of iron, or the static but iconic feel of patrician III. it's like manga had to invade these sims in order to sell to teens. remember the scandinavian nature-boy kid in anno 1404? that kind of showed their hand, showed who they were marketing to. this one's not that bad.

[ringhloth]

Even as someone who enjoyed Patrician 4, I can't endorse this game. The decision to limit the cities greatly, to only 3 or 4 in one trading circle in the early game, kills it for me. For one thing, it's terrible and mind-boggling to not see cities like Venice, Constantinople, or Genoa. I'm not asking for every single city to be represented, but why put in Bursa or Taranto if you aren't going to include Venice or Constantinople? For another thing, the early game economy is stupid. End-products aren't that profitable, because small cities consume so little that you can only sell 10-15 in each city. So it can be much more profitable to have iron in one city, coal in another, and produce metal goods in the third, because you can abuse supply/demand mechanics, than to just have iron, coal, and metal goods all being produced in one city.

[Abraxsus]

I played all Anno Series and i have to say. This Game here is great.

U have to Focus 1. on ur ECENOMY... u have to rise reserves of GOODS & MONEY
If u have done that part u can start building an Army but u have to take in mind that u have to supply ur army all the time by GOODS & MONEY or u loose ur Moral and ur Forces get LOOKED in a CITY until the SUPPLY is DONE again... this can KILL ur WHOLE EMPIRE... by just one miss planing :)

very very good game...
Its hard to master...
If some one says this game is easy ... he nevery played more then 3+ hours in one game (or never played beyond normal(diviculty))

[Zactastic]

Originally posted by ringhloth:

Even as someone who enjoyed Patrician 4, I can't endorse this game. The decision to limit the cities greatly, to only 3 or 4 in one trading circle in the early game, kills it for me. For one thing, it's terrible and mind-boggling to not see cities like Venice, Constantinople, or Genoa. I'm not asking for every single city to be represented, but why put in Bursa or Taranto if you aren't going to include Venice or Constantinople? For another thing, the early game economy is stupid. End-products aren't that profitable, because small cities consume so little that you can only sell 10-15 in each city. So it can be much more profitable to have iron in one city, coal in another, and produce metal goods in the third, because you can abuse supply/demand mechanics, than to just have iron, coal, and metal goods all being produced in one city.

Having them be produced in one city should provide a lower cost.

[BoOb|es]

Thanks for all the replies. Sounds like I'm going to give this game a shot.