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
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
4 
Report this post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana
Battles are best part of Anno . Not many city build games have fighting system , many of them have just enemies attacking you off map or there is some monsters/animals on map .
Encampments from 1404 would fit perfectly with Roman era .
You can very well say that the a big aspect of Casear 3 is combat and of Age of Empires 2 is city building and trade, it doesn't make it true
It's asking a lot, but it would truly set the game up for success if they did it right. As well as draw attention from both Manor Lords, and Total War.
There's a reason why land combat works best in a Total War game because it abstracts resource management to allow the player to focus on military strategy. Everything from grooming generals and settlement specialization to diplomacy and trade are designed solely to support the war machine. Anything less like just having land battles won't make for a satisfying military campaign imo. In other words, you would have to radically change Anno's mechanics to match that desired level of military strategy and immersion. The easier way would be to just play Total War though I have not been playing the later TW titles as their gameplay quality has dropped in recent years. But that's another story.
I don't understand why some would play Anno without land combat when it intrinsically focuses on resource management and logistics, and combat.
There, I made an equally biased claim to prove yours is a mere opinion. The talk about Total war is also just opinion or the result of you never having played good games that combined resource management with warfare or you simply not being into that combination. I could make a similar argument by directing people who don't want warfare in Anno towards peaceful management sims and claim Anno is "intrisically" about a cobination of resource management AND combat, contrary to those peaceful games which are intrisically only about resource management.
Who says it is intrinsically about resourcemanagement only and cannot also be about warfare? Have you ever played X4 Foundations or Shores of Hazeron/Hazeron Starship? They are like first person 3D Anno 1503 in space on steroids and to me the absolute pinnacle of strategy gaming.
For you it might be "intrinsically" about those things, for me combat (and also land combat) was so much a part of it, that I wasn't interested in any Anno games that didn't have land combat. Anno 1503 for me was the best with land and naval combat and the ability to load troops onboard ships. I play some Anno games, but I never was interested in peaceful management sims. Anno games imo are exactly a combination of those management sims with RTS games, which makes them not what you described them as.
The combination of actually doing logistics, city management, aswell as warfare, is what to me makes Anno 1503 one of the better and most complete strategy games out there. Even if the combat part wasn't as good (I think it was ok), just the fact is was there and worked suficiently was great for me.
Also, Rome without legions? You serious?
I love games like X4 foundations and Shores of Hazeron, and to some extent Blood & Gold Carribean and perhaps even the Supreme Ruler series where u can do full resource gathering, city/station creation and/or empire management, actually transport resources (not in Supreme Ruler), aswell as fight wars.
To me it are it is a full strategy experience if I have RTS/RT4X games where I also fully have to organise the supply chain and physically transport resources. (or at least take supplies for troops like in Hegemony III and supreme ruler)
Seriously, try X4 Foundations, reach the endgame and you'll understand why. You'll see the similarities with Anno 1503.
Also I'm still hoping someone makes a first person RT4X with full resource management, fleet control and empire management set in the Age of Sail, basically an AoS version of X4 Foundations.
I think you might be hung up about when I mentioned TW, that I specifically aimed it at that. If not then that's all good, but probably best to clear up that I was along the lines more of a Grand Ages: Rome type combat as it wasn't the best but it was simple enough but still fun enough to be a good part but not the main focus of the game.
It was more akin to a Tropico, Rome version. Their other games hadn't followed in since and didn't enjoy it. I played Anno 1404 a lot, along with Venice expansion and even the combat in that while simple was adequate for me.
Though the city builder is the core aspect and I expect it to be the core of the game, my two cents were to more Romanise it since just having a city builder based on the period wouldn't get my wallet opening, as I would just play a mod that re-skins the decor instead with previous games or others.
I agree the new title shouldn't be a re-skin of earlier titles. But tbh, it's hard to deviate from the core mechanics that set the Anno series apart from other city builders. Why do I play Anno instead of Tropico (although I liked that as well)? Because it allows me to build at a more leisurely pace and plan more complex trade routes, whereas Tropico shines in a different way by giving an intense trade and upkeep challenge with a touch of humor. If you try to make Anno too much of another city builder, chances are the original game that had a headstart in unique mechanics that made it successful would do a better job than Anno, which would really have to innovate to present a unique selling point that would entice players away from the original game. Unless the devs are confident they can do a better job in this aspect, they'd probably be better off sticking to Anno's strengths while innovating.
So it's a delicate balancing act between not making it a re-skin while innovating the new title just enough without deviating too much from the core mechanics that made the series successful in the first place.
Just some ideas to innovate:
-Introduce resource sharing between different Roman provinces as part of quests and events with rewards
-Dedication of resources to grand projects like the Coliseum and Triumphal Arches, which could give empire-wide happiness and military bonuses respectively
-Roman emperors with unique trait trees that will shape how your city and empire grow. I'm on the fence whether they should age or not (Lasting investment in the same leader's attributes vs Changing emperors over time to encourage adaptation)
But back to topic, I hope that if land battles are included, they would address the concerns I mentioned earlier.
I didn't say you said citybuilders had no combat (I'm even wondering what part of my post could make you think that I even remotely implied that) nor did i claim you claimed Rome never had Legions. (Re-)Read carefully.
I asked you "Rome without legions? Are you serious?" That does not mean:"why are you claiming Rome never had legions?" I thought it was obvious that this implied "a game about Rome without legions would be a bad idea, however basic the land combat is?"
Saying Anno is not intrinsically about resourcemanagement ONLY, is not the same as me saying: "why are you claiming citybuilders never had combat?" I can't figure what else could've possibly made you think I implied that.
You claimed "I don't understand why some would play an Anno game for land combat when it intrinsically focuses on resource management and logistics."
I didn't respond to the specifics about it having the same level of immersion as TW. I never challenged that. Me not responding to that, doesn't mean I'm ignoring this or taking things out of context, it can also mean I agree with this part of your post. I responded to your claim that it focuses intrinsically on resource management and logistics. That is what I claimed was your opinion, since for me that is not the case. (= my opinion).
That combat is not as good as TW (while i agree with this, calling that a fact is not exactly accurate, as even 100% of the world population sharing an opinion, doesnt make it a fact, good or bad is always opinion/judgement, unless you agree with Plato's "absolute good and bad", like most Western philosophers who likely influenced your thinking, but that's a 2000+ year old debate) doesn't mean Anno doesn't intrinsically focus on combat. So for some people, like me, Anno is all about combat combined with citybuilding. (for the record: i do not claim that you claimed this, this is a mere statement/argument to prove to you that it is not necessarily intrinsically about the things you claim it is about).
I just explained why that could be the case for people and that it doesn't necessarily "intrinsincally focuses on resource management and logistics" but that that is your mere opinion. As I said, for me it is as much about the combat as it is about the city building. I like it that way and I would absolutely not like the game if it didn't have combat.
Perhaps not to you. You are not the reference, you're just one of many humans who play Anno. It very much did to me and others. And it's not because it wasn't done to the same extent in the most recent titles, that those recent titles get to determine what Anno is about, right? One could claim the most recent title aren't "true Anno games", or betrayed the original Anno formula, to counter your claim. (just saying, not making this claim myself).
Who's judgement is to be used to determine what is unnecessary micromanagement? Yours? What if some people exactly want it to force a focus on combat, so you need to divide your focus between combat and citybuilding, because that is exactly what they're into? And because that is exaclty what the name Anno stands for to them?
Ehm what? I literally want it to be like Anno 1503. Is that not an Anno game? For me Anno is about resourcemanagement, citybuilding AND combat. I suppose I could say the same thing back to you, but I won't because you can have your preferences.
Another equally biased claim to counter yours:
"Again, it's a city builder with combat, not Cities Skylines or or any other genre. Don't project your expectations from those to turn Anno into another game."
(for the record, I do not necessarily stand by this claim, I'm just exposing yours for what it is)
I didn't take anything out of context, I just wanted to show you that people can like combat in Anno alot and that for them it can be intrinsically about both combat and the things you claim it is about. That's all. Basically that you're stating your opininions/preferences/judgement as some kind of absolute truths, and I wanted to point out that they might not be truth but mere opinions/preferences/judgement. Which is all ofcourse just my opinion. Your opinion isn't wrong and neither is mine, but they are both opinions.
We all want games to cater to our preferences and you are scared people like me might make the game not cater to your preferences and I that it might end up being a game without land combat due to people like you. So we argue over the internet to (hopefully) safeguard our own interests/preferences. You should just realise that you're not right (and neither am I).
But enough about semantics, here's the bottom line:
This entire thread is about whether or not the game should have land combat. You seem to feel it shouldn't have land combat, unless it had much better/"not detracting from other things" combat, which you think is hard to pull off (correct me if I'm wrong). I on the other hand, believe it should have land combat, and that it can be a significant part of the game, even if it was merely on the same level as Anno 1503. Which for me is good enough, since I prefer simple combat over no (land) combat at all.
Solution:
How about optional combat? So if people like you think it's too intrusive/too much micro/detracting from citybuilding, they can just turn it off?
Why would my statement be inaccurate? Logistics and resource management are not just a side mechanic but the very fabric of almost everything in Anno, whereas warfare is a much smaller proportion of this game unless you choose to be a warmonger but even then you need significant resource management as well. Want to settle on another island? Resources. Upgrade housing? Resources. Set up supply chains? Resources. Grow pops and increase tax income? Resources. Build and replenish units for warfare? Yes, yet more resources.
Ditto reply above. If you claim that Anno is not intrinsically about resource management, it would not be unreasonable to understand the point you're making is about either making Anno intrinsically about something else (which I already challenged you to tell the devs to do that and prove me wrong) or turning it into a game that lacks defining features that make an Anno game Anno. That doesn't mean I don't support innovation and quality of life improvements. But I do question why you would want to turn Anno into a different game.
Sure, anyone can call a white cat black if that's what you insist on. Except that if opinions lacked any true value, all decisions based on opinions should be inconsequential. But players' purchase decisions are indeed influenced more or less by reviews (opinions) and there are very real consequences to sales as a result of those opinions.
Nope, that's your strawman argument. No one is disputing having warfare in Anno but you seem to assert that Anno can be turned into another game beyond fundamental features that make an Anno game Anno and I already challenged you to prove me wrong by successfully asking the devs to create a game that deviates significantly from the Anno formula.
Look, if you want a very different game, just say so. Don't hide behind the guise of challenging subjective opinions.
Did I not say in another post that the devil is in the details? Don't make assumptions before the game is out.
This is what you said: "Have you ever played X4 Foundations or Shores of Hazeron/Hazeron Starship? They are like first person 3D Anno 1503 in space on steroids and to me the absolute pinnacle of strategy gaming." If you're not projecting your expectations of those other games onto Anno 1503 and by extension to all other Anno titles, then what's that?
As mentioned, I'm not challenging land combat in Anno but HOW it's implemented. I suggest you read my subsequent responses to others clarifying my stand.
People like me? Please read my posts again. I understand optional combat to mean auto resolve. But combat could be more complex than that. In Total War for example, auto resolve seems to be based more on opposing armies' relative numerical strength rather than their quality and obviously ignores tactical maneuvers that could have allowed greatly outnumbered superior troops with superior tactics to win. That meant auto battle resolution wasn't really an option if you want to win in such scenarios. And TW players have indeed won battles manually instead of auto resolving for this reason. But to be clear, that's TW and not Anno. How manual combat would play out here remains to be seen.