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
1 
Report this post
This is a great game, probably better than Civ VI not least because it has an AI that can be challenging without huge game distorting bonuses.
It's debatable if challenging AI is what people are after. The outcome is different for everyone ;)
What does it have to offer on feature side?
For a non-owner it looks more like Crusader Kings on a Hex Map? Is it diplomacy-heavy or do you go all-out aggresive conquering the world? Or both?
It's primarily a 4X strategy game, so it would lean on the latter, but there are many ways to play the game. It's closer to Civ than to CK, because CK is all about character management, whereas in this game that's more of an enhancement of the gameplay and story immersion experience. The core gameplay is about growing and managing your nation (until or unless you get endeared to the characters you're dealing with, which can very much happen thanks to the interesting events that can happen).
Depending on how in-depth an answer you're looking for, you can take a look at my comprehensive review of what this game has to offer: https://steamcommunity.com/app/597180/discussions/0/3368153731097271418/
Good value for money and good dev practices.
DLC for this game is different from other games, like Civ. In Civ, usually the expansions are required. In Old World, the base game is a full and proper game - it's not like you need to get DLCs or add-ons to make a complete experience. The base game is a full, proper experience, which in my view legitimizes the DLCs for the game (whereas other games release a half-finished game and provide "DLCs" to finish up what features should have been present - in Old World, the base game is deep and comprehensive).
The DLCs then add a lot of interesting and meaningful content on top of that.
If you play on somewhat harder difficulties you need to play diplomatically to start with to avoid wars with tribes and/or AI nations. After that, typically, you stay nice with the AI nations while crushing tribes and then can start being aggressive towards the AI. However, that may be a very focused aggression to complete an ambition or points victory.
There are varying strategies and ways to play but the typical one means you will be doing a lot of fighting against barbarians, tribes, and the occasional rebels. AI wars may or may not happen. This is on standard maps - there are also a lot of scenarios that are different.
Feature wise it has a lot of different systems that all interact in interesting ways. It is not much like Crusader Kings.
Old World is still getting updates and improving. Yesterday's DLC added over 40 new leaders to choose from, each with their own family/dynasty and starting bonuses. It's actually insane. Plus everything else they added. $20 is a steep price but I'm happy with the $18 I paid.
Quite simplest reason is because I have more hours in it. It has hooked me more.
I get bored of Old World too quickly, I think. And I'm not entirely sure why. The events feel samey after a while of seeing the same ones all the time. Sometimes I don't know what to do with my orders, like I have no goal. Other times it seems there's not enough orders. Everything feels too slow.
I think the whole orders system is just dumb.
In Civ VI, the district thing is pretty fun actually. Something that Old World doesn't have. A lot of the civs feel more unique. Peaceful win conditions aren't as arbitrary and boring like ambitions can be or score, WTF. Exploration is more meaningful and fun, finding things like natural wonders or city-states or even other civs. You can play with 4 to 6 cities if you want.....in Old World you can now force all civs to have 1, 3, or 9 cities. But that's dumb. 3 is too low and 9 is too much. IDK, it feels clunky. I hate the idea of just expand expand expand. Civ V is better than either game on that of course but at least Civ VI is better than Old World. I hate how the best answer is always war in Old World.
Rather like the AI being brain dead in Civ VI is.
OW is quite heavily a war game, no doubt about it. BUT there are indeed other ways to play it if you set it up accordingly.
You also don't need to play with more than 6 cities - that's another setting you can adjust, to set the city site density to be lower (at Medium or Low). That way you'll only have 6 city spots on your continent (via Disjunction) and can just focus on those, if that's more up your alley.
The game is incredibly customizable to fit different playstyles.
The problem is there's just too many orders if you're not at war, and not enough if you're at war.
Are orders just a glorified way of making the AI look smart? Because the AI is NOT smart, it's just very easy to abuse the orders system.