What he said
Good game, solid mechanics and even a nice campaign, but cant justify that price unless its all the DLC
>60 bucks of clans and a campaign
oh well, guess I'll wait
altho my question is, how different these factions are? in terms of tech tree, unique buildings, heroes and their abilites? do we have to need to adapt a specific playstyle based on clans strengths and weaknesses or it's mostly just cosmetics?
About half are very minor changes which are kind of quirky but may be more suited to your playstyle. The other half are more drastic and involve unique mechanics or units, some of which are simply strong and good, others of which are clunky and niche. I honestly like their clans concept, I just wish they didn't charge so much for so little.
You can absolutely play the base game and enjoy it without the clans, I'd still wait for a sale though. It goes on sale 2-3 times a year I reckon.
Campaign suffers from that perennial RTS bugbear, they take away units and buildings and make you do specific things with a partial roster. The skirmish is much better.
"Balance Cuck" the game.
It's shit and meant to be played in a very specific way.
The Meta exists only as the shit that's permitted by devs. Exploring the game rewards player with nerfs.
Games as a service was a mistake.
the most important question is: is it comfy? I like my city builders comfy. tried getting into farthest frontier lately, seems to be banished 2.0, and it's pretty neat- I just have a distaste for early access stuff. I try not to play em, kind of taints my judgment before it's even done you know?
>is it comfy
No, it's not. But who knows, maybe you'll like it. Also economy is counterintuitive as amassing currency is always the correct call.
It's not EA, but patches frequently change how things work, so it's live service instead, I guess.
AoE2 and this game are polar opposites in RTS terms. AoE2 is pvp combat and micro focused with economy and development as an afterthought. Northgard is an economy-focused low-micro game with heavy PVE. A major part of the game is planning your expansion and colonization carefully so you don't ruin your economy. Nothing at all like AoE except for being RTS.
As for Civ, I'm struggling to find any connection whatsoever. Civ gameplay is mostly focused on balancing expansion with development of existing territory, military, and advancement of research. In Northgard there is no such balance as you can do them all simultaneously.
Is Raven still underpowered? iirc i guess they were OP because you could drown the enemy in mercenary raids but then they clipped Raven's wings so hard its tough for them to even get going economically, even though economic domination is their whole schtick?
>its tough for them to even get going economically
Said nobody ever
They can't spam raid as much as they used to which is a good thing, but their economy is still strong, they still shit out a lot of krowns from all the harbors and benefit from starting the great trade route early but their other role is scouting hard and fast, especially in team games
despite what other spergs are saying it can be a fun casual game if you only play the campaign on not a high difficulty, i liked it back in the days, the thing that ruined it for me was trying the multiplayer actually.
what is she doin here?
Wait for a sale unless 30 gets you all the DLC(there are a lot). Not a bad game but not worth that much for the base game.
What he said
Good game, solid mechanics and even a nice campaign, but cant justify that price unless its all the DLC
>60 bucks of clans and a campaign
oh well, guess I'll wait
altho my question is, how different these factions are? in terms of tech tree, unique buildings, heroes and their abilites? do we have to need to adapt a specific playstyle based on clans strengths and weaknesses or it's mostly just cosmetics?
About half are very minor changes which are kind of quirky but may be more suited to your playstyle. The other half are more drastic and involve unique mechanics or units, some of which are simply strong and good, others of which are clunky and niche. I honestly like their clans concept, I just wish they didn't charge so much for so little.
You can absolutely play the base game and enjoy it without the clans, I'd still wait for a sale though. It goes on sale 2-3 times a year I reckon.
I tried it when it had a demo, and found the campaign gameplay dull and bland. It played a lot like Driftland.
Campaign suffers from that perennial RTS bugbear, they take away units and buildings and make you do specific things with a partial roster. The skirmish is much better.
I like the clan with the twin big cats and old hag the most
something something bad campaign chinese cheaters leftist devs something
i see nothing leftist in this game unless you wanna cry about female hero units
completely lacking in depth, only worth it if you want to get into the multiplayer otherwise the game is utterly boring
"Balance Cuck" the game.
It's shit and meant to be played in a very specific way.
The Meta exists only as the shit that's permitted by devs. Exploring the game rewards player with nerfs.
Games as a service was a mistake.
>Exploring the game rewards player with nerfs.
like what?
t.
staggay
>does it worth
What kind of ESL moron are you? From the image I am guessing russian.
yea yea, nice english major, now bring me my order already
the most important question is: is it comfy? I like my city builders comfy. tried getting into farthest frontier lately, seems to be banished 2.0, and it's pretty neat- I just have a distaste for early access stuff. I try not to play em, kind of taints my judgment before it's even done you know?
>is it comfy
No, it's not. But who knows, maybe you'll like it. Also economy is counterintuitive as amassing currency is always the correct call.
It's not EA, but patches frequently change how things work, so it's live service instead, I guess.
It sucks ass. Wanting to mesh rts with city builders like aoe2 with civilization V and failing miserably, it's absolutely boring
more like settlers with better combat
>settlers
It's nothing like Settlers.
it is somewhat like settlers
and worse economy
and how much people are crying about the thought of having combat in the banished clones thats a bad thing apparently
It's nothing like those games. It's more like Rise of Nations imo
It clearly have elements inspired on those games.
AoE2 and this game are polar opposites in RTS terms. AoE2 is pvp combat and micro focused with economy and development as an afterthought. Northgard is an economy-focused low-micro game with heavy PVE. A major part of the game is planning your expansion and colonization carefully so you don't ruin your economy. Nothing at all like AoE except for being RTS.
As for Civ, I'm struggling to find any connection whatsoever. Civ gameplay is mostly focused on balancing expansion with development of existing territory, military, and advancement of research. In Northgard there is no such balance as you can do them all simultaneously.
you should not publicly talk about videogames with that level of experience
its like fortnite skyrim amogus league of legends
Is Raven still underpowered? iirc i guess they were OP because you could drown the enemy in mercenary raids but then they clipped Raven's wings so hard its tough for them to even get going economically, even though economic domination is their whole schtick?
>its tough for them to even get going economically
Said nobody ever
They can't spam raid as much as they used to which is a good thing, but their economy is still strong, they still shit out a lot of krowns from all the harbors and benefit from starting the great trade route early but their other role is scouting hard and fast, especially in team games
looks like indie crap
despite what other spergs are saying it can be a fun casual game if you only play the campaign on not a high difficulty, i liked it back in the days, the thing that ruined it for me was trying the multiplayer actually.