Anyone here still playing this? What's it like after the recent updates?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Old World
Anyone here still playing this? What's it like after the recent updates?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Epic exclusivity kills all hype, no exceptions.
it's been on steam and gog forever now
You only have 1 (one) launch day. If you don't have hype at launch then you're dead in the water.
really smart input here, bravo
I boot it up sometimes, its fun for a bit until mid/late game then i get bored.
I like the switch of focus to only early civilization, makes it feel more grounded and pulls me in better. But I still feel like the mid to late game in all these 4x games is stale and boring.
>I like the switch of focus to only early civilization, makes it feel more grounded and pulls me in better.
I also like the idea of sticking to a particular, but still somewhat general, time period. In this case the ancient world. But it's not just the ancient world. It's the Classical Mediterranean period in particular. With almost half of the roster being nations that were most relevant during the Bronze Age. And medieval longbowmen and bodkin arrows in the late game which is otherwise synonymous with the Roman Period. I could forgive the Hagia Sophia because that thing is often used to mark the rough transition from the Classical and Medieval eras so it works as a good "end point" for the time period but why the frick does my late game army have a bunch of English longbowmen straight out of the battle of Agincourt? And some of the gimmick units... my god have you seen the Elite Club Thrower unit the Vandals have? That guy is straight out of a Marvel Thor movie.
It's hard to stay grounded when your game starts mashing different parts of the ancient world together in an inconsistent way, throws in random bits of the Middle Ages, and then does weird fantasy comic book shit on top of it. It's often not even "Hollywood history" or "pop history" either; it's just weird. And it often doesn't feel very "ancient world" in practice.
Still good if you like the early game of civ.
I feel like I've seen this exact same thread multiple times recently.
Have not tried it yet, I hope it's good.
Decent game but too much RNG for my taste. I guess Im too much of a classic Civ player for this kind of Crusader Kings/Civ crossover.
IIRC the game has an option designed for more competitive multiplayer that cuts down on the RNG aspects as much as possible
The game has negligible RNG. None of the random events are critical and you're offered at least as many(usually far more) boons than banes..
>The game has negligible RNG
Literally your entire game is decided by randomly generated characters with randomly assigned traits, over which you have zero influence.
The order you get to research tech is decided by drawing cards, making it entirely luck based whether or not you get to research things an the order you want.
So research the quickest thing to get another draw, or get a scholar leader if it bothers you so much. The system is much better than other 4x games.
It has some nice... art.
Everything that makes it unique is either annoying, broken or flat-out bad.
Everything else is just a Civ 5 clone.
Soren selling out to Epic was either the dumbest or the smartest thing, depending on this being calculated or not
I played it, it was decently fun. I played it once as Rome unmodded on the old world map, got 50 or so turns in and realized I couldn't go over the alps so I restarted as Rome on the imperium romanum map with old world eXtended which is better for Rome but my god does Italy look bad, also the mod was broken and gimped the AI because they did stupid shit with the new city options. So I played it a third time and mixed it up with Egypt on imperium romanum with the dynamic mod and there's where most of the problems showed themselves. Combat is kinda garbage and taking enemy cities is almost impossible early-mid game as I learned when I early war'd kush. Mid-late game where you actually have good ranged options it's a lot more tolerable. One of the reasons I played Egypt was because of the ethnicity system where it says 50% x, or 25% y, and so on. Egypt's portraits are all garbage so I planned to recreate the Ptolemaic Empire but they were still black as shit. I had a funny thing happen where I took a Babylonian prince as a political prisoner and then when the queen died and the first Egyptian king was about to be crowned the Babylonian prince asked to be regent and when the king came of age I said nah lmao. So my Egypt entered a golden age under this Babylonian king. His children with both Greek and Roman wives turned out to have Egyptian portraits though, despite being 50% Babylonian and 50% Greek/Roman. Kinda stupid. Anyway I got bored at this point and ended it here.
>the ethnicity system where it says 50% x, or 25% y
I've always wondered whether that changes the portraits at all, like if you blanda upp veer into over 50% of a different ethnicity
They just use your nations portraits, even if you manage to get a foreign leader who is 100% not your ethnicity through regents taking over like I did, their children will still take your nations portraits even if they're 0% from your nation.
The dynamic mods don't really change how early wars work too much, if anything they make it easier. Cities are still unreasonably tanky. Trying to hit kush's capital with my melee units, I would do lke 5% damage while taking 20% and they can repair for about 10% per turn.
The solution is use a large amount of ranged units and siege weapons but most of those use wood which as egypt you simply don't have and you can only afford to keep one, maybe two. Early siege weapons, including ones added by the dynamic mods that you wouldn't have access to unmodded so you'd have to wait even longer, are melee range too which means if they managed to get a unit in the city you're fricked, they'll just hit your siege weapon and then you either retreat it or it dies. You basically have to have onagers or it's not even worth it.
Definitely an exaggeration. You can take an undefended city with 3 warriors. A defending unit makes it take much longer, as it should.
The game literally gives you choices all the time. Almost every character trait is a 1 of 3 choice, if not one where you can avoid a negative by doing something. Again, every time you're offered a negative trait you're given at least 1.5 positive ones.
You should probably not judge a game based on how broken mods frick it up. It is entirely possible to conquer early game if you actually have units.
The AI in this game is fricking brutal even on the standard difficulty setting, like the top 1% of strategy game AIs, and there's only a small dev team working on it. How are strategy game developers in general so incompetent at good AI design?
Honestly, the only thing the AI is really good at is focus firing on units to actually kill them. They also know how to develop their economy in certain ways even if it's not always the way they arguably should be (prioritizing the wrong resource or some such). They also know to focus on their military in times of war and not ignore the invading enemy army in favor of building a mediocre wonder for no reason.
You know, the fact that this basic b***h level of competence is downright super-genius tier compared to most other 4X game ai is kinda sad. It isn't that great at playing the game. But at least it knows HOW to play the game.
Arguably the best 4x games to come out in recent memory. I boot it up every now and then for a new run. Have not bought the new DLC but plan to soon.