|
|
Post by andrei on Jun 29, 2019 16:50:10 GMT
As long as i can strategize my way into victory and a guy with all IAP would still have a hard time beating a conquest record, i wouldn't complain much. Although, the ability to not grind medals is a concern, since i'll probably just complete the campaign (or not), and just wait for a better game they release. Maybe easytech should focus on making one big strategy game and focus their attention there, so as it has a lot more content. EW6 always felt like an incomplete game to me, and it tics me off. I'm reserving my judgement until the game releases on android, but based on what i'm seeing, stoic has a point. Still excited for it, but i'm a bit skeptical about it. In a few months, we'll see if it becomes a success or a failure. Almost every ET game released within EW and WC series was very popular among the players even though grinding is always an issue. The only one which players didn't like is EW5. But I think that the real problem if EW5 was that there was nothing to do in the game. You grind with only daily missions and invasions. So, imo, problem was only in the fact that they failed with CONQUEST mode. As soon as the CONQUEST is interesting in the GC:R I have no doubt it will be popular. I don't expect endless content for the mobile game which is positioned as f2p. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2019 17:59:52 GMT
As long as i can strategize my way into victory and a guy with all IAP would still have a hard time beating a conquest record, i wouldn't complain much. Although, the ability to not grind medals is a concern, since i'll probably just complete the campaign (or not), and just wait for a better game they release. Maybe easytech should focus on making one big strategy game and focus their attention there, so as it has a lot more content. EW6 always felt like an incomplete game to me, and it tics me off. I'm reserving my judgement until the game releases on android, but based on what i'm seeing, stoic has a point. Still excited for it, but i'm a bit skeptical about it. In a few months, we'll see if it becomes a success or a failure. Almost every ET game released within EW and WC series was very popular among the players even though grinding is always an issue. The only one which players didn't like is EW5. But I think that the real problem if EW5 was that there was nothing to do in the game. You grind with only daily missions and invasions. So, imo, problem was only in the fact that they failed with CONQUEST mode. As soon as the CONQUEST is interesting in the GC:R I have no doubt it will be popular. I don't expect endless content for the mobile game which is positioned as f2p. True. It's easier to just get over a game then make a new one, than to craft a game that balances the wants of the ftp and those willing to pay. As long as strategy still rules rather than big numbers of generals, i'll be invested in the conquest. |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Jun 29, 2019 18:09:20 GMT
All the hype,yet,we still don't know whether this game is p2w or what? I say keep your wallet in a safe place,until we know better.😁 DEFINITELY NOT PAY TO WIN |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Jun 29, 2019 18:17:20 GMT
I will agree a lot of them feel useless when we look at the skills, but then i also think that the base damage increases they get make that point a bit moot.
Generals will now be a bit more open to how you want to play, what niches you want to fill as you can always rebuild their unit and at high level they just destroy leaderless units. The problems come when it is general vs general, especially because spartacus is just SO DAMN GOOD (when you play the second roman campaign, just avoid him or let cleo chip him down. Don't even try with crassus, pompey, or your commander)
I actually like the changes in direction and the way skills work now, I think it makes the game less linear than WC4. On the subject of historical battles, they chose a very narrow window of time to make this game and i think that is smart. We like to think of "roman times" as this muddle of figures and events, but in reality we are glossing over ~1000 years of human history. A lot changes, and i think it is better to chose one era with less "big names" and lots of smaller ones than it is to try and just pick events and people sometimes 500 years from each other, or more
|
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Jun 29, 2019 18:29:01 GMT
I will agree a lot of them feel useless when we look at the skills, but then i also think that the base damage increases they get make that point a bit moot. Generals will now be a bit more open to how you want to play, what niches you want to fill as you can always rebuild their unit and at high level they just destroy leaderless units. The problems come when it is general vs general, especially because spartacus is just SO DAMN GOOD (when you play the second roman campaign, just avoid him or let cleo chip him down. Don't even try with crassus, pompey, or your commander) I actually like the changes in direction and the way skills work now, I think it makes the game less linear than WC4. On the subject of historical battles, they chose a very narrow window of time to make this game and i think that is smart. We like to think of "roman times" as this muddle of figures and events, but in reality we are glossing over ~1000 years of human history. A lot changes, and i think it is better to chose one era with less "big names" and lots of smaller ones than it is to try and just pick events and people sometimes 500 years from each other, or more , could You post about the general tech tree? I mean the one for the units upgrades. Whether upgrade is marginal or serious. It will reveal the real value of the skills focused on damage. |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Jun 29, 2019 18:38:08 GMT
I will agree a lot of them feel useless when we look at the skills, but then i also think that the base damage increases they get make that point a bit moot. Generals will now be a bit more open to how you want to play, what niches you want to fill as you can always rebuild their unit and at high level they just destroy leaderless units. The problems come when it is general vs general, especially because spartacus is just SO DAMN GOOD (when you play the second roman campaign, just avoid him or let cleo chip him down. Don't even try with crassus, pompey, or your commander) I actually like the changes in direction and the way skills work now, I think it makes the game less linear than WC4. On the subject of historical battles, they chose a very narrow window of time to make this game and i think that is smart. We like to think of "roman times" as this muddle of figures and events, but in reality we are glossing over ~1000 years of human history. A lot changes, and i think it is better to chose one era with less "big names" and lots of smaller ones than it is to try and just pick events and people sometimes 500 years from each other, or more , could You post about the general tech tree? I mean the one for the units upgrades. Whether upgrade is marginal or serious. It will reveal the real value of the skills focused on damage. I will post a breakdown on monday |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Jun 30, 2019 2:05:06 GMT
On the subject of historical battles, they chose a very narrow window of time to make this game and i think that is smart. We like to think of "roman times" as this muddle of figures and events, but in reality we are glossing over ~1000 years of human history. A lot changes, and i think it is better to chose one era with less "big names" and lots of smaller ones than it is to try and just pick events and people sometimes 500 years from each other, or more Many famous battles of Antiquity were fought exactly in this period of time: Cannae, Zama, Cynoscephalae, Pydna, Magnesia, Aquae Sextiae, Carrhae, Pharsalus, Philippi, Actium, Teutoburg forest etc. There's definitely a great room for creating such battles we had in the Challenge mode in EW6. And instead of such prominent military figures like Marius and Sulla (quite big names of this period, to be honest) we have Cicero and Cleopatra. It is like having Goethe and Madame Valevska instead of Blucher and Dabrowski  . Well, guess I can live with that, but I personally would like to see such tactical battles like we have in EW6... |
|
|
|
Post by silvercreek on Jun 30, 2019 3:13:57 GMT
All the hype,yet,we still don't know whether this game is p2w or what? I say keep your wallet in a safe place,until we know better.😁 DEFINITELY NOT PAY TO WIN Please decribe,, Simply by yelling at us,does nothing at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Jun 30, 2019 4:11:07 GMT
DEFINITELY NOT PAY TO WIN Please decribe,, Simply by yelling at us,does nothing at all. You don't need genf for the first two campaigns and I think your commander Will become the strongest gen in the game with double march armor with a aura boost and the best skills and yeah the new event is pay to win, but you can complete the game without that. And for speedrunners the conquest got more intresting with Nations that Will attack you if you're not paying them, the fog of war and a new navy |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 8:58:17 GMT
Please decribe,, Simply by yelling at us,does nothing at all. You don't need genf for the first two campaigns and I think your commander Will become the strongest gen in the game with double march armor with a aura boost and the best skills and yeah the new event is pay to win, but you can complete the game without that. And for speedrunners the conquest got more intresting with Nations that Will attack you if you're not paying them, the fog of war and a new navy Damn, the amount of cheese you can do in the conquest. I'm interested . Also, free commander is the best commander |
|
. Well, guess I can live with that, but I personally would like to see such tactical battles like we have in EW6...
