A feedback survey about GCR ,WC4,EW6

Games are great but I think Easytech should keep them alive by adding new content from time to time. I'm a laic but I think that less energy is needed to upgrade and extend existing games and keep them alive and interesting then to make one game after another in such a short time.

Jamesyang don't tell me that I have to learn you things I mentioned in previous posts, you are successful company and I'm just an old captain☺

Antonina of Philippopolis, Thanks for your appreciation !

Here's my feedback on GCR. It's a bit lengthy but this is my eagerness to tell you what I feel about this game. I divide my feedback into 3 parts; Good Things (what I like about GCR), Bad Thing (what can be improved), and Other Things. 

Good Things

[Overall] I appreciate that ET chooses Rome as the setting for this game. I, like many other players, love WW2 setting, but it is a kind of boring to repeat the same WW2 (and Napoleonic War) story over and over in many game titles. So getting through a story of Rome is a good chance of mood. I also wish to see other settings like Alexander's Conquests, Warring States in China, Diadochi War, Unification of Japan, the Mongol Conquest, the Period of Imperialism and Colonization, WW, etc...

[Overall] I also like the balance of this GCR. Since many of the damage bonus are added additive, not multiplicative, the gap between good and OK generals are not very huge.

[Campaign] The variety of objectives makes it much more interesting than in the previous games.

[Campaign] I applaud ET for adding some historical details into the design of the campaign. Example of these are the Carthaginian army composition in battle of Cannae, Octavian's absence and rumor of Brutus' death in battle of Phillipi, retreat of Egyptian fleets in battle of Actium, etc... Though some of them are not historically precise but this shows the efforts that ET put into designing the game.

[Campaign] Stories on both sides make campaign more interesting

[Conquest] Each conquest is significantly different from others. Unlike in EW6 that 1798 and 1806, and 1812 and 1815 are very similar.

[Conquest] I enjoy diplomacy feature in GCR much more than the previous titles. This can cause the dynamic of the conquest different each time you play. Though I admit that the swing countries (e.g. Pirates) are annoying and the amount of money they ask for are ridiculous.

[Conquest] High unit movement in conquest makes it much less tedous to move your troops from one side of the map to another. In EW6, I hate playing Ottoman because I have to go all the way to defeat Canada, and vice versa.

[General] Many of the generals are viable. ET did a very good job at this. The fact that we have many long discussions like Huo VS Arminius, or Scipio, or Drusus proves this point.

[General] Now, it is not very clear which type of general is better than the others. Unlike in WC4 that tank generals are OP and infantry generals are useless because of their corresponding units are so different in strength, or in EW6 that the 4 horsemen are very OP, here in GCR we also have diverse opinion on which type of general path our commander should follow.

[General] Strong generals are not significantly more durable than normal unit. A five-stack Hannibal can still be killed by some normal units but Manstein on a three-stack heavy tank cannot be (unless with insanely many units). This makes the game more about strategy than just having some OP generals. I remember my blunder sending two of my strong generals into enemy territory without a good enough support and they were wiped out.

[General] I like a new system that generals can be replenished with new recruits. This prevents generals from becoming worn out after a long conquest. In EW6, generals are pretty useless without healing items.

[Unit] There are many special units that add the flavor to this game. War elephant, chariots, horse archer, etc... do really add the value the gameplay. Though I wish ET makes other special units more unique by giving them some skills. As of now, units like Gallic warrior or Syrian archer are just another normal units with fancy names.

In EW6, many of the special units are not very accessible because of the tech-tree requirement.


Bad Things

[Overall] Medals are difficult to farm at low Senate level. I would say the amount from missions is ridicule. I do not deny that you can still get a lot of medals from campaigns and conquests, and medals from missions are quite substantial at high Senate level, but that is only OK for veteran players. I can imagine some new players who might rage quite GCR and curse ET because they got stuck at some mission and cannot obtain more medals improve their team.

[Overall] Combined with the inability to farm medals at the early stage of this game, I feel that the difficulty goes up a bit too fast. This is not a problem for me but it might be for new players.

[Overall] Navy are pretty unless. It is much better to just quickly get out of water and fight on land.

[Overall] Damage reductions from terrain and barrier (e.g. trench) are too low (5-10% VS 10-20% in EW6). This makes the unit positioning become less relevant and render the skills that counter these mechanic (e.g. Marksmanship) become even more useless.

[Overall] Damage reduction from armor stat is a bit too weak.

[Conquest] Many cities including capitals are without military camp. This makes AI unable to produce enough units for defending the cities. As a result, small countries can never defend themselves from a cluster of enemy units.

[General] It takes too much time to build up a general. Especially in Conquest where you do not start with multiple stack units. Its takes 4 rounds to build a four stack generals and you would not want to set out with less than 3 stacks since the general can be easily killed.

[General] Many general skills are still useless. Torch, Destroy, Marksmanship, breakthrough, formation, etc... I think these are obvious and expected ET to make them more attractive. This will in turn make some unpopular generals to be viable again. For example, if the skill Marksmanship give a 80% chance to ignore damage reduction from breastwork AS WELL AS terrain (and maybe bypass armor), then the skill become as desirable as other skills.

[Unit] It also take a tooo long time to build a lvl3 military camp. Imagine if you want your Hannibal to ride on a three-stack elephant then how many rounds would it take to do that if you have a lvl 3 urban center?

[Unit] Unit models are too big that it obstructs the grid behind it.


Other Things

[Overall] I have a mix opinion about Fog of War. One thing that I like about FoW is that it adds some unexpected element into the game. However, I also agree with other players that it can be very annoying, especially when your unit just stops moving when it encounter non-ally in FoW.

[Unit] I think Javelineer skill does not work properly. It no longer reduce armor. Please fix this.

[Conquest] It would be so gooood if we can play neutral countries and choose side to join. For example, I might play as Pirates and join Octavian (or Antony) side.

kanue, Great ! I can feel your passion for Easytech and the game !  From World Conqueror 1945 to Great Conqueror : Rome , we have operated for over ten years . We always make turn-based military mobile games . In some old games,  generals are too OP . So we decide to improve it . We want players focus more on strategy . So we reduce the attack and power of generals . And you can see in European War 6 and Great Conqueror : Rome , we are trying to improve diplomacy and straetgy . Maybe some people , especially new players will say the game will be hard . So we will consider to add AD videos , you know , like that in EW6 and WC 4 . We will give some game resources to players . It is important . Your suggetions will be recorded . We hope in the future  , you can continue to support us !

I like how systems are work in GCR. And I think this game is high qualified, even better than wc4 or ew6. But I still have some ideas to improve this game. first, I want to play more realistic. Your round-base game systems are very wonderfull but I want more strategic gameplay. Like we can draw strategic lines and units are attack enemy, following those lines. And second, I hope you can add more diplomatic points like we can stop war for few turns with enemy. I think it can lower game's difficulty but hope can change game's difficulty by other realistic settings. That's all what I want. Thank you for reading my absurd feedback.

the only one not yet out is gcr. And welcome to the forum