Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>You're allowed to be excited for the game you haven't played, but you can't be hesitant because you haven't played it.

The culture swapping is shit. It's bad enough Realism Invictus makes my Romans become Italians, Greece turning into Spain is fricktarded. Yes it's a scheme to sell DLC but I don't want my culture changing in the first place. I'd rather have goofy speculative content about modern Romans or stone age Americans than this phone game.

were you really getting all that much juice out of playing Rome in the Information age vs. Assyria?

"Is [the exact reason you play] so important?"

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The whole charm of the game was having Cleopatra, Ghandi, Lincoln, and Shaka Zulu nuking each other lol.

Wtf else is the point

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"Aha so you actually care about the leaders, not the Civs, so you don't mind them changing."

No because it's dumb to have Cleopatra lead Morocco as a "reward" for successfully advancing Egypt. And I specifically want to think about Roman commandos holding a rocket launcher and a vexillum.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This graph is bullshit for that exact reason. Everything is locked in eras. All that content isn't balanced against each other and can't be played for 2/3 of the game. This is only good if you have tiktok brain and measure fun by the amount of content you get to cycle through, not how many scenarios can develop or challenge you. Each civ only has other era civs to compete against and their tech tree content only goes through the era.

It's arguably less content, more like 3 smaller games.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.