a range boost for missile troops on high ground trade happened between settlements within a faction as well as between factions, this internal trade giving the map a more 'living' feel as your empire's commerce circulated roads of differing sizes and qualities were build-able on the campaign map (after all, what the real Rome was famous for) taxation controls for every individual province Here is a nice list of changes since it was brought up This is going to be long. The changes in campaign alone is enough to say that.
Shogun II is definitely not more like the original compared to Rome II and Rome I. Rome II and Shogun II give portion of that to player's own choice as a general increases in experience. Both Shogun I and Rome I like to give traits to generals by themselves. Role-play? Neither Shogun II, nor Rome II provide big changes in this aspect compared to each other as far as I remember. So, Shogun games are a little bit more similar compared to Rome games. Rome II also has the same kind of factions with the exception of having one united Rome faction, with 3 families having their role as part of the politics mechanism.
No real difference.įactions? Shogun II had more factions to play with compared to Shogun I, however, faction compositions were mostly similar. So, Rome games are more similar to each other, Shogun games are vastly different. Both Rome I and Rome II had continuous campaign map and the mechanisms that came with those. The mechanisms were completely different. You simply listed a few categories and copy-pasted your claim.Ĭampaign Map? Rome, of course. You, on the other hand, failed to address my referral to campaign map technology and style of building.įYI, you didn't make a checklist explaining why they were more similar. No, you did not mention units or maps, hence, I didn't ignore them. The irony is that you're telling me to learn to accept your opinion while you're failing to accept mine. I said that if we made a checklist Rome era games are likely to be more similar. I didn't say that I was going to make a list and then failed to deliver. Again, if you don't agree with me.well good for you.You could, of course, try to do the same but it would and did look quite petty as it failed miserably. Given that you said that you copuld make a list, but failed to do so, tells me, you can't prove e I can do the same thing? What are you trying to prove? That my thoughts are incorrect and you are right? Dude grow up.learn to accept other peoples opinions, they might not be same as yours, but that is not the point.įor me Shogun 2 is more like the original than Rome is with it's predecessor. Again, if you don't agree with me.well good for you. Yes CA did try to re-invent the wheel, again my thouyght, don't agree with me? sue me.įor me Shogun 2 is more like the original than Rome is with it's predecessor. The only examples, which I mentioned where units and maps.both of which you ignored. Instead you referred to updated graphics which I didn't mention.Given that you said that you copuld make a list, but failed to do so, tells me, you can't prove e I can do the same thing? What are you trying to prove? That my thoughts are incorrect and you are right? Dude grow up.learn to accept other peoples opinions, they might not be same as yours, but that is not the point. Whenever I gave specific examples you chose to ignore addressing them anyways. So, the burden of making a list relies on you. You made the claim that Rome games had differences that Shogun didn't have, that CA tried to reinvent the wheel with Rome II. Do not forget that you started this conversation with making a claim. Given that you moved from game design to your feelings about the game tells me that you realized that I was right.
0 kommentar(er)
