I played settlers 3, would i like settlers 7?

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,601
6
76
I liked 3, only thing i didn't like about it was limited resources, ive never played any of the others though. I like building things in games, has it been dumbed down to hell over the past few games or is settlers still good?
 

Zorander

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2010
1,143
1
81
Never played Settlers 7 but did play the sixth installment, which I found quite dumbed down. Anno1404 is much more complex and better.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,419
4,797
126
I think you would. Settlers 7 is a great game. The biggest mark against it is the always Online DRM. I never had a major problem with it, just a couple times when I couldn't play for a few seconds.
 

paperfist

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
6,504
276
126
www.the-teh.com
I think you would. Settlers 7 is a great game. The biggest mark against it is the always Online DRM. I never had a major problem with it, just a couple times when I couldn't play for a few seconds.
Is it all about military? What's the split between building and fighting?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,419
4,797
126
Is it all about military? What's the split between building and fighting?
I dunno if I can put a number to it, I always concentrate on Building regardless of the RTS(which is why I suck at RTS generally lol), I would say 50/50. It seems close to to Settlers 4(which was similar to 3), where conquest required significant Military to Conquer, but also significant Building and Economy to Win. One significant difference is that you don't need Geologists to find Resources nor do you need units to expand your Borders.

Here's a Play through of it, should give you some idea about it
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,806
45
91
I played 6, 7 and one of the earlier ones, can't think of which one, maybe 4 or 5.

I found in 7 that I had to keep a pretty decent army to really do anything. I felt it had more combat than 6 did. I really liked 6, more than 7 i think.
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,806
45
91
I dunno if I can put a number to it, I always concentrate on Building regardless of the RTS(which is why I suck at RTS generally lol), I would say 50/50. It seems close to to Settlers 4(which was similar to 3), where conquest required significant Military to Conquer, but also significant Building and Economy to Win. One significant difference is that you don't need Geologists to find Resources nor do you need units to expand your Borders.

Here's a Play through of it, should give you some idea about it
It's been awhile since i played but i'm pretty sure you need some sort of unit, whether military or monks or something to acquire a territory.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,419
4,797
126
It's been awhile since i played but i'm pretty sure you need some sort of unit, whether military or monks or something to acquire a territory.
In earlier Settlers you could acquire Territory using special Units which basically dug up border markers and moved them. That's what I was talking about.
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,806
45
91
In earlier Settlers you could acquire Territory using special Units which basically dug up border markers and moved them. That's what I was talking about.
there isn't any of that in settlers 7 that i can remember.
 

paperfist

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
6,504
276
126
www.the-teh.com
Thanks sandorski!

I was basically wondering if I had to use military to play the game. I remember you did in earlier versions so was just checking to see what they did for 7.

I really wish someone would put out a decent city builder that I could turtle on all day :(
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY