I played settlers 3, would i like settlers 7?

[Maximilian]

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]

Never played Settlers 7 but did play the sixth installment, which I found quite dumbed down. Anno1404 is much more complex and better.

 

[Via]

Did you ever play 4?

 

[monkey333]

#2 >>>>>> the rest of the series....

 

[Elcs]

I only ever played Settlers 1... on the Amiga 1200

 

[sandorski]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[sandorski]

there isn't any of that in settlers 7 that i can remember.

That's what I was trying to say.

 

[paperfist]

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

 

[gorcorps]

Yes: 7>4

It's simple math

 

[Via]

not in every series.

 

[pontifex]

That's what I was trying to say.

oh, i thought you were saying that WAS in 7. disregard my posts then.