@editorial Feels like a base layer of complexity, which should be build on top of to increase the complexity and strategic choices. Unfortunately this is all we will get it seems and it is simply not enough. I would call it a great start, sadly based on the closed beta test, this is it and it feels too simple for a game to be replayable and offer different strategic ways to play it and adapt to the oponent etc.

@ubi-barbalatu There is still not an update, no big surprise since it is pretty standard behaviour of AAA game developers to just dont work together with their player base.
There is however an interview kind of video i found today, which reveals atleast some more information i couldnt find anywhere else.

• not much more from the video really, but this is a good news for replaybility.

Not going to change the overall unfinished picture on the game but well some good news are better than nothing i guess?

The "interview" is 2 weeks old and is in english

This just confirms my suspicion, Ubisoft wants a AoE4 competitor. The problem is that the current version is made for 6 year old with little building complexity and virtually no strategic options. Its impossible to become a competition for AOE4, the game needs so much more depth and im not speaking only about the production chains here....its ridiculous to me how devs could have thought its good enough lol.......such a fail

@oldtokken24 Current version is the final version. They obviously want to create a competitor to AoE, with emphasis on base building instead of micro/army management. They dont care about the negative feedback from oldschool players, because those players are not their target audience anymore. The Settlers are different game for a different audience.

I do totally agree with most of the points oldschool players bring to the table, the game is dumbed down too much in order to allow for quick games, but they went too far and the balance they seeked to achieve is not there. My biggest worry is the replayability...3 maps and thats it? Minimal difference between nations wont help either. The campaign must be a masterpiece in order to justify the cost, because closed-beta content is definitely not worth the final cost.

Current thinking of the dev team based on their statement couple months ago is that there are proceduraly generated maps which are then reviewed manually and adjusted before releasing them. i dont like this approach really since it would need like a new map every week in order to keep it interesting. I have no hope for ubisoft to add so many new maps so regularly...such a shame, just proves the dev have no idea what they are doing. Proceduraly generated maps is one of the pillars settlers and aoe4 type games stand on....devs ignoring this is a testament of their pure incompetence.

@editorial A bull shooting magic from a cube on its back while standing on two legs? Its seriously wierd and the animation making it even worse. Atleast the missile looks good but overall such a terrible design. Interested if others share my view.

@oldtokken24 Honestly, I have very little hope for this game. I dont understand how devs could ever think this is good enough game to compete with AoE4 .... its ridiculous to think that someone did genuinly think it is comparable. It screams INCOMPETENCE. Such a huge misjudgement is ridiculous. We also know they aimed at creating direct competition to AoE4 with city building twist. Not wanting to be completely pesimistic, i have to say the game COULD get to the desired outcome (their desired outcome) if they add the missing complexity because the base of the latest beta build is quite solid in my view. all it lacks is the complexity and ofcourse the lack of generated maps is just....sad, so sad.......

@phlegm_master I have to disagree here, I think the food is designed great, despite the opinion of most people. Its a system which is completely skippable for casual players, while its 100% necesary for anyone playing atleast a little competitively. Why? Because food doubles the output of the production, which in fact means that if u dont use food, you are producing half of the stuff compared to your oponent, who would use it. This makes the system mandatory for most, yet not mandatory for completely casuals/beginners, making it a great system in my opinion. I honestly wish there are more systems like this which are not forced to everyone, but allows for more complexity once a player reaches certain skill level.

@oldtokken24 Honestly, I have very little hope for this game. I dont understand how devs could ever think this is good enough game to compete with AoE4 .... its ridiculous to think that someone did genuinly think it is comparable. It screams INCOMPETENCE. Such a huge misjudgement is ridiculous. We also know they aimed at creating direct competition to AoE4 with city building twist. Not wanting to be completely pesimistic, i have to say the game COULD get to the desired outcome (their desired outcome) if they add the missing complexity because the base of the latest beta build is quite solid in my view. all it lacks is the complexity and ofcourse the lack of generated maps is just....sad, so sad.......

Current thinking of the dev team based on their statement couple months ago is that there are proceduraly generated maps which are then reviewed manually and adjusted before releasing them. i dont like this approach really since it would need like a new map every week in order to keep it interesting. I have no hope for ubisoft to add so many new maps so regularly...such a shame, just proves the dev have no idea what they are doing. Proceduraly generated maps is one of the pillars settlers and aoe4 type games stand on....devs ignoring this is a testament of their pure incompetence.

This just confirms my suspicion, Ubisoft wants a AoE4 competitor. The problem is that the current version is made for 6 year old with little building complexity and virtually no strategic options. Its impossible to become a competition for AOE4, the game needs so much more depth and im not speaking only about the production chains here....its ridiculous to me how devs could have thought its good enough lol.......such a fail

@ubi-barbalatu There is still not an update, no big surprise since it is pretty standard behaviour of AAA game developers to just dont work together with their player base.
There is however an interview kind of video i found today, which reveals atleast some more information i couldnt find anywhere else.

• not much more from the video really, but this is a good news for replaybility.

Not going to change the overall unfinished picture on the game but well some good news are better than nothing i guess?

The "interview" is 2 weeks old and is in english

@rice-41 Why is everyone so frustrated about missing forester? There are multiple regrowing forests on the map, which are nicely implemented in the game. Why is the ability to grow your own forest on the location of your choice such a big thing?

@phlegm_master Definitely agree with you on the player base being very important, the problem here is that the oldschool settlers are radicly different compared to current beta build...these two versions simply cant be mixed together if you want to produce superior game, Ubiisoft has to choose one of those ways and sadly for oldtimers, they seem to push the AoE direction. It can be a final nail in the cofin for settlers series since they will loose the player base and will depend on creating a new one, which they wont do unless the game is superior atleast in some way....The sad truth here is, it is not superior in any way so far, nice graphics wont save it.

@oldtokken24 There is a lot of people who want to play a game similar to AoE but instead of focusing on units management and strategic choice connected to fighting, they would rather focus on the economy side of things which is hopelesly neglected in AoE. Winning in this scenario would be based on economic power and result in just pure numbers advantage when fighting. Better economy >more troops> win, as simple as that. I believe ubisoft is trying to target this audience and make competitor game to AoE with focus on economy, while neglecting the fighting aspect, compared to AoE which is focused on fighting and neglecting economy.

While this all sounds great in theory, in order to suceed in this approach ubisoft would need to have a suficient depth to the economy development and the depth is not there yet. They overshot a littlebit with the pruning of systems/chains based on closed beta. From what i have seen i believe that if there was roughly 30% of complexity added, compared to now, aswell as lategame structures to build (which would ideally add some strategic value aswell), I would probably call it a good game with the initial objective fulfilled.

Will that be a good game for old school players? No way, this game is developped in completely different direction than original series and i dont see a way they would change this new direction. Does ubisoft care? I dont think so, because if they suceed in making solid AoE competitor their target audience would be so much bigger than what old school players can offer.

@phlegm_master I agree with you mostly, the system implementation is not ideal, but i love the idea behind it, which fits their "new type of the game" very well. few points to consider here. 1) Can you actually build as many houses as you want if you want to expand as fast as you can? You will be fairly resource starved atleast till midgame, probably till lategame i think. The food might be more beneficial because it will tie up labor force instead of materials, which in turn could be used elsewhere. In the lategame you will probably be flooded with excess resources because there is no lategame stuff to build anyway so food lategame doesnt make sence for houses. 2) Gold is used for research and you want as much of it in order to buy more materials/weapons in order to build both army and expand faster. 3) Having weapon chain production boosted will be absolutely essential throughout the entire game. 4) ofcourse we cant forget the stone and wood makers to be boosted because you will need the materials either to spam houses and/or sell the excess to have bigger army.

Boosting is major part of the game and i kinda like it. Its far from perfect thats for sure....for example Farm making steaks/donkeys out of thin air without even needing food is ridiculous and the fact that there is zero baseline food requirements for anything is totally wierd too. I dont understand why the boosting system is not buiild on top of some baseline food system....but i guess it would not suite their mobile game/6y old game design anymore, cause well too much complex???

@phlegm_master I have to disagree here, I think the food is designed great, despite the opinion of most people. Its a system which is completely skippable for casual players, while its 100% necesary for anyone playing atleast a little competitively. Why? Because food doubles the output of the production, which in fact means that if u dont use food, you are producing half of the stuff compared to your oponent, who would use it. This makes the system mandatory for most, yet not mandatory for completely casuals/beginners, making it a great system in my opinion. I honestly wish there are more systems like this which are not forced to everyone, but allows for more complexity once a player reaches certain skill level.

@editorial Feels like a base layer of complexity, which should be build on top of to increase the complexity and strategic choices. Unfortunately this is all we will get it seems and it is simply not enough. I would call it a great start, sadly based on the closed beta test, this is it and it feels too simple for a game to be replayable and offer different strategic ways to play it and adapt to the oponent etc.