In the afforementioned case, he was wrong. He should simply be showcasing mechanics then say at the end how he feels as a whole about the game, rather than leading you with comments like "to the game's detriment" followed by his explanation. As a reviewer he makes a lot of mistakes in informing you how to feel about aspects of the game. There's some good points in here, but I disagree with a lot of it. No doomstacks made out of thin air.ĭo people disagree with this review? Anyone care to share their own personal experience? I got my first civil war after my King died and it was pretty cool that some of my generals joined it, took half of my few armies strength and few cities rebelled. I like the way they are going with Civil Wars. Battles speed could be tone down a bit, to be more tactical, estates need some solid rework so it could be more meaningful then just giving loyalty. I think this game needs more features added and some good balancing. The final invasion is so weak that it brings no challenge to the player. After some good management in first turns you can steamroll through rest of the game very fast. I'm playing on VH/VH and didn't yet lose a battle. We received a game that is much more streamlined, with some new mechanics that are not properly balanced or seem dull and not rewarding.ĬAI is a pushover. This game is solid and can be enjoyable, but we were promissed more complex historical TWs for fans who thought Warhammer titles lack depth. I would give it 7/10, but I can understand harsher reviews.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |