Pocus wrote:I did like a lot (after some acclimatization to some peculiar mechanisms) Old World.
It's much more historical than Civ, very polished, clever in many mechanisms, original.
I tried to like it, but was bored with characters (that I almost never understood) and war without strategy.
Some who give it 40% rating:
"The characters are bland and uninteresting and I find myself not really careing about my own character's actions and events much less that of all the other characters I barely bother to keep track off or learn to remember. Frequently I find that characters that I actually do notice die within a couple of turns before they made much of an impact.
As for combat, I find it too fast phased with units frequently coming in from across the map and due to how little damage my defending front line deals the attacker have a huge advantage. While I understand this is due to attacking in this game carrying a resource cost it also means that frontlines never seems to form and it turns more into random units being all over the place.
a lot of clumsiness purported as "complexity".
The pretense of being "historical" is quite frankly ridicule (King Hrotgar of the Danes?In Tyre? never heard of the Phoenicians?) and basically is Civ4 with less civilizations and the tech tree truncated before the middle age.
Ten years ago it could have been a good game, now
it falls below average, especially since the historical turn-based strategy game subgenre has seen excellent titles such as Field of Glory:Empires or Imperiums:Greek Wars"
Ozymandias is an excellent little game.
https://www.gog.com/en/game/ozymandias_ ... xe_edition