No thread dedicated to the Anno game series? Let’s rectify it...
1404 is the only good anno, the rest is unfiltered goyslop
why is blue byte the only good team at ubisoft?
>>1733809Because they weren't created by Ubisoft, instead they got bought but not restructured by Ubisoft.
I need to have 3 hard AI on the board to have some life on the map but even though i can handle 3 hard AI (and hard pirates) i really don't care for the fucking time-trial mad dash to get the good islands before the others get to themWat do? Is that AI shipyard mod actually any good for this?
>>1733813I'm talking about 1800, to be clear...I mean, the pressure to get the good islands is apparent in all the Annos but 1800 with the multiple maps/sessions to worry about makes this shit worse
>>1733808shut up, yank
>>1733813wish there was an option in 1800 to stop the AI from discovering the other maps before you do
>>1733827B-but Americans know that title as "Dawn of Discovery"..
Less arguing and more posting comfy manors/palaces/cities, please.
>>17338081503*
>>1733795Only Anno I played was 1602 and I absolutely loved it. Should I give another one a try? If so, which one?
>>1733827Make your own website useless euro
>>1733827Americans don't know the game by that title, also the series didn't even get somewhat popular in the US until Anno 1800 which is why it's the only game that actually gets discussed in these threads that are meant to discuss the whole series
>>1734053If you loved 1602, you should enjoy the rest of the series. Just play them in order.
Completely ruined by shitty ubisoft practices
>>1734053Depends on what you liked about it, and there's nothing wrong with going back to 1602 if you don't mind how oldschool it is.If you liked the challenge of getting a profitable economy set up under difficult circumstances, try 1503.If you liked the warfare, try 1701 (or 2070 if you prefer a futuristic setting)If you just thought it was a fun game in general, try 1404 or 1800.If you didn't like the ship logistics, the AI players, the warfare, the atmosphere, the setting or the scale try 2205.
>>1733828One star AIs never reach a new map before you.
>>1734551I heard (from a die hard anno fan) that warfare sucks in every anno
>>1733808>the rest is unfiltered go-ACK
>>1733828https://mod.io/g/anno-1800/m/ai-entersessionsafterhuman-serp
>>1734717A lot of Anno fans play the games for the economic core of it and find the warfare tedious and unsatisfying. I would agree in regards to multiplayer, but at least in 1503, 1701 and 2070 I do like the combat in matches against the AI.It's not a focus of the series and very barebones sometimes, but I enjoy seeing my economy produce tangible results beyond just a big city - like the ability to equip and fund a large army and navy.
>>17338081800 troons already seething at this true statment
>>1734551>2205I liked 2205, supposedly, the most disliked/unpopular series entry, even when it's pretty comfy.
Will we ever get something like an Anno 5004BC? Would be cool to have stoneage economy.
>>1735100I liked it too - but I have about 50 hours in it and didn't l don't feel the desire to play any more. The other Anno games are good for much longer.
>>1735213I don't think 5004bc would work. Human civilizations were too primitive then. I think 504bc would work though - the game could be themed around Greek and Phoenecian colonies in the Mediterranean.
>>1735220Nigga, pyramides were build 5000 years ago. I know that between 5000 years and 5000bc it's still 2000 years difference but 500bc is definitely too late. They had farming and shit in Mesopothamia 12000 years ago already.The benchmark for an economy simulation is not determined by 'primitivity' but whether there was a society of people with distinguishable professions. Like one is a fisherman, the other one does work with leather, a third one hunts for beecombs, the fourth makes charcoal etcOnly when you go back in time where people lived in clans where everybody does everything it becomes pointless.
>>1735233Specifically for an Anno game though you need ships and long distance trade to fit with the mechanics. It also helps to have monumental buildings for the player to aspire to build. Island civilizations make the fit a bit more natural also.I guess anno 2502bc could work if the setting was Egypt - though making an Egypt-themed game without the Nile (because everything has to be islands) would be a bit weird.
>>1735245Don't know how to solve the island/ship problem but as for monumental buildings you could include clutic sites like Stonehenge.
>>1735245I mean there is evidence that tin was traded for in Cornwall in Britain to fuel the forges of the Hittites and Egyptians during the bronze age, and if I were a bronze-age tin merchant I'd rather try my hand at building a boat of some sort rather than lugging my cargo across all of europe and across at least one mountainrange. Especially since a boat is already needed to get to and from Cornwall.It wasn't the main source for the eastern med, but I don't think the Iberian peninsula is that much more fun to travel to by donkey if you start in Egypt.
>>1735245>>1735257Pulled from wikipedia's page on tin sources in antiquity. Notice not only the mention of already established trade-routes to far-flung places like Scandinavia, but the mention of tin-carrying shipwrecks dating to the bronze age.
>>1735263The problem is that was not just the first example of long distance maritime trade, it was the ONLY example at that period. And it was likely it wasn't very fast or direct, it probably took years for tin merchants to wander their way down to Egypt before wandering back up again; this wasn't in any way equivalent to the kind of triangular trade that Anno is built on.
>>1735100>>1735219225is arguably a decent or even good game. It's just not that much of an anno game, leaving many conventions at the wayside.
>>1735263This is an interesting example, thanks. However, as >>1735267 says, I still don't think it works that well because it's such an uncommon example for the period. Because Tin was so important in the bronze age, and because it tends to occur in places where copper does not occur, the civilizations of that period went to extraordinary attempts to obtain it.Also, I do not think there are examples of colonies in this period - not even the sorts of small trading outposts that we see in later periods. I think some kind of colonization mechanic is needed to make an Anno game work.If you push forward to the late second/early first millennium BC you could keep the primitive bronze-age feel, but have much more of a historic basis around which to build game mechanics . Have the player build a Tyre equivalent and settle colonies all though the western Mediterranean and Atlantic African/Iberian coasts. The gameplay hook could be that you have to generate more and more wealth from foreign colonies to pay off (and eventually defeat) the big eastern land empires who have vandalized you.
I mean wouldn't be the first time the game is pushing it to place it on islands. 1404 is pretty nonsense as it's themed around crusades way too late for them and seems to happen somewhere in the agean. That or europe turned into a small island archipelago, which is also the case for 1800 where your old world obviously british empire seems to be ran out of hebrides. 2205 entirely gave up the maritime trade thing. At least 2070 had some excuse about raising sea levels, though that doesn't make much sense if you think too hard about it, a lot of landmass should still be inhabitable and humans shouldn't be going around islands to survive but I think the setting also involved nuclear war so even if that's not said my headacannon is that mainland is uninhabitable.
>>1735100I made the conscious choice to not call it bad, I just wanted to emphasize how different it is from the roots that 1602 established even apart from the obvious difference in setting. I've been with the series from the beginning and don't mind 2205 as a game in itself, but as an Anno fan eagerly awaiting the next entry I was disappointed. It's just not Anno to me without naval logistics and exploration, without the ability to have other factions on the map etc.I gave negative (though measured and specific) feedback to the devs online and at Gamescom because I was worried the series would continue to go in that direction, but they course-corrected with 1800.
>>1735317>though measured and specificYou mean you didn't call them manlet niggers and tell them to dilate?How do you expect to ever convince someone like that?
>>1733795what Anno should I get if I've never played one and want to autistically manage an evonomy
>>1735897The only actual anno is 1404, the rest is goyslop
>>1734103this is truet. the only anno I played for more than two hours
>>1735897If you want a really strong focus on citybuilding and economy (with abstracted logistics) you could go for 2205.But 1800 and 1404 are both better as games overall, and more Anno-like.
What are pros and cons compare 1404 and 1800?
>>17361471800 is more modern with more modern design conveniences and mechanics, as well as graphics, however it also has a bunch of bogus dlc you have to filter through to see what you really need.1404 is cheap, only has an expansion, but doesn't have the modern niceties of 1800.
>>17361471404 was made by straigh white males, 1800 was made by troons and has woke bs on it, all you need to know
>>1736596Ok, thanks. I am buying 1800.
>>1736206>it also has a bunch of bogus dlc you have to filter through to see what you really needPretty much every DLC is good except for Botanica.
>>1736612Don't forget to buy your HRT too
I found 1800 at Walmart for 5 bucks on the ps5. How good of a deal was that? I've never played an Anno game.
>>1736147Hardware aside, the only reason to play 1404 over 1800 is if you really dislike the industrial revolution aesthetic, spreading pollution etc.
>>1736870Ted_Kaczynski.jpg
>>1736840Anno 1800 is cool, but I can't imagine playing it on a console.
>>1736840there's a reason it is 5 bucks
>>1735897get 1404 from gog so yo don't have to deal with ubi's launcher
