heh, yeah, for every new setting, the people who liked the previous one are totally dissapointed, disgusted even at times. When Medieval came out, the ancient warfare buffs were gloomy while the medieval buffs in high spirits. Once Emipre came out, all the sword and buckle fans were slashing wrists and all the gunpowder enthusiasts came out of teh woodwork (many totally new). All the while the Sengoku fans were in grumpy whinning mode. Once S2 was announced everyone was dissapointed (as tehy all expected Rome 2 :), except for the few that were into Sengoku - but eventually this changedover time. To be continued... ;)
What is teh attraction for teh fans of each period is exactly what drives away its critics. For Sengoku is the uniform and smaller rosters, the uniform culture/civilwar scenario, the "small" map and timeframe. Those are exactly its strengths too; uniform and small rosters make for better balance and so better AI performance in battle, uniform culture allows in depth exploration and portrayal of it, and small map/timeframe makes the game more personalised without oversimplifications of provinces or turns that last yaers each. The civil war/unite the country setting, is also perfect for TW; diplomacy is at best used to buy time and its everyone against all in effect, which is what the TW AI understands best.
Its also a matter of which periods you know - some people dislike crtain periods because they know little about them. In that case though the game can be a tool to learn and explore the period too.
Bookmarks