Docklands was fun for the first 2 or 3 times thru but then it got very boring to where I only play Anno every couple weeks now vs almost daily with first 2 DLCs.
I am concerned my interest in this game will continue to fade as the announced updates in DLC 3 are similar and basically cosmetic. DLC3 looks like a cash grab by Ubisoft.
I was looking forward for more lands to explore and settle as contained in the previous 2 seasons.
My disappointment with Season 3 is tempered by the hope that Ubisoft devotes more effort in keeping us diehard ANNO fans playing this superb game.
Oh, the unassuming bore, unable to offer any of his ideas, but only to reject the clearly justified ideas of other people, you again.
Trucks that appear near warehouses, if you build the fuel depot, do not consume oil themselves, steam locomotives and steamships do not need coal according to the rules of the game, unlike in real life. Consequently, an electric train will also not consume electricity, but for the very fact of its appearance on the island there must be at least one power plant, just as a fuel depot is required for the appearance of trucks.
British trade during the Napoleonic Wars ceased completely, since the main markets were in Europe, which is why Napoleon was such a terrible enemy for the British and why they were the initiators of the 8-and anti-Napoleonic coalitions. For the Europeans to destroy Napoleon with their own hands, who interfered with British trade with the European continent. 15 years of war at sea did not give Great Britain anything — their trade was paralyzed, and the course of the war was decided exclusively in land battles. You are definitely not a very smart person, because I have already explained to you that everyone liked the appearance in Empire: Total War sea battles, after which all the games in the Total War series featured sea battle. If Creative Assembly excluded this feature from their games, then no one would like it. In the games of the ANNO series, the land component of battles was removed. Why should I be happy about this, and why are you against their appearance?
The argument that the game is not the real world in this case does not work. If they added South America, Africa, and even the Arctic to the game, then why not add Asia and Australia. This is an elementary question that you don't have an answer to. Unlike you, the next comment after your last one was written by a sane person (Chmie123) and he clearly indicated that he wanted new locations, not stupid ports. He wants to explore new lands like I do, not poke around with boring tourists. In this regard, why not combine the docks and Australia, tourists and Asia, just as they linked Africa and universities. And you don't have any answers here either. Come on, repeat your stupid argument that the game is not the world — you will disgrace yourself once again.
Like all non-smart people, you are predictable. Pay attention, everything you say in your message, I predicted at the end of my previous letter. And after that, you have the audacity and stupidity to claim that you have refuted all my arguments — I write something new every time, and you write the same thing every time. You've shown nothing so far but your inability to think and write
While the trucks dropping off the fuel don't use fuel, the harvesters do. It's part of their cost-benefit system. If electric trains are just a pure upgrade why bother with the earlier one?
No British trade did not cease entirely. Advantage of having an empire, British trade flourished during the period, yes they couldn't sell as much to mainland Europe but they could still sell to the rest of the world and import items to their own nation which France and Spain struggled to do and lead to a lot of their merchant ships being captured. Britain was making so much money they repeatedly paid Austria and Russia for the ground war.
Again you are wrong. Since Empire Total War not all games have featured naval battles. Three kingdoms, Troy, Thrones of Britannia, Warhammer 1 and Warhammer 2 have not had naval battles or even their own navies. It's only been armies that can turn in to ships and auto-resolve like previous games or in the case of the Warhammer series fight land battles on a small island.
I'm against it as it doesn't fit. It doesn't make the game better. I've enjoyed Anno 1800 hugely and I do not feel the lack of land battles an issue at all and I agree with the Developers that it doesn't seem something that would enhance the gameplay.
Again it does hold. They haven't added these areas to the game. They've added regions with flavour of our world but that is still far from adding those entire regions to it.
It also doesn't remove that Anno 1800 is first and foremost a game and more regions does add more performance costs. I haven't said I don't want new locations, I've said it doesn't NEED it. The game works fine without it, it's something you want. There's a big difference.
Hey, last warning from my side regarding this thread here:
If you're not able to have a discussion without insulting other members of the forum and without being ready to accept that other people have a different opinion on matters, stanford-lee198, then I'll close this thread since it's not leading anywhere.
I understand you would like to see additional regions added to the game and that is a valid wish, but this does not invalidate the wish from other players who are not interested in additional regions.
Same goes for the topic of land combat: There are some players who miss it and also plenty of players who don't. Not having this feature in Anno 1800 does not mean it will never be part of any potential future Anno title, but as we have repeatedly stated, it will not be present in Anno 1800.
Any "but that's how it is in real life" comparisons are only partly useful as arguments, since it's not our intention to replicate the real world,
Finally, keep in mind that developing and testing new features, mechanics and additional regions always takes time. Time, as we all know, is limited, so the amount of content that can be developed with the available resources for a Season is, too. Not even talking about the planning and financing aspects.
So, it's not as easy as "just implementing feature X or region Y".
We'll keep an eye on this thread and will take further measures if a normal discussion is not possible.
Ubi-Thorlof
Hello. What are the grounds for the claim that there are players who are not interested in the emergence of new regions? This discussion proved that I have found many supporters of my ideas who sincerely do not understand why you once applied a reasonable and prudent decision to merge the functional of the University and the region of Africa and why later we see very minimalistic projects in the form of only Docks or only tourist infrastructure without combining these new functions with any new regions (as I have repeatedly said that Australia and East Asia would be the most interesting locations). And the arguments in the style of "we do not intend to copy the real world" are only partially useful because if you have implemented South America, Africa and even the Arctic, then what prevents you from putting an end to the project, only two major world regions of the 19th century have been completed, so that you can talk about the magnificent completion of the project and proudly declare that you have fully recreated the world of the 19th century and reflected in it all the most interesting cultural, architectural and historical perepetias of an entire era. If you do not do this, then any of the reasonable players who play your game will have questions about why we are offered to build a foundation and walls in a city-planning simulator, and the developer allegedly does not have enough money to build a roof and for the monumental completion of the ANNO 1800 project.
By the way, why is this so, because ANNO 1800 is characterized by the fact that it is the most expensive Ubisoft game, with the lowest discount, and at the same time you do not have enough money to develop new full-fledged content? But instead, at a constant price, the volume of content sold within the framework of one DLC only decreases and I, as a consumer, rightly condemn such degradation processes. Ubisoft should send auditors to Blue Byte in order to check the financial stability of the organization and the expediency of spending funds. Why are only 60 people working on the development of Anno 1800 and, according to your own words, you do not have enough time to implement new functions and develop new regions? For example, 600 people work on such a Ubisoft game as Assassin's Creed Odyssey, while the game costs twice cheaper as Anno 1800, and discounts on it are 2-3 times more. And at the same time, everything that is possible is implemented in Assassin's Creed Odyssey: sea and land battles, the whole of huge Greece in all its stunning majestic beauty (even the ancient Greek hell and paradise were added) and as a result, as a consumer, I can't find fault with anything about this game - all regions are available, all functions are abundant, and the game itself is cheaper. The Ubisoft company should definitely pay attention to this situation and actively encourage intra-corporate competition between studios - the liberal Canadians from Ubisoft Quebec and Montreal cope much better, than the Germans, who are supposedly famous for their order and punctuality from Blue Byte. And yes, it's good that you follow this thread - read everything I wrote again, because only in my words will there be constructive criticism, condemnation of mistakes and encouragement of all your correct actions, as well as an impressive list of recommendations for both ANNO 1800 and potential future games of the series.
Everything that is not written by me does not make sense within the framework of this discussion and this is a modest life hack in order to save your so much limited time...
Stanford-lee198
Australia region,
Asia region,
Land combat,
Trains being upgraded, anunalogou to he cart becoming trucks,
Yes, I would ---love--- all of that to be added to the game. Certainly would extend my enjoyment of the game for years, and I would gladly pay for all of it.
BUT.... that is up to the developers, it is their game, their lives, their jobs, their time and game design philosophy. Its a friggin private company afterall, the biggest idea behond which is to sell a product for willingfull customers.....
You seem to believe that by the simple fact the game is called "anno 1800" it should contain a specific set of things. Well, no, this is insane. It is the developers prerrogative to decide what to call the game and what it will be about. Congruence between the 2 is obviously ideal. The game was planned years ago and before it even got released they had already decided on many things, including the absence of land combat, partly because TIME and RESOURCES are FINITE. They cannot do everything. And to be fair likely part of the reason its because they just DIDNT FEEL like doing it. By not developing this whole system they could focus on other system they liked more.
Did you follow the development of the game before release? If I remember correctly they literally made an announcement and a blog post with an explanation on their decision to leave land combat out of this game. you could decide wheather to buy or not the game on this announcement...
The season pass 3 announcement also pointed out it would be focused on old world and would specifically NOT have a new region.
Was I sad about no new region? Yes, a bit, BUT I fully expected that, because even before the announcement, when season pass 3 was still a unlikely dream, the devs repetitively said a new region would be too big of a project to be viable IF more DLC ever happened.
Only players that are new to the series or completely ignored everything the devs said could have deluded themselves into thinking more regions or land combat was even a slight possibility.
Let me remind you that even season pass 2 was mostly a surprise to everyone. Before anno 1800, all the anno games ever had was one expansion pack each (im equating expansion packs to season passes, btw).
IMO, your claim that season pass 3 is a cash grab, has no content, or is lazy is completely unfair. First the announcement covered what each part was about, so you had an idea of what you could be waiing for. There is always the option to buy each one separetely and only when youve seen reviews about all it provides befor buying OR get the whole pack for a discount and support the devs with a vote of confidence.
I did that, and Im not a fan of docklands balance gamebreaking possibilities, but Im an adult, I knew what I was doing and I dont regret buying it. Tourism end reward is partly just more income and Im not at all impressed by that, and there is the repetitive buildings skins, but it bring a new citizen tier, a house, a monument, a ton o new goods, production chains and buildings overall, also integrates enbesa and arctic goods as well as give a secondary purpose to older goods and turn them into a new effect of the food venues. So in the end I got my moneys worth of in content for sure. Highlife I believe will be similar but bigger.
If by some miracle there is a season pass 4 I hope to god it adds another region and I would like more struggle related stuff like disasters, conflicts, land combat, disease and whatnot, but Ill take whatever gameplay extension the devs decide to develop, because in the end anno is unique, ther is no real competitor in my view.