devtrackers.gg
Hello folks. This is a response to the minority who feel military elements don't belong in Anno. Usually they claim two things, which are:
"Anno is a city builder."
"Anno is not a war game!"
The first is simply wrong on a factual level, and the second is a misunderstanding of what Anno + military means.
Here's my response:
- Anno’s scope extends beyond city building to empire management.
This is a strategy game that encompasses many sub-genres, such as economy management, logistics, city/town building, diplomacy, military, and more. To call it a city builder is both objectively false, but also sort of damaging to the brand. Don't get me wrong, city builders are awesome games, but that's simply not "only" what Anno is. If you enjoy playing it purely as a city builder, that's great too - but the game offers much more than that.
There are many who discover Anno and find it intriguing, but upon learning it's primarily about building towns, they are often disappointed by its (perceived) limited scope. I know several people who would love to play the game, but fear there wouldn't be a more "PvP" aspect to it. They look forward to Anno 117 being revolutionary on that front, as do I. We all want Anno to have more military.
Which brings me to the next point...
- There is a world of difference between Anno being a war game, and Anno being a strategy game with military being a part of it.
Those are not the same thing. A war game is just that - a war game. You have a small base, map, and you only seek to destroy your enemies. The games last 20-30 minutes or so. There is no greater scope to the gameplay other than that. No real diplomacy, no empire building, no complex logistics, nothing of that sort. Mostly just simple war, with focus on your "micro" skills as opposed to genuine military "IQ".
However, Anno having military as a core is totally different. What that means is your military plays a role in the experience of your gameplay. The fantasy of the world you spend hundreds or thousands of hours in becomes significantly more immersive due to this aspect. This is, in part, thanks to the role playing aspect it provides. Just having a military that is a result of your economic management, infrastructure, trade, logistics, etc. is in itself highly satisfactory. Even if you were to not put it to use for any real conflict, the sentiment is nevertheless real. You feel like a true leader.
Let's not forget, the human mind likes a challenge. If you play the game with the subconscious fear that you may be under threat, that will prompt you to build in ways you otherwise wouldn't! This is excellent for the game even from the aspect of mere "building", which is what the game really is about. Military acts as a catalyst for building in ways you probably wouldn't even think of otherwise. You'll build trade networks in a different way knowing you may be under attack sometime. You will build roads and buildings in a way that is befitting of a specific military doctrine in mind, say, guerilla warfare.
Imagine you can "fortify" buildings, which costs a lot and is a complex undertaking. Suppose you have an island that is located in a vulnerable position, closer to other players' territories than your own. How will you approach the challenge of protecting that island? Build military bases? Train your regular citizens there and provide them with weapons? Additionally fortify your buildings to better withstand enemy siege, or provide opportunities for your people to use them for guerilla warfare (e.g. options for citizens/troops to use roofs of buildings efficiently for defensive warfare).
This and much more is all part of "building" in Anno!
Clearly, none of us who want complex and deep military in the game wish for Anno to become a "war game". This is a misconception. We don't want Anno to become a war game; we want to see it evolve into the best strategy game possible, where military enhances the overall experience significantly.
Games like Manor Lords are becoming extremely popular for a reason. It's a mix of the following…
The desire to outcompete competitors from a perspective of strength (military) and,
The desire to feel that one controls not a mere army in a 20-30 minute match, but first and foremost controls his EMPIRE (or nation, whatever).
The combination of being the leader of a whole "nation" and having a military to protect this very idea of your nation and your people, is what makes a game like Manor Lords so popular. It combines nation building elements with military.
Now, imagine Anno - with its established fanbase, substantial resources, and experienced developers - combining its deep empire-building with sophisticated military options. The potential for something truly unique in the strategy genre is immense. There is absolutely nothing that would compete with Anno in the strategy genre.
I hope the developers implement a Grand Strategy military style, which I am sure would fit Anno better than say, traditional RTS control of military. Grand Strategy is more about your strategic thinking than about your reflexes and muscle memory and all that, which is a better system to have in a game where strategic thinking is core of gameplay. Those who feel "Anno 1404 had a poor military system" might be right, but keep in mind nobody is asking for that system to be back. Most people want either a Grand Strategy or RTS system, although where you do control several soldiers in one unit rather than individual units.
And lastly…
Anno fans LOVE military. There are a few individuals who have said that “the fanbase is against (land) military and complex, deep military in general”.
This I must say is as pure a falsehood as it gets. Take a look at the Anno 117 teaser trailer with the town crier and check the comments section. Every third comment or so is begging for not just more land military, but much more. The fans are clearly dreaming of a complex and deep military system with lots of different units.
So, please don’t come here giving us the BS that “players are against it”. That’s obviously false.
External link →