DeletedUser1206
Guest
There should always be an alternative to battle (as elsewhere in the game) or it skews the balance away from the main activity of growing resources.
And if you like neither then play the viking settlement .Egypt is for those that like fighting, while FJ is for those that enjoy negotiations. Just my opinion, but it makes a difference in play style.
If you like neither, you probably really suck at the game.And if you like neither then play the viking settlement .
Yeah that is probably true.If you like neither, you probably really suck at the game.
The other big difference is the resources spent on the Settlements. For the Vikings, the player only spends some Coins and Supplies. For advanced cities, this cost is so low that it does not make a dent in a player's resources. The same thing can also be said for the Egyptian Settlement, seeing as how Units are trained in the Settlement, and they are unaffected by GB effects.The big big big difference is that Japan is doable (much harder, but DOABLE) without doing the negotiations.
The same cannot be said for Egypt and imo that's a very bad thing.
Hahe, then lets us have an alternative to attaking our neighbors. Lets us use negotiations to plyndre your townThere should always be an alternative to battle (as elsewhere in the game) or it skews the balance away from the main activity of growing resources.