RdeBorn

I don't really think you guys addressed how massively far this game has moved from the first one, really. Like, Philip of Macedon and Gold were really lean games where your resources were inherently limited by your territory, supply lines were absolutely everything. Hegemony 3 kind of has moved diametrically away from that with the stockpileable gold and wood resources and the upgradeable resource points. Like, in Philip of Macedon the only things you can do are rearrange your supply, take the extra resources you need or plan a fight better or replace workers with slaves. In Hegemony 3 waiting for lumber is essential to get the better resources, upgrading your civics and saving gold so you can buy slaves and improve your income, colonising to free up your garrisons, improving your unit types is both important and kind of trivial (I just picked up the improved barracks as I moved on). I didn't really find starving out enemies was that valuable because the supply lines basically weren't as directly important as in the first game. Meanwhile the naval game is so much less valuable because you don't really have the islands to work on. Basically, the change from finite to not precisely finite resources has really changed the series and the move from the perfectly constructed Greek map to a slightly weaker one hasn't really worked for me. I don't think it's a bad game and a lot of the innovations were interesting but I think it's a lot less focused and compelling than PoM or Hegemony Gold. That said I couldn't stand Rome because the AI couldn't handle sandbox and the campaign was really awkwardly paced if you messed up a battle and this is a big step back up for me. Also, unanswerable seaborn piracy from miscellaneous rebels was no fun playing as Tarentum compared to the definable villainy of Athens in the first game.