Pitting the mechanics of both ages against each other is imo is useless. There are merits to each game, but they can't be compared in a even setting because the design itself of each game is different. There are gears and stars in Age II that make up for the limit on hero leveling. The life and leadership bonuses of stars, the inclusion of attributes of leadership and energy, and the mechanics of rules such as those that define the overflow principle make Age II a more complex game in mechanics. Historical cities, historical heros, and the insertion of fb into Age II make the game abit more social and team oriented. This Vs the simpler mechanics and playing style of Age I that lack these new additions, make the game more appealing to some players and less appealing to others. It doesn't make sense to me to pit these mechanics against each other because at the end of the day, their just mechanics. People will have their own views and preferences for each Age.
You can compare the players of each Age, but you'd find that the players that excel in either ages are the exact same type of players. They know the game inside and out, they know how to properly attack and defend in pvp, they know how to build cities, troops, and heros, and most importantly, they know how to work together with like minded players to dominate their playing field. You'll often see that a "good" player in Age I would be ranked around the same in Age II with the same proportion of understanding in either Age.
Last edited by Blah99200; 07-14-2012 at 08:50 PM.
NA24: CELTS - Retired
NA33: INSOMNIA - Retired
NA43: Relapse
Bookmarks