Age of Wonders 3

[Shadenuat]

Games Workshop armies are about striking color combinations and bold, instantly recognisable silhouettes. Oversized weapons are mostly carried by superhumans of sorts. Proportions are exaggerated of course, which is part of the style, but it does not help a lot to distinguish some weapons from others, because nobody knows about weapons. Speaking 40K the only weapon set which is widely known by all players is Imperial one, but try to find a regular player who can tell the difference between your eldar starcannon and scatterlaser.
So I don't think it's worth it to turn models in the game into impossible monsters, it's probably better to use flags and icons to explain which unit carries what, if you're not good with creating a very clever model.

...oh and uh, downloading game. Right.

 

[KoolNoodles]

People complaining about "cluttered" view need to go back and play Shadow Magic Elves campaign and then shut the hell up. I can maybe see a point on the battles, but then I just look at the unit and notice it has a pike instead of a huge shield. Wow that was hard.

 

[Zeriel]

Blizzard, Games Workshop, and surprisingly few others have long mastered and still practice the art of communicating detail from afar and at a glance through exaggeration.

If you want things to look like world of warcraft, just say "I want and axe to be bigger than my character". I don't want things to look like cartoons just because your eyesight is poor, thank you very much.

Blizzard made and makes games other than World of Warcraft, you know.

 

[J_C]

Blizzard, Games Workshop, and surprisingly few others have long mastered and still practice the art of communicating detail from afar and at a glance through exaggeration.

If you want things to look like world of warcraft, just say "I want and axe to be bigger than my character". I don't want things to look like cartoons just because your eyesight is poor, thank you very much.

Blizzard made and makes games other than World of Warcraft, you know.

And yet all look like WoW.

 

[CarnivalBizarre]

Blizzard made and makes games other than World of Warcraft, you know.

And yet all look like WoW.

 

[J_C]

And yet all look like WoW.

And yet all look like WoW.

:D Now that's what I call same thinking.

 

[Zeriel]

Starcraft looks nothing like World of Warcraft. This being the Codex, however, you are entitled to your shitty, shitty opinion.

 

[J_C]

Starcraft looks nothing like World of Warcraft. This being the Codex, however, you are entitled to your shitty, shitty opinion.

But Starcraft 2 does.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Dude look at those huge ass pauldrons and giant axe:

 

[subotaiy]

Visually it's a mess, yeah. I find i have to devote too much time and energy to make out what's going on, instead of being able to concentrate on the strategy.
It's really a major issue, at least to me.

I have to agree, the camera is pretty nauseating in combat. I dislike having to use middle mouse all the time and to zoom just so I can tell what which unit is which; they should have scaled them up more.
Here, a good example of camera use in a modern similar game would be the new Eador:

 

[whatevername]

Compared to AoW:SM this game is a PIECE OF SHIT. Those who liked HMM6 or Elemental/FE will love it though.

You are an idiot. The game plays great and looks great and sounds great so far. I think this might be a classic...

And you're a dumbass. So if you say the game plays great does that mean you were defeated by the AI or do you enjoy fighting static monsters a-la King's Bounty?

 

[Misconnected]

:D Now that's what I call same thinking.

Yes, very clever. It's a good thing that WoW is the only game to clearly communicate the nature of its units through visual exaggeration. Because imagine how foolish the pair of you would seem if, say, MoM did it. Or the 2D HoMMs, or a hundred other games that look nothing like Blizzard's games.

I used Blizzard & Games Workshop as examples because they're among the few who who still do this, not because their particular art styles are the only way to do it.

 

[Renegen]

Compared to AoW:SM this game is a PIECE OF SHIT. Those who liked HMM6 or Elemental/FE will love it though.

You are an idiot. The game plays great and looks great and sounds great so far. I think this might be a classic...

And you're a dumbass. So if you say the game plays great does that mean you were defeated by the AI or do you enjoy fighting static monsters a-la King's Bounty?

See, King's Bounty is a brilliantly designed game. Every single unit has so much depth, every item, every spell. By comparison, you have grossly unmatched battles all day in HoMM or AoW3 where units and spells offer substantially less depth and you make useless decisions all day. To me, King's Bounty is still the best TB fantasy strategy game of the last 10 years.

 

[pakoito]

Compared to AoW:SM this game is a PIECE OF SHIT. Those who liked HMM6 or Elemental/FE will love it though.

You are an idiot. The game plays great and looks great and sounds great so far. I think this might be a classic...

And you're a dumbass. So if you say the game plays great does that mean you were defeated by the AI or do you enjoy fighting static monsters a-la King's Bounty?

See, King's Bounty is a brilliantly designed game. Every single unit has so much depth, every item, every spell. By comparison, you have grossly unmatched battles all day in HoMM or AoW3 where units and spells offer substantially less depth and you make useless decisions all day. To me, King's Bounty is still the best TB fantasy strategy game of the last 10 years.

With a terribly boring grindy campaign that won't allow you to tailor your army for the sake of it.

 

[Renegen]

Compared to AoW:SM this game is a PIECE OF SHIT. Those who liked HMM6 or Elemental/FE will love it though.

You are an idiot. The game plays great and looks great and sounds great so far. I think this might be a classic...

And you're a dumbass. So if you say the game plays great does that mean you were defeated by the AI or do you enjoy fighting static monsters a-la King's Bounty?

See, King's Bounty is a brilliantly designed game. Every single unit has so much depth, every item, every spell. By comparison, you have grossly unmatched battles all day in HoMM or AoW3 where units and spells offer substantially less depth and you make useless decisions all day. To me, King's Bounty is still the best TB fantasy strategy game of the last 10 years.

With a terribly boring grindy campaign that won't allow you to tailor your army for the sake of it.

The first game is a bit long, but it's also ok-ish just because everything has to be introduced. The depth really is too much to just drop it on you. Pretty much every single unit is viable and you'll encounter a ton of different units as you play, it's up to you to use creativelly what you come across, which is randomly generated including some monsters. Spells also give you infinite units if you're really attached.

 

[pakoito]

Again, what is the point of such depth if I never got the chance to compose my army in any meaningful way to play PvE or PvP. I did play most part of the first one and the pick-your-own-army-boss-rush subcampaigng of one of the expandalones, and the later was better just because it went straight for the meat.

 

[Renegen]

You do get that chance, just eventually. Yeah the first game takes a while, but why not use units you've never used before anyway? Anyway, not a big deal.

 

[pakoito]

You do get that chance, just eventually. Yeah the first game takes a while, but why not use units you've never used before anyway? Anyway, not a big deal.

Because I had to go through repetitive trash mobs nibbling my army then walk all the way back to buy reinforcements accounting for the couple of losses every fight, then find that I either didn't have enough money or they were out of existences. If I am supposed to buy chaff and reserve money to buy the important units just for that one big fight after hours of trash mobs, then I wouldn't call it well designed. I am not having fun grinding with chaff. I was the only guy playing duels on HoMMV with the OP army composition.

 

[Renegen]

You do get that chance, just eventually. Yeah the first game takes a while, but why not use units you've never used before anyway? Anyway, not a big deal.

Because I had to go through repetitive trash mobs nibbling my army then walk all the way back to buy reinforcements accounting for the couple of losses every fight, then find that I either didn't have enough money or they were out of existences. If I am supposed to buy chaff and reserve money to buy the important units just for that one big fight after hours of trash mobs, then I wouldn't call it well designed.

Spells or getting better fix that, mostly.

 

[pakoito]

You do get that chance, just eventually. Yeah the first game takes a while, but why not use units you've never used before anyway? Anyway, not a big deal.

Because I had to go through repetitive trash mobs nibbling my army then walk all the way back to buy reinforcements accounting for the couple of losses every fight, then find that I either didn't have enough money or they were out of existences. If I am supposed to buy chaff and reserve money to buy the important units just for that one big fight after hours of trash mobs, then I wouldn't call it well designed.

Spells or getting better fix that, mostly.

BANG! git gud.

Fix to all design issues or codex cop-out?

 

[J_C]

:D Now that's what I call same thinking.

Yes, very clever. It's a good thing that WoW is the only game to clearly communicate the nature of its units through visual exaggeration. Because imagine how foolish the pair of you would seem if, say, MoM did it. Or the 2D HoMMs, or a hundred other games that look nothing like Blizzard's games.

I used Blizzard & Games Workshop as examples because they're among the few who who still do this, not because their particular art styles are the only way to do it.

Using overexagerated modells for the sake of easy recognition, but they look like shit. Which is better and why? Discuss?

 

[DeepOcean]

I don't get why compare AoW 3 with kings bounty, one is a strategy game and the other isn't. AoW focus was always more on the strategic map than on the tactical map while HoMM style games are the inverse. I didn't played AoW 3 but played AoW 2 to death and if there was a thing to really criticize about it was how weak the Ai was and based on what I read on the thread this seems to not have changed.

 

[Misconnected]

BANG! git gud.

Fix to all design issues or codex cop-out?

Sometimes one, sometimes the other? KB:TL & KB:AP can both be completed without losses on the highest difficulty, and at least for me KB:TL's lowest difficulty was challenge-free. So in this case I'd suggest git gud or lower the difficulty is a valid response.

 

[cvv]

I don't get why compare AoW 3 with kings bounty, one is a strategy game and the other isn't.

True but the combat part itself absolutely is comparable. And the comparison is very useful because it's a difference between a brilliant TB arena combat refined to perfection and one that is...not that.

Btw I've never understood the complaint about having to go back after every fight and replenish troops in King's Bounty. You totally don't have to do that even if you don't win every fight with no losses, but of course there are all sorts of heals and summons that easily enable you to win majority of fights loseless.

 

[pakoito]

BANG! git gud.

Fix to all design issues or codex cop-out?

Sometimes one, sometimes the other? KB:TL & KB:AP can both be completed without losses on the highest difficulty, and at least for me KB:TL's lowest difficulty was challenge-free. So in this case I'd suggest git gud or lower the difficulty is a valid response.

Again, why? Too many trash fights for no special reason. I already saw the good fights and made my own army compositions.