Age of Wonders 3

[Mangoose]

grid based combat is bad if done bad (D3)

Yes

and static combat can be fantastic if done well (D2).

Only if something was added in return for subtracting movement mechanics.

D2 is something like chess. Why are you complaining about abstraction in D2, when you accept abstraction in chess?

Nobody's complaining about abstraction. I'm talking about lack of complexity, or more specifically, taking away mechanics without adding substitute mechanics. I specifically said that if you replace "realistic" maneuvering/positioning with an abstract mechanic or resource, that's fine. But that's not happening.

In other words, the wrong way to go would be like taking chess, and taking away movement, without adding anything else. You can capture a piece, but you have to go right back where you were. No positioning.

Then again perhaps your RPG remark meant something like P3 FES, or Nocturne.

My "RPG remark" was "RPG blobbers." Is that too hard to understand?

 

[MetalCraze]

Static combat is never fantastic. It can be passable at best.

Of course I can understand the appeal for casual players - no need to think what to move and where, who to support, no luring enemies into spell AoE. Whoever has the bigger DPS and healing wins. Just click on the enemy until he dies.

 

[visions]

Go make a Disciples thread, you tards.

 

[Raghar]

There is no tactical combat, just third rate JRPG combat.

Then again perhaps your RPG remark meant something like P3 FES, or Nocturne.

My "RPG remark" was "RPG blobbers." Is that too hard to understand?

When some people are talking, do you think they are talking about you?

 

[cvv]

Of course I can understand the appeal for casual players

Oh puhlease...ffs.

 

[Raghar]

Just click on the enemy until he dies.

That's not possible because they nerfed Paralyze.

Have you played it at all? You are from Ukraine, thus you might be able to finish a logical game like D2.

 

[Malakal]

I played it and was bored beyond belief. Seriously, sell me this games combat. Many units in armies? No. Many different unit types? No. Different abilities? Not really, even different factions get basically the same units. Needs to grind to be useful and level units? Yes. Tactical combat? No.

You want to see a way better example of this type of combat? Sengoku Rance.

 

[Mangoose]

When some people are talking, do you think they are talking about you?

And where the fuck in your last reply did you specify who you were replying to?

Funny thing is that my statements about "abstraction" has everything to do with your argument, yet you ignore it.

 

[Mangoose]

I played it and was bored beyond belief. Seriously, sell me this games combat. Many units in armies? No. Many different unit types? No. Different abilities? Not really, even different factions get basically the same units. Needs to grind to be useful and level units? Yes. Tactical combat? No.

You want to see a way better example of this type of combat? Sengoku Rance.

Funny thing is that Sengoku Rance bored the hell out of me after a while. Because static combat. Because most if not all battles were pre-determined by your choice of army before the battle.

 

[PorkaMorka]

D2 is something like chess. Why are you complaining about abstraction in D2, when you accept abstraction in chess?

Key difference... D2 is mostly about mindless grinding against independent monsters. Chess is a game of skill.

 

[Malakal]

I played it and was bored beyond belief. Seriously, sell me this games combat. Many units in armies? No. Many different unit types? No. Different abilities? Not really, even different factions get basically the same units. Needs to grind to be useful and level units? Yes. Tactical combat? No.

You want to see a way better example of this type of combat? Sengoku Rance.

Funny thing is that Sengoku Rance bored the hell out of me after a while. Because static combat. Because most if not all battles were pre-determined by your choice of army before the battle.

But its literally the same system only without spells and with more characters, abilities and action points. Explain further.

 

[Dickie]

So, umm, how about Age of Wonders 3?

 

[Mangoose]

I played it and was bored beyond belief. Seriously, sell me this games combat. Many units in armies? No. Many different unit types? No. Different abilities? Not really, even different factions get basically the same units. Needs to grind to be useful and level units? Yes. Tactical combat? No.

You want to see a way better example of this type of combat? Sengoku Rance.

Funny thing is that Sengoku Rance bored the hell out of me after a while. Because static combat. Because most if not all battles were pre-determined by your choice of army before the battle.

But its literally the same system only without spells and with more characters, abilities and action points. Explain further.

I didn't mean to compare it to any other game, sorry.

So, umm, how about Age of Wonders 3?

I'm sorry, did discussing something off topic prevent you from writing something on topic in this box and then hitting the "Post Reply" button? Is having multiple conversations at once too much for your lizard brain? FFS.

 

[Dickie]

Is having multiple conversations at once too much for your lizard brain? FFS.

Is starting a new thread to talk about Disciples or whatever too much for you? I'm sorry I was reading an Age of Wonders 3 thread to find out stuff about Age of Wonders 3 and not whether Disciples 2 sucks cock or not.

 

[SCO]

I'm pretty much sure that this crap about sieges being 'obsolete' is pretty much the fault of the camera perspective.

 

[Mangoose]

Is having multiple conversations at once too much for your lizard brain? FFS.

Is starting a new thread to talk about Disciples or whatever too much for you? I'm sorry I was reading an Age of Wonders 3 thread to find out stuff about Age of Wonders 3 and not whether Disciples 2 sucks cock or not.

Sorry, deal with it.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

I'm pretty much sure that this crap about sieges being 'obsolete' is pretty much the fault of the camera perspective.

To be fair, in AOW cities were much larger than in AOW2, so cities in AOW2 looked a little ridiculously small. A AOW 4-tile city was immense and you didn't have how to siege from every direction possible, unless you had troops inside the city itself, which was possible sometimes.

Also, historically, I don't think assaults on sieged cities included attacks from every direction, but rather breaches in certain points.

the realism argument is one of the reasons Sas gave for changing the sieges

 

[Spectacle]

I don't care about realism, all I know is that juggling my units between the different walls of a city under attack was tons of fun in AoW 1/2. Just 1 single wall is a lot less interesting for the defender since you'll just put your troops on the wall and attack every round, no need to move since the enemy has to come to you.

 

[Malakal]

Depends on how big the wall is going to be. But I understand your sentiment.

 

[wynams]

88hp on level one, balance is way off the whack here.

Balance should always be sorted by pre-alpha

 

[Papa Môlé]

They could have at least done two walls connected at an angle, FFS.

 

[Misconnected]

BTW, is this Disciplines good?

Which one?

Disciples 1 & 2 are basically the same game. The second has better graphics, sound, story and - mostly - mission design. But the differences are largely cosmetic.

Both games are won or lost on the strategic map. Combat is purely a formality - it's barely even possible to design an even fight on paper using what's at your disposal in the first two games. Depending on your tastes and tolerances, this is likely what will make or break the games for you. Because they do not have a good auto-resolve system.

But it's also not a bad twist on the HoMM formula. Unlike HoMM-likes, the first two Disciples game have deep and interesting strategic gameplay. It's entirely possible for a throwaway crap stack to take out some of the most extreme badness in the games, by changing the circumstances of the fight. Yet your resources for doing so are very tightly limited and can easily change hands over the course of a match. This makes what really is some very, very simple game mechanics create a surprisingly deep and addictive game. And yeah, in some ways it really is reminiscent of Chess.

It's also worth mentioning that Disciples 1 & 2 have really damn good mission design, backed up by amazing art direction. And Disciples 2 is new enough that you can really enjoy that fantastic art direction.

Disciples 3 is a very different thing. Thing HoMM, but with stacks made entirely of heroes and an AI that makes the worst HoMM ever had to offer look like fucking Einstein. It could maybe, possibly have been a good game if it had incredibly good AI. But unlike the earlier games, Disciples 3 really needed amazingly great AI to be worth playing, and it has absolutely craptastic AI.

I would definitely recommend giving Disciples 2 a try. And if you like it, Disciples 1 is a no-brainer. Disciples 3, however, is not worth anyone's time.

 

[DakaSha]

Is having multiple conversations at once too much for your lizard brain? FFS.

Is starting a new thread to talk about Disciples or whatever too much for you? I'm sorry I was reading an Age of Wonders 3 thread to find out stuff about Age of Wonders 3 and not whether Disciples 2 sucks cock or not.

 

[Dreaad]

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

I got Disciples 2, will try and play when I get my comp fixed. (or my brother send me a new one)