Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Age of Wonders 4

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
18,422
Pathfinder: Wrath
The preset racial traits are merely a gentle suggestion and don't come with unique units or mechanics, unlike all other AoWs. On top of that, most racial traits are indeed trap choices, just like most choices in this game.
 
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
1,854,103
Location
Belém do Pará, Império do Brasil
Personally, much more prefer the dozens of different size towns from AoW1, with no buildings at all, where the strategic layer play feels like in Warlords 3.
I like buildings myself (I am builder-turtler kinda guy), but I actually like different size towns. I feel they add an element of strategy and help differentiate them. Perhaps they should add a "max size limit" to town growth, with some able to become large metropolises, but others doomed to never grown past a certain size.

I remember that after a certain empire size, I started treating the one-hex towns like glorified mines with unit-building capacity. Just put a wall up, focus defenses on the larger cities. Only certain units can go through walls in the first game, so random lone infantry units can't take these walled little towns.

I do find it weird how the AI is strangely attached to its beginner town in the first game. Like, if the AI leader starts in some small first town, he will stay there, even if he has multiple lvl4 towns and controls an entire large chunk of the map.
 

Lagi

Augur
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
764
Location
Desert
I see buildings as another mini-game inside a game.
Same like tactical combat, if I am orchestrating global economy of a whole kingdom, I don't want to suddenly change my mindset into leading an army to win a local battle to gain +10 food.
Or being annoyed every 5 turn by a diplomatic message, because dwarfs want to trade they Seafaring technology for my Midas Spell.

This all elements have its place in 4x games,
bubble-butt-604x470.jpg

Buildings need to affect directly the main game. Building walls reduce amount of enemies that can attack your town here, and you expect attack from this direction - thats good. Or building watchtowers grant you Fog of War vision over a critical area. You dont need watch towers everywhere.

While, building Blacksmith to gain +1 Armor for all infantry build in all towns... is a hassle. Do you need it.. Yes i do. But its boring obvious choice. Like build as often and as many farms as possible to boost food and pop grow or build as many roads as possible, make me a crossroad with roundabout on every single tile including water one, to gain this sweet Trade profits.

is building a roads fun to you in 4x games? No because it feel like work. You just need them, but there is no decision here to make. Why would You like to not build a road? [because your settlers are better to build a farm now, is not a good design]. This lead to stuff like automatic Former/settlers, because you cant be bothered.

---------------
Do you fight tactical battles to kill scouts you catch on main map?
no. I even with premeditation dont face equal forces, because i can't be arsed to show my tactical "genius" of casting fireballs on multiple units in radius. And i like 20 to 1 win ratio.

In games like Fantasy General where the whole game is a tactical combat - I do enjoy telling my dudes to bash with others.

---------------
i dont like diplomacy at all... tech trading (whoring) spoil lots of games. And reading emissary message makes me cringe (except A.C.).

I would prefer if all factions were in permanent war with each other. And negotiation are done by not eradicating the weaker race, or teaming up against the current strongest faction.
 

Galdred

Studio Draconis
Patron
Developer
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
4,442
Location
Middle Empire
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I see buildings as another mini-game inside a game.
Same like tactical combat, if I am orchestrating global economy of a whole kingdom, I don't want to suddenly change my mindset into leading an army to win a local battle to gain +10 food.
Or being annoyed every 5 turn by a diplomatic message, because dwarfs want to trade they Seafaring technology for my Midas Spell.

This all elements have its place in 4x games,
bubble-butt-604x470.jpg

Buildings need to affect directly the main game. Building walls reduce amount of enemies that can attack your town here, and you expect attack from this direction - thats good. Or building watchtowers grant you Fog of War vision over a critical area. You dont need watch towers everywhere.

While, building Blacksmith to gain +1 Armor for all infantry build in all towns... is a hassle. Do you need it.. Yes i do. But its boring obvious choice. Like build as often and as many farms as possible to boost food and pop grow or build as many roads as possible, make me a crossroad with roundabout on every single tile including water one, to gain this sweet Trade profits.

is building a roads fun to you in 4x games? No because it feel like work. You just need them, but there is no decision here to make. Why would You like to not build a road? [because your settlers are better to build a farm now, is not a good design]. This lead to stuff like automatic Former/settlers, because you cant be bothered.

---------------
Do you fight tactical battles to kill scouts you catch on main map?
no. I even with premeditation dont face equal forces, because i can't be arsed to show my tactical "genius" of casting fireballs on multiple units in radius. And i like 20 to 1 win ratio.

In games like Fantasy General where the whole game is a tactical combat - I do enjoy telling my dudes to bash with others.

---------------
i dont like diplomacy at all... tech trading (whoring) spoil lots of games. And reading emissary message makes me cringe (except A.C.).

I would prefer if all factions were in permanent war with each other. And negotiation are done by not eradicating the weaker race, or teaming up against the current strongest faction.
That is kind of my issue with the game, and why I loved AoW 1 the most:
The strategic play and tactical battles clash against each other. It takes too long on the strategic map to move between 2 interesting battles, and your objective, as a king, is to make sure no tactical battle is interesting because you have overwhelming forces.
It was not the case in AoW 1 because empire building was much more limited, and the missions were more "scripted". I remember AoW 1 as a sequence of hard battles, with some limited management that was focused on getting more units out.
The weird issue I have is that I didn't feel the same with Master of Magic or even Warlock 2.
 

Axioms

Arcane
Developer
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
1,583
Putting aside whether AoW1 was harder because people were less experienced at 4x, I have long contended that you shouldn't have both a complex combat system that you transfer to from the main map and detailed empire management.

You are crippling both aspects mechanically and also creating a flow/zone issue where you break up the player's mood and focus which pulls them out of the game.

AoW games, especially 4, have many other issues but this I think is a fundamental one.
 

Suicidal

Arcane
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
2,292
Putting aside whether AoW1 was harder because people were less experienced at 4x, I have long contended that you shouldn't have both a complex combat system that you transfer to from the main map and detailed empire management.

You are crippling both aspects mechanically and also creating a flow/zone issue where you break up the player's mood and focus which pulls them out of the game.

AoW games, especially 4, have many other issues but this I think is a fundamental one.
As someone who has recently played through the 1-3 AoW games in order, is currently playing through Planetfall and has yet to play 4, I can say that AoW 1 is the easiest game in the series as far campaigns are concerned. Most maps took me under 20 turns and some I beat in like 10 turns because the AI, in its infinite wisdom, often decided to parade their main hero with a small retinue just outside my territory.

In later entries not only is the AI more competent but also there are less units that can steamroll everything on the map and the AI doesn't know how to deal with. Also the campaign missions put you in unfavorable positions more often.

In AoW 1 the only somewhat difficult mission was the one in the middle of the campaign where there is a huge 2-floor cave network and the orc enemy starts spamming red dragons after some point.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom