Really want to like the game, but...

[Xenos]

I have the game since day one. I had put it aside hoping patches would make it better, and then purchased the golden realms expansion to give it another chance. You see, I really want to like this game, I like the art and the lore, but the gameplay, oh Lord... Campaigns are just exercises in rush: you have to go on a conquering spree from the get go, lest the AI uses its superior position to swamp you in high-power units. No time to build up and enjoy every tier of troops. There are SO many units on the map it's not even funny: dozens of armies trotting around, and you have to move them all every turn. It's micromanagement hell at its worst. And, to have a chance against the AI, you have to fight your battle manually limiting losses: battle after battle, a grindfest with no end in sight. And most of them are sieges battles: I hate those in every game I come across, from Total War to this. Can we have some meaningful field battles, pretty please? I was under the impression this problems were curtailed thanks to the patches, but it's simply not true. Infinite city spam, infinite unit spam... sorry, but this is just terrible. The 4X genre should really move past this kind of grindy gameplay. If I wanted to repeat the same set of actions over and over again I would have got into MMORPG. Is there some mod that simply ups the cost of units five or ten times, or introduces some sort of cap? I feel this could be the only way to save me from going insane.

Am I missing something? Wrong approach perhaps? Or is the game designed with utterly massive, meaningless micromanagement in mind? In this case, GG, I quit.

[AnemoneMeer]

I'm not really sure I'd call AoW3 a full 4x game, and that's honestly its strength and its weakness, and why I see alot of people casting it aside or embracing it.

It's a game about warfare first and foremost to an almost comically extreme degree. For people like me who can't play a game of Civ V without basically playing as Stalintler, killing everything on the map for daring to have a different color, the game works perfectly and is a ton of fun. For people who want to sit back and tech up and advance through eras, the game is honestly pretty terrible at that.

ICSing is terrible and will get you killed off very early. Cities can't defend themselves, even post updates. Likewise, infinite unit spam is a symptom of endgame, and doesn't show up until, according to the game's pacing, it should be at the point where one decisive victory ends the game.

Alot of those high power units have low power counters. You can actually KILL a manticore rider with a levelled pikeman and a sorceror hero at level 1. You just need to know how to perform them.

As for "Grindy" gameplay. In every FPS ever, the primary mechanic is to click your mouse and move it over a target's head. You do this for many many hours. Every bullet hell game has you dodging everything while holding a button down and occasionally holding another button or clicking to blow everything up. What makes a game grindy or not is the meaningful choice or lackthereof presented to the player. AoW3 may be all about the war, all the time, but there is real choice in what units you build at any one time, how you move them about, and so on and so forth. There's alot to consider in terms of war in this, far more than say, Civ V or Galciv. It balances this by having far less to consider in terms of peace. Which is fitting for a game about waging war.

[Xenos]

Well, the repetitive mechanics of FPS and action games are pretty much the reason why I only play strategy and RPGs. My beef with the game it's not that it's about warfare, but that it's about tons and tons of mostly identical pieces of warfare. Rome II, for all its faults, did a really great thing limiting the number of armies. It's simple, makes sense - historically, when you lost a major battle or two you were done for, just look at Alexander defeating the persian empire - and reduces micromanagement to acceptable levels. Why in Age of Wonders am I supposed to fight countless battles with similar units, similar outcomes and similar decision making? This is not strategy, it's simply wasting my free time. It's not like there isn't half a dozen recent fantasy 4X out there that I could play, you know...

And for infinite unit spam, I was spamming dozens of the little angel critters in the middle of the third mission. They were everywhere, at least ten armies of the buggers that I had to control in opposite regions of the map, and in the underground. I was winning, sure, but the pain was royal. So I started auto-ing the battles and then realized that the game was the same old chore of the release day. Why they couldn't implement an optional setting to limit unit numbers is beyond me: the fact is so glaring someone should have realised it. It's particulary annoying because the game could really be great, but now it feels like work, not fun.

[Ross Feratu]

I feel the need to step in and offer an opinion. Truth be told, the scenario design of the campaign isn't that great. It's not awful, but really the story is what you're playing for. That being said, most of the problems stem from the fact that the type of game you can have is extremely variable based on map conditions.

Try doing random maps instead, and find settings you like. Settler start is the most popular one in multiplayer. Normal start tends to be quick and brutal. Adventure mode is RPG mode. You can tweak pretty much every setting to get the experience you want. I tend to hop around though myself. If you're not one for the grand military style of the campaign, a more intimate battle map could be your thing. Personally, I *like* have units all over the place and needing to take some time on my turns. Well sometimes at least. I wish I could do it in multiplayer, but until PBEM drops it wont be possible.

Anyways, if you want to mess around in multiplayer, add me on steam. Otherwise, try searching for some of the map settings people like to play with. THere's some good info buried somewhere on the AOW forums, and I'm sure a few google searches might turn up something. If not, just play with it til you find what sticks. Like for me personally, I find that teaming up some low to mid range AIs against me on a high resource density map allows for a pretty fun experience.

Also, if the sprawl gets bad, you might want to consider some different classes, or a different playstyle. In most games, I rarely have more than 3 stacks of actual key units. I put my scouts on rivers and mountains and camp them. And I avoid using low tier units because it does make logistics a bit annoying. Better to use mid tiers that strike a nice balance, and allow me to project them better.

Also if you ditch the campaign for custom settings(Not that you should, but if you're not having fun then do whatever makes it fun for you), some classes *really* dislike large numbers. Rogues are practically allergic to large fights until lategame. Sorcs like to fly around with small stacks slinging lightning so much you'd think they own the sky(spoiler: they do). Theocrats powerlevel their units like a boss, and have so many buffs it's ridiculous. Its pretty fun seeing what a theocrat can do with a small force. They pull some Fellowship of the Ring shenanigans and find a way to turn ordinary units into heroic figures that fight well above their tier.

Anyways, hope you find something you like. If not, well, the game is not for everyone. Ah well.

[WiseCog]

One sentence, "Heroes of Might and Magic".
No micromanagemant needed at all. You can play through every single map/campaign with 1 hero and 1 army. In every single release, from HOMM 1-6...

Age of wonders requires more micromanagament with more armies, and seems like this game sadly aint for you maybe :( .

[Ross Feratu]

If youre gonna do that, pick up heroes 3. It was the high point of the series. But Heroes is simplistic. AOW allows for really clever use of terrain, if youre willing to put forward the effort.

[WiseCog]

Originally posted by Jimmies Garresh:

If youre gonna do that, pick up heroes 3. It was the high point of the series. But Heroes is simplistic. AOW allows for really clever use of terrain, if youre willing to put forward the effort.

This.
BUT I have to say that Heroes 5 was far the superior game (and I love Heroes 3), once they released the last patch and expansion for it.

[Xenos]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I have played pretty much every Heroes since the second one. You're right, there is way less micromanagement, but you know, I just want one thing from a 4X: defense should be stronger than offense. Cities ought to be able to defend themselves, armies should be limited in number. This way, I feel I have to put some real effort in the military aspect, knowing that every battle counts, instead of simply spamming armies and going Stalin on the AI. AoW3, i managed to finish the elven campaign: even on easy the enemy numbers are insane. The last mission is the most grindy scenarios I've ever played in any strategy game in 15+ years. And on easy you can get away with autoresolve... i shrudder to think what would be like on normal... it would have taken days. Alas, not every game is for everyone, it seems.

[Xenos]

Originally posted by Version 1.0:

If you want defense to be stronger than offense then maybe you shpould consider a good tower defense game?

XD, touché

[sikbok]

Hi Xenos,


Just read through the topic, which is very relevant to what I'm working on at the moment. While the mechanics are a bit different then those you suggest, we are looking at improving end game economy. Specifically for the longer games on large maps.


Also, I'd like the thank everyone in the topic for the nice and respectful discussion in this topic. It was a nice read.

[BBB]

Interesting read. In my opinion, city defence is really strong :S. Typically, in my games, there can be a fair bit of skirmishing, but there will be maybe half a dozen big battles between players, on the upper end, usually one big battle and someone concedes, as their position is untenable (or that they feel it is).


Ofcourse, the ai is a bit more stubborn, but I find there that I only need to fight a few big battles to dominate. Also, with some classes you don't really need to fight any battles, and can just raid and destroy lightly defended cities and cripple the enemy that way.


Still, I think I get what the OP is saying - each turn involves alot of stuff to do, and there are few, if any, turns where you are twiddling your thumbs and just clicking end turn.

The pace is intense.


Some other games have alot more downtime built in, e.g. Civ, where things move so slowly you have many more turns before you can have a serious army.

The Civ 5 approach of making cities so tough and really limiting your military is itself controversial for some people.

I have a hunch OP may prefer that type of game.

[Malaficus Shaikan]

Originally posted by BBB:

I have a hunch OP may prefer that type of game.

I dont.
Twiddling my thumbs is what makes me hate civilazation games.

[Oberpumpkommando West [OpKW]]

If allowed I might add my opinion on this..

i succesfully mitigated that "move 20 Armies build 10 Thingies and fight 8 More or less meaningless battles with independents" by using small map size and add 2-3 Ai opponents. It felt to me more interesting as meaningful battles took place before any tier 4 and scarce T3 Units hit the field

I also cared more about the units experience gain as it was not one pikeman squad of 20 but one of my 2 precious deepguards..

I am also satisfied to have maybe a maximum of 5 cities and 1-2 Dwellings..

There is possibly a lot of ppl who like xl maps with 8 Opponents and such..but it has turned out to be not for me and still i have found configurations to let me immensely enjoy the game..

It is basically the same approach as Relic has undertaken with their RTS to give every unit lasting power..

It was nice to hear from Sikbok that they keep on working towards economy Adjustments..

It is to be wished that the OP Poster finds a suitable setting to enjoy the game...

Play more shorter Matches';)

[AnemoneMeer]

Want defense to outpace offense? Grab Earth Mastery. I personally play an expansion heavy game and Earth is literally the defense element. Regenerate walls and the defense turret can turn back armies XD.

Why on earth were you spamming cherubs like that? Sure, you -can- do so, but you could put the same ball of CP into casting spells and come out on top. Cherubs may be the best of the scouts in terms of combat, but they're still just scouts.

Most of my experience actually differs quite heavily from yours, in part because I expand lightning fast to occupy a massive portion of the map. I don't tend to find I have -enough- units to do everything I want to do, with the shifting of garrisons and such, and only have a few (less than 4) offensive stacks out early on, due to constantly losing them to garrisoning valuable edge holdings.

[WiseCog]

Originally posted by sikbok:

Hi Xenos,


Just read through the topic, which is very relevant to what I'm working on at the moment. While the mechanics are a bit different then those you suggest, we are looking at improving end game economy. Specifically for the longer games on large maps.


Also, I'd like the thank everyone in the topic for the nice and respectful discussion in this topic. It was a nice read.

This sounds very interesting. I love large maps, so anything that can improve upon end games is something that I would look forward to! :D

[Gandalf]

I agree with OP regarding the number of troops. There should be some cap, cause it gets really boring late-game.