I liked the Campaign Map in Warlords Battlecry II better.

[Crazy Alchemy]

I love this game, but IMO the campaign while not without it's charms is less satisfying.

I quite enjoyed carving out my empire one province at a time until other races submitted and surrendered.

[TheBasque]

WBC3 has more sides, more units, more customizabiliy, more freedom when creating your heroes, more possibilities, improved UI, improved gameplay, and enhanced graphics . . . It far outweighs WBC2 or 1.

[5chneemensch]

^ Quantity over quality. WBC2 and 1 had so much more character. WBC3 streamlined far too hard, especially the hero system.

[TheBasque]

How was the quality worse? WBC3 built upon WBC2 and made it better. At intial release it was rushed, so yes, it was less polished and more buggy. If you download the latest patches, unofficially official, the latest one less than a year old(warlordsbattlecryiii-Wikia) and you will see many of these changes rectified. So no, sir, you're spinning a false narrative void of any actual context of the situation.

[Crazy Alchemy]

Originally posted by TheSpaniard:

WBC3 has more sides, more units, more customizabiliy, more freedom when creating your heroes, more possibilities, improved UI, improved gameplay, and enhanced graphics . . . It far outweighs WBC2 or 1.

None of that has much of anything to do with the campaign map, which IMO is less satisfying in WBC3 than in WBC2.

WBC2 had a Conquest of Etheria campaign that had you carving out an empire one province at a time and getting global buffs for your empire as you did it.

I enjoyed that more than the campaign in WBC3.

[TheBasque]

Well, you're more a leader of a band of mercenaries in WBC3, than a leader of an army that controls territories. In WBC3 there's a map and you can make treaties or make war with other factions, but yes it is different. Both, to me, are better than WBC1's campaign and 2's campaign is probably the only relevant and objectively equal quality.

[5chneemensch]

Originally posted by TheSpaniard:

So no, sir, you're spinning a false narrative void of any actual context of the situation.

Do you even know what that sentence means? It has less than literally no contextual worth.

[Crazy Alchemy]

Originally posted by TheSpaniard:

Well, you're more a leader of a band of mercenaries in WBC3, than a leader of an army that controls territories. In WBC3 there's a map and you can make treaties or make war with other factions, but yes it is different. Both, to me, are better than WBC1's campaign and 2's campaign is probably the only relevant and objectively equal quality.

Yes but WBC III's campaign is far less satisfying to me than WBC II's campaign. There was something satisfying about conquering territory and subjugating other races into your empire, and just the style and asthetic of it IMO was better, it looked better.

IMO the WBC III campaign also felt a bit forced and washed out and the RPG narrative was rather weak and felt unnecessary.

[TheBasque]

Originally posted by TenshiNanael:

Originally posted by TheSpaniard:

So no, sir, you're spinning a false narrative void of any actual context of the situation.

Do you even know what that sentence means? It has less than literally no contextual worth.

Yes, you're essentially arguing that they dumbed down the races and simplified everything, valuing quantity over quality. And I am saying you lack the context and werewithall of the situation to realize that they were rushed to push the game out by publishers. A big problem back in 2004, so that's my poitn with the patches, they essentially fixed the and completed the game Steve Fawkner and company did not get the chance to do. The end product? A superior game in virtually every way than its predecessor. Perhaps some people like the campaign in WBC2 better than WBC3, fine, that's subjective taste and fine. Most things, however, you can point to and say WBC3 does it better. Everything is just pure bias.

[Crazy Alchemy]

I don't think it's true at all that they simplified the races, they added more units, split humans into Empire and Knights, and added new races, and all of the races maintain their distinctiveness and new ones had added distinctiveness as well. Swarm plays substantially differently from the Undead, the Plague Lords play substantially differently from Fey.

IMO most of what they did in WBC III was an improvement, it's just the campaign map I don't like. It felt forced and washed out and homogenized between the races, each battle also felt less like part of a greater campaign to me.

Originally posted by TheSpaniard:

Perhaps some people like the campaign in WBC2 better than WBC3, fine, that's subjective taste and fine.

It's a very widespread opinion among WBC fans, when I checked the WBC forums awhile back after getting the GoG version and looking for a place to express my interest in a WBC IV, I saw a lot of people expressing a conquest campaign as being on their wish list for WBC IV and a lot of people saying things that indicated their preference for the WBC II map.

Is it subjective, yes, but the WBC II map is more detailed and colorful, allows different races to start in different locations, adds a sense of overarching progression as each battle is represented as a territory on the campaign map, and so forth. As simple as it was, and as much as WBC III added, the WBC II campaign had a lot going for it that the WBC III campaign didn't, and while there are reasons some people might prefer the WBC III campaign, it also didn't do some things as well it's predecessor.

[5chneemensch]

I was always with the opinion that WBC4 should have a campaign WBC1 style that provides some massive lore dump, while also providing the conquest mode with all the benefits of it.

[luckz]

is https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Warlords_battlecry_ii_etheria.jpg this campaign map you speak of?

[Crazy Alchemy]

Originally posted by TenshiNanael:

I was always with the opinion that WBC4 should have a campaign WBC1 style that provides some massive lore dump, while also providing the conquest mode with all the benefits of it.

I'd personally love that.

Originally posted by luckz:

is https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Warlords_battlecry_ii_etheria.jpg this campaign map you speak of?

Yup that's the one.

As undead one of the fist things I always did was go straight for dark elves.

[Senyaak]

I could not play wb3 because the archemages are trash there(((

[Fendelphi]

Originally posted by Senyaak:

I could not play wb3 because the archemages are trash there(((

They are not. You just use them differently and in different combinations. Archmages have a vast amount of tools available and can choose to specialize or diversify.
Summoning, Alchemy and Diviniation are some of the most useful spellspheres in the game with a broad application, and can function as an economic tool, support, defense and assault.

Most magic has been toned down a bit in WBC3 though, and relies more on synergies with your faction, than being a one-hero army that blows up the map(this can still be done to some extend).

[Joe the Bartender]

Originally posted by Senyaak:

I could not play wb3 because the archemages are trash there(((

Not sure why there was a need to necro this thread with a comment that has nothing to do with the OP.