Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
So medium against a wielder that is spell heavy might be very hard.
Another thing - I've won some easy battles, but with heavy losses and thought it was rather a medium one.
Slow build may or may not be efficient, depends on the map. Just play more, learn, take your loses as valuable experience and with time you will 'feel' this game more.
Battle difficulty seems to be mostly the game comparing the tier of your units to that of the enemy and see how many of which you got. For example basic, Cultists are horrible fighters, yet when matched against something of similar tier and numbers it does not tell you "impossible", even when it is.
As the dude before me said, rely on your personal experience and take into account what you are up against. Using low movement-melee units vs an all ranged army might not be the best idea, even when your units are 1 tier higher.
But isn't it like that in every other game, leave alone strategy game with many different units, abilities and things to learn? There's a small opportunity you will do amazing at new game, but it's rather unlikely. I mean, it's like that with everything in life, literally - at first you just bad at everything and practice and repetition make the difference.
There's a great system for new players - it's called campaign and it will teach you basics plus how to think and act in critical scenarios. [Rana]. If you have played through both campaigns, you should have some understanding about the game, and with skirmish maps to practice you will get better and better. Honestly, soon you will make a topic how easily it is to beat AI, just you watch.
As for indicator, it isn't useless - it gives you approximate idea, which doesn't always should be correct. As I said, after playing more you will get better understanding and just looking at units you will know your chances. As an example above me about low movement melee units vs ranged troops - it all relies in the idea that you know the game.
To not be excellent in the beginning isn't that bad - it's quite normal. really. To stay that way after 100+ hours - that's where I would question my skills, and, maybe, the game.
Except what was your Army? What was this "single stack" that wiped your entire army? Was there an enemy Wielder?
Say you had two stacks of Militia, and a stack of Minstrels, but then you go against a single stack of Knights... sure it's "possible" to win and it might be a "medium" fight since you basically have 130 units against 10. However, that Knight is basically going to 1-shot any of your stacks and your Militia only get 1 shot before having to pass a turn. That's going to feel impossible to a newbie, despite it being a tough but winnable fight.
Even something less extreme, say you are fighting a stack of Dreaths, They get to hit you first before you hit them, which will likely kill some of your units; lowering your damage output. They have fairly high HP compared to damage of Militia/Minstrels ... so again, something that could easily feel impossible to a newbie despite being a "not easy" fight.
I mean, you are awfully quick to jump to "major design flaws" when you didn't even elaborate what you had or what you fought. It could simply be a skill issue since you are a newbie or you could have fought something 1-2 tiers higher than your units .... or the battle indicator could be a misleading d-bag.
You should understand that threat level is rather approximate prediction of the outcome. Game takes your skill level/base knowledge/critical thinking out of this equation, so the actual battle result can differ, greatly, because your skill and knowledge are very important. You can't just rely on numbers and play 'whatever'. I mean, it would be nice to have an AI being capable to give us something along the line: *Human, I've calculated your skill level, based on your turns quality and measured your decision making ability, mixing it with troops you have, so your chances of winning this battle would be 77%.*
But, unfortunately, we ain't there yet, technology wise.
There are people, who don't have much troubles beating AI on Worthy/Challenging and even managed to win Suicidal battles, and it's mostly because of the level of their skills, understanding the mechanics of the game, plus occasional luck (or poor AI, cos sometimes it makes really dumb moves during the battle). It is as simple as that.
Besides, medium doesn't exactly guarantee you 100% victory - it tells you it is possible to win, but also - to lose.
I will say it again - if you will keep practicing, rather than blaming the game for your defeats, I can guarantee you will come to steam again, soon, and tell us how easy AI is and that you want harder difficulty.
I was in your shoes, I get it. One time I restarted one battle (reloaded save) three times, and it was EASY threat - and I've lost all three times in a row. I was frustrated, blamed the map, the AI, etc. We do that when we are angry, it's okay. I kept on playing tho, and instead of sticking to one faction I loved (Loth) I started playing with all of them. It actually can make all the difference - one thing is to know what unit can do, and another one is to actually play with it. To see how different wielders play, what abilities you can use, different magic, how units synergy with each other and how can they benefit from working together. You won't get that from just 'knowing' and that's what I meant in my early post, by saying you will 'feel' the game better. Some units are weak on paper, but then you play them yourself, with different stats and updates, and it's a completely different story. Try playing for faction you struggle playing against - see its strength and then use it to your advantage.
Also, yes, the example of that medium unbeatable enemy you keep mentioning, would be nice.
Your heads
I see there is no point in continuing this discussion, because you are apparently unable to understand why an battle diff indicator is supposed to do just that, indicate difficulty. That is its whole purpose, yet all your arguments are that "lol no the indicator should not actually indicate anything because your skill is what matters."
If a medium fight requires perfect play to win, then the indicator is trash, period. It FACTUALLY not fulfilling its design purpose. But I can tell this game will never grow into something better than a meddling HoMM3 copy since you people defend something that is clearly not working.
Your basic argument, speaking in your language, 'oh, lol, AI beat me on medium easily, and should have stated it more clearly. Game is bad.'
I agree. It's really unfortunate. Perhaps OP is still frustrated strategy/tactics they employed in HoMM3 are not translating well in Songs of Conquest? I had a bit of similar issue since I got so used to spells being dependent on the Hero, instead of the units/essence. I would get ticked off when enemy wielders could throw out spells that I couldn't due to unit essence differences. (Like Rana vs Arleon)
I mean, I didn't even mention skill except for a single sentence on the tail end ... That's how important context of what his army was versus what the enemy army was. Skill is certainly a factor but 8 Stacks of Militia against two stacks of Elder Dragons is going to be "Medium" despite it being a really tough fight lol.