|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
posted February 08, 2016 09:32 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
We do NOT play in the same team!
We play as separate teams with a 2-player AI-team as third. 
Doesn't mean we can nail the AI first, though, but that depends.
i stand corrected.
____________
yogi - class: monk | status: healthy
"Lol we are HC'ers.. The same tribe.. Guy!" ~Ghost
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted February 08, 2016 10:41 PM |
|
Edited by Galaad at 22:42, 08 Feb 2016.
|
yogi said:
the more the merrier, *shrugs
Well let me finish campaigns first and if you guys are still up for it by then I'll gladly join.
JollyJoker said:
We do NOT play in the same team!
____________
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2016 10:13 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
I think, I'm good in this game, but not very good or exceptional, by the way.
In combat, I think I'm great. In managing my empire, I think I suck. The first unit I'm about to produce this game in one of my cities is a T3 Deathbringer. Building very greedily, mostly because not even the Emperor AI represents a challenge, and all 7 of them are at war with me.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2016 12:12 PM |
|
|
|
Necro is grossly OP, so that doesn't say much.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted February 09, 2016 04:06 PM |
|
|
I'm slowly working my way through the campaign, and I'm starting to get a better grip on some basic concepts. One thing that strikes me as rather amusing is how many elements from Heroes 4 I see in this game - most notably the way "Heroes" interact on the combat map, city walls you can place units on, etc.
While I still think combat is at times somewhat slow, I do like how they've lessened the emphasis on ranged units by limiting their range so severely compared to Heroes. I've been skeptic about the idea of an "army" concept being introduced in Civilization which some people have suggested to "fix" the problems from Civ5, but this game certainly has some elements that could work a bit similarly in Civ. One thing I'm not quite decided about is the fact that you can have multiple armies involved in the same combat - on one hand I can see this as being necessary in order to prevent battles from becoming too evenly matched and toss of coins in the late game - on the other hand, it does bring back the old "stack of doom" issue to a lesser extent.
I do have a bit of trouble with finding out what to do with my "heroes" in battle. I did read online that during early game, it was good to put them to the frontline to act like meat shields because they will be resurrected after combat if you win. That does sound pretty reasonable. However in late game, I find they often die rather quickly which means I lose out on their casting abilities which can be rather disastrous, so obviously somewhere in mid-game there must be a turning point where it becomes better to draw leaders to the back. Can anybody provide any pointers to when that is?
With regards to army composition, I do find the game has some limitations. Whereas in Heroes, because of the stacking system, you can generally have every creature from your faction in your army - high level as well as low level - I find that here, I will mostly just go with the high-level ones and ignore the lower-level ones. That may be because I just play on the easy level, but this for me does seem a bit strange - is there ever any reason why you would pick a lower level creature to take in your army, given that they fill a slot which could be a higher level unit?
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted February 09, 2016 04:12 PM |
|
|
alcibiades said:
One thing I'm not quite decided about is the fact that you can have multiple armies involved in the same combat
The adjacent hexes rule, I LOVE it, some battles are rather small and fast while others can become rapidly truly epic.
alcibiades said:
I do have a bit of trouble with finding out what to do with my "heroes" in battle. I did read online that during early game, it was good to put them to the frontline to act like meat shields because they will be resurrected after combat if you win.
I don't know about that, I'm currently playing mission 2 from campaign and most heroes are not allowed to die so I wouldn't risk it, in so far I keep them in the back and use them mostly as support units, and sometimes triggers some abilities like Assassin strike in example or one can shoot spirit damage from afar to weaken certain units with strong physical protection, seems to do the job just fine. I'm playing at normal difficulty though.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2016 04:59 PM |
|
|
The default setting is that Heroes stay dead when they die in combat, except for your main, who will be 3 turns in the void (with severe empire penalties).
Heroes can be devloped when they level up (just as in Heroes). You get 5 ability points you can spend or (partly save). The advantage of Heroes is, they can cast spells; also, there are a lot of abilities for Heroes that the whole stack (including the hero) profits from. For example, Warlord's "Defense Command" wil add +1 Defense to all units in the stack including the hero.
Then there are artifacts that heroes can use, making them even stronger. The default level limit is 15, but the RMG allows to adjust this up to level 30.
In AoW there is no limit to the units you can produce, except that they cost upkeep, so your army is somewhat limited by your economy. When a battle is initiated, all stacks on the attacked hex plus all 6 adjacent hexes taking part in that battle, so the maximum amount of units is 42 (plus possible battle summons). When you move with one stack at a not-early stage of the game, you may simply be overwhelmed by an opponent that knows you are coming. The "army" are THREE stacks of 6 units each that build a triangle - there is no way to attack one stack without also attacking the other 2.
Now imagine playing a large map with 8 players - you will need a lot of troops, and you can't take just T3s and T4s. T2 Supports are quite important, be it the racial units or Class units like Apprentices or Reanimators. Speaking of Necro, Banshees are a T2 as well and a summons at that, and extremely good (as are Phantasm warriors). You have to find a good balance. The odd Pikeman is nice. Infs can climb walls which can be important.
Things depend a lot on your race and class and of course on additional buildings. You would be stupid, for example, not to build Elven Longbowmen (T1), especially when you can build them in a town with a focus chamber.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2016 05:51 PM |
|
|
alcibiades said:
I do have a bit of trouble with finding out what to do with my "heroes" in battle. I did read online that during early game, it was good to put them to the frontline to act like meat shields because they will be resurrected after combat if you win. That does sound pretty reasonable. However in late game, I find they often die rather quickly which means I lose out on their casting abilities which can be rather disastrous, so obviously somewhere in mid-game there must be a turning point where it becomes better to draw leaders to the back. Can anybody provide any pointers to when that is?
If you start with an ability called Resurgence then the hero will resurrect after combat, but depending on your settings that won't always be the case. But either way, I can tell from experience that losing your hero is almost never a good idea. You will need to squeeze every ounce of experience and keep yourself healthy if you want to be efficient. It pays off.
By the time you reach the late game your hero should be a beast. I have a 22 lvl Necromancer beating entire armies as a frontliner by himself (it's actually kinda ridiculous). Your spells, abilities and artifacts play a huge role in deciding your orientation, so its better to find a good mix rather than overspending points in areas you gain little advantage from. For example you might be better off with +5 hp than having an extra ability you'll barely ever use.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted February 11, 2016 09:49 PM |
|
|
I've been playing a bit more AOW3, and I think I'm starting to pinpoint what it is that leaves me sort of torn on the game. There's little doubt that the game is greatly designed, but for me it has a couple of crucial weaknesses.
On one hand, I like the fact that it has some of the elements from Civilization - you research things, you can settle new cities, etc. - but it lacks something crucial from Civ: The game has no other objectives than to eliminate the enemy. There is no science, culture or diplomatic victory - only conquest. This sort of takes the pleasure out of the empire building aspect - the empire has no value in itself other than as a means for war.
As such, it plays out more like Heroes. And here comes another problem: I don't really enjoy battles that much in AOW3 - I think trivial battles have a tendency to draw out overly long, and large-scale battles become somewhat confusing because of the large battlefields. Another thing is I don't really find Hero developments as exciting as I do in Heroes - or did with the old Heroes games. There's the randomness of skills question, and I miss some sort of larger objective to work towards with my skill choice. The spells, while some are good or even excellent, seems to play a rather minor role in combat, and also doesn't seem to add the excitement that they can do in Heroes (perhaps again lack of randomness plays in here).
Anyway, I'll still put some more game time into it, also to explore game outside campaign, which I suspect I'll find more fun.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted February 12, 2016 02:53 AM |
|
|
I've been playing more as well, and dropped the campaigns for the moment as I couldn't resist to try the RMG. Just to see how it would go I picked Emperor mode and I feel like I'm going to loose.
I mean, I had the feeling everything was going fine until I realized the AI developed and expanded way more than me, which is kind of exciting. We'll see how this map will end, but I get the impression I suck at expanding, I tried to focus on having only one town producing non-military units so it can develop into a Metropole faster but then it takes more time to produce troops on the others, I think I'm doing some things the wrong way.
While very different from Heroes I do love the battles. I'm playing the elves and I think I start to understand their gameplay, and I kinda like it. Shooters are how I always liked it with elves, fragile but deadly, got to protect them and have them shoot with all APs each time. Having a lot of fun with the flanking, I don't know if it's because of the 3-actions-points system but here it makes sense. I find it very fun to flank from one side then the enemy stacks turns around to not be flanked the remaining hits but by doing so exposes his back to another one of my shooters who was just waiting for it.
There seem to be an good deal of emphasis on positioning, and I really like that, the way you position your stacks in first round has a huge influence on the outcome of the battle, it's great. The ability to freely dispose all troops each turn allows to plan carefully. Heroes on battlefield also I enjoy quite a lot, seems like what Heroes 4 could have been on that aspect. I always make it a challenge not to loose any stack for each battle I make (unless closely matched), when probable victory I usually have to reload for that but managing to make it is pretty satisfying. If I can't avoid to loose one stack I arrange myself to choose the one that will die, to save another one I might find more important to keep. Luck system works fine too, but damn those halflings are annoying!
Trivial battles that doesn't take more than 2 turns to finish should always be casualties-free in auto-combat, that's not really bothering me right now but it most probably will in the future. I also was a bit challenged by the huge fights with the Adjacent Hexagon rule, but IMO is only a matter to get used to, there is just more stuff going on in the battlefield, and more to plan. I actually kinda suck at it atm and feel that I could loose way lesser casualties than what I actually do.
I also really like how some units are more resistant or vulnerable to some elements than others, depending on the enemy you won't necessarily bring the same army with you and quickly rearrange before engaging, which I find refreshing.
Didn't dwell too much on the heroes development yet, usually go for "primary" skills and HP and still have yet to try out more on the abilities. Undead Slayer and First Strike I tend to pick though, helps with taking Tombs early. 1 point left usually go for X protection.
Until now I really don't regret buying this game, the visuals works well and I like the art, I only wish I'd be playing a new Heroes title instead, speaking of which there is a couple of features that IMO could have fit well there, such as cosmic events, strategic spells on the adventure map, or terrain influencing on morale, at the top of my mind.
One thing I really miss is townscreens though.
____________
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2016 06:18 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2016 08:34 AM |
|
|
alcibiades said:
On one hand, I like the fact that it has some of the elements from Civilization - you research things, you can settle new cities, etc. - but it lacks something crucial from Civ: The game has no other objectives than to eliminate the enemy. There is no science, culture or diplomatic victory - only conquest. This sort of takes the pleasure out of the empire building aspect - the empire has no value in itself other than as a means for war.
There ARE alternative victory conditions (at least when you play outside of the campaigns). Seals of Power and Beacons. When you play with the RMG you can pick one or both as well. When you play Seals, a number of special sites depending on map size and player number are put on the map. These are pretty heavily (but not too heavily) guarded. You can set the number of "points" needed to win a game; you get a point for every Seal you "control" each turn. To get control, you have to beat the guards and have at least one unit on the seal (beating the guardians the first time will also gain nice rewards). However, the guards are spawning anew after some random number of turns, and usually stronger than before. This is basically a victory condition that reflects majority of area control and will decide games when one opponent hides somewhere.
"Beacons" is another VC; this works via Race Governance. When you reach Champion level of race Governance for a race, you can build ONE beacon in a town of that race (something like a Grail). Beacons are very expensive and cost - I think - 1200 gold. Once the Beacon is built you have to light it, which costs another crapload of Mana. The Beacon itself will reduce moral for everyone else in the game by 200. In the RMG you can set the number of Beacons (which means, the number of races you have to get to Champion level of Race Governance) necessary to win the game. This is something like a World Wonder VC.
Quote:
As such, it plays out more like Heroes. And here comes another problem: I don't really enjoy battles that much in AOW3 - I think trivial battles have a tendency to draw out overly long, and large-scale battles become somewhat confusing because of the large battlefields. Another thing is I don't really find Hero developments as exciting as I do in Heroes - or did with the old Heroes games. There's the randomness of skills question, and I miss some sort of larger objective to work towards with my skill choice. The spells, while some are good or even excellent, seems to play a rather minor role in combat, and also doesn't seem to add the excitement that they can do in Heroes (perhaps again lack of randomness plays in here).
Anyway, I'll still put some more game time into it, also to explore game outside campaign, which I suspect I'll find more fun.
You will have to decide for each hero which way to build them - it's actually rather engaging.
1) You can make a hero a leader of the other 5 units in their stack. For this, there are abilities like Defense Command or Holy Weapons that give units in the stack better stats (like in Heroes).
2) You can make the heroes themselves better (as in H4, Combat). This includes Disabling skills (like Entangling), Auras (like Frost Aura) and mixed abilities like Inflict Despair which make the enemy more vulnerable for your troops; there is also support stuff like Dispel, Cure Disease and movement abilities.
3) Spell Caster; this is VERY important, basically for the following reasons: your MAIN hero (the one you picked at game start) is basically your empire, and you unlock his casting capacity by researching his Class casting points technology; you can also increase HIS CPS with Town buildings. Your main can cast in every battle, even if he's not in, but spells cost double Mana. The problem with that is, that usually your CPs are used for STRATEGIC spells and SUMMONING, so combat spells with your main are often not good, because they delay the completeing of these spells. the other Heroes, however, can pick skills that increase their PERSONAL casting points; also, they do not profit from empire research, but have to ability-pick their spells as well. This is obviously quite useful, because spells can tip battles (or START them which is pretty good when a shooter-heavy AI opponent decides to wait). Being able to kill a dangerous enemy (like phasing spiders) with damage spells from afar is quite useful in some situations. Spells like Berserk, Stiffen Limbs and so on can simply make what seems like a tight battle a cake walk.
You have to realize that AoW battles are much more tacticalthan the HoMM battles, because position and distance play a big role, and because the fighters have so many (situational) abilities. Fights are never simple, because units and heroes gain experience depending on what they are doing and is done to them, and upgrading heroes AND units is of prime importance. A mouseover on the medal of each unit (the little circle in the middle above the unit stats) shows you the upgrade path of them. All units gain attack and HPs on each level and an ability on the 4th, the better units will get more abilities. For example, Elven Storm Sisters will get Inflict Stun on gold medal which is an awesome ability.
@ Galaad
Sounds like you are getting the hang to it, because you develop heroes for a purpose.
Also, you seem to have fun with the game which is nice.
@ Stevie
Be very careful when picking another Class; Necro is OP, so expect more difficulties when playing something else.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2016 08:54 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 09:13, 12 Feb 2016.
|
JollyJoker said:
@ Stevie
Be very careful when picking another Class; Necro is OP, so expect more difficulties when playing something else.
I played Rogue before and it was okay-ish. I had hoped they had a cool T4 creature but that wasn't the case. One class I decided on never playing is the Theocrat, it's for sure my least favorite of them all. But then there's many others... I'm not quite sure what to play next. Maybe Warlord or Sorcerer.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2016 09:30 AM |
|
|
|
Shadow Stalker is considered T3.5. Good suited to Rogue strategies. Can be pretty devastating.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2016 12:19 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 12:20, 12 Feb 2016.
|
Well okay, I guess I'll take the Rogue for a spin. I kinda dislike that he has to recruit every unit in his cities, the hybrid Necromancer was way more on my liking in that regard, being able to also summon creatures. But anyway, I'll have to make a leader first. I'll tell you how it goes.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2016 12:54 PM |
|
|
You can summon the Grimbeak Crows (best scout in the game). You may also want to try a spec that allows summoning of creatures ...
You also have no less than 2 units that will convert units for you, the Bard and the Succubus.
In any case, Rogue is a lot of fun, and you will have a lot of options.
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted February 12, 2016 03:39 PM |
|
|
alcibiades said:
I don't really enjoy battles that much in AOW3 - I think trivial battles have a tendency to draw out overly long, and large-scale battles become somewhat confusing because of the large battlefields.
i actually agree with this sentiment; and think it could probably mostly be solved by adding a button that locks the camera in a fixed, top-down perspective. i also feel like the action point system is a bit superfluous.
tactical turn-based combat is my preferred method of resolving conflicts, but i like the adventure / strategy / research / & diplomacy aspects of these games more than the "exterminate phase".
____________
yogi - class: monk | status: healthy
"Lol we are HC'ers.. The same tribe.. Guy!" ~Ghost
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted February 12, 2016 03:49 PM |
|
Edited by yogi at 15:53, 12 Feb 2016.
|
Galaad said:
I only wish I'd be playing a new Heroes title instead, speaking of which there is a couple of features that IMO could have fit well there, such as cosmic events, strategic spells on the adventure map, or terrain influencing on morale, at the top of my mind.
One thing I really miss is townscreens though.
we get cosmic events with "week of ..."; but i agree about strategic spells, i have been pushing for more adventure map spells in the heroes games for a long time.
i also miss town screens, but my favorite were actually the town windows from early h6.  
____________
yogi - class: monk | status: healthy
"Lol we are HC'ers.. The same tribe.. Guy!" ~Ghost
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted February 12, 2016 03:56 PM |
|
|
yogi said:
alcibiades said:
I don't really enjoy battles that much in AOW3 - I think trivial battles have a tendency to draw out overly long, and large-scale battles become somewhat confusing because of the large battlefields.
i actually agree with this sentiment; and think it could probably mostly be solved by adding a button that locks the camera in a fixed, top-down perspective. i also feel like the action point system is a bit superfluous.
tactical turn-based combat is my preferred method of resolving conflicts, but i like the adventure / strategy / research / & diplomacy aspects of these games more than the "exterminate phase".
Too bad the game seems very combat-focused.
JollyJoker said:
You have to realize that AoW battles are much more tacticalthan the HoMM battles, because position and distance play a big role, and because the fighters have so many (situational) abilities. Fights are never simple, because units and heroes gain experience depending on what they are doing and is done to them, and upgrading heroes AND units is of prime importance. A mouseover on the medal of each unit (the little circle in the middle above the unit stats) shows you the upgrade path of them. All units gain attack and HPs on each level and an ability on the 4th, the better units will get more abilities. For example, Elven Storm Sisters will get Inflict Stun on gold medal which is an awesome ability.
This. All the positioning and distance seems to offer a rich battle system, and looks like the APs system serves it just well.
And units XP system is better than in wog for that matter, as units have to actually take an active part in the battle to gain XP, and not just be present when it happens.
yogi said:
we get cosmic events with "week of ..."
Well yeah, but AoW3 pushed the concept one step further IMO
____________
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted February 12, 2016 04:50 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 16:56, 12 Feb 2016.
|
@JollyJoker
Good points about the game and nice explanations! I feel the same about this games mechanics. They are well designed.
Well in my opinion:
- Heroes are balanced very well. At start they can support your army with just the right amount of firepower, buffs or use abilities like taming (Druid) to boost your army building. Sure they can have really strong stats later, but they're never overpowered (well maybe late game, but that's rather obvious). OP spell? It costs so much that you can only use one plus it can be disjuncted. The rpg aspect is enjoyable, although its downside is that it's not that veried. I usually go for similiar builds simply because I like them Also, I think AoWIII has one of the few hero customization tools that I throughoutfully enjoy. For instance, I created a female Necro Tigran hero that looks like Mirri the Cursed from MtG (PS: Oh, and Resurgance is a handicap, but it can be turned off...)
- With right positioning the hexagon system can be used to "fish out" single armies from a big group an thus reducing it in strenght, so it has a great strategic value
- The economic aspect of the game is solid. Maybe not diveresed, but not cumbersome/over-complicated at the same time. It does not pull you from the "meat" of the game. I like that very much. And I like the fact that this game is combat focused. I've had my portion of 4X games already
- AoW series was about stratightforward conquest since the beginning. It's worth to point out that DLC expansions added some other victory conditions, but those were described by JJ a few posts before
- Auto-combat works quite well in the game, there are instances in which they give me better results than manual combat. But I usually use this function to only plow through repetitive battles.
- Devs delivered powerful modding tools to the game. I stopped playing at the time those were released, but I suppose they've opened up even more possibilities for the game.
All in all, because the subject of AoWIII superiority over H7 appeared on the H7 boards lately, I can only say the game does so many things better then the Ubi-Limbic one it's ridiciolous. Quite a few months ago I said that this game feels like Heroes series should have been, and I'm holding to that opinion even stronger now. It's better in every possible departament, dev feedback and optimazation included... it's a bit sad they've already stopped developing it at the content level, one more expansion would not hurt imo...
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
