Bellack Bellack

Will Elemental be the TBS Fanatasy game to replave Age of Wonders SM?

▼

Will Elemental be the TBS Fanatasy game to replave Age of Wonders SM?

from Elemental Forums

Well I've been looking for an updated replacment for Age of Wonders SM and so far Elemental sounds like this gould be the one. (I just hope the sea units don't just sit there like a bump on the log.) And I hope it is as moddable as AOWSM was.

elemental
25,380 views 36 replies
Reply #26 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting niteshade6, reply 19

Isn't AOW SM the most recent version of the AoW series? I'm pretty sure it came out after AoW.

Either way they are both gigantic improvements over AoW 1 (which had lots of promise but was a giant disapointment).
End of niteshade6's quote

 

Yup. AoW:SM was pretty much AoW II with two additional races and a new map level. IIRC it was released a year after AoW II.

 

AoW II / SM won out on mechanics, but I much preferred the lore of the original. Although personally I'd take Lords of Magic over either :P

Offworld Trading Company
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Archonsod, reply 26



Quoting niteshade6,
reply 19

Isn't AOW SM the most recent version of the AoW series? I'm pretty sure it came out after AoW.

Either way they are both gigantic improvements over AoW 1 (which had lots of promise but was a giant disapointment).


 

Yup. AoW:SM was pretty much AoW II with two additional races and a new map level. IIRC it was released a year after AoW II.

 

AoW II / SM won out on mechanics, but I much preferred the lore of the original. Although personally I'd take Lords of Magic over either
End of Archonsod's quote

Wow....Lord of Magic, that's a game I haven't thought about in awhile. I remember really wanting to like it, but no matter how many times I tried I still thought the game was awful. I really can't remember why though.

Reply #29 from Elemental Forums Top

I played AOW: SM for last couple of days. Guess what guys? Surprise! I had more joy playing Beta 4 (and still would play it if it was not self-deleted by update). 7 years in gaming is LOOONG time, so, what was considered superb 7 years ago, does not cut anymore...

Reply #30 from Elemental Forums Top

I've played AoW and its sequels since the beginning so I can tell you the differences between them. This post will be too big to cover all three games so I'll settle for AoW here.

 

AoW

 

Good parts

  • High fantasy (as opposed to modern fantasy which f.e. Heroes V is).
  • Story - It's really interesting and holds your interest through and over the campaign.
  • Campaign - In the beginning you choose between the good races & the evil ones. But two times you get to choose one of two races you want to implement into your faction (Keepers or The Cult of Storms). So including every choice and the two factions there are 12 endings. There is also introductions to every single mission and also story after you finished every mission.
  • A.I is customizable with different personlities and difficulties.
  • Mapeditor
  • Warlocks Mod - It added creatures and a whole lot more but most importantly it limited ALL heroes stats to 5. That was a critical change that balanced heroes. I wouldn't play Age of Wonders again without it.
  • Excellent music and fitting sounds

 

http://www.youtube.com/v/sjCccxf0F2U

http://www.youtube.com/v/8FfmNQJ_Xko

http://www.youtube.com/v/xv8jHy1P-Lo

http://www.youtube.com/v/SbwgdajNpU0

http://www.youtube.com/v/3vhfDER9J_E

  • Functioning, detailed graphics (easy to see stuff) though simple animations by todays standards but it supports incredible resolutions!

 

Bad parts

 

  • Tactical combat mechanic is way too hit and miss (10% + chance to hit for every point of attack over enemies defense) and if hit, then dmg roll is 0-units listed damage.
  • Unlimited retaliation makes low lvl melee units worthless nearly from the start!   This is a critical thing which makes high Attack & Defense extremely powerful.
  • A.I is stupid and always does the same thing in combat and can also be heavily exploited. Higher difficulties give it more resources, free XP for heroes so they lvl up faster and the like.
  • Free choice of upgrades when heroes lvl up. This means you can choose the best skills'n'stats every single time since there's no restrictions. Different stats'n'skills cost different amounts of points though which prevents you from getting the really powerful skills immedietly (First strike & Cold strike cost 15 points and Double strike costs 20 or more.)
  • Only the killing blow gives XP which encourages melee powerhouses. Healing, inflicting damage, repairing machines, webbing, entangling or seducing doesn't matter.
  • Diplomacy is broken and opens up for serious abuse. If you are half-competetive you will play with houserules and declare war on A.I at first sight.
  • Can only select individual units in combat. This makes it a complete god damn chore when you got a big battle and you can't select multiple units at once.

 

Neutral parts

 

  • Very simple citybuilding. Cities which only cover 1 tile and only train the 4 first units (1 swordsman, 1 archer, 1 batteringram and a racially unique unit). Cities which cover 2 tiles can train tier 2 units. Cities which cover 3 tiles can train tier 3 units and cities which cover 4 tiles can train the tier 4 unit. All cities can build wood and stone walls. Cities can be upgraded to train higher tier units but a size 2 city can only ever train tier 2 units.
  • Very simple unitproduction. In the cities, you only select units you want to make and the turns it takes to train them depends on their tier. Tier 1 units take 1 turn to train, tier 2 units take 2 turns to train etc.

 

I think I covered everything. Feel free to tell me if I missed anything.

Reply #31 from Stardock Forums Top

Oh this game will definitely beat AOW but MOM I'm not sure of yet. The AI alone will beat the AOW games especially Shadow Magic.

Reply #32 from Elemental Forums Top

This game will definitely beat the AoW:II.

 

It won't beat the first AoW, because it has very different goals. They can both be good without either being better, and they're not really comparable except in things unrelated to either's core goals.

Reply #33 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Cruxador, reply 32
This game will definitely beat the AoW:II.

 

It won't beat the first AoW, because it has very different goals. They can both be good without either being better, and they're not really comparable except in things unrelated to either's core goals.
End of Cruxador's quote

Interesting, what do you view the goals of the first AoW as being? I've always viewed it as just being an incomplete version of the second game.

Reply #34 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting niteshade6, reply 33

Quoting Cruxador, reply 32This game will definitely beat the AoW:II.

 

It won't beat the first AoW, because it has very different goals. They can both be good without either being better, and they're not really comparable except in things unrelated to either's core goals.

Interesting, what do you view the goals of the first AoW as being? I've always viewed it as just being an incomplete version of the second game.
End of niteshade6's quote
It was first and foremost a story game. You played it for the campaign, and everything else was secondary. I guess you could call it incomplete for that reason, but I wouldn't; it's just a different focus. Furthermore, the focus was much more large-scale. You had more cities, and moved in broader strokes, taking perhaps a small handful of towns, ans opposed to the later games' single one early on. You carved your way through existing empires, exploring and stuff. AoW II (and Shadow Magic, which is basically the same) were very different, focussing more on gameplay. It was about taking towns and building units and all that, and the story was more of a framework. It removed a lot of factions and thematic elements that contributed to story but not gameplay, or which were thematically interesting, but boring when played. It also changed your main character from a hero who could cast magic to a mage that was otherwise fairly useless, and best kept in a city all day, which changed the players mindset from "I'm a hero-king conquering anything!" to "I'm a mage, I cast spells and use minions".

Reply #35 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Cruxador, reply 34



Quoting niteshade6,
reply 33

Quoting Cruxador, reply 32This game will definitely beat the AoW:II.

 

It won't beat the first AoW, because it has very different goals. They can both be good without either being better, and they're not really comparable except in things unrelated to either's core goals.

Interesting, what do you view the goals of the first AoW as being? I've always viewed it as just being an incomplete version of the second game.It was first and foremost a story game. You played it for the campaign, and everything else was secondary. I guess you could call it incomplete for that reason, but I wouldn't; it's just a different focus. Furthermore, the focus was much more large-scale. You had more cities, and moved in broader strokes, taking perhaps a small handful of towns, ans opposed to the later games' single one early on. You carved your way through existing empires, exploring and stuff. AoW II (and Shadow Magic, which is basically the same) were very different, focussing more on gameplay. It was about taking towns and building units and all that, and the story was more of a framework. It removed a lot of factions and thematic elements that contributed to story but not gameplay, or which were thematically interesting, but boring when played. It also changed your main character from a hero who could cast magic to a mage that was otherwise fairly useless, and best kept in a city all day, which changed the players mindset from "I'm a hero-king conquering anything!" to "I'm a mage, I cast spells and use minions".

End of Cruxador's quote

Hmm...well I know it billed as fun strategy game rather then as a story game. But I don't really remember the story or the campaign at all, I just remember the gameplay, balance and AI were pretty awful in AoW I. But your saying it was kind of more of an interactive book then a strategy game?