I think Derek and Brad thought "Lets make an interesting 4x TBS game in a fantasy world and give players as many choices/way as possible. So they can play the game they want. Let them play their own story" And guess what? In my opinion they achieved this goal.

No it isn´t! If it is boring to you, then it is so. Just a matter of taste like so many things.

There is similarity in the visuals Xia, you have to agree, and there is not much midgame difference between faction from Empire or Kingdoms. Once you get over initial distribution by acquiring champiosn covering mosts of the schools. 

When you go to the tacticals or even from the strategic view, without zooming in or hovering over the unit, you wouldn't know if you face Ythril or Resoln (unless of course you wouldn't see spiders or Juggernaugts in the stack)...

StormWorld pushes this a lot with it's new factions, you see the wings, or hooves and you know you face angels or centaurs, for all that funny look, lots of flickering whites also mean undead and this is pretty cool. You don't have this in vanilla...

I was thinking, that units are a little too small on the strategic map, you need to zoom out quite far to have a decent view, but by then the figures are almosts undistinguishable from each other. When you play Warlock or Civ you always know what you face, so maybe here is this little trick

HF, if you read this, how difficult it would be to increase the scale of each and every unit by 20-50% - is it doable with a single switch or one would have to go through all the different models.

as for the magic schools diversity, once we'll get the Goetia up and running to flesh out summoning along with what Sean devised (around healers and other magic classes) it would be so much better than vanilla, that I would hint Stardock at buying out that content and ship it as vanilla...

Visual similarity isn't something strategy players really care about. Sure, it's nice... but the play style is often considered much more important. If you seriously think they play the same, I don't think you've actually played the game much. Altar raising henchmens vs Yithril pumping Jugs... Pariden full of scrying pools & monoliths vs Resoln's shard beasts... Magnar capturing slaves and sacrificing them... Tarth running roughshod all over the map. I'm not sure how you could say the experience is the same unless you play the same faction all the time.

Your example is quite terrible, btw. If you can't tell between Yithril and Resoln, you need help. Yithril doesn't have any range units, Resoln doesn't have armor.

As for the mods, yes, they are pretty cool, but do you HONESTLY expect them to just throw in everything under the sun and toss out the entire lore that they've built (but you obviously don't care about)? Besides, balancing and making them all unique is a nightmare. Just ask Heavenfall.

Basically, your argument comes down to, the game doesn't look cool enough. Your "interesting" is just cool looking units. No offense, but cool looking units doesn't keep people playing a strategy game. It's only good for that first impression. Think about it for a moment, if your argument is true, then the latest HMoM games, with all the cool looking graphics would obviously be the best games in the series right? Now ask any true HMoM fan which was their favorite game (hint, it's not the latest one with the flashiest graphics).

That's because it wasn't a reply to you.

It's a major factor between immersive factions and non-immersive factions.

I have, all empires are nearly identical to one another, all kingdoms are nearly identical to one another, the differences are minor at best. At least in Total War similar kingdoms have different starting locations. Sure a single unit difference may exist late into the game, but that they're still practically identical.

You haven't even begun to comprehend my arguments if you think that's what I'm arguing. It's not about how "Cool" it is, it's about how immersive it is. All you care about are the mechanics of play, this game is shallow, it's devoid of style and substance, mechanics are pretty much all it has and the worst thing about it is all the mechanics are there for an epic game and it falls short of it's potential in every way.

Modders helped it realize that potential, and mod after mod was broken by Stardocks patches, they could have at least implimented the features from the modders if they were going to keep breaking mods. Is there even a coherent list of working mods?

Don't give me that BETA Excuse, the game was released as a full game, they charged a retail price, Blizzard didn't get away with that sht and Stardock sure and hell shouldn't now. They could at least listen to modders, think like gamers for a day instead of thinking like coding machines, they've streamlined the game and in many ways dumbed it down since launch but they've also broken a lot of mods and hamstringed modders. Why shouldn't I nerdrage at their fail?

I don't know what planet you live on if you think that Stardock isn't made up of gamers.  I would think Brad & Derek in particular would take exception to that.

I didn't cite the Beta as an excuse.  FE was a complete reworking of EWOM and was in Beta for 2 years.  It was clearly stated as such.  Brad and Derek both said that it would not fully support Mods until final release, which was Oct 23rd.

If you think FE is a dumbed down version of EWOM, then I have to respectfully disagree.

You think FE is a dumbed down version of WOM?  Or that it's a dumbed down version of itself?

The latter isn't possible since it released as 1.0 and we're still on 1.0.  It's the same game it has been since release.  

And the former is just stupid.  Some people might respectfully disagree, but I disrespectfully disagree.  WOM may have had more systems in play (and I would argue that's not true either) but it certainly wasn't as deep a game.  Not even close.  Cities, heroes, tactical combat, monsters and quests, all have more depth in FE than in WOM.  

FE is a solid game. There is nothing drastically wrong with it. But I do think there is a crap ton that can be improved. The vanilla from my perspective has alot of features that were implemented with a half measure to provide ease of use for light users. Adding more depth complicates the game, but it also makes it more appealing to the hardcore users like myself. Factions are different, but not different enough. Tech trees are too interdependent and are 95% the same for all 8 factions. It needs modding to make it appeal over the long term.

Personally, I hope the devs see that modders can use the relative tabula rasa the vanilla game presents to add depth. I hope they focus on perfecting the AI and fixing the instability issues over anything else. Those are the two major problems that modding can't fix.

Yes, my previous comment was for Sentinemodo and not for OP. I respectfully disagree with OP - I like the game alot. Played vanilla a ton throughout beta, Stormworld a fair amount, and recently Master's Affliction. Hakuna Matata. With that said, can't please everyone all the time.  

Read my post again if you're not trolling I highlighted differences and explained why.

The forums have been brimming with suggestions since that broken buggy lie they sold as the strategy game of the decade was sold to gullible customers like me who trusted Stardock to do the right thing.

Well WoM had several overhauls and megamods trying to polish this turd into a playable game and Stardock not only broke them they made a lot of the meaningful changes in them impossible. They literally hard coded in stuff that prevented modders from modding things they were screaming to mod.

Because Mechanics is practically all there is to it.

I understand all some people care about is how the combat works fighting units against eachother like pokemon on a grid but even then, sure SOME races have slightly different late game unit selections but that's all there is, there are no real note worthy differences besides "Vanilla B can build Juggernauts".

I laughed when I saw the 'atheistic of play' link. Over focus on aesthetics creates poor games, I like games that are mechanic heavy. I love dwarf fortress because its a game OF mechanics. I 'play' Engineering IRL because its also a game of mechanics (it's not very fun though).

Anyway the races in this work very well. I was impressed with the way each race had its own unique play style. Whether or not the game has less depth than WoM I cannot say since FE is the first of the two I've played. But it definitely SEEMS like FE is the 'simpler' game. Removing boats and the death and birth system thing (Dynasty?) I've seen complaints about, but FE looks to have improved in all the other areas.

You should take your own advice. Watch that link again. Read what you found "wasn't boring" (spoiler: "immersive" gameplay) and re-access what you consider to be your type of game. Stick to HOMM if that's what you prefer, just because the two games look similar on face value doesn't mean they have to play the same. Compare Ace of Spades to Minecraft. This might just not be your cup of tea (or coffee (or green tea ( or chocolate milk ( or water ( or juice))))).

Shame immersion is mostly a matter of opinion rather than a universal truth.