[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="8" id="3072080"]I play every battle only because I don't like my mana being wasted. I'll probably auto-play once they put in an auto-play with no magic button. So yeah I guess I do need the tactical battles to be a little more interesting.[/quote] I play every battle because auto-play is no fun in these games. I just hate the auto play no matter how bland the tactical battle is
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="6" id="3071956"]I pretty much auto every battle. There really isn't any fun to playing them out, not like there is anything going on other than running to the eney and swinging my weapon or spamming magic. The only thing I can do differently than the computer is protect my weaker units and be more conservative with my mana. I would love for it to go one of either two distinct paths,
When did .77 come out? I still have .75 version
[quote who="asadex" reply="11" id="2886457"] Quoting UmbralAngel, reply 10 Quoting LightofAbraxas, reply 9 Lol. You know, every time I play FfH, it makes me want to play Elemental. But when I play Elemental, all I want to play is FfH. I could elaborate on what this means, but I won't. I do think that it's promising for Elemental, though. I think that it means that there aren't any really good Fantasy T
Look this is not Blizzard who has one of the best Customer support system of any gaming company at lest in my experiance. Stardock is a much smaller company and they are not a Primay GAMING company. Perhaps you should learn a little patients and stop being a drama queeen. They will get to your issue when they get back into work.
[quote who="dragoaskani" reply="44" id="2877293"] Quoting Mercestes, reply 40 I also specifically want to be able to take 3 peasants of similiar design and make them a group, or take 5 peasants of similar design and make them an army. Or take an army and split them up as 5 independent peasants of similiar design. And I don't want this. There now your request is canceled out
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="22" id="2881468"]I'm not saying those of you with Windows XP are bad people. But I'm not saying you aren't either. Yes, 1.19a fixes the AI bug. [/quote] You should make a race for EWOM called XP User and they can be evil :)
I at first did not want to switch over to Win 7 from XP after the debacle known as Vista. But I was very surprise with Win7 infact I perfer it over my XP machine.
[quote who="kenata" reply="22" id="2891544"] Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic has good terrain. It has elevation, it has cover, and it has movement modifiers. Remember though, Age of Wonder: SM is not only the third iteration of the AoW series, but also has an extremely different focus. As someone recently put it, AoW is designed to get you to tactical combat and to make tactical combat as interesting as possible. Fundamentally, AoW is a series of war games, where as Element
I am all for more races. The more the better as far as I'm concerend. The problem with the current game races (Human and Fallen 'Bad guy humans') is that there is no difference between them. Yes in the story there may be but not in the game. Even with sub-races there should be some differences other than just looks.
[quote who="SirKid" reply="11" id="2890974"] Experience should be based on damage dealt with a bonus to the killing blow. [/quote] Agreed. The heros are not the problem. The AI inability to deal with them is.
Well the fact that you have to auto combat other people kinda kills it for me. For me one of the funnest parts of the game is the tactical combat. I probably would not be playing AOW:SM today if it was not for the tactical combat. I do love the other parts of the game mind you but this is the one element that I can't play without. I never use auto combat even if I'm just moping up. I have tried PBEM in the past and it was not for me. I like to have access to all parts of the game and
[quote who="joasoze" reply="17" id="2890739"]Just copy Kings Bounty please [/quote] Umm no. Kings bounty is fun but AOW:SM tactical combat is better. Kings Bounty tactical combat while fun is more like a game of chess with the pieces having abilities bit still on a chess like board.
Also if a creature is made of fire or water etc. then they should be immune to that element. AOW:SM had abilities (a lot of them) that you could add to units. So a Fire Elemental would have Immunity to fire hence a fire spell would do no damage to them. In AOW:SM you could also give abilities that had protection from a attack form which means your more resisteant but can still take damage. It is little things like that that can enhance the combat expereance.
[quote who="Black-Knight" reply="3" id="2885753"] Quoting Satrhan, reply 1 quoting postImportant gameplay concept: In age of wonders when they realized that flying units could be too easily used to rush, they made a rule that those units can conquer a city but not control it once conquered. I believe that should be the role of armies: A hero may win a battle alone but if he conquers a city then he cannot prevent its population to rebel unless he has enough tr
[quote who="kenata" reply="20" id="2885408"]While I agree that the 2 move points in EWoM is a bit too slow for my tastes, I think your other points about AoW:SM are less than on point. To this day, I feel like AoW:SM is the weakest of the AoW series. Honestly, the random spell thing was super annoying, and while you may have a point that it forced you to tailor your strategy, it was also possible to find yourself severely outmatched simply because of luck. Comparing Elemental and AoW:SM seems
[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="6" id="2885223"]I just can't get past the bad graphics in AOW. What am I missing? [/quote] AOW had good graphics for its time. AOW:SM has much better graphic and IMO better that Elemental. At least for me AOW:SM looks better. I agree with the OP points about AOW:SM vs. EWOM. In fact I would like to add the following: AOW:SM is better than EWOM in: AI is better Tactical Combat is a lot more fun (more abilities/pow
[quote who="Tim-Bur" reply="60" id="2873481"]I have really mixed feelings about this expansion pack. It sounds like it will have lots of great stuff, and I really appreciate the thoughtful realism in Derek's post above. However, I'm a little confused and disappointed by the fact that this will be a separate product. I feel that the stuff which is planned for the expansion is all stuff which ought to have been in the original game. A living world? Heck yeah! But why is it coming in
[quote who="Alstein" reply="13" id="2872933"] I was thinking the same thing about those dungeons myself. I knew it wouldn't work in MP period, and I knew I wouldn't like it personally in SP- so glad it's not in the game. Hoping you guys hit it out of the park with Fallen Enchantress. I really tend to dislike mini-games with my games, so fewer to no mini-games is a good thing. [/quote] Actully Dungeons would work
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="106" id="2890056"] Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 87 ... It's not the huge map, but the gameplay allowing city spam that is the problem!!! You shouldn't be able to have more cities then in games like Heroes of Might and Magic, still the maps should be huuuuuge. I agree with Kadrium about the comparison to HoMM not being too useful, but that's no reason to ignore the fact that we have a serious city spam problem ev
The reason you don't see anyone online to play is that the Multiplayer part of this game is really bad.
[quote quoting="post"]So I'm a couple of days into an epic game with ridiculous ai, and having absolutely massive amounts of fun. Game is stable, runs well, and AI has much stronger economy and army size than I do. I have a crazy tech advantage so I march into battle with my squad of advanced uber soldiers (160 combat rating per squad) and my vastly levelled up champions. Ceresa casts 'wither' on my squad which took 35 turns to build. One shot....dead. W
[quote who="LightofAbraxas" reply="9" id="2886241"] Quoting milanjirkovsky, reply 8 Filter 2 would look nice to most of the Americans, filter 3 to most of the Europeans. Lightning is actually why some studios release two versions of a game - one colorful for America and one more darker for Europe and rest of the world. Thank you for this stereotype. I think we're both too busy to argue about this, what with you not bathing and hungover from t
Well I always in these games play on the largest size maps. I almost never play on anyother size map. In GalCiv2 and CIV 5 I've never played on the small maps. In AOW:SM I usally play on the Xtra Large maps and sometimes on Large anything smaller than that just does not have the epic feel. And yes when I play Multiplayer we always pick the largest map setting with the maximum AI and (if itis in the game GalCiv2 and Elemental) the maximum minor races avaliable. Now I don't get OOM very
[quote who="scratchthepitch" reply="72" id="2864619"] Quoting Tasunke, reply 68 I started with Civ 3, and imho if you like Civ 3 but didn't like the corruption/waste or pollution (and thought veterans should be stronger) then I think you should give Civ IV a shot. Especially with FFH mod. however, yea ... I to am skipping on Civ V for now, I no longer believe a game is worth buying until it is at least a year old.