I posted this on Steam, too, but perhaps this is a more proper venue:
Needless to say AoW III is one of my favorite games of all time; the entire paper industry of China would run out of paper if I were to list all of its positives! However, this thread is about its negatives. So please understand this thread in its context; I am not bashing AoW III or the devs!
So here is my list of three negatives; please come up with your list of three as well - in case there is an AoW IV - for the devs to consider:
1. Small stack size (6 units, to be exact):
AoW III's stack size limit of 6 units represents a reduction from prior AoW games, where the limit was 8. 8 was already a bit small to give you a feel of proper army, and the further reduction to 6 felt almost incomprehensible. It was also arguably the most disliked change from AoW II: SM to AoW III among the general player-base.
Now, the only lucid argument I can find for it was that it would grow the MP player-base, by making games shorter. Of course, the problem is that complex, turn-based 4x games are by nature meant to appeal to SP players, and it appears that the vast majority of AoW III remain SP players who prefer long, leisurely games, if we go from a multitude of polls undertaken on the subject. So the MP encouragement experiment was a failure.
In the least, could the devs next consider an option to change stack size via checkable game settings - or at least make this element amenable to modding?
2. Units not losing offensive strength as they lose models:
Immersion is an important element in games of this nature, and it is obviously unrealistic if a unit with 1 figure remaining is as strong as a unit with 12 figures remaining. Fortunately, the rest of the industry has grasped this problem, and most games similar to AoW III have implemented a combat system where units lose offensive strength as they are damaged (Endless Legend, which is arguably the closest competitor to AoW III, is a sterling example). Yet, AoW III still retains this anachronistic, un-immersive combat system where the number of the figures are purely "cosmetic." Why on earth?
One response I recall given by a former dev was for "balance." More specifically, AoW has so many one-figure units (e.g. heroes and powerful monsters such as dragons or giants) that the balance would badly tilt against the multi-figure units. But this argument has an easy refutation: You can program single-figure units to lose offensive strength as they take damage, too. For instance, Eador is a good example of a game that implements a system where one-figure units have their strength reduced on the basis of how much HP is left.
Once again, can this type of a system be at least an option or amenable to modding?
3. Too few races:
Yes, I was spoiled by AoW II: SM, and its amazing racial variety. Now I understand that the class system in fact multiplied the combination of playable factions relative to AoW II: SM. Still, it's not the same thing. While I did not miss some races - e.g. the Nomads - I would love to have seen the (living) Archons and Syrons in particular.
The reason I assume these races were not included was that AoW III development stopped after 2 expansions (though I am not sure if the devs initially planned more). Here I cannot object too vigorously, because I do not know the motives of the devs in discontinuing the development of the game. In particular, they are absolutely within their discretion to pull the plug if the financial equation did not come out in their favor. Still, AoW III ultimately left a void in my experience, because it lacked the two very races - the aforementioned Archons and Syrons - who were my two go-to races in AoW II: SM.
Needless to say AoW III is one of my favorite games of all time; the entire paper industry of China would run out of paper if I were to list all of its positives! However, this thread is about its negatives. So please understand this thread in its context; I am not bashing AoW III or the devs!
So here is my list of three negatives; please come up with your list of three as well - in case there is an AoW IV - for the devs to consider:
1. Small stack size (6 units, to be exact):
AoW III's stack size limit of 6 units represents a reduction from prior AoW games, where the limit was 8. 8 was already a bit small to give you a feel of proper army, and the further reduction to 6 felt almost incomprehensible. It was also arguably the most disliked change from AoW II: SM to AoW III among the general player-base.
Now, the only lucid argument I can find for it was that it would grow the MP player-base, by making games shorter. Of course, the problem is that complex, turn-based 4x games are by nature meant to appeal to SP players, and it appears that the vast majority of AoW III remain SP players who prefer long, leisurely games, if we go from a multitude of polls undertaken on the subject. So the MP encouragement experiment was a failure.
In the least, could the devs next consider an option to change stack size via checkable game settings - or at least make this element amenable to modding?
2. Units not losing offensive strength as they lose models:
Immersion is an important element in games of this nature, and it is obviously unrealistic if a unit with 1 figure remaining is as strong as a unit with 12 figures remaining. Fortunately, the rest of the industry has grasped this problem, and most games similar to AoW III have implemented a combat system where units lose offensive strength as they are damaged (Endless Legend, which is arguably the closest competitor to AoW III, is a sterling example). Yet, AoW III still retains this anachronistic, un-immersive combat system where the number of the figures are purely "cosmetic." Why on earth?
One response I recall given by a former dev was for "balance." More specifically, AoW has so many one-figure units (e.g. heroes and powerful monsters such as dragons or giants) that the balance would badly tilt against the multi-figure units. But this argument has an easy refutation: You can program single-figure units to lose offensive strength as they take damage, too. For instance, Eador is a good example of a game that implements a system where one-figure units have their strength reduced on the basis of how much HP is left.
Once again, can this type of a system be at least an option or amenable to modding?
3. Too few races:
Yes, I was spoiled by AoW II: SM, and its amazing racial variety. Now I understand that the class system in fact multiplied the combination of playable factions relative to AoW II: SM. Still, it's not the same thing. While I did not miss some races - e.g. the Nomads - I would love to have seen the (living) Archons and Syrons in particular.
The reason I assume these races were not included was that AoW III development stopped after 2 expansions (though I am not sure if the devs initially planned more). Here I cannot object too vigorously, because I do not know the motives of the devs in discontinuing the development of the game. In particular, they are absolutely within their discretion to pull the plug if the financial equation did not come out in their favor. Still, AoW III ultimately left a void in my experience, because it lacked the two very races - the aforementioned Archons and Syrons - who were my two go-to races in AoW II: SM.
Last edited: