ESCL

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 75 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Expansion/dlc races poll! #49471

    ESCL
    Member

    “Good”: Halflings, classic AoW favoured underdogs. Hopefully the irregular T1 Pony Riders will once again rule the fields

    Neutral: Frostlings, iconic and for me; beyond doubt. The race is already there, hiding in the frozen wastes, eagerly awaiting a chance to raid again. I’ll keep my fingers crossed for a pro-frostling campagin.

    “Evil”: I hope the Undead returns as a class so time to bring the true evil back to AoW. And no; I’m not talking about Shadow Demons. No, it is time for the Archons to show their true colours – I’ve never bought the whole “Pure Good” act and thoughly believe that they are just as bad as the Undead

    in reply to: Warlord class discussion #48805

    ESCL
    Member

    Now wouldn’t that be a strong statement from TS: building an empire around the fact that men and women are equal is just as powerful as religion, technology or the forces of nature. Although you quite quickly run in to some problems. Making up new and intresting units isn’t that hard – combining it with useful empire skills and spells that suits it is.

    That would also be my only problem with the Warlord – the class claims to include all fantasy archetype warriors (albeit some require certain specialization) but all I see is a Warlord bordering on a Barbarian. Their units all seem quite offensive and so does all the skills I’ve seen so far. Phalanx being the exception. Me, I hope that this doesn’t exclude a possible defensive warrior class (read knight, paladin or whatever you like) in the future.

    in reply to: Regarding…The Dreadnought (Technokrat) class #46082

    ESCL
    Member

    And I am not arguing that point. Steampunk is fantasy, sure. But it is a kind of fantasy I and many other people do not really enjoy. And – would AoW3 be a real steampunk game and not just contain a steampunk class: I wouldn’t even consider buying it. Especially not at release prices without trying it first.

    I will have to disagree with Mr. Clarke as that only applies to fictional or imagened technology. It might as well be magic to me, but as long as it works in our world and is created by humans – then I am extremely confident that someone knows precicely how it works on a scientific level. Which means it’s not magic.

    AoW3 seems great and I do not overly disapprove of the Dreadnaught class until I actually try it out – probably not even then. It is the overall direction which the series is heading that troubles me and I am just voicing my concern.

    By the way, I abhorred the Syrons only slightly more than the Shadow Demons (and my opinions about them is for another night) and I couldn’t be happier that they’re gone. And I do love the series in general – I am just not concered about criticising the minor flaws while also praising it’s strong points. But those are not really a part of this thread.

    in reply to: Question about Draconions #46047

    ESCL
    Member

    De gustibus non est disputandum

    Hard to argue with such a classic statement – especially one so true. One can however argue that no; the new models are neither “better” or “worse” than the old ones but simply different in a way that some people prefer and some don’t. Might seem like a pointless discussion but perhaps, if enough people vocie their concerns with the new ones; it might inspire a like-minded modder or even the devs to create something more similar to the old models to those who wish.

    in reply to: Regarding…The Dreadnought (Technokrat) class #46041

    ESCL
    Member

    I find it funny that some people try to tell me what Fantasy is, and how it should be. In (there come the “bold” words again) MY thought of Fantasy, Steampunk units, robots, drones and whatnot don’t have a place. If everyone else likes them, so be it, I don’t. Plain and simple.

    I am with you to the end Low_K, too much technology in fantasy games ruins the mood for me. My main problem with it being that technological weaponry always spins out of control and out-competes archaic variants. The last games came close to the breaking point but stayed wonderful (to me) because pistols and cannons were to primitive. Hated seeing alomst all late-game towns defended by mostly ballistae and cannons though. In AoW3 the Dreadnaught takes this one step further but hopefully not too far. But what will happen in the future? We all know that a sufficiently good rifle beats the crap out of any axe, bow or armour any day. And there goes yet another game people like me, who actually love axes, bows and armour, can really enjoy. I’m fine with an elf or two running around with a quite ineffective musket until he gets brought down by a dwarven axe but when we have a squad of elves firing sniper rifles at a squad of dwarves with riot shields half a battlefield away – I’ll be disappointed.

    Just as Low_K I am not saying that my way is the right way but I would like some games for people who think “steampunk” is some sort of very weird music. Probably involving hair gel and kettles.

    Would love to play your maps Low, both up-coming for AoW3 and the old ones for SM. Any links for the old ones?

    in reply to: New to the forum/game #46016

    ESCL
    Member

    And that was a very good decision by the Devs. Would the diplomacy bonus for Rouges have any value in a pure multiplayer game?

    in reply to: Question about Draconions #46003

    ESCL
    Member

    A thousand years of evolution can do a lot to a species. Although that big a difference is unlikely unless someone skipped the natural part in natural selcetion and bred them to look that way – which I certainly didn’t hope happened to the poor Draconians. We do however see in all our domesticated animals (and of course in our own species, though that process took a “few” more years) a shortening of the snout for some inexplicable reason. Not sure if it occurs in reptiles though.

    Semi-scientific explaination aside – which is really better suited for a sci-fi games than a fantasy one, I cannot say that I’m impressed by the new model. Definitly won’t ruin the game for me but I would have prefered it otherwise. No real use now however and we’ll see if anyone decides to edit it in the future.

    in reply to: Expansion Class Idea: Psionic #45994

    ESCL
    Member

    As with all class ideas it very hard to tell if they could fit without actually playing the game first. We only know a limited number of things about all the things each class adds to the game after all. Can’t really see as a Psionic class in the AoW universe but if you explain a bit more what you really mean you could possibly convince me.

    Side note(s):
    I have no problem seeing an Archon Rouge, never believed their high and mighty talk and considered them just as bad as Humans in the previous games – maybe even as evil as the Undead. Never trust a bastard claiming to be “Pure Good”… And we’re already going to see Elven Dreadnaughts and Goblin Theocrats so why the hell not.

    The AoW universe already has two “created” types of beastmen – Tigrians and Draconians and they’ve made enitre races of their own. A loose collection of different “Beastmen” would stand out in my opinion. Do you have special type you want? Canine, Ursine, Bovine or Avian to name some of the most popular. That would be dogs, bears, cows and birds if you haven’t spent half your life studying biology…

    in reply to: New to the forum/game #45983

    ESCL
    Member

    Welcome Archillus

    Based on the previous installments in the series and from what I could surmise on the forums, diplomacy in AoW3 is not very complicated. It’s a game focusing on conflict and the only way to win is to crush your enemies or if all remaining players are allied with one another. Trading of gold, mana and items is most likely possible and in previous games trading of structures and spells was also allowed. Not sure if the last ones are still possible since trading of spells between allies could be a bit too powerful in the previous games. I’ve heard some rumours about Rouge-class skills involving diplomacy but I leave that one to the beta testers.

    in reply to: new to the series, got questions. #45978

    ESCL
    Member

    I should add though that battles between more than two players is only possible if they consist of no more than two different teams.

    For example: if two allied players happen to surround an enemy – all three players will be in the battle. If three players who all are either at war or just in a peace treaty with each other, only the player doing the attacking and the player owning the defending stack will be in the battle. Free-for-all battles are not possible unless I’ve been horribly misinformed.

    in reply to: Race – should it have more impact? #44699

    ESCL
    Member

    I disagree with the fact that all T4 weren’t racial in aowsm. So were like titans or shadow lords some weren’t like the elf dragon

    Fair enough, I thought I wrote most but you are correct. Those are still only two among approximately 17 races – five if you count the Nomad Roc, the Dwarven Firstborn and maybe the Undead Reaper. Taking into account that the Firstborn will be back as T3 in AoW3, that the Titan was T3 in AoW1 and that none of the other races are present in AoW3, I’d say that my point still stands. It seems tom me that it would be extremely difficult to incorporate an interesting T4 racial unit into every race without breaking the apparent “racial units are racial” rule in AoW3.

    That being said I agree with HadMatter that some extra racial units might be included in a potential expansion and that we should be happy with what we get.

    in reply to: Race – should it have more impact? #44606

    ESCL
    Member

    Sure, there is quite a bit of homogenization going on – but that was present to quite some extent in the previous installments too. AoW1 had their oddities but I quite clearly remember using the same kind of swordsman, second level cavalry (except my precious Pony Riders) and similar first level ranged units for every race – and for a good reason. TWT and SM even more so.

    They all followed this basic idea:

    Lvl 0 Irregular
    Lvl 1 Swordsman and Ranged
    Lvl 2 Cavalry and Support (+ Extremely homogenized Priest in TWT & SM)
    Lvl 3 3 specials (- 1 in TWT)
    Lvl 4 Special

    Now sure, AoW3 lose if you just compare these statistics. Same basic idea but if I’m not mistaken the new Irregulars seem a bit more irregular than they used to – at least for a few of the races. Used to be four specials – now there is one. But as BLOODYBATTLEBRAIN mentioned – at least one of these usually was a monster unit, many of which are still available from independent dwellings. So the real loss as I see it is two specials – and how many specials do we gain from classes?

    These specials might be quite similar between races if they belong to the class though – which means that in an All-Warlord-Scenario we’ll lose about two specials compared to the old games. Now, I’m not sure how often that is likely to happen but the moment it doesn’t: we’ve suddenly gained a good bunch.

    My conclusion is that I’ll miss some of the choices we had when it came to T3 in previous installments and I will hope that I’ll see the Dwarven Mole Rider again one day but I’ll survive. T4:s never really belonged to the race they were in so I don’t complain about them being class-based now. Although most of us can only wait and see if we get disappointed or not upon release. I’m betting that most of the critics will have to eat their hats.

    in reply to: all the "new" people #32314

    ESCL
    Member

    Thank you

    Can’t say I’m new to the forum but I’ve been silent up until now. I have been around from the days when SM was released and spent more hours than I care to remember playing both that and AoW1. If I ever see a map in any game that I’ve enjoyed as much as First Conflict or Sisters of Fire and Ice, I’ll reinstate my hope for the gaming industry.

    Can’t wait to see where the developers will take us this time and I’m thrilled to be along for the ride.

    in reply to: What incentives are there to have a "good" alignment? #32313

    ESCL
    Member

    Evil is usually the fastest way to get anywhere – but I doubt that good won’t have it’s benefits as well. Keep in mind that the only trailer with corruption clearly in it feautured an evil leader and as thus depicted the benefits of being evil. I suspect that there will be other ways open to good players to earn experience – seems qutie hard utilizing Draconian hatchlings if you have to let all weak enemies go.

    in reply to: DLC vs Add-on #32310

    ESCL
    Member

    The word DLC always leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The idea of charging up to a third of the value of the base game for something that could have just as easily been included from the start sickens me. I hope Triumph never stoops that low.

    Expansion on the other hand is a word I love. Expanding the idea of the base game with well thought-out content that significantly changes the way the game is played is something well worth my money. And easier to incorporate into multiplayer games since in my experience DLC in multiplayer games has to one of three things:

    * Waste of money if only DLC shared by all players can be used
    * Unbalanced if players who pay more get more powerful
    * Quite cool but ultimately useless if it can’t affect balancing

    So I cross my fingers for expansions – hopefully two of them. One with the addition of the Necromancer class – something that seems very probable. This could also possibly coincide with the return of the Archons (in this case the unplayable undead Archon faction in the base game could be comparable with Archons ruled by a Necromancer – I can definitely see that campaign). And a second one with the return of our old friends from previous games, hopefully with a campaign where Frostlings are one of the protagonists

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 75 total)