Looks to be single planet, so yeah, no EoFS successor, sadly.
Question on AoW3 combat. Am I correct that a badly injured unit does just as much damage as a full health one? That is to say the number of models shown is not meaningful. If a unit normally shows 8 little characters and there is only one left, it still shoots and melee attacks with just as much strength as when it started the battle.
Yes to all that.
Yes.
There is an option to stop unit models dying as they take damage, if it’s annoying you.
Thanks guys.
Yeah, coming from Advance Wars, this confused the hell out of me. It’s great to hear Gladius reduces damage output in line with unit health/numbers. I think Endless Legend did this too. It’s not something that bothers me a great deal though.
Happened upon this thread, and was only peripherally aware of this game. Skimming through a couple of videos, it seems a bit like Civilization paired with Heroes of Might and Magic tactical battles (which sounds great to me). Is that a fair summary? And, it’s only $13 including all DLC on Steam right now. Should I ignore my backlog and pull the trigger?
This forum almost universally loves it. If you’re interested in a Civilization-lite strategy game with terrific tactical battles, then most definitely buy this.
They have a new Sci-fi game coming out early next year, if you want to wait for that and head back to your backlog.
If the next game to play in your backlog is of a similar genre, I’d play this game instead.
As others have said, it true that it is like that. I’d just want to add that it is a deliberate design decision by the devs. IIRC they thought that if you get the double whammy of reduced hitpoints and reduced attack on a injured unit is less fun - Less chance of comebacks etc.
I think Gladius has shown that this is not necessarily true, but atleast for me it helped to know that this is not just laziness by the devs, it’s actually by design.
Just be aware that it’s foremost a war game. Almost every tech and building is about making a better army to send against your enemies. There is no cultural/religious/space victory etc. In return you get a really good AI that will actually put up a decent fight.
Also, the DLC’s are a must-have if you decide to pull the trigger.
Great point; I wouldn’t want someone looking for more of a builder to be taken by surprise.
It is the best 4X ever made. I would buy it, yes.
Well, heck ya, that sounds great and just what I’m in the mood for. Thanks guys! (and fuck you backlog).
Agree 100% with this. Probably my favorite strategy game right now, certainly my favorite TBS.
Do you still play it? I keep meaning to - it deserves some time.
Every so often I set a medium 4 player team no diplomacy match up and make a day out of it.
@BiggerBoat I recently restarted playing after a 4 year hiatus (played quite a bit when it came out) and something I ran into that’s bitten me twice is that the default random game settings are “No Founding of New Cities”, however, you can still build Settlers, which are then useless.
To expand on this a bit, the game supports two different random game modes. In one of them, all the cities are preset on the map, and you can’t build any new ones. You can build “Fotresses” to claim resources that aren’t outside of your territory. These fortresses are built by the “Builder” unit.
In the second game mode, it’s more of a classic Civ game, where you can send out settlers and build cities wherever you want.
The default game mode is “No Cities” (which is fine, I kind of prefer it, since I’ve played so many of the other games, this makes the game different and interesting). The problem is, the game still allows you to build settler units. These units are useless and in fact once built, they have a little “can’t found cities as founding cities is disabled”. It would be very nice, if they would show that message when trying to build them, rather than after you’ve spent the time and resources to build them. Better yet, don’t allow the player to build settlers if the game settings make them useless. There’s even a race upgrade option for humans that increases settler production rate, which shows up even if settlers don’t do anything.
I built a new settler unit, only to discover that it was useless. After a bunch more play and having gotten crushed, I started another game about 8 hours later and promptly forgot settlers were useless and built another one.
Anyway, bottom line, don’t build settlers in random games. You can change the settings if you want to allow new cities using “Advanced Options” when creating a game. Also some (all?) of the campaign scenarios allow building new cities.
Settlers can (and should!) rebuild razed cities.
Not just a question of fun, but also a question of over complicating the system compared to previous games, and for not much gain.
If reduced numbers in a unit equalled reduced damage, you’d then need to carefully tweak how many models were in a unit etc.
There’s already a tonne to keep track off in tactical combat so this would have been extra busy work for not much gain.
That was the main reasoning.
Also, units with large numbers of models tend to be lower tier, so such a system would have favoured higher tier units, and seeing as how flanking and action points are almost explicitly designed to make lower tier units more viable, less models = weaker would have gone against that.
Now I personally think it could have been made to work but the entire combat system would have had to be redesigned around it.
Edit: I thought the default was settling on, not off.
Either way, it’s a very simple option to un/choose.
Unity victory is a cultural victory, in a way. Not my favourite victory I have to say.
I’d recommend, once you have a feel for the game, to go for a seals victory. They’re fun.