1781

Ugh. I just never really got into campaigns in games like this. I guess I never really even got into playing scenarios in games like Civilization either. For me games like CiV, AoW3, MOO II, MoM, etc. are all digital board games, and I like to set everyone up the approximate same and start from there. For some reason playing scripted missions with time limits, story elements, or starting from scratch against an entrenched enemy never really appealed to me. There are some exceptions (I enjoyed the first 1 or 2 missions for each faction campaign in HoMM VI as a great way to get familiar with all the factions) but by and large, I can’t really offer any specific strategy for the campaigns.

For those playing campaigns, I’d love a counter point to my own stance - why do you play campaigns? What’s the appeal of them, for you?

1782

A scenario can force you out of a rut, if you happened to fall into one. A well-designed scenario can highlight good strategies. Having said that, I stopped on the second scenario of the Elven campaign. But I plan to return to it. Someday.

1783

Hand designed maps are also cool, and there can been cool hidden goodies. Like on Elven Campaign 4 Torchbearer path, if you fully explore the cave systems, you’ll find an exit to an enclosed area with Heart of Winter. And in another direction, you’ll encounter an abandoned ancient dwarven city occupied by a full dragon stack with lots of loot, and insane production sites that make an awesome city once resettled. There’s an intended flow to scenario maps that’s simply different from a random map.

Apparently the last map in the Eternal Lords campaign has an isolated bunch of units that has no access to cities that are bascially are dungeon delving their way to meet up with the rest of your forces, so that’s something I’m looking forward to playing when I pick that expansion up.

1784

Where is this first dwarven city? The first 3 I can find in a ring around some lava.

1785

It’s a habit that I’ve been working to break myself of.

Mainly it’s down to the sense of completion or finality that comes with a campaign. You can check it off and say that you’ve overcome challenges X, Y, and Z that the designers laid out for you, and have “beaten the game.” It’s a set, canonical experience, that carries an implicit assumption that it is the “main” single-player mode, whereas one-offs or random maps feel like an extra and have no real endpoint. As a secondary consideration, it’s nice to have some additional context or story to why you’re doing what you’re doing, and sometimes pre-designed scenarios can put you in some interesting strategic situations that force novel decisions that would be unlikely to arise naturally from an equal starting point.

I’ve been trying to get away from that mindset as I’ve gotten older, though. I can recognize that most of the mechanics in these games work better in a symmetrical, self-contained map than with the weird compromises and warping that they have to do to shoehorn in story and persistence. But there’s something about the way I approach games that means I have a really hard time with freeform “make your own fun” sorts of experiences, and want to have concrete objectives. I’m not happy about that particular quirk of psychology, and wish that I were better able to turn it off.

I’ve also gotten into roguelikes, and have no problem getting that sense of completion from finishing them even though the challenges are randomized and individual rather than fixed. But there, completing a random run through is “the game”. I think if a strategy game presented its campaign or default play mode as a list of objectives to complete in random map games (win on a random map with map setting X, win with each class, etc.) that would suit me just fine.

And I may be misremembering, but I feel like there was an era before the rise of heavy scripting, where strategy campaigns were mostly a series of scenarios where you had a designed map and maybe some slightly different starting conditions, but for the most part they just plunked you down and had you play the game by its normal rules. That approach is fine too.

1786

I have typically enjoyed campaigns in strategy games because of the different conditions hand crafting can provide. There are some exceptions. I don’t like starting off with more than a very basic starting position, except if it’s the same setup I just built up to in the prior scenario. Also, I never enjoyed Civilization scenarios. I think it’s because they always seem to start you off with multiple cities already. I also did not like the AoW 3 elven campaign. I think I won the first 2 and quit. They were way too much of a slog. I think that may have been addressed, or will be addressed in the next patch, so maybe I’ll revisit them.

1787

I’m also with Thraeg where I have a hard time enjoying a game where I’m expected to come up with my own success conditions. For some reason I like the game to provide the goal, then I try to accomplish it.

1788

Isn’t that the same for random maps, though? Your goal is to win through X, Y, or Z victory conditions, now go try to accomplish it.

1789

I was also thinking one could consider the Empire Quests to be “goals” as well, like mini-win conditions.

1790

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t linking the two together - random maps and player created goals, even though it sounded like I was. I was just agreeing with that statement in general. It’s why I’ve never gotten into games like EU as much as I probably should, and I’ve liked the series more with each version because they have defined more goals for the player.

1791

Does anyone find there there is just too much combat in AoW3? It’s not that it isn’t well done, it is. One you get a full 5 heroes (do you keep the default setting of 5?), you start exploring a lot of structures each turn. Combine that with altercations with other players and there is a lot of fighting. It starts to get fatiguing!

How many of you auto resolve battles at times? How frequently? I hate giving up control, but do auto resolve occasionally if I have a severe advantage or I know I’m going to get utterly creamed.

1792

Some of the scenarios in AOW3 are pretty neat. I like how they add some scripted things to the game while still being more-or-less symmetrical.

The campaigns I don’t care for, but I have an easy time not caring about that at all given I’m an RMG guy anyway and the one here is excellent.

I do still (always and forever) wish the strategic AI was more competitive. Emperor is a decent challenge with a real risk of defeat, which is generally all I ask of strategy game AIs, but the way it screws up empire quests is unfortunate. You have things like Sage being achieved on turn 13…that and Paragon are hilariously unattainable given the absurd economic boosts Emperor AIs get.

Then again, Monoculture and Heptatopia are really the only two worth getting fussed about. A stack of T3s is awesome, and +100 permanent empire happiness is amazing.

1793

Isn’t that a ring of water with bridges and the cities inside? Past the mountains? Yeah, those are the ones. I guess you’re fighting to try and take them, and only have goblin stuff available?

1794

I long ago went down to 3 heroes, though I will do 4 on a Large map, because the AI abuses the shit out of them and it gets to be a bit much managing so many of them. I also like the focus shifting slightly more to the regular units, too.

I generally auto-resolve most regular neutral battles (non-dungeon stuff) after my heroes are level 3 or 4 and I have a solid army to back them up, often with medals. I definitely don’t fight every fight, because yeah that would get a little fatiguing. Also the AI can ONLY auto-resolve battles, and it can’t load the game if things go sideways, so I tend to auto-resolve more often than I probably should and I try to never save scum.

1795

I really enjoy the minigame of trying to clear battles most efficiently both in terms of HP lost and experience distributed where I want it.

Best battle I ever fought though was awesome. AI rolled up on a seal of mine, defended by 18 units – something like three T3s, two heroes, six T2s, and seven T1s. All leveled decently, though, and a bunch with the unique building promotions. Problem was that the AI had something like four Shrines (T4), six or so Exalted (T3), a couple Trebuchets (T3), a half-dozen Crusaders (T2), a couple heroes, and a handful of wimpy T1s.

Outnumbered 24-18 and with a clear disadvantage of not having a single T4 to my name, I managed to pull off a sweet victory losing about half my units. Concentration of force – his dudes were strung out in a big arc while mine were concentrated, thanks to how battle positions are seeded – makes a hell of a difference. Your dudes don’t count while they’re so far across the map they can’t shoot me!

1796

I get combat fatigue for sure. I auto-resolve a lot of battles, especially since there’s that “hero resurgence on auto-combat” thing. I tend to play out the early battles and the difficult ones, but other that I AR as often as possible.

1797

Maybe I need to force myself to give up control and make more use of auto resolve. Boy it sure is tough to play games when you have weird personality quirks that prevent you from having as much fun as you could!

1798

I find that playing on smaller maps tends to obviate this- significant battles carry more weight, and are therefore more engaging. Just my 2c.

1799

Do the number of figures in a unit have any bearing on it’s strength? IE: Does a unit with 4 figures at full health do the same damage as a unit with just 1 figure showing? If not, then how does this work for single, large units?

1800

None whatsoever. You can even turn off the graphical change of damage removing figures in the options, if you prefer. I like leaving it on, it helps me see how wounded a group of units is at a glance.