While many folks probably like both games, I suspect there are very different sub-markets for both titles.
Yeah, one game is a scifi TBS 4X game that if it holds true to prior works, focuses a lot on the tactical combat side of things. Imperator is a realtime grand strategy game that starts in 304 BCE. They sound like two very different experiences to me, moreso than the differences between something like Hearts of Iron and Stellaris. Of course, then there’s the dudes like me that will happily buy both even if they land in the same week. :)
I think it’s common wisdom that you don’t want to drop two titles near each other (for marketing purposes alone, if for no other reason), but Paradox has always seemed to ignore that. I don’t know if that’s due to market data they have in regards to their particular niche, or if it has to due with their long-term development / expansion plans for their games.
I think Paradox marketing needs to shift up a gear.
Also, from what I can see, Imperator is basically modernised CK2, set in Roman times.
It doesn’t solve the dire combat, which is what killed CK2 for me, but then again we have PF to scratch that itch.
I have always felt that CK2 was missing better combat as well. Not sure HOW I would want to see it implemented but I imagine big CK2 fans would find this idea repulsing. :)
As for Planetfall, its sounds like the perfect game. The XCOM like combat sealed the deal.
I think CK should have duels in the style of Pirates!.
IMO, Imperator is far more derived from EU4 DNA than it is in CK2. And the combat is fairly different than either under the hood.
I never played EU4 so I can only compare what I know. Sorry. :(
XCom because of overwatch?
I had a solution:
Dominions 5 style combat.
CK2 already has army groups in your army.
Allow a scripting system, and be done with it.
Dominions 5 combat works surprisingly well for a hands off combat system.
Overwatch, Cover, Flanking, etc. Anything that makes combat more tactical is appreciated.
I have never played Dominions 5 (I read that the AI is poor and its meant more for Multiplayer) but I think something visual like that would be great.
The AI isn’t amazing but it’s a good enough game in singleplayer.
there’s enough gong on to keep your brain burning for a while.
Let’s talk about tactical maps, baby, let’s talk about all the kinetic turrets that may be.
That is some fine quality rendered rubble.
I’m looking forward to this one more than any other game this year.
I like how they’ve considered the layout of the battlefield in terms of what they anticipate players doing, e.g. accuracy bonus for the high ground etc.
You guys have no idea how made I’ma be if they somehow fuck this up.
Super mad?
Hatmaker mad?
4-year-old-that-got-exactly-what-they-demanded-for-breakfast-but-changed-their-mind-after-eating-half-of-it mad?
I would be the 4 year old.
I’m not gonna be mad, just disappointed.
You hear that, Triumph???
Well what exactly do you want?
Not a flippant or rhetorical question.
I want:
bigger battlefields
lower tier units to be relevant longer (the whole game preferably)
meaningful city management
bigger tactical battlefields and fewer incidences of a dominant battlefield (namely, in aow3, alot of the fights were city sieges.)
races that are self contained but secret tech (classes) that are interesting. Secret tech as good spice/side veg, not the whole meal.
Interesting victory conditions and a breexi3r mid and late game.
Pressure from AI opponents and the environment. I don’t mind some cheating either but not stupid levels. Things like bonuses to experience for the AI or bonuses fighting Indies, as opposed to massive resource bonuses that compound over time. I wouldn’t mind a heavy front loaded bonus that actually diminished %wise as the game went on.
So give the AI player 300% starting resources and 100%bonus to resources earned, but from turn 10-20 it is 90% and it goes down.
So they get a good head start and are therefore rush resistant, and have time and space to establish themselves, but aren’t getting super bonuses like in Aow3.
Just some things I want.
You?
I don’t want to talk about what I want, because that path leads to disappointment. I only hope what they present to me is something I can click with and enjoy for as many hours or more as I got out of AoW3. So far they are on the right path, but some of the UI elements and special FX aren’t really doing it for me, either, so verdict is going to remain out until it’s done and I can see some folks playing near-final versions.
I’ve enjoyed AOW a lot over the years. If they’ve got some interesting material and a lot of the same with some improvements and kept the MP strong, I’m there. I am not a fan of the theme at all, so we’ll see.
Fun, I’ll play!
First and foremost, don’t fuck up what made AoW3 so special. Perfectly paced tactical battles, a richly interactive map full of foozles to bamboozle, and a light-but-not-inconsequential empire-building layer that isn’t about spinning plates a la Civ but ensuring economic growth and also the building of bigger and badder murder machines. I want more Age of Wonders out of this, not some lame attempt to make it more like some other, lesser game.
So, that out of the way, what new things do I want?
Easier ways to pierce the fog and more accurately assess the strategic situation. Scouting in AoW3 is both incredibly important and kinda boring and tedious. I’ve always wanted some more passive threat assessment in games like this, where you have some concept of “dude is marshaling big armies up over there, might want to plan for that” without having to suicide cheap T1s doing flybys beyond watchtower range. But that’s pretty pie-in-the-sky and the workaround of disposable scouts works well enough, so I don’t actually expect it to be addressed.
More badass strategy-layer spells. Very few make much of an impact in AoW3, especially given their mana and casting cost that could be spent on something more consequential like unit summoning, terraforming, combat spells, and units/buildings in cities. I want a reason to pull down meteors from orbit, crack tectonic plates, boil oceans, airdrop invasive bioplagues, and all that ridiculous sci-fi stuff. “Machine units get 15% physical resist and +1 shock melee strength” is not the jam.
Fewer sieges, like you said. Midgame quickly becomes one 18v24 siege after another, and they are the worst kinds of battles. One or two as capstones to a map, sure, but not the endless slog please.
Maybe diplomacy that doesn’t suck? I’m fine with playing locked teams, but if there were something there I wouldn’t mind.
Damage calculations that are something other than a twisted paean to the Chaos Gods, maybe? Fucked if I have any idea how damage channels and strengths and defenses and resistances relate to how much damage an attack does after idk 800+ hours with the game.
Better hero leveling, for sure. What a turd of a system that is. Or at least a UI that supports it. I do really like the commander <> warrior <> mage choices you have to make, those have some impact and feel cool.
Better unit cards. Throwing a list of properties in no discernible order onto the screen, each of which must be moused over to understand what the fuck it does (if it does anything, plenty are just descriptors that are referenced by other abilities), does not a very merry Christmas make.
Also more things, but this is getting long, heh.