1881

The removal of the AI’s ability to chase after goodies and quests unfortunately contributes to the game’s feelings of hollowness. I want to feel like the AI is playing the same game I am, plain and simple – this is an element essential to creating the feeling of a “living” world. In Civ you have to race the AI for goodie huts, why should FE be any different if it’s striving to be a true 4x game? At the very least I would like to see a checkbox in the options that allows/disallows the AI from doing so.

Part of the problem is that you never get the chance to kill or capture opposing champions and loot their equipment. If you could, you would have more of a sense that the AI was doing the same stuff you were, because the spoils of the lairs/quests beaten by the AI would be in play and still potentially obtainable. But champions are never truly in jeopardy, they just get progressively hobbled as they lose battles, which undercuts the drama and sense of real consequence. I would prefer a limited fatality system, where there is a significant chance the champion will die if reduce to 0 HP, and that chance decreases at higher levels and/or by way of certain level-up perks. The progressive hobbling is one of many factors that contribute to the feeling of tedium and lack of drama in the game.

1882

" See, we had this totally badass AI, but, uhh, well, I showed it to my girlfriend Christie -she’s, she’s an AI programmer in Canada, that’s why you don’t know her- and she said it was just the raddest AI she had ever seen, but it was TOO tough. That’s why we had to dumb it down and never ever ever release the, uh, really good AI, because you dim-witted half men can’t handle being beaten fairly. We take it out and play it sometimes, but I had to sign like a special non disclosing agreement to not ever release it. Also, Christie and I had sex like eleven times when I went to her house over summer vacation."

1883

Is that what multi-threading means?

1884

If quests were done a bit differently, it wouldn’t be so odd to have them pop up mid-way through; treat it like an ongoing plot and have them act a bit like the random events, but with an element of reactivity.

After researching roads, spawn a bandit camp or three near major centers of trade and spawn a short (2-3 stop) questline about bandits arising to exploit the sudden plethora of caravans. They can be tech-appropriate militarily or even “raid” a city for high level player-researched weapons.

Similarly, if your area has a ton of spider huts (which one very memorable game of mine in beta did), perhaps some time after clearing them out you can spawn some superhornet nests or whatever and say that the spiders had been keeping their population in check.

If a magic resource is lost to the wilderness or war later on in the game, why not consider turning it into an encampment-style quest location if it’s not reclaimed shortly, explaining it away with a bit of fluff text about a local yokel accidentally imbuing himself with some of the magical essence there and declaring himself a magical warlord over the surrounding area.

These are all relatively simple and also not wildly different than the kinds of quests that were in the game during late beta (I haven’t gotten to play release yet due to some life issues ATM), but they’d enable a sort of feeling of interactivity with the world that’s different than just cleaning it of monsters over time. Moreover, if you’re generating quests dynamically like this, you’ve got more available so letting the AI go after them, too, suddenly becomes more viable.

Hell, you might even have to deal with the AI unleashing some otherworldly horror by botching a quest out in the wilderness between your two territories, plunging the world into a mad race against this creature. It’s not terribly different than a random event, but tying it to the quest system makes that system stronger.

In my opinion, at least :)

1885

Took a few false starts as I learned the basics, but I am getting into this now. I haven’t cared about a fantasy TBS since Disciples 2, and now Warlock and Fallen Enchantress in the same year… Nice!

EDIT: And Conquest of Elysium 3!

1886

Either my Asok Knights are too damn expensive or I’ve not researched enough money techs for financial buildings because I keep going in the red…

1887

I think merc units are slightly bugged on wages, they were in the last beta.

It’s an area of the game that also needs a second look-through, it’s not done all that well right now, and it’s really underdeveloped.

My idea: merc units should be buildable in the city they’re associated with , maybe at a very low cost, but have different upkeep requirements: Ogres/Darklings/Wildlings would cost growth, Asok knights/mercs gold, other things might require other costs.

I’d also like to see upgradable lairs.

This game must be good with a ton of potential: for as much as I"m enjoying it, I’m finding dozens of things to complain about because they could be better.

1888

Sorry if this has been mentioned. The new Three Moves Ahead has Troy, Bruce and Tom with Kael on Fallen Enchantress. Worth a listen, especially for those of us still on the fence about the game.

1889

This is a great article about Derek and the development behind FE.

1890

Well, I have to say I am a bit disappointed in this game. In my opinion, the current state of the art in this genre still remains Age of Wonders 2: Shadow Magic. FE and AOW:SM are virtual clones in terms of setting and mechanics, so it is hard not to compare them:

  • AOW:SM city assaults feature walls, gates, towers, moats, defensive buildings, etc. Attackers and defenders can research and produce specialized city assault or defense units (e.g, units with wall breaking powers). FE city assaults are virtually identical to open land fights, but with garrison bots.

  • Flying units in AOW:SM make a difference in both combat and strategic map movement. As far as I can tell, FE flying units just have wings that flap, but make no real difference in-game.

  • In AOW:SM the world map is dynamic. You can raise fire; curse/corrupt the land; cause forests to spring up; enchant those forests… etc. Individual units can leave a scorched or healed trail in their wake. FE map is largely static.

  • AOW:SM has multiples levels on the strategic map: underground, extra-planar, in addition to the surface map. FE just has the flat surface map.

  • AOW:SM has gods and religion that offer quests and play a significant role in the game, depending if you please or anger them. FE has none of this.

…okay… I could probably go on for another 10 points or so, but I think I’ve made my opinion clear. If you like this type of fantasy war/civ/rpg game, do yourself a favor and spend the few dollars on Steam or GOG to pick up AOW:SM. Its an oldie, but a superior product.

1891

I disagree. Yes, there are dragons and wolves, and your sovereign uses magic, and you capture nodes to gain mana, but I find them to be very different mechanically.

1892

I agree with the judgment that AoW SM is superior to FE. But… that’s not surprising, AoW:SM is one of the pinnacles of the genre.

I also agree with Telefrog: It’s a more different game, so even if there is some overlap, the unique differences of each game make them compatible.

1893

AoW:SM is also an expansion to a sequel. FE is significantly better than AOW1 (as much as I loved the game at the time), in my opinion. AOW2 was okay but it really didn’t come together until Shadow Magic, so I’d like to see a FE+Expansion compared to AOW:SM.

That being said, I agree with Telefrog and TurinTur - SM and FE are not clones of each other, they’re very different games set in the same genre. Swishtail’s post reminded me a bit of when my significant other tried switching from an iPhone to an Android. She disliked interfaces and features that were arguably better/easier just because it wasn’t how the iPhone did it so it was inherently “wrong”. That’s not to say some of Swishtail’s observations aren’t valid, but it misses the point. FE is not trying to be a sequel to Age of Wonders, it’s doing its own thing.

1894

AoW:SM was a standalone product.

1895

I thought it was an “expandalone” to AOW2, at least that’s how I remember it being marketed back in the day.

EDIT: Wikipedia says it’s a full sequel, so maybe I was drinking heavily in those days or something. :)

1896

FE is an expandalone of WoM!!

1897

I’ve been trying to enjoy AOW SW for like ten years. I can’t do it. That game sucks.

1898

Not. even. close. to. accurate.

I’m not done evaluating FE, but your comparison is asinine.

1899

I’m very very fond of AoW 1. I consider it better than AoW 2 and even there is some parts that I like over SM.

I really would have to play more FE to know what I like more, but my gut instinct would be to go with AoW 1.

1900

I’m willing to accept that, but why is a comparison asinine? Are you saying they’re so different they can’t be compared or is it the fact that I feel FE is better that you disagree so strongly with?

For me, AOW1’s strategic layer was very simple and uninteresting. The tactical battles were awesome and I loved the races, but the strategic layer was bare-bones and felt to me to be mostly a conveyor belt to move you from one tactical battle to the next. Ultimately, I find strategy elements more engaging long-term than I do the tactical battles. That’s why, so far, I prefer FE over AOW1 (but feel AOW:SM is pretty far ahead, it’s one of my favorite TBS games).

That’s not to say I don’t love me some AOW1. The series finally culminated for me in Shadow Magic, though, where I felt that the tactical battles remained awesome while the strategic layer had finally become a legitimately engaging part of the game.