So about that whole Master of Magic thing

In multiplayer everyone would just make Paladins and Warlocks.

Multiplayer doesn’t exist in MoM.

For very good reason.

My points is that because multiplayer doesn’t exist, the whole balancing of race/spell/perk doesn’t matter at all, which makes MoM playthroughs much more interesting compare to AoM.

It’s disappointing that a really good game in AoW and others have been overlooked through the years because of this cult-like worship of a rather quirky game of yore. Let it go. Stop complaining that every other fantasy TBS isn’t MoM. It’s well past time to move on.

The problem of other fantasy TBSes is that they are not fundamentally 4X games with spell research and tactical battles, with the exception of Elemental, which was severely flawed.

I played both AoW’s, I think the 1st more than the second. I didn’t really like the tactical combat in either- the maps were too big (too many hexes) which made it hard for me to get quite the right movement path. And I dropped the campaign in the 2nd one when it felt too much like a puzzle as opposed to 4x. It’s been a while since I played it either but so far FE seems closer to the MoM 4x style than either.

So it’s now a weakness for AoW to support multiplayer? Look I get the argument, but it just doesn’t make for good mechanics. Creating that kind of imbalance and maintaining a game that still keeps all of the chaotic options viable takes an enormous amount of effort. MoM didn’t have that. You’d be better off creating the singleplayer variety and intrigue in a game like King’s Bounty, which you should be playing instead of MoM.

So it’s now a weakness for AoW to support multiplayer?

it’s a weakness if it actually affect AoW in a negative way. given the choice between a balanced generic fantasy tactic game with multiplayer support or unbalance single player only game but with awesome customization and playability… I take the latter option pretty much any day.

king’s bounty isn’t even in the same genre as MoM, you might as well tell me to go play Mass Effect or something.

I’m guessing it stems from the confusing titles. I had assumed that AoW2 was the latest (which does not have a random map generator), because it makes no sense to go AoW->AoW2->AoW:SM. Why is it AoW:SW and not AoW2:SM again? Honestly curious here. I had assumed that SM was an expansion to AoW 1 until somebody corrected me.

As The Dude said…

Meanwhile, in the middle of your trashing MoM because everyone only loves AoW instead of wishing it had a spiritual successor, you even point out that they are different types of games. Trying to articulate why AoW isn’t really MoM, and why they love MoM, is sort of the point of this thread for everyone else.

This conversation is much more amusing if you replace “MoM” with “Fallout 1” and “AoW:SM” with “Fallout 3.”

Speaking of tactical battles (to jump in with that again), compare the time it took to fight a tactical battle. AoW2 is tedious! You have to wait for every useless archer to go " … fwip … fwip … fwip." and miss every shot anyway. Heck, I avoided using archers because they were so boring. MoM was very to-the-point with battles at least, so even the otherwise tedious fights could be resolved shortly. Definitely preferred the punchy tempo of MoM. And the multiple figures per unit was a good touch - likewise I much prefer the little clusters of 8 or so soldiers in Victoria 1 vs. the new-style single giant 3d characters in newer Paradox games. That got me to switch to counters.

Anyway, I just don’t think some of the high level strategic stuff in AoW worked very well. Something didn’t click. And though I don’t have the nostalgia for MoM that some people do (first played it in 2002 or so), I think from a perspective of holistic design it works a bit better than AoW. The game systems work together more and the game experience is nicer for the player. Quite flawed experience due to that lacking AI of course.

(And god I’d LOVE to make a new take on Master of Magic. My proposal to do so got voted down in that company meeting though.)

Haha, then it’d be like bizarro world NMA. Everyone loves FO3 while still missing FO1, except caesarbear who angrily hates FO1 and wishes everyone loved FO3 MORE.

Again. it’s trying to turn strengths into weaknesses. I would much rather fiddle with units in a fight that actual means something than click together another build queue for city X in spawl B. The tactical battles were the whole point in AoW. They had, you know, tactics, instead of the rinse and repeat of MoM fights. Sieging a fortress and killing a nasty badly felt like an accomplishment in AoW. In MoM it was last cursory act.

I’m not trying to deny that the two are different games. I don’t want to crown AoW as MoM2. However it’s because I think it’s the better game that doesn’t deserve the incessant comparison and whining that it isn’t MoM. You guys are blinding yourself to some of the best tactical battles in any fantasy game. MoM’s thrift with tactics might as well be replaced by JRPG style match ups. It’s definitely not the battles that make MoM entertaining.

Stop looking for a new MoM. It’s not this glorious paradigm of design. There are other modern games to play. Fall From Heaven is far less generic and is based one of the best 4x games of all time. If you really need to play MoM again, then just go back and play it but stop complaining that other, better games aren’t more like MoM.

I don’t get this “it’s a single player game so toss balance” sentiment. I agree that you can lose flavor if you go overboard, but I still want a fairly competetive (in terms of level of challenge) game in SP. In Skyrim it drove me nuts how ridiculously powerful enchanting and smithing were, for instance.

I love MoM as much as the next guy, but the praising of it’s flaws is kinda… weird, to me. It’s a real gem, but it has some major issues. You can have crazy awesome spells and units but not let them completely trivialize the game.

I like the strategizing in games, and having easy and obvious “I win” mechanics is a flaw, not a virtue.

Well, tastes differ. I wouldn’t want to play the modern, steamlined MoM you guys describe. Most truly unbalanced stuff is end-game, and you can mostly only make use of it when the game is basically won anyways.

I maintain, even the stuff they introduced in the official patches took away some bits from the screwing around fun the game offered. For example, it used to be possible to enchant a stack of Paladins with a number of spells that almost made them invulnerable and basically conquer the world with them. One of the patches made it so the computer players would constantly cast dispel magic or mass dispel magic, so after each battle, you had to recast the buff spells again. Big fun indeed, huh?

That said, I think game options or difficulty modes could take care of those issues - both a balanced approach which “outlaws” some of the crazy stuff and gives proper counters to the rest and a unrestricted mode where everything goes could easily be implemented.


Well, the game could let you choose between the “classic” MoM ruleset, a new “balanced” one, and ideally allow 3rd party customization too.

You are not the boss of me, so I’ll keep looking for MoM 2.

The thing you don’t seem to understand, is that MoM is STILL a great game, its STILL a fun game, and it does all this despite being as old as it is. Your vehement denial of the game and your defense of AoW which is kinda weird considering the other comments in this thread but I guess its important for you to make people like AoW more and MoM less for some reason.

As for comparing and complaining, well - when game designers speficially set out with the desired goal to make a spiritual successor to MoM , its a valid thing to do.

What is so important about balance in a single player game? You can’t have crazy insane spells like the rare ones in MoM if you insist on balance, and its such a huge part of the game and something we all remember from back when.

That, and the wizards of course, and the whole atmosphere which is the exact thing that has been lacking from those trying to emulate it, except for AoW(1) in my opinion, which came very very close in mood and feel.

AoW 1 was great, better than 2. In AoW SM they recovered back some of their mojo, if at least because it was their biggest game and because they worked on the base of the already done AoW 2.

Now now, let’s not be that extreme.

Balance matters. Not as much in a single player game than in a mp game, but it matters. The fact that everyone would make jsut paladins and warlocks in a MoM game indicates a problem of balance.
If it doesn’t matter it’s thanks to the weak, retarded AI. A better AI, with a skill approaching a human, would show the same problems than a mp version of MoM.

So in the end it’s problem, or two!, of AI and balance.