I guess I just suck. But I tried a simple skirmish on a small map (I think it’s the first one on the list alphabetically), just me (orcs) and one computer player (human). I created some peons, built a barracks, hired a hero, created maybe 10 grunts and 4 of the headhunters, and was starting on a second tower, when I ran into the human army, which was staffed by 7 rifleman, 2 of those mortar units, 3 (!) water elemental creatures, a priest, lots of footmen. Okay, I give up. How can I build an army any faster, and – if I am able to learn how – does that qualify as fun?
I was just commenting on that yesterday at the office. The AI is ruthless in skirmish mode. I consider myslef a good RTS player (not great), but I was only starting 2nd level buildings and had a 2nd-level hero when my base gets nailed by 2nd level units and a huge army led by two heroes, one at 4th level!
Even using the cheat to give you extra 500 wood and gold didn’t help. I wish there was a way to tweak the AI’s level of difficulty.
It is unbelievably difficult!
Yeah, I just got wasted in skirmish by a level 4 and level 2 hero-led force. It’s tough.
I actually like the hard skirmish AI. Kohan’s skirmish AI seemed just as hard at first, but then you played the game more, learned better strategies and tactics, and eventually could whup the AI’s ass. The same will probably happen with the WC3 skirmish AI once everyone gets more experience with the system. Of course, it would have helped immensely if Blizzard used the Kohan system of multiple skirmish AIs, each with their own specialties, difficulty, and strategies.
- Balut, who asks, “When’s Kohan II coming out?”
The skirmish AI is way tougher than the campaign on normal. Even after you’ve finished the campaign, the skirmish AI will probably stomp you for a while. I’ve found the best way to learn the game is to team up with the AI and watch what it does (shared vision on). You’ll see what it does in terms of build order, when it goes off to gain experience or expand its base, and so on. Great way to learn how to play competitively, as then you can take those skills to Battle.net. The computer doesn’t cheat–it’s just ruthlessly efficient. You can tell they balanced the skirmish AI to put up a good fight against Blizzard’s beta testers. On Battle.net, you see a lot of games like “three humans vs. two CPUs”. It’s pretty fun to play against the computer co-op, especially with shared unit control.
“The computer doesn’t cheat–it’s just ruthlessly efficient.”
I don’t think you can say that yet. The game could still be like SC were it new the map from the start and where everything is(bldgs and units are) all the time.
This is a big obstacle for me. I have no interest in plowing through the single player game (yeah, yeah, great story, a mysterious prophet comes to Thrall, Prince Arithra betrays his lineage, blah blah blah, what is this, an RPG?), I can’t play multiplayer without having a virtual boot lodged in my ass, and there’s no way to get the friggin’ skirmish AI to ease the hell up. Sheesh, what’s a guy supposed to do?
And if I’m having trouble with it, I can only imagine how all those millions of Casual Gamers who bought WC3 must feel.
More on this later, but here’s the drum I’m going to be beating from now on:
Warcraft III is the weakest game Blizzard has ever done. Italics mine.
-Tom> can only imagine how all those millions of Casual Gamers who bought WC3 must feel
They’re doing the same thing they did with StarCraft and Warcraft 2 - playing the single player game, or hacking around a bit with friends who are equally inept.
This is a big obstacle for me. I have no interest in plowing through the single player game (yeah, yeah, great story, a mysterious prophet comes to Thrall, Prince Arithra betrays his lineage, blah blah blah, what is this, an RPG?), I can’t play multiplayer without having a virtual boot lodged in my ass, and there’s no way to get the friggin’ skirmish AI to ease the hell up. Sheesh, what’s a guy supposed to do?
Stop being a jackass? Singleplayer is why 98% of the audience buys a game.
This bot fixation you have is growing very tedious. First, it’s Halo, then you make snarky comments about RTCW multiplayer because it doesn’t meet your narrow definition of what makes multiplayer fun. Hand me a mirror and I’ll show you the problem.
If we had .sigs on this board, this would be my new one.
Good think Warcraft III isn’t a violent game like Tony Hawk! Give it some credit!
I like Warcraft III’s single player so far, the non-base stuff is really a lot more creative, but yeah, it’s easy. Maybe because I played through both StarCraft and BroodWar. The heroes just make WC3 easier, in my opinion of course.
Im sure in multiplayer I would get my butt handed to me, but WC3 isn’t the kind of game I wanna play Multiplayer anymore. Not that it’s terrible, but as refined as this traditional rts formula is, im friggin tired of it.
I’d just like to point out that both stories in WC3 and the already-beatified NWN feature the groundbreaking literary device of a mysterious plague. Except that WC3 eventually gets over it and lets you kill things, while NWN does everything except force you to re-read Camus. So if you’re going to use this mocking-of-story tactic to sink WC3, you’re blowing holes in your own boat.
I’d love to chit-chat about this, but I have to go read twenty more screens full of dialogue boxes about science. And might yadda yadda and magic the end.
As long as I have you both here, I just want to say that the strategy article in Computer Gaming World where you two face off is pure fucking genius (Chick vs Geryk that is). I loved the Battlecry one, and I just got the NWN issue with the Freedom Force AAR. I’m guessing that Jeff Green came up with this idea (just so I don’t fill either of your heads with false modesty as it appears that you are just about to do a WC3 vs. NWN battle-o-tunda). Nice work guys.
What kind of a numskull drops $60 on a game and only wants to skirmish? I’m not sure any “casual” gamer would ever spend $60 on any game, even one that says “Sim” on the box.
Someone who loves skirmish, obviously!
“This bot fixation you have is growing very tedious.”
-
Bots increase longevity after the single player part of the game.
-
Bots or skirmish modes are a great way to flex all the elements of a game without being shunted through the way single player games dole out a few weapons or units at a time.
-
Bots are especially important for first person shooters with weak single player (RtCW) or a focus on multiplayer (TRIBES2).
-
Bots particulary important for training for the multiplayer aspects of a game, whether it’s learning maps or exploring build trees.
-
Everybody’s doing it. Except Halo, Gore, Strifeshadow, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
Having said all that, I’m well aware that most people just plink around with the single player elements of a game. Cool. But I’m talking about my own personal gripes here. Which I had thought was allowed, although I haven’t read the Qt3 Message Board Charter in a while.
-Tom
Hey, Bruce, glad to see back you on the boards!
I’d just like to point out that both stories in WC3 and the already-beatified NWN feature the groundbreaking literary device of a mysterious plague. Except that WC3 eventually gets over it and lets you kill things, while NWN does everything except force you to re-read Camus. So if you’re going to use this mocking-of-story tactic to sink WC3, you’re blowing holes in your own boat.
I might agree but for the very simple fact that RPGs are a valid milieu for storytelling. I would argue that RTSs are not.
In fact, some people might say that to be great, an RPG requires a good story. Unless you’re talking about Diablo, which mucks up the whole idea of what an RPG is, I would agree.
An RTS, on the other hand, has no such requirement. Just let me build a bunch of stuff and stategerize my way to victory. I don’t give two hoots about the fate of Thrall’s good buddy. Gorm Hellshriek. Which is one reason the campaign in Warlords Battlecry II is so good. No story. Provinces, races, heroes, resources, victory. That’s your narrative, blessedly free of text about kings, evil wizards, and demons.
-Tom
I’m guessing that Jeff Green came up with this idea (just so I don’t fill either of your heads with false modesty as it appears that you are just about to do a WC3 vs. NWN battle-o-tunda).
Thanks for the compliments, Rob, but Bruce and I came up with the idea ourselves and we pitched it to CGW. In fact, since Bruce is off doing some kind of science stuff and probably won’t be back for a while, I’ll just go ahead and take credit myself.
So the official story is that it was my idea.
-Tom
“An RTS, on the other hand, has no such requirement. Just let me build a bunch of stuff and stategerize my way to victory. I don’t give two hoots about the fate of Thrall’s good buddy. Gorm Hellshriek. Which is one reason the campaign in Warlords Battlecry II is so good. No story. Provinces, races, heroes, resources, victory. That’s your narrative, blessedly free of text about kings, evil wizards, and demons.”
Seems like a close-minded view. Shooters don’t need stories either, but Half-Life was much the better for one.
The story in Battlecry is good because it’s a non-story? Hey, why settle for good? Remove all story whatsoever. In fact, remove campaigns, which are a narrative of sorts. Just put a bunch of scenarios in the box.
Blizzard has done a fabulous job of using the game engine to advance the narrative and using the narrative to make the boneheadly simple task of RTS games – build stuff fast and overwhelm the enemy – more interesting. I’ve got some issues with the multiplayer game, but the single player game so far is great.
Contrast that with the single player game in Battlecry, which is just a refinement and rehash of RTS games that have come before it. It’s a game that should be great but is instead as dull as black and white TV.
All right, Asher, that’s it! I’m now going to use message board kung fu to kick your ass.
Seems like a close-minded view. Shooters don’t need stories either, but Half-Life was much the better for one.
Get off the ‘Half-Life had a great story’ bandwagon. Half-Life had a dopey story: lab accident + monsters run amok + govt troops. What it has was great mise-en-scene. I can use French words like that because I’m half French. Not really. But I can’t think of a better way to explain it and using message board kung fu involves seeming smarter than your opponent.
Seriously, though: Half-Life story = dopey. Half-Life mise-en-scene = great.
The story in Battlecry is good because it’s a non-story? Hey, why settle for good? Remove all story whatsoever. In fact, remove campaigns, which are a narrative of sorts. Just put a bunch of scenarios in the box.
The point is there’s no story in Battlecry II. There’s plenty of narrative, but it’s not dependent on some backstory crap someone at SSG thought up.
Contrast that with the single player game in Battlecry, which is just a refinement and rehash of RTS games that have come before it. It’s a game that should be great but is instead as dull as black and white TV.
Now you’ve really got me angry, Asher. I can barely type. ‘Dull as black and white TV’? Since when are you a graduate of the Bub School of Fast n’ Loose Hyperbole? Well, I’ll counter your hyperbole with a little of my own: Battlecry II is the Most Fun Thing in the World. Ha! Take that!
Seriously, though, I do think Battlecry II is the definitive RTS. Also, I read that somewhere, so it’s true.
Oh, wait, maybe you’re trolling and me kicking your ass with message board kung fu was instead me being baited. Damn you, Asher!
-Tom[/quote]