Warlords IV Impressions?
I know that this thread existed and long ago died but, hey, I just got the game damnit, and I want to talk about it! :twisted:
It kinda sucks losing the diplomacy but I'm loving that EERYTHING in the game can level up, yet at the same time it takes major effort to keep a unit alive (even a level 10 hero can easily be overcome with enough peons). As somebody else mentioned on another board, there is more effort spent trying to keep key retinue folk alive than really caring about your main immobile warlord...I mean he can come right back next game but once you lose your level 10 Minotaur that's it, he's gone.
It's fun for the first few scenarios, but gets boring. There isn't enough complexity to the game, and you are forced by the game structure into a single strategy of blasting through each level. There is no trade off of building up good towns vs taking bad ones, no trade off of exploring vs conquering, you just have to zap through everything as fast as possible.
The "tactics" such as they are make HoMM look like 4D chess.
On the other hand, the game is fairly well balanced, and you can run through any given campaign scenario quite quickly.
The demo put me to sleep.
The full game is a lot cooler, you need more than 2 races and 1 type of magic to see what this game is all about BUT, depending on WHAT put you to sleep about it, I wouldn't be able to say that you'll be converted.
It SEEMS pretty simplistic but, in practice, the unit and stack management has more to it than it first might seem. Like how the game gives many of its POTENTIALLY coolest powers to this dime a dozen basic units in the game but they can only become powerhouses if they get some serious experience under their wings which is pretty tough to do since they are so darned wimpy.
The plastic art style, dull music and bland maps are what really killed it for me.
I bought it despite not liking the demo. Probably because its 'Warlords' and because there arent enough TB fantasy strat games to suit me.
The full version is better than the demo, but I still got tired of it really quickly.
I have to admit the art does grate on me a bit as well, not liking how they drew the dragons and trolls, for example. I play random maps so, from my perspective, they're cool enough.
I also am not liking how there is no way, even if you choose to play the game in a high resolution like 1280 x 960, you either have the microscopically tiny mini map or the way too zoomed in main map. I've missed many an enemy at my gates because I failed to check that area at the right moment.
The one thing I always wanted to see in Warlords was tactical combat. However, I didn't want it to be crap. What's the deal with having one unit fight at a time? Doesn't that pretty much ruin manual battles?
The whole WL series has never been REALISTIC to be sure. At least now you can decide the order you want your goonies to fight in and it really can make a big difference since it not only lets you try to match the best guy for the job, you also are dictating who can sitback and collect a few free exp for watching their buddies get killed.
I thought it was fun for awhile, but it left me wanting to go back and play Warlords Battlecry II more than anything else. They really watered down the Hero levelling scheme. Granted, WBC2 heroes turned into map-clearing juggernauts after a while, but there was something kind of soulless about both the Warlord and Hero levelling in Warlords 4.
I also didn't like the fact that enemies know the map. I liked in Warlords 2 (don't remember how it was in 3 or DLR) how the enemy bats would be revealing the map the same way my scouts were. In Warlords 4, I often had to tail enemy stacks that were gunning for a ruin in my territory that I didn't even know about. I ended up just turning off hidden map to level the playing field.
There's no diplomacy, either. You're always at war with everyone unless you set it up specifically as 2v2, 3v3, or 2v2v2.
Warlords 3 totally sucked me in when I bought it, as did DLR. I thought Warlords 4 was a step backwards, or sideways, or something.
Just to be fair...
The full Warlords IV game is definitely better than the demo, which is just lame.
However, I also think it's inferior to HoMM IV, which despite some nice new features is generally considerably inferior to HoMM III... I happened to like HoMM III a lot but I recall a lot of people really preferring HoMM II, which I also thought was a great game. Not one of the Warlords series has impressed me as much as any of the HoMM series, and I'd rather replay HoMM I than Warlords IV.
HoMM IV lost me when they never bothered with the random maps and I've heard that the overland AI is very braindead (which if you primarily play against other humans I guess is irrelevant).
Played a couple games of Warlords IV and it was kinda fun but there wasn't much keeping me engaged. I'd probably have tried it another time or two, with different races or messed with the campaign game, but I got Dominions II. There was no going back.
Dominions II is ALMOST tempting me...
Are there random maps?
How's the AI (I'd heard complaints that the AI wasn't making many of the higher level creatures or something)?
If you want to buy Warlords IV:
-Go buy Warlords 3: Dark Lords Rising for $10 at Wal-Mart.
-Be happy that you're playing a better game.
Hey Dissappointed Folk,
Is one of the aspects you really DON'T like in WL4 how VULNERABLE even big buffed level 10 or higher folk are? How a bunch of little pikemen weenies can take out that guy you've been building up in the last three scenarios?
I personally LOVE that aspect! In all of the other WL games, that stack with a couple of dragons, archons and a buffed hero was pretty much going to win the game for you all on its own. While frustrating when on the wrong side of the equation, I'm really liking how all units can level up in customized ways but at the same time even your super stack is never really "safe".
Here's one vote AGAINST tactical combat in Warlords 4.
I like how fast Warlords 4 plays, *especially* when compared to Shadow Magic and HoMM4. The "stack" battle engine is quick enough to support a large number of frequent battles, but provides enough decision-making to keep it from feeling like a bunch of random numbers. I think it's an absolutely great compromise, and I hope they stick with it.
However, they need to open up their art budget, big time.
No random maps, I agree random maps are a good thing, but the native garrisons and magic sites in the different provinces varies each game. Also with over a dozen fleshed out kingdoms and custom deity creation every game's going to be a bit different. Unpredictability and flow are important factors in gameplay for me. I tend to dislike scripted games and favor games with randomization, dynamic and emergent elements myself. Dominions II does a pretty good job of keeping my interest. It's definitely not a 'puzzle' scenario strategy game - more like a highly variable and complex boardgame. Only a few maps to chose from (though more can be created and imported) but what happens on them can vary wildly in different games.
What about the AI? Does it play well or use the nasty staple of posing a challenge only via getting a huge production bonus over you?
DLR pwns. Seriously bummed I gave that one away. :cry:
As far as I can tell, there isn't any AI cheating but there are several folks around here with a much better idea of how things work. There are difficulty levels but exactly what they adjust I'm not sure. I haven't tried the really tough settings yet. Is it a challenge? For me, yeah, perhaps partially because there's just so much to learn and experiment with. I suspect that once you've played it enough you'd find exploits and weaknesses against the AI. Certain kingdoms do tend to have an advantage against the AI as well - especially the undead nation as it can generate alot of large armies relatively quickly. These can be countered by producing preists and anti-undead artifacts but it's a pretty narrow case and one the AI doesn't seem to get either against the human player or other AI players.
You give games away!? :shock:
Originally Posted by scharmers