What Warlock 2 has Taught LH or Elemental 2015

from Elemental Forums

Along the same lines as my last post comparing AOW and LH, I think it's also pertinent to compare Warlock 2 and Legendary Heroes. 

What I think Warlock 2 can teach Legendary Heroes:

 

City Management - City decisions actually matter in Warlock 2 in a way that they never really do in LH. First, there's limited space available, so what you choose is usually a difficult decision (plus, limited space makes sense and that space grows as the city grows). Second, it's still displayed in a way that makes it obvious when cities are more advanced (although I would still like to see more distinction between buildings). Third, you're given the option to super specialize cities once you have multiple cities in a way that feels more distinct than LH does. It's basically a fantasy Civilization game with more focus on choices per city. 

Unit diversity - Each race genuinely feels unique, with unique unit acknowledgements, unique skills, and unit looks. 

God Affiliation/Religion  - Favor of a god can lead to better units, skills, and the like, but be careful who you appease, because each god has an opposite god that will get angry (and maybe even manifest itself) the more you're in with its "rival". 

Even More Strict Limits on Cities - While I'm not a big fan of a hard cap, I do appreciate the attempt to minimize city spam. I know that LH has done quite a bit since the original EWOM to fix this, but it still gets out of hand sometimes. I hardly have any trouble finding space for a shit-ton of cities. Give me more penalties or make cities without legitimate strategic resources really just flounder. I don't know. But I want the decision to found cities to be more difficult. Hell, make monsters WAY more aggressive with cities. I should fear for each and every city for a while...

Once again, I think I'll leave up further discussion to the group. I don't really care what Warlock 2 can learn from LH, because I think it's unique enough to be fun as a different experience. Plus, the developers already had their shot at implementing what works with LH, but chose to go in a different direction. However, I think that LH and Elemental Next can learn some things from Warlock 2 that would make the series better in the future and that's all I really care about. 

 

Thoughts?

 

18,993 views 18 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top


 

City Management - City decisions actually matter in Warlock 2 in a way that they never really do in LH. First, there's limited space available, so what you choose is usually a difficult decision (plus, limited space makes sense and that space grows as the city grows). Second, it's still displayed in a way that makes it obvious when cities are more advanced (although I would still like to see more distinction between buildings). Third, you're given the option to super specialize cities once you have multiple cities in a way that feels more distinct than LH does. It's basically a fantasy Civilization game with more focus on choices per city. 

I like this idea. It just seems kind of ridiculous to be able to build everything available. Also, such a mechanic will provide an more incentive to grow vertically instead of the current maximization strategy of horizontal growth.

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top


I really miss building upkeep costs. Having to plan out your economy around what buildings you want to build in what cities was always an interesting challenge to overcome.

4x games have sadly dropped this complexity right out of games in favor of streamlined dumbed down versions...

 

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

The best thing about warlock 2 cities is how much they are influenced by the resources around them. If you find a gold mine you just GOTTA turn it into a coin producing city.

The second best part is how some races have special buildings they can build on resources as a choice. And this is actually done well, not just each race having 1 resource slightly different. Plus, you know, the fact that there actually are 20 some interesting resources in the world helps.

The third best part is how you can actually see the whole building construction tree and what it adds to your city from the start, which makes it infinitely more easy to plan. No following obscure tech trees (LH) or FAQ entries (AoW3).

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

There has never been a hard cap on cities in Warlock II; it has always been a soft cap.  Also, it does absolutely nothing to address city/settler spam; in fact, since the specialist cities occupy much less space, you actually build far more cities in this version to cover the same space.  This does create interesting choices, and I actually like the change, but the reasons I keep hearing (less city spam, less micromanagement) don't hold up to actual gameplay.  It sure looks to me like the entire point of the change was faster turns in multiplayer (which does happen mid-late game), more strategy in city placement (great success), and as part of the hard nerf to unit perks from map nodes (mission complete.)

 

 

Reply #5 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting GFireflyE, reply 2
I really miss building upkeep costs. Having to plan out your economy around what buildings you want to build in what cities was always an interesting challenge to overcome.

I totally disagree. I much prefer the Civ 4 model to the Civ 3 model where the optimal build for most of your cities if often nothing (or just troops) because the maintenance costs of buildings means that only a few cities should have each. That is just boring to me, empire building should be about building, not about having idle cities.

The limit on what buildings you can build should the build queue (in a game with a build queue). If you have enough production to be able to produce a building then build it. That isn't to say that all buildings should be equally useful, but if the build queue is the limit then if you build the wrong buildings the penalty is that you are missing out on having the right buildings.

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Mistwraithe, reply 5

Quoting GFireflyE, reply 2I really miss building upkeep costs. Having to plan out your economy around what buildings you want to build in what cities was always an interesting challenge to overcome.

I totally disagree. I much prefer the Civ 4 model to the Civ 3 model where the optimal build for most of your cities if often nothing (or just troops) because the maintenance costs of buildings means that only a few cities should have each. That is just boring to me, empire building should be about building, not about having idle cities.

The limit on what buildings you can build should the build queue (in a game with a build queue). If you have enough production to be able to produce a building then build it. That isn't to say that all buildings should be equally useful, but if the build queue is the limit then if you build the wrong buildings the penalty is that you are missing out on having the right buildings.

heh. Was thinking of the exact two games when I wrote my comment....that, imo while civ 4 is a better game than civ 3, the one major miss civ 4 had was the removal of building upkeep. I still spool up civ 2 from time to time to get that city building challenge.

Ah well....I seem to be in the minority on this one as most 4x games being released these days do not include building upkeep...

 

Reply #7 from Elemental Forums Top

I like building upkeep and the limited # of slots.    Leads to the ability to specialize while still being flexible if needed.   Limits the amount of micro as well since there is enough with the troops.   Not really liking the unhappiness from destroying a building but I get it maybe wish it was just a bit shorter.

It is a bit tougher with the city caps - after awhile 3 or 4 above the cap does get a bit annoying.   I like that I need to make decisions though and cull my cities occasionally.

Reply #8 from Elemental Forums Top

Initial reactions playing through on my first game

Good Things
1. Hex Maps
2. Research Spell Progressions is seperate from Tech Progression, Tree progression is more fluid
3. City Building cannot extend beyond the target city's influence/control area
4. Ranged Attacks on Strategic Map
5. Music is well done and doesn't seem repetitive
6. Enemies attacking Cities reduce production and population, not an insta-raze like in FE/LH
7. Each unit has a rest/heal mechanic.  I think this was automatically done in FE/LH, but did appreciate a greater heal from parking to rest.
8. Social Media links & Mods access on Main Screen.
9. God Shrines impact Spell Tech.

 

Bad Things
1.  Voiceover in horrible faux Scottish accents
2.  Poor memory management
3.  Combat
4.  Poor use of Mouse for movement.  WASD is so 10 years ago.
5.  Transition from local map to world map is much better in FE:LH
6.  No Tactical Combat, but at least terrain matters
7.  Adjacency not as important
8.  Heroes aren't interesting at all
9.  Unit Type placards distract from enjoying the map and Unit sprites.

Reply #9 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting GFireflyE, reply 6
heh. Was thinking of the exact two games when I wrote my comment....that, imo while civ 4 is a better game than civ 3, the one major miss civ 4 had was the removal of building upkeep. I still spool up civ 2 from time to time to get that city building challenge.

Ah well....I seem to be in the minority on this one as most 4x games being released these days do not include building upkeep...

It's worth mentioning that I don't mind the building model in Warlock (1, haven't played 2 yet but I imagine it is similar). Warlock is built around highly specialized cities and there are buildings which you can and do build many copies of in each city (eg the food, gold and mana production buildings). It also doesn't have a real build queue, instead population provides a tight limit on the number of buildings. So in Warlock the building game is deliberately both more mathematical (optimising specialist cities is key) and less involved (fewer choices because the only sensible plan is to optimise cities a moderate amount).

It works fine, I just enjoy Civ 4's city management even more. I find it has more meaningful choices and allows you to be more flexible with your cities while still rewarding specialisation.

Reply #10 from Elemental Forums Top

As I have said in other threads, Warlock is underrated. Its a LOT of FUN, while I find AOW III to be kind of bland. AOW III can be improved by DLC and I have not given up.

Reply #11 from Elemental Forums Top

After playing warlock 2 quite a bit:

 

  • Logistics are a PITA - possibly quite a bit of backtracking if a shard has multiple portals
  • Its not difficult to get quite a few units and have many small incremental moves - quite a bit of micro
  • Right around shard 4 or 5 it seems you meet tormenters.   Nasty 150 hp units with a nasty elemental attack that DEMOLISHES standard troops.  Hopefully you have a couple good buffed heroes or some vamps by that point otherwise its time to turn around and prep.  Hopefully they don't 1 shot your level 8 troop you've been babysitting or your fledgeling hero.
  • I'm getting bored - too much movement micro, only minor unit changes, while an interesting idea - not sure i'm a fan of the tiny shards, AI is essentially non-existent and by the time you meet them you should have a very mobile powerful force.
  • Initial mage customization is pretty limited

 

  • I do like the city concepts - limited buildings but important.  Not sure I like the idea that city spam just became free/religious cities.  They should be capped as well.
  • I REALLY like the perk concepts, especially the more interesting ones
  • I like the spells and spell research trees
  • I like the religious aspect
  • I like the modding tools
  • I like some of the quests
Reply #12 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting BernieTime, reply 8

1.  Voiceover in horrible faux Scottish accents

The Sean Connery impersonating narrator/adviser is a staple of the Majesty games. It's supposed to be funny, and is in fact a Sean Connery impersonation.


Quoting BernieTime, reply 8

5.  Transition from local map to world map is much better in FE:LH

Not sure what you mean. There's no combat/city sub-map and switching from one shard to another is instant. Is there like a cloth map thing if you zoom way out? I didn't try, I know AoW3 added one of those, seems to be something other devs liked about Elemental.

Reply #13 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Sanati, reply 12


Quoting BernieTime, reply 8
1.  Voiceover in horrible faux Scottish accents

The Sean Connery impersonating narrator/adviser is a staple of the Majesty games. It's supposed to be funny, and is in fact a Sean Connery impersonation.



Quoting BernieTime, reply 8
5.  Transition from local map to world map is much better in FE:LH

Not sure what you mean. There's no combat/city sub-map and switching from one shard to another is instant. Is there like a cloth map thing if you zoom way out? I didn't try, I know AoW3 added one of those, seems to be something other devs liked about Elemental.

1.  Yeah, I know.  That jank got played out in the 90's.  It was cute back then, not anymore.

5.  There is no transition to cloth map, but the zoom is really limited which I didn't like.

Reply #14 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting jutetrea, reply 11

After playing warlock 2 quite a bit:

 


Logistics are a PITA - possibly quite a bit of backtracking if a shard has multiple portals
Its not difficult to get quite a few units and have many small incremental moves - quite a bit of micro
Right around shard 4 or 5 it seems you meet tormenters.   Nasty 150 hp units with a nasty elemental attack that DEMOLISHES standard troops.  Hopefully you have a couple good buffed heroes or some vamps by that point otherwise its time to turn around and prep.  Hopefully they don't 1 shot your level 8 troop you've been babysitting or your fledgeling hero.
I'm getting bored - too much movement micro, only minor unit changes, while an interesting idea - not sure i'm a fan of the tiny shards, AI is essentially non-existent and by the time you meet them you should have a very mobile powerful force.
Initial mage customization is pretty limited

 


I do like the city concepts - limited buildings but important.  Not sure I like the idea that city spam just became free/religious cities.  They should be capped as well.
I REALLY like the perk concepts, especially the more interesting ones
I like the spells and spell research trees
I like the religious aspect
I like the modding tools
I like some of the quests

 

One word:

SANDBOX

Reply #15 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting joasoze, reply 14


Quoting jutetrea, reply 11
After playing warlock 2 quite a bit:
...


One word:

SANDBOX

Yes, but sandbox is hardly a new game.  Its essentially just a content pack, a $30 content pack.   With that said I have been focused on exile mode and I haven't even tried sandbox yet.  Will give it a try.

Reply #16 from Elemental Forums Top

Warlock games do many things right, but what I like the most is the fact that a settlement is not a defenseless installation - finally, games like Civ5 and Warlock are getting it. The worst example of how not to do it is Conquest of Elysium, where you can lose a castle to a wandering deer - ridiculous. The population must be able to deal with minor threats by itself, or expansion is not really possible. 

Reply #17 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Kamamura_CZ, reply 16

Warlock games do many things right, but what I like the most is the fact that a settlement is not a defenseless installation - finally, games like Civ5 and Warlock are getting it. The worst example of how not to do it is Conquest of Elysium, where you can lose a castle to a wandering deer - ridiculous. The population must be able to deal with minor threats by itself, or expansion is not really possible. 

 

A DEER?! HA THAT'S A RIOT! XD

That managed to be more worse than an bear rampaging through a village of yours in civ 4. lawl

Reply #18 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting GFireflyE, reply 6

Quoting Mistwraithe, reply 5
Quoting GFireflyE, reply 2I really miss building upkeep costs. Having to plan out your economy around what buildings you want to build in what cities was always an interesting challenge to overcome.

I totally disagree. I much prefer the Civ 4 model to the Civ 3 model where the optimal build for most of your cities if often nothing (or just troops) because the maintenance costs of buildings means that only a few cities should have each. That is just boring to me, empire building should be about building, not about having idle cities.

The limit on what buildings you can build should the build queue (in a game with a build queue). If you have enough production to be able to produce a building then build it. That isn't to say that all buildings should be equally useful, but if the build queue is the limit then if you build the wrong buildings the penalty is that you are missing out on having the right buildings.

heh. Was thinking of the exact two games when I wrote my comment....that, imo while civ 4 is a better game than civ 3, the one major miss civ 4 had was the removal of building upkeep. I still spool up civ 2 from time to time to get that city building challenge.

Ah well....I seem to be in the minority on this one as most 4x games being released these days do not include building upkeep...

 

 

I agree with you, old chap. One of the biggest development potentials of FE:LH is the city management, and the adding of more opportunity costs to it.