Originally Posted By Svend Karlson (29 APR 2012 2:38am)

Originally Posted By Blakjack (28 APR 2012 3:01pm)

In the video posted by bbmike, Totalbiscuit mentions this as a reincarnation of Master of Magic.  I kind of like it, even if its only Civ 5 with magic & fantasy troops.  For less then $20, I guess I can give it a go.  Pre-order done.

 

You have summoned me by using the magic words ;-)

 

Okay seriously, I haven't seen this mentioned yet, question to anyone and everyone -  is there an asynchronous multiplayer option i.e. PBEM or similar. Also, does this seem like a good game for synchronous and or asynchronous multiplayer?

 

My fondest memories of Master of Magic are all multi-player ones.

I knew about the shell, but never had anyone to play it with. (Also I didn't like giving up the tac battles.)

Considering how rough the recent pretenders to MoM's throne have been (though well-intentioned), I'd say the true heir is still Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic. There are really only three or four things MoM had that AoW:SM lacked:

(1) the Spell of Mastery mechanic (allowing players running behind in empire expansion a chance to pull a legitimate win they still had to work for).

(2) squad units in the tac battles (eight halfling slingers to a unit instead of only one for example).

(3) some of the racial/faction teams were interestingly different (no troll faction in AoW:SM for example--but it had interesting teams MoM didn't have, so that balanced out).

(4) the spell balance, based largely on Magic: the Gathering (which Microprose had rights to at the time or was in the process of acquiring), was arguably better in MoM.

AoW:SM on the other hand added in a bunch of new details and updates to the MoM concept, including fully functional multiplayer (with tac battles) allowing up to 8 humans or AIs in any mix.

While I'm curious about the Elemental sequel, I don't think Warlock is quite going to beat AoW:SM at inheriting MoM's throne. But I'm very much okay with Warlock being the next logical step in expanding the Fantasy Wars/Elven Legacy engine by mixing it with MoM.

Originally Posted By JasonPratt (8 MAY 2012 7:42am)

Originally Posted By Svend Karlson (29 APR 2012 2:38am)

Originally Posted By Blakjack (28 APR 2012 3:01pm)

In the video posted by bbmike, Totalbiscuit mentions this as a reincarnation of Master of Magic.  I kind of like it, even if its only Civ 5 with magic & fantasy troops.  For less then $20, I guess I can give it a go.  Pre-order done.

 

You have summoned me by using the magic words ;-)

 

Okay seriously, I haven't seen this mentioned yet, question to anyone and everyone -  is there an asynchronous multiplayer option i.e. PBEM or similar. Also, does this seem like a good game for synchronous and or asynchronous multiplayer?

 

My fondest memories of Master of Magic are all multi-player ones.

 

I knew about the shell, but never had anyone to play it with. (Also I didn't like giving up the tac battles.)

 

Considering how rough the recent pretenders to MoM's throne have been (though well-intentioned), I'd say the true heir is still Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic. There are really only three or four things MoM had that AoW:SM lacked:

 

(1) the Spell of Mastery mechanic (allowing players running behind in empire expansion a chance to pull a legitimate win they still had to work for).

(2) squad units in the tac battles (eight halfling slingers to a unit instead of only one for example).

(3) some of the racial/faction teams were interestingly different (no troll faction in AoW:SM for example--but it had interesting teams MoM didn't have, so that balanced out).

(4) the spell balance, based largely on Magic: the Gathering (which Microprose had rights to at the time or was in the process of acquiring), was arguably better in MoM.

 

AoW:SM on the other hand added in a bunch of new details and updates to the MoM concept, including fully functional multiplayer (with tac battles) allowing up to 8 humans or AIs in any mix.

 

While I'm curious about the Elemental sequel, I don't think Warlock is quite going to beat AoW:SM at inheriting MoM's throne. But I'm very much okay with Warlock being the next logical step in expanding the Fantasy Wars/Elven Legacy engine by mixing it with MoM.

I agree with the information above. AoW:SM is very close to how this game looks, at least from a perusal of the documents.

I am not a big fan of DLC's...although I did drop a fair amount of coin on the ones for Dragon's Age. I just cannot bring myself to purchase the tons of itty bitty upgrades for Civ V, through steam.

I may wait on this one, until they have the bugs completely worked out, and the upgrade packs (if any) added in on the initial package.

I should take my own advice about day one purchaes...God only knows how much money I have wasted on a day one purchase, *cough*Outpost*cough*...*cough*MOO3*cough*

Originally Posted By JasonPratt (8 MAY 2012 7:42am)
I knew about the shell, but never had anyone to play it with. (Also I didn't like giving up the tac battles.)

I'm attempting to recall something from 15 years ago here, but I think the tactical battles remained when you played MP. I think even that both players had control within them, such that during your opponent's turn you'd occassionally hot-seat in for a battle. Either that or only the active player had control in the tactical battles.

Originally Posted By JasonPratt (8 MAY 2012 7:42am)

Considering how rough the recent pretenders to MoM's throne have been (though well-intentioned), I'd say the true heir is still Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic.

Absolutely, fantastic game. I really regret that I've never played it MP. I'd still like to, but I don't know anyone interested to do so.

Reviewed.

Good review Jag.

I only played a few turns, seemed ok. Gonna play some Dungeon Crawl now. This time i'll get 3 runes, for sure..

Jag-

I'm reading reports that the A.I. factions won't attack cities (although independent monsters do).  Have you found that to be true?

For 20 bucks you can't beat this if you want some fantasy/Civ type fun. Only played it for a bit, but it seems to have the one more turn mojo.

Originally Posted By tgb123 (8 MAY 2012 2:47pm)

Jag-

 

I'm reading reports that the A.I. factions won't attack cities (although independent monsters do).  Have you found that to be true?

 

I've never encountered that. I've seen the AI attack my cities and take them.

The tactical A.I is really good it must be said.The A.I understands how different units are ment to be used.Invading the A.I is pretty tough.

This is weird.

Asbery doesn't like anything.  WTF has happened lately?

Just lost 4 hours to it. Well worth the money. 

Originally Posted By AAshbery76 (8 MAY 2012 3:56pm)

The tactical A.I is really good it must be said.The A.I understands how different units are ment to be used.Invading the A.I is pretty tough.

It's good. I've got a Kraken harrassing my town, and he knows enough to pop in and out of range.

I played the demo for 50 turns and preordered it.  Have it installed and now will be busy for the rest of the week for a conference so have to wait till Sat or Sun to really get into it.

It seems to be just what I've been looking for.

Conquest of Elysium 3 is not quite it - Dom 3 is really only PBEM - Elemental fugetaboutit.

Good game.  Great value.  Looks to be in relatively great shape on release. I'd go so far as to say it's more fun than the Civ games.  It's also what I really wanted from Fantasy Wars - more grand strategy, less linear campaign.  'Bout time!

The sounds & voice acting are good, other than the indicator of your offers during diplo negotiations getting the enemy leader to repeat their "bad offer" voice-over each time you add something.  It's certainly the Sean Connery-sounding guy they've used in the past with Majesty 2.  That's not a bad thing IMO.

All the extra monsters, and the hordes of them on the other planes/worlds, is great.  I just wish there were some occasional relic or item loot that could be given to a specific unit, as in FW, along with more RPG-ish customization of your mage character.  The spell research & casting can be a pretty big deal and adds a nice extra avenue of attack & support. 

I'd like to see more stuff added in later, and I'm sure that'll happen with DLC.  This definitely needs some multiplayer, too, but at the current $20 price tag, it's a winner.

Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (8 MAY 2012 1:42pm)

Reviewed.

Wow, pretty damning review there in many parts especially the last one

but overall the game doesn’t add up to a truly unique experience.  

After watching a few video previews & just a few turns of the demo, I pre-ordered this last week.  Well worth the less than $20 buck investment.  Last night after installing the release version, I fired it up with the intention of just playing around with it and seeing what it could do.  I had to drag myself off the computer after 10:00pm last night when I usually hit the rack around 9:00pm.  Definitley worth the $20, and once they tweak a few bits it'll be stellar.

Wish list so far:  hot keys for defend-fortify orders, stuff like that

Originally Posted By Svend Karlson (8 MAY 2012 1:04pm)

Originally Posted By JasonPratt (8 MAY 2012 7:42am)
I knew about the shell, but never had anyone to play it with. (Also I didn't like giving up the tac battles.)

 

I'm attempting to recall something from 15 years ago here, but I think the tactical battles remained when you played MP. I think even that both players had control within them, such that during your opponent's turn you'd occassionally hot-seat in for a battle. Either that or only the active player had control in the tactical battles.

Sort of. The tac battles activated whenever humans fought AI, but when they fought each other the shell could only allow strategic resolution.

Originally Posted By Wolverine101 (9 MAY 2012 4:30am)

Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (8 MAY 2012 1:42pm)

Reviewed.

 

Wow, pretty damning review there in many parts especially the last one

but overall the game doesn’t add up to a truly unique experience.  

 

 

Thats what I thought aswell. I'm not a massive fan of this sort of game, especially when the combat isn't tactical as such like this (though you stil need to think abit, I suppose it's kind off tactical on the big map) yet I'm having some fun, it's simple to pick up and play, however whether I will be playing it in a weeks time is another thing, still well worth the money.

Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (8 MAY 2012 1:42pm)

Reviewed.

Wait, what? Combat animations leave a lot to be desired? They didn't use the animation routines from FW/EL??? That seems insane.

And move orders cannot be undone?? Why would they drop that from FW/EL?? (I can understand if they wouldn't allow undo when scouting reveals new monsters, a la Panzer General, i.e. what FW/EL did, but it sounds like you're saying they don't allow an undo at all.)

I recall seeing elsewhere that buildings cost nothing to construct--I thought I wasn't reading that right. But you confirmed they don't. (Upkeep, yes, but not initial cost.) What was the rationale behind that I wonder? Can anyone think of any other TB/RT strategy game where buildings have no initial cost??

Also, I gather from your and others' descriptions that they've dropped the skirmish type of unit? (Attacks melee without response, first strikes incoming melee attack before melee, range one hex.) The rationale there I suppose would be that the map scale precludes it.

Originally Posted By JasonPratt (9 MAY 2012 6:32am)

Originally Posted By JaguarUSF (8 MAY 2012 1:42pm)

Reviewed.

 

Wait, what? Combat animations leave a lot to be desired? They didn't use the animation routines from FW/EL??? That seems insane.

 

And move orders cannot be undone?? Why would they drop that from FW/EL?? (I can understand if they wouldn't allow undo when scouting reveals new monsters, a la Panzer General, i.e. what FW/EL did, but it sounds like you're saying they don't allow an undo at all.)

 

I recall seeing elsewhere that buildings cost nothing to construct--I thought I wasn't reading that right. But you confirmed they don't. (Upkeep, yes, but not initial cost.) What was the rationale behind that I wonder? Can anyone think of any other TB/RT strategy game where buildings have no initial cost??

 

 

Also, I gather from your and others' descriptions that they've dropped the skirmish type of unit? (Attacks melee without response, first strikes incoming melee attack before melee, range one hex.) The rationale there I suppose would be that the map scale precludes it.

No, no more 'skirmish' type unit.  Just ranged & melee that I've seen.  A number of units have a special ability they can use for various effects, however.

While I generally agree with most of his reviews, there were a couple things mentioned as downers that aren't an issue for me.  I didn't notice anything specifically lacking in the combat animations in the release version - they look like the ones in Fantasy Wars and are comparable, if not better than, those in the Civ games.   Also, there is somewhat of a limit on how many extra cities you can build since I got a message saying a new one was too close to another city to be built (or was on unsuitable terrain, for my race I guess). 

The no-cost buildings seems alarming, but most of these types of limits are in relation to income per-turn and all the upkeep costs coming out of it.  While combat units do cost extra gold to build, they too cost various upkeep along with summoned combat units, most spell buffs.. pretty much everything.  Many of them requiring multiple types so it's all about the flow of resources and not how much is stocked up for quick spending as much as many games.  Also, you can't build a new building until the city in question has gained another 1,000 population which takes a number of turns, and seems to get longer the bigger your city gets.  Combine both: everything having an upkeep cost and pop limits to building, and you'll see that building speed is very regulated and quite similar between all factions (although there is at least one global enchantment type spell that will improve one city's population expansion some - at an upkeep cost of course).  It's not as alarming as it sounds when someone says they have "no cost" - you can't spam buildings left & right.

They've done a good job with the game, I'm surprised it's running so well on release and that one-more-turn itch is there.  Definitely needs some hotkeys, as mentioned, especially for previous/next idle unit, defend orders, etc.  It gets Nef's seal of approval.

Originally Posted By Nefaro (9 MAY 2012 7:39am)

While I generally agree with most of his reviews, there were a couple things mentioned as downers that aren't an issue for me. 

I can be picky, especially in a game that I feel borrows significantly from other games.

Originally Posted By Nefaro (9 MAY 2012 7:39am)

I'm surprised it's running so well on release

Shame that picky opinion did not hinder the Pride of nations review.

Originally Posted By AAshbery76 (9 MAY 2012 10:36am)

Shame that picky opinion did not hinder the Pride of nations review.

I thought the innovative aspects of the game outweighed the turn resolution times.

Originally Posted By tgb123 (8 MAY 2012 2:47pm)

Jag-

 

I'm reading reports that the A.I. factions won't attack cities (although independent monsters do).  Have you found that to be true?

 

I've been seeing this as a problem after having had a couple wars with AI mages.  They turtle up in their own territory and don't want to leave it. 

While it can be a bit of a challenge cracking a developed turtling AI like that, you only have to worry about your own cities being attacked by the random monster spawns.

There also seems to be no vsync option, and forcing it on in my AMD control panel doesn't do the trick.  My vid card has been running full-out max even though it doesn't need to.   Definitely making it run hotter than normal.

Wonder if they're gonna address those issues.

I picked up the game earlier tonight and have spent about 3 hours on it. I'm reasonably impressed and it looks like a winner if a few missing elements are added and some gameplay changes are made.

As per comments on what engine is used-it's clearly displayed on the game's startup- they used Autodesk's engine. Autodesk is the makers of 3d Studio Max-- which is better known for it's modeling- but it can be used for game creation as well. I'm a bit surprised a small dev picked it-it's rather a pricey piece of software. I have 3dMax7- several years old-as someone like myself can only afford a one time purchase when at a time I had some money to burn--regular upgrades to newer versions which seem to release about every 18 months or so are 5 grand plus- and a full version with what I concider the needed add-ons will run well over 9k. This is pretty pricey for a small dev concidering each member of the team must own a licienced copy. I use it only for modeling-and thankfully Unity imports 3d studio Max model files directly- (most low cost engines have their own formats and you must convert model files ((and their textures)) into that engine's format-something that can be very work extensive). The Witcher 1 BTW built their game levels in 3d studio Max and imported them into the Auroua engine. (Never Winter Night ) and though that engine was rather poor-the results of the Max levels were pretty stunning. Nothing in that engine ever looked good in the least until then.

Unlike Civ's Phython driven civIV or Civ V which has even a worse scripting language using LUA- the underlying scripting in Autodesk is pretty fast and powerful-hense the game is not nearly as sluggish as either civ title. Overall probably a very smart choice concidering the game can randomly generate huge maps with 6 levels and still run very well--wheras even one huge map in Civ 4 or Civ5 will suffer horrendous turn times with beasty machines. Multiple map levels wouldn't even be possible without tons of ram and it would take an eternity to process a LUA or Phython based turn. I've never understood why these crap languages are even concidered in Grand Strategy type games. HOI3, Civ IV and V all suffer because of the choice. Sure they are very easy for the dev to impliment--but that is the only benefit. It offers the players nothing. Hell, LUA isn't even a language intended for games-it's an assembly line industrial language. It's for configuration only really--so for example you want a custom GUI for a character in World of Warcraft-sure.. (it's actually used in WOW for that) but to code for a grand strategy game? It's insane--and is exactly one reason Fall to Heaven II Blows to even try a full game --other than the rediculous imbalances and exploits found in that mod.

Another smart move is to copy the GUI found in the Civ games. I don't have a problem with that at all. It ain't cheap- it's damn smart in my view. Why not use the best GUI ever for this type of game rather than something else just to be different that doesn't come close? I'm sick of screwy interfaces when there's tons of good ones one can look to for examples--use them.

The art is a little too Heroes of Might and Magic Bright for my tastes- I like darker types of fantasy art- Royo and the like - or the direction the first Diciples games took- but compared to Stardocks Elemental? Or even Fall to Heaven? This is tons better.

There's some odd gameplay choices I hope are changed:

1. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to explore the other plane levels. It's certainly not a required thing as was done with Master of Magic. The powerful monsters that roam them seem too much effort to defeat for the only benefit-some resources- none of which are limited to only those levels but can be found on the regular map as well. They are abundant , sure-but so is the foes you must defeat to aquire them. It may not be wise in fact to waste one's time here as victory conditions cannot be adjusted by the player-and the first order of buisness then must be to locate all your competing factions because if one casts Spell Mastery and you aren't there to stop it- they win and you lose.

2. As mentioned above no ability to set victory conditions. A huge map with multiple levels seems unplayable-an opponent will cast spell Mastery or meet other victory conditions long before you can explore even a couple of the levels. You really need the ability to turn off certain victory conditions and I am surprised this isn't in from the get go.

3. Buildings have upkeep but there's no intial build cost. Huh? Why?

4. Some missing commands that one would think standard. Skip turn, auto--whatever...be it move, explore...

5. There's spell research but no research for buildings--this isn't a big issue but a little depth can be added here none the same.

6. There's no civpedia-a missed oppurnity in my view.

7. There isn't any kind of the ledgers found in these types of games either-nor any progress reports at end game-who won, how and why-that sort of thing

just overall some basic functions one would expect-and may show up in patches but really should be there now.

8. I haven't played enough to see this but the forums report the enemy mage A.I. is rather passive-and doesn't attack--much like in civ V--but the random monsters seem to have pretty good A.I. from what I've seen.

9. There is no penalty for entering and attacking in enemy terratory or your own. Huh? Unlike Civ games there's no need for open borders and you can surround and attack--and so can they (if they did) at any time.

All in all impressive and certainly fun-and if the above is addressed this would rise to a great game--but until the player can adjust victory conditions long games seem foolish-as your be chasing the land to locate wizards in order to  keep an eye on them if they go for victory- and until an A.I. is included that can actually conquest it boils down to a time race to find/block their other abilities to win and just slowly mow through them.

I never cared for the Majesty Games but this one certainly is to my liking. Elven Lecacy was so so but basically just move/fight kind of stuff and missed the very elements this game has--

Had the above missing elements been here I could see a $49.95 title---at $20 it's well worth it. I'd had paid $39.95 and felt okay about it in fact--but it's a title I probably won't fully explore until huge 6 level worlds can be enjoyed because that's the type of epic games I like--so a better A.I.  and victory conditions are a must-- the other options a plus but no game killer. They need to offer more reasons to enter the other worlds. Quests? Needed artifacts for certain buildings? Something. Otherwise why not just skip them?

Out of 8 knocks the title for lack of innovation. I disagree. 4x games have certain elements that make them fun-and those elements need to be in each title--most titles omit them to be different and they basically suck because of it. No title approaches MOO because elements are left out. Innovation? A screwy GUI with missing elements in a 3d confusing nightmare did not make SOTS any better. No way points nor tactical battles hurt-and did not help Gal Civ II---sure it's standard fair--a very much needed standard fair for this type of game and I would award points for the inclusion and not take away because of it. It's a mistake for a dev to say, "if we include this it'll be like...." when the title they are thinking about is a top 10 all time great. Use the stuff-add to it- make it better....that's smart and that makes a good game. We needed a civ type game that didn't run like molasses with MOM type multiple levels and huge maps in a fantasy setting. Not one dev has yet done that. Stardock blew it. Hell Civ V basically blew it.-and here we have it and it's not new enough for you? It needs A.I. tweaks, some added features-knock it for that-but don't knock it for doing everything found right in other titles and using them smartly because frankly it's the best damn way to build such a game.

Let the innovation come from the lore chosen or the units and their types-the world it created- not from screwy GUI options ALA HOI3 that makes the game a damn job to play , or much needed missing elements (which includes a game that runs fast enough)- this title certainly has a basic generic lore but it's still better than Elemental- and there's a lot of things that could be added that would make it more innovative- but the interface is about as good as it gets for this type of game--thank god it's not Forge of Freedom or Illwinter's Dominions III--which in their own right garner higher marks --- basically for depth and not certainly innovation-- nor good GUIs -

a mod make over for this game--with a darker lore-and more unigue units would be very possible for anyone owning a copy of 3d studio Max for example- there's a lot to be exited about here.

Innovation is great IF it leads to a better way to do things--when it doesn't-which is often the case-you don't reward points for it-you ask "WTF were they thinking?"