To the 'anti-wc3' people...

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Imperial Sardaukar

I prefer massive battles instead...

 

Play Theocracy. Anywhere from 10 to 1000 units in a battle.

 

Or Emperor: Battle for Dune, though I find that it gets rather old, rather too fast.

 

On the real subject of this tread: I haven't actually played Age of Mythology, but I find that, in general, Age of Empires-styled games should concentrate on one age of history and get it right.

 

If you pit a single pikeman against a heavy knight, he would be so much bad kebab meat. But if you gather 50 or so of his friends, place them in a nice, tight formation, and send 50 hvy cav against them, for example, the hvy cav would be so much canned food. AOE doesn't reflect this.

 

Also, strategy and tactics differ from age to age. Once hvy cav was uber. Then some smart bloke invented a handgun, and suddenly hvy cav was pizza fillings in an ornate can. I don't belive that any RTS game can reflect this adaption properly, which is why it should stick to one age IMO.

 

Note that making handguns overly powerful and expensive won't help, because the main advantage of handguns was the lack of training required to wield them, and their ability to penetrate armour. Against lightly armoured troops, a bow or x-bow was still better.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Cjais

Haven't tried AOM yet, but I wasn't very impressed with WC3. It sucked donkey arse in comparison to StarCraft and it's non-cartoonish look. But that's just me.

 

AND it had a better plotline, let's not forget. I found the WCIII plot shallow in the extreme (and I would have really liked seeing Gul'dan return from his supposed death at the hands of the player in WCII PO, bad-ass, and bent on vengance).

[DarthMuffin]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

AND it had a better plotline, let's not forget. I found the WCIII plot shallow in the extreme (and I would have really liked seeing Gul'dan return from his supposed death at the hands of the player in WCII PO, bad-ass, and bent on vengance).

 

...but who cares about the campaign when you can play on b.net???????

[Arreat]

Im a huge fan of blizzards games, especially d2x in particular.

I think WC:3 is amazing just that i suck at it LOL.

[darthfergie]

And no, i don't think that makes it more of an RPG - 90 persons is still quite an army.

 

awww heck. In games like this you have to think in proportions. In GB you could have 200 units...it was so crappy that I wanted loads more to balance it out somewhat. WarCraft 3 makes an army of 20 assorted units feel like 200+ on GB. It's massive and micromanaging is what it's all about. If I had a tech tree of 200+ units on that game I'd look at it for about three seconds then figure out the only strategy that works with games of this size...massive rush...just get lucky. No emphasis on skill as long as you can click on a spot for your guys to blow up you've won. That happens alot in most high pop RTS (I say most, but in some formations are used VERY VERY well and this really won't be noticed...but in most of the fast paced RTSs on the market...formations just arn't handled as well as could be...). With WC 3's low pop it puts emphasis on the individuals. Even when I loose a basic footman I get mad...that unit could be the difference between win or lose in this game. Where as in alot of RTSs it's just seconds later before hundreds of the same unit that died come rushing in to blow the smaller force to peices...yayness...