When?



It's time to let the cat out of the bag before early access.One might start getting suspicious as it's obviously very important in this genre.

Ashbery76 wrote:
When?



It's time to let the cat out of the bag before early access.One might start getting suspicious as it's obviously very important in this genre.

Agreed. It's one of my big two questions regarding the game (the other is whether terrain enhancement will be engaging). On the one hand, I expect the system - as I understand it from the GDDs already out - is going to be at least somewhat successful because it will not favor the (inevitably more tactically intelligent) human player over the AI. It seems elegant in this respect, but I too worry that it won't provide any real interesting decisions besides unit composition and hero upgrades.



Full disclosure, I am not a fan of ES's combat system and come from primarily a Civ background. I quite enjoy the tactical battles of Civ 5 and AoW 3, but the AI limitations do become quite glaring after only a brief amount of play (the former much mores than the latter - so far).

well they have already released a ton of information on the combat system through the current GDD's and screenshots so you could search through those and try to paint a clear picture about it.

This PC Gamer article is the best source thus far...



The combat system will be have more tactical aspects than Civ (basically a die roll) and Endless Space (pick 3 cards) but won't be a game in itself like Age of Wonder 3.

Strategic spells,tactical spells?



I have already seen the article and like ES's combat this is going to be the controversial aspect in the game.

Ashbery76 wrote:
like ES's combat this is going to be the controversial aspect in the game.

This is possible, but I guess when you do things differently, you cannot please everyone. We are passionate about the way we are doing battles, I think it is innovative, yet that innovation does have a purpose.

The PC gamer article does indeed give a good overview of the battle.



Please keep in mind that we see our game as a civilization builder, not a game about war, thus the battles are not at the middle of the gameplay, like AOW, Warlock, but are just one way of playing the game. Yet when that happens, it needs to be fun, good to look at , it needs to be relatively fast, and you need to feel smart when you win.



quite a challenge

SpaceTroll wrote:
This is possible, but I guess when you do things differently, you cannot please everyone. We are passionate about the way we are doing battles, I think it is innovative, yet that innovation does have a purpose.

The PC gamer article does indeed give a good overview of the battle.



Please keep in mind that we see our game as a civilization builder, not a game about war, thus the battles are not at the middle of the gameplay, like AOW, Warlock, but are just one way of playing the game. Yet when that happens, it needs to be fun, good to look at , it needs to be relatively fast, and you need to feel smart when you win.



quite a challenge

100% agree. The thing I'm disliking about AoW3 is that the strategic layer is pretty bland. It doesn't have the grand feel that MoM or Civ has. Instead, I feel like I'm bogged down in constant tactical combat. While the tactical combat is fun, I play 4X games for all elements of 4X--the eXterminate element gets way too much attention in a lot of games.

i think the actual empire management especially policies and economy should take over with wars taking a step to the side with diplomacy.

This is why I can never understand the complaints with ES and Civ's combat systems....it's like people want to play half emperor half commander, when playing one or the other can be just as fun!

Igncom1 wrote:
This is why I can never understand the complaints with ES and Civ's combat systems....it's like people want to play half emperor half commander, when playing one or the other can be just as fun!

I always felt that they were the same. ES had a more cinematic one, while CIV had more diversity. But at the end, the result was the same.

I would love to explain why you can't compare the EL combat system with ES and civ, what are the main differences that will create interesting situations you don't see in ES or Civ.

But... NDA

To be sincere, I hope we will be able to play without any combat.

I have never been interested of combat system in any 4x, I enjoy all the other parts.

In ES there was an "auto-battle" feature.

It would be a shame to not have it in EL

VieuxChat wrote:
I would love to explain why you can't compare the EL combat system with ES and civ, what are the main differences that will create interesting situations you don't see in ES or Civ.

But... NDA

Well, I always looked at CIV combat as a graphical representation of a bunch of graphs. No real choice there, especially with the stacks of doom. They tried to change that with the 1UPT, but it still came out short because the A.I. was so dumb/dull. I like how Elemental/AoW/E:motBW use armies, and then each game sort of has it's own twist on things.



The last vid I saw was during the interview at PAX east, and there was some brief footage of combat and it looked interesting.