Re: OT: HOMM V
 

I enjoyed AOW for a while, but never got into AOW:SM. Every now and then I re-install it, fiddle around, then delete it. I also have been doing the same with GalCiv2 - seems some games just have a hump you need to get over. I did the same with Dom 2 -- it wasn't until Dom 3 with its improved tutorial and manual that I was able to overcome that inertia of trying to learn the game.

Re: OT: HOMM V
 

HoMM4 was the first game I ever purchased that had fairly significant parts of the manual that said something to the effect of this doesn't work right now, but this is how it'll work once we add it in a patch. Boy was that an eye-opener.

Re: OT: HOMM V
 

The people who make GalCiv2, Stardock, are currently making a turn-based fantasy game. They tried to get the rights to Master of Magic, but could not, but I suspect the end product will be similar in scope.

Re: OT: HOMM V
 

I loved MoO 1&2, but couldn't bring myself to love GalCiv. Something about it just ain't right; its close but it ain't quite there. It has polish, but it also has these superfluities and inconsistencies that I don't understand (not like X3's superfluities, but superfluities none-the-less). It also just lacks a certain appeal for me; I'm not sure what it is. I just can't quite make it work for me. The fact that on the open ship design system, none of the parts had the hardpoints perfectly centered (for example: if you placed, say, a bunch of a long straight piece together, by even the second one there is noticeable skewness) is kind of a metaphor for why this game doesn't work for me. It has a lot of great stuff, but they didn't take time to "center" it. I guess that's kind of the zen of it.

For that matter, I havn't found ANY software under stardock's label I can like. I tried really hard to, and even bought the membership for like 70 bucks, and bought four or five of their higher rated games (not including GalCiv, which I bought separately). All of them tried hard to be good, but just lack a certain something. In the end I've spent over 100 bucks at stardock, and don't like any of it. It all looks good and shiny, but none of it just works for me. In the end I'd rather have used that 100 bucks to buy several months of subscription to an MMORPG or something; at least I'd enjoy that for a little while before I got sick of it.

I loved MoM too. I know GalCiv was the spiritual successor to MoO, but I hope that whatever they come up with as their successor to MoM is better than GalCiv was for me.

Re: OT: HOMM V
 

Omniziron,

My experience with Stardock was almost exactly like yours. For all of Dom3's lack of graphical shininess, I think it's a much more complex (and fun, for me) game than GalCiv (I also spent lots of money and never really played the games I bought). I like the idea of a MoM sequel and I hope they do a good job, but I doubt I'll prefer it to Dom3.

-Max

Edit: Note to Shrapnel. I'd be glad to spend more money on Dominions stuff if there was anything to buy. Like scenarios, for instance. (Dawn of Dominions is a great one.) As is, I've bought two copies of Dominions 3 but that's it.

Re: OT: HOMM V
 

heh...

perhaps that's why stardock doesn't work for me; Dom3 is too good. Thanks Illwinter, you just busted my gaming life; I'll never be satisfied with anything else now. Ignorance would have been bliss.

Re: OT: HOMM V
 

Yeah, H4 truly sucked out of the box. I seem to recall the was no multiplayer for about 2 months after release (!!), and once they implemented it... there was a bug which allowed you to drag&drop units between castles (!!!). Basically unplayable.
Vampires (level3) having stats on par with level4 units. On most maps, on normal difficulty, you could build Mansion on day2, and wipe most of the mines, treasures etc. with those 2 vampires. And don't get me started about Grandmaster Necromancy (hint: it produced vampires). No wonder Necropolis was usually banned in multiplayer.

Still, the game has many great features. I liked predictable and consistent magic. H4 had magic you could build a strategy around, because certain magic paths worked in certain ways. H3 system was extremely random and hit or miss. H5 spells were much more diverse, and also balanced. No more level5 (or was it 4 in H3 ?) Hypnosis, which was unbelievably crippled by hp/spellpower restriction. No more level2 Blind vs level3 Protection from Ice (ok, you could argue prot.fire could work with Armageddon).

I liked H4 skill system more than H5. H5 skill system was a lot like H3 one, but there was more variety in skills. Scouting was useful because it was merged with Pathfinding/Logistics. And for the first time in the serries non-combat heroes became viable. And I don't remember what they exactly did to Eagle Eye, but it worked to make it useful. My only real complaint here is that skill level cap (5) was too high, and encouraged putting too many levels into a single skill. 3 would've been enough.
H5 skill system is not that bad. It's interesting that they're not so much skills as perks - that is, skills from one branch are often unrelated to others from the same branch. In terms of mechanics, at least. But what I dislike about H5 system is that it's about combos and chain skills - that is, to have a bigger skill, you have to take several predefined skills in specific order. And you will want many better skills. Which means that your build order will tend towards few specific paths. H3 and H4 offered more freedom. H5 is like railroading. And yes - to qualify for a Good skill you often have to take mediocre skills which aren't very useful on their own. They just serve as arbitrary requirements.

I also dislike the upgrade system. While executed somewhat better than in H3, it's still a no-brainer. You just build the upgrades as soon as possible, the only difference being that they're somewhat more expensive.
Now in H4, you had actual choices to make. There were some imbalances, but for most part both choices were viable. There were basically 3 kinds of units in H4 - shooters, melee, and flyers. For each creature level except the first you had a choice of (flyer|shooter), (flyer|melee), or (melee|shooter).

What I really liked about AoW:SM is that few of the buildings are no-brainers. There are much fewer dwellings to build (most of them provide 2 creature types) and you can focus on interesting building choices. Homm had dwellings, income, and few misc buildings. AoW:SM has few dwellings, few income (no gold, just mana and research), and LOTS of misc buildings. But in Homm games, it was always like this:

First week:
income, dwelling, dwelling, dwelling, dwelling, dwelling, population bonus (Well / Fort / Castle etc)
Second week:
Remaining dwellings

Ad nauseum.

Re: OT: HOMM V
 

Well, I don't mean to hijack this thread, but you might want to have another look at GalCiv2; the second expansion just came out and it adds a lot of toys, notably unique tech trees, techs, and buildings for each race. This adds a lot of variety to the experience.

Not sure what you mean about their other games. As far as I know, GalCiv2 and its predecessor are the only ones they've made. Do you mean other games on the Total Gaming site or whatever? Most of those are not made by GalCiv2, though I agree most of them are kind of crap.

I've been enjoying Dom3 in the short time I've been playing. Might enjoy it a bit more if my only MP game hadn't crashed.

Re: OT: HOMM V
 

ghost,

galciv looks like a great game, but it just misses these little things, and has these little superfluities, and little inconsistencies, and they all add up to make the game experience not enjoyable at all.

I already mentioned the ship design hardpoints are kind of just slapped on there, not even symmetrical.

also, why do the planets have little squares and I have to choose were I place buildings? it is completely irrelevant where I place them; I'd be better if they just had a skyline or something that built up as I built more stuff. It'd be a lot better looking.

and the "tech discovery" screen is complete crap. on Alpha Centauri you got a pretty well done and witty little cut scene. A lot of AC was pretty good, with good humor, for that matter. On GalCiv you get a robot that looks evil for evil races, good for good races, and neutral for neutral races, some crappy background music, and about the gayest quip imaginable on the technology. Monkeys on typewriters could have done better.

GalCiv nailed the elephants, but got ate by ants. They just didn't hit it right, i'm guessing the only reason it is successful is because the number of titles in outer-space 4X is countable on one hand (at least for # of titles in the last decade).

Re: OT: HOMM V
 

Matter of opinion, I guess. I'm sure lots of people would be quick to condemn Dom3 because of its graphics -- or Nethack, for that matter, heh -- but they'd be missing out on a great game.

Superficial. I don't even use the ship jewelry, to be honest... I design ships for function, not appearance. That said, some of the ships people have submitted have been quite impressive. There are also the various Star Trek mods, etc. I just wish I could use a Klingon bird of prey without triggering the metaverse cheat tags, but whatever.

It's an abstract game. Chess might be more realistic if it were taken off the 8X8 grid, too, eh? :-)

Superficial. Don't even notice it, to be honest.

You seem hung up on the appearance, which is kind of odd given your love for Dom3. I mean, I like Dom3 too, but pretty it ain't. I'm really more interested in what's under the hood.

Dunno about that... it's a pretty popular game, and gets great reviews all around. It does have its flaws, though, granted, and some of them go beyond the superficial. I won't go into them here, however, since, as I said, I don't want to hijack this thread.

I do, however, want to give HOMMV another try... with the expansions this time.