Age of Wonders: Planetfall

[Grif]

This was dropped into my lap today.

I'm excited.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/7...rs_Planetfall/

Age of Wonders: Planetfall is the new strategy game from Triumph Studios, creators of the critically acclaimed Age of Wonders and Overlord series, bringing all the exciting tactical-turn based combat and in-depth 4X empire building of its predecessors to space in an all-new sci-fi setting.

Emerge from the cosmic dark age of a fallen galactic empire to craft a new future for your people. Explore the planetary ruins and encounter other surviving factions that have each evolved in their own way, as you unravel the history of a shattered civilization. Fight, build, negotiate and technologically advance your way to utopia, in a deep single player campaign, on random maps and against friends in multiplayer.

Trailer:

[Cikomyr]

I.. kinda.. liked it at first sight, but I feel the game's tone is not really taking itself seriously enough.

I mean, you explore a ruined planet whose inhabitants survived years of isolation, and you find a Casino?

[Olinser]

This was dropped into my lap today.

I'm excited.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/7...rs_Planetfall/



Trailer:

Not a new Overlord game.

Lame.

[Aotrs Commander]

Very lukewarm, based on my experiences with Age of Wonders 3. I nearly rage-quit at the beginning (I spent a lot time going "why don't I just go play Fallen Enchantress instead?"), but turned the difficulty to easy and made it through the elf campaign and to the last mission of the human campaign and found it was the EXACT same mission as the last elf one, except that you started with less stuff. (Maybe I should have done the evil route, I dunno.) At which point I said "frack that." I very briefly tried the Halfling campaign, decided that I really did not like their army, saw it was a warlord hero and shrugged. (I also hated that the campaigns were centred around what appeared to be the weakest classes.) The sieges were... okay, but I found the tactical battle tedious and unfun, by and large. I got a surprising number of hours out of it, actually, but more, I think from bloody-minded completionist-ness (and "maybe the next campaign will be better") than anything else.

So, we shall see.

[warty goblin]

Why on earth would anybody play the campaign in an Age of Wonders game? That random map button exists for a reason, and its by far the best part of the game.

Anyway, I'm as excited as I'm likely to get for a videogame at this point in my life. AoW III was a goddamn masterclass in how to do a fantasy TBS; meaningful strategy layer, good unit rosters patched to be really good, and absolutely razor sharp tactical combat. If they take that, add in a delicious sci-fi flavor and season with a touch of XCOM in the tactical portions - but freed of the inanity of the move-shoot system and Firaxis' frankly horrific interface - I'll be an extremely happy camper.

[Morty]

I've been following it, though not particularly closely. It looks like they're making your choice of race matter more, which was something people asked for in AoW III. All in all, looks pretty promising.

[Aotrs Commander]

Why on earth would anybody play the campaign in an Age of Wonders game? That random map button exists for a reason, and its by far the best part of the game.

'Cos if it wasn't for the limited interest of story of the campaign, I'd have quit and gone and played Fallen Enchantress instead, which is pretty much better (at least in my memory (haven't played it for a few years) and apparently playtime) at what AoW3 did?

Seriously, I found AoW3 mechanics to be... Moribund at best, and tactical battles with no deployment is a cardinal sin. (Admttedly, FE was no better in that regard, but I recall having more fun with it's nine-unit stack than with the "six but you can use more than one off you lke scattering your units around" that AoW3 did.) Really, the only time I had any fun on the tactical level was in the sieges, as that was because I actually had some time to shove my units into an actual deployment and have a plan.

I found the strategy layer a bit lacking, too, myself; it rather unfavourably compared with FE, Total Warhammer or even Civ IV. It still boiled down mostly to "have a doomstack (consisting of 3-4 sixunit armies in adjacent hexes) and auto-resolve outside of sieges."

I came so very close to writing it off as a bad job altogether in the first few hours.

[Knaight]

Why on earth would anybody play the campaign in an Age of Wonders game? That random map button exists for a reason, and its by far the best part of the game.

Some of the expansion campaigns in particular are actually really solid, and the campaign is the one place you get to bust out the really high level heroes, which opens up very different strategies.

[Olinser]

Some of the expansion campaigns in particular are actually really solid, and the campaign is the one place you get to bust out the really high level heroes, which opens up very different strategies.

I actually enjoyed the Age of Wonders 2 campaign. The story wasn't fantastic but it was decent, and with persistent heroes and magic schools as you went through each stage you could build up quite powerful even when you were swapping races sometimes.

The Age of Wonders 3 campaign was terrible, though. Practically every single map it swaps out the hero you're using so you're constantly being forced to change races AND heroes between campaigns and each hero has completely different magic you just end up in this constant stage every single map of, "OK what do I actually have available NOW". And it doesn't help that the story was just a confusing mess.

[Cikomyr]

The Age of Wonders 3 campaign was terrible, though. Practically every single map it swaps out the hero you're using so you're constantly being forced to change races AND heroes between campaigns and each hero has completely different magic you just end up in this constant stage every single map of, "OK what do I actually have available NOW".

Changing between classes, races and settings for each mission actually sounds cool to me. It allows you to experience the entire game's content.

[Knaight]

Changing between classes, races and settings for each mission actually sounds cool to me. It allows you to experience the entire game's content.

You also tend to get the leaders from previous missions as heroes in current missions, as the change jumps between consistent characters, so while you're getting new units, strategic spells, etc. there's still continuity.

[Grif]

Changing between classes, races and settings for each mission actually sounds cool to me. It allows you to experience the entire game's content.

I think that was the point actually. Speaking of one who enjoyed the campaign, I liked how I got to experience different things in each mission. And yes, as Knaight noted, you'll always get the central character as an additional hero, as well as others you have picked up. (Leads to some rather hilarious hero solo battles at the late game. But needed because you also start at a severe disadvantage usually.)

I make no comment on the actual story however, since YMMV on that. I didn't find it confusing however.

[Cikomyr]

I liked AoW 3 for about 6 hours, and then i felt the entire game was.. generic and samey.

Also, i was disapointed that there was not more personality between classes' factions. The way they sold the game, i really thought a Priest faction would play differently than a Warrior faction.

[Knaight]

I liked AoW 3 for about 6 hours, and then i felt the entire game was.. generic and samey.

Also, i was disapointed that there was not more personality between classes' factions. The way they sold the game, i really thought a Priest faction would play differently than a Warrior faction.

When did you play it? It was dramatically improved by post-release patches, though if you were hoping for variety in the sense of not being focused on the warfare side of 4x you'll still be disappointed.

[Cikomyr]

When did you play it? It was dramatically improved by post-release patches, though if you were hoping for variety in the sense of not being focused on the warfare side of 4x you'll still be disappointed.

I played on release. Might give it a new go.

Its just.. i felt the Dwarven Warrior faction was just too alike the Dwarven Rogue faction. Races were the real difference makers, not classes.

[Knaight]

Its just.. i felt the Dwarven Warrior faction was just too alike the Dwarven Rogue faction. Races were the real difference makers, not classes.

They're both pretty significant, and Rogue and Warrior are fairly similar (though there are dramatic differences in terms of pushing flanking and the amount of maneuverability in fights, along with a few real standout units and spells on both sides that drive play difference (forced marching is a beautiful thing for Warrior, ethereal flanking units with extreme physical resistance for Rogue).

Still, both are local recruitment focused in a big way, instead of global summoning focuses, and that has a huge impact on play.

[Nadevoc]

I found that in AoW3, early game was about your race and late game was about your class. I don't much care for that split - I'd prefer both to matter through the whole game.

Overall AoW3 was good though, so I'm curious how the sci-fi version turns out