AoW 3's been out for a while now, and I was wondering how people feel about it at this point.

Personally, I'm someone who was pretty disappointed with it when I first picked it up, but the more I play it the more I've come to enjoy it, and I'm at the point where I'd put it on roughly the same level, or perhaps just slightly below, AoW 1 and SM.

Part of that came from realizing that while there's a disheartening amount of races, the races that are in there are a lot more diverse than in previous AoW games, with most units playing and feeling quite different from each other.

Part of that came from changes to the game itself through patches - for example, at one point, they made class units a lot more distinct based on which race you are, which eased the pain of so few races.

Part of it came from fighting a lot of battles and realizing that, whatever else you might say about it, AoW 3 has got far and away the best combat of any game in the series, and IMHO the best combat of any TBS period (obviously discounting war games like Panzer General, etc).


Ultimately, it still manages to occupy the same place as the rest of the series, which is the reason Age of Wonders is possibly my favourite franchise: It finds a nice balance where it's deep enough that I find myself enthralled by the many different possibilities, but is simple enough that I can play a game from start to finish over the course of a couple hours (because, as much as I love games like Dominions and Eador, let's be honest: they do not co-exist very happily with a busy schedule).


One last observation is that, in many ways, AoW 3 feels like more of a sequel to AoW 1 than to Shadow Magic, and in my experience, generally people who preferred AoW 1 are happier with AoW 3 than those who preferred Shadow Magic (though obviously that's a broad generalization).

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the game at this point? Have your initial feelings changed at all? If not, have they intensified?


DISCLAIMER: PLEASE DON'T USE THIS THREAD TO TALK ABOUT AOW 3'S DRM. THERE IS ALREADY A THREAD FOR THAT. THANK YOU.

How's the multiplayer for AoW:3? The base game didn't hook me the way AoW:SM did for some reason, but that may be because I just don't have enough time to sit and play for a long, continuous block of time. On the other hand, I only became "good" at AoW:SM so that I wouldn't embarrass myself in multiplayer games. :)

P.S. Good Disclaimer!

I agree overall. The combat has definitely improved overall and I like what they've done with the domains. The campaigns were fun and well structured, and I really like how they brought back the branching campaigns from the first game even if you only have one choice to make. I just wish they had done more to flesh out the world storywise. The plot involving the Shadowborn and Melenis seemed really neat, but felt like a teaser. They could have done a better job of tying the games together for those who never played the previous campaigns. For example, unless you played AoW2, I don't know if there are any direct references to the shrines being dedicated to particular wizards from that campaign. I do enjoy the many call backs and easter eggs for long time fans of the series, it feels like the storyline just doesn't hold up well on its own.

I would say multiplayer is the best in the series.

First, the game's got its own matchmaking and ladder service right now, making finding and joining a game a much easier process.

Second, they've tossed in a few optional rules that have been fantastic for multiplayer. They've added in the option to give all heroes Resurgence in auto combat, for example, as well as varying game speeds, Civ-style (e.g. on faster speeds everything requires less turns to produce and research, more turns on slower speeds). One very important new addition is that the RMG now allows you to specify how far players spawn from one another.

Finally, I think the shift in game mechanics (and specifically the way that power dynamics between unit levels are less pronounced here than in any other game in the series, IMHO) directs the game away from SM's frenzy to be the first to get to level 4 units. That's still there, to an extent, but it's not as bad.


For the most part, I would say that multiplayer is an unequivocal improvement over SM. The one area where 3 struggles, and one that I hope will eventually be fixed, is that balance between the classes isn't perfect. The races are fine, IMHO, but the problem with the classes is that some have a lower potential for power but they hit it quickly and early (e.g. the Rogue) while others have a higher potential for power but it takes them longer to get there (e.g. the Archdruid). While on paper this sounds balanced, in practice this means that some classes are much more effective on certain map sizes and game speeds than others. Completely agreed. I've never played a strategy game with a decent story, but at least most have complete stories. AoW 3's campaigns just felt like an intro for AoW 4. Still, though, they were a lot of fun to play (which is the important part), and, like you said, they have all sorts of neat references to AoW 1, 2, and SM.

Never played Multiplayer but it sounds that, like the original poster, I Uninstalled it until all the patches and updates were done. Main difference being that I haven't reinstalled it yet.

Partly I wanted to wait for the game to 'settle down' but also it didn't quite grab me although I think a lot of that was to do with the balancing and lack of variety. The various patches seem to have addressed that so I'm tempted to reinstall it - although the current GOG patching policy means that probably means a substantial download.

At first I played it a lot, and almost beat the single player campaign, then my attention shifted and it is gathering some dust unfortunately. :(

I am not much into AoW 3. I tried it several times but I am just not enjoying as previous instances. Gameplay on startegic map is mostly fine (although I think income is bit too low and one spends too much time waiting for money for better structures) but I really dislike combat.
It is just personal preference but I don't like the always hit mechanics and find the older mechanics much better. It encourages swarming the units because even the strongest unit will get eventually (fairly quickly) whittled down by a ton of tiny attacks. Overall the game prefers quantity over quality thanks to it. I also don't like how the flanking works and how the unit turns after flanking attack just to be flanked from another side, turn againa nd get flanked again from the third side. Also for AI it is too easy to kill your weaker units by suicide attacks. They are prone to ie. taking engaged cavalry, disengage and get hit, go through another zone of control to get hit again and get to low health only to flank charge into your archers who havestrong attack but low defense and can get killed in 1 hit. Player wouldn't do it as the cavalry would die but AI likes it before it doesn't play long-term game and is only interested in hurting you.
Plus I don't understand why only 1 hero can cast spell per combat round. What is the logic in that?

And one very minor thing, the starting hero of campaign, the elven princess complains how her parents won't allow her to do anything and only want her to marry. I find it quite strange that Queen Julia which herself was anything but proper princess/queen would restrict her daughter like that or even allow her husband to do so.

Perhaps Julia feels that she was mistaken to act that way in her youth. Keep in mind that she did eventually reconcile with her brother Meandor and that it was her marriage to the Dark Elf Saridas that closed the rift between their people. Maybe she feels that if she married Meandor in the first place a lot of bloodshed could have been averted. That is probably wrong, but it would have been an interesting aspect to explore.

I hear you on the quantity-over-quality approach, but I personally prefer this. I wasn't a big fan of the way that online, SM was basically a mad dash to level 4, and most level 1 and 2 and even some level 3 units may as well have not been in the game at all. It wasn't really my cup of tea, and I feel AoW 3 did a good job in rectifying that.


As for the one spell per combat round, I'm not a big fan of it but I have to concede it makes sense. Basically they felt that being able to cast as many spells per round as you had casters gave a massive bonus to the defender, who in late game SM could unleash a magical armageddon before the attacker even had a chance to move. This was bad for tactical combat, but even worse for the strategic map, because it meant that people were often trying to find ways to bait the other side into attacking you so that you could have that advantage. It made the game into Red Rover: Fantasy Edition, where two armies stand around awkwardly hoping the other will come to them.


There was some talk about the limit of one spell per round only applying to the first couple of rounds of combat, but so far that hasn't been implemented.


At the end of the day, I think that while AoW 3 is primarily a singleplayer game, it has given a fair bit more thought and attention to multiplayer than any of its predecessors, which has resulted in quite a few changes that sometimes alienate the singleplayer-only crowd - like the one spell per round rule.

I FINALLY finished the elven campaign last week, even though i pre-ordered AoW3 last year! It was simply too boring for me story wise, and didnt intrigue me like AoW1 and AoW2:SM did. Is the commonwealth campaign any more interesting or challenging? When the game ended I was left saying "oh..that was the end? okay...".

I'm now playing golden realms, and, while the expansion clearly shows the advancements of the game since its release, im waiting until i finish the campaign before i decide whether or not I am satisfied with it.

Here is where my opinion of the game will be limited; Ive never played a scenario or multiplayer game yet. I like to finish campaigns before i do the "extra" things.

I was sad when they patched out the possibility of missing when attacking last year. the "luck" feature seems to make up for that a little bit, although it relies on the clover-field node to function if you're not a halfling.

The game since launch has grown into something more than worthy of playing, even if the old campaigns seem to be lacking in some challenge and flair. Little cut-scenes in addition to the vocal readings of the pre-mission text might help with the story, but im also a huge fan of in game dialogue if its not overdone. Even minor touches like text during or before a battle against an enemy hero would help make it feel more important, and perhaps the ability to imprison the hero instead of kill or charm them might be a neat way to add depth to the good and evil mechanic!

There is so much more to say about this game! They did a great job with the visuals. Some of the art is a little too plain or cutesy vs. more realistic or scary textures, but the new expansion looks to be bringing some more "ugly" units/heroes in, so we'll see what that turns out to be.

The one thing i can count on from Triumph for AoW3 is that we will continue to get improvements every year, and possibly even longer than the first two games. I did notice that the steady/timely stream of updates that the game received for the first 6 months of its life seemed to disappear completely with the golden realms being its last actual update other than extremely minor fixes to the 1.4 patch and the tiny x-mas addition last month for hero clothes. Thats nearly 4 solid months with no serious patching. Can we now assume the game is in a period of more spaced out patch releases and a focus on expansions? I hope the new expansion(hopefully coming out winter or early spring!!) will have more campaign or scenario content than the first, even though goldenrealms was well worth the cheap price!

I'll add more here when ive played more AoW3 or if i feel the inspiration to. Great idea for a thread!

They haven't announced when, but the dev journals have shown that frostlings and necromancers will be in the next expansion. The expansion will also include a campaign featuring Melenis. They just recently announced a PBEM feature that will be included in a free patch.

I wouldn't call it amazing, but I did feel that the Commonwealth campaign's story was a little better written, or perhaps just a little better presented, than the Elven Court one.

Thanks for the input. I'll give it a whirl after i finish the golden realms, but something tells me its going to feel strange going back to an earlier version of the time. Ill Probably end up moving onto scenarios and custom games after the G.R campaign.

My slowness with this game will play out in my favor for the release of the second expansion. I felt a little guilty for not being done with everything when golden realms came out. :p

My feeling is that this could have been one of the best games ever made. The tactical combat works so well, and the game has a great look. But they just made so many bad decisions that compromise the balance and fun. The class system doesn't really work because some classes are so much better, plus it keeps you from being able to SEE most of the game, I want to be able to build the units I like and not be forced to accept only building a handful. The class ultimate spells should be dumped, every one of them. Age of Magic, Wild Hunt, Global Assault; they all exacerbate the class imbalance issues.
Plus, they took such a lazy approach with so many of the Strategic world elements, from a lack of resources, to a meaningless and nonsensical alignment system.
I pray that someday, there will be comprehensive mod of this game that will do for it what Rise of Mankind did for CIV 4.

Re: Classes - From what I have read, some classes are better for the short game and others are better for the long game.

Re: Units - One must adjust strategy to the units available. This is true in most strategy games and helps separate the levels of play. If you have a race with lots of concealed units available, you become a back stabbing bastard. If you have lots of water based units, let the rivers be yours. Etc.

Re: Resources - Without scarcity, you never make tough decisions. 4X games should require strategic and tactical decisions, not just be a mad dash for an unlimited resource pile and infinite building like an early RTS.

Re: Alignment - Not sure how it works in AoW:3, but in the previous installments the Undead and good Elves had a tough time working hand in hand. This makes for a more realistic world rather than a bland, build the ultimate stack with whatever you want world.

I'm glad to hear that you enjoy the look and feel though. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm genuinely confused by some of your comments and want to give the benefit of the doubt to Triumph studios since they richly rewarded my playing time in AoW, AoW:2, and AoW:SM.