You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.10 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » TWC = good or bad?
Bottom
Topic Subject:TWC = good or bad?
MNBob
Skirmisher
posted 12-19-06 01:56 PM EDT (US)         
Now that we've all had some time to play, what do you think?

There is no doubt that natives are different. But I've started to question whether or not they were good for AOE3.

The fire pit is interesting but I dislike the magical feel of it in a historical game. Since it's here to stay I think the unit speed up dance could use a tweak to make it less effective. Maybe ES could even create two separate dances, one for military and one for villagers.

Why are a saloon and outlaws available in the Colonial age? "Go West Young Man" happened a tad later in U.S. history.

Assassins and Agents and Spies, Oh My!. They just don't fit into the game IMO. They feel tacked on.

Advanced Scouts. Oops. These guys are somewhere between current Agents and the 1.0 Agents.

The things I do like -- 25 card decks (but not the level requirements to get them), bugged card fixes, new cards, etc. were all things that didn't require an expansion.

Thus overall I'm not sure I really like most of the primary changes that TWC introduced. Whereas AoC really improved AoK (in fairness that's party because it had to address the bug and balance issues that AOE3 fixed with patches), I don't feel the same about TWC. While I still enjoy playing I honestly think I'd get more enjoyment out of fan patching AOE3 and playing without natives. Of course, there wouldn't be anyone to play with which makes that a little difficult.


Abus Guns and Grenadiers ARE NOT ARTILLERY!
MNBob's AOE Page
AuthorReplies:
Ender_Ward
Skirmisher
posted 12-19-06 02:10 PM EDT (US)     1 / 10       
I kinda like playing against the natives, but I don't like using them myself. In particular the Aztec and Iroquois, but boomer civs annoy me in general.

I like TWC for the options opened up for the European civs. You don't know what fun is until you've had Frigates with "Offshore Support" totally force an enemy to give up half the map and not even dare approach any units into the warship range.
Or the fun in unleashing a bunch of Irregular Black Riders on a mine full of villagers.

I like how TWC made Dutch one of the best civs around, with the Bank Wagon, the Saloon Mercs (the chance for merc cav or light infantry) and most importantly the "pseudo-cavalary" Halberds. Dutch would stil struggle against many civs in vanilla without these options.

I like some of the new TWC maps, and dislike the addition of others, so that's a wash I guess.

Overall, I'd say TWC, for me, is a slight improvement over AoE3 vanilla, which was getting kinda stale, even after the 1.08 patch changed the scene dramatically.


"One wants to be loved, failing that admired, failing that feared, failing that hated and despised. One wants to instill in other people some form of emotion. The soul shudders before emptiness and wants contact, no matter the cost."
Beatnik Joe
Skirmisher
posted 12-19-06 02:34 PM EDT (US)     2 / 10       
I vote "good." I really like Warchiefs.

Quote:

The fire pit is interesting but I dislike the magical feel of it in a historical game.


I try not to think of it mystically -- the description I like is that it represents the tribe's "focus" and having villagers do non-economic tasks like raise militia (alarm dance), tend to wounded soldiers (healing dance), or get busy (fertility dance.)

This perhaps shows the lengths to which I will go to justify a really cool feature in an RTS, which the firepit most certainly is.

Quoted from MNBob:

Why are a saloon and outlaws available in the Colonial age? "Go West Young Man" happened a tad later in U.S. history.


Case in point! Saloon is very cool, though a little ahistorical. Makes more sense in fortress, but by then the outlaws are a little obsolete.

Quoted from MNBob:

Advanced Scouts. Oops. These guys are somewhere between current Agents and the 1.0 Agents.


Oh dear. I'm probably not allowed to comment on this one.

Quoted from MNBob:

new cards, etc. were all things that didn't require an expansion.


You can of course argue that new cards don't require an expansion, but they are part of what we got with the Warchiefs. I'm really excited about some of these new cards. And I'd use them if I wasn't so dang addicted to the Aztecs. The trickle cards, bank wagon, 2nd factories, suvorov reforms, etc. I want to try them but I kinda have a native addiction tying me down at the moment.

BTW, as a primarily team game player, have you considered using the Aztecs? It seems that they excel in team games and I've found them to be a very enjoyable civ. As a hidden bonus, you do not face the AI quirks of artillery or large melee cav. It gives the civ a "smoother" feel where you less often find yourself telling your units, "Noo! Not that way! NOOOOOO!!"

The one feature I'd hoped would be more viable is Revolution. A boost there would bring in yet another great element that hasn't yet lived up to its potential.


Strategies:
- BWKiC - A British Fast Fortress strategy
- The Aztec Scout Slam- An Envoy Rush, Native-Style
MNBob
Skirmisher
posted 12-19-06 02:58 PM EDT (US)     3 / 10       
Even though Portugal is my highest level civ, I actually like playing cav civs. That's why I chose to play first as Sioux in the TWC. Then I played as French for a while. Now I'm back to Portugal. I've been playing about a dozen games per week. I'm not sure I have the patience to try to level up another civ.

Another big change has been that Aymes, the guy I played with regularly in AOE3 decided not to buy TWC and instead he purchased and plays Company of Heroes. I don't tend to see many clan members online when I play so most of my games end up being random team games. While they can be fun some random teams can result in a lot of frustration. I'm finding that it's much harder to establish a consistent skill level when you play random team games. Also I'm seeing much less people online when I play compared to AOE3. Many times the Game Browser screen doesn't even need to be scrolled because there aren't enough games. Perhaps all of that taken together adds to my overall lower opinion of TWC.


Abus Guns and Grenadiers ARE NOT ARTILLERY!
MNBob's AOE Page
xSephirothx
Skirmisher
(id: xMatt the Greatx)
posted 12-19-06 03:46 PM EDT (US)     4 / 10       
Take TWC, subtract the natives from it, and I like it.
Ossian
Skirmisher
posted 12-19-06 04:32 PM EDT (US)     5 / 10       
I heard spies get a bonus vs Advanced scouts.

*WINDOWS CRITICAL ERROR 19891126*
Product ID: Ossian Discontinued
Contact your network admin for more details
about this special edition of player...

Allthough cetans are darker, did you know that if you read the word 'cetan' as a dutch word, that you get the same sound as when reading 'satan' in english.-Furby Killer
Unthinking_Pain
Skirmisher
posted 12-19-06 04:54 PM EDT (US)     6 / 10       
I like TWC

I like how the native civs turned out. I'm sure everyone has their favorite nerf/fix to suggest, but overall I think they actually managed to make the native civs do what they were supposed to do. There is now something I see that ES FINALLY managed to do in their RTS -

Turtle/boom vs. rush civs have some kind of parity. Ottos/Sioux/Spain (ok, spain over the top, but still) for more aggressive civs, and Dutch and possibly Iroquois as turtle/boom possibilities (and perhaps Aztec get there too.)

TWC also has an amusing issue with when/how on cannons vs. Natives. Sometimes it feels like natives are scratching their heads getting blown up, sometimes it feels utterly futile to try to get cannons anywhere near natives.

I like the Firepit. I don't think it needs to be touched at all. Building up the Firepit is an econ investment that can range from low investment low return to high investment (risky) high return. And the other effects they have are cool IMO.

What I don't like - Stealth, period. I think all the stealth is just silly. But oh well.

John Xenir
Skirmisher
posted 12-20-06 12:54 PM EDT (US)     7 / 10       
Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Why are a saloon and outlaws available in the Colonial age? "Go West Young Man" happened a tad later in U.S. history.
-----------------------------------------------------------

I agree with this. It is weird to have western-style saloons and gunmen with revolvers is colonial age, which should be around 1700 (in my opinion they don't belong even in imperial age). It should be avalaible a pirate style tavern/inn with only merc instead. However, outlaws are useless.

About playable natives, I don't play with them since I don't like to have half naked soldiers. (that's also the reason that I don't play ages before middle ages)

The term spy and agent is to modern to use AoE3. They should be called just scouts, since they have no abities to sabotage enemy things. And the icon of the agent is very dumb.

P.S.: How can I list quotes, it seems weird how I done above

But I think that warchiefs addon is necessary since it add two vital function to game interface: attack-move and stand ground.

[This message has been edited by John Xenir (edited 12-20-2006 @ 01:19 PM).]

Boss_of_MASS
Skirmisher
posted 12-20-06 01:47 PM EDT (US)     8 / 10       
I agree, the main reason i didnt get the warchiefs was spies and buildable mercenaries. I still dislike just about everthing in it though. Except some of the cards.
ultimitsu
Skirmisher
posted 12-20-06 01:56 PM EDT (US)     9 / 10       
on the subject of outlaws..

I am no history expert so i wont commet on that.

but the implement of outlaws in game is poor, resulting very few people actually use them. and so far no top players at all.

1, all gold costing units hurt a lot unless you are dutch, you could have consumed all nearby mines over 10 minutes of colonial fight, then you are screwed as you dont have enough gold left to age up, even if you managed to age up, you have nothing left for gold costing fortress units.

2, none of the outlaw units' performance stand out, although they are better than normal units, but their edge dont justify their strategic cost.

3, once beyond colonial, they are obsolete with availablity of mercs and better performing veteran units who dont cost that much gold. (vet muskts > ouotlaw pistol)

4, the whole "perk" of being able to use outlaws is somewhat defeated as the outlaw you get are not the real outlaw.

-------

If I was to redesign the outlaws, I would make them only avaliable from fortress onwards and increase their cost, but make them real outlaws (e.g. 600HP pirates), this would make them more usable as you have access to planation in fortress, and they would become a good alternative to mercs as they are not countered by merc counters.

The Anti Elmo
Skirmisher
(id: Led)
posted 12-20-06 03:33 PM EDT (US)     10 / 10       

Quote:

Why are a saloon and outlaws available in the Colonial age? "Go West Young Man" happened a tad later in U.S. history.


The saloon part I agree with, but outlaws are fine historically. Outlaws helped win The Battle of New Orleans and they also made up a part of the English army for a period of time.

Quote:

Assassins and Agents and Spies, Oh My!. They just don't fit into the game IMO. They feel tacked on.


They fit into the game perfectly. Spies, agents and assassins were employed often by European and Ottoman militaries.

"My fort was razed by cougars."
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames