DLR was an incredible game. I would donate $100 for an updated version of it. Please use W3 as the basis for any modifications and improvements.
haha i was just chatting to my brother about good old warlords earlier today. absolute coincidence. anyhow one thing that was missing in the wl3 diplomacy (which was extremely good anyhow, and greatly missed in wl4) was the ability to simply 'give' castles and gold to other players. ie u can give a castles ownership to another player, they should not need to attack the castle and get into a state of war. this would also effect your 'standing' with an enemy npc. in a way u could buy an alliance (which has certainly been done in many wars) but their will always be that chance of a back stab!
with the simplicity of warlords i think it should be cross platform. example. like chess.com i can jump on my pc and make a move, my friend in new zealand then makes his move on his iphone, later that day back in australia i make my move on my android phone. simple database cloud that can be connected by different devices. thats assuming u can make the game mobile without hurting the quality of the game, if not then screw mobile.
ill be back to post a ton more later oh the excitement. thanks for the 'teaser' steve. if u can call it that. and welcome back.
i think more development for heros would be nice. maybe if a hero survives a campaign then u can bring him/her back in a future campaign. this would be more persistant than classic warlords games and this would be best to apply to an online mode only. the player would have the choice at the start of a campaign to bring that epic hero in but he will not be able to withdraw it till the campaign is finished, so he is taking a risk playing that hero (rather than rolling a new hero for that map). this of couse would lead to hero leader boards, ie. 'Lord Bane the 1020th' has won his 4th campaign.
and speaking of leader boards. would be nice to have an battlenet style site where we can go and find online games, choose the length between moves etc, enter tournaments, and see leader boards with all kinds of stats. leader coard examples; most wins, most troops built, fastest victory, richest army, most quested, longest living hero, most troops lost, most troops slain etc etc.
i think for online multiplay u could learn allot from chess.com (obviously being turn based). the 'create new game' options are very simple and they work. choose your side, set up how many days between moves etc. u can have multiple games going at one time. its not always convenient for people to make a move asap, so they would choose to play games with a 2, 3, 5, or 7 day max gap between moves.
please for the love of god stay away from 'pay to win'.. ie micro transactions. i would certainly rather buy a box (old school) or see the occassional advert any time before i have to 'pay to win'.
adding in one thought.
on the side of visuals. the troops have always been shown simply as one icon that represented an entire army. would be nice if that single troop could look more like a bunch of small men etc.
also some more (optional for the player i guess) battle cut scenes would be cool.
Last edited by alsats; 10-12-2012 at 05:52 PM.
personaly i think the start of a warlords campaign was exciting, u needed to be smart about it. did u risk taking that castle with just 1 troop? did u run for that far away castle to get an early advantage? did you search the ruines? your hero may die... then again u may also find troops..
i think any strategy game needs some room to show a battleground with all the details like cities, roads, armies etc
and a mobile screen or even a tablet pc one arent suitable for this kind of task, not to mention the poor means of user input.
Last edited by Molotov; 10-13-2012 at 05:40 AM.
I have lots of ideas about how Warlords V should be, but the very important things are the following. What makes Warlords III is not it's mechanics or it's reasonable AI but it's sheer customisability. While in mechanics (and eventually even AI) Warlords IV is superior, it is poor because it relies upon hardcoded races with hardcoded relationships and army setups which combined with the ability to recruit all units in the game leads to basically extremely bland sides and thus games.
The other overlooked element is the sheer detail that Warlords III gives you as to what is going on and has gone on in the past. The fact that the game contains it's own historical record is not only perhaps useful from an AI point of view but adds atmosphere. Being able to trace the history of all your heroes, where they started out, what they did and where and how they died is one real strength of Warlords III. It adds atmosphere if nothing else.
Tactical combat however is not the direction we should be going in. The reason is that tactical combat reduces the strategic element of the game and most importantly makes it more predictable. Let's face it, AIs are largely predictable whatever you do. This means that once you have refined the tactical element of the game, a poor strategist can win by using superior tactics consistantly while the AI suffers from the inferiority of auto-combat among itself.
There is due to the quest mechanics and the combat mechanics being random a strong element of unpredictability in Warlords III that makes the rather basic strategic element engaging, one cannot see the future from the starting point exactly, one can only make an educated guess. Who gains the initial advantage is determined often by the outcomes of random battles and quests. That is why the randomness of the battles and the easy availability of quests is so important for a Warlords game. Basically in summary.
Directions in which to go
Detailed racial/population mechanics in cities.
Greater strategic detail in mechanics (including boats).
Greater diplomatic options (including surrendering to specific sides).
Directions in which to avoid going
Increased predictability to Warlords III.
Fixed racial relationships that are hardcoded.
Fixed racial side setups.
Continuation of the Warlord/Capital mechanic of Warlords IV.
As an old Warlord who played countless Case's Ladder games this is very exciting news. To me W3: DLR was the pinnacle of the series so Warlords 5 should be based on W3: DLR. I'd actually be perfectly happy with a better or more modern W3: DLR as W5. The simple bonus system of -3 to +5 (leadership, fear, etc.) of W3: DLR was very elegant. It was just the right amount of complexity. W4 tried to go too far and added too many unnecessary complexity I think.
In Warlords 5:
* Keep the simple and elegant bonus system from W3: DLR. If you'll change it don't go overboard like W4. Keep it manageable.
* Keep the Custom Army Sets. Custom Army Sets + Multiplayer is what kept W3: DLR fresh for years. Being able to make different army sets and setting fight order etc. was amazing.
* Definitely better multiplayer. People have a lot better Internet these days and matchmaking services improved greatly (I remember having a lot of problems with Red Ord Zone) so hopefully Multiplayer will be better.
* Better graphics are nice but they don't have to be out of this world. As long as I can play on my 1920x1080 monitor I am fine. This may sound weird but I actually prefer the cute cartoony low res graphics of W3: DLR to W4's more high res graphics even today. I don't know why.
I don't want:
* No permanent heroes that you can take from game to game. I want to be able to duel a warlord on equal terms. Like chess. I don't want to search for a level 20 hero to go against etc. Keep it simple.
* No immobile warlords in capital like W4 or no warlord units period.
* No tactical combat. It slows down the game and makes multiplayer less fun.
* Don't add complexity just for the sake of adding complexity. When in doubt, compare to W3: DLR.
I'll add to this as I think of more stuff.
I hope we see a Warlords 5 soon!
Last edited by Tarrax; 10-23-2012 at 04:49 AM.