If you rush into a city with a full army an enemy probably will see that coming. Having the advantage of multiple full armies is nice but you need to control the nearby hexes. You can Artillery a city all you want but if you can't send a unit in there without dying it is pointless.Īny well defended city can wreck a good portion of an army.Īt least with this form of combat Strategy actually has a foot hold instead of unit spam. You have to go in there with a 'Melee' Unit and with the moment being as what it is it would require you having either tanks within 2 hex or MechInf in 1 making them targetable by defenses. I do not like to nuke especially if I want to conquer.

Especially when entering the Modern age and Rocket artillery is a thing. I have nothing but respect for them, just wish the critics agreedĪnyone who has extensively played Civ knows the pain of capturing just one well defended city. Triumph created a game where their sweat and blood are almost tangible, not relying on Kickstarter or early access or free to play/in app purchases to fund their game. I hope that indie developers in the future don't continue to follow the half ass, self deprecating approach to game development to reap the easy rewards, or the early access nonsense that seem to abandon their customers after the alpha is public. This baffles me as it is easily the top GOTY contender for me so far this year, despite it's niche. I am very disheartened that no critics seem to find AoW3 to be great, never reaching the coveted 9+/10. Metacritic is great in that it is a far more objective consensus as to the quality of a game. I dont look for subjectivity in reviews, but that is becoming harder and harder to come by these days. In this instance, I believe OBJECTIVELY, AoW3 is leagues ahead of many other, higher rated titles. That being said, all that matters is the end result. Half assed, cheapo games being rated higher than AAA quality titles that have been in development for 4 years.

Age of wonders 3 review ign