|
|
Post by deadman on Oct 29, 2017 19:36:44 GMT
I feel so much less insentive to play conquests in wc4. In wc3 about 80% of my play time was conquests. In wc2 almost all I played was conquests. Now in WC4 I can hardly be bothered to do more than 4. I feel as if it is just way to too much work and time to drag youre allies across the finish line. 1943 being the worst offender (1950 being slightly better) With youre allies being complete faliures at even holding their own land, much less take over any enemy land.
What do you all think about conquests in wc4?
|
|
|
|
Post by odm on Oct 29, 2017 22:44:38 GMT
I remember the old times too... the conquests of WC2 and GoG were mostly really hard... while those in EW4 and WC3 were really easy and the main focus was winning in few turns since after EW4 there were no more medals for playing (by that I mean the occasional medal which popped up when you did an attack). In WC4, I'd say that the got back to the old format... you will still get an S rating for a conquest under 100 turns (I just completed India 1943 in 92 turns, I reccommand it) and mostly they are not easy. Tech matters a lot, unlike previous games, and generals tend to be less useful, which I think it makes more sense. I am also happy about the new cities placements, there are now really few spots where you can't paradrop directly with just the first range upgrade. Balance wise, I am really curious how the game makes your allies stupid  . By the way, you also have to consider that the rewards are bigger than those in the previous games, which is right considering the additional time spent. About the units in conquest... well yeah... subspam is almost as bad as paraspam... also subs can only be defeated by ships(good luck having a navy with 50+ subs in the sea), air (expansive without good air general and bomber upgrade) or coastal artillery (which is weak to any other ship). I miss the field artillery but I believe that was the right choice. Still I am kinda sad there isn't any 3 hex unit. Some more writing and this will be a review TL:DR.. Better than WC3, worse than EU4... a solid 8/10 for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb on Oct 29, 2017 23:23:21 GMT
I think conquests should be just like this-hard. In WC3 they were just a joke after some point (except aliens, there you were the joke), while here they are always challenging, even if you got OP gens (I don't).
|
|
|
|
Post by deadman on Oct 30, 2017 0:28:03 GMT
I dont mind conquests being hard I just hate having to go save an ally who is far stronger than me or having to ALWAYS take back all their cities because they spend their money in city upgrades instead of on troops to defend themselves. That is what truly annoys me. For example I beat 1939 with bulgeria and had to save germany who had lost berlin. 1943 I played france and I had to go retake the soviet union since they couldnt defend their cities. I am not even asking them to take enemy land anymore, I am just hoping they wont lose their cities to the enemy, it makes the conquest artifically much longer and duller. Usally half way through the conquest I dont even make units I just missile spam then paratrooper the cities.
|
|
. By the way, you also have to consider that the rewards are bigger than those in the previous games, which is right considering the additional time spent.
