Calling bullshit, eh? Im not some random troll, if thats what youre insinuating. Oh, I'll most definitely put up. As to why I didn't do so in the first place:
Well, for one I didn't want to get into specifics because I was somewhat drunk while I wrote that post, I've ranted about KoW's inadequacies for hours already, and I was mildly concerned about any potential NDA still in effect (I haven't kept up on the beta since about a week after it began). But, I suppose I can throw those out and just get right to it.
Bear in mind that all my points are based upon my experiences with the first 1-3 builds of the pre-release beta, and I have not played the completed product (and I havent played KoW in months, so I may be mistaken in a few of these even when discounting the beta builds that I played not being as close to final as some later ones might be).
With that out of the way, heres some background:
I've played roughly 500 multiplayer matches of Kohan: Ahriman's Gift, as have a few other top GAF players. There are quite a few more, having participated in at least 50 matches, who tried out the beta along with us. We were in unanimous agreement on Kings of War. Like I said, that's not conclusive evidence by any means, as our perspectives could very well be skewed by our over-familiarity with KAG and any biases that are the resulting baggage. At the very least, though, I think this qualifies me as an expert on the strategic elements (and otherwise) of KAG, and if you'd like I could get a few QT3 members to corroborate this claim.
To assert my point I'll list what I feel makes Kohan: Ahriman's Gift such a strategically deep game, and how I've perceived these elements to be gimped or removed in the transition to Kings of War.
1)
Settling
(KAG)Settling, especially in matches where the map size is under 320x, remains one of the core strategic elements of KAG. How frequently to settle, where to settle (in relation to your enemies, your teammates, terrain, and mines), and what components to include in which settled areas (important when determining how far commissioned troops will have to move before finding an enemy to engage, as well as where to place key components such that they are less susceptible to enemy attack). All of this matters.
(KoW)In Kings of War, settling is limited to predetermined spots, in itself almost entirely removing the previous strategic element. In addition, settling spots are often surrounded by lairs, so just sending settlers to settle a settling spot isn't the wisest course of action. Instead, you find yourself commissioning troops from your initial settlement -- hey, nothing intrinsically wrong with that -- and killing those lairs, capturing a nearby independent settlement, etc. Of course, all of this is predetermined at the point of map generation; there isn't going to be much variety in your expansion execution in comparison.
2)
Economy
(KAG) There are quite a few ways to play each faction in KAG, depending on the faction chosen, the starting gold/heroes/lairs/independents, the role being played in a team, and also the troops you would like to field over the course of the match. Through settling and careful expansion/acquisition of territory, the player can tailor these factors to his advantage and set up an appropriate economy to field his troops effectively or even funnel money to a teammate. Each faction has distinct bonuses/differences in its economic layout, providing the players with the necessary encouragement to mix things up quite well on the battlefield. Nationalists will find themselves settling frequently to take advantage of their bonus component slot, perhaps trading a royalist or ceyah settlement with a teammate in order to break free a bit from the commissioned company limit that remains poor at only 1 per level of settlement. Royalists might rely on their potent workshop component to provide a large mass of resources in order to field many troops (but may run into money problems), etc.
(KoW) In KoW the number of settlements one generally possesses is far less than was typical in KAG. Instead, more component slots are available per settlement, and upgrading early is encouraged. Each faction/race combo gets a fairly equivalent (or balanced, if you wish) economic system, with Fallen being the exception. With the number of components increased and the number of settlements decreased, generally you dont need to make any difficult decisions about what components to include; just throw most of them in. This is especially true when taking into account that the resources given (and in KAGs case, sometimes taken) do not come with the bonuses and detriments that KAGs do. There is nothing like an Astrology Hall to allow your ZoS to ignore terrain penalties, etc. I also did not see much opportunity for team-based economic coordination, as money flowed quickly and the player mostly seemed limited by how many settlements controlled (reducing the importance of team unity). Again, balancing to the point where the aesthetic flavor of each faction/race outshines any minor strategic differences.
3)
Troop Variety
(KAG)In Kohan: Ahriman's Gift, there is a large selection of troop frontlines and support choices available with each faction. These selections allow a massive variety of combinations, each with strengths and weaknesses depending on factors such as terrain they're going to be fighting in, the types of resources you have available, and of course what the units are going to be fighting against. Each faction receives the basic front/support choices as well as several unique choices, each set providing vastly different bonuses (nationalists working heavily with morale modifiers, council with healing/protection, ceyah with attack/speed debuffs, etc.) There are no restrictions in combining frontlines with support within your faction; for example, you can pair engineers with mages if you choose, to have a unit that can build outposts, repair settlements, and also fight handily if necessarily.
In addition to normal selections, Elites are available (unless disabled in the multiplayer setup room), with each faction receiving an elite frontline selection and multiple elite support units (that can all be mixed freely). These units cost quite a bit of gold and resource upkeep, but can potentially turn the tide of battle (or simply escalate it into a higher tier of conflict when in large-scale 320x-style 4v4 multiplayer).
(KoW)In Kings of War, support choices are reduced significantly for each faction, instead seemingly replaced by a large selection of tech units. These tech units, similarly to KAG can be acquired through exploring the map and capturing lairs, but in some cases I found myself having more tech support units than actual factional support units (which seems odd to me; I should be able to focus on the strengths of the faction/race combination I chose instead of relying solely on the oftentimes very powerful tech units while throwing away my normal selections entirely).
If memory serves, some faction/race combinations in KoW will only net you 3-4 magic support choices (note that this may have changed by now). In KAG, looking at the Ceyah faction, they have 8 magic support choices (not counting potential tech acquisitions as with KoW). To make matters worse, there are restrictions placed on where support can be added, with the above example using the engineers no longer possible. Reducing the number of possibilities with these combinations limits the strategic impact of choosing different combos for each given situation.
4)
Combat
(KAG)Combat in Kohan: Ahrimans Gift is both a strategic affair and a tactical one. Minor bonuses can determine the victor in a fight between equally strong opponents. For example, if you pit infantry with ranger support (not the most popular combination, of course) versus infantry with mage support, theyll be fairly equally matches in the open field (if both units are at Recruit level, the mage company should win). However, if they fight in a forest/jungle a defense value bonus will be provided to both units, reducing the damage done by the rangers significantly, but the same will not apply to the mages.
In other examples, when fighting against a Ceyah enemy with supported troops, careful thought must be put into where and when to engage his/her main force, as the Ceyah player will be able to slow the movement rate of your troops (and/or freeze them, and provide bloodlust modifiers to his own troops to be able to do more damage if your guys break). If you find yourself losing by a small margin, your entire force may be wiped out as they find themselves unable to run away. Another case along these lines would be to use mounted troops in reserve or thrown into the enemys flank to prevent a successful retreat.
(KoW) Kings of War does quite a few things differently, to its detriment. KoW uses a simplified stat system for its units compared to KAG, reducing the ratio between attack value and defensive value significantly. This, in combination with quick troop buildup times, minimizes the effectiveness of healing units, instead focusing directly on damage dealt (frontlines die quickly, leaving healers with nothing to heal but damage dealers with enemies to deal damage to). Furthermore, units generally move very quickly, negating the potential benefit of pathfinding support (dont recall if rangers still provided that in KoW, though), as well as making retreats simple and effective in almost every scenario. Troops barely even need to worry about being wiped out as long as an occasional glance is thrown at the units in question. Even fast, mounted units cannot catch up to a retreating heavy unit.
That should be a decent start, no? Now, how about that beta Q&A I mentioned? Ill pull some segments from the IRC transcript I have on file. Note that these are not in order (but are otherwise unmodified), and Ill present the questions and answers directly for ease of navigation, with some commentary of my own thrown in.
--
<Wellington> ? Going off of Stalker's question...At last year's E3, it was mentioned and shown that TimeGate Studios had gone through measures to make the interface less cluttered and obtrusive (half transparencies, etc.) than in KAG and allow for more of a focus to be on the battlefield. Come the beta, and it's clear that KoW's interface is much more cluttered than KAG's. Will that be remedied or will it likely stay the way it is now?
<[TG]Dedboy> 4 Wellington - We don't see exactly how people are claiming the interface to be MORE cluttered than KAG. It is larger, yes, and the buttons are bigger and more pronounced. But the interface shows a much more streamlined set of information.
--
Commentary: From what I saw the interface required tooltip-type of pop-ups to be displayed in order to see many statistics, and in GAFs opinion it was not nearly as ergonomically sound as in KAGs. Note that I dont even think the interface in KAG is particularly exceptional; still, as a frequent RTS player and as a Kohan player I found the interface to be poor and would rate it as such in a review unless its been streamlined since.
--
<FM_Surrigon> Elaboration for PacketLoser: Despite the added races, individual company composition is "dumbed down." Instead of choosing between wizards or mages or storm lords I have only 1-2 choices. Flanks do not seem to offer anything other than extra bodies as they don't provide modifiers
<[TG]Dedboy> 4 FM_Surrigon - The combinations have not been dumbed down in any real sense, the same number of combinations exist. You still have a full front line compliment to choose from and bewteen 3 and 5 support units (depending on race and faction). Plus you have the flank which can be any front line unit (barring siege). The combinations have increased.
--
Commentary: Quite simply, the developers assertion is not true. As explained earlier, the number of magic support has been cut in half, the number of regular troop selections has either stayed the same or has been reduced, and the flank selection does not counteract this, especially when taking into account restrictions on equipping siege/engineer/etc. units with the support you want.
--
<[TG]PacketLoser> Hitokage -- All of the important strategic decisions - when to econ vs. milit, where to attack, whether to raid or slow press, forward posting, etc. are still in the game. What strategy elements do you find missing?
<EviLore> Packetloser: choosing effective unit combos, strategic settling, committing to engagements to some degree rather than being able to back out without any negative effects.
<[TG]PacketLoser> EvilLore -- Support choice is important. Also we are aiming to have each of our support units fill more of a role - overall company composition will still be important. Regarding not being able to extract, are you referring to the lack of necros, etc?
Commentary: Sacrificing variety and overall level of customization, etc. etc. (as outlined earlier), at the benefit of giving the player less choices (less chance to screw up, I suppose?)
<[TG]PacketLoser> Hitokage -- Terrain is still very important. The major difference you're noticing is that now there are not vanilla companies that have DV near the AV of most enemy companies
Commentary: The terrain modifiers are removed/gimped, meaning that the major difference that hes speaking of is actually the significant strategic loss that were concerned about.
<EviLore> Packetloser: well, it's mostly that there isn't much damage taken from the time you hit the retreat button to the time you're out of the battle. Whereas in KAG a battle between supported ground troops will force you to choose your battles, since you may lose quite a bit of health in any attempts to retreat/rout after engagement
<[TG]PacketLoser> Evillore -- I've lost several companies to massed mages in KoW. How do you see this aspect as much different from KIS/KAG?
Commentary: This is of course an exception (one that doesnt actually work very well if youre paying any attention to your companies) rather than the overall rule.
<Veerus> its harder to flank in KOW.. and flanking units dont really seem to stick around your support to help it
Commentary: Flanking is an important element, of course, to many successful tactics. With its importance lessened, once again strategic depth takes another plunge.
Basically, from what Ive seen a large portion of the strategic depth has been sacrificed in order to dumb the game down for the masses. Whether this is still true in newer builds of the game remains to be seen, which is why I originally commented that Id be trying out the demo and seeing whats improved.
Oh, and one last thing. If you want a much better explanation on what kind of strategy Kohan IS/AG incorporate, take a look at Doug Ericksons review of K:IS over at Gaming-Age. You can find it here:
http://www.gaming-age.com/cgi-bin/reviews/review.pl?sys=pc&game=kohan
Btw, while this is damn well long enough to be a review, its definitely not. Im just making a direct comparison between KAG and KoW, not letting KoW stand on its own. Looking at it from a perspective of not having ever played a Kohan game before, I think KoW is probably decent enough. Unfortunately, I cant see it that way, from my experience with it. Again, my opinion may change upon playing the final game.
