Yeah, but I think War3 requires more of a mix in armies than RTW. There are units in RTW that are strong enough to take on an army by themselves. This comes back to the bad AI. If the AI was really good I think there would be a need for a good mix of units but right now you could just build a bunch of heavy infantry and last easily. I think War3 is more strategic because there are more different types of units and you are forced to have a mix because there is no 'one' unit that can take everything. I agree that RTW is a different kind of strategy. The terrain makes a pretty big difference in RTW but not much at all in War3. As far as units go though, War3 has many different kinds of units each having a few special abilities to think about plus resources are harder to get so there are more factors to think about. Save up for a more powerful unit but possibly be caught off guard or churn out cheap units that die quickly. Through the course of the game one also needs to consider when to upgrade to that more powerful unit lest you get behind technology wise.Originally Posted by CMcMahon
Back to the point, he was saying that War3 has almost no strategy. I disagree with this. I believe, if anything, they have equal strategy. RTW has more realistic strategy. How to manuver troops and where to place them. When to charge and when to stay back. War3 just has a lot of varied units where the strengths of each need to be used in order to be successful. Terrain and placement of troops doesn't matter much but there are so many different kinds of units and abilities that a lot of attention is needed to see what units the enemy has, what units would be best to counter them, and how to use those units best in combat(when to use their abilities).
Sorry for long post hehe
Bookmarks