This thread is always generated when I Google for Battle March related information, so I decided to click on and see what the discussion was about.
I can understand people's disappointment with MoC, it is a game which promised a lot but really did not yield what was expected. Even though I dont play Table Top in my short time playing MoC and consequently reading about Warhammer I can see the differences are quite vast. That in itself is bad because interested players were expecting Warhammer, the same can be said about DoW. Which is still a fun game.
As a strategy game however I think MoC does have a lot going for it, but it is very easy when initially playing the game to assume it is mind-numbingly simplistic. Reasons for this are mostly about the "slog" that occurs when melee units engage in battle. Nothing really dramatic happens, they just whack at each other for a long time. Unless spells, siege, skirmish units etc are also being focused on one of the units. Then things happen all too quickly at times
Until a player can coordinate a 30000 gold army with moderate consisency, making use of siege, spells, fliers and skirmish units all in conjunction with the core army, not to mention respopnses to duels, the game has not really been examined for what it is.
I myself have only been playing the game for about 3 months now. Which means I came in after 1.72, most of the enduring complaints on the forums quickly transitioned from 'not Warahmmer' to 'lack of balance/improperly working skills'.
It seems to me 1.72 came way too late for the majority, only a few old time players remain. The rest are mostly new. And unfortunately a few skills dont work, major skills in some instance.."Noble Heart" where art thou.
Probably the best way to characterise how MoC is different in strategy from a lot of other games is the emphasis on where, when and thus how battles take place. Once battles occur more often than not units are committed and with no base building and unit production (for the most part) you really want to ensure an advantage. Otherwise a more experienced or strategically minded player is going to win through.
The other difference I find is the long term consequences. When a battle happens experienced players are assessing how this will carry on and how this will impact on the overall battle to take place. It isnt so much consequences as looking at how different phases of the game are likely to occur relative to certain points.
Often enough 45-96 Goblins will simply tie up a more combat efficient group delaying them from more critical areas. Or if you are one of the few High Elf players (there is probably only one) use of Flames of the Phoenix to slow the other 500 Orcs and Goblins descending on your 150 strong army is a really good idea. As long as you can actually hit something while they are in stasis.
Someone mentioned Friendly Fire, yes it is available and contrary to what some Empire players might say (who happen to have half their army consisting of Handgunners..) it changes how the game is played. Some might not even cosnider the friendly shots important but as with mentioned above, battles are long term and far reaching in closing consequences. Leaving units to 'slog' it out will not win against someone using an army with greater yet reliable versatility.
Unfortunately not everyone uses Friendly Fire, but few will decline in a 1v1 if you ask them to turn it on. There is also a multiplayer campaign being organised and beginning this coming Friday where Friendly Fire among many other house rules are being applied.
http://www.zerozen.co.uk/cg/news.php
Im really not concerned too much about single player, never finished it after starting online. The game a lot of potential I would say, but a few major problems remain. The main one is Namco's distinct lack of support, consequently a near dead player base. The only time I can reliably log on and get a few games is in about 4 hours from now when Europeans start logging on. Europeans love Warhammer evidently, and they take things a little too seriously at times
Im Australian btw. Which means I love this game enough to log on after midnight to play...
Anyway without support new players log onto the main server with no indication that they need to download patch 1.72. Consequently they dont see the majority of open games (not that there are many..but at least something to play), thus they think there are no games and leave to never return. Did I mention the in-game updater no longer works ? It just tells players 'there are no available updates", there are, it just doesnt provide them anyway. Coupled with language barriers it is really difficult to convey to new players that they need the patch to play with most others.
In the last 3 months maybe 100-150 new players have logged on, few of them remain. An average night is 8-12 players, 15 is active. However as I said with the patch you can at least play in these hours.
Until Namco provides a modicum of support the player base, which obviously enough wants to happen wont.
The dedicated few are waiting for Battle March, a little more balance, a few fixes and the addition of new races and units (White Lions and "Noble Heart" will radically change my High Elf armies, strategies and tactics) and support from Namco will complete the game nicely.
If that doesnt happen well we played what we could, will enjoy coming campaign, the BM spike and then move onto other games. I think Sins of the Solar Empire sounds great but it is still to be released in Australia.
odifications
