KB: Crossworlds

[ThunderTitan]

First, it cannot be compared in the adventure map, because one is an RPG game and another is an strategy game.

Ehhh.... what?! KB just happens to have a real time adv map, that doesn't make it a RPG...

[OliverFA]

First, it cannot be compared in the adventure map, because one is an RPG game and another is an strategy game.

Ehhh.... what?! KB just happens to have a real time adv map, that doesn't make it a RPG...

Ok, name it in the way you prefer. But it is not an strategy game. So it still can't be compared.

[agni]

Are we talking about the expansion here? The original was easy because you could really get away with luring mobs away and opening all the maps, but I find that the new version doesn't really let you do that.



Also, the difficulty level in KB AP really really depends on your luck of the draw. I started off with tons of pirate-related artifacts as well as Scarlet wind offering Sea Dogs, and that game was easy.



The next try, none of those pirate stuff was available til rusty island, and even then Scarlet isles didn't have Sea dogs, and that really changes things way over.

[archcorenth]

I don't mean to disparage King's Bounty. There are few games that have made me finish them. But I just didn't feel taxed strategically the way I do in HOMMV. You say there are many options on the tactical map, but what I'm saying is that it's never difficult enough to encourage you to use them. Perhaps I'm complaining about the AI. Changing troops is fun, but you don't do it because these troops best attack these enemies, but instead because you just went through a siege and you don't want to travel across two continent to replenish. Changing spells too has little tactical significance. You change spells because you found more powerful ones not because the AI was playing in a way to make your current choices ineffective.



But I'm not even really complaining because the fun of King's Bounty is not in it being a strategy game. The fun is in the adventure/RPG portion. The sheer amount of ingenuity in what to do and see. In this respect it's better than any Heroes game.

[ThunderTitan]

Just because the strategic elements are not challenging doesn't make it not be a strategy game...

[Tress]

Just because the strategic elements are not challenging doesn't make it not be a strategy game...

Actually there is no strategic ellements to speak of. If you play alone you cant speak of strategy.

[parcaleste]

You mean battles are not strategic enough to call it strategy? Developing your hero is not strategic enough to call it strategy? (well, could be better, but still it is) Even luring monsters to steal something from them or clear path is not strategic enough to call it strategy?

Then what is it? FPS? Quest? Perhaps Diablo's non-stop clicking on the left mouse button is more strategic than KB? Tell me, I want to know.

[OliverFA]

That's RPG
Yes. Battles are Turn Based Stategy. But the adventure game isn't strategy. Can you call KB an strategy game? Is almost a philosophical debate

But what we can say for sure is that there is no empire building, not army strategy, not resource management.

I still think that if Katauri decides to do a HOMM clone it will be a very good one. Probably much closer to NWC spirit than this Ashan world.

[ThunderTitan]

Just because the strategic elements are not challenging doesn't make it not be a strategy game...

Actually there is no strategic elements to speak of. If you play alone you cant speak of strategy.

Yes you can... playing in MP isn't a requirement for a strategy game. And you can't have tactics without strategy etc.

Yes. Battles are Turn Based Stategy. But the adventure game isn't strategy.

Once again, being real time doesn't stop it form being strategy... even if it's not the same type as Heroes...

You might call it a strategy/tactical RPG if you want, but not say it's not strategy...

[Tress]

You mean battles are not strategic enough to call it strategy? Developing your hero is not strategic enough to call it strategy? (well, could be better, but still it is) Even luring monsters to steal something from them or clear path is not strategic enough to call it strategy?

Battles aren't strategic. Thats tactics. Strategy is when you think how to expand your territory faster than enemy and develop your castle/base/whatever faster than enemy and gain strategic advantage over him in one way or another. Chosing between taking extra resources and develop army or rush enemy early is strategy. Battles like they are in homm or kb are not strategy.
Adventure part of Kb can be qualified as RPG or quest or mix between those. Well you can form your sort of army and skill points but then just as well I could say that arming characters and chosing extra priest instead of ranger in baldurs gate or icewind dale is strategy, but that certainly doesn't make it strategy game. Under such guidlines any game can be considered strategy, even rainbow six- its strategic decision to arm team heavily instead of light for example.

Perhaps Diablo's non-stop clicking on the left mouse button is more strategic than KB?

Since chosing talents for character is pretty similar in both game then I guess strategic depth in both games are quite alike. Of course picking amazon instead of barbarian is long term strategic decision. Its not battles than makes Homm strategic game, its global map, that KB have on level of RPG. Difference is that when we encounter enemy in d2 we feverishly tap mouse buttons while in KB we have tactical combat.

[ThunderTitan]

You mean battles are not strategic enough to call it strategy? Developing your hero is not strategic enough to call it strategy? (well, could be better, but still it is) Even luring monsters to steal something from them or clear path is not strategic enough to call it strategy?

Battles aren't strategic. Thats tactics. Strategy is when you think how to expand your territory faster than enemy and develop your castle/base/whatever faster than enemy and gain strategic advantage over him in one way or another. Chosing between taking extra resources and develop army or rush enemy early is strategy. Battles like they are in homm or kb are not strategy.

Tactics don't happen without strategy... heck, even if you're applying some tactics willy-nilly without thinking about the effect they will have on the battle that's still a strategy...

But even without that choosing to fight an neutral stack now or after you collected more resources and troops is still a strategic choice etc.

[Tress]

Tactics don't happen without strategy... heck, even if you're applying some tactics willy-nilly without thinking about the effect they will have on the battle that's still a strategy...

But even without that choosing to fight an neutral stack now or after you collected more resources and troops is still a strategic choice etc.

If such vague startegic ellements make game strategy then 98% games and certainly 100% RPG can be considered strategy games, but as we all know that word isnt tossed that frequently arround, besides something must separate nearly all games in world from true startegy like warlords, civ, homm etc.
Even mm7 under such considerations is strategy. For example I see my team is too weak to fight in pit and I strategically delay visit there trading of opportunity to finish quests and buy in earth guild, or I can strategically buy invis and get there faster, and so on and on.....
Baldurs gate 2 is actually hardcore strategy, under such guidlines. For example when I replayed I wanted to kill Firkraag before going to spellhold so I stacked heavy on mages with lower resist spell and that without doubt is somewhat strategic element, but certainly noone in right mind would write under those games "strategy" tag unless he would intend to mark at least 95% of game population with it.

[ThunderTitan]

Well of course all those games involve strategy... any game with choices that actually make a difference do.

But you're saying KB isn't strategy because of stuff like not having buildings, which is different...

You're still building up armies and making strategic choices on how to deploy that army and your resources... having towns to develop and territory to rush to might add to the complexity but they're not the end all of what make strategy games be strategy games. KB has RPG elements (moving your skill tree enabled hero around the map in real time) and strategy elements, so it's a hybrid.

That's why i don't agree with calling games like DoW2 a RTT, actuall RTT's are those games that start you off with a limited force you must use to defeat the enemy, otherwise it's too close to just being a RTS game without buildings, like DoW2 is...

[Tress]

Well of course all those games involve strategy... any game with choices that actually make a difference do.

That's precisely what I mean, and because of that word "startegy" as tag for game genre is not spammed, and is reserved for actual strategy games. If every game with any choice would be called strategy then that word would lose its meaning, specially if we have to contrast out games like civilization.
Yes KB have structuring armies and other stuff, and when i first played KB I had to rethink my strategy(again that word) when I entered demon realm, and I switched army to pure undead. But such choices I have to make in any RPG, and none of them are considered strategy. No doubt they can be called strategic choices but that doesnt make game "strategy"
Level of strategical depth in KB is on par with almost any RPG starting from MM ending with elder scrolls. Does it make difference if my team have 1 mage , priest druid, warrior, or I have stack of faeries, elves, treants? Its just different level of configuring character.

having towns to develop and territory to rush to might add to the complexity

Always had impression that it is core of being strategy game. Compare for example Jagged alliance 2 and its addon, it certainly have strategic part to call that game strategy. Global resources, milita training,town loyality. All that is abolished in addon where only streak of tactical battles remain, and imo it cant be called strategy anymore.

Also some quote from wiki about defining strategy vs tactics and why I dont really consider it strategy(I know its wiki, but everything is written by people, and I hope it stays that way)

Most strategy video games involve a mix of both strategy and tactics. "Tactics" usually refer how troops are utilized in a given battle, whereas "strategy" describes the mix of troops, the location of the battle, and the commander's larger goals or military doctrine.[12] However, there is also a growing subgenre of purely tactical games,[13] which are referred to as real-time tactics,[10] and turn-based tactics.[14] Game reviewers and scholars sometimes debate whether they are using terminology such as "tactics" or "strategy" appropriately.[15][16] Chris Taylor, the designer of Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander, has gone so far as to suggest that real-time strategy titles are more about tactics than strategy.[17] But releases that are considered pure tactical games usually provide players with a fixed set of units,[3][13] and downplay other strategic considerations such as manufacturing, and resource management.[10][13] Tactical games are strictly about combat,[18] and typically focus on individual battles,[10] or other small sections in a larger conflict.[19]

With that I mean that startegy game is mainly about unit/resource management rather than fine play of battles that KB mostly consist of.

[OliverFA]

I am not saying the game is not strategy. I am saying that the part of the adventure map is not strategy. To put it more clearly.

Adventure map --> NOT strategy
Tactical battles ---> strategy (tactis if you want to be more detailed, but strategy anyway).

So. How do you classify the game? I think you can say is an RPG/Strategy hybrid.

[agni]

Strategy is a big word, something that applies to the course of a war, not a battle.



You could strategically build your army/hero, but not fight individual battles with strategy... that's the realm of tactics. Strategy is what happens before you go into battle, or sometimes before you go into a war.



HOMM series, without a doubt, is a strategic game with some RPG elements thrown in, as your goal is not the winning of a few battles nor the leveling of your heroes but usually the elimination of the entire opponent, which may require 'strategic losses' just to stall your enemy (armageddon kamikaze, perhaps?).



KB, on the other hand, is centered on developing your hero, which you may do with a certain strategy in mind, but the focus is on advancing levels as that has the most noticeable impact on the game. In order to do so most efficiently, you may have a strategy, such as getting all those medals as soon as possible, but in general, it is an RPG with elements of strategy and mostly tactics thrown in.

[mpapiz]

Can you get it retail anywhere yet? I prefer to have the box and disc in my eager little hands. lol I haven't seen it on any of the sites for sale yet.

[ThunderTitan]

Also some quote from wiki about defining strategy vs tactics and why I dont really consider it strategy(I know its wiki, but everything is written by people, and I hope it stays that way)

Most strategy video games involve a mix of both strategy and tactics. "Tactics" usually refer how troops are utilized in a given battle, whereas "strategy" describes the mix of troops, the location of the battle, and the commander's larger goals or military doctrine.[12]

With that I mean that strategy game is mainly about unit/resource management rather than fine play of battles that KB mostly consist of.

Notice the part i bolded?! KB still has you choose the mix of troops and how you engage in battle and build your character while playing (and not before you start the mission as a tactical game should).

It's like Total Annihilation vs Starcraft... they're both strategy, but one is more complex.

While for a genre to be separe enough from the strategy one to call it tactics it requires more differences then just how complex your build order gets.

Level of strategical depth in KB is on par with almost any RPG starting from MM ending with elder scrolls. Does it make difference if my team have 1 mage , priest druid, warrior, or I have stack of faeries, elves, treants? Its just different level of configuring character.

Actually if you go by some modern definitions the numbers of troops does count (tactics being what one company or unit is engaged in while strategy is what your entire force used in the attack or defence is doing). But that's probably a simplification so the soldiers understand it easier.

I think you can say is an RPG/Strategy hybrid.

And i already said that...

I guess you could also call it a RPG/Tactics hybrid, but i prefer the Tactics genre to be more well defined into stuff like Ground Control or Jagged Alliance where once you're on the actual mission map you can't change any of your strategy choices that you made beforehand.

Adventure map --> NOT strategy

As i recall you still have to get resources to build up your army and gain access to better troops... it's light, but not really non-existent.

You could strategically build your army/hero, but not fight individual battles with strategy... that's the realm of tactics. Strategy is what happens before you go into battle, or sometimes before you go into a war.

The best laid plans never survive the first contact with the enemy, don't you know that?!

Tactics are how you move your troops and the strategy is why... so strategy applies to all levels of warfare.

[Tress]

Notice the part i bolded?! KB still has you choose the mix of troops and how you engage in battle and build your character while playing (and not before you start the mission as a tactical game should).

No doubt KB have strategy aspect. For example choosing to make all elf army to get morale bonus and forfeit human components in army is strategy no doubt. But we make very same choices in games like Icewind dale or baldurs gate. We take extra mage or warrior to fit our play style, but that doesn't make game "strategy". I could mention wizardry 8 for even brighter example, which have highly tactical combat, and creating party is of high strategic value(for example by chosing to have faerie ninja in prospect of having corprus cane), but NO(and I am pretty sure on that) game magazine or site would ever count wizardry or icewind dale it as strategy on par with games that usually are called strategy. What make heroes "for example" strategy is decisions you make on big scale, like you decide to rush one enemy fast, then use its resources to attack rest and so on.
KB is tactic/RPG. If we try to attach strategy tag to it, we must do same for all RPG out there. Strategy aspect in them is just too minimal and common to count game as strategy. You cant label game as strategy just because it have roots in homm. Part that made it strategy is no longer there, it is mostly substituted with RPG components.

[ThunderTitan]

KB is tactic/RPG. If we try to attach strategy tag to it, we must do same for all RPG out there.

Wouldn't we have to count all RPG's as tactics then too by your logic?!

What make heroes "for example" strategy is decisions you make on big scale, like you decide to rush one enemy fast, then use its resources to attack rest and so on.

And in some RPG i can choose to attack a monster fast so i can use the loot and XP against the rest... see why i think you're too fixated on mechanics. A game that had no option to rush (Disciples made rushing nigh impossible with their capitols) isn't all of a sudden not strategy.

In a RPG you manage your group's growth, while in KB you still manage (and hire) troops and resources etc...
Sure, it might be more of a RPG but it still has elements of a strategy game, thus the original assessment that it's not strategy at all is wrong.


But if you want to continue how about you give me actual examples from KB of stuff you can't do (besides particular strategies like rushing not working) that you should be able to do in a strategy game.