Skip to content

Fighting Duels vs Armies

GrumGrum Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,100
Last night I just beat IWD2. And today I was thinking about it, and how different it felt from BG2. In IWD2, there really weren't any boss fights. You didn't go up against single wizards who were covered in spell protections. You went up against wizards surrounded by allies, many of whom hit pretty hard. It was weird in the sense that I felt like tanks and mages were both equally needed. Tanks to keep enemies back, mages because there were just far too many to kill. And enemy mages always tried to disable you.

What really made me smile though was the final fight. High level summons kept coming in. Imagine my surprise when my barbarian found a mage hiding behind a wall, summoning nonstop. A mage with no protections who was easily cut down. A very nice touch.

But what the game didn't have was a 1 vs party fight. Which BG2 has in droves. Sure, IWD2 has 1 dragon...but it is so ridiculously overpowered. And not in a tactical sense. There weren't any spells/protections to remove. It just teleports around murdering you.

BG2 had liches, dragons and mages out the wazoo. Many of whom could quite easily take down a full party that wasn't prepared.

I suppose the best way to describe it: IWD2 was a frantic mess, which often meant being surrounded by hard hitting enemies. You had to make a line and hold it.

BG2 felt more tactical in the sense that you had to find a way to actually do damage against big hitters while staying alive.

----

I think on the whole I liked the combat in IWD2 better. Call it the dwarf in me, but having my Charname dwarf (fighter/paladin) with his shield holding back a horde of enemies (next to a single-class human paladin with a shield), while a barbarian swings away from the rear with a great sword, a rogue shoots a bow (at enemy casters), a cleric heals and a mage desperately does AOE spells...it felt good. As if though everyone had a job to do, and the job was needed.

But that's just me. Anyone have a different take on it? Which type of combat do you like better and why?
KamigoroshiThacoBellsemiticgoddessGrammarsaladlolienAerakarCrevsDaak[Deleted User]VarwulfCalmar

Comments

  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,870
    Personally I prefer Icewind Dale's horde battles as well. Partly due to its lower magic setting, as well as that franchises' various natural terrain battles.

    I love battlefields in tundras! I adore slaughters on top of mountain ranges! Seeing ambushes in dark, ancient and snow burried forests brings me joy! But please spare me from bleak dungeon duels, labyrinth clearances or wading through cityscape gutter wastes... I'll only ever visit that place due to Schlumpsha the Sewer King's annual fanclub meeting. >_>

    For me, even Baldur's Gate I feels too much like a high magic setting where every shady guy in a dark street corner is a spellcaster whizzkid or would-be-lich. And let's not even speak of SoA or ToB. If magic pollution were a thing, then everyone within BGII would be bedridden in no time.
    GrammarsaladGrumlolienVarwulf
  • AasimAasim Member Posts: 591
    IWD2 has a much better combat system for me. If somebody could merge IWD2 combat system + BG gameplay, that'd be fantastic...
    There was an attempt once (Wes Weimer's Icewind Gate) but it's sadly unfinished.
    Also, IWD2 gets boring after few runs. The sole tought of going through that ice temple again turns me away from playing it.
    Grammarsalad
  • Abi_DalzimAbi_Dalzim Member Posts: 1,428
    edited February 2017
    IWD runs are draining, but I think the setting has a lot more potential, and it's nice not having to wade through armies of Elminster-level spellcasters. Of course, you instead have to wonder about the ecology and biomass level of the frozen north. What did all of those Sahuagin and Snow Trolls and assorted other monsters on Icasaracht's burial isle eat?
    semiticgoddessGrammarsaladGrumlolien
  • JumboWheat01JumboWheat01 Member Posts: 1,028
    It really depends on how I build my characters and the games their in that determines which fights I enjoy more.

    Like in Neverwinter Nights, I have a Monk with Great Cleave and Circle Kick, and hordes just get decimated, where as one-on-one fights feel more like fun duels as my character dodges and weaves and gets occasionally lucky with improved knockdown. And in DDO I love the quest boss fights, rather than having to deal with hopping masses of kobalds or swarms of enemies, since boss fights for a quest tend to be one-on-one deals.

    On the other hand, Neverwinter Nights 2, because I'm in full control of the whole party, I like party-vs-party fights, using Neeshka to target casters with her shortbow, directing Khelgar to hold a line where he's needed, and so on and so forth. The Inifinty Engine games let me control the whole party too, and that causes me to enjoy the horde fights more.

    So, to sum up, games where I'm in control of only one person, I prefer one-on-one fights, while games I'm in control of the whole party, I prefer party-vs-party fights.
    ThacoBellAerakar
  • sluckerssluckers Member Posts: 280
    I think I prefer armies to single bosses. Early to mid game single-boss foes are fine, but by the late/endgame your party is so powerful that bosses just start getting unannounced and comprehensive immunities, which you must try and figure out from the game's abysmal feedback system. Combined with the game's not-infrequent use of cut-fades and laying your party/enemies out on a chess board the way it wants, rather than letting you control how you approach situations, doesn't help either.

    Everything gets kind of weird, too, when the player/enemy arms races gets out of hand; you either rush headlong into a 'can I play too, daddy?' comp-stomp or a seemingly impossible and invulnerable foe that just crushes you time after time until you figure it out... which just kind of feels like learning by rote.

    I usually find army fights more fun, often because there isn't a standout enemy so much as a standout formation, battlefield or tactic; Things happen more slowly but powerfully (and often more subtly, potentially escaping your notice in the chaos), which favours a broader and less rigid approach. You take more hits, but when the computer has more firepower at it's disposal the game can at least do away with gimmicky surprises that have to hit you out of nowhere in order to artificially inflate difficulty.

    For me it's also a gameplay issue; a top-down isometric game just isn't the right platform for 'good' boss duels in my opinion. It IS a party game after all.
    GrumlolienArdanisAerakar
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,508
    Mix and match for me.
    Bg1 chapter fights do it well. For instance, the bandit camp in bg1 is quite proper for me. A horde outside and a medium size party inside. The cloakwood mines are fun. Trashing through the ranks to get to a single tough caster. Or the iron Throne with that challenging caster party upstairs.
    lolienArctodusAerakar
  • ArctodusArctodus Member Posts: 992
    edited February 2017
    I personally like variety. The BG games are much better balanced on that front. You got some army fights like @lroumen said, and also one vs team.

    I always have a hard time finishing IWD games, because, before long, it starts to be such a drag... I read the Chris Avellone's interview given on an other thread and he mentionned that the IWD games were going for the "Diablo" like gameplay. I think that the IE engine is not the best to replicate that style. Combat is nowhere near as dynamic as Diablo games can be.

    Don't get me wrong : I love IWD games; the setting is beautiful and the atmosphere is wonderful, but I never replayed IWD games as much as BG games. Not even close.
    ThacoBellAerakar
  • KuronaKurona Member Posts: 881
    IWD2 is a good game but sometimes encounters feel a bit random, like they give you a horde of stuff to fight even if it makes no sense for said stuff to be concentrated like that. Not that BG is entirely free of this (groups of Beholders are downright absurd) but it happens less.

    Ideally I'd like a bit of both. Strength in numbers for certain encounters and strong individuals for others. This would help diversify strategies a little bit. SoD nailed this fairly well, I think.
    semiticgoddessThacoBellAerakar
  • SirBatinceSirBatince Member Posts: 882
    No other enemy in IE made me go "oh shit" as much as the Slayer Knights.

    man, do I crave for a modern iwd2.
  • PokotaPokota Member Posts: 858
    I started playing D&D with Shattered Lands, so my idea of a perfect final battle is literally beating back the opposing army. Don't just give me an anti-party to fight and call it a night. Give me several squadrons of elite guards, backed by handfuls of casters who are perfectly willing to drop their strongest bombs at the outset (shock troops are effective, yo) and local wildlife trained to kill.
    Grum
  • sluckerssluckers Member Posts: 280
    Yes, it really doesn't need to be an army battle. Simply an enemy party of comparable or slightly larger size to your own is often enough.
  • PokotaPokota Member Posts: 858
    edited February 2017
    Grum said:

    I will say that the biggest letdown of the BG series was the ToB army. It felt like a quick skirmish...which led to the general of the army being dead. I mean...what?

    I haven't done the Saradush scenario in a long time; do we see the disbanding of the beseiging army on-screen, or are we told it in a cut/in dialog? Or are we left to assume that it disbanded?
    A war force motivated by fear of the leader will disband on its own in the absence of a leader, an army like that which Yaga-Shura gathered probably would have continued its march elsewhere after the fall of Saradush simply because they're bored and leaderless.
    (The only issue I have with the Yaga-Shura scenario is that it's not the climax of the Bhaalspawn story, but just a small bump in the road. In that light, it's fair enough that Gorion's Ward simply duels YS and moves on to whichever one is next in line without caring about the now leaderless army of fire giants in the Saradush area)
  • Abi_DalzimAbi_Dalzim Member Posts: 1,428
    Pokota said:


    I haven't done the Saradush scenario in a long time; do we see the disbanding of the beseiging army on-screen, or are we told it in a cut/in dialog? Or are we left to assume that it disbanded?
    A war force motivated by fear of the leader will disband on its own in the absence of a leader, an army like that which Yaga-Shura gathered probably would have continued its march elsewhere after the fall of Saradush simply because they're bored and leaderless.
    (The only issue I have with the Yaga-Shura scenario is that it's not the climax of the Bhaalspawn story, but just a small bump in the road. In that light, it's fair enough that Gorion's Ward simply duels YS and moves on to whichever one is next in line without caring about the now leaderless army of fire giants in the Saradush area)

    I think he was actually talking about the Tethyrian army that confronts you at the oasis on the way to Amkethran, and is about as challenging at that point as a pack of kobolds.
    Grum
  • BelegCuthalionBelegCuthalion Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 453
    well i'm not sure that should really be a challange, more a sign like a "okay, you are really powerful now – nations trying to stop you with armies, but they are just powerless in the attempt"
    CrevsDaak
  • Abi_DalzimAbi_Dalzim Member Posts: 1,428

    well i'm not sure that should really be a challange, more a sign like a "okay, you are really powerful now – nations trying to stop you with armies, but they are just powerless in the attempt"

    But when they were outnumbered by the Daggerford militia from SOD, they probably could have done better. I mean, we had an encounter with a horde of orcs in Watcher's Keep that felt much more like a real army despite the individual orcs being pathetic.
    Grum
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 1,169
    Variety in battle objectives can be as interesting as varied opposition. For example defeating enemies without killing them (e.g. charmed/ deceived opponents). It would be interesting in a large scale combat situation vs. mobs if fatigue kicked in faster, to represent battle stress & the exhaustion of continous combat.
    DJKajuru
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    Grum said:

    I will say that the biggest letdown of the BG series was the ToB army. It felt like a quick skirmish...which led to the general of the army being dead. I mean...what?

    .

    With near infinity you can edit the area script for increased spawns of lower level soldiers . I think that they spawn 60 or so, but I made it spawn 300 hundred for a larger battle.
    PokotaCrevsDaakGrum
Sign In or Register to comment.