I bought into the early access of this, the sequel to one of the better turn based games of recent years, and I wanted to put something out there about it before its general release because it's.. well it's different. Warlock looked like Civ V, but played more like a wargame. Rather than economics, culture, and research, it was pretty much all conquest. On the surface Warlock 2 is more of the same, but with a story mode and more planes. Indeed, the game rules are very similar, but the way it's played is very different. People who were put off by Warlock's lack of depth might want to check it out, while anyone who loved Warlock's brute horse warfare might want to do some homework.
How is it different then? It plays more like an RPG. Sort of. If Civ V were an RPG. So you still build and develop cities, produce units, explore and conquer. You're doing it with an objective this time - win back the world from the guy you played in the first game, who apparently nicked it when you nipped out to the shops (or something, I wasn't really paying that much attention to the finer details). That in itself isn't a big deal, nor is starting on a little extra-planar island and using gates to jump from plane to plane on your way back to the world (Ardania? Arcadia? Barocca? Something like that). The big difference is that you have a city limit imposed. It starts off at five, but can be easily boosted to seven, and I've managed nine before. It sounds bad, but it really adds a strategic edge to your game because you can't just steamroller everything. You can raze cities you capture, make them free states (where they provide a tithe of gold depending on their size), turn them into fortresses, or dedicate them to a god. So you won't find yourself going under because you have too many, or be forced to leave enemy cities, but you do have to think carefully about where your key cities are and what they produce. It's a rather delicate but very satisfying balancing act. Fortunately terraforming spells are easily researched so you can make the most of the terrain, which is another interesting element in itself.
The last difference is that it's fucking hard. There aren't many easy kills, most monsters will eat regular units for breakfast. Even your heroes need developing before you'll send them off on their own. I've had even experienced heroes one-shotted by a pack of Nightmare Wolves. What's more things keep happening. Enemy mages will interfere and start dropping shit into your lands. And by shit I mean dragons. The city limit means there will always be dark areas on the maps where roaming monsters can spawn, and your cities will struggle to defend themselves. This means you have to be economical with your armies too - you can't just roll a big deathball around the map because you'll find monsters living in all your cities. And monsters capturing your cities is far from uncommon.
It sounds offputting. The first game or two I played it felt offputting, because it felt like a grind. I've persevered though, and it's far more exhilarating than managing dozens of cities, crawling huge armies across the map to fight other huge armies. It's far more agile than that, more like leading warbands and managing outposts, even though it looks nearly identical. I'm on my third or fourth game, and I've not even seen the main world yet. I get to a point and find I've made a mistake in my city placement, or I've expanded too quickly and overextended, and I'll start again to avoid the mistakes. That's enjoyable, rebuilding in a new world, better than the last.
One thing of note that I think most people could agree is not a positive is that the basis is still just a modified Warlock. The basics haven't changed a lot, and Warlock 2 could probably have been made as an expansion to Warlock rather than a standalone game. It doesn't really make a huge amount of difference, but it feels a little cheeky charging £25 for it. Personally though, it feels like such a different game that I don't feel overcharged.
Warlock 2: The Exiled
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Re: Warlock 2: The Exiled
Well, 42 hours and about six games later, and I've finally completed the game on story mode. It was a grind towards the end, but less so than Warlock. I'd managed to piss half the gods of the world off though, and they were dropping nasties on me all over the place. Had I have had the option to continue playing I would have had a lot of tidying up to do. I'm going to write a 5punky review at some point, since it's a rare game I've played to completion, and bastardise it for a Steam review. The one line version is that it's a good game, but maybe not worth full price if you already have Warlock.
Re: Warlock 2: The Exiled
It's taken me about two weeks to write, but I've posted a review.
http://www.home.5punk.co.uk/warlock-2-the-exiled/
http://www.home.5punk.co.uk/warlock-2-the-exiled/
Re: Warlock 2: The Exiled
50% off for the next 5 hours in a flash sale.