The Status of Warlords V

Angelspit · Unread postby **Angelspit** » 25 Jul 2007, 02:22

Found on the Infinite Interactive forum is a <a href="/http://www.infinite-interactive.com/Inf ... 4850">post by Steve Fawkner</a> about the status of Warlords V:

<i>"Warlords V exists as a bunch of documents & ideas at the moment. We came up with a lot of really great stuff, but there is just no interest from publishers in developing PC-only strategy games unless they are Civ or Warcraft, etc... Well that's not exactly true... a lot of publishers would LOVE Warlords 5, but nobody is willing to risk the budget that it needs to do it right."</i>

A few posts later, he notes that Ubisoft, publisher of Warlords 4, isn't interested in the Warlords franchise now that the company owns the Might and Magic license. However, Fawkner hopes Walords can benefit from Puzzle Quest's success and possibly enter the console and handheld territory.

Developing strategy games isn't as easy as it used to be...

If you would like to take a look at the original page visit this link:
https://www.celestialheavens.com/1185330120

winterfate · Unread postby **winterfate** » 25 Jul 2007, 02:25

I'm not much of a company person myself...but can't they just self-publish the game themselves?

jeff · Unread postby **jeff** » 25 Jul 2007, 03:07

Angelspit wrote: A few posts later, he notes that Ubisoft, publisher of Warlords 4, isn't interested in the Warlords franchise now that the company owns the Might and Magic license. However, Fawkner hopes Walords can benefit from Puzzle Quest's success and possibly enter the console and handheld territory.

For those of us that loved the first three warlords, the fact UBI is not interested is the best news possible, even if it means no Warlords 5. Warlords 4 suffered the dreaded UBI treatment and was awful by comparison to the earlier editions.

Grumpy Old Wizard · Unread postby **Grumpy Old Wizard** » 25 Jul 2007, 04:17

Well, I would love to see Ubi sell the liscence if they are going to do nothing with it. There are too few turn based strategy games.

I missed Warlords 4. It must have come out during a time when I wasn't doing much gaming. Is it really that bad?

GOW

Jolly Joker · Unread postby **Jolly Joker** » 25 Jul 2007, 07:33

I had a problem with III already and therefore didn't buy IV anymore. I couldn't stand III's drab look compared to the colorful style of II which was a great game, imo.

Vlaad II · Unread postby **Vlaad II** » 25 Jul 2007, 08:00

Yeah, Warlords 4 was horrible.

On the other hand, I enjoyed Warlords Battlecry 3, although it was RTS.

ThunderTitan · Unread postby **ThunderTitan** » 25 Jul 2007, 09:07

And sh|t like this is why i have nothing to play atm...

Arveragus · Unread postby **Arveragus** » 25 Jul 2007, 11:41

I have never played the first three Warlords games and have only played a demo of the fourth installment. I thought is was pretty bad; bad graphics but, above all, terrible gameplay. Combat was particularly horrid (you basically brought in the units in your army one at a time). I have played the RTS Warlords Battlecry games, though. The most important problem was that there was hardly any progression from one game to the next. All they seemed to do was add new factions and for the last entry in the series, they changed some (but not all) of the building graphics. The units however looked exactly the same in all three games. Nevertheless, they were somewhat enjoyable, although one powerful hero could slaughter the entire battlefield by himself in a few minutes. And if you did not defeat your opponents in the first few minutes he would quickly drown you in overwhelming waves of his units.

I am always on the lookout for good (turn-based) strategy games, but I am not particularly saddened by this news. We can still look forward to Tribes of the East, Disciples III and King's Bounty. I am also keeping an eye out for Fantasy Wars, which is another TBS game developed in Russia due for release in a few months.

Vitirr · Unread postby **Vitirr** » 25 Jul 2007, 12:31

It's not such a bad moment for TBS fantasy games. Look for info on Ascension to the Throne, Fantasy Wars, Disciples 3 or King's Bounty. They all look like decent TBS fantasy games. We have H5 and probably H6, and I think Stardock (Galactic Civilizations) is developing a new one (they tried to make a new Master of Magic but couldn't get the license IIRC).

Ascension to the Throne has already been released so you can try it.

PS: Warlords 4 was terrible. The demos is one of the worst things I've played in my life.

CloudRiderX · Unread postby **CloudRiderX** » 25 Jul 2007, 12:36

"now that the company owns the Might and Magic license"

We'll see how long that holds.

Angelspit · Unread postby **Angelspit** » 25 Jul 2007, 12:53

If nobody had picked the Might and Magic license four years ago, Heroes would be in a similar situation today, with David Mullich or Christian Vanover working on designs in their spare time for a potential publisher.

mathfool · Unread postby **mathfool** » 25 Jul 2007, 13:37

I loved Warlords 2 and 3, but 4 was a let down. I played Warlords before HOMM and it was the series that got me into TBS. I sure hope there is a Warlords 5 sometine soon!

Jolly Joker · Unread postby **Jolly Joker** » 25 Jul 2007, 13:45

Vitirr wrote: and I think Stardock (Galactic Civilizations) is developing a new one (they tried to make a new Master of Magic but couldn't get the license IIRC).

That paints the wrong picture. Stardock is in fact working on the game that would have been titled Master of Magic II if they could have agreed upon the conditions with, er, Sony, I think has the rights. So the NAME won't be MoM II, but the GAME is under development alright.

jeff · Unread postby **jeff** » 25 Jul 2007, 14:55

Jolly Joker wrote: That paints the wrong picture. Stardock is in fact working on the game that would have been titled Master of Magic II if they could have agreed upon the conditions with, er, Sony, I think has the rights. So the NAME won't be MoM II, but the GAME is under development alright.

I don't care what Stardock calls it, if it is MoM II in everything but name, I'll buy it.

Jolly Joker · Unread postby **Jolly Joker** » 25 Jul 2007, 20:43

My feeling exactly.

Grumpy Old Wizard · Unread postby **Grumpy Old Wizard** » 25 Jul 2007, 22:45

The Age of Wonders series, particularly the Shadowmagic stand-alone expansion for AOW 2 is very much like MOM. Anyone who hasn't tried it should give it a go.

GOW

Moragauth · Unread postby **Moragauth** » 25 Jul 2007, 22:46

I prefer WBC.

jeff · Unread postby **jeff** » 26 Jul 2007, 02:33

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote:The Age of Wonders series, particularly the Shadowmagic stand-alone expansion for AOW 2 is very much like MOM. Anyone who hasn't tried it should give it a go.

GOW

I actually got it in a package deal a couple of years ago. The shrink wrap is still on it, maybe I'll load it up and see.

Humakt · Unread postby **Humakt** » 26 Jul 2007, 08:02

Jolly Joker wrote:I had a problem with III already and therefore didn't buy IV anymore. I couldn't stand III's drab look compared to the colorful style of II which was a great game, imo.

But Warlords 3 had some great improvements over 2, namely spells and hero development and army setup. I agree about graphics though original Warlords 2 graphics weren't that great either, Deluxe version on the other hand was good.

I really liked the multitude of different scenarios and armies in Warlords 2 Deluxe.

Jolly Joker · Unread postby **Jolly Joker** » 26 Jul 2007, 09:07

Yup, I think that Warlords 2 Deluxe is the reference here. I don't disagree about Warlords 3 adding interesting stuff, but all in all it was a bit like running over drab and empty landscapes.

The Heroes Round Table