The Disciples games had their own comfortable sub-niche in the genre of fantasy strategy. Unlike games with finicky tactical combat, Disciples focused on the units moving around the strategic maps. Battles played out quickly on a simple grid rather than the extensive, chess-like encounters that characterized games like King’s Bounty, Heroes of Might and Magic, Master of Magic, and Age of Wonders. It was simple, fluid, and uniquely slick.
But for whatever reason, Disciples III has decided to be like the competition. Now it’s virtually identical to King’s Bounty and Heroes of the Might and Magic, except for the fact that it’s nowhere near as good as either of them. If you’re going to compromise your unique identity, the worst thing you can do is do it poorly.
There’s almost nothing to recommend the new tactical battles, especially since the A.I. is unable to play them in any meaningful way. For instance, there are special squares on the map that give units a bonus. The A.I. is absolutely unaware of these. A cover system lets melee units defend frail neighbors, which is a great way to lend the tactical battles a sense of actual tactics by encouraging units to stay together. The A.I. has no sense of this. The A.I. has no idea how to effectively use unit abilities, ranged fire, spells, and so forth. This is a classic example of how a strategy game is utterly undone when it doesn’t have a competent A.I. Continue reading »
