Gameplay is the king.

Because said popular IP for some bloody reason did not manage to make even this much of a simplistic PC game that gave the same feel as the tabletop version for literal years.

@@karotconcarne3325 welp, can't argue with that

@@karotconcarne3325 No incentive for GW to do it. I expect they actively denied publishers when asked for a long time. After all, make this type of game well and no one will buy their expensive models, paint, and multiple rule books every year.

*creepy guy in trench coat* “Hey you… wanna watch some sovl? Got lizards, elves, you name it”

To abbreviate that: Every unit can have a max of one ranged and one melee weapon. If they already have one of a given category it gets replaced when equiping something else.

i saw people hating on greenskins, saying that goblins especially are bad, but the key to mass goblin is to get shortbows on everyone, stack the max unit size upgrades, and proceed to just gun everything down as multiple mobs of 20 goblins all get 2 or 3 shots off before melee even begins

I'm saving them for if we do a skinks run :)

@@JanetOnOccasion sounds good! Their main problem imo is that if you don’t buff their replenishment you only recover one at a time so each dead one does hurt.

@@JanetOnOccasionalso just got to your question regarding the weapon upgrades in the shops, when you buy one of those you are replacing the weapon you do have so if you had bought the great weapon you would have traded your hand weapon and shield for it so you would have a net change of -1 defense and +1 power which is an upgrade for a character since as far as I can tell unless the character is fighting a unit that has a character your hero’s defence/wounds will never matter.

I'm well aware of all of that - I'm pointing out that the naming convention is boring. The Lord's name isn't the issue, it's the really boring suffix that's the issue, and not one shared with other units or even retinues. There's a Dwarf Warriors retinue in one battle called "Gundrik's Guard" which is far more interesting than just stating the units name as a suffix.

except weapons, those replace each other

​@@mranderson9553 If the weapons are in the same category, of course. One melee and one ranged for everyone, and nothing more!

This is the best comment. Congratulations.

The "Ranged Weapons" are really just adding an ability, they don't add stats to the unit. The melee weapons effect the base stats of the unit itself.

Yeah, and I think that’s stupid given that the game has literally no thematic reason for that to be the case. I’m going to pronounce it the dumb way to match the dumb spelling.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kNGfg6dyv7yVqX0.htmlsi=pZ0bvlJH5mnwEnIt

I'm glad that's not the mechanic. XP via kills is really outdated and poor game design that makes literally no logical sense. It assumes that the only purpose of any soldier is to kill, not to route enemies, or to distract, or to suppress, or simply to refuse to waver against overwhelming odds. Unless you think that sparring only helps teach soldiers to fight if they murder their sparring partner you should realise it's dumb. Nobody is planting little flags to claim their loot in the bodies of those they slew, and enemy armies leave plenty of loot behind regardless of whether they died or ran away. The soldiers that did the least fighting are often the ones in the best shape to smash and grab everything in sight once the battle is over. Levelling doesn't even always improve a units ability to kill. +3 models to a unit makes a lot more sense if that unit survived more often. Who wants to join a really killy unit if it's wiped out every battle? Also I don't want to play a game that encourages me to whittle down the HP of an enemy so that I can charge in at the last second with the unit that needs the XP more. It's boring and dumb, and Dark Omen would be a better game without those mechanics.

@@JanetOnOccasion By killing i mean all possible outcomes. And direct killing and routing and killing fleeing enelies and supressing enemies, and just make them flee. Experience comes from exact actions. What exp do soldiers get just running all battle from enemies? I understand the bait strategy and all that, but camon in almost every game I saw there are regiment that runs and regiment that engage. And both get same exp? At least let the choices for lvl up be corresponding. Did a lot of killings - get plus attack or whatever, did nothing but running - here faster movement for you.

Battles are largely a measure of how well a unit has been trained outside of it. The only stat that should ever go up as a result of battles is discipline since the only worthwhile experience you get is being able to hold your nerve in the carnage - but that would be boring so just give everyone XP for showing up and let players decide how they're going to be trained before the next battle. Just consider the XP after each battle to be the result of time passing instead of the battle itself. Levelling by doing is always a poor system since it makes the player engage in behaviour that will provide the best bonus, instead of the best battle outcome. I don't want a levelling system that makes me choose a bad or boring strategy for the sake of making a unit better at something that I might need later. I've never seen a system accurately measure a units value, so it shouldn't try. And to specifically address your question about running all battle long; Units giving the enemy the run around all battle long while remaining cohesive would be showing an insane amount of stamina, mental fortitude, excellent manoeuvring skills, and battlefield awareness, all while being pursued relentlessly. Presumably this would be keeping a much more dangerous opponent busy while the rest of the army wins the battle. Like you the computer would probably just go "Did nothing, no XP". Just give everyone XP every battle without complication so I can play the battle how I want without having to engage with some dumb meta game that doesn't understand the value of my actions. It can't know how expertly my unit did nothing. It did nothing like a champ. It looked at the battle and knew that doing nothing was the best possibly thing it could have done and it did nothing flawlessly, winning the battle and getting it's ration of XP in the process. Bravo.

The game does nothing to communicate it either way, but looting gives me more money regardless so I'll still take it.

I feel that this game has even more cheese than TW:Warhammer, lol. The enemy is just not good at maneuvering, and you can cheese your way through a run with all rear and flank charges fairly easy. I suppose it depends what you mean by "Strategy", but IRL Strategy is about understanding how your opponent things and acts, and if your opponent is AI... well, the same concept is going to apply in SOVL as well as TW:WH.

@@ymirtheprimordial5453 I would still argue that there is way more "cheese" in TW games, by far. SOVL may have some janky balance here and there, and positioning can make or break a battle, but fights still seem far less one-sided than what you see "cheesers" accomplish in TW. There's no "lord dancing" to "waste ammo", no real corner-camping due to the way charches and engagements work, and "doom stacking" is nowhere near as easy.

I mean, this game is the exact same as TWW in that missiles are incredibly op against the AI. Just spam ranged units (or even better, melee units that can get ranged upgrades) and you will likely do well as long as you have a basic understanding of how to retreat backwards out of charge range.

Yup. They're easy enough to google or find on the games title screen. They've not been updated in such a long time that it's basically a different game, though.