The Age of Wonders series has a direct competitor in the Heroes of Might & Magic series. Yes, the budget for the latter has always been higher, giving it an edge in graphics and musical accompaniment. The M&M multiverses have a rich history (most of the lore is tied to Heroes), so AoW cannot compete equally here either. However, in terms of richness and diversity of mechanics, the victory does not go to "Heroes".

In fact, I believe that HoM&M 4 was developed with AoW in mind. I know not everyone likes the fourth part, but I am not among them. Most people disliked the fact that creatures could move independently without heroes, and heroes could die first on the battlefield. This required more focus on micromanagement, which did not appeal to the average player. I will not compare whether this is good or bad because it all depends on implementation.

Age of Wonders 3 proved to be a worthy successor to the previous parts. It managed to retain most of the mechanics while adding new ones. I should note that having all the DLC is essential, as they truly add variety to the gameplay and compensate for the initially limited number of races in the game.

In addition to racial diversity, specializations have appeared, which depend on the leader. This affects the game most radically, changing not only the spellbook but also various bonuses for your empire and granting access to specialized buildings and units (for example, playing as a theocrat, you can get priests even among goblins and orcs). Alignment towards good, evil, or neutrality also changes the set of possible abilities and spells (e.g., the evil summons a fallen angel, the good an archangel, and the neutral a maiden of justice). Together, this provides significant variability in the development of the empire.

As before, not only heroes but also each individual unit (whether a squad or a single character) level up and gain their set of abilities. Monitoring this is interesting, but when there are too many units (especially on a large map), it becomes overwhelming to track where your units are, what they are doing, and where the enemy units are going. There are many parameters for characters (especially for heroes). Not all of them were really necessary (for example, all those "fire," "ice," "dark," "light," "fatal," etc. arrows), but it is still fun to deal with them.

Tactical combat seems unchanged (although ranged units used to miss due to obstacles, now they hit but deal less damage). You can still surround the enemy with multiple armies on the global map and then attack from all sides in the tactical phase.

One of the main features of the game is global spells, where you can change the terrain (freeze rivers, grow forests, dry out soil, etc.), incite rebellion in an enemy city, and transform buildings on the global map.

Neutral cities have appeared, which can be captured by force, bribery, or completing their quests. Some of these cities belong to factions that cannot be played but can be especially useful as they produce unique units (like dragons or giants).

The campaign's storyline is not only interesting but also variable, affecting the playable heroes, maps, and missions. Several endings are a pleasant bonus, and the DLC continues the story.

The game offers many possibilities: building settlements, forts, scout towers, laying roads and bridges, unit camouflage on different terrains (both on the global map and the minimap), dungeon exploration where you can dig horizontally in certain places, diplomacy options (open borders, alliances, exchanges, etc.), a plethora of artifacts for heroes, and the ability to create your own (although they will be simpler). There are many features, and it is in these details that I see AoW's advantage over HoM&M.

However, there is a downside — randomness in combat. In HoM&M, units move in stacks, so the randomness of damage is less noticeable than in AoW. For example, halflings have low health points but have some "luck" allowing them to dodge attacks. This randomness can make or break a battle. The most useful abilities in the game are control (tame, charm, seduce, subdue, etc.). You might get lucky and capture a tier 4 unit (the highest) on the first try, or you might repeatedly fail against a tier 1 weakling.

Verdict: As a continuation of the series, the game has succeeded. I recommend it to those who love turn-based strategies with a lot of micromanagement.