Just as Kingmaker, I'm playing WOTR on "normal" (with enemy damage manually adjusted to 100%).
On the first few pages here, there was somebody arguing that the very first dungeon already had more enemies in it than the entire BG3 EA (last year it also depended on the character created who you could avoid to be turning hostile, which was interesting).
Whilst that sounds a bit of an exaggeration (even if it was on higher level difficulty presets which adjust the number of enemies also): I'm starting to become slightly worried already. NO matter whether I will prefer mostly RT or TB.
Kingmaker not only by the end had quite a few maps in it in which you would face the samish enemy mobs over and over, and at times it felt just like it was there to stretch play-time (the end with the
Wild Hunt
just being the worst example). Now I understand this is a module that gets you going against an army of demons, including possibly fully on sieges, so lots of critters may be expected at some point. HOwever, I hope they've learned a few things from Kingmaker already too.
Games that are heavy on combat are very fine. However, encounter design is paramount. Kingmaker had quite a few decent setpieces (the defense of Oleg's comes to mind immediately from the early game). However, there needs to be more of such if WOTR is again such a combat heavy game. Even compared to the first Pillars game, which certainly wasn'T afraid of placing trash mobs onto its maps, in particular early on unpatched, there was plenty "busywork" to get through here.
And by the end, as said, to me it was the weakest part of an otherwise good and very recommendable game, as if they'd ran out of time and money and couldn't come up with anything more genuine than firing up their editor, seeing another empty spot on their maps, and placing the same mob there over and over. (Luckily the very last optional boss fight with multiple stages made up for that some again).
