Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Feb 22, 2022 14:10:30 GMT
Alright fellas, I thought, "You know what I should do after having had this game for one day? A review." So here I am, telling you what I absolutely adore (and what I less than adore) throughout the game. Please don't quote this. Tag me if you want to respond to anything.
Overall:
Please don't hate me, I actually think that this is one of the games that falls under games that should be admired but not played all that often. Don't get me wrong, I've had a lot of fun, but it could just be because it is brand new, but it feels a lot clunkier that the other games. I don't mean that it is slower, or it has stronger units, but it is missing a sort of vibrant energy found in the other games (except for the conquest. A+++ on the conquest).
The Good:
Definitely their conquest is the best I have ever tried. The diplomacy is astounding, the individual goals as opposed to just trying to take over the world was a stroke of genius, the ability to influence your enemies was terrific. The signature highlight of the game IMO. If it had nothing else, I would just download it for the conquest. As an added bonus, the descriptions of the different nations are amazing and very on point to the struggles and strengths you will have. More into the diplomacy system, I love that the ultimatums are still there but are reasonable compared to GCR, and what's more, they even change based on if you share a border with other countries. Last thing on the conquest, I promise. They managed to combine the best of both worlds with their new between-turns interface where you can have it going skipping but also make it so that you can see what is going on that I really appreciate.
The other thing I think that they have perfected in this game is Balance. Whether it be in special units, generals, IAPs, or regular units, there are very few that are decisively better than the others. Case in point, the Varangian Guards are considered to be some of the best melee infantry special forces, but right up there with them are pretty much EVERY other advanced infantry special force. Same with the IAPs, they are all excellent, even if Richard is the strongest out of them they are still all strong and excel in their unit. With the generals, I really liked how they added their own little item as a trade off, so that Belisarius, who we get for free and would be the strongest infantry general is brought down to earth by giving him an IAP weapon. It would be like making it so that you couldn't swap skills for Stonewall in 1914. One last thing on the generals and then I go to the units, a great thing that they did IMO was making the better generals locked behind significant stages so that the best ones (like Robert the Bruce) can't even be used until later on, forcing you to use cheaper generals. In addition, they pretty much force you to get all of the Max Tier generals so you can complete their missions, which was an excellent finesse on ET's part.
The regular units deserve their own little slot. I have never seen this good balance. To say that hybridity is allowed in this game (which, I might add, is a first in an ET game as far as I can remember) is an understatement. The legion effects encourage mixing units, and that's not all, the units go so far beyond the Inf->Archers->Cav->Inf, as stoic has so rightly pointed out. The individual weapons and shield styles of the individual units is a masterpiece. Also, you'll notice that some units (like Counter Infantry) are designed so that when you buy them they go in the front, while archers can go in the back. Speaking of which, another thing I love is that Archers CAN fire from the back, adding quite a bit of strength to their otherwise feeble unit. Anyway, the balance of this game is just amazing.
Another thing is that the Individual general levels are actually really fun to play. I thought I'd be quickly bored, but I really am not. Another thing that I like about them is that they have a distinct flavor matching the general. For example, Attila is just smashing anyone who tries to get in his way, in the Belisarius missions you have to keep up continuous cold calculations or you are going to get ruined, in Saladin, you get a taste of the Desert Warfare not found in even the Desert missions in campaigns.
Last thing, I just want to mention that I think the general upgrading system (heck, the general system in general) is the best in a a game. Keeping the generals at their normal skill levels while allowing the weaker gens to increase their stats (and premiums to increase their titles) allows for a lot more balance, like I stated, between the gens.
The Bad:
I don't actually have a lot of complaints here. Only two major things, but they are biggies.
First, the campaigns are just TERRIBLE compared to its predecessors. In GOG3 I actually liked playing the campaigns. The were fun, big, clearly well though out. In GCR, there was that actual feeling of Roman and not Roman (or sometimes Roman) Armies duking it out. In 1914... we don't talk about 1914. This has none of that. It tries to go for a "GCR meets EW6" feel but just comes off being awkward. I am not a fan of the campaigns at all.
Second, I wish that the HQ system was revised. I am not a big fan of just sending Belisarius with 3 Varangian Guards into the middle of a battle as the Arabs, or worse yet, in the middle of a conquest as the West Slavs. I liked the gen placement system in GOG3, where there are certain lineups in each of the missions/conquest and some general slots that you can put different gens in (for Deployment, not for regular placement). Otherwise, I think it is fine.
The Ugly:
I hope the ninth circle of heck is reserved for the person who thought up the transition from normal to hard mode. Otherwise, the graphics are really good. Nothing more to put here.
Anyway, what did you guys think of this?
Overall:
Please don't hate me, I actually think that this is one of the games that falls under games that should be admired but not played all that often. Don't get me wrong, I've had a lot of fun, but it could just be because it is brand new, but it feels a lot clunkier that the other games. I don't mean that it is slower, or it has stronger units, but it is missing a sort of vibrant energy found in the other games (except for the conquest. A+++ on the conquest).
The Good:
Definitely their conquest is the best I have ever tried. The diplomacy is astounding, the individual goals as opposed to just trying to take over the world was a stroke of genius, the ability to influence your enemies was terrific. The signature highlight of the game IMO. If it had nothing else, I would just download it for the conquest. As an added bonus, the descriptions of the different nations are amazing and very on point to the struggles and strengths you will have. More into the diplomacy system, I love that the ultimatums are still there but are reasonable compared to GCR, and what's more, they even change based on if you share a border with other countries. Last thing on the conquest, I promise. They managed to combine the best of both worlds with their new between-turns interface where you can have it going skipping but also make it so that you can see what is going on that I really appreciate.
The other thing I think that they have perfected in this game is Balance. Whether it be in special units, generals, IAPs, or regular units, there are very few that are decisively better than the others. Case in point, the Varangian Guards are considered to be some of the best melee infantry special forces, but right up there with them are pretty much EVERY other advanced infantry special force. Same with the IAPs, they are all excellent, even if Richard is the strongest out of them they are still all strong and excel in their unit. With the generals, I really liked how they added their own little item as a trade off, so that Belisarius, who we get for free and would be the strongest infantry general is brought down to earth by giving him an IAP weapon. It would be like making it so that you couldn't swap skills for Stonewall in 1914. One last thing on the generals and then I go to the units, a great thing that they did IMO was making the better generals locked behind significant stages so that the best ones (like Robert the Bruce) can't even be used until later on, forcing you to use cheaper generals. In addition, they pretty much force you to get all of the Max Tier generals so you can complete their missions, which was an excellent finesse on ET's part.
The regular units deserve their own little slot. I have never seen this good balance. To say that hybridity is allowed in this game (which, I might add, is a first in an ET game as far as I can remember) is an understatement. The legion effects encourage mixing units, and that's not all, the units go so far beyond the Inf->Archers->Cav->Inf, as stoic has so rightly pointed out. The individual weapons and shield styles of the individual units is a masterpiece. Also, you'll notice that some units (like Counter Infantry) are designed so that when you buy them they go in the front, while archers can go in the back. Speaking of which, another thing I love is that Archers CAN fire from the back, adding quite a bit of strength to their otherwise feeble unit. Anyway, the balance of this game is just amazing.
Another thing is that the Individual general levels are actually really fun to play. I thought I'd be quickly bored, but I really am not. Another thing that I like about them is that they have a distinct flavor matching the general. For example, Attila is just smashing anyone who tries to get in his way, in the Belisarius missions you have to keep up continuous cold calculations or you are going to get ruined, in Saladin, you get a taste of the Desert Warfare not found in even the Desert missions in campaigns.
Last thing, I just want to mention that I think the general upgrading system (heck, the general system in general) is the best in a a game. Keeping the generals at their normal skill levels while allowing the weaker gens to increase their stats (and premiums to increase their titles) allows for a lot more balance, like I stated, between the gens.
The Bad:
I don't actually have a lot of complaints here. Only two major things, but they are biggies.
First, the campaigns are just TERRIBLE compared to its predecessors. In GOG3 I actually liked playing the campaigns. The were fun, big, clearly well though out. In GCR, there was that actual feeling of Roman and not Roman (or sometimes Roman) Armies duking it out. In 1914... we don't talk about 1914. This has none of that. It tries to go for a "GCR meets EW6" feel but just comes off being awkward. I am not a fan of the campaigns at all.
Second, I wish that the HQ system was revised. I am not a big fan of just sending Belisarius with 3 Varangian Guards into the middle of a battle as the Arabs, or worse yet, in the middle of a conquest as the West Slavs. I liked the gen placement system in GOG3, where there are certain lineups in each of the missions/conquest and some general slots that you can put different gens in (for Deployment, not for regular placement). Otherwise, I think it is fine.
The Ugly:
I hope the ninth circle of heck is reserved for the person who thought up the transition from normal to hard mode. Otherwise, the graphics are really good. Nothing more to put here.
Anyway, what did you guys think of this?
