|
Rugens -> RE: Looks Very Interesting (11/14/2006 12:22:39 AM)
|
I've spent quite a bit more time with the game and for better or worse these are my observations to date.
It is a fairly simple straight forward game with some detail flavor. The combination of the way supply is handled along with the possible stances and tactics make it an interesting game of maneuver. This applies if you use computer resolved battles or if you fight the battles out. It is fairly seemless in that regard. The reason I mention that it is a maneuver game is that it seems to address a failing of many pre-Napoleonic games. To be sure the battles are very important but in this period even more so than later, the objective was to maneuver your way to victory without a major battle if possible. With the scope of the game being Canada and the entire east coast there is a lot of room and not nearly enough units to cover everywhere. That being said it does appear that the system allows for larger troop concentrations than historical. Each side has lots of different options because the force structures are very different. The milita being a much more important component of the American side seems to be well done. The Loyalist milita is not overlooked but is not nearly as significant which is as it should be. The map seems to be broken up into several areas and there are a maximum number of milita regiments that each side can raise in those areas. Same concept for the Indians but they seem to be a bit over done vs historical impact.
Each side gets influence points that it can spend on raising milita or indian units in the case of the Brits. They are also used to handle your officers and the forces in their commands. If you want to change out an officer it will cost you points. The points can also be expended on additional men, weapons, readiness, zeal, recon and several other things. Again this allows each side flexibility to approach the game differently.
Most cities on the map also produce recruits for non-milita units (different rates for each side), weapons, cannons, horses, money and supplies. The production system is simple with only 14 different unit types. There are several ways to take advantage of the production system and morale. Though the holes are there it is nothing major. Gamesmanship I suppose.
Both the strategic and tactical interfaces are rough. More clicking to get something done than need be.
The regiments available are mostly historical. You run into things like raising a Virginia regiment in New York. Still lots of flavor with the different unit types and identifications. Also nice to see the Hessian's and French uniformed differently. Real uniform buffs will not be happy. Each type/nationalty has a different image but no difference beyond that.
The tactical battle gets a little bland after awhile and the larger battles are difficult to manage. I still enjoy the small to midsize battles where I am trying to accomplish a specific task. A nice feature is that you flag individual formations for manual combat instead of it being all on or all off.
All in all the game is good. It has even more potential. It looks like it may be a really good engine for 7 Years War and such. Very few bugs and no crash or lock up problems. Lots of flavor for the period. Game allows for short scenarios or the entire war. Single play for both sides. Lots and lots of play options. Seems to me to be a good balance between ease of play and historical feel/accuracy. Seems to represent the campaign better by a long margin than anything I've seen to date. Something that kind of bugs me is that the first worthwhile Strategic American Revolution computer game comes from Europe but they have done a great job and deserve a big thumbs up.
Carl
|
|
|
|
