![]() ![]() Similar to my criticism of HPS, there is no game enforcement or advantage to historically-correct formations. But for some reason FoG doesn’t do it for me. These are also the same rules that form the basis for the more recent game Pike and Shot, which is among my favorite new releases. The PC game has a large following, perhaps consisting of a significant number of table-top players who want additional remote play opportunities.įield of Glory looks decent and has a very accessible UI. The AI can give a challenge, particularly in scenarios designed for single play – although this too is primarily a play-by-email game.įield of Glory is a PC game based on the table-top rule set of the same name. Counter representative sizes are bigger (although, I’ll note, they are set by the scenario designer, so it really could be anything) so micromanagement is less. ![]() You’d think, then, that Field of Glory would be a breath of fresh air. This is up to you as the player to do for your own satisfaction, often expending a lot of on-screen clicks to do so. Indeed, there is no enforcement (or advantage, as far as I can tell) for keeping your units in the historical formations and combat roles. There is no simulation of the manipular system and its unique advantages. That is, the difference between a roman legion and allied heavy infantry is in the stats of the units. (Can you break his right wing before he punches a hole in your center?) But you pretty much have to visit every counter, every turn, whether you want to or not.Īnother complaint about this product is, while the army detail is simulated to a lower level of detail compared to most other games (Example Scale: for legions, one counter represents a maniple), it is still the same mechanics as any other hex-and-counter game. This isn’t too bad when you’re working on a tactically interesting section of the battlefield. This works until the armies make contact, at which point the group move is useless and you have to give orders counter-by-counter. Mostly you move forward using group moves, meaning (for example) you give a single movement order to all of one legion’s principes (10 counters) together. The gameplay starts out OK as you close your army towards the enemy and need only make minor adjustments to your lines. Playing this scenario, it takes you through several distinct phases. The AI, while not obviously incompetent, probably will not beat you in any of the scenarios (mostly designed for balanced play-by-email). On the downside, the scenarios take a brutally long time to play.Ī longstanding complaint about first the Battleground series, and then the HPS follows-ups, was ability of the computer opponent. Each scenario takes a brutally long time to play so you get a whole lot of hours for your money that you’ve spent on a particular HPS module. As far as the product itself, there are lots of scenarios, plus a scenario editor. The modelling of the battle seems pretty good. The much more functional, but considerably less aesthetic, 2D view. It is a turned-based, tactical-level treatment of the great battles of Rome, Greece, and Macedonia. The HPS Ancients series was developed from the core engine, but by developer Paul Bruffell. I still remember those muskets crackling in the pop-up window like it was yesterday. As the series developed, the latter was dropped quickly, while the former de-emphasized over the years. A big-budget title at the time, the game featured 3D figures (invoking table-top miniatures) and video of live re-enactments to augment the combat resolution. I’ve never played that game, but had the second in the series (also 1995), Gettysburg. The look-and-feel of the game series has largely remained unchanged from the 1995 Battleground series debut from Talonsoft, Bulge-Ardennes. HPS: Punic Warsįor those unfamiliar, the HPS product line is a series of games based on the work of John Tiller. HPS battles started off my “comparative gaming” exercise and, despite its shortcomings, ranked as the best available ancients tactics options that I tried. That caused me to begin digging through older games, sure that somewhere, someone must have done better. This exercise started when I tried playing Rome: Total War, and felt the disappointment at the lack of realism and depth. I tend to rank “immersion” higher than innovative and/or challenging game play. The first two games seem to have fairly loyal followings, largely for multiplayer. This review is taken largely from a Usenet post I made, answering a question about PC games covering the ancients era. Summer of 2015, I decided to play the Pyrrhic War. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |