Braveheart

[Kekvit Irae]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Braveheart, the PC game. It was very much like RTW (released a year before STW), although a LOT of micromanagement and choppy battles often hindered it, but it was still an enjoyable game

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
An LIB brother of mine (http://www.thelib.com/yabbse/index.php?board=;action=viewprofile;user=LordMacAlpin) still plays that game. :yes:

Congrats on the assistant modship!

:medievalcheers:
-

[Kekvit Irae]

-
An LIB brother of mine (http://www.thelib.com/yabbse/index.php?board=;action=viewprofile;user=LordMacAlpin) still plays that game. :yes:

Congrats on the assistant modship!

:medievalcheers:
-

:happyg:

[Al Khalifah]

I remember playing that game a bit. It was ahead of its time in that it beat Shogun to the punch in many ways and the graphics were better.

I agree though that it was too much micro-management and not enough automation that let it down. The battles were cool and (for the time) pretty far-out but the presentation and interface just didn't sell to me.


Oh and you couldn't rally your army by giving a really long and droning speech and then shouting FREEDOM!

[frogbeastegg]

I remember Braveheart, alright. In ten years it's the only game I have ever taken back for a refund in complete disgust. I can sum the game up in just one word: broken. It was not even half finished. Bugs, bugs, bugs, missing features, broken features, CTDs, the game hanging - I still wince when I recall my efforts to play what sounded like a truly amazing game. It got very high review scores (I vividly remember the PC gamer UK one giving it 92% and calling it the best strategy game ever), and that is why I no longer trust reviews at all. They can't even have played the game; it's slightly impossible to notice that in battles only one of the two armies ever appeared on the map, making it impossible for you to do anything other than run around sightseeing with the detailed and accurate map of Scotland (neat idea) or hit your PC's reset button to get out.

The concept and ideas set to be implemented were great, but the reality? It was a disgrace :no:

[Al Khalifah]

They can't even have played the game; it's slightly impossible to notice that in battles only one of the two armies ever appeared on the map, making it impossible for you to do anything other than run around sightseeing with the detailed and accurate map of Scotland (neat idea) or hit your PC's reset button to get out.
Oh now thats harsh froggy, I distinctly remember that in at least 3 in 10 battles the other army would appear on the map at some point. What often happened was the enemy would run away and you wouldn't see a thing which would probably be the 3/10ths of the time..... but.... errr.... wasn't the map of Scotland pretty? I thought that was a nice touch at least.

Just to confirm, I was not part of the development/marketting/publishing team behind this game. I'd never work on a game that felt this unfinished becuase I'd never be able to mention it on the net without receiving abuse, but come on there have been worse games. What about :dizzy2: :dizzy2: John Romero's Daikatana :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: . If I'd worked on that, I think I'd have jumped in the river wearing concrete shoes.

[Fragony]

I remember that one. Deploy ---> chargeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

And see who wins, now the highlanders may have fought this way but it doesn't make for a good game.

What about John Romero's Daikatana

I actually enjoyed that game, once you got out of the swamp it got pretty fun. It had some interesting level design and fun weapons, when I play a shooter I just want to blow stuff up and it did that well enough for me.

[Al Khalifah]

Yes, but it was the only way to catch the other side before they fled - often for no reason. Not the best gameplay in the world, it made Diablo II stratergy look like a piece of tactical genius.
Some game designers really should think about what makes an exciting computer game and not a realistic concept. Otherwise whats next? Creative Assembly presents, Nuclear: Total War, where you command the special weapons devision of either the Soviet or American (or Egyptian axemen) army during World War III.

[Templar Knight]

Braveheart was one of my favorite games and I still play it when I get time. It did however have a lot more potential, its just a shame that the game was rushed and unfinished because the developers fell out with the publishers.

[nokhor]

Templar,
can you get it to work properly? because i share the sentiments of the frog. bugs and bad gameplay at least in the version i had.

[Templar Knight]

Hi nokhor

The original version was very unstable there was however 2 patches that were released by the developers before the company crashed. One was a European version (3.14) the other was US version (3.22). I found that using the two patches together helped make the game more stable and lowered the frequency of crashing on the campaign map.

One thing about the battles - the enemy army did deploy, but you had to wait for a while until they send out a scout to look for you, if you let the scout return the the enemy lines unharmed the enemy would soon attack. Many people believed that there was only one army because of this.

If you would like I can try and get a link for the patches.

[ShadesWolf]

I hated that game

Thought it was the worst load of #### I have ever played.

[nokhor]

Templar,

if you could post the links that would be great.

[Templar Knight]

The patches can be found here: http://www.strategyplanet.com/braveheart/downloads.shtml

Install 3.14 and see how it works, then install 3.22. You may need to edit some files but I believe there is a read me file that tells you all the details and what to do.

[Rob The Bastard]

I enjoyed Braveheart, thrashed it... it probably took me 2 weeks to unite ( conquer! ) Scotland...

I was looking forward to spending a similar time battling my way to London, the 5? battles to defeat the English took a couple of hours and left me disappointed over-all.

[Kekvit Irae]

I enjoyed Braveheart, thrashed it... it probably took me 2 weeks to unite ( conquer! ) Scotland...

I was looking forward to spending a similar time battling my way to London, the 5? battles to defeat the English took a couple of hours and left me disappointed over-all.

I could never get to that point :/

[frogbeastegg]

One thing about the battles - the enemy army did deploy, but you had to wait for a while until they send out a scout to look for you, if you let the scout return the the enemy lines unharmed the enemy would soon attack. Many people believed that there was only one army because of this.
Really? So simple, and yet so problematic. This wasn't mentioned in any of the documentation or tutorial (was there one? I don't recall) in my version. That's actually quite an interesting idea. But still, quite a few times I did stand about in the battlefield waiting for something to happen, and other times I went looking for the enemy; I never found them and they must not have found me.

So many intriguing ideas ... and the only game I know of to feature haggis making as a part of the economy. That has to count for something.

[Templar Knight]

I didn't like it, as you couldn't have a nice skirmish before the melee

[Templar Knight]

what I meant to say was - I didn't like the fact that the armies didn't line up and face each other on the battlefield, I liked the game very much other than that

Edit: I'm too tired for this to make any logical sense