I had said previously that I was on the fence about this game--well, I'm off the fence now. After 3 or 4 days and many hours of trying to play this odd piece of gaming code, I give up. I really dislike this game.
There really is no ability to control or effectively manage your resources. All you can do is assign vassals from a randomly generated pool to parcels of land . From that point on, everything that comes out of that parcel beyond your control and is handled by the A.I.
You have 4 types of vassals--knights, burghers, Serfs, and Clergy. Of these the only ones that can produce troops to make up a field army are the knights. You get one or two units of random troops and that is it.
Burghers, when assigned to a parcel, establish cities, which produce your income, and occasionally the random troop of mercenaries.
Serfs produce your food, and Clergy add Christianity and valor.
Once you make these assignments, that's it. The A.I. takes over and decides what your kingdom gets in food, taxes, and troops.
The only way to build more armies is to conquer next kingdom. Each kingdom, just like yours, is made up of 4 to 6 parcels of land. You have to eliminate all armies within a kingdom to control it and start assigning vassals.
You can win battle after battle, but if there is one parcel that in not in your control, your losses are all just wasted.
The big problem here is that although you are whipping the armies of that particular kingdom, the adjoining kingdoms are also sneaking armies over the borders, making it near impossible to control all of the parcels at once.
Management of your armies is like trying to herd a bunch of cats. Just when you think you have handle on things, one of your inferior armies goes off on it's own and attacks an army twice it's size.
The battles are almost devoid of any ability to use real tactics. The maps are dinky, and it appears that the topography of the land is just for looks. What I mean by this is that there is no advantage to holding high ground or using forests as an advantage against cavalry.
There are no sieges--only castle assaults, and they are really lame. If you have no siege engines, your troops can scale the walls. The only problem is that now you almost lose control of them while they bunch up on the parapets, and get slaughtered by archers on other walls.
If the stronghold is a wooden fort, you simply set a small troop of archers up to burn it down with flaming arrows.
Early on there seems to be no way do determine what kind of army you are up against, unless you go to the battle screen and compare army sizes. If outnumbered you do have the ability to withdraw. Otherwise, the battle is pretty much a numbers game from then on.
In fact you are better off going back to the strategic map since if you try to manage or enjoy the battle, you run the risk of having your other armies attacked and wiped out since the strategic clock is always on.
While the idea of having both the strategic and the tactical level of a conquest game done in real time is an interesting concept, the developers of LOTR 3 failed miserably to implement it into an enjoyable gaming experience.
I can only describe this game as an odd mix of the absolute worst aspects both MTW and Stronghold.
The bottom line for me is that the single player aspect of this game is just not fun, and I cannot recommend it.
I cannot speak to multiplayer, so if you are so inclined, your results may vary.
Cheers
P.S There is finally an on-line review out at Gamespot. I was flabergasted to see that the reviewer actually gave the game an 84%. That's only 4% less than they gave MTW.
He could not have played the same game that I did and given it that good a score. He even bragged about how the organ music was so appropriate for the game.
Actually, the organ music is kind of irritating after a while, but I mean come on--give me a break, pipe organs did not start to make their appearance until very late 16th or early 17th century.
Oh well, maybe it's just proof that one man's trash is another's treasure.
