Crusaders: thy kingdom come

[frogbeastegg]

Anyone know of it? It's out in the UK on Friday, but it's been out for a bit in other areas of Europe.

It sounds like a solid but not outstanding medieval strategy game, focused purely on the first crusade and TW style battles tied together by a rather odd campaign. Despite the art styling (all chunky fat swords and big metal shoulder guards) it keeps attracting the word 'realistic', with a fair few 'historically accurate's thrown in for good measure.

Reviews are limited, and there's only one, rather skimpy, review which I felt I could take semi-seriously. Two others gave it a mediocre mark but said barely anything negative about it, and one other complained that aspects like terrain having a realistic impact damaged the game irrevocably because it made it too complicated.

There's no demo. There's no offical forums. The few people I have found discussing it in English seem to like it, and say it makes a refreshing change from RTW and M2TW. There's some mention of crashes, though so vague and limited that it's impossible to get an idea if this is a wider problem or someone with a lousy PC.

I'm intrigued despite myself.

[Martok]

Interesting. I hadn't heard of this one either. Incidentally, here's the game's official site in case you'd not visited it yet.


Reactions seem to be mixed. Going through Gamespot, I found the following two reviews: One from Computer Games RO, and the other from Eurogamer.

Gamespot also has a player review. Despite scoring it only 4.5, he has mostly positive things to say -- his main problems are with the camera controls, and that it's apparently a resource hog.


Hmm. I think I wish to know more....

[frogbeastegg]

Hmm. I think I wish to know more....

At least I'm not alone in my moth/flame situation

I have this sinking feeling I might give it a go. If I pre-order it from Game's website it's only £19.99, and it should arrive on Thursday. That means I'll get several days to play before I'm back at work ...

Sinking feeling because when I take a chance on PC games like this I usually wish I hadn't. Don't know why; when I do the same with console games nine times out of ten I enjoy the title.

[rajpoot]

I bought a different version of game ages ago, if you'll take my word, it's terrible........absolutly terrible..............I could've cried when I started playing the game. The camera itself is so very hard to control that if you manage that you'll feel you've won the whole Crusade.......the units are simple, and the graphics bland, I found them looking like AOE1 on my machine......did not have the courage to play on.

[frogbeastegg]

Game's online shop is nothing if not efficient. My copy was in the post about 3 hours before that post was made. Yay.

Since it's too late I will give it a go anyway. It might have been patched or tweaked; a lot of games which get late releases like this do. If it's still awful then I don't lose much.

[frogbeastegg]

I have played a couple of missions. It's what one might call a however game.

The camera is nearly identical to the one in the TW games, so it's not that hard to get a decent view. However the UI is not so great, and it blocks out a great big portion of the screen for no good reason. The buttons themselves are tiny; it's hard to find the functions I want. I can't find any function which puts up markers so you can see where you have told units to move to. Once the order is given it's down to memory, and that's not helpful.

The graphics definitely aren't bland! I couldn't call them that with any degree of honesty. Some of the landscapes are very nice. People might be hearing the word "however" hanging over this paragraph, and they would be right. However the unit graphics are positively microscopic when you are zoomed out. Little ant people doesn't begin to describe it. It's impossible to tell what is going on in a fight unless you are zoomed right in.

It plays ok so far. There's nothing offensive about it and I have seen worse attempts at TW-esque battles. However - there's that word again - it's all quite small scale. 24 men per unit is the largest I have seen. 12 units form your maximum army size. It's fair to say that there are more men in a single unit in M2TW on the largest setting than there are in an entire battle here. I find it very difficult to take that seriously.

The music and audio is passable. However () there appear to be two tracks and only two tracks for when you are in battle and I'm sick of them already.

A however game: whatever good you have to say about it is inevitably followed with a qualification which adds something bad.

It's not a bad game, however () it's not sufficiently appealing to pull me away from other titles. I will probably come back to it in the future; for now I will stick with civ4 and so on. Thge patched edition of XIIIth Century: Death or Glory is definitely the better medieval battlefield game.

[Martok]

Thanks for that, Froggy. Given my very limited finances at the moment, I believe I shall hold off on getting it for now.

[Ignoramus]

Despite the warnings from several Orgahs, I may actually give this a go. I'm really interested in the First Crusade, and while it appears that it isn't as strictly accurate as it could be, it nevertheless is a TW style game on the First Crusade.

[Achilleslastand]

I have played a couple of missions. It's what one might call a however game.

The camera is nearly identical to the one in the TW games, so it's not that hard to get a decent view. However the UI is not so great, and it blocks out a great big portion of the screen for no good reason. The buttons themselves are tiny; it's hard to find the functions I want. I can't find any function which puts up markers so you can see where you have told units to move to. Once the order is given it's down to memory, and that's not helpful.

The graphics definitely aren't bland! I couldn't call them that with any degree of honesty. Some of the landscapes are very nice. People might be hearing the word "however" hanging over this paragraph, and they would be right. However the unit graphics are positively microscopic when you are zoomed out. Little ant people doesn't begin to describe it. It's impossible to tell what is going on in a fight unless you are zoomed right in.

It plays ok so far. There's nothing offensive about it and I have seen worse attempts at TW-esque battles. However - there's that word again - it's all quite small scale. 24 men per unit is the largest I have seen. 12 units form your maximum army size. It's fair to say that there are more men in a single unit in M2TW on the largest setting than there are in an entire battle here. I find it very difficult to take that seriously.

The music and audio is passable. However () there appear to be two tracks and only two tracks for when you are in battle and I'm sick of them already.

A however game: whatever good you have to say about it is inevitably followed with a qualification which adds something bad.

It's not a bad game, however () it's not sufficiently appealing to pull me away from other titles. I will probably come back to it in the future; for now I will stick with civ4 and so on. Thge patched edition of XIIIth Century: Death or Glory is definitely the better medieval battlefield game.

Ive been trying to find XIIIth Century: Death or Glory here in the US{Oklahoma}.....has anyone else played this game and is it any good...........I guess i could look online for a copy but cant find it at the local retailers

[frogbeastegg]

I got mine from gamersgate once the patch arrived and was reported to fix most of the bugs and problems. The gamersgate edition works with the general patch; you just download it from the official forums and apply. There isn't a boxed edition in the UK; I am unsure if there is one in the US. If there is then it would have been a small, limited release.

I haven't played much of it so far, however what I have played I have definitely liked. It feels very much like M2TW's battlefield, but more ... hardcore. It's more realistic, or so I'd say from the tutorial battles.

The largest difference is that your soldiers have (some) brains. You station them wherever you want, give them looser instructions like "hold position" and then you can leave them to handle basic situations with a reasonable degree of confidence. You don't need to give every single order and babysit every last unit a la TW. The tutorial had you set up archgers on a hill, and position your heavier infantry to protect them. You were then told to take your two cavalry and head off to approximately half a mile away so you could charge around and into the enemy's rear. I was having minor heart attacks when I saw the enemy advancing on my archers and infantry as the tutorial kept me busy with my cavalry. I thought it was going to be a disaster. Instead I watched as my spearmen calmly tweaked their facing so they didn't get flanked, waited for the last moment, and then charged. As it turned out the battle was over before my cavalry got close, and no one got near my archers.

This is good news; all reports say the game features plenty of large, complicated battles, smart AI, and a high level of difficulty. If you couldn't leave small sections to look after thermselves you would go nuts.

When I have played a bit more I will probably start a thread for it.

[rajpoot]

Well I would not say that I ever got past the tutorial.......and the graphics, err........could have been my machine perhaps ............and maybe the patch fixed the problems of the camera......I don't know, but I guess I'll download the patch and try it once more.

[frogbeastegg]

You did notice that post above was for XIII Century: Death or Glory, right? Crusaders has had its topic usurped.

[rajpoot]

Ahhh

[Starforge]

I'll throw my own 2 coppers in regarding Crusaders:

Many of the reviews and even the fact that it's here seems to indicate that many folks feel that since there is a tactical battle map and guys with swords running around it must be like TW. It isn't save for that one small area - no campaign map, no building up cities, no major differences between factions. The game reminds me more of a Elven Legacy RTS or perhaps a FG / PG / et al style of game (though not as engaging IMO.)

The campaign is a set of fixed (at least through mission 3) scenarios with varying degrees of difficulty that remind me more of a puzzle than grand combat. Since I like puzzles, I don't find this bad, but it's hardly the 'build and manage your army' strategy game like TW where you can choose when and where to fight. Goals for the scenario are X with Y and Z as secondary objectives which you get paid for accomplishing. The trick is usually trying to solve the map puzzle while taking as few losses as possible to conserve cash so that you can buy those better units when they become available and to upgrade your units as they get better.

The game is not unfun - and for $20 it's hard to argue that you won't get your entertainment from the money spent but I don't see this one being played through more than once before being put on the shelf (playing through the same puzzles with different resources or the occasional special troop type - which is all the other factions seem to offer - doesn't really appeal to me.)

Camera isn't spectacular but it's workable (can't see why so many people complain about it - yes it's a bit different than standard but sheesh.)

There have been some folks who have had bug issues but nary a one so far for me (raps knuckles on appropriate wooden furniture.)