Having discovered Kohan II off the back of my disappointment with BFME 2, and having now having played through the entire campaign and enjoyed many MANY skirmishes against custom AIs, I thought I’d best start investigating another RTS series I’ve heard about but not played.
I’ve been a pretty extensive RTS fan of late. From Warcraft III, through the Dawn of War series, Company of Heroes and Kohan II. Its been a good time for RTS.
Is the Warlords series any good? I recall hearing about one which was a dud. How does it play? Which one is the best one to go for?
Warlords, or is it Warlords: Battlecry? Anyway they’re probably the one of the only notable RTS games I’ve never played. Apparently they were all about the Hero units.
Warlords I was amazing for it’s time. Addictive gameplay and the ability to play as any of the factions made it very replayable. It’s dated by today’s standards, both in graphics and gameplay.
Warlords II was probably the pinnacle of the series. It introduced specific units and terrain tiles for the different races, as well as exanding upon the “heroes” you could send out to collect items, treasure and allies. The Deluxe version of the game had more scenarios and an editor, which in turn was used by the rabid fanbase to create tons of content for the game. It was a classic that I spent dozens of hours playing.
Warlords III:Reign of Heroes was plauged by a horrible initial release. It was so bad in fact, that they re-released it as Warlords III : Darklords Rising and offered anyone who bought the original (myself included) a free copy! The re-released version (Darklords Rising) was much better, with balance and playability issues worked out, a great campaign system and tons of new content. It too consumed many hours of my life.
Warlords IV was released in 2003, and was terrible from the start. Lousy AI issues made it a joke, and it had some bugs that made it unplayable for a few folks. A fan-created patch was released a couple years later that fixes the game and makes it much more enjoyable.
Warlords Battlecry I, II and III are the RTS games set in the Warlords universe. They are excellent RTS games, but don’t break any new ground or anything. They have a nice hero building system similar to Warcraft III’s, and they have a lot of units and playable races (8 in BCI, 12 in BC2 and 16 in BC3).
Quitch, Warlords is the turn-based series. Warlords: Battlecry is the RTS adaptation of the series. And, yeah, I think Warlords: Battlecry II is probably the best place to start.
Probably Warlords Battlecry. It’s a RTS, probably the first to have the Hero units & RPG elements like those that showed up in Warcraft3. (WBC 1 & 2 are great, 3 is not that good)
Yeah when I recommended #2 I was thinking you were referring to the Warlords Battlecry series. You know, the one that’s real-time strategy, not turn-based.
Honestly, I’d recommend checking out both series, as they’re quite good. Grab III from the TBS series and II from the RTS series, both should be about $10 in most bargain bins.
Correction: Warlords Battlecry II was groundbreaking with its dynamic campaign, which was basically a TBS meta-game for the RTS battles.
Other games have tried to emulate this in their own ways (BFME II, RoN, RoL, Westwood’s most recent Dune), but the only one which really came out worth a damn was RoN and its expansion. RoL was a step back, as it took RoN’s formula, then made it mostly linear and pointless, given that the whole point of that meta-map system is that it’s non-linear.
I didn’t quite finish the campaign, but I had a lot of fun with Battlecry 1…enough that I’m planning to finish it before trying Battlecry 2.
I’m playing through HOMM2 right now, and find it interesting that while not some form of dynamic campaign, the campaign still has many more options than most games that came much later. It’s a branching campaign where you can decide to change sides early on, can choose different battles as you go along, and can take alternate routes to ending the campaign.
Now if only the mission I’m trying wasn’t kicking my ass…
Actually, I would argue that Battlecry II was indeed the pinnacle of UI design at the time, certainly in terms of RTSs. I suspect it’s help up pretty well.
I played both battlecry 2 and 3. Personally, gameplay/graphics wise if you played 2 then you really don’t need to play 3. Battlecry 3 felt more like an expansion than a full fledged sequal. If you never played either one, then might as well get 3.
If you are going for the campaign, I suggest the battlecry 2.
Battlecry II incorporates every UI feature an RTS should have. It has proper queueing of both builds and unit orders, lets you do all the right stuff with waypoints and basically includes every single thing from Total Annihilation that all the other RTS games are often missing.
Presentation is also nicely done. Instead of cluttering the map with inconsequential graphic features that you think you should be able to interact with but can’t, the Battlecry games minimize the junk and make it so you know exactly when and where you can fight, move and interact with the terrain.
Finally, there is a lot of great personality found in the units and none of it interferes with the important gameplay functions and even enhances it. The “Hic! Hic! Hic!” over the drunken dwarves being a perfect example of combining comedy and functionality in one simple graphic touch (when they’re drunk, they get bonuses).
