Slitherine

I am just starting to work my way through the tutorials (have achieved victories in the first three, at level 3, but have been badly beaten in the fourth) also tried a small random battle and got soundly trounced in that as well.

This is proving to be an excellent game, with a really decent AI, an excellent spread of scenarios and a superb battle generator. What more could you want?

Well, since you asked or even if you didn't, there are three areas that I would like to see some addition to.

This game is vastly superior to FoG but I do miss having leaders. They have the potential to add colour and immersion by having them give POAs to units stacked with them or adjacent to them and improving rally capability. I would envision leaders as being limited in number - depending on size of battle - and being capable of being added to any exiting unit.

Already been mentioned by others; unit names. At the moment everything feels a bit 'vanilla'.

Battle detritus, be it bodies or something else, to show where the main fights took place.

And just one small complaint. It is very difficult to see facing for units in woods.

Other than that, a big thumbs-up, for what one can only hope is the start of a great new series of games.

I can see unit leaders making some sense in an ancient or medieval setting, but I'm not convinced that it would really work for the Pike & Shot era. Inspirational battlefield leaders appear to have been the exception rather than the rule in an age where drill and training started to play a critical role. And you'd also be adding a layer of complexity to what seems to be a rather elegant game. Hope it doesn't happen!

Cheers,
Jay ('Gavril')

There has never been an over abundance of inspirational leaders, at any time but I was thinking more in terms of form and function rather than inspiration.

Having said that, there were certainly some. In the ECW you would certainly include Cromwell, Fairfax and Prince Rupert.

All armies function on command and control and 'leaders' would function similar to those in FoG(digital), providing some focus for sharpening attacks and defences or bolstering morale to rally troops. Not a great deal of complexity involved at all but, IMO, a lot of colour added.

The existing system is indeed very elegant and does indeed fit the period very well. But if new eras are covered, going forward, what will distinguish them from the current battles. Unless the graphics are greatly extended, the units will look, and act, the same and, beyond a battles name, will appear to be identical. Having named leaders as well as named units would give more of a sense of identity IMHO.

jimcrowley wrote:But if new eras are covered, going forward, what will distinguish them from the current battles. Unless the graphics are greatly extended, the units will look, and act, the same and, beyond a battles name, will appear to be identical.

Well, the graphics would be different, the battlefields would be different, the unit types would be different, the unit capabilities would be different, and therefore the gameplay and appearance would both be different. Er...and I've probably missed quite a lot out!

Chz,
Jay

You may well be right and, to be fair, additional playing of it is revealing just how good a game it really is.

However, it seems I am not the only one to think having leaders could be a good idea and this reviewer seems to have good credentials for this era of warfare:

http://wargamer.com/article/3708/pc-gam ... ger?page=1

Cheers
Jim