|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
Cheats for this gamePlatform:PC
Release Date:Fri Jul 4th 2003*
Publisher:Koch
Developer:Slitherine Soft.
Genre:Strategy
Players:1
Score:5.5 out of 10
Average Reader Score:5.51 out of 10 (79 ratings)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chariots of War is a strategy game set several thousand years ago, where primitive tribes are beginning to flourish and huge empires are emerging. War is being waged for wealth, and power is prized above all else. It may sound exciting, but can it survive in a market nigh on flooded with top-notch strategy games? Let's take a look.
Upon an initial examination, I was immediately reminded of the Civilisation series. Chariots of War is very similar, with its turn-based empire-building essence and unadorned visual style. Fortunately, unlike their real-time strategy brethren, turn-based strategy games are much less reliant on graphical quality. So Chariots of War's low production values and dated visuals, whilst not helping a great deal, don't automatically condemn this game to an early death.
TBS games generally have a less frantic feel to them than the more fashionable, fast-paced RTS games, and in Chariots of War the action, the majority of the time, is more akin to that of a board game. So, in terms of market appeal, we're looking at casual strategy gamers in search of a more leisurely experience, focusing less on rapid reactions and quick thinking, and more on the intricacies of balancing an economy and keeping a kingdom running efficiently. The problem is, the game doesn't go into any great depth in either of these areas and, as a result, isn't likely to challenge or interest veteran strategists at all. And although we have 5 difficulty settings, from easy to impossible, the harder settings simply demand more efficient management of resources with the limited mechanisms available. Still, the uncomplicated menu and battle systems mean that novice players are unlikely to be intimidated by proceedings and therefore may derive some satisfaction from the game.
Turn-based strategy games don't seem to be as popular as real-time strategy games these days and, whilst most strategy creators now incorporate elements of both into their games, almost all can still be described as predominantly one or the other. Chariots of War is no exception, principally a TBS game but, when two armies meet, the player is transferred to a small battlefield to view a quick real-time scenario. The real-time battles are a little different to what you may be used to and might be best described as quirky. The two opposing armies take their places on either side of the screen and prepare to charge. The battlefield itself is very small and armies meet each other almost instantly. We don't actually control our troops, merely position them and issue a few basic orders. It's a very simple and unpretentious system but really only serves as a slight distraction from the main focus. It manages to avoid being annoying though, since even the largest battles are over in less than a minute.
If you're looking for lasting appeal, supposing you enjoy the game in the first place, there's an aptly named Grand Campaign, along with several other differently sized campaign maps, which could all potentially keep you occupied for a long time. The big selling point, the possible 58 factions to choose from, is slightly misleading though, since there are so few unique units to create, meaning there's barely a discernible difference controlling one faction over another. The cities we control are much more important than the faction because it's the various available resources within each city that determines what we are capable of building, and consequently how the game pans out. There's a fair amount of buildings to buy and troops to create, nothing special, the only things extraordinary are the names of some of the units (Kepetj Auxilia anyone?). Whether they are historically accurate or not I don't know, or care, everything feels like it's in the right place anyway.
The trade screen, whilst simplistic, is probably the best aspect of Chariots of War. It could have been developed further but with 9 resources, including gems, horses, wood, and copper, to name a few, there is plenty to keep track of. It's nice and easy to organise your assets too, selling off the surplus supply and buying whatever is in demand. Not especially rewarding, but without it Chariots of War would be a lot worse, and it's the only section of the game I felt even remotely involved.
Via the diplomacy screen we can send our diplomats to other nations in order to curry favour with their leaders. We can also eject rival nation's diplomats in a number of grisly ways. Ironically though, diplomacy has barely any influence on the game whatsoever, send and eject are the only two options available to us here. And that sums up the game for me; there is too little to do in almost every area. Besides diplomacy, essentially all we can do is build, trade or battle.
Overall then, Chariots of War is basically a tame TBS game. It's easy to get into and, despite its shortcomings, is addictive in its simplicity. But then, so are a lot of card games, and how many of you would pay the price of a PC game to play those? Highly unlikely to appeal to able strategy gamers, so why presume less proficient players couldn't get used to a superior title? Not a terrible game, merely average and uninspiring.
James McDowell - (24 Jun 2003)
* release dates are only applicable at the time of writing |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
There are 31 comments for this article.
Z at 14:30, Wed 25 Jun 2003
meh im still going to download it and give it a try
Fitz at 19:04, Wed 25 Jun 2003
I find it very, very addictive, perhaps in the same way as tetris is.
Simple and easy to get into, but every time I sit down for a quick go, it
seems I'm stuck in front of the bloody thing for hours.
Stratego at 16:07, Thu 26 Jun 2003
Great depth to the game, sorry you missed its appeal, I just have to have
one more go, then one more go then ...........
Hammurabi at 16:12, Thu 26 Jun 2003
Yea I agree, I think he's comparing it too much to RTS games.
We're really devoid of any good turn based strategy games and this
fills a nice hole for me!
scotus at 19:07, Thu 26 Jun 2003
Two things plague wargames and miniatures games on this subject (ancient
combat): Games allow too much micromanagement during a battle; and
munchkinization of army lists tends to produce historically unlikely
armies. This review seems to indicate this game overcomes the first problem
well. Line your armies up and let them go at it was the order of the day in
the period. Too bad the reviewer didn't have the expertise to answer
the munchkin question.
Chris (Sony Editor) at 20:00, Thu 26 Jun 2003
Munchkinization??
What the hell...?
proudclod (Staff) at 20:29, Thu 26 Jun 2003
We rate games on a simple ethos.
Are they fun, and are they good games.
We don't favour particular genres.
Thus the crap mark - it's just not a great game, merely an average
one.
proudclod (Staff) at 20:44, Thu 26 Jun 2003
I'd like to add, i still play civ1. regularly. despite it's
amazing age, you can't beat it :)
JamesM (Staff) at 21:57, Thu 26 Jun 2003
Fair comments. I’m glad you like the game. As I said, its addictive but
any TBS game worth its salt is. I was hooked for a good week and a half,
but after that it became too repetitive. To put that into perspective, I
still play CivII now after 2 years(ish) – Chariots doesn’t come close for
me.
Pharaoh at 07:09, Sat 28 Jun 2003
Where are all the other high quality strategy titles you speak of? The
last year has seen nothing much at all, unless you mean RTS games and this
is not an RTS!
ATG at 11:28, Sat 28 Jun 2003
RTS it is not but then I didnt want another RTS, this game is terrific and
the best since civ. The battles are great and you get the feel of real
generalship, terrain troop types all make a huge difference
DS (Managing Director) at 11:42, Sat 28 Jun 2003
"Where are all the other high quality strategy titles you speak of?
The last year has seen nothing much at all, unless you mean RTS
games"
He "means" strategy, which includes TB and RT. He didn't
specify.
Pharaoh at 12:58, Sat 28 Jun 2003
Exactly! So why compare this to games from a different genre! I must be
missing something...
DS (Managing Director) at 13:44, Sat 28 Jun 2003
You are. TB and RT are in the same genre. Strategy, a genre which generally
has the same appeals regardless of the specific type of gameplay involved.
JamesM (Staff) at 13:56, Sat 28 Jun 2003
I wasn’t really comparing Chariots to any RTS title; you’re reading too
much into it. I was simply using a comparison of the two genres as a way to
open paragraphs and emphasise the differences; not to be disparaging to
either. I don’t want to coerce people into thinking this is an RTS game,
even though cynics would say those battles are a half-hearted attempt at
doing just that. Nevertheless, rest assured, the score wasn’t given with
any RTS game as the template.
Pharaoh at 16:25, Sat 28 Jun 2003
"TB and RT are in the same genre."
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. I have no interest whatsoever in
RTS games but love strategy games. To me a strategy game is one that does
not require quick reactions! I used to play C&C A LOT when it came
out, but overdosed on it and have not been able to play one since. I guess
we have to agree to diagree.
FPC at 14:56, Sun 29 Jun 2003
Look guys, the guys who made the review made it according to his opinion.
Not everybody can like CoW or any other game on the market. I like CoW a
lot! Legion and CoW are some of the best strategy games ever according to
MY opinion. So the only way to ever complain about a game or promote it is
to simply test it... and go to Slitherine's website to get the newest
patches that make CoW even better!
proudclod (Staff) at 23:21, Sun 29 Jun 2003
FINALLY
Someone gets it - it's opinion. Sure, our opinion is superior to
yours... only kidding.
What I'm saying is that we try our best to give you all an unbiased
and true opinion of the game from our point of view. However, the only true
way to find out whether a game is good for you is to buy it. But then
it's too late :) Think of us as an Irish early warning system - a good
thing, but our hostiles may occasionally be your friends!
Tatu at 13:50, Mon 30 Jun 2003
I bet these guys give a high rating to Medieval Total War, when that game
have the worst Strategy level ever.
Chariots of War appeal to strategy gamers like me that are not exactly
interested in over-controlled tactical battles, but in an strongly
historical flavoured strategy game with historicaly accurate tactical
battles.
As it is, CoW is the top pick today in the Hybrid Strategy/Tactical market.
name at 14:18, Mon 30 Jun 2003
You guys are having a tough time at justifying your poor review score of an
ok game!
btw 9.5 for rise of nations is insanely high,
MarkMI6 (Editor) at 14:19, Mon 30 Jun 2003
Uh oh, looks like personal opinion has once again run aground! Look folks,
this review is, whether you like it or not, a personal opinion of the site
(not of the reviewer - it's a unified stance y'see). Take it as
that because that's as far as any review can possibly go, despite what
some others would say (:
Tatu - this was discussed in the review, we found the game to be fun,
addictive and simple yet it had more than a few flaws. Yes I agree with
you that CoW probably appeals to gamers that don't want an
over-complicated strategy game, but on that basis the game still contains
the same flaws if it were reviewed on the basis of it being a particularly
deep strategy game. Just because the aspect for review has changed
doesn't mean the flaws have been hidden.
Fitz at 17:18, Mon 30 Jun 2003
It looks like CoW has a pretty ferocious and loyal fan base. You get that
kind of fan only for a game that has long term appeal. eg: Civ,
Risk...Chess even.
And taking chess as a good example of game design...it has only a few
rules, but an infinite number of outcomes and strategies.
opinion at 17:17, Tue 1 Jul 2003
Why would somebody think of this "no influence after start"
battle system as historical? It is no more historical than the
"toy-like" control system of RTS.
proudclod (Staff) at 17:47, Thu 3 Jul 2003
Frankly, any game of a Civ style worth it's salt would have long term
appeal - it's a prerequisite for the genre.
JamesM (Staff) at 13:16, Fri 4 Jul 2003
Seems others share our view. IGN gave it 5, Gamespot 6 (most other sites
were not as kind)....and mine was written before them....I thank you.
Lucci at 22:36, Sun 6 Jul 2003
This game is about the best TBS that I have come across since Civ. The
battles are just a bit of icing on the cake . It's really amusing to
see the staff here trying to justify their views :-))
DS (Managing Director) at 01:38, Mon 7 Jul 2003
Excuse us but we don't have to justify our opinions. They are opinions
and nothing more. Obviously not everybody is going to agree. Live with it.
charioteer at 05:23, Mon 7 Jul 2003
I am a long time fan of the strategy game genre -- even before computers
were around. I've been playing Chariots of War for about a week, and I
find it deeply flawed.
Try for example, the following: Start the Mesopotamia scenario and select
to play the Hittites. You start the game with 3 villages in the south
(Aggade and 2 others), a small group of infantry units, and no access to
horses, copper, wood or tin. The Scythian civilization is way up in the
North (3 cities, come with access to horses). Now, try starting the
scenario again (Mesopotamia) only this time, as the Scythians. Again, you
start in the south with 3 villages (Aggade and 2 others, a small group of
infantry, and no access to horses, wood, copper or tin. The Army icons
changed to a horse unti instaed of an infantry unit, but the Scythian army
starts with no cav units at all -- in fact, it starts with the same exact
units the Hittites start with. Excuse me -- a horse culture has no cav
units, and no access to horses???? Try the same thing with all the other
scenarios. No matter what civ you choose, you start each scenario with the
exact same villages, units and resources. There is no difference what civ
you pick. None at all. This is a fatal design flaw, in my opinion. Heck,
even Warlords 1 -- of some 11 years ago -- changed your starting location,
unit types and resource allocation, according to what civ you wanted to
play. This is not good at all. As much as I wanted this game to be
fantastic (I like the era, the scope, and the turn based system), I'd
give it an even worse grade.
Skank at 22:33, Fri 18 Jul 2003
Just got my copy and first impressions are really good. I love the battle
system and this combined with the TBS campaign appeals a lot
Wolfman at 23:28, Mon 20 Sep 2004
Instead of Civ II, I see this game more like Shogun: The Art of War.
Controlling the trade goods makes it seem like you're doing more, but
I don't see how to play this game having combat and conquering being
the vast majority of your efforts, same as in Shogun. In Civ II, and
especially Civ III, I have played whole campaigns without ever declaring
war. Here and in Shogun, if you don't attack, you get attacked.
There's no avoiding it. There's no building an empire without
war.
Wolfman at 23:30, Mon 20 Sep 2004
Oh, I like the game anyway. I love the historical feel to it and the
little variations on unique units. I rate it a 7.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
