Doom
Developed by id Software and published by Bethesda in 2016, Doom is a reboot of id Software’s iconic Doom series of first-person shooter games originally published in 1993.
Have you ever wanted to go guns blazing into a giant pit filled with demons, racking up gory kills and copious amounts of blood as you hack, slash, shoot, and beat your way through the hordes of the undead monstrosities that reside in the deepest bowels of Hell itself?
What do you mean “we already did that“?
No, I meant in 2016, not 1993.
Welcome back to DOOM, the game that gave the world its aggressive love for First-Person Shooters! You are a marine, Mars has been taken over by the denizens of Hell, here’s a gun, go stop them with all the blood, guts, smoke, and fire you can muster! That’s all the story you need to take on Hell. Seriously. Okay, there’s a little bit more, but it doesn’t matter. You’re here to kill demons, end of story; and boy do you kill demons with extreme prejudice.
Smooth, responsive, and above all else fun, DOOM shows that you don’t necessarily need a story filled with the horrors of war, or even a linear path (hallway) to make a fantastic game. You know you’ve found something special when it’s required to have a map of the surrounding area because it’s so easy to get lost in the level. Weapons are effective and have weight to them, and the demons look equally horrifying and target-like. Tearing them to shreds with one of the best soundtracks of the year behind you, parading through blood and guts whilst head banging to metal is easily one of the great pleasures in life.
DOOM has always been more about the single player experience than the multiplayer, so the multiplayer never grew on me. It isn’t deep or thoughtful by any stretch, and doesn’t have quite the gory thrill of single player, but it’s enjoyable enough to be added on as a bonus for those who are interested in that aspect of FPS.
DOOM, still to this day, is my favorite FPS franchise. Be it the weapons, the levels, the enemies, or the music, I wholeheartedly enjoy every moment I spend playing it. Any of it. All of it. Buy it. It’s worth it.
Hearts of Iron IV
Hearts of Iron IV was released in 2016 as the latest entry in Paradox Interactive’s long-running Hearts of Iron series of grand strategy games. Continuing the tradition of its predecessors, the fourth title brings players the full scope of the brewing world at war, with 1936 and 1939 scenario start dates. Players can take the roll of any existing nation on earth at the time, and must manage resources, industry, politics, the development of new technologies, and the organization and deployment of their armed forces as the globe erupts in war.
As with its more immediate predecessors, Hearts of Iron IV, or HOI IV as it is often abbreviated, continues to present Paradox’s traditional grand strategy model with many changes to the nuances of combat and diplomacy from previous titles. A new resource was added, political power, that enabled each nation to make changes to its government and laws, engage in direct and indirect political maneuvering, and research national focuses. Political power accrues at a base amount, with modifiers adding or subtracting to the daily gain as appropriate. There is no penalty for running out of political power, but if the player is reduced to a negative gain of power they will be unable to continue developing focuses.
The national focus tree is perhaps HOI IV’s biggest addition to the series. Instead of scripted events guiding the course of historic events and developments, each nation now has a focus tree that contains numerous political choices that initiate diplomatic actions, develop countries, and lead to war. Historical events such as the Anschluss of Austria appear as part of a chain of focuses that guide the historic development of the Third Reich, culminating in war with France and England. Most nations utilize a generic focus tree which provides industrial development, military research, and the option to make a nation communist, democratic, or fascist. The great powers come with unique, highly developed focus trees, and with expansions more of the minor nations such as Australia and Romania gain their own special focus trees as well.
In past titles, players were concerned primarily with the assembling of armies and navies, who led them, and how they were utilized in individual battles. For this latest release a slew of detailed mechanics now define the operating parameters for division performance in the field. Divisions are made using templates which automatically draw the appropriate equipment from the national stockpile during training. Combat width, which increases or decreases based on the number of battalions a template requires, determines the operational viability of a specific template. If a template’s width is too high it will be unable to participate in most battles; if it is too low it runs the risk of being overwhelmed by larger opposing divisions.
The division template and how it interacts with the numerous combat mechanics is perhaps the most confusing and arbitrary part of HOI IV, and a hallmark of the game’s overall style. While the template is easy to learn and use, the reasons for its performance on the field are cryptic and at times illogical. Numerous guides exist online regarding appropriate templates for various widths and purposes, but performance of these templates in game varies heavily and the player is often at a loss to understand why a supposedly advanced template design is failing to overpower inferior combat formations.
This complexity permeates most aspects of the game and is certainly prevalent in the military side. The use interface serves perfectly well at informing the player about their ships, planes, and combat formations. However it’s over-reliance on symbols and parlance leaves most new players confused as to what any of the unit commands actually do. This level of complexity is more subtle in the economic and diplomatic sections, where symbols are more easily decrypted and effects are more basic. Yet nuances remain, with most players finding certain political actions restricted or even inaccessible depending on a variety of factors relating to their own nation as well as the world in general.
Of course, in typical Paradox fashion, all this complexity doesn’t exist without a way to subtly manipulate it. The division template designer allows for almost any combination of units to be applied as long as the player has enough army experience to afford it. Factories can continue producing obsolete equipment, and even when going the historical focus route players don’t have to make alliances or enemies with the traditional targets. Admirals and generals can be swapped at will, with a short travel delay, and air wings can have any type or number of planes assigned to them.
The user interface features a level of customization as well. Players can assign specific symbols to division templates allowing them to be identified at a glance. Ships, air wings, and armies can be renamed and the color and symbol utilized by each army can be modified for distinctive recognition. Notifications also crowd the top of the screen, highlighting production, diplomacy, or other areas that might need to be addressed. Clicking on each notification brings up the relevant screen and, although not precisely perfect, allows for quick examination of any deficiencies.
HOI IV goes a long way in telling the player what they can and should do. Sadly, it is also quite adept at telling the player what they cannot do. The default settings for a standard game are designed to funnel the normally free-flowing mechanics into the more predictable historical setting of World War II. Diplomatic actions, economic and military laws, and even national leaders are all restricted by a complex web of ideology, world tension, and military parameters. These cannot be circumvented, and the passage of game time has been observed to be the only true cure. Most nations have at least three years of in-game time to adjust themselves, but ambitious players will find the limitations on their goals frustrating and sometimes completely obstructive. It is highly recommended that players familiar with the basic mechanics adjust their game’s diplomatic and ideological settings to ensure the maximum number of options are available.
At its heart, HOI IV is a WWII simulator to the core. Its alternate paths and options are numerous and extensively developed, but prospective players should approach the game with the foremost notion that they will be playing through historical WWII. With this mindset, the restrictions and difficulties that may arise will seem more flavorful and less belligerent, allowing gamers to gradually ease into the notion that events need not follow a set pattern. Coming to HOI IV with the idea of immediately turning history around may lead to substantial disappointment that can overshadow the elements of the game that are actually done well, such as the division template designer and the nature of focus trees as player-driven events.
Grand strategy is a niche genre for a reason, and players may surprise themselves by finding that they like, or dislike, this style of play when it may have a great deal of, or no, relation to their preferred genre. Anyone that enjoys nation building and logistical organization will fit right into HOI IV and shouldn’t hesitate to try the game out. The new content from the many DLCs might seem overwhelming, but it helps in the Hearts of Iron series to start at the end of development to avoid learning strategies that are rendered obsolete by later updates. Of course, the game is perfectly playable with any DLC combination and is overall reasonably priced. Most importantly, prospective gamers should remember that failure is part of the learning in this game, and quite often the thrill of a hard won victory in the greatest conflict in human history is worth the harsh learning experiences required to achieve it.
Hearts of Iron II
First published in 2005, Hearts of Iron II, with its accompanying expansions, is considered one of the flagship titles of Paradox Interactive and the title that launched the Hearts of Iron series, which at the time of this writing is on its fourth iteration. Following a design formula that would become Paradox’s standard, Hearts of Iron II, abbreviated Hoi2 by the fanbase, is one of the largest scale grand strategy games about WWII that has ever been produced.
Hoi2 takes the setting of WWII and puts the player in an almost godlike position of control over a country. The player must manage national resources, production, politics, and the command logistics and organization of their nation’s military. Many mechanical liberties are taken to showcase the level of removal that the player has from the day to day business in their nation, and to simplify complex processes like weapons research and industrial production. The smallest controllable unit is a division, air squadron, or naval flotilla, with brigades appearing as dependent attachments to divisions and ships. Industrial production involves simply ordering a unit to be produced with parallel and/or serial runs, while ensuring there is enough Industrial Capacity, or IC, to complete the process on time.
Yet the simplification of most of the specific processes in Hoi2 has resulted in many general processes being included, such as the management of specific territorial infrastructure, the direct diplomacy between over fifty potential nations, and the hidden nature of combat modifiers such as weather, terrain, and division overcrowding. This has all resulted in one of Hoi2’s biggest noted flaws: abrupt complexity. Beginner players see the exact same user interface as advanced players do, and must manage all of the same systems. The tutorial covers the basics of gameplay, particularly the movement and organization of divisions, as well as the basic controls for diplomatic and political interaction, but fails to accurately inform and test the player on the nuances of combat or the potential optimizations of even basic systems like industrial modifiers and chains of command.
All of that is to say that Hoi2 is very hard to learn; it’s not to say that Hoi2 is a bad or poorly designed game. Once a player has broken through the wall of ignorance that effectively locks all but the easiest playable nations, they are able to explore and enjoy a wide range of options and possibilities. Although the game is primarily a WWII simulator, with historical events coded in and most national AIs programmed to follow historic courses, the player can take their nation in any direction they please. Radical changes like turning the United States communist or Japan allying with the Soviet Union take time and skill, but more subtle actions such as successfully defending France can be accomplished with only a modest level of familiarity with the game.
An introduction to Hoi2 cannot be made easier for new players, but is absolutely worth the effort for anyone looking to take on the roll of a major world power in one of the most significant periods in human history. Obviously the major powers of the period are the ones with the most capacity for flexibility and outright conquest, but any nation that was present at the period can be played. Most importantly, the game proceeds in a sort of real time, with each hour of each day from the start point (as early as 1936) to the game’s end (as late as 1964) proceeding at a rate between 1 hr every five real seconds to 4 hrs per real second. The player can adjust that rate at will, and even pause the game to issue detailed orders and react to events and notifications at their leisure.
If any gamer every looked at a map, illustration, or diagram of a WWII front or operation and imagined moving those unit markers and shifting vector arrows, than Hoi2 is their dream game. It’s primary learning method is failure, but the player loses nothing but time by exploring different nations and strategies that might end in defeat in order to acquire essential familiarity with the game’s mechanics and nuances. Hoi2’s simple graphics and well designed processes ensure that it runs smoothly on old and new machines with minimal software requirements. The grand strategy genre will not appeal to all strategy gamers, but for those that enjoy the complexity of large scale command, Hearts of Iron 2 is a title worth mastering.
Total War: Warhammer II
Total War: Warhammer II, is the sequel to Creative Assembly’s landmark title Total War: Warhammer and is published by Sega. It is the second title in a trilogy of Total War: Warhammer games based off of Games Workshop’s Warhammer Fantasy Battle tabletop game. Warhammer II was released in September of 2017 and brings with it an abundance of new features to add to CA’s developing Warhammer series including a new narrative campaign, four new races, and an overhaul to many of the campaign map mechanics.
One of Warhammer II’s primary features is its new single-player campaign called the Vortex Campaign. Unlike previous DLC mini-campaigns in the first Warhammer, the Vortex Campaign covers an entirely new campaign map featuring the fictional New World continents of Lustria and Naggarond as well as the paradise island of Ulthuan and the Old World Southlands. The campaign is also the primary delivery vehicle for Warhammer II’s new mechanics and campaign overhauls such as the introduction of settlement climates and treasure hunting.
Cossacks: European Wars
With the 500th Anniversary of the Protestant Reformation’s commencement fast approaching, it seemed appropriate to reminisce on the Renaissance period with a game that covers a large portion of that period. Cossacks: European Wars was developed by GSC Gameworld and published CDV Software Entertainment in 2000. Two expansions, The Art of War and Back to War, appeared in 2002 expanding game content with new nations, units, and missions.
European Wars is the first title in the Cossacks series and, like many of its contemporaries, features many of the standard mechanics and conventions that defined RTS titles of the era. Factions appear as different historical nations from the 17th and 18th centuries and each brings a few unique units and/or buildings to differentiate their approaches to the battlefield. Base building and resource collection are accomplished by peasant worker units that are trained from the central town hall.
Episodic Sequels
Recently I watched a gameplay exposition and review for the upcoming Total War: Warhammer II video game, the highly anticipated sequel to Creative Assembly’s landmark title, Total War: Warhammer, set to release on September 28th. The review itself was straightforward and highly informative and I had no trouble with it. However it brought up an interesting point that relates directly to the nature of episodic titles in video games.
An episodic series of video games is a run of at least two titles with a single, overarching plot that runs through each title, tying the series’ storyline, characters, and even mechanics and themes together across the series. Normally the release dates, intended consoles, and even genre of the titles don’t define if a title is part of the episodic series; content is the only determining factor. Yet perhaps the most important aspect of an episodic series versus a franchise or saga is the proximity of each title’s release to the releases of the other titles in the series. It’s not enough to share the title, setting, and mechanics of prequels and sequels; an episodic title must be an indispensable part of a larger whole.
Axis & Allies
Axis & Allies is a video game adaption of Milton Bradley’s Axis & Allies strategy board game of the same name. Both games simulate the broad strategic situation of World War II at the beginning of 1942. Players take on the role of one of the five great powers: Germany, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The original board game focused on the strategic aspects of gameplay, while Axis & Allies the video game emphasizes real time strategy combat.
Axis & Allies features three single player modes. These include the campaign, in which the player takes the role of various Allied or Axis factions in key battles throughout WWII, with fictional “what-fi” scenarios serving as the majority of the Axis missions. Skirmish mode is a one-off match between the player and up to seven AIs played out on of the maps featured in the campaign or in WWII mode. Since there is no resource harvesting in Axis & Allies the size of the map is the only limiting factor for the number of players.
Red Alert 3
Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 is a real-time strategy game developed and produced by Electronic Arts, released in late 2008. EA had finally gone back to a longtime staple of the RTS genre, eight years after the release of the previous title in the series, Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2, and five years after closing down Westwood Studios, the original developer of the Command & Conquer franchise. EA had already released Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars in 2007 to great success and was wisely pursuing its foray into RTS with a revival of the other half of Westwood’s RTS legacy.
Red Alert 3 follows roughly the same formula of its predecessors. Players construct their chosen faction’s base around a central building alongside such requirements as power and proximity between structures, as well as requirements for unlocking higher level structures and units. Units are produced from their respective production facilities and Red Alert 3 features land, air, and naval combat, with many units capable of transitioning between these battle spaces. Resources take the form of ore, which in previous Red Alert titles was represented by fields of golden nuggets, but in Red Alert 3 has been boiled down to a neutral mine structure, reminiscent of Warcraft style gold mines, that harvesters automatically collect from.
Three factions are playable in Red Alert 3. The Allies and Soviets return with many familiar units as well as completely new developments, and the Japanese Empire of the Rising Sun is introduced combining tactical and strategic elements of both sides. The Soviet faction focuses on overwhelming numbers and powerful tanks and warships. The Allied faction features more heavy combat units than in previous Red Alert titles but still emphasizes defense and long ranged, powerful attacks. The Empire of the Rising Sun strikes a balance between the two with large numbers of adaptable, hard hitting units.
Three story campaigns allows players to fully utilize each faction as they play through the faction’s path to eventual victory in the three-way war that dominates the main plot. Here is where Red Alert 3’s innovative failures start to show. Instead of picking up where the series last left off, the current story begins by erasing everything that occurred in the previous games. The campaigns commence with a three-way brawl that plays out as a series of loosely connected missions chosen more for their memorable locales than for their relevance in the strategy of global war.
Red Alert 3 is the first Command & Conquer title to introduce campaign co-operative play, allowing two players to proceed through the missions against the AI. In single player mode a friendly AI represented by one of the faction’s characters takes the place of the second human player. This marks one of the first RTS titles to take the step into co-operative story modes and the missions are well balanced around them.
Unfortunately they are a bit too well balanced and suffer when a co-op player is not present. The AI replacement for a second player tends to lack the strategic finesse and resilience of a human player. While the player is still fully capable of handling the mission alone the imbalance of proficiency makes many of the challenges, especially timed missions, frustrating and stressful. Additionally the co-op feature was hosted through GamepSpy servers which were shutdown in 2013, rending the feature useless without a third party server hosting.
EA didn’t spare any expense when adding its own innovations to the Command & Conquer formula. The shift to mine based resource harvesting, the addition of unique abilities and modes for each unit, and the emphasis on rapid, high cost battles are all new to Command & Conquer’s style of play; and they don’t necessarily mix well. Strategic management and defensive tactics take a backseat to rapid key-binding skills and fast paced reactions. Units are, on average, lightly armored and heavily armed making battles costly and quick. The one-dimensional resource system also prevents the player from increasing or otherwise modifying their income without simply capturing more mines, a situation compounded by the fact that the limited income is rarely able to supply enough forces to hold off enemy attacks and secure a new location simultaneously.
Red Alert 3’s graphics introduce another of EA’s innovations, the Sage 2.0 graphics engine. The engine provides bright and somewhat cartoonish effects, which given the game’s camp portrayal is actually appropriate. The graphics moved easily even on modern machines of the time and most devices should have no trouble operating it. Sadly multiplayer for Red Alert 3 is officially non-existent, although third party servers provided by C&C Online support multiplayer and co-op.
As far as strategy games go Red Alert 3 is a fair presentation. One of EA’s traditional failings is to take familiar titles and re-brand them with what it believes to be market selling points, usually patterned off of Blizzard games. This is effectively what has been done here and many Starcraft players would recognize familiar traits and tropes in Red Alert 3’s gaming style. The game itself is entertaining although the story-line sacrifices immersion for comedic presentation. Yet as it is Red Alert 3 falls from a continuation of a legendary RTS series to just one more title among many in the strategy gaming market.
Total War: Warhammer
In 2015 Creative Assembly celebrated the 15th anniversary of the Total War series of turn-based/tactical strategy games. A few days later it officially announced the upcoming release of its latest Total War title, Total War: Warhammer. For the past few years Creative Assembly and its current publisher Sega had been teasing the development of a Warhammer title in partnership with Games Workshop, the producers of the Warhammer Fantasy tabletop battle game. Finally fans were formally introduced to one of the most ambitious strategy projects of the decade and the first Total War game to not take place in a historical setting.
Total War: Warhammer is rooted in the revised Total War formula that had been fully developed in Total War: Rome II and its Total War: Attila standalone expansion. Regions of the game’s world map are divided into provinces, which are further divided into two to four territories each containing a single settlement with one of these settlements serving as the provincial capital. The settlements generate income, provide build slots for the construction of economic and military buildings, and list provincial statistics for growth and public order. Armies are led by a general unit, termed “Lords” in Warhammer, and each have a distance they can move each turn and various stances they can enter to generate effects on the strategic world map or the tactical battle map.
Other mechanics also remain in their traditional forms, such as the interaction of agents, now called “Heroes”, with armies, provinces, and other agents. Heroes retain the ability to be embedded into an army to provide a passive buff and to gain experience over time. Settlements include a garrison of troops that don’t count towards army upkeep and cannot be ordered away from the settlement’s control zone. Certain terrain types hinder movement or cause attrition damage to armies moving through them.
Beyond these is where Warhammer’s unique nature and radical development noticeably change and improve the established Total War formulas. Warhammer features four playable factions which can be expanded to seven plus six minor factions with free and paid DLC. Each of these factions feature new racial mechanics as well as completely distinct unit and building rosters. The Dwarven faction can only settle in special settlements called “holds” and are notable for having no cavalry units but some of the strongest heavy infantry. Alternatively the Wood Elves can settle in any province on the map, but only construct outpost style settlements with a single build slot; elven units are also light and quick with the Wood Elf faction possessing more archer units than any other faction.
Faction armies also benefit from unique mechanics and traits. The Chaos Warriors, as a horde faction, have no permanent base and must conserve some of their movement each turn in order to encamp and construct horde buildings, but as a result can simply run away to avoid danger to their faction. By contrast the Vampire Counts’ undead armies decay when outside specifically designated undead territory unless the level of vampiric corruption is high enough in the province they are invading, but at the same time areas of high corruption provide increased healing for undead units and cause attrition damage to armies of living units.
How all these unique factions mesh together and balance out is one of the primary design triumphs of Warhammer. Players are no longer promised the balance set of units and counter units from previous Total War titles; now faction compatibility depends on the player’s ability to utilize a faction’s existing units properly. An army designed to deal with monsters and heavy infantry will struggle against opponents fielding artillery and quick ranged units, yet each faction possesses the units and strategies to deal with both.
The units in each army are one of the two primary components of flavor, the other being faction mechanics, that enriches overall gameplay and are also one of the reasons Warhammer has a strong custom battle and multiplayer scene even within the Total War series. In previous titles it was not uncommon for a majority of factions to possess slightly altered unit rosters from a single template. In Warhammer the differences are so distinct that some preferred strategies from previous games aren’t even possible now.
Hero units are also a noticeable change, and improvement, from previous agent systems. When embedded in an army, heroes actually become powerful units with their own special abilities and combat statistics. They still provide passive benefits to the army they are embedded in but their true strength is revealed on the tactical battle map. Embedded heroes take up one of the twenty slots available for army composition, but the loss is rarely felt as only the lord units possesses more raw power and potential in combat.
Heroes, and lords, are also the medium for a completely new mechanic in Total War: magic. Heroes and lords with the spellcaster trait can learn magic spells as they level up. These spells are utilized in tactical combat and use a power reserve system dependent on the Winds of Magic mechanic, a constantly shifting pattern of strong and weak power reserves that covers the strategic map and changes the amount of power reserve available for tactical battles in the different regions. The magic system in Warhammer is another great design triumph as the new mechanic is woven seamlessly into the game. Spells are intuitive, easy to manage, and for the most part powerful enough to warrant their continual use but not so powerful as to break game balance. Each faction also possesses its own variations of spellcaster heroes and lords. The spells available to these units are determined by the magic lore of that unit and not all lores are available to each faction. Except for certain legendary characters, each spellcaster has only one lore.
Legendary lords take the mechanics of lords and heroes even further. These units are similar to generic lords of their respective faction, but feature unique appearances, voice acting, unique unit upgrades, and even unique mounts for tactical battles. Legendary lords can not be permanently killed, if they fall in battle they remain wounded for several turns then become available for recruitment once again. These special lords can be used in custom battles, but it’s in the grand campaign where their power and potential truly shine.
When choosing a faction for the campaign the player also chooses which legendary lord they would like to be the faction leader. Each of these lords brings its own command bonus and set of starting units. The other legendary lords are made available for recruitment when the player completes specific tasks like constructing special buildings or conquering certain cities. Throughout the campaign players are given objectives from a quest chain tied to a unique item for each legendary lord they control. These quests are optional and if completed allow the player to fight a special quest battle against pre-determined enemies using only the relevant legendary lord’s army. If the player is victorious, that lord gets the corresponding unique item permanently.
Many more subtle yet flavorful improvements populate the grand campaign and custom battle experience. The grand campaign itself can occupy many hours of gameplay per faction and with up to seven distinct experiences it makes Warhammer’s replay value one of the highest for Total War games of the decade. Even players dissatisfied with a faction’s campaign style can still enjoy its army roster in custom battles.
Multiplayer continues the Total War conventions of competitive custom battles and a co-operative grand campaign, both of which are stable and viable even on lower internet connections. The unique factions break up the metagame to a greater degree than any previous title. A competitive grand campaign between two players was also introduced, differing from coop in that the players are not linked by an unbreakable military alliance and do not share objectives. The players can still ally over the course of the campaign but need not even encounter each other if their faction objectives don’t call for it. This is a strength in that it gives players a great degree of freedom to interact with the AI and each other, but also a weakness in that the potential lack of interaction takes most of the enjoyment of the multiplayer experience away from overall gameplay.
Total War: Warhammer, is truly the crowning achievement for the Total War franchise and perhaps the greatest title of the series since Rome: Total War. It demands the most stringent graphics requirements of any Total War game, but is perfectly enjoyable on lower graphic settings and playable without error on systems that meet the minimum requirements. The game over-relies on DLC content and Creative Assembly rightly took a lot of heat from the gaming community for its overuse of the sales gimmick, yet with the DLC Warhammer becomes a masterful work of game design that can be enjoyed by gamers of any level including those who have never picked up a Total War title before. The gaming community deserved a cross-title compilation like this for decades and now that its finally here it’s a must for any strategy gamer.
Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds Saga
Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds Saga is a real-time strategy game derived from the blending of the Star Wars hype produced by the prequel trilogy, and the golden age of real-time strategy games. The RTS game Age of Empires II was released in that sweet spot of game development at the turn of the millennium when creative development had caught up to and in some cases outpaced graphic design. Games in this period were a perfect blend of simple user-interface and complex tactical mechanics that made micromanagement fun but easy to grasp. It’s no surprise that Age of Empires II, and games like it, manage to stand the test of time and continue to benefit from a dedicated fan base. Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds is a prime example of this legacy.
Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds, released by Ensemble Studios and Lucas Arts in 2001, and its expansion pack the Clone Campaigns, released in 2002 and followed by the Saga boxed set, takes all of its design cues from Age of Empires II and its Genie graphics engine. Players familiar with the medieval strategy game will recognize most of Galactic Battlegrounds’ conventions and mechanics. Worker units construct civilian and military buildings and gather the game’s four resources: food, carbon, nova crystals, and ore. Buildings produce military units of their respective types or conduct research upgrading unit combat abilities, building defense, and resource extraction speed and efficiency.
Ground units are divided into three broad groups: infantry, mechs, and heavy weapons. Infantry units, which consist of basic infantry and specialized units for combating buildings, aircraft, and mechs, form the workhorses for most of battles as they are cheap, easy to acquire and upgrade, and most factions get the technologies to upgrade them fully. These are the grunts from Star Wars; the battle droids, stormtroopers, and Naboo security forces.
Mechs are the quintessential armored and/or walker units of the Star Wars universe; AT-ATs, Trade Federation droid tanks, Gungan beasts, and the like serve as the armor and cavalry of the various factions. Mechs come in three designs capable of effectively combating infantry, other mechs, or most units respectively. The heavy Assault Mechs can also carry infantry and in some cases have a long enough range to destroy fortifications with impunity. Heavy Weapons fill the Age of Empires niche of siege weapons and include Assault Cannons, the battering ram-like Pummels, anti-air units, and siege cannons which can out-range any defensive structure.
Air units are also included in the form of multi-purpose fighter units which get bonuses for attacking other aircraft, and ground attack bombers with combat bonuses against buildings. Technologies can be researched to greatly improve these aircraft including the ability to better target moving units as well as gain personal shields. The Clone Campaigns adds the Assault Cruiser, a large shielded aircraft with a slow and powerful long range attack. Aircraft bring their own dimension of combat as they can only be targeted by other aircraft, anti-air units, and anti-air buildings.
In Age of Empires II all factions shared the same building and unit trees, what made them unique were the technologies, buildings, and units that they missed, their faction bonuses, and the unique units constructed at the castle. In Galactic Battlegrounds this formula is continued but given a Star Wars flare that keeps the franchise themes among the eight playable factions. Each faction has its own bonuses and unique units and misses some technologies while specializing in others.
Yet the units and buildings of every faction feature their own uniforms, architecture, and vehicle designs. The Rebel Alliance fighter units are X-Wings which face off against Imperial fighters in the form of TIE Fighters. Faction bonuses even correspond with their faction’s theme; for example certain Gungan buildings can be constructed underwater and the Trade Federation’s droid armies do not require housing.
Perhaps the least unique but most telling differences among faction units are the Jedi and Sith temples. In terms of units, technologies, and mechanics the Jedi and Sith are functionally the same. Jedi/Sith take the place of the monks from Age of Empires II, they convert enemy units and grab holocrons to bring back to their temples for additional resource income. Unlike the passive monks, Jedi and Sith also have melee attacks in the form of their lightsabers and are very resistant to damage.
The five good-aligned factions construct the Jedi Temple and train Jedi Padawan, Knights, and Masters while the three evil-aligned factions train Sith Apprentices, Knights, and Masters from a Sith Temple. Thematic flavor abounds: Jedi use blue lightsaber blades and the Sith use red; the Sith Master shoots lightning from his fingers as his attack. Most Jedi factions also can be considered the most proficient in this aspect of the game, with only the Galactic Empire faction possessing reasonable competence in Sith technologies and units.
The translation of a well-known medieval strategy game into a sci-fi strategy game is actually quite smooth mechanically as well as thematically. Understandably most combat is done at range instead of melee but distinctions of infantry, cavalry, and siege weapons remain in their strategic forms. Mechs for example are superior to infantry in every way, but many have a minimum weapon range and are vulnerable to specialized units. Walls and defensive towers still abound and are resistant to most attacks but vulnerable to the siege attacks of the cumbersome Heavy Weapons. Shields are also introduced in the form of Shield Generator buildings and the Gungan unique mobile shield generator. Shields basically act as secondary hit points for all buildings and units in their radius, healing over time and absorbing damage until depleted by enemy fire or deprived of a nearby power source.
The Galactic Battlegrounds Saga includes one tutorial campaign and seven primary campaigns. Each faction except the Naboo get a campaign of six to eight missions inspired by the movies or the expanded universe. Each campaign features at least one bonus mission relating to great battles from the Star Wars prequel or primary trilogies such as the Battle of Hoth or the Battle of Endor. The Trade Federation and Galactic Empire bonus missions feature what-if scenarios from the Battle of Naboo and Battle of Endor where the Dark Side has the chance to prevail.
Skirmish battles against the AI and multiplayer random maps are also included. The game takes its cues directly from Age of Empires II in this format, featuring standard map (including some parodies that AoE fans will recognize like Fortress and Highlands), Death Match, King of the Hill, and Nomad options. Up to eight players can join one game and the population cap, starting resources, and starting age of technology can all be preset.
Hero units are also included, usually in the form of infantry or Jedi but occasionally as vehicles like the Millennium Falcon, and appear in most campaign missions. Each hero has their own vocal script and features the special abilities of their unit type. They are also available in the scenario editor, an in-game tool players can use to make their own maps and scenarios using every unit, tile, and trigger built into the game.
The original Star Wars saga has its share of epic battles and grand scenes but it is an adventure at its heart. It’s no surprise that few strategy games have been produced around the Star Wars universe. As such it might seem that saying Galactic Battlegrounds is one of the greatest Star Wars RTS games is superfluous. Yet it truly is one of the best strategy experiences that gamers can find for the Star Wars universe. It features the perfect blend of flavor and accessible mechanics that make it appealing to Star Wars fans, casual gamers, and hardcore strategy gamers.
The fact that it was developed on the foundation of one of the most endearing RTS games of all time only adds to its appeal and staying power. If there was a flaw in this formula, it would only be that Galactic Battlegrounds strays too close to Age of Empires II’s general style while failing to equal or surpass it. Yet obviously that was never what Galactic Battlegrounds was meant to accomplish.
While Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds Saga is without a doubt a Star Wars game and deserves its place in the universe it is important to remember that this game is first and foremost a terrestrial RTS. Cloud and space tiles, which can only be crossed by flying units, can create the impression of space battles but the great Imperial Star Destroyers do not make an appearance; missions and scenarios take place planetside. Jedi are powerful and unique but cannot deflect blaster bolts or force choke enemies (except in cutscenes). Anyone looking to enjoy some classic RTS action Star Wars style will love Galactic Battlegrounds. Age of Empires fans will have to unlearn a few habits but otherwise should feel right at home. Those looking for the grand experience of the Star Wars space epic might find the Galactic Battlegrounds Saga’s generic RTS mechanics restrictive and should engage the game mindful of the older RTS legacy it is based off of.