Definatly a step forward for arcade strategy genre, 1 of the best in years, held back by some flaws, still fun, try it!
***** The Campaign Map, continuous Armies and Experience *****
The features that make this game such a step in the right direction for arcade real time strategy (RTS) games is that each battle or skirmish effects the “big picture” of the campaign which many other RTS games simply fail to do. Unlike other RTS games that pit you in a linear struggle against an increasingly more powerful and clever opponent, Battle for Middle Earth puts the campaign world right in front of you on a campaign map. Other than the few instances in which you’re drawn into one of the “historic” battles that takes place in the movies you can move armies around the map as you wish taking enemy territory. While the game lacks the intense story of say a Blizzard game (War Craft III for instance) what makes the game intense is it gives you the feeling that your one nation waging war against another. And to motivate you to capture these extra territories instead of rushing to beat the campaign as fast as possible is that every territory gives you bonuses to our armies. Some increase how much resources your building make others allow you to build larger armies by giving you more command points and others give you power points for your side’s special abilities. Thus the more territories you control the better you can do in each succeeding battle. This brings me to the best parts of the game, your armies and experience. Not only do you get to move from territory to territory to improve the “supporting” features of an army but your army will keep units from previous battles, allowing you to start with a sizable force every mission. I haven’t seen this feature since the Home World RTS series, but its one feature that I wish was more common in RTS games because it adds a new element to the strategy. Battles are no longer about simply destroying the enemy but becomes destroy the enemy and keep as much of the army intact as possible. Times when you will fail a mission most (excluding having to keep a hero alive) are not the battles you do poorly in but the battles in which most of your good troops were wiped out last battle and you start with a smaller force and have to replace experienced troops with raw recruits. This is the other motivation to keep your troops alive is that over time they will gain experience and become more powerful. A level 1 infantry unit might get wiped out by a cavalry charge but a level 4 unit might only get knocked over. Thus a level 10 unit might be the star of an army, and should probably get pulled from combat when they take heavy casualties because if their wiped out replacing them is a difficult task as a level 1 unit is no substitute for a level 10.
*** Balanced & Unbalanced; the rock, paper, scissors combat system ***
Each side in the game has two nations, the forces of good have Rohan and Gondor while the side of evil has Mordor and Isenguard. I’ll say that the sides are more balanced than the armies of the nations on each side. What makes playing as good or evil so interesting is the special abilities each side commands, each special ability being unlocked from power points gained from conquest on the campaign map. For the side of good who can only get their command points up to 300 (The side of evil can get their command points up to 600) most of their special abilities consist of summoning reinforcements to aid them in battle. Regardless of reinforcements the forces of good make up for lack of numbers with general skill meaning that while their units are smaller their forces are simply better than the forces of evil. Evil on the other hand who has no trouble with troop numbers most of their special abilities revolve around industry and resource gathering, to replace the large amount of troops probably killed by superior good forces and to get siege weapons that do not follow armies from battle to battle. They also have many abilities that revolve around weakening enemy leadership and boosting troop damage to aid their weaker troops in combat.
What the game does right with its armies is that there is a wide variety of troops for each army (except for Rohan) which a lot of other RTS games lack. The game incorporates tactical elements (or more realistic elements) making kind of a elaborate rock, paper, scissors combat system. Cavalry will topple infantry and archers (archers especially) but are destroyed easily by spearmen. Spearmen on the other hand don’t last long against infantry or archers. So the circle is cavalry kill infantry and archers, infantry and archers kill spearmen, spearmen kill cavalry. But the game added a twist with beasts in that beasts (trolls, elephants) kill infantry, cavalry and spearman but fall very fast to archer arrows especially fire arrows. Then archers are killed by cavalry and infantry. Infantry and archers are some what interesting because they will kill each other based on range, archers don’t stand a chance against close infantry but against experienced archers every heavy infantry will not get close enough to kill them. This combat system makes Battle for Middle Earth very fast and interesting and puts you in a position were you have to have a little of everything to have the best army which brings me too how the game is rather unbalanced.
To illustrate my point of how I think some of the armies are unbalanced by again using rock, paper, scissors. With how powerful some units inherently are against others, an army that’s lacking a whole unit type is at a large disadvantage. If two armies are fighting one only having rock and paper and the other having rock and scissors its not that bad but if one army has all three and the other only has two then the more varied army can simply exploit that and you will be stuck without a counter to their attack. For example this is most noticeable with Mordor which has no cavalry but has plenty of other units and the Mordor armies are set up to fight Gondor a lot (as they should). Gondor has infantry, archers and cavalry; Mordor has spears and beasts to deal with cavalry. They have infantry, archers, spear throwers, and beasts to deal with infantry, then comes the task of beating Gondor’s archers. If there’s only a few it’s not that bad, but if they have 50 archers, Mordor’s lack of cavalry puts them at a huge disadvantage. Archers with fire arrows can take down any beast and wipe out most units with only a few volleys of arrows but a group of 50 is unstoppable. Rohan and Gondor have similar but not as drastic problems. Gondor doesn’t have spearman but tower guard in “guard mode” where they lock shield together gives them enough extra armor to survive cavalry charges and take the place of spearman. Rohan is worse off; they have no spearman or something to replace spearman. Their only infantry are peasants which are a joke against any other unit in the game and their elven archers can become infantry but either way their weak to cavalry. So to defeat Rohan is a matter of amassing spears, archers and cavalry. Isenguard is the only faction in the game that has every unit type; though at low levels their units are weak the fact that their army has no gaps in it makes them the all around best army.
***** Conclusion ******
In the end Battle for Middle Earth is a great game with plenty of features that move the genre forward or at least should be used more often in the RTS genre. It’s Campaign map, continuous armies from mission to mission and unit experience bring a new element of the “big picture” to the strategy of the game. While the game does have more units and variety than most over RTS games of a fantasy medieval battle style the tactical element that makes units very powerful against other unit types, or the “rock, paper, scissors combat system” creates unintentional unit type gaps that can easily be exploited by opponents and puts some armies at an obvious disadvantage.
~ Nigel of Gray Halo