The Byzantine Prophecy (1)
Scenario were you start off very easy, getting harder on last mission.Your main enemy are the Saracens, and you are (guess what) the Byzantines.
||The Conquerors 1.0c
|Number of scenarios:
|Author||Reviews ( All | Comments Only | Reviews Only )|
This scenario is about some Byzantines who want to get to Persia, and then must defend it from some British/Spanish invaders.
Playability: The playability was average. The reason I gave it a three was because in the fourth scenario, the player automatically wins. That is a bug should easily be fixed, and somehow was not caught!
Balance: I found this scenario extremely easy. Then again, I played it on moderate, but still, the enemy never attacked once in some scenarios. Also, in some scenarios, I just went in with 15 battering rams and easily destroyed the Town Centers. If it's harder on other settings, I don't know, but it's not hard even on normal levels. My advice would be to have more targets to destroy, or use an AI that's harder to beat.
Creativity: The creativity isn't very strong either. The only triggers visibly used are the victory conditions. The objectives are either get to a place, or kill some enemy. I say that you could most of that from a random map, so I gave it a 3. Could be much worse I suppose.
Map Design: I heard somewhere that if the map is equivalent to a standard generated map, it's a three. Most of the maps look as if they are generated. I did like the author's city design, though, so I give it a 4.
Story/Instructions: This is probably the worst aspect of the scenario. I always knew what to do, but not once did I understand why I was doing it. Another example is that I had no idea why these people were fighting. To fix this, obviously the author should make up some kind of story as to why the Byzantines want to go to Persia, why the Imam was your hero, and why the Saracens suddenly became interested in conquering Byzantium.
This scenario's not terrible, I've played worse, but I would say play the campaigns that come with the game, they're better.
-The Byzantine Prophecy (1)
This is a fictional campaign dealing with the wars of the Byzantines, Persians, and Mongols against the Chinese, Japanese, Saracens, Romans, English, and Spanish. It consists of five scenarios, one of which you win immediately.
This campaign had below average playability. The only thing you had to do in the first campaign was take some units to a flagged area in a city. The second and third were very similar, random map style scenarios that pitted you and an ally against two enemies and your objective was to destroy their town centers. The fourth scenario immediately said "you are victorious" when you started it, which was too bad because the scenario looked pretty good. The fifth campaign was the best, but if you just defeated the initial attack force your enemies would resign pretty soon even if you did nothing.
My Suggestions: Remove the first scenario from the campaign, it hurt the score quite a bit. Add more difference between scenarios two and three. Fix scenario four (obviously) because it pulled the rating down from a three.
This scenario was not difficult. In all the scenarios your enemies resigned very quickly. Only scenario two and three were even the slightest bit challenging (in the others I didn't have to make a single unit).
My Suggestions: Change the AI from standard. Even none would be an improvement, because then your enemies wouldn't resign so fast. Adding more enemies would help too.
The creativity was also below average. The objectives were always either defeat the enemies, destroy the enemies' town centers, or bring your soldier somewhere. The second and third scenarios were also very similar which is not very creative.
My Suggestions: Add more triggers to make the campaign more creative and interesting. Deleting either scenario two or three would help too, as they are identical.
Map Design: 4
The map on scenario one was below average, but scenarios two and three had random maps. I didn't get a good look at the map on scenario four (because I won immediately), but from what I saw it looked very nice, as was the map on scenario five. 2+3+3+4+5/5=3.4 which I will round up to a 4 because scenario four probably would have been a five if I had gotten a better look at it.
My Suggestions: Change the random maps so they look less random. Add more terrain mixing to scenario one. Again, fix the bug on scenario four.
One of the scenarios had no hints, none of them had scouts, and only the last one had history. The instructions were also very minimal on all of the scenarios.
In Conclusion: If scenario four had worked, it could have made this campaign's score significantly higher. The first scenario probably should not have been included, because it was far inferior to the others and brought the overall score down. The fifth scenario seemed very promising, although it was too easy, and I will look forward to trying future campaigns from general_plop100.
-Fourth and fifth scenarios had very nice maps
-Fifth scenario was fun to play
-All the scenarios had at least some instructions
-Fourth scenario wouldn't work
-Campaign was not very difficult
-First scenario was not very well made