Field of Glory: Empires

One of the best grand strategy games I've ever played. You don't have to pair it with Field of Glory 2. I like the fact that it isn't just a map painter... there is strategy to your moves! 10/10!

As a student of ancient military history, and particularly the age of Alexander and the Diadochi, I enjoy many aspects of this game. As with the Total War games, it brings together the strategic aspects with the tactical, with its building and maneuver on the games strategic map of the world, and resolving battles on a tactical map ( via its Empire Battles interface with Field of Glory II). Lots to enjoy. There are several features, though that ultimately make the game tedious, and eventually unplayable. Which is unfortunate, because with a bit of tweaking the developers would have a game for the ages. Let me list them, with brief explanations: 1. The Loyalty feature overpowers the game. We can argue if constant deteriorating loyalty and revolts is historically accurate (it isn't), but it doesn't make the game more fun or playable. Which is, after all, the goal of any game, right? Loyalty, especially in your home territory, should be high and stay high, so long as you are not losing wars or being raided by a neighbor. Or have an idiot in charge. Which brings me to... 2. Leaders: they come and go randomly, with odd and ahistorical names, and tend to be bad. The player has no choice, and it throws off game play. The only historical leader you get is the the one you start turn 1 with, and even that one doesn't live as long as they historically did, but die randomly. All after that are out of the blue, with no succession system, family tree, or (for me the most irritating) historically accurate names. (For instance, the Seleucids, and Macedonian dynasty, have Persian (sort of) names. Not an Antiochus, Demetrius, or Seleucus to be found! The Antigonids, most of whom were either named Antigonus, Demetrius, with the odd Philip and Perseus in the end, NEVER have such names; but instead unusual or made-up Greek-like names.) The developers should fix the names and add a family tree succession system, in which the oldest son inherits. Or, here's a novel idea, use the historical succession when possible. I.E, after Seleucus I, his son Antiochus I inherits the Seleucid crown. With the Antigonids, Antigonus Monopthalmus (One Eyed) is followed by Demetrius I (the Besieger), who is followed by Antigonus II Gonatus, etc. Crack a book, do a little homework. Which reminds me.... 3. Small matter, but make the kings leaders who can be generals of one of the faction's army. This was an age of warrior kings. The army was commanded in battle by the ruler. And, BTW, all kings were warriors and generals, though not all were competent at either. 4. This is one you may not be able to fix, but the tactical transference system from Field of Glory: Empire to Field of Glory II does not produce accurate representation of the player's army. Especially with larger armies, all the units don't make the transfer from strategic to the tactical. This can be very irritating, when on the strategic map you have a unit of elite Companion cavalry or, say, Silver Shields, and when you go to the Field of Glory II tactical battle those units are missing. I have read that this is an abstract representation, but if it could be made a more exact transference, it would make the game so much better. Well, those are my chief beefs. If these tweaks are ever made, let us know. I'll play the game again. OH, one more suggestion: add an Age of Justinian/Dark Ages Scenario. That would rock!