Battle for Middle-Earth

[Sunner]

Don't like it much really.
I agree with all of gorcorps points, also micromanaging the units is a complete PITA, kinda relates to the piss poor AI, since the little bastards never do what you tell them to, or they do too much.

All in all, it's definitely inferior to Dawn of War and WarCraft III IMO.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: warcrow
Yup. Great game. Best RTS i've played in quite some time. Although, RTS pruist beware....its simplified. For me, that wasnt an issue, but a buddy of mine who plays Dawn of War thought it was too simplified....didnt and anything new really.

But if you're a fan of the LOTR universe, its a deffinite!!

DOW is simplified. How about them apples. The game does not require micro.

EDIT: BTW this is not a defense of BFME I havent played it and after reading this thread I wont either.

 

[perillo34]

you should, everyone should play it for the visuals alone, there is nothing more exciting then calling on the Rohirrim to lay waste to Orv personal by charging over them. Really amazing, the AI is not as poor as everyone says, the archers defend very well, and at their distance points as well, but the normal grunts do not do it as well though, the heros seem to go on rampages of their own at times and it is really a pain in the ass if you forget about em for a moment.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: warcrow
Yup. Great game. Best RTS i've played in quite some time. Although, RTS pruist beware....its simplified. For me, that wasnt an issue, but a buddy of mine who plays Dawn of War thought it was too simplified....didnt and anything new really.

But if you're a fan of the LOTR universe, its a deffinite!!

DOW is simplified. How about them apples. The game does not require micro.

EDIT: BTW this is not a defense of BFME I havent played it and after reading this thread I wont either.

Well, like most of us are saying....despite these flaws...I stillr eally enjoyed the game. I ment it when I said it was the best RTS I've played in quite some time.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: perillo34
i wish you could rotate the battlefield views to angle your horesman more, but man other than that the effects and graphics are great, especially if you are inclined to zoom in a bit. Well Gandalf is overated, with his spells not charged up a sitting duck to say the least. Minas tirath was beyond amazing, I cant believe how cool that battle was, I was killing, charging, hailing arrows down from legolas my boy.

Legolas got killed in one of my earlier battles so I don't have him for Minas Tirath BTW, where in Minas Tirath can you click to bring up a list of heros you can resurrect? I can't find it.

And for those guys who say the AI doesn't make your own units fight back, what version are you using because I've never had this problem. Archers, horsemen, soldiers all fight when enemies are near. In fact, sometimes I have to pull back the horsemen because they start charging an incoming group of orcs.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Sunner
All in all, it's definitely inferior to Dawn of War and WarCraft III IMO.

Warcraft 3 was terrible and this was cheaper than Dawn of War. Plus it looked better.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: CPA
Legolas got killed in one of my earlier battles so I don't have him for Minas Tirath BTW, where in Minas Tirath can you click to bring up a list of heros you can resurrect? I can't find it.

And for those guys who say the AI doesn't make your own units fight back, what version are you using because I've never had this problem. Archers, horsemen, soldiers all fight when enemies are near. In fact, sometimes I have to pull back the horsemen because they start charging an incoming group of orcs.

You should be able to click on your main base and resurrect heroes, that's how it works in skirmishes(haven't lost a hero in the campaign yet). And I'm using the latest version of the game. If archers are shooting my infantry, they won't try to run away or go fight them, they stand and die. Not that it matters, they don't die very easily anyway. Only a catapult has been effective against my armies.

 

[perillo34]

I forget, I never lost a hero at Minas Tirath, but the Citadel should be towards the top of Minas Tirath i believe, I would love to play this game with some 3d glasses I heard it is unbelievable. Yeah the archers shooting your infantry and not doing anything about pisses me off sometimes. Legolas is awesome with his arrow storm, and gimli with his berzerker attack, man that dwarf can move, but Boromir and Faramir get the short end of the stick powers wise. Aragorn himself is pretty sweet, but I have yet to find a need for elendil to chase away opponents, because he ravages all. One thing I dont like also are the Ents, sometimes they dont move, they just stand there, they are slow, I generally only use them at opposing bases, other than that their free range fighting abilities are not there talent. I have yet to call on the Eagles tell me are they an excellent attack force.

 

[spunkz]

Originally posted by: gorcorps
I liked it at first, but then I just looked back and thought..."if it wasn't based of of LOTR, this would really suck."

It is a good game but here's why I don't like it:
1.) AI sucks major. Your units never attack other units unless you click and tell them specifically.
2.) Even though you can "change the story" by replaying the battles. Nothing good ever happens. I mean, I saved Boromirs sorry ass when he was supposed to die, and nothing changed.
3.) Huge balancing problems. It's not too bad single player, but it's horrible on multiplayer. Evil is really weak, cuz they only have 3 heroes. Plus Saruman is a horrible wizard. Gandalf alone on the good side could almost conquer middle earth alone in this game.

Other than that, the game looks great, and is generally fun.

i rape multiplayer w/isengard. lurtz makes it easy to take down gandalf with his "freeze heroes" skill. then you ballista the walls and walk in with your pikemen/archer combos. saruman is good but only when leveled up.

mordor, on the other hand, is terrible. the point of them is that you can pump out orcs and so on to keep the enemy occupied, but since the evenstar powers are based on kills, and the good sides powers are ridiculously powerful, you get owned pretty fast if you send tons of orcs to die.

 

[Malak]

Pikeman/archer combos you say? All this time I've been just using Uruk.

 

[perillo34]

you sure you can combine pikeman and archers damn, thats a good idea..... if you can.

 

[Hadsus]

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: warcrow
Yup. Great game. Best RTS i've played in quite some time. Although, RTS pruist beware....its simplified. For me, that wasnt an issue, but a buddy of mine who plays Dawn of War thought it was too simplified....didnt and anything new really.

But if you're a fan of the LOTR universe, its a deffinite!!

DOW is simplified. How about them apples. The game does not require micro.

EDIT: BTW this is not a defense of BFME I havent played it and after reading this thread I wont either.

Well, like most of us are saying....despite these flaws...I stillr eally enjoyed the game. I ment it when I said it was the best RTS I've played in quite some time.

What worries me about buying games like this is that I'm unsure whether the game *is* really good or that there are alot of Tolkein/LoTR film fans out there eating it up. I remember when SW Battlegrounds was released and the Sharky boards were full of people going ga ga about it. The greatest freekin game in the world. And how is SW Battlegrounds doing now? Reviews are bad and I sense not many are playing it. The reviews for BfME are not bad but they are not great either.

 

[Malak]

Nah, I don't think it has anything to do with the theme, although it probably helps if you like it. It's just a lot of fun.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Sunner
All in all, it's definitely inferior to Dawn of War and WarCraft III IMO.

Warcraft 3 was terrible and this was cheaper than Dawn of War. Plus it looked better.

Well, I really like WC3, especially the multiplayer part, as did my friends.
The singleplayer was great too.

Bu then, I seem to disagree with people on alot of things lately, I didn't like HL2 much for one thing, and I've never liked the AoE series

And I don't like BFME, despite being a big Tolkien fan.

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Sunner
All in all, it's definitely inferior to Dawn of War and WarCraft III IMO.

Warcraft 3 was terrible and this was cheaper than Dawn of War. Plus it looked better.

Umm...I think most people would agree Wacraft III was a great game. (dunno how it compares to bfme)

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Sunner
All in all, it's definitely inferior to Dawn of War and WarCraft III IMO.

Warcraft 3 was terrible and this was cheaper than Dawn of War. Plus it looked better.

Umm...I think most people would agree Wacraft III was a great game. (dunno how it compares to bfme)

I have to say I had more fun w/ Bfme then WC3. Don't know why. Maybe cuz bfme requires a little more strategy, and I felt WC3 was pretty linear. I felt like I had a single path I had to follow.

 

[Sniper82]

I've never really played any RTS unless C&C is considered one. Is this something someone who isnt really a fan of RTS might like?

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: ^Sniper^
I've never really played any RTS unless C&C is considered one. Is this something someone who isnt really a fan of RTS might like?

C&C is an RTS... So yes, you'll like it if you like C&C.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Sunner
All in all, it's definitely inferior to Dawn of War and WarCraft III IMO.

Warcraft 3 was terrible and this was cheaper than Dawn of War. Plus it looked better.

Umm...I think most people would agree Wacraft III was a great game. (dunno how it compares to bfme)

I think most people never played any real RTS's and are blizzard fanboys too. I have played MANY MANY RTS's that are far better and more fun than anything blizzard has made. In fact, I don't like any blizzard games, they all seem like clones or just sub-par.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Sunner
All in all, it's definitely inferior to Dawn of War and WarCraft III IMO.

Warcraft 3 was terrible and this was cheaper than Dawn of War. Plus it looked better.

Umm...I think most people would agree Wacraft III was a great game. (dunno how it compares to bfme)

I think most people never played any real RTS's and are blizzard fanboys too. I have played MANY MANY RTS's that are far better and more fun than anything blizzard has made. In fact, I don't like any blizzard games, they all seem like clones or just sub-par.

Such as?
Being a bug RTS fan, I go for pretty much anything I can find, aside from some really primitive ones from the old Mac SE/30 era, the first "real" one I played was Dune II.
Nothing still compares to StarCraft.

So mr Elitist, what's a "real" RTS?

 

[spunkz]

Originally posted by: malak
Pikeman/archer combos you say? All this time I've been just using Uruk.

heck yeah. if you combine them, the pikemen go to the front and (with forged blades) will massacre any cavalry that charge you. problem is the pikemen no longer attack on their own, plus they walk so slow, but i've found that the combined groups last MUCH longer, as long as they are rank 2 and can regen guys.

so as long as you have separate only-pikemen groups in your army to take down buildings and so on, you'll be fine.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: malak
Pikeman/archer combos you say? All this time I've been just using Uruk.

heck yeah. if you combine them, the pikemen go to the front and (with forged blades) will massacre any cavalry that charge you. problem is the pikemen no longer attack on their own, plus they walk so slow, but i've found that the combined groups last MUCH longer, as long as they are rank 2 and can regen guys.

so as long as you have separate only-pikemen groups in your army to take down buildings and so on, you'll be fine.

Well I actually had 140 uruk+crossbowmen, they never died and most of them were lvl 5 minimum. I fed a couple to the slaughter house that was under lvl 5 and made some pikeman+crossbow groups, we'll see how it goes.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Sunner
All in all, it's definitely inferior to Dawn of War and WarCraft III IMO.

Warcraft 3 was terrible and this was cheaper than Dawn of War. Plus it looked better.

Umm...I think most people would agree Wacraft III was a great game. (dunno how it compares to bfme)

I think most people never played any real RTS's and are blizzard fanboys too. I have played MANY MANY RTS's that are far better and more fun than anything blizzard has made. In fact, I don't like any blizzard games, they all seem like clones or just sub-par.

Such as?
Being a bug RTS fan, I go for pretty much anything I can find, aside from some really primitive ones from the old Mac SE/30 era, the first "real" one I played was Dune II.
Nothing still compares to StarCraft.

So mr Elitist, what's a "real" RTS?

There's nothing wrong with starcraft except how old it is. There are plenty of newer RTS that are better, like C&C Generals, Kohan, and even this game. Warcraft 3 however is not, I thought it was a terrible game. I got bored with it fast and the campaign was the worst I'd ever played. The only redeeming factor was a couple custom multiplayer games built into it that were fun. Aside from those, the only RTS ever played at lan parties here is usually Kohan, sometimes Generals. Soon it'll be Battle for Middle Earth.

 

[Sunner]

I like C&C Generals, Kohan seemed boring though, but IMO C&C is nothing compared to WarCraft III or StarCraft.
The only good RTS I've played since WC3 was Dawn of War.

Too bad about the single player in DoW though, so damn short.
I loved the single player in all the Warcrafts, but I'm about as huge a fan of the WarCraft universe as I am of the Tolkien one, so I guess I'm biased
Single player in C&C Generals just sucked though, was fun for about 15 minutes, then it got boring fast, mostly because there was no storyline to speak of.

Oh well, opinions are like assholes, after all

 

[Kasper4christ]

Has anyone else tried any of the mods for this game?
such as the first age mod? where there are new sides etc, and the CP limit is bumped up
its SO awesome, if you've got a fast computer with like a gig of ram, you can have 1000 man battles etc, its SO cool