Summary
Overall, the game feels similar to King Arthur the Role-playing Game yet manages to distance itself very easily. Many of the game’s mechanics and the general look and feel are right in line with Neocore’s previous title (but not in a recycled way). However, there are many differences here that give the game the ability to stand on its own even if it does bear a striking resemblance to its elder sibling.
King Arthur cast a long shadow in that it made realtime stategies more accessible than many have been in the recent past. They both did away with a lot of micromanagement that is seen in modern RTS games as if the developers think that giving us control over what our armies have for lunch adds realism. Lionheart goes even a step further than King Arthuer in that there is no need to worry over the various areas you conquer as once you have them they basically manage themselves.
Lionheart does a good job of stepping out of that shadow cast by Arthur and casts its own very long shadow that will be a measure for other RTS games in the future. The two games are 
similar in feel, but different in so many other aspects that you can’t say one is derived from the other and that’s the whole point right? We didn’t want King Arthur 2 (well, some of us do want further expansions), we wanted a new game with a new setting, gameplay and new mechanics, but in the same vein and spirit as King Arthur and that is exactly what we have received with Lionheart King’s Crusade. Lionheart will be a great addition the the collection of any wargamer or real-time strategy fan and will give you hours of enjoyment. The game is available through GamersGate.com
Drop a comment on the review for a chance to win one of five copies of the game from Gamers Daily News, Paradox Interactive and Neocore Games. The games will be given away through GamersGate where you can sign up for a free account. Contest ends 15 October, 2010.
For those concerned that Lionheart Kings’ Crusade is just King Arthur rehashed, here’s a list of major differences between the two to show that they are quite different both in setting and in mechanics.
|
King Arthur -
The Role-playing Wargame
|
Lionheart: Kings’ Crusade |
| legendary heroes, legendary and magical equipment, fantasy creatures |
historically authentic locations, weaponry, units, combat tactics and descriptions |
| fantasy game |
alternative history game |
| main stress in battles: magic and tactics |
main stress in battles: tactics and morale |
| RTS battles, Turn-Based campaign |
RTS battles, mission-to-mission campaign |
| 1 campaign |
2 campaigns - Crusader & Saracen |
| Units cannot be equipped |
Units can carry special equipment - armour, weapons, potions, elixirs |
| Fantastic skills |
Realistic skills |
| detailed army management |
much more detailed army management |
| Morality chart as a source of new units and other benefits |
Crusader Factions (politics) or Saracen Tech-Tree as a source of new units and other benefits |
| Victory Locations on the battlefield and the unique morale system related to the number of units and the occupied locations |
Victory Locations not included in morale assessment, a new, individual morale system for each unit |
| Magic and spells |
No magic, no spells |
| No wall-breaking at sieges |
Siege weapons and wall-breaking during sieges |
| Location: Fantasy/Imaginary Britannia |
Location: Historically accurate/medieval Middle East and Asia Minor |
| Key features: Hero management, Storyline objectives, Quests |
Key features: Management of just one army, Multiple battle phases, Military engineering, Strategy planning, Political decisions/events |
| Game objective: Influence and walk through the Arthurian legend and deal with the Sidhe threat |
Game objective: Defeat the Saracens/Crusaders and conquer the Middle East |
3 days ago
