🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5bhgmv$q...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, "Bad@itude"
<B...@itude.att.net> writes
>In article <E406z...@world.std.com>, t...@world.std.com says...
>
>>to spread the word on this game.  Lords of the Realm II is doing very well
>>for Sierra but primarily based on word-of-mouth (we are seriously 
>understaffed in marketing and PR for this product at the moment!).
>>
>>-Tom
>
> Maybe you lucked out...
> A pleasant suprise is always preferable to disappointed expectations. 
>
I'd like to echo that. I nearly didn't buy it - changed my mind after
reading some comments in this NG - because I'm not a fan of real-time
combat. At first I thought I had made a mistake - simplified economies
to drop the learning curve and bring in the C&C crowd. However I was
wrong; somehow I have kept coming back for more. The economies are not
trivial - though I DO miss the sheep - and the combat is pretty good,
especially in the sieges. I'm happy with the way information is
presented, with the overview map - somehow tables of figures are right
for MOO, but not for the 13th Century. The AI appears good, though I
agree with an earlier post that it seems to have too many peasants in
its troop mix. Another change which looked wrong, but was right, was the
reduction in the number of counties on the map - the later stages of
LOTR1 could get to be a real drag, checking every county every season.
All in all this is what a sequel should be - keeps the feel of the
original, and does more than just add eye-candy.  
-- 
John Secker