Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:52:02 -0400 
From: Michael Trick <mt1w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Siege

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.ibm.pc.games: 14-Sep-92 Siege Robert
Andrew@monu6.cc.m (244)

> I am considering purchasing Siege by mindcraft(sp?) can anyone
> give me a bit of a review/critique.

I bought Siege about a week ago and have played it for perhaps 10 hours.
 My opinion of the game is definitely mixed.  First, let me say that my
all time favorite game is Sword of Aragon, a medieval/magical
strategic/tactical wargame from a couple of years ago.   The Ancient Art
of War, when it first cam out was a revelation, and really got me into
computer gaming.  I enjoyed Warlords for a short period, but found the
computer opponents boring and predictable.  So I had high hopes for this
game.  This game even forced me to go out and replace my aging Toshiba
laptop which only supported EGA graphics.

Siege revolves around the attack and defence of four castles.  The
opposing side are the Forces of Light (humans, elves, dwarves, and so
on) and the Bad Guys (not their real name, but you get the idea: orcs,
goblins, minotaurs, and the like).  One side or the other controls the
castle.  The goal is for the attackers to control a particular area
within the castle (the flag) for a game day.  If twenty days elapse
without this happening, then the defenders win.

Combat troops are one of three types:  melee, missle, and engineers.  As
expected, the first attack with swords and maces and the second with
arrows and spears.  The third group is most interesting for they do the
"siege-like" activities.  On the attackers side, engineers lay the
mobile brides across moats and rivers and place ladders against the
walls.  On the defense side, they are able to pour boiling oil on people
below them.  On both sides, they operate catapults and ballista and
carry the flags that signify control of the target area.

There are also "higher level characters" like sargeants, heros, and
wizards and a few "magical troops" like spiders and elementals.  No
complicated magical or combat system here.  These characters act like
strong combat units (except some wizards can also throw a fireball like
a catapult).

The basic play format is as follows:  groups of troops are formed and
given commands.  These commands include "Go to place X", "Attack
anything in this area", "Defend anything here",  "Relieve that group",
"Attack at will from X" and so on.  Play is not really real-time, in the
sense that even those of us with lousy reflexes can play this fine. 
There is a pause button that can be used freely.  While the game is
paused, you can examine both your troops and the opponents, give
commands, and otherwise do your organization.

There are 24 scenarios, of which I have played 6.

O.K.  Here is what I liked about the game:

1) Simple and intuitive game mechanics.  There is a tutorial game that
has a small number of troops that is great for getting a hang of the
system.  The game can be run entirely by mouse, and works best that way.

2) Good graphics:  the overhead view makes it look like a siege, with
dead bodies, fires, and so on scattered about.

3) Multiple scenarios, including a scenario builder.  This scenario
builder though does not allow you to change the castle.  You can only
change the forces and other details.

4)  Moderately captivating.  It does have some of that "one more day and
then I will have supper" aspect (which leads to six more days and a bowl
of pretzels).  

Here's what I dislike:

1)  Poor AI.  The opponent does not seem to know the victory conditions.
 One early game, as defender I repelled an initial assault.  The
attacker went back to its tents and waited.  Thinking it was preparing
for a final, all-out assault, I carefully deployed my defences and
waited as the days ticked off.  Finally, about an hour (real-time) after
the initial assault, the twentieth day expired, and I was declared the
winner.  Not very exciting.

2) Poor feedback.  Call me aggresive, but at the end of a battle, I want
to know how many orcs I have killed.  At the end, though, it tells me I
have won and how many people I have left.  Nothing more:  no comparison
of kills, no cheering crowds, no nothing.

3) Poor balance mechanism.  In order to offset (1), there is a
difficulty level that does nothing other than limit the number of your
troops that you can have deployed at a time.  The easiest level is 300,
while the hardest is 100.  The computer is given the remainder so that
the total deployed by both sides is 600.  While it is silly to talk
about realism in such a game, this technique strikes me as a poor
solution.  The program "balances" the game by limiting strategic choices.

Overall, I guess I am glad I have the game, but I do not think it will
go on my top ten list.

                                                                     
Mike Trick


------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduate School of Industrial Administration |mt1w+@andrew.cmu.edu
Carnegie Mellon University                   |(412)268-3697 (work)
Pittsburgh, PA  15213                        |(412)268-6837 (fax)
------------------------------------------------------------------