Individual troops have no health bars, it seems their health depends on the largeness of the unit they are in. The first problem is related to the combat mechanics: while the merge/split option of our units was a good idea (we are talking about a game from 1998, where most strategy games were only able to handle single soldiers), it's not well implemented. If they manage to get too close, our cavalry should be deployed. The archer + cavalry combination is usually more than enough, which further simplifies the combat: we line up our archers (possibly behind rocks), lure the enemy towards them, kill and repeat. As soon as we get access to the forge (iron + coal required) we can train their stronger versions accordingly. So they basically represent a rock-paper-scissors setup. The game doesn't spoil us with a wide variety of them: we have axeman (powerful soldier with a shield), pikeman (basic spear soldier effective against cavalry), bowman and scout (cavalry, ideal against bowmen). I mean we can start training our recruits further into actual military units. If done right (crops of 'grey' stone have to be in the vicinity of the stonemason) our craftsmen will begin their work) and we can sit back. duh, but for example a tannery needs a butcher, instead of a tanner for example) in the school, where all our units are trained, for 1 chest of gold each. Once the building stands, we must train the matching inhabitant (a farm needs a farmer. This and everything else regarding the building of our settlement is very similar to the aforementioned The Settlers: we assign the location of each building and our serfs (the most important units in the game, who carry everything) begin to transport planks and stones to the area, before our labourers can begin the construction. So we should always make a sure that we have a steady supply of wood (our woodcutters replants them if you run out of trees) and stone (except for the final mission, where we have a nearly unlimited amount of stone). These can run out fairly fast however and find ourselves in an irreversible situation where we can't get the necessary resource as we lack the material to construct the required building.
The game is generous enough to give us a fair number of resources (wood, planks, stone, bread, even armaments sometimes) right at the start.
This is vital as the enemy begins to attack our blooming community after a set period of time. Unfortunately that's pretty much it, as we get snippets of the actual opponent before every mission on the map of the kingdom.Įach mission starts with building up the chain structure of a functional and self-sufficient settlement: we need a woodcutter, a sawmill, a stonemason, connect them to our storehouse with roads, a food supply and a military force. We play as a warlord loyal to the king (in a fictional kingdom apparently) beating rebellious princes and barons as we advance further on the map. It may seem entertaining in the first 3 stages or so, but the game can't really handle either of its elements well enough to be enjoyable and turns into a tedium. While it appears a relaxing The Settlers clone at first, it most certainly isn't, as we have a very dumb, but at the same time agressive AI attacking us, which constantly reminds us that we are playing a generic, far-fetched so-called 'real-time strategy' game, where we have to quickly build up our defenses and train enough soldiers to overpower it and prevail through 20 missions. Sadly most of these attempts are ineptly done and add more frustration than innovation. Knights and Merchants: The Shattered Kingdom attempts to mix strategy and city builder genres, adding elements which could have made it unique (the original game is from 1998).
Most of the time no such thing happens, leaving me disappointed, but there are rare occasions. The answer is simple: I believe that a game can turn out to be good at some point, either in gameplay, plot or both. My friends here on Steam often ask me that how I can play a game for a longer time if I give it a negative review.