I have a friend who has been constantly saying one thing for five years now: “Well, how much can global strategies for WWII be done! Tired of both Rome and the Middle Ages. Why is there no magic? Is the time coming when we will see WW 2: Total War ?! ” Each time they announce the continuation of the TW series , as Paradox talks about the new “Victory Day” , a friend always scandals and swears ... And now I don’t know whether his prayers worked, or the industry was ready for it, but King Arthur: The Role-playing Wargame recently went on sale . A game where there is a global map, tactical battles and squads consisting of undead, magicians and other magical creatures. Reviews from this point of view you will not find anywhere else, so more often look at www.y8games.center.

We all know King Arthur. Who read the picture books, who saw the cartoon, where the imba magician Merlin sent rays of good-naturedness to good guys and death rays to the enemies of the young monarch. Even in games, Sir Arthur lit up. Although it is not as bright as perhaps we wanted, and we did not receive a slasher about the knights of the round table. But in some places they met, and okay.

But since children are reading us, and nowadays children don’t open books, don’t look at pictures, laugh at cartoons, we will tell them together what King Arthur doesn’t have, for example, in Gaia Julia Caesar or their dad.

This character is famous, first of all, for the fact that many legends are composed about him. And if they said about other rulers that they are brave, like lions, or very smart, then the myths about Arthur are different. They pay great attention to what the king did. For example, he was friends with sorcerers, hunted dragons, fought against witches and evil spirits in general. Is it so - it is up to the children to decide, of course, and we will return to the game.

All the tales of the knights of the round table were embodied by the developers. Moreover, they were able to accurately capture the essence of that, so to speak, era. Of course, fantastic, but still era. On the one hand, real events are taking place in our country. There is a war with Wales, barbarians are rampaging in the south, we are besieging London. Why not setting the next Total War? But we glance over the map and see magical obelisks, pantheons, druids waiting for the noble sirs from our army to approach them. In the battles themselves, far from ordinary archers, cavalry and swordsmen participate. There will be a place for the magician or the bride of which elemental ...

Many already at the sight of the first screenshots said: “Oh, Arthurchik, you really don’t have blood from the blood of Total War ! Clone, scum, clone! ” However, all the similarities lie in the first screenshots.

But you can understand the laughter of the players. King Arthu r, for example, like the projects of the Total War series , is divided into two modes - global and tactical. In the global, we have a map of England, where there are no provinces and “shreds” as such, but many different objects like temples, settlements and other things. Castles play the role of cities here, however you will not have so many of them; having two strongholds is already a great advantage.

There is practically no economic component here either. There is no development, there is no tree of technology, not even diplomacy. That is, everything that Total War is famous for is not used in King Arthur.

Arthur has a completely different approach to building the gameplay. Instead of all the economic and political components, they give us ... a plot. And quests to him. The whole gameplay consists of them. We go to the scroll on the map, get the task, fight, communicate, or move on. In Total War, we had to bring the state to prosperity, and for this we used any methods, and in Arthur we complete quests and thereby lead ourselves to victory.

Someone will say that this is a simplification. Say, it’s impossible to remove in the strategy at all everything that its strategies do. I do not argue, perhaps this is so. But the quests and plot made Arthur a game of a slightly different genre, where your strategic skills on the global map are useless. And the script plays a significant role.

True, due to the fact that AI, in fact, plays the role of meat and does not develop at all, it seems that the enemy is sitting on some hormonal drugs, from which his soldiers quickly and quickly gain levels, and then walk sternly around the whole map and its formidable view scare us. The balance is just damn untreated, and that's the problem...

Absolutely everything is developing in the army - from the poor pikeer to the most distinguished knights of the round table. The latter, by the way, play the role of heroes. They lead armies, fight best in tactical battles, and they also have many wonderful abilities. This was the case in Warhammer: Mark of Chaos , where the “commanders” were always the best at the forefront and could, for example, increase the strength of all friendly units or slash it once so that 10 opponents immediately fell dead.

Ordinary soldiers, however, are also able to curry favor and become strong and harsh. They get levels for bravery in battle, and then you yourself decide which way to develop the units — to make them better in attack or defense, to give them extra leadership or to protect from magic.

But back to the main thing. What kind of beast is this - a quest in strategy? In general, it is represented by several species. The simplest one looks like this: you came to the appointed point, touched the scroll, a monster got out of the ground, and you gave him borscht. Another option - after activating the quest, you go somewhere and engage in a donation there.

But it's all simple and boring. Text quests look much more interesting. They resemble fellow Space Rangers. Only here in all tasks hero parameters are taken into account. Therefore, if you come to the druid as a Christian knight, then your opponent is unlikely to be very accommodating, and you need to spend a lot of energy to solve the problem. But the rest - these missions are entertaining and varied. There are always many options, and the final solutions themselves are enough.

And the last kind of tasks is the storyline. After an event or suddenly, for example, we receive a letter. Say, three brothers share the daddy’s property. And our adviser heard that two of them are ordinary good guys, but the third is a tyrant and despot. Who do we want to help? We choose the side, we fight, and how our worldview changes will depend on the decision. As in KotOR , we always choose one of the sides of the force...

Yes, in the game there was a place of religion and a kind of worldview. It looks like this: there is a circle in which the coordinate system passes with the X and Y axes, where the horizontal line shows what we profess, and the vertical one shows our attitude towards people.

So, if we carry out quests as Christians, then the emphasis shifts to the right side, towards the classical religion with Jesus and the Virgin Mary. If we are friends with the Druids, we perform all sorts of objectionable rites - we gradually become adherents of the Old Faith. Something similar is happening with the worldview. Only here are the directions of the tyrant and the good man.

These indicators are very important, they determine what magic heroes can use, what soldiers will serve us, and how the kingdom will develop. And even the set of knights of the round table depends on religion and worldview. Not everyone will want to get along with a passionate fanatic and tyrant.

Fight - a separate song. In short - yes, it is similar to what is available in TW , however, there are fundamental differences here. Firstly, the soldiers themselves are magical in every possible way. Secondly, battles take place on maps where there are control points that do not exist and were neither in the old Shogun , nor in the new Empire .

Why are they? Oh, these are interesting things. They increase the defense of the army, turn off the magic of the enemy, allow you to use interesting spells. Therefore, from the very first seconds you have to plan and disassemble what you will take and what it will not be sad to give to the enemy. This approach makes the battle more diverse. And this is the great virtue of King Arthur .

By the way, do you remember such a toy -Warhammer: Dark Omen ? That "Arthur" is very reminiscent of her. All this magic, a mixture of real and fictional, units and plot battles. Alas, the quality of the project is not the same, but the feeling of deja vu appears regularly. There are similar feelings from these two projects. Especially when we fight in rainy weather, and lightning flashes in the sky every second.

However, an interesting presentation is greatly spoiled by the general lack of development of AI. The computer is incredibly dumb, dumb and incomprehensible. He commits completely random acts, attacks as he pleases, but not in the way it should. And sometimes it just walks on a tactical map. Walks, so to speak.

The surface study of battles is also frustrating. Here, for example, why archers shoot at the same distance, being both on a hill and in a lowland? A dozen more such flaws, and the impression spoils.