Castles 1+2

Even though I no longer had a system to run these games - I still had my boxes in my study. My wife would complain, my children would ask why - and now I know. This is a throwback to a more pure form of what would be considered Stronghold, though with far superior RPG elements.

I still have the original disk for Castles that I, uh, "borrowed" off my brother-in-law, as well as the original disk and manual for Castles II. I won't lie to you, compared to modern games the graphics are primitive, and there's a distinct lack of tactical options available compared to games like Stronghold. Where Castles wins out is in *economic strategy*. Castles II expands your tactical options somewhat, as well as offering greater scope at the expense of Castles' charm. Both are great games in their own right and I tend to prefer replaying them. Castles I is set during Edward I's castle-building spree to secure Wales... and you're Edward. You can choose from regular or fantasy campaigns, where you'll be pitted against the Welsh, and in the fantasy you'll get the addition of the Sidhe, both Seelie and Unseelie court varieties. In-between the gradual building of the castle to your specifications and your defensive actions against Welsh or Sidhe raiders you'll find the nobility, the clergy, the peasantry, the Welsh, and others will occasionally gain an audience with you. Your decisions can affect the status quo dramatically: strengthen your army, your coffers, annoy the Welsh profusely, incite unrest—or quell it—in the nobles' fiefs. There is a surprising amount of variety in the type of matters that'll be brought up, anything from peace treaties or alliances with the Welsh, friendly chats with the clergy, the peasantry whining for good reason, the peasantry whining for no reason, you can even fund Flemish rebels purely to spite the French. The game-play is deceptively simple; you need taxes to pay for workers—and the amount you set their wage at limits the amount of each labourer (or soldier) that will work for you. Is it worth making infantry's wages £5 if you rarely use them, or is it smarter to have troops to spare to put down problems outside your current operational zone? Can you afford so many stonemasons when you're busy being petty with those darn French? Is it even possible to pronounce the name of the Welsh prince you're currently allied with/waging war on? Castles II is set later; the King of France decided to croak it without leaving an heir, so naturally France should be part of your realm now, right? Unfortunately other nearby European kings want it as well. Castles II is more sophisticated that its predecessor, in many ways it feels much like what you'd expect Medieval: Total War to be were it made in '94. This time 'round there's resources to be gathered, siege weapons to be built, and armies of infantry, archers, and *knights*. You've also got an annoying Catholic geezer with a pimpin' hat to keep onside unless you particularly like getting excommunicated (and facing the distinct possibility of the Pope giving some other sod his seal of approval)... though you can annihilate the Papal States and take France by right of arms if you're good enough. Throughout it all you'll have diplomatic relations with your neighbours to consider, and all manner of interesting scripted events. Things are quite different depending on which faction you take control, how fast you move to secure neutral territory, how you react to the Pope's regular extortion attempts, your rivals' extortion attempts, and your decisions regarding the various audiences you'll grant and be granted over time. So there you have it. Stronghold if it were made in '91, and Medieval: Total War if it were made in '94, both with oodles of charm and their own subtle nuances. You could certainly do far worse with your money.

This games are worthy of at least four stars, but unfortunately, due to the technical issues on these games I can only give it one star. Castles 1 is a solid castle building game. The focus is on the construction of individual castles where you have to manage the construction workers and military and pay their wages. You get to add things like cauldrons of bubbling oil and arrow slots to the walls of your castle, choose between round and square towers and even build a moat. You get to design the castle and watch the men build it and defend it while being built. The focus of the game is to defend the castle until it is built. There are also numerous stories that are like mini quests where people seek your audience as king and you make decisions that effect the story and your overall rating. The stories that pop up are random and they have a tendency to repeat themselves a lot, and more often than not there is a "right" solution. In Castles 2 you play as one of approximately 5 players who each have a territory. The game shifts focus away from building the castle to a traditional strategy game of expand your territory and eliminate other players. Each territory gives one of a resource; food,iron,gold or wood. The castles act as a defensive fortress to protect your troops when attacked and to allow you to collect two resources in that land instead of one when you send your men to collect resources. As with Castles 1 there are stories involved and they act the same way they did in Castles 1, except you might either lose or gain resource as result of your decisions as well. The ultimate goal is to become the new King (as you are fighting a civil war). This is done by getting the pope to sponsor you by having enough territories and a good standing with the pope. Or to conquer all territories, including the pope's. Unlike other players the pope does not expand and attack his neighbors. However if your standing with the pope falls too low he will excommunicate you sending your troops morale to rock bottom so they are easy pickings on the battlefield. If you attack the pope he will excommunicate you (go figure). Now for the downside. These games run too fast on today's computers. Even with dosbox there is little one can do about it. Being a real time strategy game you will notice that the days of the in game calendar go past like pages of cartoon, you can't tell one drawing from another. (Think April 1 now, in ten seconds July 15th). The only way to counter this is to slow down the cpu cycles in the dosbox configuration file for those of you who know how. Even if you manage to do this, the end effect is that parts of the game run too fast and other parts of the game run too slow. For example, you would end up having to wait 5 minutes for the game to load, once it did it runs 5 times faster than it should. This is better than 100 times faster than it should if the game loaded in at regular speed, but you also have to contend with loading times for videos as well. The end effect is like being in a car where someone is learning how to drive. They speed up then apply the break, then speed up again. Normally I would recommend these games very highly but until someone fixes the speed issue in a far more efficient manner than the dosbox configuration allows, it is virtually unplayable. As a result, I only give 1 star out of five to games that normally would deserve at least 4.

I can't tell you how many years I have wanted to play these two games again. While the graphics are dated the game play more then makes up for it. Both titles have great stratigic "empire building" game play and driven by compeling story lines. These titles are from the good old days when it took more then high resolution and shadowing effects to sell a title.