Look, I like Cannon Fodder, really I do. It's still fun in its own way -- mainly as a relic that stands proud as the progenitor of much better, later games -- but time has not been as kind to Cannon Fodder as it has to Bullfrog's Syndicate, which was released the same year. I know, it's somewhat unfair comparing a game from a large-ish developer to one that smacks of indie, but the comparison must be made. The graphics back in '94 were, charitably, "meh", and they have since been demoted to "yech". The controls are still refreshingly simple -- left-button, right-button -- but movement is still fiddly as all heck. The game remains oddly addictive, given its short missions, and does compel the player to have just one more go. For just a few dollars (pounds, euros, pesos, filthy lucre) more, anybody interested in Cannon Fodder's type of gameplay would be well advised to seek out the most-excellent Darwinia. As it stands, Cannon Fodder is just on the edge of being worth what GOG is asking.* *I have enough fond memories of the game that I *did* pay the $5.99.
It's Civilization, meets Colonization, meets Heroes of Might & Magic. And that's fine by me. I remember being quite excited about Conquest of the New World (CotNW) when reading about it in CGW, knowing this was (The) Alan Emrich's first project since leaving as the magazine's editor and joining Quicksilver Software. As much as I hated having to get used to "The New Guy" writing the opening editorials, I was happy to see Emrich putting his talents to use along side some of my favorite designers (Vince DeNardo, Bill Fisher, Byron Garrabrant, and "Zeb" Cook, to name a few). If you've ever played Castles, some of those names will be familiar -- all had a hand in its design, except for "Zeb" Cook, who is, quite simply, a legendary figure in role-playing and board games, having created the Planescape campaign setting and Europe Aflame, both for TSR. CotNW isn't a reinvention of the wheel by any means; rather, it's a refinement of concept. The focus is more narrow that that of Civilization, and being a game of colonization there is finally a justification for the fog-of-war play-style. Gone is the -- let's face it -- sterile, chit-moving feel of Civ. Instead, units are moved by dragging a marker to where you would like it to end up. While the unit is traveling, you have the freedom to move other units, build structures, etc. I have to add that though seemingly rudimentary to a 21st century eye, the animations in the game are leaps and bounds beyond the turn-based strategy games that came before. The units walk to their destinations and the colonies you build actually seem lived in (with the occasional wandering bear). Combat is a marvel of simplicity, though it takes far more skill than the rock, paper, scissors of Civ. When a unit meets hostiles, the game shifts to a Heroes of Might & Magic-like battle grid. (Would that make it a "HoMMage"? -er-..... I'm sorry..... But not sorry enough to use the backspace key.) The end-result of the conflict relies on tactics as much as it does on unit size or who has the topmost branch on the technology tree. The good: Graphics and animation for the day were better than most strategy games. The incidental music (by Richard Band) and the sound effects evoke the period quite nicely. Battles take skill. The world seems real, helped by end-turn newspaper clippings recounting your exploits. The entire package is sleek and fine-tuned. The bad: It's not nearly as good as Civilization What??? I know, I've been comparing CotNW favorably to Civilization, and it *is* an excellent game, but for all its sterility and spreadsheetedness, Civilization has an enigmatic addictive quality that cannot be quantified. No matter how many times companies, like Quicksilver, try to improve (and seemingly do) on Sid Meier's masterpiece, they just always fall short. That being said, give Conquest of the New World a try. Really, you won't be sorry.
