Siege

Other Titles:
Dogs of War
Maker:
Mindcraft
Year:
1992
Systems:
PC (DOS) / PC (VGA)
Genre:
Strategy
Tags:
War / Sword & Sorcery
Language:
English
Median Rating:
5/5

Thoughts by Mr Creosote (26 00 2014) – PC (DOS)

If it had been released just a few months later, it would have been labelled ‘real time strategy’. Mindcraft was lucky to have been spared this curse, because it would have done their game an outragous injustice, because although the words themselves would even have been appropriate, they would become associated with a particularly bland, limited formula which Siege did not fit into.

While many wargames at the time sought to communicate a notion of fairness to its players by giving each player equal starting positions, Siege does exactly the opposite. One side’s task is to take a fortress, the other’s (obviously) to defend it. Different roles, but still, most scenarios are actually quite balanced and fair, i.e. they can be won by either side. An observation which speaks volumes about the art of level design, carefully done instead of taking the lazy way out (i.e. just making a symmetric map). A task which falls to the player if she decides to use the built-in level editor.

Too far
Too far

Though let’s take a step back. A fortress usually contains walls as well as one or more gates. In the absence of artillery, the attacker will attempt to scale these walls or break down those gates. The defender will try to prevent that by raining down all sorts of projectiles on the troops trying to place ladders on the walls or destroying the battering rams before they can do any serious damage. The attacker then sends in the big guys with their swords to wreak havoc among the defending troops not too well equipped for close combat – while the defender desperately tries to relocate some of her own appropriate troops to the breached location.

This is the formula which Siege delivers in various small variants. The fortress can have more than one line of defense, i.e. there can be a moat around it or several inner castle walls inside. The defender can try to meet the attacker at the outermost ring, giving her the opportunity to fall back and regroup if anything goes wrong, but that’s obviously also the largest ground to cover. Likewise, a full frontal assault will usually not serve the attacker well – she has to come up with a (preferably) sneaky strategy, too.

The interface supports the multi-faceted strategic level quite well. Soldiers can be grouped, including mixing those of different types. Only part of the complete armies can be on the battlefield at the same time; since the battles take days to reach a decision, the soldiers need rest periods and wounded (but not dead) ones are sent to the hospital to be treated and recover. Orders given to groups range from shooting at will, holding certain positions or patrolling certain areas to targetting particular enemies or using special abilities (such as, you guessed it, setting down ladders).

Too close
Too close

On the other hand, what doesn’t work quite as well is the graphics. The battlefield can be viewed in three zoom levels. The smallest one gives a rough overview of the complete surroundings, but it’s completely useless to get anything done. The largest one is so close to the action that there is zero overview. The one in between seems to be right as far as the distance from the action is concerned, but too much information is lost. To name just the two most glaring issues: unit types cannot be distinguished and battle actions (such as shots being fired) are not visible anymore!

The artificial intelligence is fairly competent at both the defending and the attacking role and thus presents an able challenge even to more experienced players. It’s just a pity that higher difficulty levels do not really equal a smarter opponent; the AI, for example, will not recognise obvious opportunities like undefended wings of the castle or taking advantage of the changing of the guards. Instead, the human player is simply penalised by only being able to deploy fewer soldiers, standing against a (quantity-wise) stronger opponent. So the verdict in this respect is ‘good enough’.

In spite of minor downsides, Siege is simply a well-crafted game. It may seem like the whole concept of repeatedly attacking and defending castles would not carry a full-sized game, but don’t underestimate the strategic and tactical finesse which comes with a different castle layout if the options are simulated in such detail as in this game. Though, admittedly, this makes Siege a game for hardcore strategy lovers. As such, it was underrated and overlooked when it first came out and it has fallen into even more extreme obscurity by now. It would be high time for an excavation!

Archived Thoughts

Thoughts by Mr Creosote (11 00 2000) – PC (DOS)

Siege & Ambush At Sorinor & Walls Of Rome: A series of games very similar to each other. The screenshots look almost identical. And all the games are quite similar in fact They’re all pioneers of the RTS genre. That means much action is in them. But in contrast to current titles, the strategy- component is stressed. This becomes clear when you discover that you can give orders to your army when the game is paused.

Siege is set in a medieval fantasy world. As the name suggests, you have to either defend or conquer a castle. There are hundreds of scenarios but not too much maps. Depending on the difficulty level you can have more or less units at once.

The number of possible actions is really impressive. The all-round units are engineers who can (if they have the right equipment of course) do almost everything, e.g. deploy ladders on the wall or pour boiling oil on the attackers. But they can’t survive without protection by proper soldiers. Again there is a sheer unlimited number of different ones.

Although the goal is always the same, Siege is the best of the three games. It’s just a load of positive stress. The best situations are the close ones, e.g. when your walls are about to fall, you’ll probably start shouting at your reinforcements to move faster!

Ambusch at Sorinor takes place in a similar fantasy world, but apart from that it’s quite different. This time you’re the commander of a group of mercenaries. Six different clans who fight each other offer you assignments. You can work for all of them. But your payment depends on how much they like you. And if you’ve just fought against them, they won’t. A really cool concept!

There are two kinds of missions: offensive and defensive ones, i.e. ambushes (blocking a trade route, killing some passing creatures) or prventing ambushes. You have to recruit new soldiers for each mission. So there’s no unit developement. This game also has a comfortable map editor, very simple to use.

Walls of Rome is almost the same as Siege. Again you have to conquer or defend fortresses. But this time in a historical context. But for some reason it’s much less fun. I can’t really explain why, but this is by far the weakest part of the series. I didn’t really enjoy playing it, it’s here only to make the selection complete.

These classics by Mindcraft were very innovative for their time and they are still. I’ve hardly ever seen such deepness in RTS games!

Box

PC (DOS)

Image Image

Files

Screenshots

PC (DOS)

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image