Need For Conquest Reviews

Took me a while to figure out how to play but once I did it was quite fun. Couple of things I wish were in the game: - skipping opponent moves (the animations), just let it happen instantly - more intuitive controls: sometimes clicking the arrows is difficult and clicking the buttons when drafting armies becomes tedious quickly when one has a lot of territories - achievements

A stock basic RISK like game, whose strength, I imagine, is in the variety of the maps. I played one game, and while the AI was pretty weak, everything worked. The controls were pretty solid, and the music and sound effects were fine. There was no animation. Obviously it cannot be a total RISK clone. This game does not have cards to collect, or turn ins, and there is no plus to taking out a fellow player. The game does seem to be trying to work new ideas in to the mix, for example some territories can have a resource called Stones that gives armies in that territory armor. Not sure how that works into the game yet, but it does show creativity. You don't see any dice rolls, but in the game I played I never ran into an attack that fell totally against expectations, odds wise. Not a bad thing, in my book. The game is explanation lite, sad to say. There are two modes, but the rule differences have to be sort of guessed at. Some territories have extra resources or something on them, aside from the standard coins you use to buy armies, but nothing explains what they might be. I suspect an artifact for a feature that was dropped. EDIT: I had posted that the map editor was a mystery, but the developer has posted a video explaining it. In fact the developer seems very responsive, and has already taken one of my suggestions and worked it into a beta! All in all though, I got this on sale, and for what I paid, this is an easy thumbs up, a simple, fun game. Nice!

[h1]TL;DR:[/h1] The visuals may be basic, but the AI is very well done, which creates tension-filled moments as you try to decide where to allocate your limited troops. You need patience and attention to accomplish anything, which makes things rewarding and addictive (serious case of "one more turn" syndrome for me). [h1]Full review[/h1] I'm a veteran strategy game player (my favorites include Civilization, Total War, Company of Heroes and Age of Empires). I was asked to try out Need for Conquest by the developer, who I know personally. I thought I would only check out the game for an hour or two, but then the most unexpected thing happened – I got hooked! This simple Risk clone gave me the biggest "one more turn" syndrome since I played Civilization. I have put off meals and personal hygiene just so I could find out what would happen next turn: Will I finally be able to complete my conquest of South America (and get a nice draft bonus)? Will my defenses in Indochina hold? Will my two AI neighbors fight each other or will they turn their attention to my not-quite-well-defended eastern border? You get the picture. My playtime is now at 60+ hours. [h2]Some war stories...[/h2] What I'm mostly surprised at is how often this game has produced memorable moments for me. In my last game, on the US map, I was close to conquering the northeastern US region. My bane was the Purple AI, which had amassed a large army right next to my southern border. Since I didn't hold any other regions, I could only draft 4 units per turn. My forces were spread thin and my southern defenses had begun to lag behind that massive purple army. An attack seemed imminent. Reinforcing my southern border would have been the obvious move, except Blue and Green on the other end of the map had each just completed their regions and were drafting huge forces, which I knew I would quickly make the game unwinnable, unless I had a region of my own. The remaining territories I needed to conquer were lightly defended, so it seemed a good idea to finish them off before they get stronger. However, they were in the North, far away from Purple's army. So what would you do with your scant reinforcements? Reinforce the southern border to counter the immediate Purple threat or reinforce the north to quickly grab the region and enjoy its fruits? A classic dilemma: tactics vs. strategy. In another game, I managed to pull off an early conquest of Australia, while the Blue AI took South America shortly afterwards, making us evenly matched. I was trying to expand into Asia, but this was easier said than done: perhaps due to my impatience, my every advance was repelled by 2-3 other AIs, who were weaker than me individually, but much stronger taken together. Every time, I had to fall back to my foothold in Thailand. I noticed that Blue was quickly advancing in North America and had a strong presence in Africa. I knew if he succeeded on either continent, he would just steamroll me. So instead of trying to fight a land war in Asia (yeah, yeah, I know), I decided to send an expeditionary force to Alaska with only one goal – to stop Blue from conquering all of North America. This worked, but also drained my resources, as every turn I had to send reinforcements to Alaska to match Blue's ever-growing forces in Canada. As the stalemate continued, it became clear I simply couldn't resist Blue AND continue my offensive in Asia at the same time. Something had to give. All of a sudden, the Yellow AI broke through Greenland into northern Canada with a sizeable army. I was elated – I thought he would duke it out with Blue over North America, allowing me to take my massive Alaskan army and finally put it to good use in Asia. But then, a real nightmare turn happens: Yellow goes first – instead of hitting Blue, Yellow attacks MY Alaskan army. He loses the battle, but I lose 60% of my troops. (Turns out he wasn't interested in fighting Blue; he just wanted break through to Asia.) Now it's Blue's turn – of course he sees my bruised forces in Alaska and IMMEDIATELY wipes me out, completing his conquest of North America! Of course, not all my games have been nail-biters, as there is a significant element of chance. Sometimes things just come up your way. [h2]Some thoughts on the game's AI[/h2] Yes, Need for Conquest is game with utilitarian, low-budget graphics and simple, Risk-like rules (with all their annoying quirks). But the star of the show is the AI, which is unusually strong for a strategy game and is what creates all those memorable moments. At minimum, I can definitely say it is more challenging than AI in mainstream titles like Civilization or Total War. I've certainly had my butt handed to me more than once and had to reload from a save. The AI will build its strength (rather than attacking at the first opportunity), protecting its territory and attempt to conquer the continents (regions) which it sees as easiest to capture. It will ruthlessly exploit even small miscalculations – you WILL get pounded back into the stone age if your defenses don't take into account all the possible routes of attack. It takes a lot of time to rebuild after a setback like that, which raises the stakes and adds a lot of tension to your decisions. I would say the two things I've learned playing against the AI are: [list] [*] Patience -- attacking is costly and it usually pays to simply build your armies and let other players fight it out; when they're done, you can finish off whatever's left on the map; also, don't capture territories you can't hold -- and don't be afraid to swallow your pride and retreat if you've overextended yourself (that's the hardest lesson for me). [*] Flexibility -- be ready to change your strategy on a dime (for example, if you are conquering Africa, but suddenly two AI players clash in South America and end up weakened, it may be better to rush your forces there before they recover) [/list] Of course, sometimes patience and flexibility are in conflict... Flexibility may tell you to take advantage of an opening RIGHT NOW, but patience will tell you that you won't have enough troops to stop a counterattack. That's where things get really interesting and you have to take a risk. The game is quite stable (not a single crash in 60+ hours). In general, although the presentation is a little rough around the edges, the game comes off as really solid on the inside.