Back to HeavenGames Welcome to Stronghold Heaven
Downloads Home
Review Guidelines
Main site
Code of Conduct

Advanced Search
Stronghold: Sieges
New Releases
New Reviews
New Comments

Submit File
Browse Categories
New Files

Download File Post Review Post Comment


Author File Description
File Details
Map Size: 300x300 (Medium)
Difficulty: Easy
Castle of the week #27
Attacking Siege. Enjoy :)
AuthorComments & Reviews   ( All | Comments Only | Reviews Only )
Sir Deacon Thats not fair. Critisism without anything constructive to say isn't a review at all. Wraiths worked his butt off around here and deserves better treatment. At least delete your review, write another one, and be a little respectful. Sincerley, Sir Deacon
File Author
Thanks Deacon.

Ankiset, the reason the castle looks the way it does, is because it was taken from the exact blueprints from the castle. This is ACTUALLY what the castle looks like. Im sorry if you dont get the idea behind that, but tis true. I would hope you could actually give reasons for why you have submitted such low marks.
Lord_Ankiset please watch your language or your reviews will be deleted. Saying that something sucks is not really helpful. You are entitled to say you don't like a scenario but need to back it up with reasons.

Some quotes from the Review Guide that might help:

"Try to always say at least one good thing about any scenario you review and never insult a designer."

"The review should contain a short explanation of why you scored each category the way you did. This does not need to be lengthy, sometimes a short sentence is enough but other times, a paragraph for each category is needed."

"Taking the time to go through your work and spell check it before submitting your review essential."

"Try as hard as possible to avoid vague statements in reviews. Make sure that your review answers more questions than it raises. It is essential that you try to always include an example from the scenario to back up any points that you make. If you are pointing out something to the designer that you feel could be improved, try to provide some ideas that the author could build on. Do as much as you can to help the designer improve his work."

Map Design4.0
Okay, time for an honest, constructive review...

Playability: Given that I am not the most talented player of siege scenarios on this forum, I had to play this a number of times before I could hold my head up in the air again and redeem what little credibility I have! This is a basic but very well done siege map. It kept me interested through all attempts as I tried different troop combinations as well as the troops 'given' to you by the author.

Balance: I found it a little tough as an attacker but the balance is still there - this is not a walkover map. What little there is by way of design (not a criticism - see Map Design comments) is sufficient to trouble you. I firmly believe that this map is a good example of keeping things simple whilst still asking enough of you in order to win. I won't embarrass myself by telling you my troop loss stats (they are never very good!) but don't be naive in attacking this castle.

Creativity: Richmond is one of my favourite castles with a rich history. This has been recreated well here. Solid work, nothing over the top, it must be said, but still very well done. See comments below re Map Design.

Map Design: In view of the earlier comments posted about this map, and combined with my knowledge of the castle at this period in time, I looked into the castle layout further. I have visisted Richmond myself, it is a very imposing castle and what I particularly liked was the attention to detail in the terrain: most of the drawings I have seen are reflected well in the design. Okay, the castle is not the most attractive creation, but the author has specified that this is work based on blueprints, and is a fair reflection of what Richmond resembled. I agree completely, and for this, creit is given. I hate to see a historical recreation spoilt by 'over-building' or unnecessary eye candy tricks, if there simply wasn't anything there. Richmond still transfers well to Stronghold as a decent castle to siege. Please remember that accuracy here is paramount and the map design fits the comments by the author. Full credit given for staying true to history. Basic, but very well done.

Story/Instructions: Combined with the write-up provided by GillB, this definitely scores a 5. The COTW section is always essential reading for anyone that wants to learn something as well as causing 'mayhem on the monitor' and is presented in a way that appeals to all age groups - always a winner. Read it and learn from it.

In summary, I really do rate this map. Simple in design but accurate. A challenge for most people, a great write up and certainly worth a download. Well done Wraith (& GillB).
File Author
Thank you!
I really have to hand more credit to Gill though, she works much harder at this and makes it all look easy and come together.
I've removed the first review & rating as unfortunately the reviewer was being a little silly and messing around with the ratings. I can remove the comments on it if you want as well.

As for it being down to me, ummm, I don't think so. I wouldn't have a clue where to start to design a scenario that has to conform to whatever plans or aerial views I can extract from the internet (which are frequently indistinct or downright unhelpful), may often be seen by people who have visited the real place and that has to tie up with the actual history of the place. Add to that, that Wraith usually gets less than two days' notice as I'm so darned inefficient, then I would say that virtually all of it's down to him. But thanks, Sulis, for appreciating the write-ups :)
Map Design4.0
Though the battles that occur was pretty massive, there was only one way to attack making it pretty dull. That is with the seige engine. The map was only a one shot deal, if you let them breach the walls, then your dead!

Post Review Post Comment

HGDL v0.8.0

Forum Username:


Create a new account
Forgot password?
Map Design4.0
Favorites: [Who?]0
Size:484.26 KB