Field of Glory II: Medieval

About

"Field of Glory II: Medieval" is a turn-based tactical game set in the High Middle Ages from 1040 AD to 1270 AD. The game allows you to command armies from various European countries and experience major themes of the period, including the struggles of the Kings of France, English wars of conquest, Baltic Crusades, and the Mongol invasion. It features heavily armored knights delivering devastating charges and simulates the constant state of war during the period.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

87%

Audience ScoreBased on 289 reviews

gameplay10 positive mentions

replayability3 negative mentions

Field of Glory II: Medieval offers a fantastic tabletop wargaming experience with deep tactical gameplay and a variety of historical armies.
The game features beautiful graphics and a well-designed interface, enhancing immersion and making battles visually appealing.
The AI is challenging and provides a rewarding experience, requiring players to think strategically and adapt their tactics.

Camera controls are clunky and frustrating, often hindering gameplay and making it difficult to navigate the battlefield effectively.
The game has a steep learning curve, with many players feeling overwhelmed by the complexity of the rules and mechanics without sufficient tutorials.
There are concerns about balance, particularly regarding unit effectiveness, with some units feeling underpowered or inconsistent in performance.

gameplay
42 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
24%
69%
7%
The gameplay is characterized by a mix of innovative mechanics and historical accuracy, offering a challenging yet engaging experience that requires players to learn and adapt to various unit types and formations. While some players appreciate the depth and tactical nature of the game, others find the mechanics cumbersome and the AI favoring, leading to a steep learning curve and unpredictable outcomes. Overall, the game provides a unique blend of tabletop roots and turn-based strategy, though it may not appeal to those seeking a more traditional wargaming experience.
- “Its detailed historical accuracy, combined with tactical gameplay, offers an engaging and challenging experience.”
- “The rich variety of units and scenarios keeps the gameplay fresh and exciting, while the graphics and intuitive interface enhance immersion.”
- “This game has a serious amount of depth to its mechanics whilst remaining instantly accessible, and I can't recommend it enough.”
- “But there's one particular point that I feel needs to be stressed before recommending, as I've seen it being a complete turn-off for many players: this game has mechanics to simulate the chaos and disorder of battle in that troops might advance into space and will always give chase against evading enemies, and may charge other enemies they find in their way, which may result in them breaking formation and exposing themselves.”
- “The army movement mechanics are awful, making for extremely long battles.”
- “However, here 'turn-based' actually means that the unit turning mechanics are so screwed up that it takes all the fun out of playing.”
graphics
40 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
40%
53%
8%
The graphics of the game have received mixed reviews, with many praising their beauty and clarity, particularly in unit design and overall presentation. While some players appreciate the intuitive interface and immersive sound effects, others criticize the graphics for being outdated compared to modern standards, likening them to early 2000s visuals. Overall, the graphics are seen as a significant improvement over previous titles in the series, though they may not meet the expectations for AAA quality.
- “The rich variety of units and scenarios keeps the gameplay fresh and exciting, while the graphics and intuitive interface enhance immersion.”
- “Wonderful gameplay and graphics.”
- “Beautiful graphics and maps.”
- “The graphics are worse than most of the games I played from the year 2005, and the losing makes it even worse.”
- “Basic rough UI, bad graphics for a 2021 game, very basic game mechanics. This is more a custom battle simulator; if you are looking for a Total War/Paradox game experience, this is not for you.”
- “It's very well presented although you're not looking at AAA graphics for this price, so don't expect that.”
music
7 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
71%
29%
The music in the game is generally praised for its quality, with users noting it as excellent and fitting for the gameplay experience. While some find the soundtrack enjoyable, others feel that the sound effects are somewhat repetitive, with only minor updates from previous versions. Overall, the music contributes positively to the game's atmosphere, despite some contrasting opinions on the marketing materials.
- “Excellent music.”
- “I played Battle of Hastings - there were no bugs, it looked splendid, I liked the music, and it was easy to get underway and start playing.”
- “Soundtrack is good for a game with a few sound effects.”
- “It seems the devs invested as much money in the marketing (that voice-over narrator and music in the trailer... omg, so cheesy and comically contrasting with the quality of the game) as they did in the game itself.”
- “The sounds are almost exactly the same as before, except for the rally sound and the music, with only a few ambient sounds added.”
story
7 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
43%
14%
43%
While the gameplay is engaging and challenging, reviewers note that the story lacks depth and personality, which detracts from the overall experience. The tutorial missions serve more as basic introductions rather than immersive storytelling, leaving players wanting more narrative substance to elevate the game from good to great. Despite this, the medieval setting and variety of factions are appreciated, hinting at potential for future expansions.
- “Great game, just what I wanted! It's set in the medieval era, with plenty of factions to choose from, not to mention the epic historical missions and custom play and campaigns. I'm looking forward to DLC; well done, devs.”
- “I moved on to play the first two missions of a randomly generated campaign, and by the looks of it, the thrill will last.”
- “It's just missing an element of personality and story that would turn a good game into a great game.”
- “The tutorial is non-existent; it's just a mission with a bunch of small text thrown over it.”
- “I have only 8 hours at the time of writing this, and even if the thrill doesn't last, the fact is that just by completing the three tutorial missions on 2/6 difficulty, I already feel like I got my money's worth, and that is a rare thing.”
- “My army was massacred in the second tutorial mission because I underestimated the enemy.”
atmosphere
6 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
17%
33%
The game's atmosphere is praised for its realistic historical setting, appealing graphics, and immersive sound design, which collectively enhance the overall experience. Players appreciate the intuitive interface and the dynamic interactions during battles that contribute to a vibrant battlefield feel. However, some users feel that the game lacks a true "battlefield" atmosphere, despite its other strengths.
- “The overall atmosphere of the game is another high point for me.”
- “Tldr: yes it's realistic (but in a historical way rather than what you may expect), the graphics are pretty enough, the sound greatly adds to the atmosphere, and the interface is intuitive.”
- “It has a great atmosphere and setting, plenty of factions to choose from, and a deep tactical battle system.”
- “I got tired of Age of Empires and the toxic atmosphere that that game sometimes attracts, so I went looking for something new.”
- “I walked on Senlac Hill in reality and was much moved by the experience - there is absolutely no 'battlefield' atmosphere in the game.”
optimization
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
67%
The optimization of the game has received mixed feedback, with a perfect performance rating of 5/5, yet players criticize the lack of meaningful impact from battles, as enemy forces are not persistent and troop performance feels random. Additionally, the choices in themes and battles are deemed uninteresting, and unit movement is described as handicapped.
- “Performance: 5/5”
- “Your performance in battles matters very little, because the enemy force is also not persistent (unlike, for example, Ultimate General, where the enemy army’s size and quality is tracked across battles and is affected by the player’s actions).”
- “Troop performance is random, and the themes/battle choices are uninteresting, with units' movement being handicapped.”
- “Your performance in battles matters very little because the enemy force is also not persistent (unlike, for example, Ultimate General, where the enemy army’s size and quality is tracked across battles and is affected by the player’s actions).”
- “Troop performance is random, battle choices are uninteresting, and unit movement is handicapped.”
replayability
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
33%
100%
Players highlight the game's exceptional replayability, citing the variety of tools available, including historical battles, campaigns, and customizable scenarios. The inclusion of a sandbox campaign further enhances this aspect, offering nearly limitless opportunities for varied gameplay experiences.
- “The number of tools given to the player, who can choose between historical battles or campaigns, or even random or custom scenarios, renders the game almost infinitely replayable.”
- “The addition of a sandbox campaign will ensure endless replayability too.”
- “The game lacks meaningful choices, making it feel repetitive on subsequent playthroughs.”
- “Once you've completed the main story, there's little incentive to return.”
grinding
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players find the grinding aspect of the game to be slow and tedious, particularly criticizing the cumbersome process of assigning troops to leaders before battles. This repetitive task detracts from the overall experience, making it feel outdated and laborious.
- “Also, if they think PBEM is revolutionary, they need to get into 2020, not 1990. It's slow and tedious.”
- “Each leader 'commands' a portion of troops that you assign ad-hoc before each battle in a tedious process.”
humor
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The humor in the game is derived from its confusing mechanics, which some players find amusing, contributing to an overall lighthearted experience. Additionally, the game is characterized as a funny strategy game, suggesting that its comedic elements enhance the gameplay.
- “If I'm honest, I still don't fully understand the game and find some of the mechanics confusing and a bit funny.”
- “Funny strategy game!”
monetization
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
300%
Reviews indicate disappointment with the monetization strategy, as players expected a high-quality experience based on advertisements but found the game lacking in quality, reminiscent of early 2000s titles. This disconnect has led to frustration regarding the value for money.
- “The monetization model is incredibly aggressive, making it feel like the game is designed more for profit than for player enjoyment.”
- “I was disappointed to find that many features are locked behind paywalls, which ruins the overall experience.”
- “It feels like you can't progress without spending money, which is frustrating and discouraging for free-to-play users.”