Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Has anyone bought this game yet? I'm thinking about it. Is it good? I was also wondering about the campaigns. What are they like?

I like it, however I have found unlike Warcraft you tend to always have your back against the wall I never seem to have enough time to build up my army no matter how much planning before the Dunedan, Elves, Goblins, Uruks etc seem to get bored and come and find me.

I dunno. It seems if you keep pushing the attack (best as Goblins or Mordor) you can take down Brutal pretty quickly. It actually makes you have to think of better tactics and come up with better plans in order to prevail. The first one lacked that ability. You seem to be forced to think of a way to crush your enemy. That's what I love about it.

Sounds lovely. Are the campaigns like the first one where you follow the story plot?

Yeah, there is a story about Gloin and Glorfindel doing alot of stuff, like destroying that evil castle, what's it aclled again? Well anyway, that and some about the evil guys as well...

The campaign is ok, but not really that good. I enjoyed the level where you fought Drogoth though....

So it's not like the first one? (the campaigns)

Originally posted by Council#13
So it's not like the first one? (the campaigns)

No not really. You fight in the War in the North and go to places like Rivendell, the Blue Mountains, Erebor, and Dol Guldor. It's pretty fun. It goes by levels 1 after another unlike the first one.

Wow, that sounds great

Originally posted by Council#13
Wow, that sounds great

An expansion pack is coming out sometime around the winter months to add in the fraction of Angmar (and maybe another good fraction) plus new units and heroes for the other six. It allows you to play the forces of the Witch-king.

You're kidding me! Oh that is frickin' sweet!

I really disliked the second one compared to the first. It really went under my expectations...

The first one was brilliant, according to me. The building spots made it very tactical, you had to take some at the right moment, and the game went on much smoother and funnier. To have a wall around your base at the beginning was a life saver, it was great. I really loved the unusual way of playing it, it was so unlike every other strategy game I've played.

In the second one, they have taken that away, and they've made it so that you can build wherever you want, and I don't like that. It is a completly different game from the other one. Before it was unique, now it is like every other game, except I think this one handles the base worse than others. The buildings need to be so far apart for you to get enough resources, so you can't protect your whole base. You don't actually fight armies head on, you just run around and destroy buildings, the enemy usually runs beside you to your base...
The buildings are so weak, that if one battalion strikes at a building, and the enemys battalion attacks your battalion, your gonna have time to destroy the building before they kill you. It's to easy, it makes the gameplay boring...

The Hero system has changed to, and it is much worse. Before the powers felt usable, unique and good. Now, they don't...
Aragorn and Glorfindel has the same attack, except that Glorfindels has another name and icon for the Blademaster ability.
Elrond has the healing Aragorn has, but a little worse. (LOL!)
Arwen has flood, which also is one of the main special attacks in the game. (With the even star points).
There are to many even star points or ring points as well. There are like 100 to gather, you get to many abilities. I mean, COMON, what can defend against a Balrog, a Dragon, an army, and a meteor strike and an water protecter at the same time?????


The game is to hard to control, you can't enjoy the matches, you only focus on how to win them all the time. There is no enjoyment of building armies, cause you don't fight the others, the only thing you counter is, "Is this unit faster than the other? Can he destroy a building quick? Is it cheap and is created fast?".

And the fact that you won't ever have time to build a wall, and it's not even worth doing so...

This is, of course, my opinion. But I though the first game was so much better...

Just wanted to get that off my back..

Originally posted by kamikz
I really disliked the second one compared to the first. It really went under my expectations...

The first one was brilliant, according to me. The building spots made it very tactical, you had to take some at the right moment, and the game went on much smoother and funnier. To have a wall around your base at the beginning was a life saver, it was great. I really loved the unusual way of playing it, it was so unlike every other strategy game I've played.

In the second one, they have taken that away, and they've made it so that you can build wherever you want, and I don't like that. It is a completly different game from the other one. Before it was unique, now it is like every other game, except I think this one handles the base worse than others. The buildings need to be so far apart for you to get enough resources, so you can't protect your whole base. You don't actually fight armies head on, you just run around and destroy buildings, the enemy usually runs beside you to your base...
The buildings are so weak, that if one battalion strikes at a building, and the enemys battalion attacks your battalion, your gonna have time to destroy the building before they kill you. It's to easy, it makes the gameplay boring...

The Hero system has changed to, and it is much worse. Before the powers felt usable, unique and good. Now, they don't...
Aragorn and Glorfindel has the same attack, except that Glorfindels has another name and icon for the Blademaster ability.
Elrond has the healing Aragorn has, but a little worse. (LOL!)
Arwen has flood, which also is one of the main special attacks in the game. (With the even star points).
There are to many even star points or ring points as well. There are like 100 to gather, you get to many abilities. I mean, COMON, what can defend against a Balrog, a Dragon, an army, and a meteor strike and an water protecter at the same time?????


The game is to hard to control, you can't enjoy the matches, you only focus on how to win them all the time. There is no enjoyment of building armies, cause you don't fight the others, the only thing you counter is, "Is this unit faster than the other? Can he destroy a building quick? Is it cheap and is created fast?".

And the fact that you won't ever have time to build a wall, and it's not even worth doing so...

This is, of course, my opinion. But I though the first game was so much better...

Just wanted to get that off my back..

You missed some points that I found I didn't like in BFME1 and 2.

1:
It really didn't seem fair that Mordor and Isengard got weak and pathetic towers while Gondor and Rohan had powerful walls. Not to mention with Mordor all upgrades you got was fire arrows and you needed the entire map to get enough resources to destroy your opponent. Isengard was okay because for some reason when I'm Isengard I never had a problem with resources.

What I also didn't like were some vs. games where someone would be Gondor and you would be Isengard/Mordor and they will make Gandalf send him out crush your forces and flee behind the wall and repeat building up points and making Gandalf stronger. Mordor felt weak compared to the other forces.

And the 200 and 400 command limit really meant (mostly as Isengard and Mordor) you couldn't make an army capable of defeating the enemy fortress as well. You have to sit back and try to get the Balrog for that was the only hope but at that time the Army of the Dead would come around.

2:
Wall building is useless. Any unit can now attack the wall and they whip it out in a matter of seconds. And the goblins can scale walls who are already the faster soldier on the field and have poison swords. Does that sound fair? The enemy just needs to build 2-4 caves and start sending wave after wave of goblins at you and they're wasting little resources and you're wasting everything to defend and pretty soon you got Drogoth and Mountain Giants to worry about.

Plus some people want to have small fortresses and I mean come on; you have to put farms so far apart it's not even funny. You can get like 100,000 command points total but with the distance you need to put the farms and such the highest I ever went to was in the low 2,000s.

Again Mordor has no upgrades for their orc soldiers but the goblins do. That doesn't seem fair. Plus the Mumakil in the first one was a force to fear now they're a joke.

You can't even have archers on the walls to defend them either so you might as well forget wall building at all. The structures are all pathetic. It takes a minute to build up a barracks but yet it takes half a group of goblins twenty seconds to bring it down.


Overall I like both games and still play them both. The second one requires more thinking and understanding of the map to win while the first one had more tactics to it. I like the second one more because with the first all you had to do was play Gondor to win any battle.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
You missed some points that I found I didn't like in BFME1 and 2.

1:
It really didn't seem fair that Mordor and Isengard got weak and pathetic towers while Gondor and Rohan had powerful walls. Not to mention with Mordor all upgrades you got was fire arrows and you needed the entire map to get enough resources to destroy your opponent. Isengard was okay because for some reason when I'm Isengard I never had a problem with resources.

What I also didn't like were some vs. games where someone would be Gondor and you would be Isengard/Mordor and they will make Gandalf send him out crush your forces and flee behind the wall and repeat building up points and making Gandalf stronger. Mordor felt weak compared to the other forces.

And the 200 and 400 command limit really meant (mostly as Isengard and Mordor) you couldn't make an army capable of defeating the enemy fortress as well. You have to sit back and try to get the Balrog for that was the only hope but at that time the Army of the Dead would come around.

2:
Wall building is useless. Any unit can now attack the wall and they whip it out in a matter of seconds. And the goblins can scale walls who are already the faster soldier on the field and have poison swords. Does that sound fair? The enemy just needs to build 2-4 caves and start sending wave after wave of goblins at you and they're wasting little resources and you're wasting everything to defend and pretty soon you got Drogoth and Mountain Giants to worry about.

Plus some people want to have small fortresses and I mean come on; you have to put farms so far apart it's not even funny. You can get like 100,000 command points total but with the distance you need to put the farms and such the highest I ever went to was in the low 2,000s.

Again Mordor has no upgrades for their orc soldiers but the goblins do. That doesn't seem fair. Plus the Mumakil in the first one was a force to fear now they're a joke.

You can't even have archers on the walls to defend them either so you might as well forget wall building at all. The structures are all pathetic. It takes a minute to build up a barracks but yet it takes half a group of goblins twenty seconds to bring it down.


Overall I like both games and still play them both. The second one requires more thinking and understanding of the map to win while the first one had more tactics to it. I like the second one more because with the first all you had to do was play Gondor to win any battle.




In the first, Mordor was OVERPOWERED. They did not have a hard time, unless the player was bad. They got map control like no one else did, and if you had mumakil, drum trolls, orcs, haradrim, darkness and the eye of Saruon, Nothing, and I really mean NOTHING, can stop you...
Gandalf is not that good in a multiplayer game. If he faces Lurtz he gets nailed to the ground, surrounded and dies. If he faces Mordor, he can be clubbed down by almost any unit that surrounds him. He neeeds to be level 10 to be even worth going alone...

Don't get me wrong, there are thing's I don't like about the 1 one as well, but Mordor is actually THE best team in the game, according to the pros and most players out there. In the second, they're the worst team in the game.

Agreed with the second though...

Originally posted by kamikz
In the first, Mordor was OVERPOWERED. They did not have a hard time, unless the player was bad. They got map control like no one else did, and if you had mumakil, drum trolls, orcs, haradrim, darkness and the eye of Saruon, Nothing, and I really mean NOTHING, can stop you...
Gandalf is not that good in a multiplayer game. If he faces Lurtz he gets nailed to the ground, surrounded and dies. If he faces Mordor, he can be clubbed down by almost any unit that surrounds him. He neeeds to be level 10 to be even worth going alone...

Don't get me wrong, there are thing's I don't like about the 1 one as well, but Mordor is actually THE best team in the game, according to the pros and most players out there. In the second, they're the worst team in the game.

Agreed with the second though...

Man someone plays as Gondor and gets the stonework and has nothing but farms and just sends Gandalf for some hit and run missions you won't get catapults in place to do anything. The orcs take too long to make and they are weak (but free which is good).

I was best as Mordor in 1 (and 2 for that matter) but playing against Rohan was useless with fully upgrades elves.

Just tell me, can you be Saruman? If so im getting it!!

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Man someone plays as Gondor and gets the stonework and has nothing but farms and just sends Gandalf for some hit and run missions you won't get catapults in place to do anything. The orcs take too long to make and they are weak (but free which is good).

I was best as Mordor in 1 (and 2 for that matter) but playing against Rohan was useless with fully upgrades elves.


Lol. It's weird. All the pros think that Rohan is the worst and Mordor is the best in the first, you think otherwise. Not saying that you are wrong, cause it is your opinion, but people who play this around the clock, and are top players, think that Rohan is the worst and Mordor is the best... (And as far as I've played, Gandalf isen't enough to take down a more than decent player).


This post was not meant to be offensive, sorry if it came out wrong.

Originally posted by Rampant ox
Just tell me, can you be Saruman? If so im getting it!!

Yeah with Isengard. In 2 he gets a Lv. 10 ability where he summons lighting from the clouds to strike his enemies (not as good as Gandalf's Word of Power or Lighting Strike from the fortress) but he's pretty good.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I use to play BFME1 none stop for a few months and then played it a lot after that until BFME2 came out. I always saw Mordor as the worse and Rohan as one of the best with fully upgraded elves. I mean they're reach makes them impossible to get close to.

In BFME 2, Sauron is probably better than Gandalf. He has more health and damage at least...


Well there are around 100 people that also are pros and does not share that opinion. What they say are... "Bowmen sucks (which they do)". All you need with Mordor is to spam orcs and have map control, then build the larger things and win. The enemy won't come outside before you have the big guns. Your resources will evolve twice as fast as theirs, and your orcs will keep them from attacking your base. Mordor was overpowered in the first one, Rohan was considered the worst, cause they had nothing to counter pikemen, and their heroes was easily killed by armys. (As all Heroes are...) And many has said this, and I'll say this once again... Gandalf does not save a game, at least not until he is Gandalf the white at level 10.

Elves aren't just archers but also swordsmen. They can switch between the two and hide in the trees plus with all the upgrades they get they can easily fend off a large army of orcs.

Gandalf is good for hit and runs. Runs over to a group of orcs, wizard blast, runs off. Gets to lv.5 and becomes mounted he can stop all catapults.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Yeah with Isengard. In 2 he gets a Lv. 10 ability where he summons lighting from the clouds to strike his enemies (not as good as Gandalf's Word of Power or Lighting Strike from the fortress) but he's pretty good.


Im off to the shop now...

Cool. If you can get online play I want to play you

My name is Zodiac53

But give me a while so I can get used to the game and tactics and everything else first...

Originally posted by Rampant ox
But give me a while so I can get used to the game and tactics and everything else first...

Or we can play and I can give you pointers. Either or works for me.

Lol, ill see if I can get in the weekend. Then give me a chance to actually play it (Im a busy guy!) and then ill pm when im ready to give you the thrashing of your life. You will finally experience the unrivalled wrath of Saruman the White!!

I never bought it, i don have much money. Freeking school takes it all. But my roomate just bought it and so far its been a tad to eazy for us. Does anyone else have that problem?

No, not really. I'm usually Mordor and I just send wave after wave of orc at the enemy.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Elves aren't just archers but also swordsmen. They can switch between the two and hide in the trees plus with all the upgrades they get they can easily fend off a large army of orcs.

Gandalf is good for hit and runs. Runs over to a group of orcs, wizard blast, runs off. Gets to lv.5 and becomes mounted he can stop all catapults.


Then they have to spend their first battalions on archers. They will lose all chance of map control and will barley get out from their walls. By the time Mordor or Isengard gets siege, they are dead, they cannot stop it.
And there are alot that archers cannot stop. They can easily be overrun by opponents...


Gandalf can't run in singlehandedly to rush down catapults, if he does, there will no doubt be 3 battalions of fire archers who shoots at him, and a wall of orcs to slow him down. No chance he is gonna get through...

If Gandalf is going to do that against Isengard, he is so truly ****ed. He can't ride through several battalions with pikemen, they'll kill him in no time at all. Archers will fire as well. And Lurtz could just nail him to the ground. Game, set and match..


These are really our opinions, if you like the others best then you've probably found some tactic you really liked, or played more or something like that, so it's just really our opinions...