How similar is this game to Templar Battleforce?

[drspendlove]

I've really, REALLY enjoyed Templar Battleforce. I'm less a fan of Star Traders: Frontiers. I think this is partly because it is early access, and partly because it is a very different genre. To that end, how similar is this game to Templar Battleforce in genre, gameplay etc but not story?

[fallen]

Heroes of Steel is the turn-based tactics game that came before Templar Battleforce. In terms of combat concepts, game mechanics, and head-to-head battle -- Heroes is the most similar game to BF in our catalog.

[Cory Trese]

Still, supporting Star Traders: Frontiers greatly increases the chances of us surviving to make BF2.

Just saying, if you want to see more Battleforce, buying STF and leaving a positive review isn't a bad idea.

[mushroom]

It's a very different feel. More long term and story-oriented. TBF is easier to jump in and out, HoS asks for a bit more concentration.

I totally recommend it!

[fallen]

Yeah, I think its notable that Heroes far exceeds TBF in unique story content.

[drspendlove]

I did buy Frontiers. I'll leave a review once I give it another go and have a positive experience. I was really hurting for a rich tutorial.

[fallen]

Thanks for the support! Hope you enjoy Heroes -- you'll find that it is a lot like TBF.

[slayernz]

drspendlove BF is an outstanding turn-based strategy, where planning and positioning are significantly more rewarding than an approach of leap-in, guns blazing. For me, the BF game (and it's predecessor, Templar Assault) remind me a lot of the old Rainbow Six game where you spent as much time planning out where your team would move as you did conducting the mission. I love the whole idea of strategic placement, heavy weapons laying suppressing fire, with scouts probing for the path of least resistance. TA is a great game, albeit missing the richness of character/team development paths.

That does, however, bring me back to your original question of BF vs HoS. They are both turn-based games, and both involve bringing a team on a journey. The key differences, as many have pointed out, is the rich RICH story line and open-scripting that makes HoS one of your instant-classic adventure RPG's. Some of the choices you make early and mid-game have dire consequences to the way the later portions play out. You still have an amazingly well structured character development structure, and so many different ways you can make each team member be critical to successful operations. There is, therefore, no "one build" that you must configure in order to be successful. I'd be more likely to compare HoS to Baldurs Gate than to, say Diablo.

Oh oh ... what else. HoS is of course set in a world with bows and swords and other sharp stabby stabby things. Having a heavy Neptune would be awesome (hint Cory and Andrew - think "cross-over" )
Also - when one team member dies, you fail. Also - your four characters in HoS are the same four right through. No switching characters out depending on the mission (again, Heavy Neptunes would be awesome in some of the sieges)

Overall, even though HoS is different, I think it would still be a great experience for you to play compared to say STF, or even CK. Try out the free version first (which gives you the prologue). By the end of the Prologue, I'd hope that you'd be hooked and want to buy all of the additional episodes and characters - but one thing at a time. As the Spice dealer says in the dark corner of the room. "Try it. You might like it. Go on, first hit is free"

[Cory Trese]

Feb 18, 2018 15:57:05 GMT -5 drspendlove said:

I was really hurting for a rich tutorial.

An in-game Tutorial is definitely not a priority, sorry.

[drspendlove]

No need to apologize!

[contributor]

A lot of the difference have been covered here. Despite being turn-based tactical combat from the same developers they are surprisingly different feeling. HoS combat comes in bursts as you wander through a series of maps whereas BF is constant combat on one map till you complete it. There are some differences in the mechanics, with the heat mechanic noticeably missing in HoS and some differences in how you spend your AP. The biggest difference, which has already been noted is the fact that you get 4 and only 4 characters and respeccing is much more limited than in BF where you can rearrange things every level within the constraints of the RP you've spent. HoS I think actually forces you to focus on team synergy more than BF does, because you have more limited characters. The characters are also very different from each other and you have to coordinate between them well. I find it easier to have team builds that completely fail in HoS than in BF. The combat in HoS feels somewhat less tactical than in BF. A lot of the combats can seem somewhat repetitive and enemy tactics and positioning aren't as varied as in TBF. So focus again is more on overall team build than on-the-ground tactics. There are still on the ground tactics to be sure, they are are just less developed than in TBF. A lot of them focus in working with range to draw enemies into your field of fire on their turn and not be overwhelmed by their archers.