14 DAY TRIAL // 
It's hard for a real time strategy title from a little known studio in Hungary and a publisher which specializes in history accurate and complex game designs to make a real impact at this point in October, when the fall launch season is upon us gamers and reviewers and when Medal of Honor, the franchise reboot from Electronic Arts, is just a few days from launch.
So let's make this easy. Do you like medieval history, more specifically the period at the beginning of the Crusades, when the kings of Europe were interested in retaking the birth places of Christianity by any means necessary? Do you enjoy tactical combat where every unit has a counter and formations matter, but with a dash of fantasy seen in character abilities and the presence of a hero general? Do you enjoy a bit of a meta game thrown over the battles, not as complex as that of the Total War series, but allowing for customization, some financial management and a bit of factional politics?
If the answer to two of the above questions is a resounding “Yes” then read on to find out if Lionheart is a game that you might be interested in. If three “Yes” answers have been uttered buy this game right now and expect a lot of enjoyable hours. If there's a lonely “Yes” then as a gamer you are probably better off focusing on the big releases and wondering what's up with this game after the holiday season, if you have money and time left for a new gaming experience.
Lionheart: Kings' Crusade is easy to understand and play. There are two sides, the Crusaders, who are led by King Richard of England, and the Saracens led by Saladin. They both want to control the same areas and players can choose which faction to control although they do not directly compete on the strategic map.
The battles are similar to the Total War series of video games, with a variety of units that need to work together, sometimes using support from siege weapons and structures, to take out usually bigger enemy forces.
The one element of the battles that feels very original is the brutality of the clashes, with just a bit of lack of attention leading to whole units being wiped out, making follow up missions much harder and, sometimes, impossible. Even units that are successful in taking out their direct enemy often need to be retreated and kept out of the fight to make sure that they carry on to the next engagement.
Morale of individual units is also crucial in battles. It is not shared for a side, like in King Arthur, but the panic of one unit can easily spread to others, so creating a coherent battle line while fragmenting the forces of the enemy is crucial, especially given the numerical superiority that the opposing force has in pretty much all the missions.
This care for individual units, which is pretty much absent in Total War, is linked to the role playing aspects of Lionheart. On the Crusader side this means that there are four factions you can align to by performing objectives and missions, each with a set of bonuses that get better as the player gets more influence. I especially like the Teuton side but one's preference depends on play style. On the Saracen side the evolution is linked to three “wisdom” trees that can unlock new units or battlefields abilities and bonuses. The game is balanced so as not to allow all factions to be satisfied and all unlocks to be uncovered, meaning that there's a lot of replayability on offer.
Units themselves can gain upgrades and abilities as they gain levels and they also get traits depending on how they perform in battle. This creates a lot of attachment and leads to a clear sense of loss when they perish and new recruits need to be recruited with the clear knowledge that they will not get to the same level of expertise in the arts of war.
The role playing elements also come up in using relics, special abilities and in the fact that some enemies drop equipment which can enhance the skills of units. The entire system is built to allow for a lot of different play styles and customization. I personally went with a focus on heavy infantry when playing the Crusaders, opting to never give horses to Richard himself and giving everyone healers to minimize casualties after battles, with support offered by Crusader Archers and some light cavalry. When playing the Saracens I chose a mobile force, with a lot of light infantry and cavalry archers that can engage the Crusaders from afar and then retreat and hit the flanks or backs of units.
Arguably the Saracen campaign, although listed second and with developer commentary saying that it lacks tutorial and is generally harder, is the one I found easier to play, mostly because of the huge amounts of money received from conquest and the bonus that can be researched early on. But both sides are very interesting, although both could be more interesting with more choices linked to the actual regions that are conquered, allowing for a bit of development that can impact the late game.
Lionheart: Kings' Crusade is arguably a less interesting proposition than King Arthur, mostly because it drops complexity in favor of more focus on battles and on the units themselves. But for history lovers it's a perfect game to play through a few times in order to see how the Crusades can be won or lost.
