If you are like me, coming from Total War and Paradox, you might be wondering whether this game is better than, say, Imperator Rome and/or Total War: Rome (1 or 2).

Well, sort of, but it depends.

Pro

- New ideas, new features, which is good especially if you got tired of EU4-CK2-Imperator mechanics.

- Economy system is beyond EU4, CK2 and Imperator, surprisingly. Not only food, but 300 buildings (!), distinct faction design and feeling, also a metal and "equipment" as important production resources. If you wish to compare it to PDX, it is sort of Stellaris/HOI4, in a way.

- Battles are great, if you own Field of Glory 2; if not, just buy the bundle that is cheaper than Imperator or any TW game at release. Those battles are not better than Total War, of course, but the system has its own depth and features meaning each faction feels distinct and it's more tactical than you might think (it is a wargaming table top system with uphill, forest, marshland etc. stats and buffs, you might know from TW). After a few hours in, I must confess that I probably had one of the best battles in recent years, and I'm playing TW since Shogun 1. Too bad the game dev was so greedy to not add it to this game which is a big let down to some players and requires extra explanations, indeed.

- At first, you might wonder if the Decadence mechanic is a good one. After a few hours in, I believe is pretty unique and better than anything PDX came put with to prevent the never ending big blob gameplay. You cannot blob without overextension, and you see empires fall and rise again which I've never seen before in a PDX game (except for CK2, perhaps).

Contra

- The graphics are from 2010.

- The UI, the user handling, some keyboard shortcuts need refinement, and this is true to Field of Glory 2 as well. A few things are counter-intuitive and not what you are used to from other grand strategy games. Like, unit building: Left mouse is unit details and right mouse click is add to queue? And not the opposite? (Edit: I think that the game devs got used to their own UI style forgetting that they are competing with common UI patterns established by bigger games and companies. Like, the unit info in Field of Glory 2. A big window in the middle of the screen with lots of text instead of some unit stats with cool icons?)

- The game aims for the stars but playing as a tribe can feel dull… conquer independent tribe province after province, until finally all land is colored? Imperator, EU4, even CK2 have at least some colonization and civilization mechanics in place to prevent that. (Edit: Though I admit that the Decadence mechanic adds trouble to. But each faction feels different which might interest you if you remember that Imperator generic faction design.)

- Diplomacy. It is all there but the UI, again, and the general way how it is handled is, well, maybe a little overcomplicated and less fun than, say, most PDX games or even TW: Rome 1? Like, peace negotations are just pressing the "Peace" button and hoping that they agree?

- Lack of tutorials. You need to read and to watch a lot until you are able to do basic stuff; and you might also need some re-runs until you finally understand the Decadence system and how important Food is at war, because important and cool features, actually, beyond TW: Atilla's food system, btw. So this whole tutorial part could have been done better, for sure, because once you get it, the gameplay is rather simple (I’ve read the, phew, 214 pages manual), and I believe it is a missed opportunity to attract Total War and Paradox players.

I sincerely hope they polish this game over the next 12 moths and listen to the community of new Total War and Paradox players. You should keep an eye on this here.

After playing from multiple parts of the world, trying very hard to enjoy this game, I have to admit it's not fun.

Field of Glory Empires presents itself like a board game rather than a computer game, with an interesting set of interdependent economic buildings and trade goods, and an interesting set of interlocking unit types for building armies that relate to ethnicity and terrain. And for a while, it's charming. The clunky interface and bad English add the the charm. You win some battles and feel justified, lose some battles and wonder how to do better.

Unfortunately, long-term play reveals that all of these elements are purely on a RNG system and some hard coded extremely strong advantages. Have an excellent unit composition? You'll still be routed quite often when battle dice dislike you. Don't like the buildings offered this turn? Roll the building dice and hope for better ones. This constant rolling of dice doesn't add a reasonable amount of uncertainty, it rules the game. When you suffer multiple bad dice rolls in a row, you can go from winning to extinction in one turn. It strongly encourages save-scumming, which for me is a big downer in any grand-strategy title.

The most frustrating part isn't even dice but extremely one-dimensional strategic play options. If you border someone, they will go to war with you. The game sets "objectives" just outside borders and the AI considers these sacred. They won't accept peace unless you wipe them out or (you guessed it) roll the dice on peace every turn while they are reduced to their capital. Every battle you win will give you a region, and having too many regions leads you to decadence and decay. But you can't decline the regions. You can't leave a war "simmering" on your border or face constant incursions that do significant damage without end. Appearing to be weak leads more neighbors to declare war on you, but winning too much leads your borders to touch more people which leads to more wars. In theory, you can "play tall" and win on prestige but I can't see any situation (exception Ireland maybe) where you are not deluged with wars by the stupid AI.

This game appears to be a grand strategy game, but it's extremely one-dimensional in the "strategy" layer, and completely RNG-reliant on the tactical and planning layer. I tried very hard to like it - I love the genre and the time period. I just can't.

Being a fan of the TW games (Rome/Rome2/Attila), and also an ex table-top wargamer, I first bought FOG2 to try out and liked the table-top style and more realistic'measured depiction of ancient battles.

I then bought Empires, which is a cracking strategy game in its own right, much more nuanced than TW and sometimes quite bewildering. It has some interesting mechanics within the game system - you guide your country from 310BC for 500 years, 1 turn is 1 year. The idea is to earn Legacy points and avoid Decadence points. This allows you to win even if you are defeated, as long as your country has left enough Legacy points behind.

Still on my first full campaign, playing as Macadonia which is one of the easiest factions apparently. I'm in 85BC now, and I am top of the Legacy board - my Legacy points are 2500 above Rome who is a close second. We are both Decadent Empires and things are starting to get flaky for Macedonia. I've avoided any wars with Rome so far, they have several breakaway userpers who have formed independent countries to deal with. I hold Macadonia and north to the Danube, with a foothold on the northern side; plus mainland Greece, Crete and the Agean islands, most of Asia Minor and Corcyra in the Ionian.

Lots of problems balancing manpower, metal, slaves, and keeping people happy. Just starting to get slave revolts and Hellenistic rebels trying to breakaway.

One thing that's great is that you have no control over who gets to lead the nation/faction. Leaders come and go and they have their own personalities and good and bad modifiers. I've had a few great ones (managed to get a 'Golden Age'), but some are terrible. There's no way you can get rid of them, just pray the bad ones get ill or assassinated!

Empires has it's own Battles system, with a clever 'frontage' mechanic. Depending on the terrain you are fighting in, the number of troops who can line up is limited. So in mountains, with a frontage of 5, a smaller army can defeat an invading army that is much larger, as long as you have enough of the right sort of troops.

You can opt to export a land battle that is not a siege into FOG2 if you also have that game. This is a great feature, and I do this for certain battles, but most I play out in Empires (it all depends on the exact circumstances).

You give orders evry turn to move armies/fleets, or build them, or begin constructing buildings in your regions, or send emissaries to other factions etc. The moves and diplomacy all take place simultaneousely for each faction.

Very clever game and much more detailed than TW. If you have played games like Crusader Kings 2 you will have an idea of what to expect, but thankfully this is not real time. You need to think carefully about every decision and do not expand too quickly.

Thankfully I have no external enemies at the moment, just putting down pesky rebels.

This is a very absorbing game but it is not for casual players.

Highly recommended.

I've clocked up more hours now., it's very addictive and absorbing. Had a couple of goes as Macedon, second time ended in an explosion of chaos. The Atigonids faction were well clear at the top of the legacy table, and various of my provinces started to defect. Naturally, I sent armies in to reclaim the lost territory. This carried on for a year turns, then lots of rebellions sprang up and I got the being in 8 wars at once acheivement for my troubles as Macedon imploaded!

Having a try as the Ptolemaic Egyptians now and have managed to get through more than a 100 turns without too much difficulty. I still haven't worked out how to build the lighthouse yet, I am being offered tier 3 structures like the circus but I wants a lighthouse!

Double recommendation for this game. If you are at all interested in the ancient world buy it.

I had played FoG2 previously and FoG Empires adds on a strategy level. The things I like about the game are exactly what you'd expect - ability to play as your nation of choice, the dynamic and evolving world around your nation, and integrated tactical battles. Unfortunately, I'm unable to recommend this game due to the following:
1. Random Selected Objectives - The objectives your leader chooses often make no sense. Strategically, capturing them would leave your exposed or they are islands where you have no fleet. Many stronger nations have declared war on you but your new objective is a nation you are cooperating with working towards an alliance. Taking regions that are not objectives gives major penalties damaging your culture and giving a lengthy period pacifying the region. Why won't your leader choose the last rebel region that will give you 100% control of the province?
2. Building Selection - The way building selection works is frustrating and irritating. I'm beset by enemies but I'm unable to build a palisade for defense because it hasn't been offered. Why not? It just makes no sense.
3. Gold Disappearing - You have what you think is plenty of gold. Great chunks of it just disappear. I now believe it's to refit units after battle. You don't have a choice to refit/rebuild. Your nation goes broke and you are unable to control it.
4. Supply for ships - You move to the next coastal sea region beside your owned region and you are out of supply. Sending troops by sea to invade or support an ally is problematic. Being out of supply hurts your units rapidly.
5. Sieging Fortifications - You spend 3 turns reducing the fortification level of a region. The fortification level reaches 0 and you notice that a neutral army that is an enemy of your enemy enters the province. Your begin the assault and end turn. After the AI turn you are booted from the province and it is given to the neutral AI player....
6. Clumsy UI for managing regions/provinces - The popup windows often cover the map you need to see. To manage things properly you are regularly swapping between popups, the main screen, and various summary screens. It's just not nicely setup to display the information needed.
I feel like I'm winning the things I can control but losing to the things I can't.
I'll have a break for a little while and possibly come back to try again in the future.

Highly recommended!

This game is a gem. Before getting started, I would advise new players to read the manual and watch the tutorial.

Field of Glory: Empires introduces a very unique decadence system, which will prevent players from expanding their empire carelessly. Combat is very fun. In fact, I liked it so much that I didn´t even find it necessary to buy FOG2. Empire management mechanics are great as well.

The game has a few rough edges here and there. That being said, I couldn´t find any cons apart from late game micromanagement. Continuously improving and polishing the current features and the AI is all that is required.

Because of its broad campaign strategic layer, the developers should also focus on improving the UI, tooltips, automated systems and general in-game information as much as they can. Reducing micromanagement a bit wouldn´t hurt either.

This is a fantastic game, with a fresh approach and a very original concept. And since it has a solid foundation, there is a lot of room for development in the long run.

I can´t wait to see what is coming next. Well done!

PS: After 70 hours playing this game, I have decided to write some more. All right, you know you love a game when you play it for 70 hours and already know you will eventually get to 1000 hours around the clock.

Although a mediocre player at best, I have played a lot of almost all strategy games affordable on steam: Paradox, Civilization, Total War, Dominions, Age of Wonders, etc. And yet I haven´t had this much of fun in a long time. This is perhaps one of the best strategy games ever made.

Field of Glory: Empires is a work of art, it´s absolutely unique!

Firstly, all features are meaningful, and they are all interrelated with each other. According to circumstances, all buildings, resources, units, commands and decisions may be important, and you will be frequently using them all. As a result, you will find yourself absorbed in empire management decisions every turn, carefully considering the possibilities and consequences.

Secondly, this is probably the only game I know of that will strike a perfect compromising balance between tall and wide play styles. If you desire, you can take your time and build up a handful of incredibly rich and powerful provinces. Buildings variety seems endless!

Finally, you should realize that your faction is competing for legacy with other major factions, and it will be up to you to decide how to expand your borders and make friends or enemies along the campaign.

Alliances cost time and resources but may prove crucial to your survival against an opportunistic AI. And you will also need them to get supplied, secure safe borders, share line of sight, trade regions, gold, manpower, metal, and so forth. You can´t simply stretch your borders inconsequently before building up your economy, military, culture, loyalty - or decadence, rebels and enemies may cut your plans short and destroy your empire.

Some regions are rich, well defended by one of the major factions and will be less rebellious once conquered, whereas others will be the opposite, and will require time to make them profitable, developed and quiet. Most importantly, you will need to assign troops there to quench rebellions and to possibly protect those borders from raiding parties, thus weakening the defenses at the other side of your territory. And if you do not develop cordial relations with the tribes you meet in your way, they will keep raiding and plundering until you develop cooperative relations, attack them, station troops locally or simply ignore it.

So where, when and who to attack? Who to ally? How fast to expand? Choices in the form of risk and dilemma will be many.

I could go on and on, but it will suffice to say that I am in love with Field of Glory: Empires. I started my first campaign skeptical, not knowing very well what I was doing or how it would evolve. It took me about 50 hours to realize how every little part of this game is a thing of genius!

AGEOD will have here a loyal fan for as long as they remain true to their concept and vision.

There are many more positive reviews than negative for this game, so I will just briefly talk about why I cannot recommend it.

The randomness of it, for starters. You can only choose from a small selection of buildings to build. Want a way to train cavalry? Too bad, you'll have to keep building military buildings until you finally get the option. Want to take a certain objective in a strategically important position? Too bad, your AI leader knows better and wants you to take that remote corner of the country all the way over there.

Then there's the UI, a masterclass in terrible design. Unlike games by Amplitude Studios, or even Paradox (despite their many faults, they know how to do a tooltip), FoG:E actively tries to hide information from you. Is your army starving to death? You'll never know unless you happen to mouse over the region they're standing in and notice the text is red instead of white. Will your army's path take them across a river? You'll never know unless you happen to see the bottom of seven or eight lines of an ugly text box!

The scant information in a tooltip isn't expanded either. Mouse over a region to discover the amount of food it has is 5(+2). So does it have five, or seven, or seven only in certain conditions? Who knows? But wait, there's a forage value of 3 too! So does it have five food, or seven, ten? Some combination thereof?

The other major failing is multiplayer, which is a shame because playing with AI is a depressingly empty experience due to the game's total lack of character. Multiplayer in FoG:E is spectacularly half-hearted. For starters it's PBEM through Slitherine's server, but they only bother to let you know there's a turn waiting about 33% of the time, forcing you to constantly log in just to see if you can play.

There is no thought given to allying with others whatsoever. Your ally will receive objectives requiring him to attack your territory (yes, really). You can't cede provinces to him (yes, really). You can't choose specific resources to send him, you can only give an arbitrary amount of gold (yes, really). It's one of the most frustrating experiences I've ever had with a PBEM game.

There are (plenty of) other flaws I could talk about but I think I've conveyed my point. I regret buying this game and I cannot in good conscience recommend it to others.

FOGE is my 2019 Game of the Year!

Now that I've played it single player and multiplayer and have logged 100+ hours, I cannot recommend this game highly enough.

Here's why I think I like it so much:

1. It it immersive. Your nations don't feel generic, nor your leaders or generals, or even citizens/slaves. German slaves are not Italic slaves! Some leaders are so bad that you pray for an "accidental" death and SOON! This reminds me of Crusader Kings 2 insofar as the "feel" of your people and personalities.

2. It is replayable. Play as Rome, the Britons, the Goths, Carthage, any of the Successor empires, Nubia, the eastern horse tribes, etc... and they ALL "feel" and play differently. Each culture/nation has a different series of events/buildings and economy. Plus, as you develop your infrasturcture, cool unique units and buildings emerge.

3. The AI is smart. It's aggressive and can be tuned up to be downright unbeatable.

4. The culture/decadence "macro-game" is brilliant. If you're used to simply expanding like some barbarian horde and painting the map your colour, prepare to be smacked down, and hard. Your nation will simply fall apart due to slave revolts, unrest, civil war etc... Managing the CD game is probably the thing that sets FOGE so far ahead of all other empire-building games.

5. The trade/economy mini-game within the game is also brilliant. First off, you can't just build and produce what you like. You start in Britain? Good luck getting dyes and perfumes! Learn to enjoy eating mutton. For Mediterranean trading empires like Carthage and Ptolemaic Egypt the world is your oyster commerce-wise. Trade for the very best of everything and open up a world of luxury and decadence that Nero and Caligula would feel at home in.

6. The game is stable. I have yet to see a crash to desktop and I run it on a near minimum spec computer.

7. The game is being actively developed. This is not a "fire and forget" title. Pocus/AGEOD are actively looking to make this gem of a game into the very best strategy game ever made. Unlike, Paradox, these content updates are absolutely free. I can see some paid DLC possibilities for this game/engine, but for now the base game just keeps getting better and better.

Anyone who has played Civilization-type games, Paradox games, and other empire building games will fall in love with this title right away.

My highest recommendation for all strategy gamers.

Once again, my 2019 Game of the Year by a mile.

This game is everything I hoped Imperator would be. In fact, it's the best strategy game since Victoria 2 in my opinion. The campaign map provides tons of strategic choices: from ensuring armies are supplied as they go on campaigns to optimizing building placement to grow your economy and population.

The system of trade goods rewards creating centers of industry (e.g. guiding metals to the same region to build a blacksmith, forge, and tool manufactory which all receive bonuses as a result). Trade is complex and rewards good decision-making and risk taking, but it's not at all annoying to micromanage because the actual flow of trade goods is automatic. Just like in the ancient world, individual rulers and governments didn't decide what shipped where, supply and demand and merchants did.

I've played some battles with Fields of Glory II, but I prefer just to use the FoG: Empires battle resolution. If you're a fan of FoG II, I'm sure you'll enjoy exporting battle to it. Otherwise, this game feels perfectly complete without exporting the battles.

Within the FoG: Empires game, army composition makes sense without being overly complicated. Different units fight better in different terrains, and a mix of infantry, skirmishers, and cavalry is usually best. Choices are meaningful without there being so many units it feels like you're just picking at random without knowing what will perform best.

The biggest difference from most other strategy games on the market nowadays is the feeling that just about every decision is important and might very well change the outcome of the game. There's no waiting for mana or micromanaging armies through tiny provinces. Instead, you launch campaigns and try to outmaneuver your enemy or force them to run out of supply. Big-picture decisions like whether to expand or focus on building up your culture and legacy are what determine the outcome of the game.

I really can't recommend this game enough. If you're into strategy gaming, this is one of the best!

Reading the manual and some reviews ahead of playing the game I was excited that I might've found a new grand strategy game I could sink countless hours into. But after 22 hours I'm starting to think that was a false hope. The game is just too simple and repetitive even after those hours.

Much of your time and strategy is dependent on pacifying and securing newly conquered provinces, and waiting for the right buildings to appear on the randomized "which of these available options would you want to build next" (with the option of wasting a turn of building time to have the lottery throw up another set of choices if none of those are useful in your situation). The empire-wide decisions that come up are repetitive and few in number as well, often also relatively useless and of little effect, and the same decisions with the same options come up quite frequently, and are rather dull, such as "exchange gold for metal or manpower". It just feels shallow and lacking any soul.

Army variety feels lacking and non-tactical with the limited amount of troops and differences between them, and with that the battles with the in-game resolve system feel lacking any real tactical depth, and with the Fields Of Glory 2 battle system seemed like a needlessly drawn out slugfests I really didn't care to waste my time in. Many hex-based battle games have done things better even back in the 90's.

After a while you notice you are just doing the same process over and over in the campaign map waiting for suitable buildings to get finished to add to your resources piles while keeping an eye on balancing the amounts of each stat so your cup doesn't tip over to some direction. And sadly in the end that's almost all there is to it. The "hunt for the victory points" in the legacy point leaderboard table against other nations really didn't do it for me when the actual managing and building of the empire itself was a choir instead of a joy. The only real somewhat original point in the whole game is the fact, that empires are build to fall, but this yo-yo act sort of makes the empire building itself a bit pointless, as the only real objective then becomes trying to optimize your victory point production throughout the game. And as I said earlier, grabbing up points in a leaderboard table just doesn't seem a very interesting objective to me in a grand strategy game. It's not motivating to fight and win epic wars if doing that actually ends up hurting you in the long run, or build a great empire if the only reason for building it is adding as many points as possible to a number on a chart before what you've built is gone...

Field of Glory:Empires is a good game and a great one when paired with Field of Glory II. I've owned the latter for over a year and have enjoyed it but it is spectacular now that stakes are involved. The purchase of this game is worth it just for the improvements to FoG2 as it really captures the ebb and flow of tactical battles during this era better than any game I've ever owned (including the Total War which IMO only becomes better for gunpowder era battles).

I could gush about FoG2 but this review is about the base Empires game and my feelings there are a little mixed. My initial impression was overwhelmingly positive but I wanted to play an entire game before fixing my opinion and I've found issues there the further you go into the game.

I had no issues graphics wise. It's pretty enough for this type of game. I do question some of the interface choices as figuring out certain mechanisms feels harder than it should be but it's no worse than a Paradox game. One of my biggest issues was self-inflicted as I have bad habit of preferring not to read manuals and the computer took advantage of my ignorance on many occasions. I expected this to happen which is why I chose Rome for my first play-through.

The basics of the game are simple. You own provinces that produce goods and you make choices how you want to expand each territory's economy. This isn't like Total War where you've got a limited set of choices but a randomized set of 5 choices each turn from a list of over 150. Raw materials are randomly scattered through the game at the game's start and that makes for different economic feel for every new game. Adding territory is very simple - declare war and move your troops. A battle will occur and expansion is easy at first as few territories have fortifications. My Rome took over most of Italy in 25 years.

This is where the issues began for me. The developers have added a region mechanic which is good in concept. You can control a regional group of provinces from a single screen but I've found it to be more frustrating than useful. The AI is supposed to control your economy but at present it is hit or miss forcing the player to manually administer every single province. Administering 4-5 provinces isn't bad and kind of fun. Administering 40 is an exercise in tedium. At the height of my Roman Empire I was spending a mind-numbing hour every turn choosing what to build. This is unacceptable when you consider the game is almost 500 turns long, I suspect they developers know this is an issue and will address it in a future patch but it forced me to drastic action in my play-through.

One thing I haven't mentioned is the tradition-decadence mechanic. Few empires in ancient history lasted more than a couple generations as most built up quick then disappeared as more ambitious neighbors invaded them for their wealth. FoG:E mimics this with a rise and fall mechanic with a series of stages. When I conquered Italy as Rome, my tradition soared but so did my decadence. The only way to fight it off is through certain building but it is impossible to hold off decadence forever. I held it off briefly by moving from a Republic to Empire then went on a Golden Age plunder of Cisalpine, Gaul, and Illyria. I did it partly because I'd gotten bored from administering provinces but also because Macedonia had started to dominate this area. We were the world's two superpowers and a battle of the ages seemed sure to happen.

The game is really won by legacy points and at this point, Macedonia had a decent lead. We shared a long border in the Balkans when the Macedonians surprised me with their offer of an alliance. I was surprised by the size of their armies so I accepted thinking I could take Carthage and come back when I was better prepared. I invaded Africa with two massive armies and quickly took the middle third of the continent. That's when the desert tribes started appearing like little mosquitoes biting me from every direction. I'd crush one when another would appear on the other side of my newly conquered land. I sent more legions hoping to crush them and pressed far into the desert when my legion heavy army I faced an army made up of only camel archers. I played it in FoG2 hoping to ensure the win but got a bitter lesson in why Crassus lost at Carrhae. Not one of my legion survived and that's when the 1st Roman Civil War started.

I think the Civil War mechanic also needs some work but I had a lot of fun fighting through it. The 1st war was easy to beat but by the end my decadence was so high my empire was doomed. I reinforced my lines and was deciding on my next act when the 2nd Civil War erupted. I could see it was going to be close and was making progress fighting off the three other claimants when the 3rd Civil War erupted. At this point I only had my Sicilian, Balkan and African territories left and my decision to ignore the legion making ability outside of Italy really destroyed any chance I had. In the end, I became Hannibal holed up in Carthage waiting for a doomstack to arrive and put my remaining soldiers out of their misery.

My game ended in 76BC with Macedonia winning with 20k legacy points and I finished 2nd with 12k. That is no hard achievement when you play as Rome and I suspect if I played again I could easily finish first but to me that's not the real point of the game. The point is to mimic the rise and fall of Empires and in that sense the game has created a great framework. At the end of my game, my Roman successor was considered 'fresh' and headed into the Balkans to face Macedonia who'd finally entered the Decadent Empire phase. Another Roman civil war rival had just taken most of Gaul and Northern Hispania. The eventual clash of these two Roman factions would have decided the fate of Europe.

I know this is a long review but I wanted to give some flavor so you know what to expect. There were times I wanted to throw my PC across the room due to my ignorance of game mechanics but that will get easier in time. There were times I was so bored I wanted to quit (which is why I expanded faster than I knew was smart) but I suspect the developers will make the middle part of the game easier to manage. They have made three patches since the game was released two weeks ago with a promise of more to come.

Even with my complaints I am very happy with my purchase of Field of Glory:Empires. My next playthrough will be something simpler and I love the fact I can focus on a different army type. I'm thinking Scythians or maybe Celts. The fact I can play these in FoG2 with a well proven ruleset is just a bonus. I'm already excited to give it another go but first I'm going to read the manual. It should make for a lot less frustration now that I know the basics.