ilitarist

This was hardcore episode all around. I've only played Stellaris a little but I already see 2 things that make this game very different from other Paradox game. 1) You are forced to roleplay. In CK and EU there was roleplay too, but it was somewhat problematic. Due to historical limits you couldn't be whatever you want (even with nation designer), due to mechanics you couldn't play fully historical things. It's also a first game after Victoria 2 with decent flavor text and pictures. I bet this roleplaying will make the game very popular. Even less strategy-oriented letsplayers try Stellaris for roleplaying reasons. As an example look at - famous for his Kill Everything and YOLO playthroughs of Fallout 3 and NV. This part is where I expect most expansions to go. More portraits, more events, more text reactions. 2) This game is more demanding of the player by being more casual. Paradoxically, I know, but hear me out. Rob mentioned you can't be Dutch and maybe that's what he meant but it's not quite suits the idea cause Dutch were pretty active. In other Paradox games you are often supposed to be passive. It is, after all, historical: many countries didn't have any significant developments for a long periods of time (this is probably why we are not getting Cold War game). Passiveness is even often forced on you, this is why you have cores, primitives unable to do anything, regency councils and so on. You can play reactively when you're not feeling like making Ulm the world power. Just start as Papal States and see how the game unfolds. No pressure. Not so in Stellaris. You can't be passive. All systems cry out for you to expand. You have to build new stations. You have to manage energy balance. You need more living space for your race. Doing nothing is not just sub-optimal, it's a clear mistake in Stellaris. Maybe it isn't so later in the game, but it creates a very different feel, and it's more challenging even if it's more casual, closer to traditional Civ/MoO game, even if it's a freedom player expects. I personally think this will rise some problems. This phase feels interesting for the first time but I wonder if the next time I'll become good at it and will know the order of doing things and how to deal with those flying crystals and world guardians. Events also may become uninteresting. I epect later for them to add "classic Paradox mode". So that you start with most of the galaxy being claimed and familiar. There are still unexplored places and unknown sides, but you instantly see balance of powers. They can also integrate existing relations, alliances or federations, give different techs to different races creating some interesting situations. Basically let them instantly drop you into a Star Trek Next Generation, not that prequel stuff.

Ah, I din't quite understand you don't want tactical battles. AoW3 differs from HoMM in tactical battle length and "smart" system of quickbattles - by default every battle game asks if you want to autoresolve it and tells you chances of winning. Unlike HoMM game doesn't feel empty when you pass most battles. Battles themselves tend to be quick unless it's a multi-army attack on some city - then it drags on. And it'd be hard to win if you haven't tried those troops in smaller battles. You may want to look at Warlock 2. It features empire building and "strategic" battles. Everything is fought on overworld map. If you seen Civilization 5 it's very similar idea, but the game has sort-of story mode (not quite a campaign but the enemy is strong but passive, throws various challenges at you and just waits for you to come), interesting spells (including terraforming - create mountains for tactical checkpoint or raise land from the sea to have more fertile land for your cities). If you've played old Panzer General/Fantasy General/Panzer Corps games then it's like this plus cities, spells and artifacts. I wouldn't say it's a great game but it's fun enough. Perhaps it'd suite your tastes better even though AoW3 is overally a better game. Then there's Endless Legend. Optional, quick and simple tactical battles - but it's certainly not a wargame. Like in Civilization, you can win without fighting any major war, some factions can easily do it without fighting at all. It's much more about empire building, diplomacy, research and so on.

I only played Warlords 4 and if you want something like it but better then you can't go wrong with Age of Wonders 3. Campaign is OK, but is artificially limited - you won't have many mechanics like item crafting or custom heroes there. There are nice scenarios and, most importantly, very powerful random map generator. I have to say maps look very beautiful. Endless Legend is a similar game with much bigger focus on economy and dimplomacy, but maps there are random mash of things; AoW3 creates worlds.

This snippet about the games that make you feel "there": we need more of this on PC. I can only name Europa Universalis as a game that tries to be both abstract and tell a story about real life even though it lacks flavor; other similar games are both less abstract and more focused on specifics. Civilization loses the feeling of real story when Antiquity passes by with no chance of anything interesting happening at the same time as you micromanage buildings and fights. Total War is even worse - thanks, Napoleon, but I don't think Waterloo was just 3000 people and 10 minutes. Wargames in generals play with toy soldiers and get away far from reality, deep into their complex systems. Boardgames make it feel real, even abstract eurogames.

Great episode, people. Age of Empires: yeah, I bought this remake when they asked couple of bucks for it. Played the game on release but I was like 12 back then. And it's horrible. You have to microcontrol citizens and click on freaking animals, rebuild farms. And historicity is worse than Total War. In Rise of Nations you at least have abstractions of armies, here it's a very specific army of sterotypes. AoE3 felt similar to me, but at least it had asynchronous races and is fun to explore, especially when in 2007 BigHuge Games added widescreen support there. Which still looks bad because of stretched UI and icons. Which was not a problem in Rise of Nations made several years earlier. I am, therefore, surprised by Troy's love for Age of Mythology. Isn't it the same game but with cerberus? Is campaign that much better? Rise of Legends: I think it's the best game I don't want to play. Aesthetics are just superb, they did interesting things with cities and campaigns, trading with neutrals... And shoved useless trendy stuff like heroes and micromanagement. I'll still buy it if they publish it on Steam, I'm sure you understand. Anno 2077: this is the game that convinced me never to buy anything on UPlay. "Ah, 64% of players dealt with this level faster than you", "Last month voting was won by this guy, 3 people voted for him", "Wait for 5 minutes till I load some crap through your glitchy old wi-fi". This is the case when pirating a game actually makes it better. Screw you, Ubisoft. Play Anno 1404 - basically the same game without all the crap.

I too started listening expecting discussion of games featuring Trotsky and Lenin. The only boardgames I've played are Carcassone and Munchkin which *are* party games. So this episode went way over my head. Over many other heads too, probably.

Civ4 allowed you to end turn almost at any moment. The exception was next tech/city production popup, but I think you could turn those off. Gameplay-wise Warlock was very different from Civ5. It was actually successor of Fantasy Wars (and standalone expansion Elven Legacy) series made by the same company, InoCo, back in 2007. Which itself was a spiritual successor of Fantasy General, which was Panzer General with elves. Look at screenshots, this game already had hexes, promotions and all that stuff later adopted by Civ. It was aimed at Russian audience so it was rather hardcore and similar to Heroes of Might and Magic. It had a lengthy difficult mission-based campaign. Warlock is more casual and lighthearted game, but it's basically Fantasy Wars with cities and spells (in Fantasy Wars heroes could cast global spells but they were unit on a battlefield so they could be killed unlike your character and Warlock). And cities work nothing like Civ. So really the only thing they snitched from Civ was UI and camera position.

Call to Power 2 is probably a reason why we don't have historical 4X anymore. Paradox will sooner or later try to pull something like this, I hope, and they'll have their own vision of history. Because Civilization has a very defined assumptions about history: it's about cities, defined nations, imperialism, scientific progress. Games like Rise of Nations have their own ideas - progress doesn't mean just science there at least - but remain mostly Civ-RTS. Even Soren's own Offworld Trade Company can be seen as a nice spin on 4X. Imagine it in a historical setting. Your nation is defined by resources, agressive actions are continuation of economy, research is a nice but ultimately not a necessary thing, you can absorb contenders without it. But I fear no one would take a game without armies clashing seriously.

Same here, was surprised no one brought up Colonization. It's limited in scope, handles Tall vs Wide nicely, is about familiar theme, asynchronous, endgame. It doesn't even need other nations to be entertaining so AI is less of a problem. It is actually similar to merging of Imperialism and Civ even though the first game appeared before Imperialism itself. Thumb Citizen, if you look at any 4X game forum you see the question "is this like Civ5?" There are guides "Civ5 player guide for this game", people compare everything to Civ5. It sold more than 10 millions IIRC and it's one of the most played games on PC. Kickstarter has nothing to do with 4X. It sponsored At the Gates which is not even out yet. But after Civ5 you so many franchises, new and old, having a new entries in many ways inspired by Civ5. I know hexes are old as dirt but don't tell me every 4X after 2010 has hexes just cause they remembered their roots. There's a clear and undeniable attempt to imitate Civ5 - not Civ4, not Civ in general, but visible superficial elements of Civ5 - in Warlock, Age of Wonders 3, Pandora, Endless Legend, Star Drive 2, Galactic Civilization 3.

Thinking again and again about Iron Man as a playstyle or difficulty level. Indeed, it often makes sense to play Iron Man only after you mastered the game itself. Some games practice it short sessions (like roguelikes). In some others it just makes sense to play Iron Man. Like Civilization or Europa Universalis. It is in some sense narrative experience too and you are not supposed to make right decisions every time. XCOM (and Total War) feel close to it and thus it feels like cheating to use save and load there. I can restart mission in an RTS/TBS campaign, nothing wrong with that, every mission asks me to become better till I can crack it. But those games (Civilization, XCOM) feel like a giant single mission. Hindsight is too important there. Reloading TW campaign knowing enemy army will arrive in specific province feels cheap. Though true - TW only offers Iron Man as max difficulty. Maybe it's how it should be.

Strange when this is wrong mentality. Strategy games are supposed to be strategic, about planning and doing the best you have with the hand you are dealt. And games like XCOM even have special instruments for when you are loosing. It's sad when games like this are not really supposed to be Iron Man. Something similar with Total War games: I don't think you are supposed to play them on Iron Man ever.

This game reminds me of my personal project. I imagined it'd be administrative wargame with you being some dictator's first minister. All you do is paperwork, approving or disapproving requests during the war. The goal was to balance winning the world, not being shot for disagreeing with dictator too much and not getting a revolution. In the end I couldn't find good enough model for managing war without moving stuff on the map and managing politics without adding Crusader Kings there. Couldn't make it a strategy game - it was either a solvable system, a random mess or overcomplicated mess going back to the usual wargame formula which was the opposite of the initial goal. In the end it worked like interactive fiction, text quest. So I wouldn't think that DCB would be a better game without personal control over appointed generals. You'd have to fill the hole left by absence of microcontrol. I don't even think it'd be easier. If generals themselves command units they'd need to add AI with personalized behavior mirroring commander traits. Not an easy thing to write, not an easy thing to balance. And you'd have to let player think he has some control, not just rests in the hands of AI.

Now that was a twist ending. Interesting insight into wargaming. Though I feel you could just start by reading those short rules section.

Looks like 3MA will have to return to XCOM soon. Everybody seems pissed by this episode. I myself haven't played XCOM2 and can't feel your pain. Here's an idea: how about XCOMEW Long War episode?

Funny how you guys mention Civilization 5 Brave New World multiple victory conditions as an example of additional content being important. Because BNW is a great example of additional content for content sake. And one of those unnecessary things not affecting anything and just being there is XCOM squad. It's an updated paratrooper unit, but it's so late in tech tree you won't see it in action unless this is your goal. No succesful strategy is ever concerned with existence of this unit. And there's other stuff as well, of course, like Archaelogy and other late-game prolonging stuff.

No, Transistor is an apocalyptic Sci-Fi, cyberpunk is dystopian sci-fi relatively close to our future. Transistor's world itself feels like a setting for cyberpunk with all this Matrix stuff. But by the time you are there it's all gone and left only as a reminder. If it's cyberpunk than Transformers movie is a historical drama - there are important events there happening a century ago.

Great episode. Cyberpunk is a tricky thing, especially as it so close to reality even when it was just conceived. Syndicate (2012, the action game) is not on Steam. And, big surprise, it didn't sell well. Screw you, EA. Screw you. And what were other two games, Austin?!

I have DoW2 but for some reason it looks ultra-ugly for me. I tried MP mode - the one were you select a single hero and give it couple of artifacts - and it looked incredebly boring and shallow. Back to the topic. It's interesting that guys mentioned the game looks plausible. RTS always destroy immersion by forcing you to organize economy and train new soldiers at the same time as the battle rages on. I can live with more abstract games like Rise of Nations. And this eternal strife for maximum skill cap, with microcontrol and build orders and all this stuff - RTS should have pity on us. I think Company of Heroes tries to both have a connection with the real world and doesn't want you to make hundreds of APM. Of course I really lose in StarCraft because of problems with macro (do not produce peons and expansion all the time, do not utilize resources etc) but it seems that the biggest trick in those games is fighting the interface intentionally constructed to make mundane obvious macro-things difficult and micro-things too attention-consuming.

What will Fraser have to do to remove this 7/10 staint from his reputation?

It's a sad thing this game still lacks something to make it Total War for those who actually like strategy games. Or AGEOD for those who don't read manuals. Also it's very hard to understand what is this game about from the show. Even if it is realtime or not. The fact there's one transient map with everything on it would be a Shyamalan twist if you try to see videos of the game after listening to the podcast. Frequent problem in 3MA actually, I'm often not quite sure what are those games about. Of course 3MA is more about deep analysis but intro overview wouldn't hurt, would it?

Very enlightening. Interesting characterization of an ancient warfare as battle of systems not unlike industrial era search for appliance of new techs. Bruce has described a problem we're all having with wargames. I have better things to do then remember all those tables essential for any planning. Even simplest wargames like Unity of Command insist on hiding results between arcane calculation. Meanwhile polite and transparent games like Wesnoth or Panzer Corps show you everything but have nothing to do with reality. Which is another problem you talk about. Where are the videos? Is there a link to Bruce's youtube?

Didn't listen to the podcast yet but what the hell is this title picture?

Martothir, nice post. I can relate to defining Total War as something between genres and larger than those genres. This approach explains why those games are not particularly good strategy games and or tactical games yet they are probably the most popular strategy or tactical games - maybe Civilization is more popular but I'm not sure. Funny how after 800 hours in EU4 you still remember your scepticism looking at this boring province map without any kind of "real" battles. AGEOD games are certainly closer to Paradox games than to Total War games. They're just more detailed and war-oriented. E.g. Rise of Prussia is all about 10 years in a middle of a 18th century. You know all the details like the guy in 5th batalion of Saxon cavalry division not heaving enough gunpowder and feeling bad about it. But once it gets to the fight you have to just wait and see the effect of your preparations, no player input involved. Same with all AGEOD games. If you want to get into Matrix published wargames then I can recommend Panzer Corps - it's a spiritual successor to classic Panzer General. Close enough abstraction of WW2. Still no detailed unit visuals and stats but puts you in command of more or less realistic troops and interesting tactical - not strategic - problems.

Heroes 7 weren't disastrous enough. It's a not very good game in a boring way. Like Babylon A.D., that movie with Vin Diesel you saw advertised in 2008 and hadn't thought about since till I've mentioned it. Heroes 6 were even worse IIRC and at that point some people still cared. Now they don't. And again about Attila - sadly Potemkin village is what Total War is for most of the people who pay for you to be able to play this monstrosity of a game with tons of content. And don't say you don't care about all those models, fancy graphics and music: you're here talking about how shallow and simplistic this game is instead of getting into some deep and original wargame published by Matrix Games with basic graphics and sounds.

Maybe that's your problem. I never got deep into TW even thouhh I liked those games. I know fans are the most picky about the games cause I saw what do most vocal and devoted fans of Paradox games say about specific people designing those games. Attila sounds like it breaks the formula. Like EU4 which is despised for mana yet is the best Paradox ever. Also I know how to fix TW games. Make autoresolve extra costly. Do not make it more convinient. In battles appetite comes in a process itself. And this is why those games are fun in tutorials and in the beginning when you can't just rewind the game. Autoresolve would work in a strategy game, not spectacle game.