riadsala

On a pendantic note, perhaps this is more of a 2X game? As, if they map is going to be uncovered by default, then there's not a lot of exploration going on. And it sounds like victory isn't linked to extermination. instead, we have adaptation, and, ... trying to think up another word beginning with a so I can be silly and suggest we call it an 2a2x game rather than a 4x game. Sorry, there's isn't really a point to this post. Just silly wordplay

So, Dominions 3 has come down in price significantly, and can be bought from Desura. is anybody interested in playing? Single player appears to be somewhat of a waste of time. But I've been involved in a couple of multiplayer games and they're good fun. In the word of Troy: "OK, let’s get one thing clear. A lot of people will not appreciate Dominions 3" And it boasts a manual written by Bruce Geryk. I assume he would only agree to do this if he judged the game to be 100% historically correct.

As long as you can avoid, well, the SMAC style factions. They work well in SMAC, and is part of what the game is about. But in general, I dislike designing factions/races around different victory conditions. Oh, this is the science race. Oh, this race is culture orientated. It's taking options away from the player and making the sides different, but one-dimensional. Also, I don't really like the underlying creationism/pre-destined approach, when traits and goals are designed and fixed. Far more interesting (to me personally) are games in which these system for faction-differentiation develop during the course of the game. For example, in the old Civ games, all factions started equally. But by the mid point of the game, they all had the potential to be very different from one another (certainly true for civs controlled by human players. less true for the AI controlled civs, but the potential is still there) depending on what had happened during the game. The strength of your side is influenced by in-game decisions rather than what side you select before you start playing. Which is why I agree with Sorbicol on SotS. Not my fav strat game by a long way, but some if the ideas to creating different races are fantastic. In fact, I would love to see a semi-offical SotS-mod for Endless Space. Just taking movement, which is usually a simple mechanic, creating really interesting differences

Was surprised to see Sins:Reb getting rated so highly in terms of strategy game of the year. I can't compare it to XCOM and Unity of Command, as (shockingly) I haven't played them yet, but I have played Sins:Reb. Sure, it's a great game. But it's a bit poor in terms of actual strategy, as the titans have really screwed up the balance. You just have to have a read in the official forums. In strategic terms, I found Rebellion to be a big step back from the previous versions of the game. That isn't to say building a titan and sending it out to lay waste to the alien scum isn't fun, but as we've learnt from Tom Chick, we're not allowed to use that word. Maybe Sins:Reb can be thought of as an action-strategy game, (in the same way that Skyrim is an action-rpg ). As, like Rob said, the main attraction is giant ships and bigger explosions.Endless Space is a much much better strategy game. It just isn't as approachable and spectacular.

Once you have those basics down, here's some stuff that's worth looking at: - shield generators over your command centres. - engineers - free roaming defender mode (and apply it to your engineers). default is "v + right click" - transports - useful to transport your fleet past a heavily defended enemy system that you don't want to capture - starships (press D twice to bring up menu I think). - mines.

You don't need 90% of those keyboard shortcuts, especially on a lower difficulty level. Stick the AI on 0 or 1, and you can play at your own speed and work out what to know. Useful keyboard shortcuts that I use are: tab - to get the galatic map B - build structures D - build ships. I think hitting D repeatedly will cycle through available docks around the current planet (so, normal ships and starships) S - science menu (if you have a science lab around current system?) O - select a scout around current system Ctrl-[comma] - select all military ships L - select half of current selection and that's about it really. Knowing more shortcuts is probably essential if you want to go head to head with the harder AIs,. but don't even think about that just now. Stick the AI on 1 or something. You'll end up board, as there's no challenge, but at least you'll know how the game works, so cna then move on up to a higher level. This is boardly what I do (from memory, haven't played in a while, so things might of changed, or I'm mis-remembering something. And I'm hardly a good player, etc etc etc) When the game loads: - press D. Start building the three main ship types, along with some scouts. You can set your build order to cycle indefinatly, so do that. - while you're waiting to build a fleet, sort out some defenses. Hit B and select the turret tabs. I mainly just use basic, MLRS and tractor turrets around wormholes, and place some sniper turrets around my command centre. You can ignore most the others for now. - you should now have some scout ships. Press O to select one, and then tab, to bring up the map, and then send it out. Try and scout all the neighbouring systems. You may need multiple scout ships for this. Don't worry if they get destroyed. - now you have to select which system to take. this is the meat of the game. but basically, select something that you can easily take (as an early failed attack can trigger fatal counterattacks). You get a lot of info when you mouse over scouted systems. Make a note of how many enemy ships are in each system, and their level. Do not take on anything with lots of high level ships or you will die. Also take a note of how many resources each system has, as there's no point pissing off the AI unless you're getting something in return. If the system has an advanced science centre, core fabricator, etc, then it's extra valuable. If there is a "core shield generator" then you will have to capture this system at some point (the shield gen can only be destroyed if you own the system, and you need to destroy it in order to bring down the shields on the AI's homeworld). - once you've selected your target, go to your home system, hit ctrl-[comma] to select all military ships, and send them to attack. destroy everything. Then build a coloniser at your homeworld (press B to bring up menu) - repeat - note: you don't need docks at every system - move science labs to new systems once they have "mined" all available knowledge at their current system. - every now and then, unlock better versions of your ships. - when there's an incoming AI attack, move some ships back to the threatened system. Remember that bombers > frigates > fighters > bombers. - experiment with the other stuff as you see fit.

So, the sequel to Elemental:WoM is now out. I'm reading mixed reports on the net: sounds like it's nowhere near as terrible as the first game, but still not much better than mediocre. Given that, since WoM, we've had a few excellent strat games (XCOM, Warlock, CK2), I get the impression that the crowd has moved on. Scanning the official forum, the first page is mainly bug report threads. I'm wondering if it's worth playing version 1.0, or it it will be a waste of my time. I still regret taking the time to play the "final" version of WoM. But then again, I'm a big fan of Fall from Heaven 2, so I'm hoping Kael managed to apply some of his magic to the game! Anybody here played it? Worth looking into, or should i stick with CivV (which I've only just started playing, thanks to a free steam key from Sorbicol!)

The Total War games can be quite relaxing if you're approach them in the right way. Indeed, quite often you have to be pretty patient while you wait for regiments to maneuver into position, etc. And CivIV:Colinization is pretty nice. A large part of the game is setting up trade routes, rather than fighting wars.

Hmm, not really. The game is a LOT less daunting than it looks. If you ignore nearly everything that isn't mentioned in the tutorial, and go up against the AI on a low setting, you'll still probably win. And when you come across things you don't know how to deal with, you can just look them up on the wiki. Or better yet, get through the tutorial, and find somebody on the forum to take you through a co-op game

Have been thinking about this.... I hope CA takes some lessons from Relic's approach (actually, the same approach as GW too). Don't try and put everything in the base game. Even if you ignore the strategic map, there's still a LOT of content to create if you want full fleshed out armies of all the main races. There's a lot more variety than in their historical games (in terms of needing more 3d models and animations: demons, dragons, and all the other monsters ). Plus you need a magic system that feels right and looks the part. Something like Dawn of War 1's approach... start with a fixed series of battles and some core races (Empire, orcs, elves, dwarves, skaven perhaps. I have a soft spot for Bretonnia too). something more like the old WFB games... sure, while it would be a "smaller" game than previous Total Wars, it would still be pretty epic). Then once you have a solid base, add in a big chaos expansion for all four chaos factions. Then you can think about adding in lizardmen and the other continent and some sort of strategic layer. The danger of course is that they try and build it all round charging for poxy DLC a bit too much. Relic (until recently) had a pretty good balance.

Some what of an exageration. There's been: 2004 DoW 2005 DoW Winter Assult 2006 DoW Dark Crusade 2006 CoH 2007 CoH Opposing Fronts 2009 CoH tales of Valour 2009 DoW 2 2010 DoW2 Chaos Rising 2011 DoW2 Retribution 2013 CoH2 (the 3rd DoW: expansion, Soulstorm wasn't developed by Relic). They made DoW + 2 expansions, then CoH + 2 expansions, and then did DoW2 and two expansions. Then returned to CoH2 which is due out soon. And before that, the studio made three Homeworld games. That was quite a long time ago, and it's not like they ditched the franchise. Some things come to a natural end. And, I think a lot of the devs left Relic for Ironclade and made Sins of a Solar Empire. I would like to see another Homeworld game. Actually,... I'd be happy with a copy of the old game. One of the few glaring omissions from gog's collection.

Another suggestion: Chess and Go. Or maybe broaden the topic to "traditional games." I've been thinking about this a bit lately, as i've been trying to get better at go. These games have been played, and studied for centuries, and people are still finding lots of interest in them... I'm sure you could find and invite some interesting people from the chess/go communities who'd be happy to spend a while talking about the attraction of the game, some basic concepts, and maybe what, if anything, computer strat games could or should learn from these games

Oh, and the game's wiki is excellent. At the very least, you should read this page before trying to play: http://www.arcengames.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=AI_War_-_Fast_Facts

+1 for checking out the demo. It's pretty huge and will give you an idea of what the game is like. Another idea is to try and organize a game with somebody friendly who can show you the ropes. I've only competed the one multi-player game, but it was a blast, with lots of joint planning, coming to each others rescue, etc.

My current verdict on the game: meh. I don't understand how/why the podcast was so favourable. I'm running my sov around, killing some monsters, and it just feels like filler. The tactical battles are utterly utterly pointless at this stage of the game as so few units are involved. Empire building is a bit dull. I get that specialising your cities is meant to be fun, but it also takes away a lot of player choice: once you've decided that town x is going to be a research heavy enclave, the you might as well switch on an ai governor and let him run the city. On my games, the monsters never attack me. I don't understand why. but it really kills the impression that the world is a dark and dangerous. Sure, I come across some "epic difficulty armies" now and then, but they don't do anything. They just sit on a tile waiting for me to, presumably, grow in strength and then eventually kill them. I'll maybe play a bit more once the game has been patched a bit, but for now, I think I'm going to stop wasting my time on it.

maaaaaan, now I want to go and plough more time into AI War. haven't played it in about a year, (and only have 49 hours racked up on Steam). Only listened to the first half of the show (will listen to the rest on the walk back from work tomorrow evening), but so far so good.

That's one of my fears about the game. Tactics and strategy rarely seem to mix well in games. They either have to be spectacular (Total War style games), or the main focus of the game (King's Bounty), otherwise, they just tend to make the game take ages. As (I think) Troy was trying to say, the battle is/should be decided before it starts if you're playing strategically well (see: most of history). Still, the first patch is out, so I'll give the game a whirl over the weekend.

A fun, if a little aimless, show. Rob Daviau is always a great guest (I'd love to hear him on the panel for a regular show, rather than just the board game centric ones.. I'm sure he has a lot of cross over insight). I have a dead pack of cards that could do would a proper send off... so i'm looking forward to the game rules! One note: I'm surprised you talked so little about miniatures. Maybe it's a UK/US thing, but over here, I imagine a lot of gamers are at least familiar with Games Workshop stuff. I think there's an interesting comparison between unit customisation in computer games (which 3MA are generally down on) and customizing/painting miniatures, which surely enhances the spectacle and personal attachment to your game! I've been on and off slowly (and poorly) painting my WotR minis... usually while listening to a podcast!

It would be nice to extend that idea and have an ed of year 4X wrap-up show. The genre seems to be a little more active than a few years ago, and while not everything has been a huge success we do have "the next generation" of 4Xs. CiV (with expansion), Ele:FE, Endless Space, SotS2, Distant Worlds (expansions are still coming out) etc. Another topic I'd like to hear discussed is seas and oceans. Not many games manage to make this interesting or even relevant. But sea trade (and hence, strong navies) have been hugely important throughout history. I know Troy or Rob have commented that the problem with navel battles is that there's no terrain. But is that really true, especially on a strategic level? I don't know much about the topic, but I got the impression that there are definite trade lanes where most the shipping takes place, due to currents and wind directions.

A much more enjoyable show (for me) than last weeks. Although I do agree with the above. It was a shame Bruce was so quiet... i usually like to hear what he thinks, but I got the impression that he was keeping quiet as he hadn't had much of a chance to play the game. The most interesting part of the discussion was Derek's comments near the start about the difference between FfH2 and Ele:FE. Would of been nice to have developed this a little. I wonder if the reason that some people dislike Ele:FE, is that they're approaching it as a strategy game, when in fact it perhaps has more in common with a sandbox game: it's a big toy box. Not only are there RPG mechanics, but the whole game works best if you role play it... filling in some of the gaps in the lore with your imagination and playing as a character, rather than trying to mixmax overarching, and then complain that the game is unbalanced and broken because you can beat it easily with a certain build. I think those imbalances are part of the design: Derek wants to let you play as an all conquering evil overlord if you want to. And of course that's going to be overpowered! Note: I haven't actually played the game... I'm waiting for the first patch But my enthusiasm for it is a lot higher after listening to Tom Chick rave about it.

Hello, I run a (very) laid back blood bowl league. And as Troy and Rob both joined in for the previous season, I guess that makes it the unofficial TMA league (although most of the existing players from the Guardian's Gamesblog) There will be a few openings for new coaches as we go into Season 4. I'm not sure exactly how many, as I first have to confirm all the existing teams, and then work out how many new spaces to add (the game is a little fussy about such things). At the moment we are three divisions of six teams. Rules: We usually play a round every month, sometimes more, sometimes less. There's no fixed schedule. But if you do join in, please try and get your matches played, rather than drop out half way through.. New teams generally start in the bottom division, and work their way up, with promotions and relegations at the end of every season. Although, as players sometimes dropout at the end of a season, these are never as neat as I'd like. 2minutes per turn - so take around an hour. No more than two teams per race: I played in another league and it was filled with orcs, chaos and dwarves. Which made it pretty boring. So I've introduced this rule to make sure that a wider selection of races are used. Yes, I know that some races are more powerful than others, but the division/league structure means that the stronger races (and coaches) will end up in the higher divisions, so it should all balance itself over time. please post below if you're interested. I should note: we're using the latest Cyanide version of the game

I'd say that most of it isn't strategy. A large part of a sport is physical fitness and technique. Sure, there's some strategy in sports. But that doesn't make sports strategy games. Using your implied definition, then doing to the super market counts as a strategy game, as there's clearly an optimum way to run up and down hte lanes, and hopefully spend as little as possible while obtaining the tastiest loot. But, i think you'd agree, unless you really really enjoy playing Devil's advocate, that going shopping is not a strategy game. This isn't to say I think LoL is dumb or anything. I assume it's just, if not more, as complex as something like TeamFortress 2 which I enjoy playing. But I wouldn't expect TF2 to be talked about as a strategy game. But, lets not have a big argument about definitions etc. It gets boring fast, and I'll just live with you having your opinion, and I can have mine

But unlike companies like Cyanide, they're not asking previous customers to pay again. And if the game turns out to be good, then $40 ain't a lot of money (see Dominions 3, etc) and if it turns out to be mediocre, then it will no doubt be in a deep discount sale soon enough. Seems that feelings around this game run high. But, if we can leave any thoughts about Brad aside, and forget about the previous game........ does anybody have anything constructive to say about this? Biz.. .how is the single player better then CivV? (I haven't played Warlock yet).

I agree exactly. Perhaps with the exception of SC2 (although maybe not) I view e-sports in a similar way as "real" sports, such as tennis, squash, boxing, etc. There's very little strategy in those games... most of it is down to perfecting physical skills, and knowing which shots to make when,and understanding your opponents strengths and weaknesses. And, I'm glad I'm not the only one who was completely lost with this show. The net result of it was it actually turned me off the idea of playing LoL, as what little of the conversation I did understand, seemed to be based around the idea that the game is very complicated and the developers have to constantly release patches to try and keep things roughly in balance.

Regarding Brad being a nasty person: if any of it is true, I really hope 3MA refrain from giving him more time on the podcast. As regards to the game... it would be a shame for Kael, and the others if the game flops because of their boss.