riadsala

I forgot to say earlier... I always thought the King Arthur RPG wargame had a decent campaign. It felt like it struck a good balance between allowing for player freedom and strategy, and also having a structured narrative. I never did play it to the end though, so I can't tell you how the late mid-game and endgame play, but I really liked how the tutorial was built into the opening part of the campaign, and how the map, and the complexity, opened up as you pushed east from Cornwall. Surely a muli-player Blood Bowl league deserves a special mention? And Risk Legacy!

I'm guessing the main reason is arranging a panel who have played the mod enough. It is a little opaque and requires quite a bit of work before you understand how it all works. I think I know a suitable guest they could ask.... this thread reminds me I really have to return to the Total War series at some point (and XCOM2!)

Gotcha. So you're calling DoW1 and Wargame:EE normal campaigns, and DoW1:Dark Crusade and Wagame:ALB meta? I think the comment about length was pretty on the money. A little shorter and more replayable

Interesting episode, but I'm a little confused by what you mean by 'meta'. it sounds like you're talking about normal campaigns? Fraser's " Rob, I kind of think maybe you're just playing really badly " comment re XCOM made me laugh [and, I think I agree, isn't it standard practise to always include new rookies once you unlock the larger squad sizes? But I STILL haven't completed XCOM 1 or 2 on classic ironman, so clearly I'm doing something wrong myself ]

Yes, I agree completely. Given the nature of XCOM (1 & 2), I'm only really interested in what people think of ironman classic mode (which I confess, I still haven't got around to completing, as that's when the game is at its best. And also when the strength of the design is really pushed. Although, of course, this isn't an ironfast rule, as I really liked the show on Aurora, despite Michael clearly still being new to the game. I'd love a follow up episode. Did he ever play any more?

Thanks for replying, as it's nice to know I'm not the only one! And perhaps you're right that reviews inherently don't play to a podcast's strengths? I feel a little bad being negative about free podcast, but one of the reasons why I haven't yet joined the patreon is I feel there are too many episodes that I only to out of habit. Listening to people moan about bugs just isn't that interesting or insightful. The types of 3ma show that I think are the best are usually (as you suggest) the ones on Paradox games, which I assume reflects the panel's tastes, (rather than directives from overlord Troy!). But personally, I'm not a huge fan of Paradox (I enjoy Ck2 and have over 100 hours logged, but that's about it). I'd love to hear some other non-paradox games receive that type of insightful discussion.

I enjoyed listening to this show, but have two gripes. They're along the usual things I moan about, and I suspect the problem is simply that I want the podcast to be something that it no longer is (or perhaps never was!). First, my favourite episodes of the podcast are when the panel are talking about a game they really know and have had time to explore. And more importantly, they're talking about a game that has had time to mature and settled after launch.(ie, when they discuss a class game, or revist a game a couple of years after release). I find the review shows really mediocre and they're not doing anything I can't find elsewhere (I can just go read Fraser's excellent review if I like! And a quick search on forums or twitter will give me a good idea how how buggy the games is). So I'd much rather hear the panel discuss new games a few months after launch, when the big bugs have been fixed, and the more obvious balances patches have been made. This also gives the panel (possibly) more time to play so they can discuss the game in more depth. With most strategy games, I feel like they only really come together when you increase the difficulty a little (especially for 4Xs and COM). Please don't take this as moan... I really would like to hear you guys discuss the game, and not the bugs. Perhaps that's just me though, as I have so many games that I never really buy anything at release anyway. Secondly, how come you still haven't worked out if Endless Legend has any depth to it or not? I find it strange that a specialist strategy podcast still hasn't made up its mind about one of the most important 4X games in recent time. Shouldn't you have an opinion by now? I'd love to hear it. Perhaps this type of critical analysis is more Bruce and Troy's strength? [My own opinion is that it has very little depth. I enjoy playing it, it's a game I really like, but a lot of it feels like it reduces to following a present strategy for the faction you're currently playing to mixmax all the numbers in a set way. Again, this doesn't mean it's not a good game (I like it!) but I don't rate it as a strategy game, to me it's more of a fun toy with pretty colours. And after listening to the ES2 episode, I've gone back to play it again, as pretty colours are nice!] Again, I hope this doesn't feel like too much complaining.

I never said it wasn't, or shouldn't be. I just said I was wondering what systems people thought were more accurate reflections of how we think things worked.

That's surely going to make for a weird stand alone map? Although maybe the lore has changed enough since i played in the 90s that there's a sensible chunk of map that they can use.

Good episode. One thing I would be interested in is a discussion of how realistic the battle model is. Obviously, no fun/commercial game is going to be all that realistic, but what do we think of M2TW? I ask, as I've recently returned to the old King Arthur game which is quite similar to M2TW in many ways. An interesting quirk of that game is that archers appear to be incredibly powerful, so much so that there is a toggle in the games options to weaken them. It got me thinking about these things should be balanced.

Any idea what the 3rd game might be?

I'm guessing most people have already seen this in the news. http://www.deepmind.com/alpha-go.html A little sad to see the human brain lose to the machine, but i've done enough with in computer science to know that it was only a matter of time. The good news for us is that there's now no excuse for crap AI in strategy games Making it "fun" to play against is another challenge,, but at least the days of terrible AI in Civ, TW, etc, should (should) be numbered.

I'm kind of sad to see actually. It reinforces the feeling I've had of more and more people turning to these tools while playing online. It could just be that I'm terrible at online play, but I've always found it odd that I'm closing in on 4kyu based on real board, competitive games, yet am stuck on 6-10kyu (depending on the server) while playing online. Lot of people using database search and josekipedia in the openning, and path analysis to cheat reading (that certainly happens on OGS, as I've asked opponents about it before). I wish I had a local club to play real games. I guess I should make the effort to go to London one evening

note, I'm not actual dan level yet! On KGS, I bounce around 5/6 kyu. I've managed to beat a 4kyu in a competitive game (1hour clock time each). And while in Australia, nearly managed a win against a 3dan who suggested I was sandbagging. My play is too inconsistent to get up to 1dan on the net servers just now. I feel like I often get ahead in the first half of the game, and then stop concentrating! I first discovered the game around 2002! But I only made an effort to learn how to play properly around 2010 I suppose. And being a full time researcher, I only have a limited amount of free time to spend studying the game properly. I hear it's quite possible to go form 30kyu to 1 dan in a year. Probably easier if you're younger though!

That's great! I really need to get into the habit of reviewing games and working a bit harder. I can play quite close to shodan on a good day, but I'm very inconsistent and often make stupid mistakes.

My top tip is to not spend too long watching videos at this stage. The way dan players play is only good if you have the reading knowledge (and other things) to back it up. There's a a great saying for beginners: "lose your first 50games as quickly as possible" (ie, don't other think things at this stage, just play and you'll start to recognise patterns). Good luck, and enjoy. If you'd ever like a game reviewed, let me know

Really disappointing. I liked the topic, but didn't think the show was anything over than chatting about your game over a beer after playing. It was clear that neither of you had really grasped the strategy for either side (and why would you if it's your first ever time playing?). It was pretty frustrating to hear you both asking the same questions as i was - how does it pay on the 2nd and 3rd time through, how much depth does it actually have? - without offering much in the way of answers. It's like if you did a show on Civ in which you had only ever played one game, on settler difficulty. Also, I'm surprised that Rob didn't make more comparisons to War of the Ring. I would have liked to hear how it think it compares. Is it as good? Does it take more time, less time? Is it worth buying if I already have WotR?

Does anybody else find the treatment of the subject matter distasteful? I can't work out exactly what causes me to think this way here. I guess larger scale strategy games just feel a little more respectful of the history, in that they're generally pitched as a more serious game, and less as "fun" and "exciting." World War 1 FPS Sandbox Funtime just feels wrong to me for whatever reason.

I would happily listen to a whole podcast series of Michael figuring out Aurora. A Let's Play in podcast form. It could be up there with the Idle Thumbs CK2 Stream

Hello people I thought I'd share a recent In Our Time from BBC Radio 4, as it covers the Baltic Crusades. Not an topic I knew much about - it was interesting to learn more about the real world history that inspired CK2.

I was thinking the same thing. I suspect the answer is "no." [Which isn't to say it isn't a fun game/toy to play around with]. I think the faction design pushes the game into optimization strategies (this is how I break the game economy with this faction) which don't interact all too much on the map. So while each faction presents a different puzzle, and provides some replayability, any one faction isn't all that re-playable. I think my personal preference is for the opposite design... all factions start the same, and then diverge due to choices in tech and the influence of the map, interactions with other factions etc. Still, it's a fun game, from an interesting studio. Endless Legend was good, and a breath of fresh air into a tired genre, but I think (hope!) that the studio are capable of much more! Imagine a game that captured the character and flair or Legend, with a really solid strategy game design to last the ages. I look forward to replaying some Endless Legend myself soon!

PS. I forgot to say I'd also happily listen to a Bridge episode. Would be really interesting to hear a new players views after learning the game for a month or something. I'm sure some of the Idle Thumbs guys were chatting about Bridge a few months back too, perhaps you could do a joint show? That would be a lot of fun Actually, you should do another show with some of the Thumbs folk anyway.

+1 for quality over quantity. There are more than enough podcasts out there, so I'm never short of anything to listen to. Did you guys ever play that co-op game of AI War? You know, while I'm not a fan of watching streams/youtubes of computer games (I'd rather just play a game myself!), that would be one I'd be interested in watching. Sad to see the AI War 2 kickstarter fail. I think I'll return to the first game over the holidays and play it a bit more. Certainly a classic, and it would be great to see a remake/sequel that tidies it up a bit

I really enjoyed this episode. And as always, Michael is an excellent host/panelist.

Thought I should drop by to leave a comment, as the last episode (arcen) asked for feedback... I enjoyed this episode, but I wouldn't like to see the format being used too often (once or twice a year perhaps) as there are plenty of other podcasts that already cover this format.