Procyon Lotor

Of all the hobbies in the world, and all the different genres of games, why are strategy games your hobby and your obsession? Why do you prefer specific types of strategy games (i.e. 4x, wargames, RTS)? Have those reasons changed over the years? I ask this question because it's one I've been pondering a lot recently. I've always felt a bit guilty about my love of strategy games. I feel like I'd probably be a better person if I was into fishing or something. I should drink less, eat better, exercise more, and game less. Convince me otherwise?

Following your link, it actually says that no one value can be higher than the other two together. I was dismayed when I read your description, but what it actually says doesn't sound that unreasonable.

I've been playing as France, and I'm now almost to the end of the 16th century. - I love the new fort system. Geography matters, and choosing when and where to build, mothball, or destroy forts are important decisions whose consequences will be felt. The map is no longer a featureless plain. - I'm going to hold off on judging the new province development system until I try to play a "tall" empire. My France is definitely not tall. - I too have experienced repeated manpower crises. Seriously, what happened to manpower? - France's start is DEFINITELY more challenging now. Incorporating Provence et. al. is a much trickier process. Rob was right - they pursue an aggressive and independent foreign policy. Burgundy is a beast to begin with, but they can get cut down to size if they lose their PU/vassals. - I don't find the core game experience to be that much different. To me, it is still primarily a game of diplomacy. Wars are often still one before the first shot is fired, but they can still be very (delightfully) unpredictable. (See, e.g., Arumba's playthrough as England, I think in episode 14 or 15, when makes a successful high-risk assault on Paris, and ends up gaining a province in a war that should have cost him the Continent).

Heck yes! Time to mow the lawn so I can listen to this.

Like someone said, the player's historical knowledge is the crucial problem here. The difference between reality and game is that in reality the Western powers hoped that they would not HAVE to go to war with Germany, while in the game the player knows it's going to happen, and thus has an unchecked incentive to speed up the onset of the war. In essence, the incentive in the game is the exact opposite of the real world incentive. It sounds like the current game mechanic that addresses this - global tension - doesn't work. It certainly SOUNDS unsatisfying - instead of putting you in the position of a real allied leader, who genuinely wants to avoid war, you are instead like a rabid dog straining on a leash, just waiting for it to snap so you can tear the Axis to pieces. Sometimes we talk about historical accuracy, but I think what that ought to mean for a game is that it gives you a sense that you are confronting the same dilemmas that historical leaders did. (As opposed to a definition of accuracy that is concerned with whether the game accurately simulates a particular weapon, has the correct OOB, etc.) By this definition of historical accuracy, the global tension mechanic looks like a failure. Since it also sounds like it's a pretty critical feature, then it sounds like a pretty critical failure.

I should say that my thought would be to end the game in 1960, so more of a "first half of the 20th century" game. Perhaps I just expect too much from HoI because it is a Paraodox game. We are so used to the free-form madness of CK2 and EU4 that we want a similar universe of possiblities from HoI. Instead, it sounds like what we get is a diplomatic game of timing (hold off the war if you are Axis, speed it up if you are Allies) that transitions to a rather complicated wargame. That design could certainly work if implemented right, but I can't see it having a lot of replayability.

I challenge you to name a good WW2 Grand Strategy game. The Axis and Allies board game? There ARE lots of good WW2 games, but they are all about a single battle or campaign. The more WW2 games try to encompass the entire war, and the lead-up into the war, the weaker they get. Because (and I recognize that this is blasphemy) WW2 does not make for an interesting grand strategy game. Panzeh, I think the game you are describing is a wargame. And to be fair, perhaps all HoI really wants to be is a wargame. If so, fair enough, and in that case your idea is better than mine. But it sounds like it also wants to be something more. It also sounds like the panel wants it to be something more. I too want it to be something more. PREDICTION: There will be a DLC that rolls the clock back to before WWI. It will be the 7th DLC. It will cost $14.99, and for an additional $4,99 you can get the Belgian Unit Pack. And it will all be awesome.

My .02 - they need to roll the start date back to 1900, and make HoI the 20th century version of their series of Grand Strategy Games. Many of the complaints that the panel had were a result of the very narrow time frame, which makes really interesting deviations from historical reality either silly, or uninteresting binary results (i.e. Germany wins instead of losing). Go back to 1900! Britain has no allies and is hostile to Russia. Will it still join the Entente? The USA is still a puppy, albeit a puppy with big paws. In the far east the Russo-Japanese war is on the horizon, with huge implications for both countries. What a MUCH more interesting time period to start from! What a MUCH greater range of potential "historish" results! EU4, a game about renaissance Europe wisely starts its Grand Campaign from 1444, right at the very end of the medieval period. HoI, if retooled to be a game about the 20th century, would be wise to begin at the twilight of the 19th century. What most people (well, Americans like me) don't realize is that WWI is vastly more interesting than WW2. I could write about 500 pages explaining why. WWI is much more ripe for a grand strategy game than WW2. The more I think about it, the more excited/agitated I get about the possiblity of HoI starting in 1900. What a great game that could be!

I agree with Troy's take on it.

Listening to the podcast now, and you just addressed the question regarding 90's game nostalgia, and whether there is something untapped from that era. I think you guys missed the "correct" answer to that question,at least as far as 4x games are concerned. Go back and play Masters of Orion and Imperialism II. What you will notice is that the games manage to get enormous strategic depth out of rather simple mechanics. Compare that to the 4x games of the last 10 years. The newer games tend to simply pile on more and more mechanics and features. While I like these games, there is something beautiful about playing MOO and Imperialism II, which are almost chess-like in comparison. My .02.

WW1 is a much more interesting war than WW2. (gasp!) The reason it isn't "gamed" as much is that it doesn't loom nearly as large in popular (American) culture. In WW2, the Bad Guys were winning, until they inevitably ran out of steam. Then the Good Guys were winning. Until the end. WW1 was actually MUCH more dynamic and tense (despite it's reputation for stalemate). The balance of powers, balance of resources, opening new fronts, closing old ones, etc. The Germans were winning as late as the summer of 1918! The really good WWI games (Commander: The Great War and Strategic Command: WWI) do a great job capturing these things.

The Sleepwalkers is an absolutely amazing book. I read it a few months ago. It REALLY drills down into the causes, chains-of-events, and personalities that led to the war. I hope you enjoy it!

Bought this on a steam sale, first time I've played a game from this series. I HIGHLY recommend it. I am not a big RTS guy, but I'm hopelessly hooked on this game. I recommend the 200 page steam guide mentioned in the podcast.

Great episode

Sorry, I'm back and willing to play. I'm getting crushed at work, so give me a couple of days to get signed in!

What Jim_NSD said. "Magic Hills" are very situation dependent, and that situation changes over time, and changes depending on the decisions of both armies. Sometimes the the importance of a particular location isn't made clear until subsequent events play out. Sometimes commanders choose the wrong "magic hill". As a gamer, I suppose it's just something you need to digest and accept. Still, goofy "magic hills" do tend to leave a sour taste in your mouth.

Pandora! PANDORA! I was talking about Pandora!

I revisited this game after the recent 3MA podcast. It really is a brilliant game. I'd even say that, as far as mechanics go, this is one of the best 4x games ever made. The only thing that keeps this game from ascending to the ranks of All Time Greats is the lameness of the factions.

There are no wrong answers, man. Do what you think is best.

We'll claim First Alliance!

CORRECTION: Thanks to the weather, I'm now available this weekend.

Holy crap. I just listened to the episode. That was a little brutal. It would be interesting to get the panel back together and revisit the game now that it's been released.

That all sounds great to me, EXCEPT that I'm going to be out of town this weekend. I should be back Sunday night, and I can definitely do what needs to be done Monday.

Congrats on 250! I can't say I've listed to ALL the episodes, but I've listened to more than 90% of them. Thanks for all your work!

This says it perfectly. SMAC wasn't just "Civ in Space." It was a very specific story, set on a very specific planet with very specific characters. If you change any of that, you lose the strange essence of SMAC. SMAC wasn't just specific -- it was unique. Most sci-fi games draw from the same well of tropes. Those that don't tend to require you to learn WAY to much obnoxious lore. SMAC got around this by starting simple and familiar, and gradually drawing you in to the strange world that was Alpha Centauri. I've played some Pandora, and it's a decent 4x game. But it lacks the magic of SMAC. When I played SMAC, I felt like I could imagine every detail of Planet. With Pandora, I don't really care to imagine every detail. The story is just not that engaging.