Snooze

This seems right up the panels alley... Ultimate General for ipad and PC. Made by Nick Thomadis otherwise knows as Darth Vader, the guy that did all the Darthmods for the Total War games. The pics of UG look great. Devils in the details, I'd love the TMA crew to take a look at the game and see what they think. *edit* Just noticed its been Greenlit on Steam and sounds like release is not too far away. If TMA do talk to this fellow please ask why no Android release, as an Android gamer I do get tired of good releases passing me by and this looks like a game I would enjoy more on my tablet while cruising around rather than sitting at my PC. I'm getting sick of sitting at my PC

Congrats on episode 250! Here is hoping to 250 more

Just dropped in to another great show and keep it going strong in 2014

Galciv 3 has been announced. I've heard Paxton on Polycast, has he been on TMA before? My brain is saying he may have been but I'm not sure.... Ah yes! After a brief search episode 195: Fallen Enchantress with Derek Paxton. I must say I am interested. I hope that with Paxton involved the game will move away from its horrible economic system (tax slider that can be moved in increments of 1% each turn). I almost signed up for the Beta access. Maybe a podcast on it will sway me, you can even say that to Paxton to get him on the show

I think its mechanics are quite simple in that the maths for determining everything is pretty easy to understand. There are no complex equations as its generally a bunch of open d6 rolls to see who gets the higher score.

Great podcast. As a long time Dom3 player I really enjoyed hearing the developers talk about the game. I could see Tom pushing for a more in depth study of the game and they were not going for it, which of course is ok. I do feel there could be an in-depth study of the game, it has simple mechanics that combine to become complex in its execution. The nations are imbalanced but in the single player game thats ok because its like in in-built difficulty switch on top of whats already available. For multiplayer I'm sure the fans will create another CBM mod to balance it all out. A big change has been the way magic works due to increased research costs and more fleshed out early magic, especially for summons as now you can better dump magic gems into summoning units for an early game boost. Its subtle but its there. Lastly, I love Dominions 3 and 4 (versions I have played) because no other fantasy strategy game excels at creating unique nations and from that a rich game world. The clay and marble armies of MA Agartha vs the freespawn carrion creatures of MA Asphodel vs the freespawn undead hoards of Ermor vs the human bureaucracy of Tien Chi. And so much more. I've been gaming in one form or another for 30 years, the Dominions series is such an immersive gem achieved not through flashy graphics but great world lore design that seems to come around very rarely.

You still scored 80% on metacritic with Rome 2: HTML War

Veni, vidi, vici ipsum

Sry double post but.... Had to post this. In reply to the Wargame: AB cast I showed these two from the Good Game TV show, and held them up as what happens when non-strategy gamers review strategy games. Well now they have reviewed Total 2: Rome War (or whatever it calls itself) In short, they would have me purchasing this game in a heartbeat.

Just listened to the cast, yeah CA what have you done? I think there was a quote somewhere in the cast about a mish-mash of idea's masquerading as game design, great summery. I remember playing Medieval TW (the first iteration) and they had this great system where spears and pikes got bonuses if they remained in formation. This was great because you would be skimming around the battlefield glancing at your spears/pikes and if they were ordered you knew they were ok, if they were starting to look a jumble then you knew things were going bad and if they had enemy swords amongst them you knew they were stuffed. It was simple and worked visually really well. Then with Rome TW and Medieval 2 TW this was gone and I thought "this is a real step backwards". For me this marked the start of the simplification while increasing complexity (but not necessarily game design) on the strategic map. Oh CA! What have you done!

Very much looking forward to listening to this episode. CA for too long has had crap strategic level gameplay. This is the first Total War game I have completely disregarded buying at release and from what I have seen on the real reviewers I am justified. Not happy CA.....

Great show with a lot of enthusiasm. EU4 is a game thats easy to be enthusiastic about. I'm looking forward to people uploading their best and most interesting CK2 saves for general use.

Wheres the link for the 3 second game changing moment slowed down to run for eight minutes?

Ha!

I think you will find there is a whole class of players that love to kick an AI's ass in whatever game they play. I don't yet play on Diety level so I guess I am not competent at computer games....

Go back to it and take a look at the UI. Look at the planet screens. Its absolutely hideous compared to MoO2. It like playing a funky spreadsheet thats kicking you in the balls for trying.

Urgh, I actually meant to write Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes, not Fallen Heroes....

That is really sad. Civ V has nowhere near the quality mods that Civ IV has. I would have liked a successor to Fall from Heaven. Not Fallen Heroes as thats a different lore.

Hey, I thought it was a terrible review too I sometimes watch the show less for their review scores but more just because I'm interested in gaming and in many ways its entertaining. Their review of W:AB for anyone interested in strategy was very poor. I did like to their credit they tried to be positive about it because it is a game that warrents it. I think you review honestly but in doing so you make yourself an internet villian. To some you are a Robin Hood but to the most vocal it seems a villian. You also don't fit neatly into the percentage way of scoring and this also makes you a target when people try to relate your score in the percentage way. If you were a movie critic all this would be fine, its because your a game critic I believe for many people its not. Good luck with trying to change the internet....

This is very true when it comes to movie reviews, I suspect that gamers expect it to be different for games reviews.

The positive is that they could have trashed what is a good game and deprive Eugen of sales because they are utterly hopeless at it. Instead they aknowledged they were crap, didn't really understand the game and gave it an ok score for what they didn't get but was there. I did like that part of the review was on how in their online games they were told to die of disease. Were they reviewing the game or the insults? If so I'd only give the insults one star. It lacked originality and takes trolling nowhere.

I had to put this here, the local games show "Good Game" reviewed Wargame: Airland Battle. Given the previous discussion on review styles there is so much that could be said of their review, positive and negative.

I'm expecting Rome 2 to be visually exciting but due to the combat ultimately dull. Heavy infantry in centre, check. Cavalry on flanks, check. Skirmishers running around giving me headaches, check. I'm expecting a severe case of "been there, done that".

I have similar feelings about games these days. I can still get excited for new releases but am aware that often the experience does not live up to the hype. I'm not sure if this is because I am becoming a more discerning gamer or gaming itself is not what I'm as much into. If its the latter, believe me I am resisting the change

I agree, neither of us are wrong because ultimately its all subjective. A poor choice of words on my behalf. I put the last part in to show that despite showing how you do provide a positive discussion in an industry somewhat lacking in ethics (ie sites reviewing games that pay advertising giving generic 80-90% scores) I do disagree with what you say sometimes. Everyone is a critic, you just need to find a critic with similar tastes to you