Snooze

Such an interesting show because it evokes discussion on review theory. I saw Tom's score on Quarter to 3 and was very surprised. And then I saw his review score breakdown (1 star = I hated it) and it got me thinking of two different types of review and reader expectation of reviews. One reviewer will review the product largely in isolation except possibly for basic reflections on graphics and gameplay. Example, RTS's these days allow the setting of groups so if a new RTS didn't have this it would be remarked upon given its pretty much the standard. A downside of this style is that game polish can heavily skew the reviews score while substance/evolution don't. The big reviewers largely fit into this catagory, eg IGN and Gamespot. Another reviewer talks about how they found the game as an experience. This idea of experience can be based on almost anything (eg., context or fun) and thus equal examples are Tom's review of CoH2 or any Tom, Dick or Harry doing a user review on Metacritic. A negative of this is fanboi response. I think people expect professional reviewers to be more like the former (and hope they don't have the negative aspects of this style) than the latter. But in this they miss the advantages that the second style of review can bring. I like Toms reviews, he must be regarded by some in the industry as an asshole (I'm sure some of the feedback he gets is done by companies paid to talk up games online in the context of "the average person") but then he does back up his scores with opinion. And as an example, Toms score of Civ V (vanilla) = "C". He is one of four reviewers out of seventy that gave it less than 80% and lo and behold he was spot on as most players agree upon. Polycast certainly do And for the record, I believe 2 stars for Brave New World is wrong, I'd give it by his scoring 4 stars. Early game lack of gold thus poor rushes needs to be patched but it rounds out Civ V well.

Dominions 4 has been announced I would love to have the game developers on 3MA. I remember listening to an episode on Dominions 3 some time ago, the game has a cult following years after its release and Dominions 4 promise of reducing micromanagement could be the key to having it accepted in a wider audience. Its the only game that I have consistantly played for the past 5 years and it definitely deserves a show pre-release show.

Two epic long web comics: Order of the Stick: The kickstarter that raised $1.2 million to reprint some of OotS's books. Nuff said..... Currently at panel 891 and everyone worth reading for an epic adventure. Starts by poking fun at D&D rules and then the story begins. The Noob Comic: My favorite. A comic take on MMORPG's. Updates SLOWLY but is at panel 433 and is also worth reading all the way through (which I have done a couple of times). I'm waiting to see what the PKer's with accidently given admin powers will do.... Brilliant.

Two noteworthy exceptions (I believe) so far, and their contribution to 4x in space. Space Empires series: This series emphasised "everything including the kitchen sink" and to be honest thats what made it great, especially as if you didn't like something in the game it was very easy to simply disable (mines anyone?). If I could I would combine the ui and turn based battles of 4 (ui because ui in 5 is crap) with the feel and extra tech options (level 3 scanners? Ha! I just developed level 4 stealth and now have invisible satellites in all your systems ). Space Empires shows why ship customisation is fun, IMHO its the best example of it as it really has effects on both the individual ship level but also at the fleet composition level. You need all the combat ships roles filled, plus support ships in the same fleet like repair ships, ram scoop ships and construction ships. I am surprised it was not mentioned. Stars!: Some great concepts I have not seen elsewhere. The detection system was fantastic. I cant remember what they were called but the mineral cannons you could build to shoot mineral packets across space and be caught by a receiving cannon. If the enemy does not have as good mineral cannon tech as you then shoot mineral packets at his planets like interspace artillery. BOOM!. A real unique 4x experience and again I'm surprised it was not mentioned. Great show.

Listening to this makes me excited abut EU4. It sounds like they have tweaked all the things about EU3 that didn't gel with me. Bring it on!

Technically I'm not so much defending him rather the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Fair enough to you, he does say some things that make him look pretty bad, but if you read my posts I have basically said he appears to have bad interpersonal skills needed to be a good CEO. I still don't see anything you have posted to show to me that he knowingly initiated sexual harassment with Alexandra. And the knowingly part is important because it really defines if he truely deserves the flaming he's getting (it should be a wake up call) and either way it shouldn't reflect on the rest of his staff hence the success or otherwise of the game. But I know it will. Note I have never said he should not receive consequences for his actions but rather questioned their severity. Another side of it is that he does come off as a rich, "do whatever I want" type which will not endear him to anyone. Comes off as a spoilt child. I'm not going to let that cloud my judgement over the sexual harassment allegations, which is ultimately what people are raging about, I'll wait to see what happens in the courts and possibly online from current or past employees. I kinda feel like I am being made to pick a side, attack or defend him. I feel like the internet loves to rage and the internet loves a villian. All I've been saying is we don't know whats going on and so judgement should be reserved. *sry double post*

Its a tough call how exactly to place FE. Nations are built like in Master of Orion 2 and Sovereigns similarly. Some builds are just OP while others are very meh. There is a unique way cities grow and level up that Civ IV, AoW and MoM don't have. The single tile you found the city on determines the basic food, production and number of magic spell cast on it a city can have. Greater buildings boost the level of food and production. Cities are specialised to basically troop production, mana/research boosting or money, but saying that there is a bit more to it. Each time a city levels up you choose a perk from a list of three. Armies range from 4-9 units in a stack, you start with a maximum of 4 but can research more slots up to the maximum of 9. You design units and this is a big strength of the game. If you have access to metal you can make better weapons/armor. If you have access to crystal you can equip magic type items (flaming axes anyone?). If you have no access you have pretty basic troops. On top of this you can give a designed unit up to three perks but they add to production time. You can summon beasties but this part of the game is currently very limited compared to say AoW, or at least it feels that way. Fights are somewhat basic but not hugely more than say MoM or AoW. I've seen people go on about how bad FE's battles are and then talk about AoW as having brilliantly crafted battles but really they are not that different. It feels different perhaps because most troops and humanoid in different weapons/armors and visually look similar. It doesn't bother me. I think this part of the game will get some attention from the devs because everyone says its just not yet right. Heroes (or in this case Champions) gain xp and level up allowing you to pick one perk from a list of five . At level 4 you choose the profession and your champions niche is in a particular area. Champions use the gold you have accumulated to buy anything you have researched (flaming axes?). Or you loot stuff and use that. Champions can do quests, go there and kill everything quests usually. The world itself is done well. Cities can only be founded in certain spots. Different resources are dotted around the map to be encompassed in your domain and utilised. There are areas called wildlands where when you move into the first time in a game you get a little story about it and they look different to the basic terrains. One is a swamp, another an overrun forest, there is a desolate wasteland kinda one and more. These areas have things needed to be done to make the land viable for building on, exploring all the caves or killing everything. These are unique to this game and I particularly like them, I hope they get a further fleshing out. Thats the basics of it but how does it play? Comparing it with MoM, Civ IV and AoW I'd say its most like MoM and Civ. While your cities and producing things instead of just hitting "end turn" your champions are always doing something, at least for the early-mid game. Killing the equilavent of barbarian camps to stop spawning, doing quests for loot and xp, becoming elite warriors, mages or govenors (yeah but who wants a govenor as they currently play?). The AI I'm usually stomping on the max level before it gets bonuses, excluding terrible starts, but its still fun. I had the original but basically gave up on it after launch, it sucked. It was so bad I never tried it again despite the patches. This game doesn't suck. If you don't get it now then definitely get it after a few patches and the modding has matured, its getting around an 8 out of 10 now and it will only get better.

What I'm saying is that we don't know what happened. The parties agree on some events but have different opinions on how they played out and on other things they disagree (for example she said he has touched her hair and persons, he says he never touched her anywhere). I am also saying that from a lack of knowing what went on flaming him on forums really is not warranted. Until a Stardock employee, past or present, comes out and says "yes Brad did this to me too" or "I saw it happen and Alexandra is correct" then there is simply too much unknown to flame the guy and ruin a game on which not just him but a number of employees are banking on. I'm saying I want better from the forums I go to. I avoid some forums I used to frequent because they are so negative, even before they touched upon this subject. I like listening to TMA and so come to these forums, I like Fallen Enchantress and would like to see it do well and it sucks that people are dissing the game because so far unsubstantiated allegations have been made against one person out of a team of many. I don't like the c-word but am a realist and know its insomewhat everyday use. I have pointed out other perceptions of it. And as a realist I recognise that sexual harassment is a thing of opinion, so while Brad Wardell may have been a jerk, a dick and in my opinon frankly an exceedingly poor human resource focused CEO, he may never have intended to be sexually harassing somebody. Doesn't mean that he should not suffer consequences, but doesn't mean he should get the wrath of the internet trashing him and destroying a company he happens to head upon which many people get their income from either. We don't know enough to do this. Lastly he could be exceeding guilty of a crime worthy of a huge payout, I aknowledge this and having been the victim of workplace bullying before I can somewhat understand what Alexandra may be feeling, for me its years later and I'm still angry. But at the date this post was written, I simply don't know and so can't realistically comment either way.

There are zero posts on the internet trying to understand the woman and her feelings. Zero. All the posts are about how we should hate Brad Wardell and that again touches upon my point. Anyway if you do check this Gormongous, I'm over this too. I never meant to attribute the c-word to you so sorry if it came off that way, I will stand by my my opinion on it and we can agree to disagree. And if you do like TBS 4x strategy you should check the game out, it is good and we can probably conclude that some nice people contributed to it. Take it easy.

Just so I'm very clear I'm not arguing against a womans right to feel safe in the workplace, I'm arguing for my ability to go to forums without encountering hate-mongers who don't actually know anything talking crap because the anominity of the internet is an outlet. I don't want my kids encountering alot of what I see on forums and I will stand up for people actually standing back and thinking about what they do actually know about a situation and what they are posting. I know plenty of people who feel the use of the c-word in any context is denigrating to women as a whole, if that aint sexual harassment I don't know what is. How would you describe to a female that in our culture call the lowest scum on this planet after a piece of their anatomy and expect that person to believe that is respect for women? If you think a person is a bit of a jerk you may call them a dick, but if they are really bad then you use the c-word. Think about it. Its ok to have a blanket response of "sexual harassment is wrong" because that is true. But then should your online life be the subject of the internets rage because you feel the c-word is ok because you feel its ok to use? Isn't that exactly the defence Brad Wardell is using in describing his "relaxed workplace" that you feel is indefensible?

Huh? The whole point of my post is to say that nobody actually knows what went on but so many are posting angry words as if they do know, hence "haters going to hate".... Also you missed the point about sexual harassment being many different things, some are worthy of criminal action while others should be addressed by communication between the parties involved. My point on this is either way all some people are going to hear is "sexual harassment" and start dropping the c-word on forums like this. Is that sexual harassment, myself having to see the c-word? Its a word that refers to a part of the female anaotmy in a very negative light. Yes it is sexual harassment so should anyone who says the c-word receive the full hatred of the internet? You see my point? God I can't believe I'm posting this here

Interesting podcast, especially so because what the changes the most recent dlc does were not discussed AI Wars does something very well that I wish more games did, it aknowledges that the AI will not be able to compete vs a human player and so builds the entire game around that. I feel that a game like Fallen Enchantress could be easily be made to play that way and be really good. No TBS 4x game I can think of has an AI that can compete on an even playing field with humans, they always receive boosts at the higher levels.

Going a bit OT but the thread seems to be going that way. I'm kinda not understanding all the hate towards Brad Wardell here. An incident occurred at which the collective internet was not present at, we have no idea of the culture at Stardock and thus unable to put into context anything that may have occurred. While yes, even I have to admit his reply email was pretty slack for a CEO, it still is not the smoking gun for sexual harassment. Some times sexual harassment can be clear cut. If he offerred company promotions for sex, thats clearly sexual harassment. If there is a culture of lewd jokes and somebody doesn't like it is that sexual harassment? Yes it is but its not the same as the above example and doesn't necessarily entitle somebody to sue over it. To clarify my position, I have no idea if he is guilty or not, there is simply not enough evidence for me to say either way. His email shows he has a poor understanding of human communication and I think if met under the wrong circumstances he could be a pain to deal with. The only people qualified to talk about the issue are the people at Stardock. If Brad Wardell is guilty of sexual harassment then most likely other staff, past and present, will know about it and the truth will come out. Until then I guess haters gunna hate.....

I love this game. From the podcast about how random maps making for uneven starting positions... From roguelikes this random factor leading to sometimes almost impossible early game situations is almost revered. The community has a strong "thats the way it is so learn to love it" attitude. But thats ok because its not so much us vs the ai as it is us vs the randomised dungeon. As strategy gamers we go into games thinking that its a strategy game and thus our intelligence should be the deciding factor. However there is always randomness in games, the Civ series always had their Civ 1 and 2 "Battleship vs Spearmen" jokes and while this is not present in current games as much there still can be very bad rolls leading to catastrophic rage quits. For some difficulty levels a good start is always needed. If I had a dollar for each time I used the "Regenerate World" button in Civ IV I wouldn't be writing this post but rather racing the autobahns in Germany in my new Ferrari. At difficulty levels not pushing the boundries of a players skill level its not as important and can actually lead to a more satisfying game if you have a harder start that makes you work for the victory. Also I feel the maps in Fallen Enchantress really do make each game feel more unique than any other tbs (or rts) I have seen before and thus leading itself a better level of immersion in the game world. Its a great game and with mods and the expansion it will only get better.

Its a great game, and given that these days the game at time of release is is not the game after a few patches its only going to get better. I agree the tactical battles can get a bit old, I autoresolve the dead easy ones, set the animation speed at 5X for the rest and they are done quick enough that I wouldn't put off playing the game for that. Its designed by tbs fans for tbs fans. If you have played the "Fall from Heaven 2" mod for Civ IV then you know the great design decisions Derek can bring to allow multiple individual strategies to be synergistic. This game has that and thus its a great tbs. I am also keen to see what fan mods and the Stardock expansion do for it.

To add to my idea... A 4x TBS thats is designed to be co-op vs AI and the rules are asymetrical, thus the AI plays a game its good at under rules different to the humans. Like "AI War"

Spy vs Spy?

I would like a turn based strategy game that is similar in mechanics to the Civilization series (tiles of some shape, tiles give certain amount of different resources) but is different in that its ultimately more like the board game Agricola where you are against others but the real fun is in building the farm and so even if losing on a score chart its still enjoyable. I have ideas on how to implement this and they are: 1) Retain a game much like Civ except war can't just be declared willy-nilly. There is a mechanic where a state of war consumes a resource (not cash/gold but something abstract) and thus can only occur for a finite length of turns before automatic peace occurs. But even then a rival make have invested in a mechanic that makes wars against them impossible/unprofitable (eg cities taken in a war can be immediately returned to the original ower if they invested in a mechanic). Drastically increase the number of buildings that a city can build such that no one city could ever dream of building them all, thus really improving the city specialisation side of the game. Expand of the Civ V idea of tech tree vs civic "tree", have different resources giving points in different tech trees and have each tech tree balanced with the others. Basically a game the compared with Civ de-emphasises land ownership and emphasises city building. 2) Retain the Civ style map but make it so the player represents a corporation (or ruling family in a nation because corporations are yucky) and every player can invest in the same tiles but the return from tiles reduces the more players are invested in a tile. These must be a mechanic where tile investment can not occur anywhere on the map, perhaps only spreading outwards from an expensive investment in a tile anywhere on the map. Thus the game of minimising expensive investment anywhere vs cheap investment on tile already boardering an owned tile, to overall maximise investment all over the map in the things you need. Diplomacy is key, mutually agreeing to not invest in each others tiles or agreeing to invest in a third party's tiles to reduce tile yield. Diplomacy is encouraged and more advantageous for players persuring different victories. Due to the current limitations of AI diplomacy with humans (ie the "feel" of it) this style of game would be better as a multiplayer experience.