ilitarist

sclps, I'm surprised this problem existed for so long. Cause it seems to me only amature player wants this overcomplication and bloating the game. I remember when I was a kid I was excited about getting Heroes 3 addons cause there are more units, more maps, more stuff. And I thought Starcraft is not as good cause you can reach the end of the tech tree very quickly and there are only three races. Vocal hardcore minority should ask for balance and technical excellency, shouldn't they? Then why do we have bloated horrible games like Master of Orion 3, Elemental and Empire Total War? Is this what developers themselves want to do?

I'm late to the party but I want to clarify what Soren had mentioned when talking about Warcraft 3 percursors. He mentioned Battlecry and meant Warlords Battlecry. It was Warlords Battlecry spin-off. Later Warlords 4 game used its graphics. It was popular enough to get 3 games. Soren probably meant Battlecry 2. It came before Warcraft 3 and focused on heroes. This game was an example of "Throw it in" design philosophy. It had dozen of races (including stuff like Dark Dwarfs and Fairies), many hero classes and abilities, Risk-style campaign map. Maps themselves featured 4 resources, had neutral treasure sites requiring you to answer riddle (by typing the answer on your keyboard, yep). Heroes had many equipment slots, every unit got EXP and could join hero's elite retinue as a named character. And races were unique - e.g. Undead had two basic units (skeletons and ghosts) who evolved based on the buildings you had. Or, say, Dark Elves could summon extremely powerful demons by sacrificing their slave workers. Third game came after Warcraft 3 and had RPG-style overworld map but couldn't compete.

BTW, anyone of you who wanted Soren to just make a big list "Why is Civ4 so great" you can get something like that from . Had I heard correctly that Offworld Trade Company costs more in Early Access? I think Galactic Civilization 3 did this at least for a time. Seems to be a good way to do Early Access. But only if Steam allows you to write with big red letters "It will be cheaper when is over, only buy now if you're nerd".

Tom Chick, you are freaking poet.

Yeah, I've heard of this strategic depth. How does it go - you aren't allowed to start as Necromancers or Conflux, you aren't allowed to conciously choose Necromancy skill but if you get it from witch hut you just don't advance it unless other skill choice is Diplomacy, which is even more forbidden. You can't capture Conflux town. Oh yes, and half of heroes special abilities are considered too powerful so you're not allowed to use them. So begin the game, pray so that you get Earth Magic early and get ready to create chains of heroes transporting troops. Man, what a strategy. Come on, guys have nailed it and explained why the game is popular. This game was ruined for me once I've watched some VODs - people desperately trying to shape something strategic from chaotic mess of content developers poured in the game. Attractive mess, of course, with great sound, visuals and map design, but gameplay itself is nowhere close to Starcraft's polish and balance.

Yep. Google Play Developer Console allows you to keep at least three separate branches with different publicity settings. You can specify people who will get direct links to the app or group everyone can join to gain access to app. You can also select countries that will have access to app and ask Google not to advertise the app outside of GooglePlay. However you are *forced* to upload big advertising image for spotlights. Old apps can exist without it but you can't publish new public version without giving Google spotlight pic.

I can't stop wondering what sort of accent our Soviet Pot Overlord has?

About "diary" size: I think the problem is Failbetter is not very good with UI. They didn't make it stretch. The game seem to be supposed to work in 1280x720 resolution and there "diary" takes almost all screen. I play in this resolution on 1080p laptop cause otherwise text is unreadable.

Because Warlords is older than most listeners. And the last game was released 11 years ago. If you count RTS spin-off and don't count Puzzle Quest. And you don't count Puzzle Quest. Warlords are dead and nowadays I'm not sure if they've left any heritage to speak of. There are games like Age of Wonders 3 which can be seen as spiritual successors to Warlords but it's sort of like saying Dark Knight (2008) is a spiritual successor to TV show Batman from 60's.

I still don't get what those Faceless guys were. Are they elementals? I've only completed Inferno campaign after the prologue. Perhaps I had to play campaigns in order but the game hadn't told me that. So I had no idea what's happening. Why is the guy suddenly a demon, what's happening with his mother, who are those Faceless... Even the ending was just a lazy text message with couple of phrases not explaining a thing. I've also had technical problems with the game so I didn't bother with other campaigns. Demons still can halve your stack in new King's Bounty (at least Armored Princess). But there you have multiple way to handle the problem with magic and special unit abilities.

You've meant Might and Magic IX. M&MX Legacy is a recent title by Ubisoft and it's not great but decent. Also Heroes VI campaign was boring and story was very poorly delievered. Heroes V look like the most polished title today but it suffers from some visual design problems (many monsters were obviously outsorced for example and map can look too ugly today). It has expandalone Tribes of the East with campaign that doesn't make much sense if you haven't played original but the gameplay itself is on its height. This game is more of updates Heroes 3 but with more diversity and better hero progression system - it's sort of perk based reminding of Fallout or Skyrim with basic boring skills rising and opening way for passive and active perks, some of them quite original (like Knight ressurecting the last fallen troop just before loosing or ballista starting shooting fire). Heroes 6 didn't get quality addons like this and had some questionable design decisions like cheap town converting and point-based hero progression. Oh, it also had always online system and campaign maps had places for online messages a la Dark Souls. Seriously.

You know, those abbreviations do not help others understand what those things are. Anyway it's strange 3MA ignored Tom Chick's favorite strategy of the year - Infested Planet. It's single player oriented RTS relying on asymmetric gameplay with interesting mix of macro and micro. It has challenges, customizable difficulty and does not feature any of those hardcore multiplayer of yours. It's not ambitious but it can satisfy your clickfest thirst. Maybe this Gr*y Goo of yours is bigger and better. Infested Planet is still looks to me as perfect "my first strategy" game as well as hardcore puzzle challenge later.

This is because CK2 pretends it's a grand strategy game like EU but it's really not. Because of that you constantly have a feeling of playing a complex mode with numerous systems not intended to be there but added by someone who couldn't properly integrate them into interface. In CK2 90% of your screen is map and personal decisions tab takes less than 10% of the screen. It's like playing a racing game as someone who sits in the car's trunk, looks out through the gap and talks to driver. The sad thing is Paradox isn't going to change it till probably CK3.

I would really like to but it doesn't work well. You usually have all provinces equipped with the same buildings, no decisions are made even if it makes sense for them to be made. Many historical events are ignored (Where's my Munster Commune?!) and some interesting times do not translate into mechanics and are immersion breaking - i.e. if you start the game 1 day before French Revolution you will discover that France is quite well and healthy. And "Interesting Nations" suggested by the game are a big lie, cause those are interesting historically and boring gameplay-wise. Native Americans are especially unplayable at later dates as they always start without native ideas, even if they border USA in 1776. I'd prefer Paradox to make only several starting points but developed ones. Still it's interesting to look at map while scrolling through dates.

Because it is. Hearts of Iron is about war, Victoria is about industrialization and internal politics, Crusader Kings is actually about ethics in fratricide. EU is Paradox's Civilization, it's just a big strategy about countries. It's the one you recommend people who just want a strategy to play. >"forces you not to do certain things for periods of time" You say it as if it's a bad thing. You play with what the game give you. Not a very good mechanic for balance but great for sustaining challenge and keeping everyone from snowballing.

I'd say it's more about the growth of a nation. It seems that EU4 thinks most components of the state where already there in most countries in 1444 and they are only upgraded with laws and maybe constitution. Those who don't have this stuff (hordes, tribes) can reform into it through simplified process. Nations, on the other hand, gain cultural values/ideas, live through religious wars and by the end of the game acquire nationalism (which is ultimate Casus Belli). True, it'd be nice to see beuracracy expand, rise of bourgeois and fall of aristocracy (this is sort of reflected in some events and decisions) but EU4 is very extroverted game with everything depending on intercountry interactions. As for reflection of historic theme - yeah, it comes with the scope, but sadly it's necessary with a game so detailed as this one. CK2 is very bad in some places too if you compare it to history, I'd say EU4 is better in this regard than CK2 as it's more personal so you can't pretend ahistoric things are there cause some details are left out of scope.

EU4 is a great game and fills me with hope for Victoria 2 that works properly allows player to understand what the hell is happening in the world. Vocal fans joke about next Victoria having 3 types of mana but I'm sure there will be more refined market system and electrified EU4 diplomacy. Someone said previously in 3MA episode: Paradox games spoil Civilization. They offer you both challenge and worldbuilding and both are somewhat better - world at least tries to preserve some ties to reality and challenge is much more customizable (though it's not as balanced and "fair" as in 4X games). CK2 also beats some roleplaying games. Anyone who praises Shadow of Mordor for relationship system should look into CK2 (I know, I know, the system is great cause you meet those guys in real-time). EU4 is ultimately a better strategy, so Rob, don't be afraid to stand up to Troy, we're with you on it. Arguable, but it's only important in the end of the period. The game reflects it by creating special cultural casus bellis by the end of the game but there's little sense to have ethnic revolts.

Well, didn't know we're going all the way into realism cause in this case it's much more interesting to simulate napoleonic warfare with couriers and limited vission. Isn't this system similar to submarines? What doctrines are there to deal with active sensors and submarines? Do ships assume submarine always sees them first so you can use all the active system you can? I understand passive detection looks more sane in a situation when light speed is no longer considered instant, but isn't it more boring and strategy defying? It all comes to a sensor and fire range just like in XX century warfare.

How much guts does it take to make episode that requires you to listen to episode recorder a year ago? Seriously, Flashpoint Campaigns is wargame about chain of command I've always forgotten by now cause I've never tried it. I'll probably won't try it cause I'm not a big fun of cold war stuff but I appriciate Rob & Troy delving into obscure titles like this one. They still have to give some sort of introduction. I suspect most space sim would only have active detection system (so you have to look for someone in a specific place before you can see him) or very limited range of detection.

Eh, people, you are too harsh. What you say if of course true, but it made me think about one of the most appreciated strategies of all time, Heroes of Might and Magic 3. The balance is horrible: there are clearly overpowered factions, monsters, skills, even game mechanics (there's no misfortune so fortune mechanics is not nearly as important as morale). Game pace is broken: the first turn you see another player you'll probably see his main hero with the main army, you destroy it and you've won. Endgame economy is totally broken. Important things like hero progression, weeks and rewards are all randomized. Many battles are won by a single morale bonus happening. Honestly, I can't find any way in which HoMM3 is better than HoMM5 (maybe subjective stuff like art style and campaigns). Still people love the game. It gives a strong impression with great art and music. It's very interesting and engaging at the beginning. People create mods for it and play imbalanced multiplayer with house rules. Cause this game makes you love it even with all of its flaws. It seems to me Endless Legend is very similar. It's a game you love even if you feel it's broken cause Broken Lords end up so not broken they break everyone. Similar things happened to Master of Orion 2 and Alpha Centaury. Amplitude will make a big patch or addon and you'll return to this game. And me too. And then we'll hopefully boot it once a year to remember how good it feels. Yeah, I'm an optimist.

Caretaker, perhaps you delved too deep into Endless Legend. As guys have said, they are not sure if it works as a strategy, if it's balanced and replayable. Still there is unit variety (much more than in most 4X games short of Age of Wonders) and many ways to tweak units. It may not be "good", it may not be polished and balanced cybersport discipline like Civilization, but it sure is fun. Also perhaps it's your own playstyle, you seem to want predictability and information while Amplitude designs combat as an unpredictable gamble. I'm not a very good Civ5 player, won on Immortal (7th difficulty of 8) only once (as Venice on Archipelago map, he-he). Never liked war in this game, especially before 5, so I've always went for a peaceful victory. Haven't tuned on AI aggression but I don't remember a single game where AI didn't declare war on me. Though I think turning on AI aggression would make a game even easier as it'd force me to kill AI armies (that are not very smart) and ruin his economy. Also high difficulty bonuses only buff economy, so AI would just spam more units he can't use properly. Frankly, problem with 4X is the genre is too complex to have a "perfect" game and Civ5 is closest to perfectness we have in latter years. Alpha Centauri and Master of Orion are often named as best games ever but it's just rose-tinted glasses speaking.

About East European gamedev. Warlock is made by InoCo, Russian company too. Before Warlock they've made Elven Legacy (Fantasy/Panzer General clone, so Warlock is not just Civ5 clone, it's a continuation of their work) and many expansions for it. Russians do like iterative design. Heroes 3 and Fallout 1-2 are the most beloved games in Russia and those games are replayable as hell. So Russian gamedev tries to make every game replayable and improves it iteravely. Probably because Russians were psychologicaly hurt by events like the fall of USSR and Heroes 4. By the way, Heroes 5 (made by Russian company Nival) were planned as Heroes 3 remake - first techdemo looked just like Heroes 3 in 3D. There are many good games improved step by step made in Eastern Europe. King's Bounty, Space Rangers (Pirates/Elite clone), Silent Storm (Jagged Alliance/Fallout clone), STALKER. King's Bounty is a good example of not repairing not broken thing. Original developer made The Legend and Armored Princess, then there were 2 more made by other people and those games are OK too. They have new game mechanics, new monsters, completely different rooster of artifacts. Level design forces you to use different monsters, army compositions and spells. Graphics are the same but the game still looks nice and functional so it's the only thing that differentiates those expandalones from proper sequels. Everyone interested in Heroes of Might and Magic without strategy shoud start with Crossworlds (updated rerelease of Armored Princess) and go from there.

Slightly dissapointed with Rob's homework for the show: you had tank in Giant Enemy Tank scenario and the girl with spear was explicitely stated as unbeatable by cutscenes. I guess it's understandable as he doesn't like cutscenes. Also your rating depends only on number of turns it took you to win. What I like in the artstyle and story of this game is that everything there is cleverly vague: Gallia is simultaniously Holland (windmills and sort of tulips), Finland (dress), Israel (ruins of ancient temples in the desert), Switzerland (mountains, neutrality and military)... The Empire is Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany but also it has shades of Napoleonic France (just look at Maximillian). It's wonderful fantasy Europe as seen by Japanese. And the conflict itself is very much like WW1 too: pastoral landscapes are suddenly bombarded by giant grey machines. Still the gameplay itself lacks something. There's no balance which is OK for single player game, I guess, but most missions ended up me taking scout (since midgame it's Alicia cause she gets amazing potentials), giving it couple of orders and sending it to rampage through enemy lines to the target camp. In this camp everyone is dead thanks to snipers or tank mortars, it's captured, voila. Gets rather repetetive. I'm at chapter 17, Jager's Panzer. I've started that mission, saw how much enemies there and turned it off. Cause I know that the plan is the same as ever, the question is what route Alicia will use to destroy the passive dumb enemy.

Your description of This War of Mine reminds me of Pathologic (aka Mor. Utopia), a game from 2006 no one played cause it was Russian poorly translated bizzare title. It was storytelling survival horror RPG. Sort of. There's the city, 3 different playable characters appear there and you can play each of them in bizzare magic realism setting of Dostoevsky/Lovecraft influence. Decease spreads through city, whole districts are under carantine, militia kills anyone who tries to breach through containment, leaders of the city lie, conspire and seek for the shelter. The hero looks for vaccine/ancient cure or something else depending on their own story, they discover town secrets, look for the source of decease, satisfies primal needs like hunger and sleeps, fights maradeurs. There are sidequests with no rewards, tough decisions without mandatory obvious reaction. You're alone so it's not strategy, but I'd still recommend it to those who liked This War of Mine as it's very depressing in a down to earth sense. Lead designer of the game often talks about making games not fun too. Pathologic doesn't have rewards for quest or fast travel, it doesn't have level ups but has decaying health of your characters. Later story goes into batshit insane depths of existential horrors and spoilery thing for many characters (though the first one you can play is rather rational guy trying to ignore supernatural or psychological sides of the story), but it's still a good game.

Civ5 was nice with all those ideologies while Endless series simply shouts at you when someone's winning. What's about Pandora endgame?