Usually, I enjoy the eclectic nature of TMA topics. One week Warhammer, the next a discussion of rarely played PC games. But this week's Rebel topic seems a bit arbitrary, even by the eclectic standards of TMA. What happened to the Winter of Wargaming? And why with so many new and old games out there to discuss, why did the editors choose a game already covered, sorta, as a PC game. I could even forgive all this if the setup to the topic was a little more substantial than, hey, we played this board game and now the chat (yes, there was a cursory acknowledgement of the PC episode but no real explanation for why we're back to Rebel again). This episode feels like filler, before more meaty topics to come. I hope so. I'm a big fan of TMA and even when the game or the topic (or both) don't interest me, the way everything is introduced, chewed over, put into a context, considered and rejected, the way the conversation flows is always a pleasure to experience. This episode fell flat (for me). Don't lose that TMA style.
punkadog posted a topic in Strategy Game DiscussionInteresting piece in the Wall Street Journal. This news was already covered in the video game press but Rumsfeld merited a mention in the WSJ. I think someone from TMA should get Rumsfeld on the show. Seriously. http://www.wsj.com/articles/former-defense-secretary-marches-into-new-territory-video games-1453483137