cornchip

Members
  • Content count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cornchip

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

325 profile views
  1. I'm in favor of a more character-driven CK3 because I think that is clearly the major strength of the series, but why not also include a mode to disable some of that and give us the option to play a purer medieval strategy game? Paradox will need to choose something for the default option, for the marketing, etc., but the engine will surely be able to support multiple modes of play, at least after the launch bugs are fixed and the first couple DLC are released. I'm curious what are some of the unofficial ideas Paradox may be considering for CK3. Is this online anywhere? Finally, a note of appreciation for TJ's 1100 hours (and Fraser's time as well) -- they are what make these kinds of episodes work. And the guest hosting went well, in my opinion!
  2. I like the Paradox episodes (and I don't even play many of the games.) Paradox is possibly the most interesting strategy game developer on earth, so it's hard to avoid them! This DLC sounds insane, by the way. I'm not the biggest fan of people telling tales from their playthroughs but it sounds like this has some very compelling stories and interactions.
  3. Enjoyed this episode, particularly the careful dissection of the difference between needlessly summing modifiers and beneficially considering multiple factors. I can't think of a brilliant suggestion, but I'd be interested in comparisons of 1812 games including the euro-ish 1812: The Invasion of Canada and then perhaps Columbia's War of 1812 and either Amateurs to Arms or Mr. Madison's War (or both if you're up for comparing four!) Perhaps others can suggest the ideal combination of three.
  4. Mr. Herman! Thanks very much for the game, the response and for prompting Bruce to (soon) flesh out some game details I was also wondering about from the episode. Hope you'll be on another 3ma episode soon.
  5. I did enjoy this episode, to be clear! I don't mind one player having a knowledge advantage in a game like this, necessarily. For example, I like that Twilight Struggle suggests the more experienced player choose Soviets to ensure the new player faces the aggressive play that makes the game sing. The difference between TS and Star Wars: Rebellion is that experienced Soviet play aggressively pushes the USA down many interesting paths or at least ends the game early*, whereas experienced Imperial play in Rebellion** is actually less aggressive because it's about conservatively covering the map to smoke out the Rebels, but without actually discovering the base much faster. But, as the show mentions, it's not like the advanced player can simply take the Rebels because the Imperials can easily make unrecoverable errors in the first part of the game. *I strongly believe in teaching Twilight Struggle by taking Soviets and trying my hardest to win on turn 3. Usually, that means we can get in two games instead of one! **Originally had written TS here; edited to remove confusion.
  6. Needless to say, I'm thoroughly enjoying this series. Gettysburg was the first PC game I ever received for Christmas, first serious strategy game experience, and so on. I always suspected that the AI was very good! Also, I laughed at Sid's clarification of his "developer having fun" maxim. He's right, though!
  7. I think punkadog's, respectfully, a bit harsh, but I do wish y'all had played more than once. I realize the game is lengthy, but the playtime drops well below two hours once both players know what they're doing, so I think it would be possible to play the first four games in ten hours. Appreciated the discussion of FF's "frustrating and too straight forward" combat mechanics and components.
  8. Interesting discussion. I think these complex games are a good fit for the show format since it's worthwhile and entertaining to narrate the 'basic' game features. Enjoyed the ragging on VB6 and the like (though I think of it as allowing more software to exist rather than making software worse.) And the Victoria II discussion was just a nice bonus.
  9. Thanks for mentioning HeavenGames! I completely forgot about that forum. I think that poor RoL never had a chance because RoN got a lot of players interested in historical games that didn't transfer. I also remember being disappointed by the fourth race disappearing from launch and the game struggling to be completed with a lot of compromises. My opinion is it would be worth re-releasing it. I'm delighted to see ~700k sales of RoN on SteamSpy and I don't see why RoL couldn't achieve a worthwhile fraction of that.
  10. The shooter episodes aren't my favorites but I still enjoy them. I argue that we'll never see a decent trench warfare shooter as long as movement is such an important part of shooter controls and game length is an important consideration. A trench warfare needs to cover much more than the surge out of it, which means little action, which in practice means players need to not be so jumpy. A strategy game like This War of Mine that takes place in a trench in France, where 'winning' means being ordered out of the trench at the right moment (necessitating strategic use of characters as couriers) and surviving in the meantime, seems like the best way to capture it to me.
  11. Appreciate this episode. UG:CW somehow isn't what I'm looking for (the discussed Wild Wild West train and the RPG elements are very much unwanted), but I hope it's successful. I think the model could be applied to a lot of other conflicts, and I'd love to see sales enough to entice other developers into trying their hand at the war management level of the American Civil War. I'd love to see a successor to VGA Civil War Strategy that is the Dwarf Fortress to its Nethack.
  12. I like Gallipoli. It has the same Victorians-vs-misbehaving-pure-hearts kinds of themes as Weir's other movies: (Picnic at Hanging Rock, Cars that Ate Paris, Truman Show, Witness, etc.) The running is an effective way to show the Great War squeezing broad human talents into specialist roles required by trench warfare, penny-wise-pound-foolish selflessness (trading places), Australian pastoral life vs. English unconcern use for the products of that life, etc. My biggest complaint is that the Ottoman defense is portrayed as heartless and monolithic when it was a much more interesting battle, but the movie isn't really about the battle.
  13. Enjoyable discussion, especially when comparing the series to the Paradox model. I think that the core concept is looking a bit primitive after so many years, but it's still such fun and I appreciate the variations and updates for modern systems. I really hope that Firaxis will have a playtesting methodology breakthrough that lets them make the last half of the game better. Then again, quitting after dominating the bronze age rather than finishing early might just be more fun!
  14. I hope the AI War Kickstarter can charge more for the base game next time. Otherwise, it's a tough position to be in when your audience is a small number of cheapskates.
  15. Thing is, crossruff, that's basically the same story as the chess episode. They would have to get on someone who would do it differently. And at least with chess, Michael is a fan. I don't think any panelists really get Bridge so an episode about the game would be more of the 'polite interview' type.