cornchip

Members
  • Content count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cornchip

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

515 profile views
  1. I think my playstyle of new X-Com could be described as RPG-like. I've only played on Classic Ironman and I've never won the game. Furthermore, I know I will not win; I just want to see how far I can get. Since a losing game spirals out of control and I've already seen the defeat cutscenes, I typically quit when I get to where I am likely to lose the rest of the missions. This means I'm only playing as long as my squad has some attachment to my original four, and so the game can't help but become about this plucky crew and their doomed defense of earth. If I were better, I'd have more built-up soldiers and lose more due to the increased game length and success, so wouldn't care as much about the individual ones. X-Com is more of a strategy game for people who win it, and more of an RPG for people who don't win it.
  2. Enjoyed this episode. I think the Dune game was Emperor: Battle for Dune, or at least that was one that had you attacking and defending territories alternately. You could also ally yourself with specialist factions (Fremen/Sardaukar commandos, Guild tanks) but like the panel said, none of those choices really affected your strategy. Like most Westwood games you mostly got by with the same 1-2 unit types over and over again and the fun things like sandworm attacks got old and IIRC could be disabled to make the game ever more predictable. Another good "ideal game" suggestion in this episode as well; hopefully it inspires someone!
  3. I also would rather games be discussed a few months after release if that's what's needed to keep the focus on strategy and design rather than bugs. I understand that the panelists are very busy and a show that's a byproduct of paid work is easiest, though.
  4. I've heard that the BE expansions make it a pretty good game; is that not the case? Also, I don't know how old you are, but I was a teenager when SMAC came out so it had an unfair advantage making itself memorable for me. I do agree that there is something intangibly well done about the original 7 faction leaders, though I think their stereotypes are a bit over-the-top. Maybe it's the novella written for the game that endeared me to them; I haven't seen one for BE.
  5. I really enjoy these interviews. Bruce, would you consider forming a panel of wargame designers? I remember you talked to Volko Ruhnke and Mark Herman together once, but since they were co-designers they were speaking from similar experiences and perspectives.
  6. Enjoyed this one. I like having context for the work people do; Lucas' account of his time as an indie/licensed games developer as well as how he's motivated by ideas and fun core mechanics helped me understand Papers Please better. As a dad, I also loved the last 20 minutes! I agree that Inbox Zero is much better than letting emails sit for weeks.
  7. I've already commented a couple of times on the other episodes, so I will just say: thanks very much to Sid and Soren for doing this long interview! I learned a lot from it and it was constantly entertaining.
  8. 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!
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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!
  14. 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.
  15. 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.