cornchip

Interesting! As a low APM gamer (well, everything) I find myself doing similar energy conversation strategies in games. Thanks for the explanation and I'll be watching this project with interest.

For sure. I just wondered if limiting the APM on the bot even further would force it to develop some interesting strategies. To use your analogy, it would be like forcing a football robot to run slower than humans so it had to try to win with a superior playbook, juking, etc.

It's an interesting project. @eRonin, I wonder if limiting APM even further would force it to develop better strategies? Maybe this is proof that APM matters too much in SC.

I can get standard gamer culture stuff about skin color and flavor text from a hundred other places, so it does feel like the opportunity cost is high when it comes up on the one and only 3ma. I didn't mind a few comments in a meaty 70 minute episode, though. Appreciate having Troy back and the four-person panel!

The challenge to escape the influence of Gettysburg! while still making a good game has stuck with me since I listened to the episode. I think the most promising avenue is to restrict the view of the player to one character on the field and only allow control through that character's speech and writing. The result would be more like living in the 1993 movie and the tactical view feelies would have to be gotten by looking at in-game maps, I suppose. Something like this has been attempted before, right? At any rate, it seems like a solvable design challenge, unlike portraying a single historical battle without allowing hindsight benefit/knowledge of the inputs.

Enjoyed this! Thanks for leaving in the aside about Magic. I have the same magnetic attraction to Bomberman, too.

Really enjoyed this episode and will be looking into Bag the Hun. I like the idea of not modeling air combat as a closed 1v1 or 2v2 system but rather as something that draws more attention from outside the immediate combat area ("the merge"?) the longer it progresses. The game of Go models this in a very simple way since the edges count as opponents' pieces for the purposes of counting liberties.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.