Rob Zacny

Three Moves Ahead 397 - Meta Campaigns

Recommended Posts

Three Moves Ahead 397:

Three Moves Ahead 397


Meta Campaigns
Rob, Fraser, and Rowan look at the game outside the game. What are the ways that strategy and tactics games contextualize our actions and decisions, and which approaches do we tend to prefer. The conversation runs long but takes an exciting turn as the crew realize they've likely solved strategy games.

XCOM, Jagged Alliance 2, Total War, Endless Legend, Company of Heroes

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting episode, but I'm a little confused by what you mean by 'meta'. it sounds like you're talking about normal campaigns?

 

Fraser's " Rob, I kind of think maybe you're just playing really badly " comment re XCOM made me laugh [and, I think I agree, isn't it standard practise to always include new rookies once you unlock the larger squad sizes? But I STILL haven't completed XCOM 1 or 2 on classic ironman, so clearly I'm doing something wrong myself :)  ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, riadsala said:

Interesting episode, but I'm a little confused by what you mean by 'meta'. it sounds like you're talking about normal campaigns?

 

Specifically campaigns where it's not just a series of battles and missions, but where there's a separate but connected strategy game wrapped around them - stuff with campaign maps and dynamic events opposed to a list of interconnected fights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Fraser said:

 

Specifically campaigns where it's not just a series of battles and missions, but where there's a separate but connected strategy game wrapped around them - stuff with campaign maps and dynamic events opposed to a list of interconnected fights. 

 

Gotcha. So you're calling DoW1  and Wargame:EE normal campaigns, and DoW1:Dark Crusade and Wagame:ALB meta?

 

I think the comment about length was pretty on the money. A little shorter and more replayable :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed this episode - although I do find 3MA's relationship with Firaxis's XCOM series simultaneous enraging, amusing, irritating and thought provoking - I clearly do not see this game in the same terms as both Rob and Rowan do. I am constantly bemused by the assertion that XCOM is in any way an RPG - it really isn't. It's like saying that because you have to chose what cards you want to use in Star Wars: Battlefront (Something that you do need to think about a little depending on what map you are playing - but only a little) that Battlefront is some sort of Strategic FPS. Again, it isn't, it's just a fairly relaxed online shooter. 

 

The interplay in XCOM - especially XCOM2 -  between the strategic and tactical layer is something that seems to get either misunderstood a lot - it's there very much, either in unlocking global areas so that you can reach blacksites, completing a tactical mission to slow down the Avatar timer, through to getting the right resource (something very much under explained when the game was first released to be sure) so that you are able to do the right things at the right time - these are things that are there clear as daylight. Once you've played the game beyond a couple of hours, well it's pretty evident how it all balances and how the strategic decisions you make in the global map should inform what missions you do or don't take. That "Meta" is the driver for the game - being good at it (or not) will inform your success just as much as how good you are at the tactical game. 

 

Calling the development of soldiers by unlocking abilities as they survive "RPG" shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what's happening at that layer - at least it does to me. Those abilities are necessary at the later stages of the game to be able to both counter some of the late game aliens (the HEAT ammo for heavy weapons springs to mind) and also be able to deal with the increased number of aliens you encounter. It's not a great leap from there to realise that not only do you need to be developing those skills, you need to be maintaining a big enough roster so that you can cope with the odd death and maintain your campaign should things go a little pear shaped. I know Rob sort of touched on that with your 2nd and 3rd string Snipers, but really, like Fraser says "you aren't playing it very well" if that's killing you off. There should be a cost to losing your top sniper, but it's one that you should be able to manage.

 

Giving Soldiers names, and being able to customise them - yeah, that's RPG (sort of) but it's only really there for flavour given how much permadeath means to XCOM and it's inherent difficultly. If you lose that Colonel Heavy who's the only one you can soften up the Gatekeeper or Sectopod enough for everyone else to kill them, and not have someone to replace him - well, that's your fault for not considering your strategy enough.

 

Yeah, there's a lot in XCOM 2 that isn't perfect (it's far too easy to leave the Avatar timer redundant later in the game) and some of the classes are much more powerful than others - Magus level Psi-Troopers are massively overpowered - but a lot of it is addressed in Long War 2 (a mod a 3MA discussion is long overdue for!) which both teases the game out at the Meta level, and also adds even more strategic and tactical decision making when you are developing your soldiers. I really like the look of War of the Chosen - they quite clearly have taken a lot of cues from Long War 2 and other games, ranging from Fire Embalm and Darkest Dungeon, all the way through to the Nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor.  Having flame throwers etc in XCOM isn't just there for RPG flavour - setting fire to alien in XCOM has real tactical advantage - it leaves them unable to attack anything unless it's meelee, makes them panic and prevents them from throwing grenades or launching rockets - using abilities you really don't want them to be using- and deals damage over time. It is a crowd control mechanism as much as anything else. Flash bangs, posion and smoke grenades all have similar buff and debuff impacts at the tactical level - they are vital components in Long War 2, and it's great that Firaxis are bringing that to the vanilla game in their new expansion. It's not them being more "RPG"!!!!!!!

 

Sorry this have now turned into a rant about XCOM. I really did enjoy this episode but I'm really not sure that you quite have XCOM right.....................    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sorbicol said:

...a mod a 3MA discussion is long overdue for...

 

I'm guessing the main reason is arranging a panel who have played the mod enough. It is a little opaque and requires quite a bit of work before you understand how it all works. I think I know a suitable guest they could ask.... :P

 

this thread reminds me I really have to return to the Total War series at some point (and XCOM2!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always enjoyed these topic discussions that talk about a number of games and this was another great one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a good episode. I'm surprised the Rise of Nations campaign didn't come up. Various panelists over the years have praised it as a solid RTS campaign, and it would seem to fit the bill as a dynamic campaign. It probably would have fit the part about Eugen's concern not to create a skirmish mode by another name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to say earlier... I always thought the King Arthur RPG wargame had a decent campaign. It felt like it struck a good balance between allowing for player freedom and strategy, and also having a structured narrative. I never did play it to the end though, so I can't tell you how the late mid-game and endgame play, but I really liked how the tutorial was built into the opening part of the campaign, and how the map, and the complexity, opened up as you pushed east from Cornwall.

 

Surely a muli-player Blood Bowl league deserves a special mention? And Risk Legacy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's another type of meta-campaigns which are more of an RPG system: linear ones with optional side missions. Often see those in wargames like Fantasy Wars. The idea is you get an opportunity to get an advantage for main missions. It was done really well in Infested Planet - you had a clear set of missions you have to complete to win the campaign plus you had various side missions, more like skirmishes, where you could switch to a more straightforward mission structure and get some resources for the next mission. I think it's a perfect system for a singleplayer campaign as it offers dynamic difficulty that doesn't feel cheap: when the campaign is too difficult you just do some of easier side missions, start the next main mission with some advantage and you win. Meanwhile hardcore players can ignore those sidemissions.

 

Another point: metacampaigns are often a result of players thinking they want more. Every damn RTS forum has lots of people moaning they want bigger maps, more contenders, no unit limit. Obviously, it breaks most games - it usually destroys balance by turning late-game advantages into most-of-the-game advantages and turning everything into a multihour slog. Meta-campaign gives this gigantism some sensibility. Especially the one like Rise of Nations which seems to exist to give you a feeling of one long map with a constant cyclic development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2017 at 2:57 PM, Sorbicol said:

I really like the look of War of the Chosen - they quite clearly have taken a lot of cues from Long War 2 and other games, ranging from Fire Embalm and Darkest Dungeon, all the way through to the Nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor

 

I'm too intrigued. Couldn't ever get into XCOM2 even though I quite liked XCOM1. Lacked some sort of emotional connection - I'm no longer defending Earth, I'm fighting in some sort of sci-fi land. And the difficulty is turned up to eleven, it's like I'm supposed to already know all the system beforehand if I'm playing on Normal. Or maybe I'm too attached to Iron Man as it seems to be the right way to play a game like that. And now I'm waiting for the expansion.

 

Have some warm memories of Massive Chalice which was a simpler and shorter game but still felt right on Normal Iron Man first try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people - myself included - expected something much more inline with XCOM:EU than we got with XCOM2 on release. I know my criticisms of how information was disseminated in XCOM2 at launch matched those of Rob and Rowan, (especially for the strategic layer);  however one (aborted) campaign later it was pretty clear to me what the differences were and what the change in approach should be. 

 

One of the issues with Firaxis reboot is that it is polished and balanced to the nth  degree - most people used this to accuse the series of "dumbing down" on the original series. It really wasn't. While that's great, it does create the problem that having a 'bad' RNG roll could disproportionally impact your ability not only to complete that mission but also your campaign, as the consequences of failure were so much more dramatic than in the original X-COM series which treated your squaddies as cannon fodder, except for the lucky few to survive.

 

XCOM:EU's counter to that - overwatch creep - led to a lot of (not without merit) accusations of dull gameplay. XCOM2's solution to that problem was just to add timers everywhere, which was fine but did occasionally leave your campaign progress entirely at the mercy of the RNG, and nothing at all to do with your tactical or strategic acumen at playing the game. 

 

Anyway i I digress a little, but there are so many levels of 'meta' (mostly obscure) to XCOM2 that aren't really apparent until you really think about.   What I would say is that Firaxis's XCOM series is a series you to learn how to play on the easier difficulty levels before you can feel ready for the Classic or Commander/Ironman difficulty, which so clearly is the level the game is designed to be played at. Of course, that's a significant time investment to a lot of players, so I'm not surprised so many people walked away from it early on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One potential way to mixup the meta campaign for the XCOM games is a mod where XCOM has a notoriety/reputation level, and as that goes up the level of the recruits you can bring in improves. That would change the dynamic where a squad wipe = the campaign is over, and you could design tactical encounters with a greater expectation of squad massacres.

 

That isn't something that is strictly necessary for XCOM 2 though, because I find the meta-campaign's doomsday clock is so easy to mitigate that rebuilding a new squad of super soldiers isn't that difficult to do. The problem is just that doing that causes the campaign to stretch out and become a bit tedious, especially if you take awhile to pick up the XP bonus perk.

 

Anyway, as much as I don't agree with most of the panel's assessments of what the problems with XCOM and XCOM 2 in particular are, it continues to be the case that the strategy layer is still the least interesting aspect of the game because it is designed around you hitting these particular story beats, and so the strategy layer doesn't end up being strategic at all. My dream game is still the XCOM game where you have a kind of chaotic COIN system for the strategy layer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sorbicol said:

XCOM:EU's counter to that - overwatch creep - led to a lot of (not without merit) accusations of dull gameplay. XCOM2's solution to that problem was just to add timers everywhere, which was fine but did occasionally leave your campaign progress entirely at the mercy of the RNG, and nothing at all to do with your tactical or strategic acumen at playing the game. 

 

 

One important point: very many people hate timers for some reason. I often see reviews for some games mention that timers ruin the game for them. You can often see it in Panzer General style wargames, where AI is a passive defender and your ability to just bomb it with long range attacks is limited by turn limit. I even see mods sometimes to remove those limits. Good example is Fantasy Wars/Elven Legacy series: the game is a series of missions, sometimes you have side missions or choice between the two. Each mission has an objective and a turn limit, and it's usually pretty low. Plus there are always optional objectives: some ruins to explore to get gold and artifacts, some allied units to save or just simply towns to capture for gold. The game turns into a puzzle where you have not just to understand how to capture an objective (usually siege a town or travel to a specific point) and not just to do it in time but also to visit all the locations with artifacts and units to stay on curve, or at least those that are useful to you. Obviously there's no way to complete a map properly on your first try cause you have to know what locations you have to visit in what order. 

 

So if you look at negative reviews for the game - very, very many of those mention turn limit as if it's something that harms the game instead of turning it into a beautiful puzzle. Naturally there are many other issues people find but it's the most repeated besides "it's a bad game". I think for many people XCOM2 had the same problem even if they are lost in other criticism - XCOM2 is much bigger game so people have many other things to complain about.

14 hours ago, Sorbicol said:

What I would say is that Firaxis's XCOM series is a series you to learn how to play on the easier difficulty levels before you can feel ready for the Classic or Commander/Ironman difficulty, which so clearly is the level the game is designed to be played at.

Indeed. And there's where the game lies to you. It's structured as a game you can complete on your first try, it has all the fancy movies and drama and stuff. As Rowan said it presents itself as a grand adventure, more like Dragon Age than Civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ilitarist said:

 

One important point: very many people hate timers for some reason. I often see reviews for some games mention that timers ruin the game for them.

 

 

Yeah, I've noticed this. But I think the timers are a really good mechanic which really adds to the tension!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, at around the 1:18:10 mark, Rob discusses the WWI books he's been reading, regarding how European observers entirely missed critical lessons from the American Civil War. One of the names mentioned is the recently late Alistair Horne, but I didn't quite catch the other name. Jeffrey/Geoffrey Warrone/Huaron?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/06/2017 at 6:38 PM, cornchip said:

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.

 

I find that idea really interesting - I think there is quite a lot in what you say too. The story in XCOM to me is fairly ephemeral - it doesn't touch on how I play the game much except where I need to get through the 'golden path' gates so that I don't lose the game.  

 

I hadnt really considered it like that. Might need to rethink a little!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now