Rob Zacny Posted July 12, 2019 Three Moves Ahead 473: Historical Guardrails Rob, Rowan, TJ, and Sean discuss how "historically" they like their games to play out and whether that wish is incompatibile with player freedom and variety. Imperator, Three Kingdoms, Europa Universalis IV, Crusader Kings II, Victoria II, Civilization, Hearts of Iron, Operational Art of War Listen on the Episode Page Listen on Soundcloud Listen in iTunes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tdoggs Posted July 24, 2019 Great episode guys. All of your episode are good but I thought this one was special thought provoking. It was well done in the way everyone walked the line not to come down to hard one way or the other. I feel it is ok to simulate the history into oblivion and always play hoi4 with history lock off. It gives some very easy and very difficult runs. All of them interesting and unique but for some you have to suspend disbelief of practicality. For some and me, I think there's a wider band width for historical inaccuracies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
padmewan Posted September 11, 2019 Just catching up with summer listening (!) but just needed to lodge this observation: one difficulty of historical grand strategy games is the fact that the important moments of history are discontinuous -- the moments when the rules themselves change. Sean came close to touching on this when discussing the need for different rules to apply to different factions, but the modeling challenge is how to provide the player with the experience of that break while maintaining a single perspective. The cautionary tale here is Spore, which attempted this writ huge and sadly failed. Literally created an account just to say this, big thanks for your great podcast even when I'm months backlogged Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
