Flash of Steel header image 1

Changing Tastes?

March 23rd, 2007 by Troy Goodfellow · RTS, Sci Fi

I can’t say too much about Command & Conquer 3 until my review is finally written and uploaded, but I will say that it gives me more reasons to buy Supreme Commander.

I’ve written before about how science fiction strategy games leave me a little cold. Give me muskets. Give me swords. Give me tanks. Laser cannons and alien pod troopers do nothing for me.

But so far I am digging Tiberium Wars, even if a lot of the story doesn’t make a lot of sense. (I’ve skipped most of the other Command & Conquer games, so I may be missing something.) Not that plot really matters.

So add this revelation to my positive experience of Chris Taylor’s GDC speech, and my love of the Galactic Civilizations II games and maybe I’m coming around a little. Maybe I can relate to this weird world of weapons now.

But relate isn’t really the right word. The barrier between me and science fiction games is that the lack of intuitive unit matchups means that I have to go that extra mile to understand what is going on. This really hasn’t changed. In CnC3, the variety of units means that I have to actually read the description text to know what I need to build next. This is not what they are supposed to be talking about in “learning games”.

Part of my new appreciation is undoubtedly rooted in the pubescent male fantasy of blowing things up real good. Sure, a Panzer can do a lot of damage, but the swarming alien hordes that the Scrin have in Tiberium Wars is like a school of flying piranha.

Ancient Wars: Sparta won’t have that I suppose.

Comments Off on Changing Tastes?Tags:

Sins of a Solar Empire Beta

March 22nd, 2007 by Troy Goodfellow · RTS, Sci Fi, Stardock

If you pre-order Sins of a Solar Empire, you will have access to the beta testing beginning March 27.

Tim Surette at Gamespot reports that Stardock is calling this a RT4X game. “Gamers looking to see if this really is a new genre will have a chance, thanks to the game’s beta test.”

No, Tim, it is not a new genre. But it does look sweet.

→ 3 CommentsTags:

As usual…

March 20th, 2007 by Troy Goodfellow · CGM, Media

Tom Chick says it all. He’s written the best eulogy on the best job I ever had.

→ 1 CommentTags:

Rise of the Bauman

March 20th, 2007 by Troy Goodfellow · Blogs

You can’t keep a good writer down, so Steve Bauman has started blogging, opening with a reflection on what 300 and Children of Men can teach game designers about narrative. Read his wisdom at Manic Pop Thrills.

No, I don’t know what that means either.

→ 3 CommentsTags:

On Site Review: HPS Punic Wars

March 20th, 2007 by Troy Goodfellow · Ancients, HPS, Wargames

Since my CGM review of this title is stuck in the limbo of publishing termination, I thought I’d pen a few of my thoughts on this game while they are still fresh in my mind.

Regular readers know that I am a sucker for games with an ancient theme. I also really like the simultaneous turn mechanic. Punic Wars from HPS has both. So I’m predisposed to like it.

And Paul Bruffel did a good job with it. The command structure is easy enough to figure out, the battle system emphasizes cohesion and morale over casualties and the battles have the right ebb and flow. Simultaneous turns allow a battle to evolve based on expectation and anticipation of your opponent’s move. So your velites may scatter those slingers, but in the same resolution they might be pelted by enemy javelins. This keeps the number of turns down to a manageable level (I don’t think many scenarios top 40 turns) but still gives the impression that these battles are grand encounters.

Despite its name, Punic Wars is about more than the life and death struggle between Rome and Carthage. Most of the battles have that theme, but there are also highlights from Pyrrhus’ campaign in Italy. Oddly, two of the most important battles in Roman history (Metaurus and Zama) are nowhere to be found, while there are over a dozen tabletop style battles with each army having equal point counts. Oddly enough, nearly all of the historical battles in the game are Roman defeats (Bagradas, Trebbia, Ticinus, Cannae) or virtual draws (Pyrrhic victories for the Epirotes). The state that wins the wars loses the battles presented in the game.

It’s not a very attractive game, and I don’t hold with those who say that looks don’t matter in wargames. Sure, scenario design and proper combat resolution are most important, but there should be some concession to the modern age. Because of the simultaneity, the lack of animations even as simple as arrows flying or sword arms flailing means that it is not always clear who is killing whom. Casualties figures flash on the miniatures, but if the dudes are under attack from more than one enemy, it’s hard to tell who is posing the real threat. Even colored hexes indicating attacker and attackee would be more help than the din of weapons and red blotch of death. As good as the underlying design is, HPS can learn a little from the amazing presentation of the period in the Tin Soldiers series from Koios Works.

The battle editor and designer seems pretty powerful, though you are required to designate Rome as one of the sides. So no hypotheticals about Pyrrhus marching on Carthage. I’m not very good at scenario design, so you won’t see me trying to redress the anti-Roman bias with my creation of the Battle of Ilipa.

Once again, I am puzzled by the HPS insistence on strictly limiting how I can see the battle. As plain as the miniature soldiers are, it makes little sense for me to choose between seeing twenty or thirty of them or seeing the entire field marked in traditional wargame counters. This is a design decision that is rooted in “we’ve always done it this way” more than in any justfiable game/art balance like you would find in a real time strategy game. It may be time for HPS’s desiginers to experiment with the zoom key.

But Punic Wars is good enough to have me hopeful that the “Ancient Warfare” series will be a success. The battles are much more difficult than those in the otherwise brilliant Great Battles of History series. The command movement system means that you can easily move a dozen units in a group; clicking on every individual unit is not necessary until the battle lines start to break down. Skirmishing is given its proper place in ancient warfare. Even better, the game models units running out of control. (One of the great dangers in this period was having soldiers filled with bloodlust pursue defeated enemies off the battlefield, making them useless for the duration.) Finally impetuousness and discipline mean more than combat bonuses in certain situations.

For fans of the period, I recommend Punic Wars unreservedly. It has the typical interface quirks of a hex-game from HPS, but won’t try your patience as much. I look forward to more talented gamers than me churning out proper scenarios to flesh out the historical selection and eagerly await Paul Bruffel’s next foray into the world BCE.

→ 1 CommentTags:

Europa Universalis III Again

March 18th, 2007 by Troy Goodfellow · Gameshark, History, Paradox

Europa Universalis III is a good game. It isn’t the transcendant glory that its immediate predecessor was. It isn’t as deep as Hearts of Iron II and it’s not nearly as much fun as Crusader Kings. But it does have more going for it than the numerous complaints on the official forum would have you believe.

Not that these complaints aren’t legit. The “slave” resource doesn’t adjust to demand in the New World. Europe becomes dominated by large powers at a ridiculously rapid rate. As I noted in my CGM review, the turfing of historical events and monarchs means that every European power plays somewhat the same, with remarkably little local color in even the generic events. The AI controlled powers often waver between low and abysmal stability. No auto-pause on events or auto-merchants makes for a little more watchfulness than even this sort of game typically requires.

And yet it moves.

In his review at Game Shark, Tom Chick draws a distinction between the hardcore audience of the EU series and those strategy fans who have been intimidated by the history.

The most notable thing about Europa Universalis III is that it pretty much told its hardcore fans to keep playing Europa Universalis II, because they’re doing something dramatically different this time. And this is where average non-hardcore guys, guys like you and me, finally have an opportunity to get on board with these epic strategy games.

The first casualty, and a cause of much consternation among the die-hard fanbase, are hard-coded historical events. Instead of anticipating the scripted dissolution of the Ottoman empire, for instance, you’ll have to deal with the possibility of history not playing it by the books. And that assumes you know the books.

The irony of Tom Chick not thinking he’s a hardcore guy aside, he suggests that the new openness of the game makes this closer to a sandbox game than the other EU games. It is, he says, “different enough to piss of the grognards, friendly enough to lure in the rest of us”.

I think this is wishful thinking to some extent. EU3 is much more approachable than the first two, but still intimidating. The documentation is not nearly as thorough, complete or accurate as that which came with HoI2, and, if Paradox’s past is any indication, will become increasingly irrelevant with every patch. It’s worth remembering, as well, that the other two EU games weren’t mostly intimidating because of the history, which is gone, but because of the detail, which is still there. If you were scared off by the difficulty of raising money or managing exploration, colonization, conquest and diplomacy in real time, EU3’s removal of historical events is not necessarily going to make it easier.

In fact, most of the hardcore EU players were initially interested in the idea of removing hard-coded historical events, mostly because many had fantasies of some sort of dynamic quasi-historical event matrix that would do more than generate border disputes, peasant revolts and colonial rushes.

But Chick’s larger point about this being an EU for the rest of the world holds. In my opinion this is mostly because the detail that could be so intimidating is now more transparent. All strategy games boil down to math at one point or another, but by choosing to make the math more explicit, Paradox never leaves you guessing about what is going wrong. This is especially true in the battles, where the various factors are mapped out quite nicely. (Cavalry is grossly overpowered throughout the game, by the way.) There are four or five different map modes that keep all the important general information at your fingertips.

I think the interface is better than Chick does, mostly because so many Paradox interfaces are terrible. Sure, they could use a proper UI designer, but the customizable list menu, the sound cues, the drop down reminders of debt, revolt and domestic policy adjustments are light years ahead of what they’ve had before. I mostly miss the utility of the right-click for building and colonization.

In spite of its quality, I haven’t been playing a lot of Europa Universalis III, just like I haven’t played a lot of Medieval 2. Part of it is that I played both Rome: Total War and Europa Universalis II almost ad nauseum. Once installed, neither left my hard drive. The thrill is gone from both series to some extent, even in spite of the improvements made in their most recent iterations. EU3 is almost as radical a makeover as Civ IV was, both graphically and design-wise, and I may go back to it if I hear good reports about the upcoming patch.

→ 3 CommentsTags: