Flash of Steel header image 1

Three Moves Ahead Episodes 205 and 206: Unity of Command and the Cold War

February 21st, 2013 by Troy Goodfellow · Podcast, Three Moves Ahead

ThreeMovesAhead

I know I’m losing it when I keep forgetting to remind people that I do a podcast sometimes.

A couple of weeks ago, the guys had Tomislav Uzelac to talk about one of my favorite all time wargames, Unity of Command, specifically the Red Turn expansion as well as general design issues. UoC is simply a brilliant interface attached to meaningful games design in an attractive package. It is also quite challenging. I was testing a stream with it last week and my demo partner said “I would even play that,” based simply on the look and smoothness of play. So maybe…

Get the MP3 here and join the discussion over here.

And in episode 206, Rob and I just shot the bull over the challenges and opportunities in designing a game set it or a game about the Cold War. It’s mostly rambling, but we have fun.

MP3 here and forum chat over here.

RSS here.
Subscribe on iTunes.

And don’t forget to rate or review us on iTunes.

Comments Off on Three Moves Ahead Episodes 205 and 206: Unity of Command and the Cold WarTags:

Some Thoughts On The Evils of Multiplayer

February 20th, 2013 by Troy Goodfellow · Me, Multiplayer, Paradox

Hello, blog. Clearly I suck at promises, like one substantive post a week, but that’s because I am writing long essays to reframe the strategy game language space and then realize I wrote them backwards. So, sometime in the next week expect a couple of 6000 word posts. Clearly I need more modest goals, like just playing a game and writing about it.

I do want to follow up on a post I wrote for the Evolve corporate blog a couple of weeks ago. So yeah, this post is about March of the Eagles, a game we represent or at least recent experiences with it, but mostly it’s about how you can never let Rob Zacny rule France. Standard workplace disclaimers apply.

Last night, I joined a bunch of media that were at the Paradox Con in Iceland for a March of the Eagles multiplayer session. I don’t do a lot of multiplayer Paradox stuff for the reasons outlined in the Evolve post – these are long games that take longer when you have to keep the speed constant so that everyone can pay attention to everything, getting enough players to have fun can be a challenge, and people are dicks that like to mess up your empire.

The players included folk we’ve had on the podcast and other general strategy people – Rob Zacny (Gamespy/PCGN/3MA/You Know Him), Joe Robinson (Strategy Informer/RPS), Paul Dean (PCGN/Eurogamer/Shut Up Sit Down Show), Fraser Brown (Destructoid), Rowan Kaiser (Gamespy/Joystiq/AVClub) and TJ Hafer (PCGamer US). A good group and many of them will reconvene this weekend to play more.

To put on the PR hat for just a brief, shilling moment, March of the Eagles is a much more streamlined experience than other Paradox grand strategy games. Don’t expect this game about the Napoleonic Wars to be full of great diplomatic subtlety; it’s a war of domination and much of the game is about finding the right moment to strike in the right direction and then turning traitor with impeccable timing. Like Diplomacy, no power – even France – can get to their objective provinces on their own, so there has to be some co-ordination.

Last night I played Russia and it was a good choice. Mostly isolated from the mess in Western Europe, I could pick off bits of Austria while they were harried and nibble at the Ottomans. Problem is that Russia is very big and when a war starts in the Baltic, moving those dudes up from the Caucasus can take forever, especially with the speed set to a leisurely 2 out of 5.

We only got about a year into the ten year span of the game, but some valuable lessons about grand strategy multiplayer games were learned.

1) Never use the public Skype chat to talk about being low on manpower or where your scattered armies are. This leads to unwelcome assaults on Finland, Poland, the Netherlands or wherever you just told people you were not. All strategy games are, to some extent, about information but a grand strategy game against other people is even more so. You are dealing with humans that are capable of lies and deceit, but also stupid honesty so knowing when to use one and not the other is pretty important. You do want to say something in public chat – just to be social. But Emperor Joe of Austria did not need to be told that I was building up near Persia and not reinforcing my Polish line. And I used some information from King TJ Adolphus of Sweden to opportunistically move on Sveaborg.

2) You must accept small defeats. Multiplayer grand strategy is as much about knowing what setbacks you can take for now as it is about plotting revenge. You can’t be everywhere at once, so a lot of the game is about knowing how little you have to pay to just end a nuisance. Though for many countries the Napoleonic conflicts were close to total war, in multiplayer, you can’t really afford total war. This applies to pretty much any grand strategy game you can imagine, from Dominions to Civilization. If you can deliver the death blow quickly, then do it, but holding on for a long struggle in a six or seven player game is just inviting a strike from a sideline observer.

3) Bluff a little, but not too much. This is just general sound planning for any multiplayer game that requires thinking on the part of the participants, with poker being the obvious analogue. You can’t bluff on every move because then you become the tsar that cried wolf and no grandpa is going to bail you or your animal friends out of trouble. But if I could back up my boast of the power of my navy by landing an army to turn the tide of a poorly fought battle, then I could boast that those three transports were just the landing craft that fronted a navy I had building since Day 1. (Note: I had not been building a navy since Day 1.) The possibility that maybe Cossacks could land anywhere in the Baltic or Mediterranean so long as Britain and France weren’t bothering me was a useful lie. But it was also the only real bluff I made. Everything other action was backed up – if delayed. So yeah, these games are about deception, but also about trust. You will need allies in pretty much every grand strategy game you play against other people.

The experience did remind me that I miss playing MP more than I thought I did. I don’t have a lot of time for games in the evenings, but I am planning some Combat Mission adventures soon, and I hope my opponent and I both take the time to write about our experiences with the new Battlefront versions. Maybe the Italian campaign…

As for March of the Eagles, I will be streaming the game on my Twitch TV channel tomorrow night, probably around 8 PM if you want to see the game in action and ask me some questions. I want to do more streaming, and not just games that Evolve is fortunate enough to represent.

→ 2 CommentsTags:

Three Moves Ahead Episodes 203 and 204: The Kickstarter Shows

February 6th, 2013 by Troy Goodfellow · Gas Powered Games, Podcast, Three Moves Ahead

ThreeMovesAhead

A trip to Iceland prevented me from posting last week, so I’ll take this chance to remind people that watch this space that we did a Classic Game Analysis of Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander with Chris Taylor from Gas Powered Games. The conversation, naturally, turned to his struggling Kickstarter, and Rob wrote a great summary of the studio’s situation, recently.

You can listen to that show directly from here, and discuss it here.

Today, we uploaded our conversation with our good friend Jon Shafer. Though the show topic was map evolution, since the topic was inspired by his new game, At the Gateswe ended up talking a lot about it. His Kickstarter, with a more modest goal than Taylor’s, is going to be a success, in all likelihood.

You can listen to Episode 204 here, and discuss it on the Idle Thumbs forum here.

I get a lot of Kickstarter emails and requests – many from people with good ideas or interesting ideas – but we are not a Kickstarter podcast and don’t want to be a place that just promotes “maybe this will get finished” games. In these cases, of course, the developers have track records that demonstrate they can deliver a product, and both are fascinating people for other reasons than the fact they are Kickstarting stuff. (Taylor has long been one of my favorite devs to watch give a speech, and Shafer – a frequent guest, often at the last minute – will be guaranteed our support in one way or another just like Vic Davis will always be invited to talk about his new games. 3MA has a corporate culture of its own.)

So don’t expect us to do a lot more Kickstarter shows unless we know the developer or have easy access to them and there is a hook for a good show.

In any case, they were great conversations and I encourage you to listen to them.

(Shafer’s show sort of breaks my conflict rules since my company played a small part in the promotion of his announcement by doing a mass mailing and some editing for him, but I am more contaminated by being his friend than by being someone that will see a very tiny amount of money funneled my way. Consider this a disclaimer.)

Comments Off on Three Moves Ahead Episodes 203 and 204: The Kickstarter ShowsTags:

Pax East 2013 Panels for TBS and 3MA

January 23rd, 2013 by Troy Goodfellow · PAX

The PAX East panel acceptances were mailed out today and I can say that I will be on two panels at this year’s con in Boston.

Though the precise makeup of the panels may change between now and then (life has a way of screwing things up); people will be added or dropped or what have you. But here is how things look for me:

Friday, March 22 at 2:30 in the Sphinx Theater, I will join Muzzy Lane‘s Chris Parsons and Robot Entertainment‘s Justin Kornhof to talk about the survival and transformation of turn-based strategy games.

And Saturday, March at 7:30 PM in the Corgi Theater (not as cool as a sphinx, but more adorable), there will be a Three Moves Ahead panel about interface design. Rob Zacny, Julian Murdoch and I will be joined by a couple of our developer friends to discuss dos and don’ts and whys and wherefores in making UIs for games that have a lot of information. (And thanks to Julian for, as always, being our shepherd through this process.)

I still need to make flight and hotel arrangements, and of course GDC is the very next day after PAX ends. So this has been ace planning by both convention organizers. Kudos.

PAX East will always have a special place in my heart because it is East Coast like me, I met a lot of very good friends there (in person) for the first time at the inaugural show in 2010, and I do like the consumer facing shows quite a bit. The crowd is much more diverse than that you would find at an E3 or GDC and you get a sense of the gaming community in all of its infinite weirdness (note: not all good weirdness.)

No decision yet on a 3MA meetup, because we have a lot of things to keep in mind for that. But I’ll let you know.

If you are in Boston for the Con, please come to one of my panels and introduce yourself.

→ 3 CommentsTags:

2012 In Perspective Episodes and Thoughts on Definitions

January 22nd, 2013 by Troy Goodfellow · Podcast, Three Moves Ahead

ThreeMovesAhead

We thought we’d do the year end wrap stuff in two parts this year. Episode 201 welcomed three of our regular guests from last year (Dave Heron, Soren Johnson and Jon Shafer) and asks them for their thoughts on the year that was. Then, in Episode 202, Tom Chick joins the full panel for a chat about what we liked, trends we noticed and what we’ll see going forward.

You can stream 201 directly from here and post about the show on the forum here. For 202, the stream link is here and the forum link is here.

In each of the episodes, there is some occasional back and forth (more on 201) about what counts as a strategy game or as an RTS or what have you. These are not discussions I especially enjoy having, mostly because they distract from more important things like how specific mechanics work in a given game or parallels across genres. In this case, one of the flashpoints was FTL: Faster Than Light, a game that much of the gaming media has decided is a strategy game (that’s where it was categorized in most end of year polls) even though I agree with Heron and Shafer that is a roguelike descendant of the RPG, with few strategy elements (though, of course, there are tactical elements in the battles; many RPGs and roguelikes have these.) And, unlike Tom, I don’t think DOTAlikes and MOBAs are strategy, even though they evolved out of a pure RTS.

I could go on and on about why some games are or are not strategy games. For me, a strategy game has to have a combination of long term planning (not simply reacting to events), competition for an management of resources (and predictable consequences of this management), clear goals or markers of progress and some conception of space being for more than simply movement (even abstractly understood, like in deck building games – decks are a great blend of resource harvesting and spatial understanding).

Now this is not an either/or situation. Many games cross lines quite well, and most of the best strategy games have strong RPG elements (The Sims, OOTP Baseball, Crusader Kings) where “characters” are given ratings in various skills, and you need to improve or optimize these skills to achieve objectives; The Sims even has lifetime goals which are, in effect, quests. There have been efforts to make FPS/strategy games, rhythm strategy games, etc. All can fit fine under the strategy umbrella and still incorporate elements from other genres. This is not a claim to some sort of strategy purity test. Genre definitions are fluid and elastic.

However, as much as I find discussions of definitions boring (What is a game? What is art?), this does not mean that definitions themselves are always unimportant or arbitrary, though, of course, they can be. It would make no sense for me to open a podcast with a declaration that Far Cry 3 was the best strategy game of the year, or that the latest Mario Kart is a superior driving simulation. Definitions, no matter how elastic we make them or how unsettled they might be, set the boundaries of the discussion.

And the fact that we can have this debate, I think, demonstrates the central role of strategy gaming in game design, and the importance of mechanics in identifying which of these things is not like the other. “Games” is a very big world, and it gets bigger and broader every year – to the point where things that barely have interaction or mechanics at all are considered games because they happen to play out on a screen in pixel art. And in the game world, few things are as broad as the strategy genre, which incorporates wargames, base buliding RTSes, worker placement games, economic simulations and a host of other things.

I still think we have boundaries, though. On the margins there will always be some disagreement.

When I write my book, I will end all discussion – at least only as long as the first person that reads it is away from their computer.

→ 4 CommentsTags:

Three Moves Ahead Episode 200: Tapping Past Bastogne

January 7th, 2013 by Troy Goodfellow · Mobile, Podcast, Three Moves Ahead, Wargames, WW2

ThreeMovesAhead

I’ve already written about why I like Battle of the Bulge so much. And if you haven’t caught Bruce’s review over at Quarter to Three you should do that.

This week on the show we talk about Shenandoah’s masterpiece again, with regular Julian Murdoch. There’s a lot of talk about the relative merits of the single player and multiplayer games, the platform specific nature of its design and its potential for longevity.

Keep in mind that this is a studio that is employing John Butterfield, Joe Miranda and Eric Lee Smith. If their El Alamein game isn’t equally enchanting, I’ll be astonished.

You can listen to the show directly here and please go and talk about it over on the official forums.

Comments Off on Three Moves Ahead Episode 200: Tapping Past BastogneTags: