|
Fuligin posted:Fall from Heaven 2 deserves an entry under Fantasy imo This +1. Fall From Heaven is still the peak of the Civ franchise in my opinion, and I regret that the later iterations were less modable. Hannibal Rex posted:I haven't played any of the Age of Wonders games, but I hear they're spiritual sequels to the Warlords series. Can someone break them down for me? Is one of them in particular considered the best of the series? There's a dedicated thread here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3857341 I post a lot there, and I'm unabashedly biased, but AOW is fantastic. Don't approach it as "Civ meets X-COM" though, that's not a fair comparison. It's closer to "X-COM meets Civ", or even better, "Total War with turn-based combat". The highlight is the tactical play, the strategy map is generally just an excuse to make interesting fights happen. I personally think Planetfall is the best, but if you want a cheaper starting point try out AOW3. In both cases, I'd suggest skipping the campaign (except maybe the tutorial) in favor of a couple skirmish maps first. Mostly that's because the campaigns don't get updated with the significant changes that came in post-release patches. Those changes are, by and large, very positive and necessary but it does tend to break stuff a bit. I believe they're still technically playable, but maybe not balanced or enjoyable.
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
Ragnar34 posted:Hot take? Jesus, is that a minority opinion? I don't think I've ever seen anyone say they wanted to design units. I assume there are some grognards out there who are excited to manually retrofit all their units from bronze to iron on turn 40 of every game, but surely they're a negligible portion of the target audience. A lot of people - both devs and players - learned the wrong lessons from Alpha Centauri and/or Master of Orion. Unit designers are one of those erroneous lessons.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2020 14:33
|
|
|
Another game to add to OP: https://store.steampowered.com/app/489630/Warhammer_40000_Gladius__Relics_of_War/ I haven't actually played it though. To anyone who has: is Gladius any good?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:I think I asked a dev this once. Iirc, the answer is basically that they realised they would sell far more as a traditional 4x. This then prompted them to shoe horn in all the 4x laundry list that the fans demand (exploration, ship designer, tactical planetary battles), even though they knew it would make the game worse because fans wouldn't buy it without those things. Yeah, 4x is a genre that has a ton of really cool things it could do... but never happen because their core base keeps demanding everything just be another Civ or MOO. Which means that every 4x released keeps running into the same drat problems from having the same flaws - boring endgames where you've won but haven't "won", colony spam, tech spam, and a dependence on resource multipliers to make up for inadequate AI. You'd think after 30+ years of experience people would realize that no, this Newly Released Game will not in fact have magically solved these issues without changing the underlying rules somehow. It's just not possible, or else someone would have done it by now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I think if you're going to have a ship designer, you have to have tactical battles. It's kind of the only way in which that mechanic makes sense, and then that changes a lot about how the rest of the game plays out. Every sci-fi 4x having ship/unit designers is this really strange artifact. So... Aurora, then?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
To anyone who's interested, Age of Wonders Planetfall just released it's final DLC along with a big patch with a new free game mode. The game is 66% off on Steam until Friday.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 15:25
|
|
|
Bremen posted:I was considering just that. What are overall opinions on the game? I think it's amazing but I am admittedly biased. The best comparison is probably Total War, but with turn-based tactical fights - the strategy layer is intentionally not as well developed. The tactical fights are awesome though, easily XCOM level if not better. There's a thread for the game with a discord link in the OP here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3857341&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
Wipfmetz posted:I failed to see the unit progress in Planetfall. Every new unit read like a sidegrade or a very distinct specific use case. Sometimes just want to research "better shooting mans (shoots better)". A lot of this depends on your race and/or secret tech. Units are arranged by tiers, where T1 units have significantly lower stats across the board than T2 and so on up to T4. In exchange, the higher tiers cost more. It's balanced such that the most cost-effective play is to stay at lower tiers, but because battles are limited by the number of units you can bring eventually you really need to move upwards to increase your per-stack power. On top of that, there aren't many situations where a unit "upgrades" what a lower tier one did directly. Often, the higher tier unit can fill in for the lower tier but adds in some other utility on top of that. Just in general, a massive focus of the game is that no unit does exactly what another one can. There are some pretty well-defined archetypes, of course, but literally every unit has at least one small thing that is unique (and some of them don't even have an archetype at all). All that being said, the "unit progress" does exist if you're willing to pay for it. Taking, for example, a T1 Trooper versus a T3 Laser Tank, the tank will beat the snot out of a trooper every time. The tank just has way better damage output and defense stats. However, it might not always look that way because the tank also adds in these weird utility options (smoke screen? a defense-ignoring attack?) that can distract people from realizing that the numbers did, indeed, also get a lot bigger. It's just that Planetfall has also tried to accommodate people who'd like to keep the Troopers around without them feeling useless, so they retain a unique battlefield role and can be modded up to be competitive in the later game. Basically, think of mods as an alternate "unit progress" except that you don't have to actually change your units, you can just get the "progress". Wipfmetz posted:Yeah, it obviously is intended. And it works. It just means that I have to think, and I suck at such thinking. Yep. Thinking is hard.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2020 17:50
|
|
|
Oh good someone posted in here so I don't have to find it again - I have more games for the OP list. Star Ruler 2 (and 1 too I suppose). I'm still not entirely sure if it's a good game or not but it's definitely worth trying out because it does some very interesting poo poo in diplomacy and empire building. Deadlock: Planetary Conquest is a older game but my teenaged past self is highly confident that it's fantastic (while my embittered current self says that I have enough games I already don't play on Steam that I shouldn't spent $7 to find out if past me is right). There's also AI War, which for anyone who doesn't know AI War is one of those series that defies genre. It's sorta the bastard child of 4X and roguelikes, with a totally false veneer of a space RTS too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2021 09:24
|
|
|
Mokotow posted:Any info on Distant Worlds 2 release date? It’s super vague everywhere. According to the interview below, they're aiming at this summer but it depends on the feedback from closed beta for what needs addressing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAWOnTeV6qo&t=3324s
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
IIRC that's the game made by the guy that did the Long War mod for XCOM.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
The problem is that if the AI is better than the player, the player figures "why play the game" - but if the AI is worse than the player, the player gets frustrated with using it "because it's not optimal". AI control is something that people say they want, but are invariably wrong about. There's no middle ground to aim for here. The only way to do it is to change the mechanics of the game entirely to support it, which *surprise!* people won't allow either because it's not the accepted way that 4x games are played. I think the only possible way to do it is to remove information from the player, such that they cannot find out how good/bad the AI is doing aside from some really abstracted value (e.g. "this AI guy is 66% efficient versus this other lady that is 75%"). Which, no surprise, is kind of what Crusader Kings does - and even then people get mad about demesne limits, or break the game wide open from ignoring said limits. Beamed posted:Kael being hired and..never really doing much IIRC he did a bunch of work on Fallen Enchantress, basically by ripping out a ton of lovely ideas that didn't pan out. Still never came close to as good as the Fall From Heaven mod. Apparently he's a company VP now.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I don't have high hopes for it, but Galciv4 early access is now available on epic, and they are still doing the $10 coupon. Explorminate did an early access review of it on YouTube this last week, and surprisingly it looks... not bad? The endgame seems to mostly be a wink and a prayer at this point, but that's hardly new for the genre. It at least has some interesting ideas that are only half stolen from other games.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
Korak posted:Maybe one day one of these devs will start their development at the endgame and then work their way back, making the end game the best or most memorable parts of the game. Right now I'm sure there are millions of 4x players that tend to love the early-to-mid part of these games but then get tired of the bogged down "I'm gonna win but it's gonna take 10 more hours" gameplay we see. The problem with this approach is that you need the early part of the game to be fun or people won't play your game at all. If the endgame is a little janky, well, a lot of people never get that far in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
Speaking of Distant Worlds, the sequel is supposed to be coming out this year. Probably even pretty soon, I think the original plan when they announced it in January was for Q3 sometime. I haven't heard anything lately though, maybe they've hit a snag? The prerelease footage was promising.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
Megazver posted:Seems it's a 7.5 game with half a point added for ambition. Amplitude.txt
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
Bought Wizards and Warlocks this weekend and have been trying it out. There's a core of a great game here, it's just hiding behind mediocre UI and unexplained game mechanics. It's not that I mind if there's twelve hundred different things going on that largely don't matter, but it would be nice if there was some proper explanation so that I could know what actually doesn't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2021 01:05
|
|
|
I'm not sure if I'd say more complex exactly. Maybe more deep? There's some pretty cool stuff going on under the hood, but mostly that's just to randomly generate the flavor. Ultimately the core gameplay isn't all that unfamiliar; it's probably more accessible than Dominions except that there's nobody to ask questions since there's way fewer players. Similar to, say, Dominions there's a bit of decision overload and you'll have to learn to deal with getting curbstomped by a new unit/spell that you had no real way of knowing about before encountering it. If you're gunning to get one specific unit it'll be nigh-impossible, but if you're OK with naturally expanding your roster of summons and recruits as you research/conquer that's pretty easy. The research system isn't presented super well and has a mediocre UI, but once you understand the relationship between lore ("techs" that might give you stuff, research when you have nothing better to do), spellcraft (kinda-sorta unlocks for new mechanics), and masteries (give you spells and units along with other passive effects). On the off-chance that someone might actually know the answer, is there anything you can do to already-conquered towns to either destroy them or migrate them to a more favorable culture?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2021 14:03
|
|
|
Anyone tried out the Galactic Civilizations 4 alpha?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:Which looked basically the same as GalCiv2. Who do they think they are? Illwinter? Looking the same doesn't necessarily mean it's the same game really (although perhaps that's your point in the first place). The Dominions series has very much revamped itself under the hood while seeming to be the same at a casual glance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:I kind of hate it when 4Xs add ship designers. They usually don’t add anything of value unless the 4X is focused around tactical combat, like with RTW or SOTS Ship/unit designers are a total waste in 95% of the games they show up in. Even in otherwise "good" games. I'll die on the hill that Alpha Centauri would have been a better game without one, or at least that the unit designer didn't add anything of substance.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 06:35
|
|
|
"Classic" ship/unit designers are filled with artificial rock/paper/scissors mechanics that don't need the designer to be implemented. They have false decisions where the new thing adds a slightly different stat than the old one but is still clearly an improvement. They often have obviously optimal designs. And, worst of all, basically every one of them could be removed entirely and replaced with a Civilization-style unit roster and literally nothing of substance would be lost. They're inconsequential to the actual game! It's cosmetics for nerds. I'd much rather see the game developers spend their time on making actually interesting units (hello, Age of Wonders!) instead of lazy cookie-cutter crap that fits into unit designers. The only ship/unit designer that I can say offhand is actually meaningful, and not just an impediment on the player's way towards creating a pretty obviously optimal unit, is Aurora's... because what Aurora is really simulating with it's designer is the logistics and planning of design, and not just skipping everything except for the final product. You have to plan for what's required months or even years in advance (it can take months to research a new missile engine, much less a carrier). You have to accept reasonable tradeoffs (Ship A can use this engine cribbed from Ship B to save research time, but it's going to be slower since it's bigger and heavier...). You solve actual problems (hmm, if I can shave 10% off the mass on this missile it can still fire from my old systems but I really don't know if I can afford to reduce the fuel mass, do I need to sacrifice payload?). Ship classifications fall out natively from the mechanics and demands of your nation, they aren't shoehorned in arbitrarily. There are extremely meaningful consequences of your decisions; ships will often be forced into sub-optimal roles not because of any mistake by the player but because the situation changed faster than your process could catch up. You cannot remove the designer from Aurora and have it be the same game. Distant Worlds gets partial credit here because of how it influences the economy under the hood, but even then I think that it's a better game if the player is locked out of the ship designing itself and just has to accept whatever their empire rolls with based on available technology and national predisposition. Or, perhaps, if the player was able to influence the automatic design by telling it "our empire has a lot of excess vibranium, small but existent access to kryptonite, and literally no unobtanium whatsoever", or perhaps "I want a ship that can go 1000 nebula miles at 50 space knots with a construction time of 3 months, under those constraints what will it cost and how many guns are on it".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Yea I didn't realize the original was that either. It's too bad, it sounded like it had some interesting ideas. Wait, pausable real-time in and of itself is a game-breaker for you? Why?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Even in games where they’re “good” (insofar as not being an active detriment), they’re still aware of dev time that could have gone to something more productive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
Splicer posted:You gonna tell me Age of Wonders: Planetfall should have spent their dev time on something "more productive"? I don't really see their mechanics as a unit designer per se, although I suppose I would entertain an argument about it. Even if I conceded that, Planetfall is a major outlier against the commonly cited "good" unit designers in that a) the base units are much more interesting in the first place, b) there's very little rock/paper/scissors balancing from unit to unit or modded ability to modded ability, and c) the presumed unit designer is much more integrated into the core game as a turn-to-turn mechanic, where the ability to alter units is a real power multiplier that should be leveraged but at the same time is metered with in-game restrictions. You cannot wholly ignore the mechanic, but you can consciously decide not to utilize it and succeed if you plan correctly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
The genre needs more games like Sid Meier's Colonization, and less that are just retreads of Civ or MOO. Not that I want a remake per se of Colonization, but the concept should be explored more: a game where the player has a more defined goal than just "blob forever", combined with logical restrictions and an endgame boss. Everyone acknowledges that the early parts of 4x are fun while the endgame is poo poo; you'd think after thirty years of trying someone would have figured out that the logical answer isn't to keep failing at making a good endgame, but to change things so that there isn't a "classical" 4x endgame.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Stellaris and Planetfall have the criseses, which is nice. Stellaris otherwise falls into a lot of the standard AI traps though. I haven't picked up Stellaris in a few expansions, but reading through the DLCs it at least appears like they've been trying out new stuff for the lategame and late-midgame. Of course, it's still a Paradox game so the mere concept of a "victory" barely applies in the first place, but at least they're trying. Planetfall, for all the praise I have for it, does not really attempt anything interesting to solve the endgame issue IMO. My love for the game has always been for multiplayer and/or it's tactical combat. It's like the Total War series, where the game is good despite the strategic side, not because of it. Half-wit posted:When you've got a clearly-defined end-goal besides just 'paint the map' it seems like 4x'es starts crossing genres into something closer to puzzle games; less about developing a world in the manner you want and more about min-maxing to reach the goal. Perhaps, but it's at least a novel approach to an endgame... and one that I think has been severely underexplored. It seems like it'd be easier to "fix" the puzzle-game aspect than it would be to make an AI capable of keeping up with a powergaming player. Mayveena posted:I think for the most part devs have moved on to management games where this isn't as much of an issue. "Pure" 4x's seem to be on a steep decline, while a new management game comes out like every day. I think it's a combination of things. 1) it's just extremely hard to match the quality of the old titans of the genre - or, perhaps, to keep up with the perception of quality they have. A lot of people have rose-colored goggles when it comes to Civ, MOO, or even Alpha Centauri. 2) making decent AI is very difficult, and seeing as your average indie studio on Steam today is literally one or two people in an apartment there's a lot simpler genres to attempt in your first major foray at development. Even if you are the type that would accept the challenge, you probably aren't able to handle the graphic demands of a 4x as opposed to, say, a management game or roguelike. 3) as opposed to the indie devs doing it for the enjoyment/experience, the biggest companies are doing it for the money... and if you're doing it for the money, you either need to be a mobile game, a subscription service, or a Skinner box. 4x games don't lend themselves to any of these very easily. 4) between 2 and 3 above, you're basically left with the mid-size legacy devs - Firaxis, Triumph, Stardock, etc. Most of them already have established franchises they're working off of, without much incentive to push the bounds of the genre. Amplitude stands out as a major exception here, and to their credit they did do some neat things with their first couple Endless games... but, after those first couple titles, they've also started getting gun-shy about steering too far away from what they've done in the past. I can't blame these guys very much though, because for the smallish studios you really can't afford to take a loss on any of your titles or else your company might stop existing at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Did any of you guys play the Terra Invicta demo? Yes, and I'm having a good time. That being said... caedwalla posted:Watched a streamer play some Terra Invicta and it looks like weaponized tedium. A million stats, research projects, factions, possible actions, provinces, agents, just a ridiculous amount of things to keep track of. All of that before even making it into space. I can't imagine what late game looks like. ... I can very much see that it's not for everyone, since... Brendan Rodgers posted:almost like a whole new style of strategy game. .. this is exactly true. The game isn't really a clone of anything that's come before it, it's quite complicated, and to top it off it has that indie dev "charm" of weird UI decisions that hide important poo poo behind three menus and/or eight clicks. The flavor, though, is Alpha Centauri-levels with every random tech getting a couple paragraphs of fluff and a surprisingly great voiceover. The early game we get to play so far is actually a very tense slow burn - there's nothing quite like fighting over geopolitics for ten turns then accidentally scrolling out too far... just to realize that suddenly the aliens have a dozen bases and 10k power fleets up there so holy poo poo are we boned because while it felt nice to finally punt the Protectorate out of Israel that isn't doing a drat thing to address the real problem, and oh gently caress the Servants now own all of India and China and who the gently caress knows what they're getting up to why can't these other factions DO SOMETHING WORTHWHI- oh, hey, my Mars probe is done that's cool! There's a lot going on once you get that game-mechanics understanding, is my point. It's glorious if you're the right type of nerd. I haven't run into any obvious AI weirdness yet. I haven't looked at the battle skirmish mode either, which will presumably be a game mechanic that matters a lot. There's still a chance this runs into the same problem as Stellaris where after a fun early game, the midgame and endgame kinda suck to experience. But the demo was certainly worth what I paid for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:So I’ve tapped out after a lot of hours in the game and my one takeaway is that this is a turn based game. It’s an extremely odd way to structure the game in that you re basically just watching the planet spin for for a minute and then doing your actions again. I don’t understand why they decided to have a real time engine and then made every action a succeed/fail when their nation model 100% looks like it was designed for assigning your agents and their skills would apply a daily bonus of some kind. I'm pretty sure that the design intent is for space to be essentially unviable for basically the first 10 years. Everyone tries for it right now anyway, partially because the demo doesn't last that long and partially because it's a space game, but I think it's perfectly viable (maybe even optimal) to skip Luna entirely in favor of Mars or the asteroids. Just spend your early boost on claiming all the low earth orbit slots for research modules instead. And the early space ship parts are also intentionally dogshit; there's a reason humanity has barely managed to keep up a couple space stations in low orbit instead of having dozens of ships gunning to the moon every month. The game devs seem to be taking the timeline pretty realistically; imagine if a major nation today managed to strap a naval cannon onto a rocket to get to the Moon and back within four years - that'd actually be a pretty massive achievement! Now, whether that's fun is to the user, but it certainly feels like these were a conscious decision to prioritize verisimilitude over gamey-ness (or maybe simulation over abstraction). Note that most of your national investments aren't producing things, they're producing incomes of things so it'll all ramp up exponentially. The expectation seems to be that the game itself will change drastically after the first decade or two. The turn-based thing probably has to do with the appropriate timing of later-game space fights, and not the early-game geopolitical map painter? I'm not sure.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:That Terra Invicta demo seems to have disappeared from steam. Don't suppose anyone has a link to anywhere else it can be found? It was only supposed to last for the one week. There aren't any official places to get it; it's possible that you might be able to go sailing for one but I myself haven't tried.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:You can add Old World to the list of Shadow Empire and Distant Worlds imo. Also the Age of Wonders series, although I’d argue they’re a hybrid 4x/tactical strategy and not “pure” 4x. But yeah, this eternal obsession with remaking MoO and Civ is terrible for the genre.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
Brendan Rodgers posted:Buddy if I knew what the problem was I'd have made a new genre called 5X and made a billion dollars. The very biggest issue with traditional 4x games in single-player or co-op is that the AI is playing the same game as the human, with (approximately) the same rules. The second biggest issue is that so few people try to address issue #1 that those who do haven't figured out how to not accidentally make a puzzle game instead of a 4x. These two issues combined tend to mean that advanced 4x play becomes a game of "how to exploit stupid AI decisions because otherwise it inevitably scales faster than me" that is drastically different from the middle- and lower-skill experience of "oh hey I found some [insert opposing tribe here], let's go kill them while also building a pyramid because the AI is going to scale slower than me no matter how much I gently caress around". 4x games also run into problems where the first 50 turns of the game hardly resemble the next 200, but many game systems are better designed for those first turns because those are the ones that everyone plays... including the testers who are giving feedback during design. See: Stellaris, a game which needed two full redesigns and something like four years of continual development before they made anything fun past the early exploration phase. The concept of a unit designer is also, as a general rule, extremely ill-considered. There are maybe five games I could think of that have made an honest attempt to actually integrate the designer into their core gameplay, and of those only a couple succeeded (and -gasp- I don't include Alpha Centauri in the latter group, that designer was actually just kinda rear end even if it was a good try for the time). What the genre (especially the space side of it) needs is more designers to take inspiration from Aurora 4x, Distant Worlds, or AI War and fewer to just toss out yet another lovely MoO clone, or that learned all the wrong lessons from that game. Why has no one tried to remake Sword of the Stars, or Sins of a Solar Empire? Why did it take 30+ years before someone bothered to make a game about the early years of space exploration/exploitation in Terra Invicta? The genre is just waaay to conservative. And on second thought, I shouldn't absolve the non-space guys either because Humankind has always struck me as a massive step back for a studio that started out by making Endless Space. The Civ series peaked with Alpha Centauri, then peaked again in slightly different fashion with the Fall From Heaven mod for Civ 4; nothing's come close to those since. Just slap together some UI tweaking and texture remasters and call it good, those games are still perfectly functional without needing any "modern" graphics. There are a couple glimpses of hope though. Terra Invicta is trying some really cool ideas. Old World, despite having significant faults, is at least attempting to challenge some of the core Civ gospel. There's been a slow but steady trickle of indie games with stuff like AI War, Wizards and Warlords, Shadow Empire, Distant Worlds, and Conquest of Elysium that for all their faults are still pushing the bounds while managing to be consistently fun. It's the big boys that are failing us, devs like Amplitudes and Firaxis.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
Travic posted:I know its been a while, but does anyone know anything about Ai War 2? Military and logistics bases can build spy units which can leave the original system.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2022 13:17
|
|
|
Travic posted:Gotcha. It's strange. I have a shipyard, two frigate buildings, and a destroyer building. The cruiser is right next them. It's the right city too. I'm stumped. Is your fleet within range of the spire shipyard? It has to be within one jump.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
I'll +1 to saying that Civ 4 is worth getting on sale. Civ 4 with Fall From Heaven II is, in my opinion, the absolute peak of the series... and that's including Alpha Centauri.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2022 05:56
|
|
|
MP is also a very low priority for the Civ series.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
As a reminder, Terra Invicta comes out tomorrow. Pretty sure the demo is still up for anyone who's undecided.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
Narsham posted:My dream 4x was a Master of Magic sequel. It would have a campaign or a grand scenario. The MoM would be chosen by the player or randomly. The game would be set well after the casting of the spell of mastery. The player starts in a remote and hidden college where ‘casters have developed a new system of magic not controlled through the Spell of Mastery, based on drawing power from things: wood, iron, blood, bone, etc. The AIs are either similar groups of casters in hiding which might compete with or support you, and one or two agents of the MoM (drawn mostly from the MoM heroes roster) who use a mixture of mortal troops and agents matching the MoM’s schools. You have to expand and research while keeping a low profile until you’re ready to strike. In the grand scenario, the MoM turns out to be casting an ascension spell and you can cut a deal to help them and replace them at the cost of betraying the other hidden casters, or try to take them out and replace them, or try to break the Spell of Mastery once and for all. They made this game (or one pretty similar). It's called Sorcerer King. It was... ok, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
Jack Trades posted:AI Wars 2 is really loving cool and I gladly bought all of the DLC to support such a unique game, but I really wish it had a campaign. Check out "Quick Start".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
Once again I advocate that if every space game deleted their ship designer it would immediately be a better game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2023 02:56
|
|