Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
One thing that strikes me is how it seems like a deliberate shift from a more difficult design problem to an easier one. Older TD games were about defense-in-depth via mazing, but the TaB-likes generally focus on hard-stop perimeter defenses.
Likewise, the aim of the early Stronghold games (back when they worked) was also complex defense in depth. Likewise the sieges in 2011's Shogun II, built around multiple zones and choke-points (a design CA keeps trying; we'll see if Total Warhammer III finally nails it).
It seems really hard to get defense-in-depth to work in a game setting; the simple states of game units tend to incentivize focused firepower ('killboxes'). That's striking because (as we recently noted: https://acoup.blog/2021/09/17/collections-no-mans-land-part-i-the-trench-stalemate/ …) in actual warfare, D-i-D is often the way to go.
Instead of designing games that can handle the complexity of simulating defense in depth situations, it seems like the design trend is towards using the greater horsepower computers offer to just ramp up the numbers of units massively.
That's not to say the They-Are-Billions style defense games are bad; they're not. I played TAB and it was fun. But it seems like the genre of fort/castle builders never simulated actual fort/castle design very well and now seem to be moving further away from basic principles.
Maybe I should add a primer on some of the principles of historical defense design to the to-do list for the blog at some point (though I'd probably keep it restricted to the European tradition for the sake of my sanity).
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
