Its interesting seeing all of the They-Are-Billions-like games now coming out (Conan: Unconquered, Age of Darkness, Diplomacy is not an Option, also kind of Mindustry and Riftbreaker). They feel like a riff on tower defense games but also owe a fair bit of DNA to Stronghold.
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
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.
4 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 17 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
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).
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 19 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
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.
6 vastausta 1 uudelleentwiittaus 28 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
I think the core problem is that DiD primarily acts against fatigue, morale and communication delays/lack of information. Games still haven't mastered the first two, and the last is a complete non factor in all but the most niche simulationist games.
3 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @SashoTodorov1 ja @BretDevereaux
Morale especially!!! "We are fighting off the siege of our capital city where we and our families live" should have much higher morale than "The player is 3 cities away from full map completion!"
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @ChristoSilvia ja @SashoTodorov1
In their defense, the sieges in Total War games on normal difficulty actually do factor in the morale-motivation mismatch. But no one plays on lower difficulties and on VHard, morale is a non-factor for the AI due to huge bonuses, until the 'Army Losses' penalty kicks in.
3 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
It's actually quite sad and frustrating: so much of CA's sometimes brilliant design work actually breaks when played on Hard/VHard in their games, but for experienced players, normal is comically easy, creating a situation where the game becomes LESS strategically rich over time.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @SashoTodorov1
I guess you would really need the AI to have better macro economy management, I'm not sure if this is hard, or if CA tried this and it wasn't fun. I play on Medium because I don't have much time and I like winning!
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
It's funny, I've played Total Warhammer on Legendary, but eventually dropped back down to 'Hard' because the difficulty 'cheats' break so many systems that Vhard and Legendary just aren't worth it. So I can absolutely imagining playing on Normal for the same reason.
-
-
Playing on Vhard/Vhard or Legendary has all sorts of strange knock-on-effects in those games. Manipulating enemy public order becomes pointless and armies end up focused almost entirely on either single-entity units (heroes, monsters) or ranged units.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Even really good melee infantry or non-shock cavalry ends up in the trash can mostly on vhard/legendary because the AI gets massive melee combat and morale boosts - but nothing that protects them from missiles.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä - Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.