Paradox announces HOI 3 and releases 2nd Majesty 2 trailer.

[kris]

Detail which isn't integrated into gameplay is just poor design, it attracts autists and nerds but it doesn't make a good game.

80% of the divisions in HoI2 were useless to build, they cost more and you could calculate that they would cause less damage than however many militia units you could build for the same resources. The way to play the game is to identify the one optimal strategy for a particular nation and just follow that, without giving it more thought. Some countries might have the option of two or three viable strategies at the start but that's it. The rest of the game is a frustrating grind of repetitive tasks.

You are then not against detail, you are saying some game mechanics are not working. That is another issue. It is true that some brigades is much more useful than others, just like it is known that airpower can be abused against the vanilla AI. The simple solution is to make brigades more useful in their specific task.

The larger problem is probably that with 300 divisions you don't notice the difference and that waters down any specific use a certain unit have. the different divisions on the other hand is very useful (marines, mountain and paratrooper).

 

[Mefi]

My first instinct is to say you're grasping at straws. But to be honest I don't know what the fuck your doing. Do you?

Seems your whole grievance is Paradox left out concentration camps, labor camps, genocide, the firebombing of Dresden, yadda, yadda... And because they chose to do this anyone who plays HOI and likes it is an inferior.

No. That's just you flailing around out of your depth.

I'll do a quick recap and then you can go away and re-read if you're seeking insight, or ignore if you're determined to be a dumbfuck about this.

I'm explaining why the game is fundamentally broken. It's trying to be one thing (a historically based strategy game) but the elements which it leaves out (the slave labour, genocide etc) means that at a grand strategy level it cannot function as a historical grand strategy game. It functions as a very badly balanced grand strategy game instead.

Now as a very badly balanced grand strategy game, more experienced gamers recognise what the problem is and knowing it can't be rectified due to Paradox's stance on 'moral' issues move away from it to other games. Even Paradox is aware that the fundamental model it's using is broken but WW2 = bigger market of RTS/history channel inspired kiddies. (Take a swift look at the HoI2 boards in comparison to say the Vicky or Ck boards for a comparison of thread titles to see what I mean...).

As I said, it's a good marketing ploy, it brings in more money for the company and those kiddies do move over to other games.

Adding in the forbidden elements via flavour events is perfectly possible if the issue was just the 'flavour'. It's not. The genocide and slave labour were a crucial part of the German war effort and when the economy is such a huge part of a grand strategic game that makes it rather hard for HoI to reach any kind of historical starting point.

 

[dagorkan]

Good points Mefi, I hadn't thought of it that way.

I think Paradox games are great conceptually (on paper), they fail through lack of imagination, lack of competence or laziness in practice. It's like they find the first formula they can come up with and just stick with it adding needless detail and nicer graphics with each expansion. A collection of nice ideas doesn't make a game.

The events system is broken, the AI is broken (they give the computer a series of possible strategies which will activate under certain conditions, but can't adapt to ahistorical situations which haven't been coded for), the combat system is broken - there was a very interesting post on Paradox a while back where a guy went through the real 'laws' of combat and showed how HoI didn't obey them, and often contradicted them.

Eg, that more technology/firepower doesn't increase enemy casualties, it tends to decrease your own (dragging out battles), the impact of geographical formations at the division level, that there are limits to numerical superiority, that the importance of tanks is provide more firepower => reduce infantry losses (as opposed to just a 'hardness' boost), the nature of taking over territory, that in the real WW2 German combat effectiveness (casualty ratios) was always ~1.2 to up to 5.0 (against Soviets) against all other forces and that the game simply can't model through 'doctrines' and experience.

 

[LCJr.]

The basics are fucked before the game code is ever written. No slave labour, no terror bombings, no genocide.

Without slave labout and genocide, you can't have even a rough facsimile of the German economy to make a fair comparison to other countries with. That's why it's impossible to lose in a Germany 1933 scenario - the game has to overpower Germany.

No terror bombings means that 40% of the British war effort vanishes and you end up with a ludicrously overpowered mid-game Germany.

This is a ww2 grand strategy game where the power relationships between the main protagonists is broken totally. You end up with a RTwPS game and one which appeals to a different audience to the other Paradox core games (exception of the hideous red-headed stepchild of Diplomacy)

Either you feel this wasn't abstracted in anyway or you want a war crimes simulator.

Not really if it's marketed as being on a par with, say, WitP. The fyndamental problem lies there and Paradox would probably have a decent game where those variables can be totally removed from any game balancing attempt. Problem is they don't get dumbass kids who grow up with a History Channel view of ww2.

I'm a different type of strategy player LCJr - I actually grew up from playing miniatures into the first computer strategy games. It doesn't help that I know that 'strategy' has a seemingly much looser market definition than it ought to have.

Same as before anyone who plays HOI is a ignorant child who gets their history from TV. Followed by I'm older than you and my "gaming experience" makes my opinion the gospel.

If it's elitist to want a supposedly historical grand strategy game to represent history at the start of the scenario LCJ, yes I'm elitist.

If our experiences are so similar, then tell me what your response would be to someone turning up with machine gun armed French light infantry and claiming that it was historically accurate?

Is that elitism? Maybe there's a new definition for the word I've not seen or something.

Back to it's not historical because it doesn't have all the nasty bits. Perhaps they left those things out because they didn't want to become the official game of the neo-Nazi movement? Maybe they just didn't want the bad press including those events would have generated. Would including concentration camps maKe the game unsaleable in Germany?

I guess you were trying to make a point with the French light infantry question but you failed to provide a single detail. No timeframe, location/campaign, specific unit, unit scale, nothing.

Wanting historical accuracy elitism? I'd say no. Feeling the need to make comments like this yes.

dumbass kids who grow up with a History Channel view of ww2.

Looking at the differences between your earlier posts, what came in between and your last one I have a serious question. Were you under the influence last night?

 

[Mefi]

Either you feel this wasn't abstracted in anyway or you want a war crimes simulator.

It can't be abstracted. You can't abstract 2/3 of the German war effort post-41. Instead Paradox have taken 44 numbers and worked backwards without looking at why the 44 numbers were so relatively high. As for a war-crimes simulator, well, no but then if you're doing a grand strategy game about WW2, isn't it disingenuous to totally ignore the basic economic issues of lack of food (blockade of Europe > invasion of SU) which led to genocide and the use of slave labour to augment German industry? edit: in any case, if you want to gas Jews in the game it's perfectly possible to mod it in. That's not the point. The point is that the whole game mechanic ignores these moral issues making it fubar as any kind of historical grand strategy game. Johan's pronouncement is gameplay>history. Fair enough, it's just disappointing to see a good game engine going to waste.

Same as before anyone who plays HOI is a ignorant child who gets their history from TV. Followed by I'm older than you and my "gaming experience" makes my opinion the gospel.

Nope. I enjoyed HoI - it had promise. HoI2 was a daggerfall - morrowind step. HoI 3 will be the morrowind - oblivion step. It's heading in a different direction to a different market. That's life and my opinion is just that. The opinion of an old grognard. If you don't see it, ain't nothing to do with me. Enjoy the game.

Back to it's not historical because it doesn't have all the nasty bits. Perhaps they left those things out because they didn't want to become the official game of the neo-Nazi movement? Maybe they just didn't want the bad press including those events would have generated. Would including concentration camps maKe the game unsaleable in Germany?

I guess you were trying to make a point with the French light infantry question but you failed to provide a single detail. No timeframe, location/campaign, specific unit, unit scale, nothing.

Wanting historical accuracy elitism? I'd say no. Feeling the need to make comments like this yes.

Sorry, I thought when one said miniatures one usually assumed Napoleonics but I guess not.

As for bad press? Eh? It depends on how it's done. There's some moral pinhead dancing going on here for sure.

Looking at the differences between your earlier posts, what came in between and your last one I have a serious question. Were you under the influence last night?

I'm always under the influence - all I've done is gone to step 1 rather than assuming that here people didn't need the basics explaining. As for my point about History channel kiddies, have a look on the HoI forums - in fact compare the old HoI forum with, say, the Doomsday one. Totally different market being appealed to. And one who has no interest in anything other than trying to be better than Hitler at taking over the world. By-product of WW2 as a game when one takes out the meaningful consequences of actions? Especially the big decisions which shaped the post-war world.

 

[LCJr.]

Paradox has always chosen to ignore food/famine and not include direct or indirect attacks on civilians. It's been awhile since I've played it but does besieging a town in EU1 or 2 reduce the population? IIRC it does not. In Victoria wars only reduce the number of Soldier POP's. No other part of the population is affected and in Victoria your POP's are the heart of your economy. Are these games "fubar as any kind of historical grand strategy game" because they don't depict death by starvation or other means of the civilian population during a war? By the logic you're presenting every game they've made has failed.

I personally didn't enjoy any of the HOI series so it's no loss to me either way. Nothing against anyone who does they just don't suit my tastes. My biggest complaint with Paradox at the moment is their expansionist policy.

Can't speak for everyone but in my area ACW was more popular than Nappy. Also some WW2 and ancient/medieval/renaissance like DBA, DBM, DBR and later Armati.

Moral pinhead dancing. You mean like it's OK to depict the slave trade in EU? Maybe time is the difference in what you can and can't get away with.

 

[Mefi]

Paradox has always chosen to ignore food/famine and not include direct or indirect attacks on civilians. It's been awhile since I've played it but does besieging a town in EU1 or 2 reduce the population? IIRC it does not. In Victoria wars only reduce the number of Soldier POP's. No other part of the population is affected and in Victoria your POP's are the heart of your economy. Are these games "fubar as any kind of historical grand strategy game" because they don't depict death by starvation or other means of the civilian population during a war? By the logic you're presenting every game they've made has failed.

Well in Vicky pops move about, in CK the population revolts, and as for EU I couldn't give a flying fuck. In HoI, there are no consequences. People really do bitch and moan about how X is wrong and Y is wrong, and the reason they are wrong is that the whole fundamental economic model is wrong because of a (a-)moral decision by Paradox to ignore huge parts of German history 1933 - 1945. What's that Family Guy episode when the tour guide says "Nothing happened. Ve vere all on holiday."...

I personally didn't enjoy any of the HOI series so it's no loss to me either way. Nothing against anyone who does they just don't suit my tastes. My biggest complaint with Paradox at the moment is their expansionist policy.

Yeah it sucks. But at the same time they couldn't continue their indefinite patching of games with additional extras for free. So I won't bitch about it until they start charging for bugfixes.

Can't speak for everyone but in my area ACW was more popular than Nappy. Also some WW2 and ancient/medieval/renaissance like DBA, DBM, DBR and later Armati.

Again apologies, in Europe it does tend to be Napoleonics. ACW never did catch on over here. Maybe for obvious reasons.

Moral pinhead dancing. You mean like it's OK to depict the slave trade in EU? Maybe time is the difference in what you can and can't get away with.

Yeah there is some of that but at the same time one can, eg purge the Red Army as Stalin. I think the problem is that Paradox are fully aware of the issue but are terrified to address it properly. Your point about neo-nazi and bad press was a fair one and that's what they are scared of. At the same time, I think they'd be more honest if they just forgot trying to simulate the historical start to WW2 and use their engine for something set in the future. However, as I said, this wouldn't attract the same kind of audience.

It's not just about Germany either, if one follows a historical path as Britain then there should be mass starvations in India too - difference of course being that was due to a poor harvest not as a deliberate reallocation of resources away from a specific population.

But I wish them well with HoI3 because I do know that Paradox will reinvest some of their profits into catering for their initial core market.

 

[kris]

No. That's just you flailing around out of your depth.

I'll do a quick recap and then you can go away and re-read if you're seeking insight, or ignore if you're determined to be a dumbfuck about this.

I'm explaining why the game is fundamentally broken. It's trying to be one thing (a historically based strategy game) but the elements which it leaves out (the slave labour, genocide etc) means that at a grand strategy level it cannot function as a historical grand strategy game. It functions as a very badly balanced grand strategy game instead.

Now as a very badly balanced grand strategy game, more experienced gamers recognise what the problem is and knowing it can't be rectified due to Paradox's stance on 'moral' issues move away from it to other games. Even Paradox is aware that the fundamental model it's using is broken but WW2 = bigger market of RTS/history channel inspired kiddies. (Take a swift look at the HoI2 boards in comparison to say the Vicky or Ck boards for a comparison of thread titles to see what I mean...).

I was actually thinking you were joking when you said this.

any experienced gamer don't recognise these non-sense things you talk about. Game balance is in no way about slave labour and genocide and as a grand strategy games those things are abstracted in the production capacity and so on. they actually even have a event for the bombing of nanking which was a genocide.

If it was regular workers, slave labour or child workers doing the work doesn't affect the game. you have not given any argument why that would make a change. Germany is in fact already unhistorically stronger as far as production goes, just for balancing reasons.

I also played many other WW2 strategy games and I can't remember a single of them including these things, strangely enough they were also not broken.

It's not just about Germany either, if one follows a historical path as Britain then there should be mass starvations in India too - difference of course being that was due to a poor harvest not as a deliberate reallocation of resources away from a specific population.

You sound like Warden. Like a jilted lover. I also want continuations on their other games, but I don't go into sill rants about what is wrong about HOI. In fact there are thigns that could see improvement. The things you mention are less than issues and any supposed mass starvations in India would hardly affect the game at all.

 

[Trash]

Though I admit that HOI has it's problems I don't know any other WW2 grand strategy games that approach the scope and ambition that Paradox put in it. So, are there some great ones I missed?

 

[dagorkan]

It depends on what you see as 'better'...

Is it really just the strategy? Or is spreadsheet and options masturbation part of what you want?

In my opinion Risk for PC is a better world domination strategy game than HoI and I say that seriously. It has a thousand times less rules and only one type of 'unit', yet there is more strategic depth and more real strategic decision making (decisions you can comprehend on the immediate level, though each possible decision can lead to reactions, and those to yet others which are increasingly vague in their implications) than in HoI. If you strip away all the superficial provinces and unit types and look at the core you'll see that. HoI wasn't designed for gameplay, it was designed primarily to 'simulate' WW2 and to attract semi-autist WW2/computer nerds - that's why they need real-time to-the-hour, 100,000 provinces and thousands of possible army configurations - and the gameplay was awkwardly fitted in around those requirements.

What kind of game do you want?

-Either go for a genuine simulation, with work camps, and starvation and fire-bombing as Mefi describes, make it a historical-educational game primarily with the possibility player interaction

OR

-Make a good strategy game with a superficial background theme, which could be WW2 or the Napoleonic era or the near future, but where the setting/simulation factor comes second.

Paradox pretends that it successfully mixes strategy and simulation and succeeds at neither

 

[Trash]

Yeah, they call these people 'grognards' and the early Paradox games seem primarily designed with them in mind. But in that whole genre, is there a better game than HOI? That's what I'm wondering about.

Oh, and HOI2 can be great fun even when you don't like a huge amount of micromanagement. Just play as a minor and have fun with the goals you set for yourself. (I love to play as Finland while trying to survive the winter war.)

 

[dagorkan]

Trash, I tried playing several minors - Greece, Canada, Vichy France - and after a few years if I didn't get killed (follow the actual fate of a 'minor power') the AI broke down. Once I'd past a certain threshold difficulty: Greece could invade all of the Balkans with ease because Germany's 'priority' was the USSR; Canada became a nuclear superpower carving out an empire of puppets throughout SE Asia because Japan thought it had already conquered those countries and the AI told it to ignore them; Vichy France launched a war against Germany during D-Day but none of the Allied nations thought of landing any troops on the new front even though it could have ended the war right then...

The AI simply isn't adapted to deal with more than what the programmers could think of as hypotheticals.

 

[kris]

In my opinion Risk for PC is a better world domination strategy game than HoI and I say that seriously. It has a thousand times less rules and only one type of 'unit', yet there is more strategic depth and more real strategic decision making (decisions you can comprehend on the immediate level, though each possible decision can lead to reactions, and those to yet others which are increasingly vague in their implications) than in HoI.

I am more than unsure why you claim there is more strategic depth in Risk. There is practically no depth at all. There is just the thing about owning continents and the battles rely very much on chance.

If you strip away all the superficial provinces and unit types and look at the core you'll see that. HoI wasn't designed for gameplay, it was designed primarily to 'simulate' WW2 and to attract semi-autist WW2/computer nerds - that's why they need real-time to-the-hour, 100,000 provinces and thousands of possible army configurations - and the gameplay was awkwardly fitted in around those requirements.

I call bullshit on this one. The amount of options and strategies is far beyond other games in the genre and that is the gameplay. What Mefi talked about is closer to what you described above, while the gameplay still would be the same... see below.

-Either go for a genuine simulation, with work camps, and starvation and fire-bombing as Mefi describes, make it a historical-educational game primarily with the possibility player interaction

Of all the WW2 strategy games I played there is not a single one that have these things included. HOI is the most in depth one and apart from a possible mod that is not in. I haven't tried on all the mods, but they possibly simulate things in a in depth way to satisfy even him.

-Make a good strategy game with a superficial background theme, which could be WW2 or the Napoleonic era or the near future, but where the setting/simulation factor comes second.

Be better if you provided examples.

Paradox pretends that it successfully mixes strategy and simulation and succeeds at neither

I disagree more than clearly.

 

[kris]

Though I admit that HOI has it's problems I don't know any other WW2 grand strategy games that approach the scope and ambition that Paradox put in it. So, are there some great ones I missed?

My favourite was always "Third reich", check underdogs, they should have it.

 

[dagorkan]

I am more than unsure why you claim there is more strategic depth in Risk. There is practically no depth at all. There is just the thing about owning continents and the battles rely very much on chance.

Risk succeeds at strategic depth, and the simple proof of it is to look at the player rankings on a site that does online games. You have some people who win 90% of all the games they participate in and others who win at only 5% with a bell curve in the middle. And yet everyone has the exact same starting resources, starting locations are determined by chance so they average out. Everybody has the same amount of time to plan out their turns. I think apart from a small minority they're all literate, intelligent people who know the rules of the board game - so how do you explain that difference? How does a simple set of rules anyone can understand lead to such different performances?

In contrast HoI is much more about micromanagement. It's real time, and it takes a helluva lot of time. The more time you put into it and the more autistic you are (pausing every few hours of game time during battles to give a new order) the better you'll be. Like a twitch game. Performance is based less on strategic reasoning and more on your ability to invest time and energy, and because there is so much information there is less strategic decision making. Your overall performance is based on the sum of thousands of routine decisions which you have to make. There are fewer scenarios where you can look at a situation and weigh a handful of different options against each other, where the amount of time you invest is less important than experience/intuition.

In Risk there are fewer turns so a single mistake or miscalculation (especially in the end-game) can destroy your chances, and a single inspired decision can turn you from an underdog to a position of hegemony. Risk also forces you to formulate a game strategy and whether it succeeds or not will eventually depend on it's quality (if you keep using the same one other players will adapt). Because games are relatively short you will be told the result, you can analyze your mistakes and modify your strategy based on them.

On the other hand in HoI you can find the optimum strategy for a given nation which is clearly the best. Games are so long that you play fewer and can't contrast and analyze your decisions in the same way.

There might be more decisions to make in HoI but they are of lower level. For my time I get more quality strategy making in a game of Risk than a Paradox game.

 

[Trash]

Though I admit that HOI has it's problems I don't know any other WW2 grand strategy games that approach the scope and ambition that Paradox put in it. So, are there some great ones I missed?

My favourite was always "Third reich", check underdogs, they should have it.

Thanks. Played it in the old days and am rather burned out on it. It has a rather weak AI when you know how to deal with it and the interface is very clunky. Still, I enjoyed it immensely back in the day.

Oh, and though I do agree with Sheek on some things (especially the HOI AI) I think he forgets that Risk is very much about formulating a grand strategy while HOI is about formulating a grand strategy while managing your country and war effort into detail. Some like one thing, some the other, but to say that one of these is better is just a matter of opinion.

Personally I prefer EU3 with it's expansions because it's not so insanely detailed as running for instance Germany in HOI, but still allows me a bit more depth and options than a game like Risk. Still, a lot of people would say EU3 is inferior. All just opinions, and you know what they say of these.

 

[dagorkan]

I agree that there is something to be said for historical simulation (as opposed to abstractions) and long, marathon games. Hell, I'm playing Fall From Heaven on Civ4 at the moment, and I'm on turn 500 of 1000, just when it's starting to get interesting.

Another WW2 game: Dogs of War (available on hotu)

 

[Mefi]

I was actually thinking you were joking when you said this.

any experienced gamer don't recognise these non-sense things you talk about. Game balance is in no way about slave labour and genocide and as a grand strategy games those things are abstracted in the production capacity and so on. they actually even have a event for the bombing of nanking which was a genocide.

If it was regular workers, slave labour or child workers doing the work doesn't affect the game. you have not given any argument why that would make a change. Germany is in fact already unhistorically stronger as far as production goes, just for balancing reasons.

I also played many other WW2 strategy games and I can't remember a single of them including these things, strangely enough they were also not broken.

lol Kris you've just proven my point. It's not a historically based grand strategy game then is it? And yes Germany is ahistorically strong 'for balancing reasons'. That's my point. Overpowered Germany does not a historical grand strategy game make. And if you're seriously suggesting the game is balanced correctly, then I really don't know what to say so I'll just laugh and point at you instead

You sound like Warden. Like a jilted lover. I also want continuations on their other games, but I don't go into sill rants about what is wrong about HOI. In fact there are thigns that could see improvement. The things you mention are less than issues and any supposed mass starvations in India would hardly affect the game at all.

That you say 'supposed' indicates you haven't a clue Kris. Britain didn't have enough convoy ships to rush sufficient food to India in time. The impact? Well, mainly it impacted upon the Burma campaign and provisions for the forces in Asia. Oh noes logistics. Another thing HoI really isn't too good at.

It's not a rant at all, it's pointing out that HoI is flawed as a concept and model because the economic model doesn't work. And one of the prime reasons for this is Germany, and the reason why Germany is broken is because 2/3 of the German war effort post-41 is taken for granted when in fact it shouldn't be.

I really, really don't give a toss about what Paradox do with HoI. Just think it's amusing to see people here complaining about the fly in the kitchen when there's an elephant in the living room.

edit: re. mods and HoI - nope they all ultimately fail. And as someone who has contributed to the three major mods, I can tell you the reasons are as given above.

 

[LCJr.]

I thought your point was that the economy couldn't be accurately modeled because Paradox doesn't simulate forced labor, concentration camps, terror bombing etc...

The basics are fucked before the game code is ever written. No slave labour, no terror bombings, no genocide.

Without slave labout and genocide, you can't have even a rough facsimile of the German economy to make a fair comparison to other countries with. That's why it's impossible to lose in a Germany 1933 scenario - the game has to overpower Germany.

No terror bombings means that 40% of the British war effort vanishes and you end up with a ludicrously overpowered mid-game Germany.

But than again by your logic none of the Paradox titles are valid because none of them simulate the deaths either by accident or atrocity of civilians outside a few flavor events. Paradox even takes the view that your population is always fed and famines never happen. Any food depicted in their games are surpluses for trade on the world market not a resource required to keep your population alive. Their games don't reflect the reality of warfare or the issues of keeping a population alive and well fed. Talk about viewing the world through rose colored glasses. Only soldiers die in wars and nobody ever goes hungry.

 

[Mefi]

I thought your point was that the economy couldn't be accurately modeled because Paradox doesn't simulate forced labor, concentration camps, terror bombing etc...

Aye, which is why Paradox takes the 44 numbers for German production and works backwards to allow the player to obtain them. But without the contributary factors, it results in an overpowerful Germany and so unbalances the game on top of being totally ahistoric.

But than again by your logic none of the Paradox titles are valid because none of them simulate the deaths either by accident or atrocity of civilians outside a few flavor events. Paradox even takes the view that your population is always fed and famines never happen. Any food depicted in their games are surpluses for trade on the world market not a resource required to keep your population alive. Their games don't reflect the reality of warfare or the issues of keeping a population alive and well fed. Talk about viewing the world through rose colored glasses. Only soldiers die in wars and nobody ever goes hungry.

Well pops buy their own food and if they don't get enough, then they emigrate. But yeah I know what you mean. This isn't such a problem as the historic economic models (in Vicky heh - what economic model in CK?) aren't so dependant on that slave labour etc. That said, there are flaws in Vicky due to an underappreciation of the value of colonies and all that entails.

I'm not arguing that Vicky, CK etc are historically accurate (1066 start in CK - hell most countries don't have written records sufficient to be accurate), just that HoI is blatantly inaccurate and unbalanced as a result.

 

[LCJr.]

Hold all their games to the same standard or shut up.

 

[Mefi]

Hold all their games to the same standard or shut up.

Because they are all in fact the same game aren't they LCJr?

Fuck knows the news posts are boring but I was expecting a little more pazazz and knowledge of strategy games and strategy gaming. Obviously not.

 

[LCJr.]

Hold all their games to the same standard or shut up.

Because they are all in fact the same game aren't they LCJr?

Fuck knows the news posts are boring but I was expecting a little more pazazz and knowledge of strategy games and strategy gaming. Obviously not.

They're all billed as grand historical strategy games. If making changes for the sake of gameplay and glossing over some of the less appealing aspects of human history makes one a failure then they're all failures.

Glad you like the news

 

[Mefi]

They're all billed as grand historical strategy games. If making changes for the sake of gameplay and glossing over some of the less appealing aspects of human history makes one a failure then they're all failures.

Now that is lame. Want to try again or just continue being a dick?

Glad you like the news

Yeah, I was thinking what a thrill for you it must be to be so well read by your fans..

 

[LCJr.]

I am left both saddened and confused by your hostility and insults. I was merely pointing out that if your standards are applied to the rest of their products that they also fail.