4X ZEPHON - post-apocalyptic 4X by Warhammer 40K: Gladius developer

[InD_ImaginE]

so you people kept preaching how gladius was a great game. this seems to be gladius just without the wh40k license, and you say it's shit.

Nah the thing with Gladius is that the faction variety is awesome and you actually play and tech differently if you are playing different races

This game is the same game but with only 1 faction. Basically it's Gladius if all the factions are various flavour of Imperial.Guard

The different faction leaders right now are not enough to differentiate how you will play

While the game is basically Gladius with better UI, from replayabilty and variety perspective it certainly feels worse than Gladius

 

[Desman]

so you people kept preaching how gladius was a great game. this seems to be gladius just without the wh40k license, and you say it's shit.

Gladius is a pretty decent game even without the 40k stuff. It does one thing really really well (war).
It's probably the best 4x if you like to make units and destroy everything (overwatch, heroes, ranged combat, transport blabla etc...)
But the main problem is that a true 4x should not be just warfare (it's a 40k thing tbh) so Zephon absolutly need to support other playstyles.

They have to take a good look at SMAC, Fall from Heaven 2 and all the interesting Civs mods, Warlock, Fallen Enchantress etc... and try to implement some of the good ideas of those games. They absolutly know how to do good combat but what about everything else ? Gladius tech tree and city building is a joke for exemple and it is barely better in Zephon demos so far.
If they are smart it could easily be one of the best 4X ever made. Just imagine something like a modern SMAC with Gladius combat

 

[Desman]

The only real advantage that I see is a better reflection of logistics and controlled withdrawals versus "loser gets annihilated". But it's nowhere near enough to make up for the fact that, looking at the genre in its entirety, games with separate tactical layer are way more fun and better on average, at least when it comes to combat.

I used to think like that too but nowadays i feel that "the tactical combat" (in AoW for exemple) ends up being a boring mini game most of the time and the only reason to not auto resolve 95% of the fights is just to save units. Gladius is the best formula imo. The real question is could you make Gladius combat even better without 1UPT ? I feel like with some limits for super units it could make infantry more relevant late game. Also blast weapons could easily prevent the stacks of doom.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

I won't be giving my opinion on nuciv-like carpet of doom combat in muh 4X games again, but combat in the good AoW games is anything but boring lol. In fact, it eats most most modern dedicated tactical games for breakfast. And most dedicated crpgs when it comes to possible builds, combos etc as well.

 

[Desman]

I won't be giving my opinion on nuciv-like carpet of doom combat in muh 4X games again, but combat in the good AoW games is anything but boring lol. In fact, it eats most most modern dedicated tactical games for breakfast. And most dedicated crpgs when it comes to possible builds, combos etc as well.

I should have clarified i'm mostly talking about AoW 3.
The system itself isn't bad, my main gripes are the small reused maps and the fact that your AI opponent is overmatched most of the time (i.e: not very challenging once you know what you are doing), so most of the fights look like trash mob encounters in an Rpg (lot of samey boring mini fights).

Just to be clear i still think AoW3 is a good game and i had something like 100 hours of good fun with it but i still prefer no separate tactical layer when it is well done like in Gladius.
I have a bit the same problem with the HoMM games tbh.

It probably becomes different when you get serious about pvp or even challenging solo scenarios tho.

 

[Galdred]

The only real advantage that I see is a better reflection of logistics and controlled withdrawals versus "loser gets annihilated". But it's nowhere near enough to make up for the fact that, looking at the genre in its entirety, games with separate tactical layer are way more fun and better on average, at least when it comes to combat.

I used to think like that too but nowadays i feel that "the tactical combat" (in AoW for exemple) ends up being a boring mini game most of the time and the only reason to not auto resolve 95% of the fights is just to save units. Gladius is the best formula imo. The real question is could you make Gladius combat even better without 1UPT ? I feel like with some limits for super units it could make infantry more relevant late game. Also blast weapons could easily prevent the stacks of doom.

If you like Gladius but dislike 1UPT, their previous game, Pandor:First Contact, was pretty solid, and had good AI (maybe with a mod? I don't recall).
It was pretty bland when it comes to world building, though.

As for separate tactical combat, I think it makes much more sense in a medieval settings than in a modern one.
Civilization trying to do both had to make a compromise, but I much prefer having "lines of battles" for modern games, and stacks for ancient/medieval ones.
Even though encirclements and supply is not really a thing in Gladius, it still forces you to have some room to rotate your units and buffer your artillery.