Game News Together in Battle now available on Early Access

[Infinitron]

Tags: Sinister Design; Together in Battle

As you may recall, Together in Battle is the next tactical RPG from Telepath Tactics creator Craig Stern, based on the new Unity-based engine he created for that game's Liberated edition. The game has been featured on Steam Next Fest several times since it was announced back in 2020 and it's now come along far enough to merit a proper Early Access release. As its launch trailer demonstrates, Together in Battle's core gameplay is in the same vein as Telepath Tactics. Unlike that game, it also features procedurally generated arena battles alongside its handcrafted campaign, with CYOA-style events in between battles that determine relationships between its also procedurally generated characters. Here's the trailer and Early Access FAQ:

Why Early Access?
Together in Battle leans heavily on procedural content; early access will allow me to continually build up the constituent pieces of endless different adventures while adapting to player feedback.

Approximately how long will this game be in Early Access?
The baseline is 1 year; if it does well enough, however, I may decide to take longer and add in more content and features for the 1.0 release.

How is the full version planned to differ from the Early Access version?
The full version is planned to feature full gamepad and SteamDeck support; a completed main plot quest with hand-designed battles; a finished arena quest line wherein the player can become champion of the arena; and many more random events, side quests, skills, and character background dialogue.

(I'd also like to commission updated character sprite art that better reflects individual character portraits, but whether that will be financially feasible depends upon how well the game sells.)

What is the current state of the Early Access version?
At the time of Early Access launch, the game is feature-complete with all core systems working exactly as intended and the core loop firmly in place. The arena quest line is 50% complete, with more than a dozen regular battles and two league qualifier "boss" fights; the main quest line is approximately 15% complete with dialogue-driven cut scene events. The relationship sim systems are fully functional and there are several dozen random events and side quests currently in the game as well, most of them with alternate outcomes depending on player choices, the character(s) involved, or both. In total, I'd estimate the game already has enough content for 10-hour runs.

Will the game be priced differently during and after Early Access?
The game will cost approximately 25% less during Early Access.

How are you planning on involving the Community in your development process?
I plan to check the Steam forums (and my own forums) regularly, replying to comments, reading player feedback, and taking on ideas that I think will benefit the game.​

Together in Battle Early Access is available on Steam for $15, with a 10% launch discount until next week. As stated in the FAQ, it's scheduled to remain in Early Access for at least a year, after which the price will increase.

 

[MrBuzzKill]

Very cool use of animated 2D sprites on a 3D board. Damn, it makes me want to do a game with pre-rendered 3D sprites...

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I'm surprised this isn't getting a better reception. Tactical turn-based combat that makes use of the terrain and environment. Was there a bad demo or something?

 

[Norfleet]

It's more vaporware again. Do people even make games anymore?

 

[udm]

I'm surprised this isn't getting a better reception. Tactical turn-based combat that makes use of the terrain and environment. Was there a bad demo or something?

I'm not a big fan of Craig's games (don't like games that rely on pure deterministic, chess-like rules). But I know he's never failed to deliver, so I hope this works out for him and he manages to draw more of the FFT crowd.

 

[Fatberg Slim]

I'm surprised this isn't getting a better reception. Tactical turn-based combat that makes use of the terrain and environment. Was there a bad demo or something?

This may be why (at least it is for me):

Together in Battle leans heavily on procedural content; early access will allow me to continually build up the constituent pieces of endless different adventures while adapting to player feedback.

Are there any games where procedural generation made things more enjoyable for the player compared to manually designed content? Having enjoyed Telepath Tactics, I'll keep an eye on this but will definitely be interested to know more about the mix of procedural vs hand-designed content in the final version.

 

[Galdred]

I'm surprised this isn't getting a better reception. Tactical turn-based combat that makes use of the terrain and environment. Was there a bad demo or something?

This may be why (at least it is for me):

Together in Battle leans heavily on procedural content; early access will allow me to continually build up the constituent pieces of endless different adventures while adapting to player feedback.

Are there any games where procedural generation made things more enjoyable for the player compared to manually designed content? Having enjoyed Telepath Tactics, I'll keep an eye on this but will definitely be interested to know more about the mix of procedural vs hand-designed content in the final version.

Any game that tries to be replayable needs proc gen. That's why X-COM worked better than nuXCOM in this department. In nuXCOM, the most important Impossible/ironman skill was memorizing the layout of the deadliest maps.

Granted, you don't need proc gen for something that can be replayed a lot. Kenshi doesn't feature it at all, but it helps.
I think deterministic combat is a bigger turn off for most players. Very few tactical games managed to pull it out actually (Into the Breach being one of the outliers).

 

[Late Bloomer]

Looks like it could be fun.

 

[almondblight]

It's more vaporware again.

Craig's been extremely reliable and open in the past. He has a log on his forums that he updates just about everyday going over exactly what he's been working on for that day (he did this for Telepath Tactics, and is now doing it for Together in Battle). For example, here are the two logs just for today:

For version 0.2.03a:

- increased the available uses for throwing axes, javelins, and throwing knives.

- doubled the chance of wrenches spawning in the shop.

- improved character vocation background dialogue a bit.

- increased the minimum energy cost to hire out from 3 to 5 so it's less of a free "print money" button.

- fixed: dialogue calling for a last name with spirits was causing the game to lock up when applied to the random-event apparition.

- fixed: when renaming a proc gen character, the proc gen character's own dialogue would have their old name baked in and left unchanged.

- fixed: swimming onto a land tile with a trap would not trigger the trap.

- fixed: when hiring out, the game was determining eligible characters inconsistently between the start of the scene and when asking if the player wanted to hire out someone else.

- fixed: hiring characters out would cause the game not to count those characters for purposes of predicting payroll until their return later in the evening.

- fixed: there was still a line on Monkey League qualifier fight were it said (incorrectly) that the kineticist was paid monthly.

For version 0.2.04:

- the map editor can now successfully save and load battle backgrounds with maps.

- you can now assign a percentage spawn chance to all army and object groups for proc gen maps in the map editor.

- fixed: instead of having a 15% chance to spawn in Gharial League, royal chests had a 100% chance to spawn and a 15% chance to contain an item.

- fixed a null error in the map editor when loading a map with a global lighting condition as its first condition.

- fixed a range error when cycling through permitted integers using a number picker in wrap-around mode via the "previous" button.

His work ethic and transparency are highly laudable.

 

[Tyranicon]

Seems like exactly the type of dev Codex supposedly wants to support, and I think his previous games are somewhat popular here?

But a lot of people are turned off by Early Access.

 

[Mortmal]

Nope not at all, it seems like some fire emblem clone with an uninspiring presentation. Plus it's early access , another game with a roadmap list longer than all their devs dead by starvation lined up on ground.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

I'm surprised this isn't getting a better reception. Tactical turn-based combat that makes use of the terrain and environment. Was there a bad demo or something?

This may be why (at least it is for me):

Together in Battle leans heavily on procedural content; early access will allow me to continually build up the constituent pieces of endless different adventures while adapting to player feedback.

Are there any games where procedural generation made things more enjoyable for the player compared to manually designed content? Having enjoyed Telepath Tactics, I'll keep an eye on this but will definitely be interested to know more about the mix of procedural vs hand-designed content in the final version.

Any game that tries to be replayable needs proc gen. That's why X-COM worked better than nuXCOM in this department. In nuXCOM, the most important Impossible/ironman skill was memorizing the layout of the deadliest maps.

Granted, you don't need proc gen for something that can be replayed a lot. Kenshi doesn't feature it at all, but it helps.
I think deterministic combat is a bigger turn off for most players. Very few tactical games managed to pull it out actually (Into the Breach being one of the outliers).

I have noticed younger generation sometimes totally confuse what deterministic combat means as it relates to strategy/tactics. They somehow have the idea that 'random number generation' is like LOL random and removes strategy and tactics from a game and that deterministic combat increases strategy because in their mind you can then 'control' for all the elements and then better design a 'strategy' or something, where as the latter is just lol random and so it totally defeats the purpose of any planning and tactics one might implement...

They then almost always go to 'chess' as their their example and say its the ultimate 'big brain' game, when actually war is the ultimate big brain game and chess is a very simplistic version of 'war'...I think part of this might be generational in a sense that younger generations do not have patience for or like to be told they 'lost' at something even if they have felt they have done all the 'right' or 'correct' things..they feel slighted like somebody took their cookie and the game is 'cheating' them. If they feel they have done all the 'correct' strategy moves, they feel they should be rewarded with the 'win' and there should be no room for a 'loss' because they did the 'right' strategy.... thus all the whining about how the random number generation in the game does not work "lol, how do you miss when you are point blank just standing there!" etc.., etc...

In reality the ultimate strategy games should IMO take into account unforeseen events, and failure even in the event you have done all the 'correct things. Sure it should be a small probability, but it should make you need to plan or leave room for such events, or perhaps alternatively not and decide to go 'all in' at some point and make your move.

 

[Lord of Riva]

I'm surprised this isn't getting a better reception. Tactical turn-based combat that makes use of the terrain and environment. Was there a bad demo or something?

This may be why (at least it is for me):

Together in Battle leans heavily on procedural content; early access will allow me to continually build up the constituent pieces of endless different adventures while adapting to player feedback.

Are there any games where procedural generation made things more enjoyable for the player compared to manually designed content? Having enjoyed Telepath Tactics, I'll keep an eye on this but will definitely be interested to know more about the mix of procedural vs hand-designed content in the final version.

Any game that tries to be replayable needs proc gen. That's why X-COM worked better than nuXCOM in this department. In nuXCOM, the most important Impossible/ironman skill was memorizing the layout of the deadliest maps.

Granted, you don't need proc gen for something that can be replayed a lot. Kenshi doesn't feature it at all, but it helps.
I think deterministic combat is a bigger turn off for most players. Very few tactical games managed to pull it out actually (Into the Breach being one of the outliers).

I have noticed younger generation sometimes totally confuse what deterministic combat means as it relates to strategy/tactics. They somehow have the idea that 'random number generation' is like LOL random and removes strategy and tactics from a game and that deterministic combat increases strategy because in their mind you can then 'control' for all the elements and then better design a 'strategy' or something, where as the latter is just lol random and so it totally defeats the purpose of any planning and tactics one might implement...

They then almost always go to 'chess' as their their example and say its the ultimate 'big brain' game, when actually war is the ultimate big brain game and chess is a very simplistic version of 'war'...I think part of this might be generational in a sense that younger generations do not have patience for or like to be told they 'lost' at something even if they have felt they have done all the 'right' or 'correct' things..they feel slighted like somebody took their cookie and the game is 'cheating' them. If they feel they have done all the 'correct' strategy moves, they feel they should be rewarded with the 'win' and there should be no room for a 'loss' because they did the 'right' strategy.... thus all the whining about how the random number generation in the game does not work "lol, how do you miss when you are point blank just standing there!" etc.., etc...

In reality the ultimate strategy games should IMO take into account unforeseen events, and failure even in the event you have done all the 'correct things. Sure it should be a small probability, but it should make you need to plan or leave room for such events, or perhaps alternatively not and decide to go 'all in' at some point and make your move.

Damn, that is cringe.

The difference between what you describe and a deterministic system is the difference between around of blackjack and a puzzle. It's a different focus and therefore not comparable to each other as a something oppositional.

A puzzle with enough variables and outcomes can serve the same purpose as a system with an RNG as it becomes impossible to trace all variables and let's not pretend that most games that use RNG do that indeed to circumvent designing something that is complex enough, it's a quick and dirty way to get a variable effect.

I'm not saying that Randomness is bad, at all, btw. but this simplistic "the younger generation" thing just gave me the utmost cringe vibes.

Chess is a bad example, I give you that. However most complex strategy/tactical video games are vastly more complex than chess, without wanting to dismiss the elegance and historical relevance of that game at all.

EDIT: And the game? It looks cancer inducing, I would most likely enjoy it's mechanics but it's ugly. I am not really interested in graphics but composition matters, If it looks like this I simply do not want to play it, they could have gone with decent, simplistic, sprite work but how it looks bothers me massively.

 

[Infinitron]

Craig has been making these deterministic SRPGs since the late 2000s (the Telepath RPG Flash games), so it's not some nu-trend.

 

[Galdred]

Craig has been making these deterministic SRPGs since the late 2000s (the Telepath RPG Flash games), so it's not some nu-trend.

Indeed, he has even been pretty vocal about it. the deterministic trend came with the popularity of German euro board games where dice rolling is anathema, so it is quite an ancient trend indeed, and it can work quite well indeed.
And Craig's previous games had made it work pretty well indeed, but my point was more that it can be a harder sell in RPG than in strategy games, as deterministic systems can remove some of the immersion.

 

[Norfleet]

thus all the whining about how the random number generation in the game does not work "lol, how do you miss when you are point blank just standing there!" etc.., etc...

The amount of randomness greatly affects the impression you will have of it. When hitting a unit that's literally eating the gun muzzle hinges on a single random roll with arbitrary to-hit chance ceilings, the experience tends to be unsatisfactory because the randomness feels contrived.

The flipside is when you bury the game in FUCKTONS of RNG, as seen in something like the Dominions games, where it stops really being about randomness at all: Sure, randomness plays a role, but the sheer AMOUNT of randomness has made it statistical. If I have to roll to hit, roll to penetrate, roll to hit location, roll for damage, roll for crit effect, etc., and this is happening across an entire battlefield of units shooting each other, results suddenly become a whole lot less random and bullshitty.

In reality the ultimate strategy games should IMO take into account unforeseen events, and failure even in the event you have done all the 'correct things. Sure it should be a small probability, but it should make you need to plan or leave room for such events, or perhaps alternatively not and decide to go 'all in' at some point and make your move.

If you can fail when you've done ALL the correct things, then either you haven't done all the correct things, or the game is purposeless because nothing you do actually matters. This is, strictly speaking, not even an actual function of whether the game does or does not contain any randomness: As I mentioned, more randomness tends to actually mean less randomness.

 

[Strange Fellow]

So he puts randomness in his level design, and determinism in his combat rules?

You've got it the wrong way round, dude!

 

[ADULF HITLOR FAN KLUB]

 

[Egosphere]

I'm surprised this isn't getting a better reception. Tactical turn-based combat that makes use of the terrain and environment. Was there a bad demo or something?

I haven't any played any of the dev's previous games, but I think the presentation in this could use a lot of work. The portraits don't gel with the environment art, the UI design is simplistic and off-putting. This would probably be ok in a large strategy game with a huge depth of mechanics (like Shadow Empire, for example, that game had atrocious 'artwork' for the portraits), but in a tactical game of small-ish units, this works against it. It is difficult to peer past the presentation, even if the fame really does have a myriad of classes and skills. The mind simply drifts towards Battle Brothers, and this trailer comes up short.

 

[almondblight]

The portraits don't gel with the environment art, the UI design is simplistic and off-putting.

If you check one of the other threads on this (maybe the announcement one?), you'll see that Codexers helped him pick the portrait artist. Craig even spent extra money on this one, if I recall correctly (I don't see an issue with the portraits, for what it's worth).

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

I'm surprised this isn't getting a better reception. Tactical turn-based combat that makes use of the terrain and environment. Was there a bad demo or something?

This may be why (at least it is for me):

Together in Battle leans heavily on procedural content; early access will allow me to continually build up the constituent pieces of endless different adventures while adapting to player feedback.

Are there any games where procedural generation made things more enjoyable for the player compared to manually designed content? Having enjoyed Telepath Tactics, I'll keep an eye on this but will definitely be interested to know more about the mix of procedural vs hand-designed content in the final version.

Any game that tries to be replayable needs proc gen. That's why X-COM worked better than nuXCOM in this department. In nuXCOM, the most important Impossible/ironman skill was memorizing the layout of the deadliest maps.

Granted, you don't need proc gen for something that can be replayed a lot. Kenshi doesn't feature it at all, but it helps.
I think deterministic combat is a bigger turn off for most players. Very few tactical games managed to pull it out actually (Into the Breach being one of the outliers).

I have noticed younger generation sometimes totally confuse what deterministic combat means as it relates to strategy/tactics. They somehow have the idea that 'random number generation' is like LOL random and removes strategy and tactics from a game and that deterministic combat increases strategy because in their mind you can then 'control' for all the elements and then better design a 'strategy' or something, where as the latter is just lol random and so it totally defeats the purpose of any planning and tactics one might implement...

They then almost always go to 'chess' as their their example and say its the ultimate 'big brain' game, when actually war is the ultimate big brain game and chess is a very simplistic version of 'war'...I think part of this might be generational in a sense that younger generations do not have patience for or like to be told they 'lost' at something even if they have felt they have done all the 'right' or 'correct' things..they feel slighted like somebody took their cookie and the game is 'cheating' them. If they feel they have done all the 'correct' strategy moves, they feel they should be rewarded with the 'win' and there should be no room for a 'loss' because they did the 'right' strategy.... thus all the whining about how the random number generation in the game does not work "lol, how do you miss when you are point blank just standing there!" etc.., etc...

In reality the ultimate strategy games should IMO take into account unforeseen events, and failure even in the event you have done all the 'correct things. Sure it should be a small probability, but it should make you need to plan or leave room for such events, or perhaps alternatively not and decide to go 'all in' at some point and make your move.

Damn, that is cringe.

The difference between what you describe and a deterministic system is the difference between around of blackjack and a puzzle. It's a different focus and therefore not comparable to each other as a something oppositional.

A puzzle with enough variables and outcomes can serve the same purpose as a system with an RNG as it becomes impossible to trace all variables and let's not pretend that most games that use RNG do that indeed to circumvent designing something that is complex enough, it's a quick and dirty way to get a variable effect.

I'm not saying that Randomness is bad, at all, btw. but this simplistic "the younger generation" thing just gave me the utmost cringe vibes.

Chess is a bad example, I give you that. However most complex strategy/tactical video games are vastly more complex than chess, without wanting to dismiss the elegance and historical relevance of that game at all.

EDIT: And the game? It looks cancer inducing, I would most likely enjoy it's mechanics but it's ugly. I am not really interested in graphics but composition matters, If it looks like this I simply do not want to play it, they could have gone with decent, simplistic, sprite work but how it looks bothers me massively.'

its pretty funny you put the reddit rating on my post since that is exactly where and why I get the 'younger generation' thing from, reading reddit forums...if its actually all boiomers posting on reddit I am reading then I guess I am wrong about that generalization. Perhaps I need to be lampooning the boomers for their shitty video game combat tastes. Will you come to their defense in the same way when I do? anyway....

the reason why I believe RNG really needs to be included in the best simulations is because otherwise you don't really ever have a simulation at all , a simulation without randomness is not a simulation, it is something else. It can be fun, and I actually have fun playing things that have deterministic combat, but I think I would enjoy them more if they had a more robust system, but obviously only if it were designed both robustly and well and not just for the sake of including RNG.

 

[Lord of Riva]

The portraits don't gel with the environment art, the UI design is simplistic and off-putting.

If you check one of the other threads on this (maybe the announcement one?), you'll see that Codexers helped him pick the portrait artist. Craig even spent extra money on this one, if I recall correctly (I don't see an issue with the portraits, for what it's worth).

So, who is guilty of this? They should be banned to the prosperium.

holla_cabezas_de_mierda : I just used the rating I was given by the 'dex, I do not use reddit and I do not think that reddit or the younger generation is the origin of deterministic designs.
On the rest, we just agree to disagree I guess.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

thus all the whining about how the random number generation in the game does not work "lol, how do you miss when you are point blank just standing there!" etc.., etc...

The amount of randomness greatly affects the impression you will have of it. When hitting a unit that's literally eating the gun muzzle hinges on a single random roll with arbitrary to-hit chance ceilings, the experience tends to be unsatisfactory because the randomness feels contrived.

The flipside is when you bury the game in FUCKTONS of RNG, as seen in something like the Dominions games, where it stops really being about randomness at all: Sure, randomness plays a role, but the sheer AMOUNT of randomness has made it statistical. If I have to roll to hit, roll to penetrate, roll to hit location, roll for damage, roll for crit effect, etc., and this is happening across an entire battlefield of units shooting each other, results suddenly become a whole lot less random and bullshitty.

In reality the ultimate strategy games should IMO take into account unforeseen events, and failure even in the event you have done all the 'correct things. Sure it should be a small probability, but it should make you need to plan or leave room for such events, or perhaps alternatively not and decide to go 'all in' at some point and make your move.

If you can fail when you've done ALL the correct things, then either you haven't done all the correct things, or the game is purposeless because nothing you do actually matters. This is, strictly speaking, not even an actual function of whether the game does or does not contain any randomness: As I mentioned, more randomness tends to actually mean less randomness.

If you can fail when you've done ALL the correct things, then either you haven't done all the correct things, or the game is purposeless because nothing you do actually matters.

I agree with the first part, especially about dominions and having a lot of randomness etc, but sort of disagree with the 2nd part I think....

If true you can never simulate an actual wargame, but perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying. You can put all your tanks and men in the best position possible positions based on the enemy strength and their positioning and perhaps all the combined shots and maneuvers you make end up w/ you having a 78% chance of 'victory' in that battle...should the computer just convert that to 100% because you made all the 'correct' moves, and there are literally no more ways you can enhance your chance of victory? Or should it make you make a choice if attacking w/ a 78% chance of winning is worth it or not?

I think there is a chance we may just be talking past each other with regards to time frames within a game also, not sure....

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

I'm surprised this isn't getting a better reception. Tactical turn-based combat that makes use of the terrain and environment. Was there a bad demo or something?

This may be why (at least it is for me):

Together in Battle leans heavily on procedural content; early access will allow me to continually build up the constituent pieces of endless different adventures while adapting to player feedback.

Are there any games where procedural generation made things more enjoyable for the player compared to manually designed content? Having enjoyed Telepath Tactics, I'll keep an eye on this but will definitely be interested to know more about the mix of procedural vs hand-designed content in the final version.

Any game that tries to be replayable needs proc gen. That's why X-COM worked better than nuXCOM in this department. In nuXCOM, the most important Impossible/ironman skill was memorizing the layout of the deadliest maps.

Granted, you don't need proc gen for something that can be replayed a lot. Kenshi doesn't feature it at all, but it helps.
I think deterministic combat is a bigger turn off for most players. Very few tactical games managed to pull it out actually (Into the Breach being one of the outliers).

I have noticed younger generation sometimes totally confuse what deterministic combat means as it relates to strategy/tactics. They somehow have the idea that 'random number generation' is like LOL random and removes strategy and tactics from a game and that deterministic combat increases strategy because in their mind you can then 'control' for all the elements and then better design a 'strategy' or something, where as the latter is just lol random and so it totally defeats the purpose of any planning and tactics one might implement...

They then almost always go to 'chess' as their their example and say its the ultimate 'big brain' game, when actually war is the ultimate big brain game and chess is a very simplistic version of 'war'...I think part of this might be generational in a sense that younger generations do not have patience for or like to be told they 'lost' at something even if they have felt they have done all the 'right' or 'correct' things..they feel slighted like somebody took their cookie and the game is 'cheating' them. If they feel they have done all the 'correct' strategy moves, they feel they should be rewarded with the 'win' and there should be no room for a 'loss' because they did the 'right' strategy.... thus all the whining about how the random number generation in the game does not work "lol, how do you miss when you are point blank just standing there!" etc.., etc...

In reality the ultimate strategy games should IMO take into account unforeseen events, and failure even in the event you have done all the 'correct things. Sure it should be a small probability, but it should make you need to plan or leave room for such events, or perhaps alternatively not and decide to go 'all in' at some point and make your move.

Damn, that is cringe.

The difference between what you describe and a deterministic system is the difference between around of blackjack and a puzzle. It's a different focus and therefore not comparable to each other as a something oppositional.

A puzzle with enough variables and outcomes can serve the same purpose as a system with an RNG as it becomes impossible to trace all variables and let's not pretend that most games that use RNG do that indeed to circumvent designing something that is complex enough, it's a quick and dirty way to get a variable effect.

I'm not saying that Randomness is bad, at all, btw. but this simplistic "the younger generation" thing just gave me the utmost cringe vibes.

Chess is a bad example, I give you that. However most complex strategy/tactical video games are vastly more complex than chess, without wanting to dismiss the elegance and historical relevance of that game at all.

EDIT: And the game? It looks cancer inducing, I would most likely enjoy it's mechanics but it's ugly. I am not really interested in graphics but composition matters, If it looks like this I simply do not want to play it, they could have gone with decent, simplistic, sprite work but how it looks bothers me massively.'

its pretty funny you put the reddit rating on my post since that is exactly where and why I get the 'younger generation' thing from, reading reddit forums...if its actually all boiomers posting on reddit I am reading then I guess I am wrong about that generalization. Perhaps I need to be lampooning the boomers for their shitty video game combat tastes. Will you come to their defense in the same way when I do? anyway....

the reason why I believe RNG really needs to be included in the best simulations is because otherwise you don't really ever have a simulation at all , a simulation without randomness is not a simulation, it is something else. It can be fun, and I actually have fun playing things that have deterministic combat, but I think I would enjoy them more if they had a more robust system, but obviously only if it were designed both robustly and well and not just for the sake of including RNG.

lot of butthurt millennials and zoomers don't like to be reminded they are retards

 

[Infinitron]

The portraits don't gel with the environment art, the UI design is simplistic and off-putting.

If you check one of the other threads on this (maybe the announcement one?), you'll see that Codexers helped him pick the portrait artist. Craig even spent extra money on this one, if I recall correctly (I don't see an issue with the portraits, for what it's worth).

So, who is guilty of this? They should be banned to the prosperium.

Consider the alternatives: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...le-on-early-access.131810/page-7#post-7220644